If God created the universe who created God? People who believe in God often say that God has existed eternally. I don’t think this makes any sense. An eternal existence of God would mean that God is exempt from causaulity. It says that God has no explanation. I suppose God could exist eternally but this doesn’t make any more sense to me than God starting to exist at some arbitrary point in time. God starting to exist at some arbitrary point in time doesn’t make any sense either. I think that God existence can only be explained irrationally. The existence of the universe can only be explained irrationally as well. There are some questions that just don’t have answers at the moment. Perhaps thinking about the universe irrationally is the only way to think about it. Maybe the universe’s existence is not rational. Maybe it is. I don’t think that you can rationally argue for God’s existence. Any objections to this claim?
Eternity isn’t necissarily irrational.
Eternity isn’t exempt from causality, it’s an eternal causality which cannot be exempt from itself.
And this should be easy to understand.
Eternity by definition has no beginning. Therefore something can not exist for eternity
because there could logically be nothing before it to cause it since it has existed for
eternity. Therefore anything that exists for eternity does not have something which
precedes it and therefore nothing which can cause it.
I prefer the term “pararationally”. 
Theoretical cosmologists used to think the steady state theory was plausible and are now exploring the theory of eternal inflation. Are they irrational too?
I didn’t mean to say that theoretical cosmologists were irrational. I meant to say that the universe might only be able to be understood in a manner which is not certain or rational. They could be trying to rationally understand an irrational situation. Not to say they shouldn’t try to rationally understand the universe. A rational understanding of the universe is the only way we can make sense of it.
I can’t find the definition for pararationally. It is used in some documents online but it is not defined blatantly. What distiguishes it from irrationally?
My sense of it is that it operates beside the rational, as opposed to simply without it. Like a paramedic. It can overlap, like mysticism overlaps.
So do you think some parts of the universe rational and some parts irrational? Or that the our notions of the universe being irrational and rational are perceptions that don’t accurately model the universe? That the universe is really rational and we are just misconcieve when we consider that it could be irrational. In other words it is not the universe that is irrational but the people interpreting it. I interpreting pararational to mean having both irrational and rational characteristics. Is this the correct usage?
Perhaps Pararationality as a concept is a rational response to the presence of irrationality, with the danger that it is prone to become an empty thought (which is good, if Buddhism is correct… 
)… We might relate it to quasi-rational constructs such as Fuzzy Logic, though…
You contradict yourself by first saying that the universe may only be understood irrationally and then saying it can only be undersood rationally. Also you have not defined what you mean by rational and irrational.
The second and last sentences interpreted in a certain manner contradict. The only way to understand the universe can not be both rational and irrational. Obvious. The second sentence, more precisely written, says, the universe can only be understood rationally, if it is irrational, as an irrational system. Rational-logical, irrational-illogical
Here are a few definitions of the word “logical” from "Onelook an online dictionary:
▸ capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning (“A logical mind”)
▸ based on known statements or events or conditions (“Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year”)
▸ capable of thinking and expressing yourself in a clear and consistent manner
▸ in accordance with reason or logic (“A logical conclusion”)
▸ marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts (“A logical argument”)
Did you have any of those definitions in mind? Of course, to define reason as " in accordance with reason or logic is viciously circular so that one is out. The first three definitions have to do with language so it would seem they could only be applied metaphorically to the universe. That leaves the fourth definition, which is again partially circular in that it defines logical as logical. Does defining rational is defined as “marked by an orderly, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts” capture what you mean by the word?
logical- “marked by an orderly, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts” Some paintings have order and have an aesthetically consistent relation of parts. Logical has these characteristics. This definition isn’t exclusive. No definition is exclusive.
test 
sorry…
Goose
Why could any god not be born? Why must they have been created or just happen?
A definiton by definition must include some meanings and exclude others.
A bad definition doesn’t exclude divergent interpretations. No definition excludes divergent interpretation. Therefore, no definition is exclusive.
If a god is born isn’t that the same a being created?
works