God's God

[median]

If human beings must have some explanation for their existence (according to theists..."God"), then it follows that this "God" must also have an explanation for it's existence. How does God know he wasn't created? God can't know what he might not know (and his existence/nature cannot just be DEFINED into being), and therefore there might be a 'God above God'. But if a god's existence does not need explanation, then our existence does not need an explanation either. Therefore, God cannot rightly hold us in judgement for disbelieving in his existence - just as HE (supposedly) doesn't believe in any other God beside him!


Please watch the following and comment

[Mystic]

I don't agree with the reasoning. First it can be (for all we know), the universe needed a cause outside the universe. We don't know it doesn't or that we won't ever know it does. Furthermore, it can be that existence constantly needs a cause. Empirically, we can't know that, but what if we know it ontologically? It's circular to argue we can't know this ontologically from the empirical perspective. If that's true, God can be his own cause of his own existence, by his very nature of being supernatural and an immensely powerful while lesser type existence, like us, like atoms, like quarks, may need a constant maintainer to their existence.

Furthermore, is the necessary being vs possible beings discussion. That which is possible needs an explanation viewpoint, but that which possibly necessary doesn't need, by virtue that it being necessary is an explanation.

Yes there is silly arguments on both sides. This is one of them.

[median]

The same logic can apply both ways dude. You are running off on a red-herring. If "God" (whatever that means) can "be his own cause of his own existence" then so can the global universe (i.e. - all of existence itself). It is the fallacy of Special Pleading to try and attribute something to your deity (by arbitrary definition) that cannot also be said of all physical existence itself. The reasoning is just fine. It is your reasoning that is flawed.

Again, you cannot just define your deity into existence by giving it arbitrary secondary characteristics. Talk about circles. This is exactly why I stated it as such in the OP.

median

p.s. - I will allow others to chime in here before posting again.

[Mystic]

The same logic can apply both ways dude.

Not really. To me it seems if God eternally did exist, he would be constantly causing himself to exist.

A quark can't really be said to be causing itself to exist, from my perspective.

The reason is that it doesn't have immense power or super natural power to do that.

I know Islamically, it is taught that God is Independant while everything else is dependant on him.

You don't have to agree with it, but it's not a case of special pleading.

There is a notable difference. I know I can't be constantly causing myself to exist. I know I can't be causing the universe to exist. Does that mean I know God can't be causing himself and the universe to exist? That is silly.

You are running off on a red-herring.

No I'm showing why it's not special pleading. I showed a few reasons, not just one.

---

I will also leave a different perspective of Irfan and Sufism.

It is said God's existence is ultimate to the extent it cannot lack any life. If that is true, all life + life of God is not more than "life of God". This would be true, even if God create infinite universes with infinite souls. If this is true, then real existence would be derived from God's existence and be given to life by emitting him.

Therefore, if he exists, he necessarily encompasses all life out there, while all life must be derived from it's existence. If this is true, then everything must be created by him, and there cannot logically be two gods or three gods or five gods, in the sense that they are all ultimate or eternal.

This shows it would not be a case of special pleading to say God would not require a creator or that he can't know that.

[Godscreated]

Our omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God has always been, there has never been a moment He did not exist. I'm sure you find this difficult to comprehend, so you'll just dismiss it. I'm not saying I or anyone could comprehend this, it's that I choose to believe what He says.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The first premise is "Everything that comes into being has a cause." Median's reply is that the physical universe qualifies as that which did not come into being, i.e. it has always been here. This shows he doesn't understand the cosmological argument.

The argument begins by saying that no efficient cause can cause itself. If something is caused, then it depends on something other than itself to begin. Anything that begins must have a cause. If the physical universe did not have a beginning then you have an infinite regress of causes and effects, one that is incapable of causing itself, (actual infinities do not exist). Therefore the whole of the causal chain depends on something independent of causal chain to begin. That something is an uncaused cause that is not part of the physical universe as we know it.

[Darkstar]

The argument begins by saying that no efficient cause can cause itself. If something is caused, then it depends on something other than itself to begin. Anything that begins must have a cause. If the physical universe did not have a beginning then you have an infinite regress of causes and effects, one that is incapable of causing itself. Therefore the whole of the causal chain (even one that extends into the past infinitely) depends on something independent of causal chain. That something is an uncaused cause that is not part of the physical universe as we know it.

And god's creator is beyond even that, then, right? Why would "If god did not have a beginning then you have an infinite regress of causes and effects, one that is incapable of causing itself." be invalid?

It should be noted that there is not necessarily a reason to think existence itself needs a cause. The only know instances (as far as I know) of the existence of physical matter beginning would be quantum fluctuation, which is not caused.

[Cinjin]

Our omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God has always been, there has never been a moment He did not exist. I'm sure you find this difficult to comprehend, so you'll just dismiss it. I'm not saying I or anyone could comprehend this, it's that I choose to believe what He says.

We've gotten pretty use to this explanation around here. It's the, "I know it's true because I said so and our minds are simply too small to understand" explanation. Only a total dolt signs up for such biblical buffoonery.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...And god's creator is beyond even that, then, right? Why would "If god did not have a beginning then you have an infinite regress of causes and effects, one that is incapable of causing itself." be invalid?

You do not understand that there are different kinds of cause. An uncaused cause does not lie within the temporal causal chain.

It should be noted that there is not necessarily a reason to think existence itself needs a cause.

Correct. Reality exists, except you have limited your thinking to physical reality. Physical reality needs a cause because it has finite attributes that have beginnings. The cause of the physical universe is the timeless, changeless, spaceless, and immaterial something on which time, space, change, and material depend.

The only know instances (as far as I know) of the existence of physical matter beginning would be quantum fluctuation, which is not caused.

Do you have a deep understanding of quantum mechanics? I don't. That is why I look to the metaphysical principles that allow us to posit various models of physical reality.

[Darkstar]

You do not understand that there are different kinds of cause. An uncaused cause does not lie within the temporal causal chain.

---

Correct. Reality exists, except you have limited your thinking to physical reality. Physical reality needs a cause because it has finite attributes that have beginnings. The cause of the physical universe is the timeless, changeless, spaceless, and immaterial something on which time, space, change, and material depend.

So, things outside the universe don't need to be caused? Is there evidence for this, or is it simply hypothetical? Also, if it is changeless, then it would be in the same state forever. So, why did the original(ish...as you say there is no time) state include a god? Why would a god always exist/exist in the first place? You seem to think that you can simply say there is no reason needed (special pleading), but if you do, then this does not exclude the possibility that said god is a deistic version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Do you have a deep understanding of quantum mechanics?

...no.