What/Who created God?

[tackattack]

---

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?

---

---

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?

---

@ Void- No I wasn't aware I was, but ty and I'm glad to have your contributions. I assure I'm not trying to cloud the discussion just explain my perspective on it.
I'll try to saatisfactorily address both in one response.

1 (1,2,3,4) - I get it guys, I really do. I've digested what you've said and Void put it very eloquently and succinctly: If God knows his own future he is unable to change it. The fact that he is unable to change his course means that he is impotent. Therefore it is logically impossible to be both all knowing and all powerful.

I have a problem with this for 2 reasons. Firstly, I think you're overvaluing the impotent and undervaluing God's scope. And secondly, You're missing the disconnect between knowledge and power.

1A-There is no direct connect between the knowledge of when/if something is/has/will happen and the power to accomplish said action. You're only limiting the timing of that action and mandating that it must happen. You're not limiting the scope of that action's power or it's causal ramifications. I agree that if you know everything that will/is/has happened then you're locked into a destiny and have no free will to change within those causal chains.
When talking about forces we classify them as to when they happen, why they happen, the power/force they happen with and the effectiveness or productivity of the resulting force. By saying God can't change his action then you're only limiting the when and then attempting to negate the entirety of the force and it's potential productivity. I'm trying to get you to evaluate the rest of the force, and we've established the perspective: our own. Regardless of the universe we're in the language we use is always assumed to originate from our own knowledge and perspective within this universe.
1B- Concluding this point I'm saying that it would be more accurate to say it is logically impossible to be both all knowing and have control of when you act, then to completely negate the all knowing and all powerfull.

5- I'm not saying "most everything came from something, therefore nothing could possibly came from nothing, except god" ". I'm saying because it has continuously been shown that most things have a creator, it's very likely that this would apply to the unniverse as well. Will the apple always fall down? No probably not, but most likely and for all intents and purposes it does. Tav Are you saying there that the answer is too complex to even ask why? If you want to leave the assumtion that the universe is likely to have an initiator, but there's no way of knowing so why bother asking I can understand that. Also, for the record, I have clearly defined a creator, provided detiled lists of my (rejected) subjective evidence and applied attributes and motives.

6- I can't possibly know what exists outside this universe (That's why Fr0d0 says God just is and can't be proven objectively) but it's highly likely to have a creator, so I endeavor to ask the question at least. I try not to be too much of a blathering idiot. Things can exist regardless of a percieving consciousness. A rock will still be a rock when no one's looking. However if God does exist as I understand him, and he did create(or at least initiate) everything we know to be the universe, and he does know everything that is/was then there is purpose in every rock's existence regardless of perception as well.

6A-We did quite clearly show that logically God could have been created. This does not negate his creative powers. You're excluding the possibility that God could (if finite) developing/ evolve into something complex and powerful enought to create this universe.

[Ace Otana]

I can't possibly know what exists outside this universe (That's why Fr0d0 says God just is and can't be proven objectively) but it's highly likely to have a creator

Got to pick at this little bit.
Sorry tack, but god is not a high possibility. Actually it's an extremely high improbability. The credibility of god's existance equals that of santa's existance. In fact the credibility of god's existance equals that of any imaginable character that we can think up.
Also 'god just is' should be 'god is just a belief' because that is what it is. Nothing more.

[tavarish]

I can't possibly know what exists outside this universe (That's why Fr0d0 says God just is and can't be proven objectively) but it's highly likely to have a creator

Got to pick at this little bit.
Sorry tav but god is not a high possibility. Actually it's an extremely high improbability. The credibility of god's existance equals that of santa's existance. In fact the credibility of god's existance equals that of any imaginable character that we can think up.
Also 'god just is' should be 'god is just a belief' because that is what it is. Nothing more.

I'm tav. He's tack.

[Ace Otana]

I'm tav. He's tack.

Tav, Tac. I'm gonna mess up here.

[tavarish]

1 (1,2,3,4) - I get it guys, I really do. I've digested what you've said and Void put it very eloquently and succinctly: If God knows his own future he is unable to change it. The fact that he is unable to change his course means that he is impotent. Therefore it is logically impossible to be both all knowing and all powerful.

Exactly.

I have a problem with this for 2 reasons. Firstly, I think you're overvaluing the impotent and undervaluing God's scope. And secondly, You're missing the disconnect between knowledge and power.

Actually, in the discussion I'm assuming the scope of God is absolute.

1A-There is no direct connect between the knowledge of when/if something is/has/will happen and the power to accomplish said action. You're only limiting the timing of that action and mandating that it must happen.

Sure there is. If the only thing you can do are the things that you know you will do, you have zero room to change your mind or exercise any free will. The timing is irrelevant, since the actions are the things that are being limited. I see that you understand it, but I don't see your problem. On an absolute scale, these attributes are logically impossible.

You're not limiting the scope of that action's power or it's causal ramifications.

I don't need to, because that's not what the conversation's about. I'm saying that if god is all knowing, there are definitely things he cannot do. Whether his actions have any other grandiose power is a topic for another discussion.

I agree that if you know everything that will/is/has happened then you're locked into a destiny and have no free will to change within those causal chains.

So you understand how the attributes of your God are logically impossible. Good.

When talking about forces we classify them as to when they happen, why they happen, the power/force they happen with and the effectiveness or productivity of the resulting force. By saying God can't change his action then you're only limiting the when and then attempting to negate the entirety of the force and it's potential productivity. I'm trying to get you to evaluate the rest of the force, and we've established the perspective: our own. Regardless of the universe we're in the language we use is always assumed to originate from our own knowledge and perspective within this universe.

Again, productivity has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter if he saves a baby with an action today or kills 100 with an action a week ago. This is not the point of the conversation, nor is it relevant at all. I'm not talking about the product of his actions, I'm simply making the case that his ability to act is severely hindered if he is indeed all-knowing. They are wholly incompatible concepts.

1B- Concluding this point I'm saying that it would be more accurate to say it is logically impossible to be both all knowing and have control of when you act, then to completely negate the all knowing and all powerfull.

Tack, do you understand that when you're limited by something, that means you are necessarily not absolute? If God is limited in power to only the things he knows he will do, that makes him necessarily impotent to do anything else. Even if he doesn't wish to do anything else, it doesn't change the fact that he can't.

An omniscient and omnipotent God is logically impossible. That's pretty much as accurate as it's going to get.

5- I'm not saying "most everything came from something, therefore nothing could possibly came from nothing, except god" ". I'm saying because it has continuously been shown that most things have a creator, it's very likely that this would apply to the unniverse as well. Will the apple always fall down? No probably not, but most likely and for all intents and purposes it does.

Every bit of evidence shows that consciousness is a product of a brain - a physical entity. Does God have a physical brain? I'm saying because it has been continuously shown that everything with a consciousness has a physical brain to show for it, it's very likely that this would apply to God as well. Where is God's brain?

Tav Are you saying there that the answer is too complex to even ask why? If you want to leave the assumtion that the universe is likely to have an initiator, but there's no way of knowing so why bother asking I can understand that.

No, on the contrary. Questions are the cornerstone of discovery, but when you have answers, it helps when those answers have objective evidence that is consistent with reality and not based in subjective perception. With no evidence, all you have is unfounded speculation - which doesn't advance our knowledge at all, it in fact hinders it, because we think we've found the answers to everything, all the while not realizing our answers don't make any sense.

Could the universe have had a creator? Sure. have I been shown evidence for one? No. Therefore I don't accept that it does.

Also, for the record, I have clearly defined a creator, provided detiled lists of my (rejected) subjective evidence and applied attributes and motives.

Do you understand why subjective experience is, in this case, inadmissible?

6- I can't possibly know what exists outside this universe (That's why Fr0d0 says God just is and can't be proven objectively) but it's highly likely to have a creator, so I endeavor to ask the question at least.

Asking a question and coming to a conclusion are two totally different things. I'm pretty sure everyone on this board has asked this question a few times in their lives, but the difference is whether you formulate an answer, and how you interpret reality.

If you can't possibly know what exists outside the universe, why do you then say God exists and give him various attributes? That really doesn't make sense.

I try not to be too much of a blathering idiot. Things can exist regardless of a percieving consciousness. A rock will still be a rock when no one's looking.

So why need God for the process if things have a nature and exist regardless of consciousness?

However if God does exist as I understand him, and he did create(or at least initiate) everything we know to be the universe, and he does know everything that is/was then there is purpose in every rock's existence regardless of perception as well.

This is contradictory for 2 reasons.

1. You said above that you can't possibly know what's outside the universe - then you talk about understanding God, which is by definition, outside of the universe.
2. You're attributing existence to consciousness and not the other way around. It doesn't follow that the rock exists regardless of consciousness, yet God's consciousness necessarily put it into existence.

6A-We did quite clearly show that logically God could have been created. This does not negate his creative powers. You're excluding the possibility that God could (if finite) developing/ evolve into something complex and powerful enought to create this universe.

Do you know why I exclude this possibility? Because it's one of an infinite number of possibilities you can attribute to a being that exists purely as a concept. If there are any contradictory aspects, someone can surely come along and say "woops, he could be this instead", all without shedding any light on anything. It has zero explanatory power whatsoever, and changing his attributes on the fly is dishonest and a sign of delusion and confirmation bias.

The main point of this conversation is to outline that the Christian God, with attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, and no creator, is logically impossible. He cannot justifiably be. If you have a God with different attributes, he isn't the Christian God, but a God of your personal fabrication - which makes sense, as God is merely a concept anyway.

[Godhead]

Tavarish -

Since we're talking about a hypothetical god, are you not prepared to accept that if this god exists, it is not bound by the same rules as you or I are? You may not believe that god exists but if we're going to discuss the idea of god we have to not stray from what that actually entails. For example, I believe that god is self existent, which means that it has no creator, exists of its own accord, and has always existed, even beyond what we call time. Everyday things aren't self existent, so you can't compare everyday things to a hypothetical god.

[tavarish]

Tavarish -

Since we're talking about a hypothetical god, are you not prepared to accept that if this god exists, it is not bound by the same rules as you or I are? You may not believe that god exists but if we're going to discuss the idea of god we have to not stray from what that actually entails. For example, I believe that god is self existent, which means that it has no creator, exists of its own accord, and has always existed, even beyond what we call time. Everyday things aren't self existent, so you can't compare everyday things to a hypothetical god.

Why do you believe this? What evidence do you have to suggest that such a thing is true?

[Godhead]

Tavarish -


None whatsoever. But you're changing the goalposts there because what we're specifically discussing in this thread is a hypothetical god, and whether or not it would have a creator. Selfexistence would explain how a god would not have one.

[tavarish]

Tavarish -


None whatsoever. But you're changing the goalposts there because what we're specifically discussing in this thread is a hypothetical god, and whether or not it would have a creator. Selfexistence would explain how a god would not have one.

And again, assertions don't mean crap if you can't back them up with anything. When you say "hypothetical God", does that mean an imaginary being? It sure seems that way.

If you assert that a God is self-existent, you would have to demonstrate this information in order for it to be a coherent argument.

I'm not shifting goalposts, as you still haven't defined what you believe your God to be. You're just asserting a quality onto a null placeholder and calling it God. I honestly have no idea what attributes you think God has, and it makes all the difference when trying to make the point that such a self-existent being actually exists.

[fr0d0]

The God construct, as you are referring to it tav, is something we(the human race)'ve defined. In that definition, we've included the fact that he's not provable. You've tied your foot to your head and are pulling the string.