What/Who created God?

[tavarish]

1-I think I can clear up things. From your logic, omnipotence itself is contrary on an absolute scale. How can something have the power to do something that is against its own nature?

Who says an omnipotent being has to carry a nature?

Once you do that thing it then becomes part of your experience and then part of said character.

So you're applying more attributes to your God. Nice. Is there any reasoning you can provide that demonstrates this statement?

The limits of logical omnipotence have to have at the very least a limit of “All power, within individual’s nature”.

Again, why? Why does an all-powerful being need a nature? Why is your God necessarily confined to a nature?

Hopefully from that you can see where your definition of omnipotent is illogical in itself and you’ll hopefully use the definition I provided to try and grasp the theological perspective.

If you're trying to make the point that God indeed has ultimate power only within a certain framework, that means a few things:

1. God was necessarily not the author of his nature, as he is immutable - meaning there is no point in which he chose a nature over another.

2. God is necessarily finite, as his power is necessarily limited to things he would do.

3. God's morality is not his own, as his nature is based on what is right, and in premise 1, God was necessarily not the author of his nature.

So here we are, with a necessarily finite being with a morality that is necessarily not his own. If he indeed create the universe, I don't understand how in any context he would be considered omnipotent, as you would only have to look to something outside his nature to see what he can't do, using your definition. In addition, with your definition, you are omnipotent in the same way - you have power over things that are within your nature.

It's a very weak argument, and not one you should use to strengthen the plausibility of a being hailed as the Alpha and the Omega.

5- Completely ignoring transcendence, I’d like to see where any experiments (including the QM theories) on consciousness prove that self-identity can be eliminated entirely physically. Alter yes, I’ve seen experiments on that, but I don’t think science has yet proven the physicality of consciousness yet. If I’m wrong please enlighten me with references.

Consciousness is an product of something physical, namely a brain. You need a brain to experience consciousness. You can eliminate consciousness by eliminating the physical venue in which it resides. There are different types of consciousness, such as perception, self-identity, and memory - but all require a physical medium to develop. If you have any evidence of consciousness outside of anything physical, I'm all ears.

Here's a good, but lengthy blog post about the primacy of consciousness:

http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/

6.1-Yes, God exists outside the universe by definition, but through God’s revelations he interacts with this universe and can thus be described and defined. This is of course dependant on how we perceive reality.

So if this is dependent on subjective perception, how is it at all consistent?

If he interacts with this universe, he can manifest in reality - which is demonstrable. If he indeed does this, there should be reliably consistent methods of obtaining objectively verifiable evidence. Can you provide me with such evidence?

6.2- I see what you’re saying. You’re saying if a rock exists independent of consciousness, why attribute a consciousness to the universe. Allow me to explain my perspective. The consciousness you’re using is assumed to be human(or any current living species that qualifies) consciousness.

Yes, I'm using the consciousness that is demonstrable in reality.

Then to that I would say a rock exists regardless of the observer.

Observation is a type of consciousness. You're effectively saying the same thing. In order to observe, you have to be conscious of the object you're regarding.

It just so happens that I believe in God as, by my definition (which is shared), omniscient. He is a default observer when no other qualifiers are present, but it has little to no effect on the rock’s existence.

So the rock exists regardless of any observers, EXCEPT for God. Explain to me how this isn't special pleading.

6A- And you’re entitled to exclude what you feel is appropriate. For the record, I’ve never ( here or anywhere else) changed the attributes I attest to God. You’re assuming I have defined a God that has no creator. That’s simply not in a Christian’s prevue and I’ve defined clearly the Christian understanding of God (to which you’d be hard pressed to find one that disagrees on the basics).

I'm willing to bet that most Christians will make the case that God is the Alpha and Omega and had no creator, not to mention eternal - which by definition could not have been created.

If you define God as possibly having a creator, I ask how you can justify the infinite regress that follows.

That’s all I have the energy for tonight, but it’s progress I think. When we can get past this I'll deal with the God just is or God just is evolved enough

Ok. Although I find major flaws in your reasoning and logic and don't agree with your view at all, I greatly appreciate that you've made well-thought out responses and kept it civil. Thanks!