Is there really a God?
- Thread starter Spiritual Leo
- Start date
I don't think anyone is saying that everyting has a maker. The point is that everything which is MADE has a maker. G-d, should he exist, is by definition eternal, not made, therefore has no maker.
Are you there God? It's me, Margaret. And I just got my period.
This question is similar to "Where do we draw the line?" Sure it is troubling trying to answer such questions. The POINT is not to let these questions disract you from your responsibility to do good and fight evil. I find that in reality, most of us agree on who is a monster, and that it isn't nearly as important a question as it seems at times. The guy with 14 women buried in his back yard is a monster. The guy who enjoys raping little four year old kids is a monster. The guy who flies a plane into a building, killing thousands in the name of jihad is a monster. The guy who sends millions of people to die in gulags is a monster. In fairy tales we make it easy for kids to spot monsters by making them ugly. In real life what you look for is the person who harms others and accepts no responsility for the pain they cause. Like the pedophile who says, "I love little kids!"
You know who wrote a fabulous book on the nature of evil is a psychiatrist named Scott Peck. You might be familiar with his book, THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED. I really have to recommend his book "PEOPLE OF THE LIE" to anyone who thinks that evil doesn' exist.
I presumed you made the assertion in your first post in this thread. Is a created God worthy of being called God? No. A created God is worthy of being called 'made in the image' of the being that created it, namely humans. And to correct myself, this is how humans place themselves above God and in a sense 'own' God.
My answer to your question is is that God is a timeless, immaterial and uncreated being according to monotheism. God is not bound by the law of 'cause and effect' as God exists outside of our universe, this by monotheistic belief was a law set up for every living being's existence within our universe (though different laws may apply for different universes). God interacts with this universe voluntarily, as God is not dependent on it for survival. The argument of 'who created God' is one of the oldest on the block and has been answered throughout the centuries by not just Christians but by other notable theists from other religions (the most prominent being Islam, in the Kalam Cosmological argument), the argument of who 'who created God' even makes its cameo in the New Testament.
Here are some verses where Christianity obtains this belief from;
1 Corinthians 2:7
But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
2 Timothy 1:9
who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
Titus 1:2
in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began
Jude 1:25
to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
And while we are on the subject, I suggest watching this.
[video=youtube;9fSluNqGxRA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fSluNqGxRA&feature=channel_video_title[/video]
Last edited:
Hey Matariki:
You really know your NT, very cool. Just remember who taught you Christians about G-d in the first place!!!!! He he he
I know I know. Wicked GraciePoo.
It IS interesting the difference in cultures though. Christians have spent so much time exploring and debating and defining the nature of G-d. Jews simply ASSUME a creator and our scholarly arguments center around what is expected of us--we don't seem to mind that G-d is undefinable. Here is to many future years of dialogue between us. L'Chaim!
Added later:
I just finished watching the vid from your post, and got such a kick out of it. In general, I have found that there is simply a dearth of intelligence online. Forums are a little better, because people in forums can usually write in complete sentences. But places like YouTube and chatrooms are just cesspools of ignorance, stupidity, and irrational hate. C'est la vie.
You really know your NT, very cool. Just remember who taught you Christians about G-d in the first place!!!!! He he he
I know I know. Wicked GraciePoo.It IS interesting the difference in cultures though. Christians have spent so much time exploring and debating and defining the nature of G-d. Jews simply ASSUME a creator and our scholarly arguments center around what is expected of us--we don't seem to mind that G-d is undefinable. Here is to many future years of dialogue between us. L'Chaim!
Added later:
I just finished watching the vid from your post, and got such a kick out of it. In general, I have found that there is simply a dearth of intelligence online. Forums are a little better, because people in forums can usually write in complete sentences. But places like YouTube and chatrooms are just cesspools of ignorance, stupidity, and irrational hate. C'est la vie.
Last edited:
It's interesting. You argue that God exists because everything must have a maker and then you argue that God exists outside of this rule. If God didn't require a maker, then the first rule, "everything must have a maker", has no basis by which to prove the existence of God.
In other words, your logic doesn't follow through. Your arguments amount to a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow the premise.
By that definition, Americans are monsters. They attack countries that they percieve as threats, harm hundreds of thousands of people, and often refuse to take responsibility for the lives they have destroyed.
Nowhere in that quote is the word 'prove,' 'proof,' or 'proven' used, and only twice is the word 'argument' used and that is as a third party reference. You may be able to correctly infer some of her logic, but please don't jump to unsupported conclusions.
The rule is not that everything that exists must have a maker, but that every change must have a cause. The rule does not apply to that which is unchanging.
I like how you chose the word "change" instead of the traditional word "effect". However, they are synonyms. If every cause must have an effect then something must have caused God.
I can respect the notion that people need faith, even need God or the belief in God, but I reject the notion that the existence of God can be logically deduced. As people choose to define God, he is outside of human reasoning. The concept of God is an emotional and intuitive concept, not a rational concept. At best people can rationalize their beliefs of God, but that is not logic, that is justifying the belief which ironically is evidence of a lack of faith.
Last edited:
I don't need to read the rest of the thread to recognize when someone is being hypocritical.
You accuse others of reasoning too far while simultaneously doing the same. Nothing is wrong with either of your positions. Please debate civily.
You accuse others of reasoning too far while simultaneously doing the same. Nothing is wrong with either of your positions. Please debate civily.
No, anything asserted to be immutable cannot have a cause. There is no theoretical reason why something cannot exist without cause, but any changes in how it exists (including but not at all limited to coming into existence) must have a cause. Everything physical thing we know of (even the very fabric of time and space itself) is in a state of constant change, so must have a cause.
However, things like Newton's Second Law and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle make it seem unlikely that the immutable can effect changes in the mutable universe.
Modern quantum physics has called into question the old assumption that cause must precede effect. Temporal inversions on the quantum level could theoretically make it possible for the cause of the universe to happen in the future.
Also, I find William Lane Craig's argument for the personhood of the first cause to be quite weak. He claims that the only timeless and spaceless entities are minds and abstracts, yet we have absolutely no proof that a mind can exist without the very physical and temporal brain (or at least a very brain-like computer). How any mind could operate without a temporal progression of thoughts is beyond human conception, even though it has been asserted of the minds of God and the Angels since at least the Patristic era.
However, things like Newton's Second Law and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle make it seem unlikely that the immutable can effect changes in the mutable universe.
Modern quantum physics has called into question the old assumption that cause must precede effect. Temporal inversions on the quantum level could theoretically make it possible for the cause of the universe to happen in the future.
Also, I find William Lane Craig's argument for the personhood of the first cause to be quite weak. He claims that the only timeless and spaceless entities are minds and abstracts, yet we have absolutely no proof that a mind can exist without the very physical and temporal brain (or at least a very brain-like computer). How any mind could operate without a temporal progression of thoughts is beyond human conception, even though it has been asserted of the minds of God and the Angels since at least the Patristic era.
Last edited:
I find it uncivil that you would come into this thread without an understanding of the full context of this thread and make accusations.
That's the thing, God doesn't exist in the sense as we perceive in 'cause and effect' as according to monotheism. The argument of 'who created God' is probably a better objection towards polytheism, but the argument doesn't stack up against monotheistic beliefs which states that God is outside or independent of space time and the law of cause and effect. In monotheism asking who created God makes as much sense as 'who is the bachelor married to'? or 'what does the color red taste like?' there is no logical answer to that direct question unless you choose to read between the lines, which is diverting from the question e.g; 'the bachelor isn't married yet, but he has a fiancee' or 'a strawberry is red, and strawberries taste sweet', but either isn't answering the actual question. For all we know the bachelor could end up single as the result of a breakup or not involved in a relationship to begin with, and the color red depending on what you're eating could be sour or bitter or not edible at all such as a red car (though some people will probably try, not recommended though for all the right reasons). God is an eternal being, and eternity has no beginning or end or as Saint Augustine of Hippo summarized; Time exists only within the created universe, so that God exists outside time; For God there is no past or future, but only an eternal present, is, of course, would require God to exist only outside the present universe.
Here is the contempary version of the Kalam cosmological argument which is accepted by monotheism:
Last edited:
Generally the more assumptions you have to make in a hypothesis, the more improbable it becomes the hypothesis is true.
In other words it is one thing to argue there is a God, and quite another to argue that God must be timeless and exist separate of the universe.
Last edited:
[MENTION=4700]Peace[/MENTION]
At your urging, I read the entirety of the thread. Only one person proposed the argument for 'proving' God and it wasn't [MENTION=1815]Matariki[/MENTION].
[MENTION=3920]CAptain[/MENTION]
Keep in mind that debate is a lot like playing a game of chess. One doesn't capture the king in the same manner that one doesn't 'prove' their thesis. They merely demonstrate, support, defend, elaborate, and persuade in order to decide the argument. It's really just a semantic difference from the argument you were trying to make. Its sole purpose is to delineate arbitration from speculation.
Please be civil while debating so as not to unintentionally derail a perfectly good thread.
Ah, I think I can kinda of see what you're trying to get at...
The subject God, due to its complexity (because we are dealing with premises outside of the nature) is something that is better suited for the realm of metaphysics, in which everything is more based on the patterns of human logic and reason rather than evidence involving biochemistry or mathematical physics (that in a nutshell is the difference between philosophy and science). However this doesn't mean that either isn't capable of being true, for an example I could say 'God is real (or false), here is the logic behind my belief' and even if it were objectively true, whether the other individual accepts it or not is subjective.
As for God being real vs God is timeless and God's existence is independent from the universe, they either go hand in hand or they don't, for starters it depends on what your definition of a 'God' is, other forms of theism have different interpretations. You can use umbrella type questions, but you will receive a different response as according to the individuals beliefs.
Monotheism does not have the problem of an eternal regress of Gods creating Gods nor the belief, which is why the question of 'who created God' is not relevant.
As for being real vs God is timeless and God's existence is independent from the universe, I have to ask a question first; Did our universe create itself from the inside out or was it the result of an external force? (now this question is dependent on whether or not you believe the universe had a beginning or if its eternal, note; the cause can be anything as this question is not pointing towards the assumption of a divine force)