What/Who created God?

[Godhead]

Chatpilot -

I'm not a christian. Why did you think I was?

[chatpilot]

I thought you were a christian because you were defending the existence of God. And you wrote believer on your description of religious views. My mistake I guess you are not a christian but you believe in a creator, higher power, or supreme being am I correct?

[Godhead]

Chatpilot -

That's right yes.

[chatpilot]

Godhead I went to your intro thread and read up on your views thanks for clearing that up for me. To answer the question of the thread I would have to say that man created God.

[tavarish]

Godhead, for the third time, please answer my questions.

[Samson]

Chatpilot, I believe Ludwig Feuerbach hit the nail on the head.....

It is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image.

[tackattack]

---

1a- I would not say God is omnipotent unless it was for ease of terminology.

Words mean things. Omnipotence necessarily means unlimited power.

I would be specific and say God has all power over this universe in accordance with his nature, I'm really not that concerned with things happening outside this universe. I would agree by the strictest definition you're using of omniotent God a) can't be omnipotet, or b) if he is it's unknowable. I don't feel that's a theologically sound definition though, I think I defined it well before.

So we're shifting the goalposts a bit, are we? (I'll paraphrase)
"He may not be all powerful, but he has power in this universe."
"He may have been created, but I don't care"
"He may be finite but he's infinite when you look at him from this angle."

The being you're proposing raises lots more questions than answers. If such is the case, here are questions that should be pertinent to your basic beliefs about God:

1. What, if anything, created God?
2. Are his morals necessarily absolute because of an already existing standard, or are they absolute because he says so?
3. How can you account for his nature, or any nature at all prior to a conceivable reality?
4. Is there an author of these natures? If so, who, and why did they choose those over any others?

This leads to an infinite regress of questions. This is what happens when you have a logically invalid premise for an argument.

What it boils down to is if God did create this universe then he should be powerful enough to affect anything in it (similar to the clockmaker analogy). The fact he is an attributable entity we're supposing has a cosciousness (and therefore a self-identity) and can only be himself would mean he could do anything in his nature to do.

That's simply asserting a tautology. "He can only do things that he could do" isn't an argument for anything. It doesn't establish anything of explanatory merit, nor does it address any questions I've asked.

You haven't outlined WHY God's will is effective rather than ineffective, in this universe or any other, if the case is that he only operates in ours.

1b- So if someone can and either has or will do every single possible action in the course of their life they're impotent? I get what you're saying but the connotation most atheists use it in is a crippled or feeble way, when all you're saying here is he's unproductive with his omnipotence.

No, the fact that he knows what he will do and cannot do anything against that knowledge is necessarily impotence. He can't do anything other than what he is already destined to do, and he does this with full knowledge the entire time. This effectively makes God somewhat of an enslaved robot. It has nothing to do with being productive, it outlines the fact that God is a logically impossible concept. You can't have a being that acts, knows everything, and has the ability to change its mind and still be right about everything.

Something's gotta give.

2- I didn't say consistently demonstratable, I said objectively demonstratable. Subjectively God consistantly demonstrates his will, power and love in my personal life.

But that's hardly consistent, isn't it? How can you say something is consistent if it's not demonstrable in any other venue?

I'll give you an example.

Gravity is demonstrable in every venue in the known universe. No matter where you look in this universe, gravity can be observed, demonstrated, and measured. It also doesn't matter who does it, as measurements don't change depending on who looks at them. Gravity doesn't reverse just because people believe it to be so.

It is, in every sense of the word, demonstrable and consistent.

You believing in God's existence does not stand up to the rigors of inquiry by others, as your assertions are necessarily subjective. Being that they are not demonstrable to anyone else but yourself, they are not consistent, nor do they represent reality in any scope. This is the kind of evidence that is at best inadmissible, and at worst severely faulty and biased.

3- I make the claim that matter needed a creator because to the best of our knowledge, only an infinetesimal portion of our known universe requires has shown where something comes from nothing.

There isn't a connect there.

Forget the part where you're making the claim that God willed the universe from nothing, the assertion that a small part is somehow inadmissible to the majority (and I'm granting you the vague use of terms such as "creator") is nuts.

Is the phrase "The human body is comprised of 80% water" the same as "the body is completely made of water"?

So to recap-
A-I admit that God may not be omnipotent, and is in fact unproductive if he is both all knowing and all powerful.

B- I see where you've changed my definitions of omnipotent and omniscient, but I still don't see a logical contradiction

I gave you textbook definitions, and reiterated the logical contradictions a few times now.

A being cannot be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.

To answer your question. The concept is complicated because of the complexity of the problem it answers. I don't think it's vague and I think I've been specific.

What about the complexity of the problems it creates, which are orders of magnitudes more convoluted than the original queries?

I don't think it's logically contradictory.

I just explained to you a few times the fallacy in such reasoning.

I don't ask that you should believe in it.

I didn't accuse you of preaching or proselytizing.

I don't believe it's imaginary because perception preempts definition. I percieve revelations that sometimes corespond to my understanding of God. Where they don't I find they either are personal epiphany or my understanding of God was lacking.

We're going back to the same argument I've heard time and time again. You attribute things in your life that you don't understand to God. The things that you can confirm become part of his will, and things that you can't rationalize are written off as lack of faith. You know what I don't see in your statement? Any room left for doubt or skepticism.

---

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

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?

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

[theVOID]

You know you are my favourite theist on these boards Tack, but...

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?

Does Toyota have total control of the breaks in their cars?

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.

You completely ignored the meat of the question Tarv raised!

Tarv pointed out that it is logically impossible to be all knowing and all powerful at the same time, and rather than addressing his logical syllogism, you have introduced white-noise to the issue.

Do you find anything invalid in the statement that a being who knows his own future is unable to alter it?

That single sentence supports tarv's statement to a T, so until you can invalidate that proposition it's self, your responses are erroneous nonsense.

3- Words do have meaning. The default assumption of almost all language

Excuse me, but fuck all languages... i thought we were speaking English here...

is that it's confined to within this universe.

Please think before you type... Language is not confined to this universe alone, a 3 dimensional square in another universe is still adequately described as a cube.... is it not? Would we be required to call 'Dark" something else if we moved to another universe x?

Also, what knowledge do you have of the languages in other universes that would allow you to so confidently describe our definitions as meaningless in that place?

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.

No... purple is our response to a specific segment of the electromagnetic spectrum being detected by our eyes, if we were to observe the same spectrum in another universe would you not describe it as purple? If this spectrum does not exist in the 'other universe' then your inclusion of it in this argument is meaningless nonsense.

I'm not moving any goal posts, just stating the assumption with the definition. God is all powerful, with the assumption within this universe.

the preceding sentence is entirely meaningless nonsense...

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. 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.

No, he is saying that omniscient/omnipresent God knows everything he will ever do, therefore he cannot change his mind, else he does not know it from the time before he changed his mind, therefore he either lacks the power to change anything he sees happening, or does not see everything that he will do. So he cannot logically 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.

Oh come on... you are basically saying that "most everything came from something, therefore nothing could possibly came from nothing, except god" If you can look at that statement and feel intellectually satisfied (or if you object to that statement but can find no logical exception) the you are a datf cunt, plain and simple.

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.

If you can't possibly know what exists outside the universe (and therefore outside time) then why are you anything other than a blabbering idiot for believing that God is the one exception to the rule?

[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?

[The Omnissiunt One]

This logical contradiction between omnipotence and omniscience is summarised in the followng rhyme:
'Can God, who knows the future, find,
The power to change his future mind?' (Actually, I think it says 'omnipotent God' in the original, but that doesn't scan as well).

I've also devised a little poem about the problem of evil.

If God can do most anything,
And if he's truly good,
It seems to me
(You must agree)
To prove it, first he should:

Get rid of war, and all disease,
From AIDS to bouts of flu.
Then, looking back,
A heart attack,
For Hitler; start anew.

He should announce from up on high,
That he digs contraception,
To all impart,
Life doesn't start,
The moment of conception.

They say that life's a moral test,
He gives us all free will,
That's his excuse,
To seem obtuse,
And let us maim and kill.

But this just doesn't cut it, no!
He must end the world's malaise,
Get rid of pain,
And the insane,
And fucking 'Songs of Praise'.

If anyone has any suggestions as to how I could improve it (some of the expressions were slightly contrived in order to fit the rhyme scheme), please tell me.

Ta,
Omnissiunt One