I think we can discuss religion quite well but discussing God is a lot tougher. Most of us don’t have the language to discuss something that is in essence a spiritual discussion from a material viewpoint. If I have a hard time grasping concepts like eternity and infinity, discussionons of “god” without the right language (and no actual experience of “god” as “real”) it becomes a tough slog. And don’t get me started about our undertsanding of time!
Peace
Goose
Yes, exactly, God has no rational reason.
No, think of creating as taking parts and assembling them together to create something like a computer. Life on the other hand is birthed, it is not assembled. it is two parts that, we know of, meshed or blended into one life.
Viewing the nature of the universe as abounding with questions not yet answered IS a rational way to think about the universe. And if a person describes their view of the supernatural in the same way, that could also be a rational way to think of it – as long as they don’t make claims about the supernatural actually being real in the same way that we can make claims about aspects of the universe being real. That would be irrational. Just like feeling a particular emotion and then claiming the existence of that emotion as proof of the existence of a divine god would be irrational.
That depends on how one interprets it.
What about an irrational reason?
It seems like birthed should be a category under the larger category of created. If you birth something you have created it. Every birth must necessarily be assembled. This is true because things are made of other things.
The question who create God is for the angel in heaven to answer, we human as not yet prove that God exist, we are still battling with the question of whether God exist of not, it is only when we have prove the existence of god that we can ask the question WHO CREATED GOD?
An irrational reason is not reason unless you are talking about a reason for irrationality.
Yes, thinking about whether God’s exists, if he does exist, is needed to ask the question who created God. However making the assumption that God does exist can theoretically be helpful in figuring out if he really exists. This is because we can ask whether assuming the existence of God gets us any closer to proving his existence. If we assume that God exists we can ask whether this gets us any farther in our thinking about the universe. When we assume the existence of God we find the we encounter the same problems of explaining him as we find explaining the universe. So I am just trying to show that God’s existence is not a needed adition to our understanding of the origins of the universe. I am not trying to say that God exists.
You did.
No scientist or parent physically created God and inserted Him into your head. All the words and sentences you heard or read about Him were just patterned lines that you saw and interpretted or patterned sounds that you heard and interpretted: into your own conception of God.
Yes, my brain processed the information and came to a representation of God in my mind. The majority of other people exposed to some idea also come to a conclusion about that idea. What a human is exposed to in his lifetime largely dictates the focus of their thoughts. The next step is to think about the ideas that are largely dictated by upbringing and draw conclusions about these ideas. A better title for this thread would be “how does God logically solve anything”? This would probably be to long. The title “who create God” is meant to pose a problem to those believing in God.
Technically, there’s no point to asking who created God because it’s an unmerited given.
This is what I mean.
“In the beginning God created heaven and earth.”
This is the standard translation of the opening of the Bible.
The literal translation in Hebrew reads as follows:
“First | to create | god | the heaven/sky | the earth/land”
With the way grammatical translation, this means something like:
“First god created the heaven and earth.”
Which can be said as, “In the beginning”, but isn’t 100% accurate to the most common form of the word, “breshit”.
It is one form, sure, but most commonly it is First, or refers to the top notch of something…chief, so to speak, or seasonally occurring first, as something does in a cycle.
So there’s a HUGE problem right off.
Let me rephrase just to make it very clear.
“First I created plates and bowls.”
First of what?
Out of what?
When?
First…in the sequence of making a perfect kitchenette set like Martha Stewart?
First…in the class on pottery…these were the first things you made?
First…after being let out of prison, this was the first thing you artistically did?
First…before you went out on your date?
Also…what the hell was prior, if this is first?
For instance, “First, the runners stepped into place”
Well, regardless of what comes next, the immediate missing information is what they were doing before they stepped into place…what was the atmosphere like before that moment?
These parts are completely missing from the verse and inferred meaning is essentially pointless because a noun or verb is missing and it’s unclear which one it even should be, and we have no idea what the atmosphere was prior to this “First”.
So before you can even start asking, “Who created God?”, you would have to first answer, “What was Gods creation the First of, and what was God doing previously?”
Yes but you see my point right? A machine or object can be dissassembled then put back together and still be functional. Life cannot be done that way the parts mesh and become inseperable. When folks talk about Gods being created it is usually with the tone of them being assembled in a plant somewhere. Not quite but, you get the point I am sure. Gods are most likely the product of a highly evolved species of life, having humble roots like ours. Life evolves objects do not. Gods evolve not get created.
Humorously: Imagine a pair of immense hands assembling a God,Now that would be something that could cause humans to freak out 
Well yes. Biologists and Chemists haven’t had success in taking inorganic parts and forming organic organism. In monotheistic religion, God is usual talked about as the creator of the universe. But as pointed out, for something as complicated and intelligent as God to exist there would have to be an evolution to this state of complexity from something simpler. Under this model it impossible for God to be the creator of the universe. God would have to be an evolutionary manifestation. This doesn’t solve questions of how the universe first came into being. The question of how matter could begin existing at some arbitrary time. A view of causality falls apart when looking at the beginning of the universe. It assumes that something must be caused to exist. Something, however, must have caused that which causes to exist. This paradox seems to throw out causality as a possibility for the origins of the universe.
So before you can even start asking, “Who created God?”, you would have to first answer, “What was Gods creation the First of, and what was God doing previously?”
The bible is ambiguous yet infallible. Paradoxes are everywhere in our classical way of thinking about the universe. In this classical thinking God must have been created because everything needs a cause. The only problem is that assuming that everything needs a cause leads either to infinite regress in which there is no first cause or if we assume there is a first cause to the problem of that cause not being caused. Either way causality goes out the window. We must change our thinking because thinking of the beginning of the universe in terms of causality is illogical.
What started was most likely two molecules connecting and a chain reaction occured in creating matter, small things coming together to make bigger ones and bigger and bigger. A few explosions here and there Wrong items coming together to form this that and another natural and unnatural occurrances etc. Seems to me that is the most likely way the universe started. By accident, not by design. Emptiness then eventually eons upon eons upon eons later Voila! We have our world filled with folks that believe either in Gods or big bang. The big bang was just a reaction to a small action which was a reaction to an even smaller action etc… No great mystery to it all. A form energy started everything by accident most likely. Gods evolved and humans evolved from that accident. You are right about changing the way we think because:
What is most important, is the future.
obviously not a scientist.
what are molecules made of it not matter? Were they simple quanta?
What started the two molecules moving towards one another? What started the rule that when they met, they collided, rather than move through one another?
and big things come together and creare smaller things, with waste products too…
Unnatural?
You have accidently not said anything of starting, just some stupid ideas about ‘two molecules’ and ‘explosions’… you ¬philosopher you!
No mystery to the concept of infinity?
Smaller and smaller, magnitude? You realise that number theory is arbitrary; that for any ‘quanta’ you have an infinite number of smaller quanta?
You certainlky know how to give in when the thinking actually gets tough. You explain nothing in your post!
form being what exactly? and explain what energy is too while you are at it!
The future doesn’t exist, the future is a projection of idealised states that in no way represent actual reality.
Go back to your ‘conclusions’; see how they are simply avoiding the problem!
‘infinity is, and that is all’ - it means nothing!
No time previous to ‘time’ existing… so God’s activity ‘previous’ is non-definable.
Agree, the concept of linear progression from cause → effect makes no sense when talking about tendency towards infinity.
Rather, we should consider how all causes are actually effects → therefore, the universe is the effect of all the causes that affect it! And all the effects that we call causes are the universe!
Universe ↔ causal effect ↔ infinity ↔ God ↔ nothingness ↔ Universe
The basic idea is, infinity.
Universe is infinite, God is infinite, nothing is infinite, etc.
Doesn’t matter what you call it, you always argue for infinity when talking about the universe caused or uncaused!
No I am not a scientist so I do not have the required words to explain scientifically. big deal. I am sure that rackedrick understands what I mean even if you cannot. Its not my fault you lack imgaination or comprehension to form thoughts to something that is so explained.
At least I do not hide behind so many different personnas as you do. I stand by my name wether I am right or wrong.