What/Who created God?

[tavarish]

I don't want to go around in a circle so let me try this a different way, pardon the renumber.

No prob.

1-You're stating God isn't all powerful. Why would the creator of something have less than total control over the entirety of that creation?

First, if he was created or not all powerful, he is necessarily a finite being.
Second, if you put cereal and milk in a bowl, effectively creating breakfast, what control do you have over the food spoiling? You're proposing something that isn't readily demonstrable anywhere when you say "creator of something".

2-You're stating to be all knowing and all powerfull is contradictory. I guess I'm not seeing the connection between the force used to affect something and the knowledge/possibilities of those somethings. For instance suppose I knew everything about this 1 butterfly, I knew the entirety of his life and choices and every choice he could have made and everything that did and could happen to it. How does that knowledge matter at all to whether I decide to snatch the butterfly and pin him to a book? Obviously, I knew that it would happen to him. Does the fact I knew what I would do mean the butterfly is any less effectively in the book. What I'm asking is that how exactly does any amount of knowledge affect my ability to grab the butterfly.

I'll take your example because I think we can get somewhere with it.

If you knew with absolute certainty that you would grab the butterfly, and you are never wrong, then you would have no choice BUT to grab the butterfly at the exact time you knew it was going to happen. You couldn't do anything other than what you absolutely know you're going to do. This would make you necessarily powerless.

If you knew that in 5 minutes you were going to pour yourself a glass of juice, and you're never wrong, you would have no choice but to pour yourself juice in 5 minutes - there is no getting around that. If you can change your mind, then you didn't know with absolute certainty. But if you did know, then you are necessarily impotent.

Understand?

3- Words do have meaning. The default assumption of almost all language is that it's confined to within this universe. You and I agree on a definition of purple and agree that outsides the laws of this universe, what we currently see as purple might not hold true. I'm not moving any goal posts, just stating the assumption with the definition. God is all powerful, with the assumption within this universe.

How is that not moving goalposts? You propose a being that does not reside in this universe, then say he is necessarily potent in this universe at least, then say he is omnipotent from that angle. You still haven't explained why God's will is effective rather than ineffective in "this universe" at least, rather than any other.

4- It has everything to do with being productive. When you're saying God is impotent or ineffective, then you're saying there are no productive results from any actions he takes, because he is locked into a course of action.

Yes, I'm saying God is necessarily powerless to do anything other than what he knew he was going to already do.

He may not be able to produce anything outside of what he already knows will happen, but he knows everything therefore everything is still within his pervue.

You have just demonstrated how a being cannot be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

5- With regards to your human body analogy, I think it's inaccurate. I'm not saying anything is like a small part is somehow inadmissable to a majority. I'm saying that I don't know what happens or exists outside this universe; but, becuase the majority of the objects in the know universe do not make themselves from nothing, the likelhood of the universe being created is exceptionally high.

The universe having a beginning or explanation beyond what we know is remarkably high. The likelihood of a creator is not a valid question, as it presents many other questions - more complex than the initial one, and leads to an infinite regress. I've been through this before, and I kind of feel like a broken record. You'd have to first define such a creator, provide evidence that he exists, and only then can you apply attributes and motives to it.

6- I don't attribute just the things I confirm to God, I contibute existence in it's entirety to God. You want to know where my doubt lies, it lies in the fact I don't think we can know what, if anything exists outside the universe.

Whoa, wait a minute.

In a previous post you said "Things exist regardless of conscious will". Now you're attributing existence to a disembodied consciousness. Not to mention we have established that using logic, God could have very well been created - rendering him finite and leaves out the possibility of him being the author of existence.

Do you understand how this is contradictory?