Guest CutiePie Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Philosophy class is one of my favorite class in college, it's a pretty damn amazing class with a great professor. On Wednesday, the topic was "Is God Real?" Midway in the class the Big Bang topic popped up, then this argument popped up "Did god create the big bang" and let's say god did create the big bang to happen, where does this creator come from? In order for something to exist something needs to happen in order for god to cease existence. We can't say that god is real because good things happen to us, we are breathing, we wake up, or because the bible says so and etc... Something has to happen in order for a god to even exist. Also Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."Who is "us" and where did they come from? Something has to happen in order for whoever us is to exist, something can't just exist without something being the cause of it in order to exist. Cause & reaction, this was the cause and therefore this reaction happened which lead it to existence. I want answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted April 17, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted April 17, 2015 Everybody wants answers, but you should try to get comfortable with the fact that you will never have all the answers. You certainly won't get any valid answers about reality from ancient mythology or "revealed" wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Sweets, when you go to edit your original post you can click the button "full editor" to change the title. Gen 1:1 has a group of gods and goddesses talking because the passage was originally written for a polytheistic culture. They had almost a hundred gods. El was the God Most High (and you can occasionally find that title in the Old Testament if you look for it). God Most High had 70 sons and daughters who were all gods or goddesses. Yahweh was one son of El and Yahweh's wife goddess Asherah was one of El's daughters. Monotheism didn't come along until Israel had a king. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 The "us" is suppose to mean the father, son and holy spirit. The christians explain it like this to try and prove the doctrine of the trinity. -Cat 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Your mistake is placing bronze age literature in a modern context. No one had any clue about Big Bang Theory back then. All they had was superstition and some ideas on how the (tiny) universe worked. Where did the gods come from? The gods that were the sky and ground had sex and spawned them was the usual case if they didn't simply cause themselves to come into being. They lived on high mountains, usually to the North, or above the sky where they couldn't be seen. They're nothing like the gods of today. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2PhiloVoid Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Sweets, when you go to edit your original post you can click the button "full editor" to change the title. Gen 1:1 has a group of gods and goddesses talking because the passage was originally written for a polytheistic culture. They had almost a hundred gods. El was the God Most High (and you can occasionally find that title in the Old Testament if you look for it). God Most High had 70 sons and daughters who were all gods or goddesses. Yahweh was one son of El and Yahweh's wife goddess Asherah was one of El's daughters. Monotheism didn't come along until Israel had a king. Yes, MM, this is part of the meaning of Genesis 1:1, but despite the 'Council' motif that contextualizes the mythical figures of El and Yahweh, along with their Hebraic adaptations, I don't think the work of Finkelstein, Dever, and friends, provides us the final conclusion. (Of course, they all make interesting arguments and cases, but I don't think we can 'just' throw in the towel on their account. But if you have thrown the towel, well then, you have thrown the towel. ) Peace 2PhiloVoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Hi Sweets, I agree with the others. We all tend to think of the Bible as a single book, authored by a single mind. It is not that. It's a collection of texts, and pieces of texts, put together over a thousand years or so. The "we"/"our" parts of Genesis englobe earlier Canaanite perspectives, according to which there were many gods. El Elyon was the high god, Yahweh was a warrior god, Asherah was goddess of fertility... All this eventually morphed into Jewish monotheism probably during the time of the so-called Babylonian exile. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2PhiloVoid Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this. Good perception on this issue, Disillusioned. I'm very inclined to agree with you. Kudos to you!!! (I always thought that argument was a cheap ontological shot, one that ignores a whole bunch of conceptual and theological meanings and analytical connotations. But, many people want an easy answer...) Peace 2PhiloVoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Hi Philo, but isn't the argument attractive from the other direction? I.e. if something has to exist eternally, why not just the Multiverse? And leave the upper-storey entity out of it. Ockham sharpens his razor. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this. I think you have the sequence wrong and it is incomplete. It goes something like this: Theist: God created everything. This is a mere assertion, not necessarily an agreed upon premise. Skeptic: Who created God? This is when the question is asked, after the assertion, not before. And, btw, it is not an argument. It is a question. Theist: God is eternal and has no need of being created. Here are two additional mere assertions with a side salad of special pleading. Skeptic: Says you, aka just not in any way you can demonstrate. The theist's fallacies are rejected. The skeptic need say nothing more. He needs no "better" argument. Indeed, he needs to present no argument at all. Even if the theist's first claim was accepted as a premise for purposes of discussion, the question, "Who created God?", is still probative and has inquiry value. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this. Good perception on this issue, Disillusioned. I'm very inclined to agree with you. Kudos to you!!! (I always thought that argument was a cheap ontological shot, one that ignores a whole bunch of conceptual and theological meanings and analytical connotations. But, many people want an easy answer...) Peace 2PhiloVoid Please identify these "conceptual and theological meanings" (your words) as well as these "analytical connotations" (again, your words). Afterwards, you, I and others can categorize each as mere assertion without evidentiary support, philosophical woo woo, semantic nonsense, world salad, theological proclamation, the world according to you (or others) or something else. Please keep your focus on the narrow topic of the linear question, "Who created God?" And, why you are at it, please explain how the linear question, "Who created God?" is an argument (your word). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Sweets, when you go to edit your original post you can click the button "full editor" to change the title. Gen 1:1 has a group of gods and goddesses talking because the passage was originally written for a polytheistic culture. They had almost a hundred gods. El was the God Most High (and you can occasionally find that title in the Old Testament if you look for it). God Most High had 70 sons and daughters who were all gods or goddesses. Yahweh was one son of El and Yahweh's wife goddess Asherah was one of El's daughters. Monotheism didn't come along until Israel had a king. Yes, MM, this is part of the meaning of Genesis 1:1, but despite the 'Council' motif that contextualizes the mythical figures of El and Yahweh, along with their Hebraic adaptations, I don't think the work of Finkelstein, Dever, and friends, provides us the final conclusion. (Of course, they all make interesting arguments and cases, but I don't think we can 'just' throw in the towel on their account. But if you have thrown the towel, well then, you have thrown the towel. ) All it would take to change my mind is strong empirical evidence that demonstrates your God is real. Feel free to provide that at any time. Of course you have every right to simply assume your religion is true. However if you can't demonstrate that your religion is any better than all the other religions (who's followers take it on faith) then you are guilty of the special pleading fallacy. So maybe you shouldn't talk down to me until you sort this out. M'kay? Humans have created perhaps as many as 40,000 different gods and goddesses but luckily you were born in the right time and the right place so that you were raised to believe the one right religion! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CutiePie Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 After reading the comments on here I realize that I lack knowledge and just learned a few new things, amazing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this. Good perception on this issue, Disillusioned. I'm very inclined to agree with you. Kudos to you!!! (I always thought that argument was a cheap ontological shot, one that ignores a whole bunch of conceptual and theological meanings and analytical connotations. But, many people want an easy answer...) Peace 2PhiloVoid A god who has always existed is beaten by a universe that always existed. A generic universe of unknown original qualities is much simpler than a god with human defined qualities. Plus there is the special pleading fallacy again because the eternal God was intended to explain the non-eternal universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 After reading the comments on here I realize that I lack knowledge and just learned a few new things, amazing. This place will do that to you, Sweets. It does it to me almost every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this. I think you have the sequence wrong and it is incomplete. It goes something like this: Theist: God created everything. This is a mere assertion, not necessarily an agreed upon premise. Skeptic: Who created God? This is when the question is asked, after the assertion, not before. And, btw, it is not an argument. It is a question. Theist: God is eternal and has no need of being created. Here are two additional mere assertions with a side salad of special pleading. Skeptic: Says you, aka just not in any way you can demonstrate. The theist's fallacies are rejected. The skeptic need say nothing more. He needs no "better" argument. Indeed, he needs to present no argument at all. Even if the theist's first claim was accepted as a premise for purposes of discussion, the question, "Who created God?", is still probative and has inquiry value. Fine, if that's the way that the conversation goes. But the conversation does not need to go that way. An argument can be made that God is the answer to the question "where did the universe come from?". Thus, God may be posited to be an uncaused cause, an uncreated creator. On such a view, the question "well then, who caused God?" misses the point entirely. By analogy, I think we would do as well to ask "what kind of fertilizer did Jack use to make the beanstalk grow so tall?" This question obviously overlooks the fact that the beans are supposed to be magical. They wouldn't need fertilizer. This question would, therefore, be unconvincing as an argument that the tale is obviously false. We can do better. Obviously magic beans don't exist. Similarly, I don't think that the question "who created God?" does anything at all to demonstrate that an uncreated God can't exist. In my view, the very notion of an uncreated God is unnecessary, and not particularly coherent. As I said before, surely we can do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Hi Philo, but isn't the argument attractive from the other direction? I.e. if something has to exist eternally, why not just the Multiverse? And leave the upper-storey entity out of it. Ockham sharpens his razor. ... as I was saying, we can do better. See ^^^^. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 God came from our brains. Where did our brains come from? The chicken and the egg. From what I know of the world, the egg came first. It was only a chicken when it became a chicken. Selah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 My 50 cents worth... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/parsimony http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Occam's-razor According to the Bible, God is spirit and not physical matter. Positing an eternal God means positing an uncaused eternal spiritual state of existence, whereas positing an eternal multiverse means positing an uncaused eternal physical state of existence. Q. Which one of the above is the more parsimonious option? A. The second. Q. Why? A. The physical existence of matter is not in question, whereas the existence of spirit is. Therefore, it is more parsimonious (in science and philosophy) to reject what is in question and to retain what is not. Thus the two-tier explanation (eternal spirit causing non-eternal physical matter) is rejected in favor of the singular, simpler and more parsimonious explanation of eternally-existing matter. Ockham therefore prefers an eternal multiverse over God. Thanks, BAA. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Philosophy class is one of my favorite class in college, it's a pretty damn amazing class with a great professor. On Wednesday, the topic was "Is God Real?" Midway in the class the Big Bang topic popped up, then this argument popped up "Did god create the big bang" and let's say god did create the big bang to happen, where does this creator come from? In order for something to exist something needs to happen in order for god to cease existence. We can't say that god is real because good things happen to us, we are breathing, we wake up, or because the bible says so and etc... Something has to happen in order for a god to even exist. Also Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Who is "us" and where did they come from? Something has to happen in order for whoever us is to exist, something can't just exist without something being the cause of it in order to exist. Cause & reaction, this was the cause and therefore this reaction happened which lead it to existence. I want answers. Hi Sweets! I've found these articles very useful in understanding more about the us/our appellations that appear in Genesis. https://yhwhechad.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/elohim-and-the-majestic-plural/ https://outreachjudaism.org/trinity-genesis/ There appears to be no need to invoke the "evolution of monotheism from polytheism" argument to see that the Christian triune God is not being referred to here. Instead, what we have is a quirk of the Hebrew language that is being seized upon by over-eager Christian apologists. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2PhiloVoid Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this. Good perception on this issue, Disillusioned. I'm very inclined to agree with you. Kudos to you!!! (I always thought that argument was a cheap ontological shot, one that ignores a whole bunch of conceptual and theological meanings and analytical connotations. But, many people want an easy answer...) Peace 2PhiloVoid Please identify these "conceptual and theological meanings" (your words) as well as these "analytical connotations" (again, your words). Afterwards, you, I and others can categorize each as mere assertion without evidentiary support, philosophical woo woo, semantic nonsense, world salad, theological proclamation, the world according to you (or others) or something else. Please keep your focus on the narrow topic of the linear question, "Who created God?" And, why you are at it, please explain how the linear question, "Who created God?" is an argument (your word). Ok, Sdelsolray Yes, you are correct. I referred to the question at hand, “Who created God?” as a form of argument, but I did so initially to signify my recognition that Disillusioned had already done the same. However, despite the fact that the question is syntactically a question, it can be used with alternate intentions (as an alternative “speech-act”), that is, other than as a bona-fide inquiry. Because of the semantic nature of the question, it can imply an aspersion of denial upon the nature and/or meaning of the term ‘God,’ without requiring an answer and often without being recognized as such. I’d say that it almost qualifies as a rhetorical device, by which a ‘cheap, ontological shot’ may be delivered to the recipients of its locution, paralleling Disillusioned’s suggestion that the question is a thought fit for a “lazy-man.” As Disillusioned also states in another post, there are better arguments that can be used to ‘kill’ God. The use of the question can also qualify as a fallacy, one involving the misuse of religious language. Peace, 2PhiloVoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 I found karen armstrong's book a history of god to answer the question. If you don't mind reading 399 pages of small print to get your answer. Basically god is a superstition. Man realized they they had no control over the elements such as when the rains would come to help their crops grow. So they thought to themselves that there must be some other person 'out there' who IS in control of these elements like rain etc. Well they then decided to try and appease this other being 'out there' with gifts and dances and chants etc. If the rains etc. didn't happen, then this other being was angry with them. So they would change their ways of appeasement and wouldn't you know it, the rains eventually came. Now the rains would have eventually came without these people doing any rituals at all. It is just now they thought they had done something to appease this 'other being' into helping them. Thus the superstition of another being - god - developed and the superstition of appeasement began. The god of the bible didn't show up until thousands of years later. There were other gods believed in before the name jehovah ever came across any human lips. The first gods to be worshipped were actually feminine. They were referred to ask sky mothers. The first gods worshipped were matriarchal, not patriarchal. Jehovah started off as a fertility god depicted with large testicles, hence the bibles pro masculine stance, and anti female doctrine. As time went by he developed into a mountain/war god, hence the stories of moses finding jehovah on a mountain and wars ensuing. Ultimately, the same way people argue and debate who's favorite sports team is better, people used to argue who's god was better. The tiny mountain tribe of jehovah came up with the end all argument that their god was the god OF gods and lord OF lords, thus making it impossible for other peoples gods to compete with theirs. Even jesus evolved over time from a human apocalyptic preacher to the son (sun) of man, to the son (sun) of god to eventually evolving into god himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this. I think you have the sequence wrong and it is incomplete. It goes something like this: Theist: God created everything. This is a mere assertion, not necessarily an agreed upon premise. Skeptic: Who created God? This is when the question is asked, after the assertion, not before. And, btw, it is not an argument. It is a question. Theist: God is eternal and has no need of being created. Here are two additional mere assertions with a side salad of special pleading. Skeptic: Says you, aka just not in any way you can demonstrate. The theist's fallacies are rejected. The skeptic need say nothing more. He needs no "better" argument. Indeed, he needs to present no argument at all. Even if the theist's first claim was accepted as a premise for purposes of discussion, the question, "Who created God?", is still probative and has inquiry value. Fine, if that's the way that the conversation goes. But the conversation does not need to go that way. An argument can be made that God is the answer to the question "where did the universe come from?". Thus, God may be posited to be an uncaused cause, an uncreated creator. On such a view, the question "well then, who caused God?" misses the point entirely. By analogy, I think we would do as well to ask "what kind of fertilizer did Jack use to make the beanstalk grow so tall?" This question obviously overlooks the fact that the beans are supposed to be magical. They wouldn't need fertilizer. This question would, therefore, be unconvincing as an argument that the tale is obviously false. We can do better. Obviously magic beans don't exist. Similarly, I don't think that the question "who created God?" does anything at all to demonstrate that an uncreated God can't exist. In my view, the very notion of an uncreated God is unnecessary, and not particularly coherent. As I said before, surely we can do better. Yes, if the conversation included those additional claims in the theist's first statement, then the question would be not relevant or meaningful in response to those assertions. That conversation, started by the skeptic, would go something like this: Skeptic: Where did the universe come from? A question. Theist: Everything requires a cause (except God) and God created the universe. God is an uncaused cause and an uncreated creator. There are three (or four) mere assertions here, with a side salad of special pleading, none of which is necessarily an agreed upon premise. Skeptic: Says you, aka just not in any way you can demonstrate. The theist's fallacies are rejected. So, yes, in this example, the question, "Who created God?" aka "Who caused God?", would not be asked by the skeptic and the end of the conversation because the theist had already positively asserted that (i) God is excepted from the claim that all things are caused, (ii) God is an uncaused cause and (iii) God is an uncreated creator. As to your Jack and the Beanstalk analogy, it is quite like this second conversation example and not like my first conversation example at all. This is because the story declares that the beans are magical beans before they grew to the sky (implying they don't need fertilizer at all) and the question, "[W]hat kind of fertilizer did Jack use to make the beanstalk grow so tall?", being in the past tense, indicates that the question was asked (i) after the information that the beans were magical beans was disclosed and (ii) after the beanstalk grew into the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this. Good perception on this issue, Disillusioned. I'm very inclined to agree with you. Kudos to you!!! (I always thought that argument was a cheap ontological shot, one that ignores a whole bunch of conceptual and theological meanings and analytical connotations. But, many people want an easy answer...) Peace 2PhiloVoid Please identify these "conceptual and theological meanings" (your words) as well as these "analytical connotations" (again, your words). Afterwards, you, I and others can categorize each as mere assertion without evidentiary support, philosophical woo woo, semantic nonsense, world salad, theological proclamation, the world according to you (or others) or something else. Please keep your focus on the narrow topic of the linear question, "Who created God?" And, why you are at it, please explain how the linear question, "Who created God?" is an argument (your word). Ok, Sdelsolray Yes, you are correct. I referred to the question at hand, “Who created God?” as a form of argument, but I did so initially to signify my recognition that Disillusioned had already done the same. However, despite the fact that the question is syntactically a question, it can be used with alternate intentions (as an alternative “speech-act”), that is, other than as a bona-fide inquiry. Because of the semantic nature of the question, it can imply an aspersion of denial upon the nature and/or meaning of the term ‘God,’ without requiring an answer and often without being recognized as such. I’d say that it almost qualifies as a rhetorical device, by which a ‘cheap, ontological shot’ may be delivered to the recipients of its locution, paralleling Disillusioned’s suggestion that the question is a thought fit for a “lazy-man.” As Disillusioned also states in another post, there are better arguments that can be used to ‘kill’ God. The use of the question can also qualify as a fallacy, one involving the misuse of religious language. Nonsense! Our ancestors created God. The truth is obvious. Your favorite God was created the same way as Zeus, Odin and Ra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts