"Who created god?" is not a valid question (apparently)

[FaithlessThinker]

This god-believer has been attacking me via email for my atheism, offending me with his god-beliefs and the latest of them being this:

anyways let me offend u one more time...
this is my final comment wheather u take it or not is up to u...
ppl seem to ask 'wrong' questions tats the real prob...so ex[ample]....who created god?
hes not a created being so the question is invalid but to a typical
atheist this is a gr8 question!!

so for the record...instead of spending hours togeather reasearching
atheism...u can try to live life...and i belive u will meet
God...maybe u never met him b4!! during those 7 years...u could meet
him later...

It's as though he knows for a fact god is not a created being and i should just take his word for that. And i'm telling him if i ever meet god, i'm telling him 'f**k you'.

Comments please.

 

[Aught3]

I agree with the other guy, generally 'what created gods?' is a pointless question. Rather you want to ask 'why are gods a good explanation for phenomenon X?'

Could depend on your/his prior arguments though.

 

[Andiferous]

I agree with the other guy, generally 'what created gods?' is a pointless question. Rather you want to ask 'why are gods a good explanation for phenomenon X?'

Could depend on your/his prior arguments though.

That one is a good defensive argument, as are most arguments in this sort of thing. It's silly to think you can prove a negative, the implications of that are infinite and really out of hand, so you'll never get anywhere that way. You can just break down other arguments by making him take lead and responding to his proofs.

If he were to use the argument that something must necessarily have been created to explain all existence and therefore there must be a creator, pointing out that the creator must be created as well by that logic is a great refute. By itself it's not as impressive.

You don't need to disprove something 'till someone makes an argument to prove it.

Actually, most of the counter arguments are pretty lame by themselves.

 

[Laurens]

It's a valid question, and asserting that God is not a created being doesn't change that.

As a side note, I cannot help but feel ever so irritated at people who write like that in emails. There is no character limit like there is with text messages, so unless you have certain keys missing on your keyboard, there is absolutely no reason to write like such an idiot. It just gives the impression of being an absent minded fool.

 

[IBSpify]

If a person can claim that god is not a created being, without providing any kind of citation that such a thing can exist, then a person can claim that the universe is not a created entity without any kind of citation that such a thing can exist.

It's a special pleading argument at it's worst, "These are the laws that exist for all things.....No, they don't exist for the things I attest to."

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Lol the god-believer is clearly pissed at my reply :lol: (i also referred him to this topic, but i don't think he cared to look):

i guess i made it very plain ..."its my comment"...meaning my opinion....if u dont accept it.. who cares!...

but since u asked i wanted to find the answers...here it is

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

this is something i hate completely...referring u to a site without answering myself!!

btb i did not say i sinned by goin to the set of bible contradictions u showed...(except the 1st one rwest of it was amateurish.i had seen an article 1001 contradictions by a muslim site ...better try tat)

i jus said reading those stuff was wasting my time...

Oh you should check out the ready-made answer at the link he sent me. Bullshit warning though: they talk about how god could not be a created being using principle of thermodynamics (doesn't prove it's not an imaginary being though).

 

[lrkun]

This god-believer has been attacking me via email for my atheism, offending me with his god-beliefs and the latest of them being this:

anyways let me offend u one more time...
this is my final comment wheather u take it or not is up to u...
ppl seem to ask 'wrong' questions tats the real prob...so ex[ample]....who created god?
hes not a created being so the question is invalid but to a typical
atheist this is a gr8 question!!

so for the record...instead of spending hours togeather reasearching
atheism...u can try to live life...and i belive u will meet
God...maybe u never met him b4!! during those 7 years...u could meet
him later...

It's as though he knows for a fact god is not a created being and i should just take his word for that. And i'm telling him if i ever meet god, i'm telling him 'f**k you'.

Comments please.

The better question is, who created the concept of god, and we all know the answer, but if you don't, it's us, for we add something to that which already exists.

 

[borrofburi]

I agree with the other guy, generally 'what created gods?' is a pointless question. Rather you want to ask 'why are gods a good explanation for phenomenon X?'

It's a perfectly legitimate response to the kalaam... One of their first premises always involves everything being created, or everything complex being created; it's simply natural to ask why that doesn't apply to their self-admittedly extraordinary god. But I see Andie beat me to it.

 

[Aught3]

It's a perfectly legitimate response to the kalaam... One of their first premises always involves everything being created, or everything complex being created

Always? WLCs formulation, for example, gets around this difficulty. True it's ad hoc but more sophisticated Christian apologists are well versed in turning on the old necessary/contingent distinction. I did say it could depend on his prior argument though, so if he formulated it badly 'who created god?' could be an okay response. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it though.

Also there is the issue that an explanation does not itself require an explanation in order to be true. Again the better response would be to point out how bad of an explanation gods are.

 

[RedYellow]

If a person can claim that god is not a created being, without providing any kind of citation that such a thing can exist, then a person can claim that the universe is not a created entity without any kind of citation that such a thing can exist.

This. And at least the universe itself can be proven to exist in some sense, so our work is already mostly done, while the theist hasn't even proven god, let alone that it can exist uncaused.

 

[Exmortis]

... Hypocrites.
They are so quick to dismiss the possibility that the universe could have always existed (By the way, I am not particularly familiar with new theories so I don't often use this argument any more, but I digress), you know every effect has to have a cause... so on... so on... faith based assertion... so on...

I am dumbfounded as to how they can double back on this statement not a breath after uttering it and say that God had no cause. Is it not ludicrous?

 

[Cephei]

Those people who say that everything has a cause can't have heard of radioactive decay.

 

[lrkun]

Who created god is a valid question, it allows the person who asks to know the basis for god's existence. The act of asking in itself allows one to think; rather than accepting information without basis. The act of thiking about it allows one to further understand.

 

[brewpanda]

What?
Why is it a valid question? Why does something need a creator? Entity necessitates cause?

If someone can conceptualize a singularity existing without a creator why can't one conceptualize another entity. . .such as a deity, existing without a creator?
Everything must have cause? That defeats atheist and nonatheist argument alike.

The deity is their singularity.
The deity is their CM.
If you can concieve of a singular prime causal force, why can they not?

 

[borrofburi]

What?
Why is it a valid question? Why does something need a creator? Entity necessitates cause?

If someone can conceptualize a singularity existing without a creator why can't one conceptualize another entity. . .such as a deity, existing without a creator?
Everything must have cause? That defeats atheist and nonatheist argument alike.

The deity is their singularity.
The deity is their CM.
If you can concieve of a singular prime causal force, why can they not?

That's rarely the argument. The question "then who made god?" is best as a response to people who attempt to use the kalam to "prove" god by saying "everything that begins has a cause, and god's the cause of everything", the natural question of course is: who/what caused god? It's a self-invalidating argument in that context: they use a premise to argue for something that violates that premise.

But what you seem to be arguing is: why can't god exist? None of us are arguing that god can't exist, but rather we're arguing that "god made the universe but god just exists" is an inferior statement than "the universe just exists" by occam's razor, and that to convincingly argue for the former requires something more substantial than the premise that "the universe had to have a cause, which is god, but god doesn't have to have a cause". Because, of course, the question is: why does the universe have to have a cause but not god? Why not just assume the universe has no cause?

I don't think any of us are saying "god must have a cause", that you write to argue against such an idea is indicative that you missed the point.

 

[brewpanda]

Because, of course, the question is: why does the universe have to have a cause but not god? Why not just assume the universe has no cause?

That was the point of my post. Both universe or deity can be without cause. So the question on its own isn't valid.

I don't think any of us are saying "god must have a cause", that you write to argue against such an idea is indicative that you missed the point.

I didn't say you specifically were arguing said deity has a cause. I was arguing whether it is legitimate for you to pose that question to other people since we already know the question is inherently flawed in and of itself because it implies something it cannot logically assume.

If it is used as a response to, as you say:

That's rarely the argument. The question "then who made god?" is best as a response to people who attempt to use the kalam to "prove" god by saying "everything that begins has a cause, and god's the cause of everything", the natural question of course is: who/what caused god? It's a self-invalidating argument in that context: they use a premise to argue for something that violates that premise.

The flaw in applying this question to people who say everything that begins has a cause lies in the logistical and philisophical definition of their deity. Namely, their deity has no beginning. Therefore, their deity cannot have a cause. Now, if you want to dispute whether or not things can exist without a beginning, by all means but that amounts to the same thing as I argued before. It is counterproductive, since it eventually will defeat most non-theist theories on the universe.

But what you seem to be arguing is: why can't god exist? None of us are arguing that god can't exist, but rather we're arguing that "god made the universe but god just exists" is an inferior statement than "the universe just exists" by occam's razor, and that to convincingly argue for the former requires something more substantial than the premise that "the universe had to have a cause, which is god, but god doesn't have to have a cause".

I am not arguing this.

There are also more complex and philisophical definitions for the hypothetical deity than simply saying, "It exists."

The second part of your paragraph would need more development to make the claim that "god made the universe but god just exists" is inferior to "the universe just exists." I assume you are claiming that the latter is more simplistic, thus justifying your invocation of Occam's Razor but as we should all know, Occam's Razor is misleading in itself. Simply because something is simple doesn't mean it is correct. I would also argue, which perhaps you are, that "the universe just exists" is not a simplistic statement. If you are properly invoking it, then your statement is incorrect because theoretically, either theory about the universe can be of equivalent validity in strength of argument. Since the latter makes more "new" assumptions, technically the burden lies on it to prove its worth. However, either can explain themselves, using empirical data and conceptual reasoning, probably with near equal strength.

In either case, the point was to ask why must causality exist? We assign it to events and things we observe, we suppose that y effect must have x cause but this notion of necessity of cause requires connections between things- action and reaction. You can observe phenomena interacting but you cannot percieve the necessity of the interaction. Causality exists as an idea we created for order, but that is what it is- an idea not empirical perception. Because we see so often that when y happens, x is in proximity, or that when x interacts with z, y occurs, we neccessitate there must be a causal relationship.
We created the notion of causality, it isn't a condition of actuality. Therefore we can't rely on it nor can we assume it always exists.


Of course, there is an easy answer to this too, but it still relies on nonempirical theories. So if we are back to reasoning and abstract concepts devoid of observation than again, any argument made against a universe lacking cause with no deity or a universe caused by a deity with no cause are essentially tantamount statements, contingent upon the definition of said deity and contingent upon the model for said universe lacking cause.

So ultimately the topical question is only relevant to ask individuals who argue a deist or theist perspective predicated on-
1) all things without qualification must have a cause
2) god isn't eternal or doesn't exist outside time/space

 

[lrkun]

That was the point of my post. Both universe or deity can be without cause. So the question on its own isn't valid.

Absolute certainty is different from possibility or probability. According to you, it can be valid because of your use of the word "can"

 

[brewpanda]

That was the point of my post. Both universe or deity can be without cause. So the question on its own isn't valid.

Absolute certainty is different from possibility or probability. According to you, it can be valid because of your use of the word "can"

Which I stated, it can be a legitimate question based on certain criteria. But the scenario posed did not fit the criteria!

However, the problem with the phrasing of the question leads one to assume the individual asking the question supposes causality is a necessity to actuality, and that it can be empirically known, which it can't be. Therefore, it is logically invalid in and of itself.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Occam's Razor is not a principle of simplicity, it's a principle of parsimony. One could argue that simplicity can be a feature of parsimony, or that simplicity is in some ways analogous to parsimony, but simplicity is not actually parsimony.

 

[borrofburi]

That's rarely the argument. The question "then who made god?" is best as a response to people who attempt to use the kalam to "prove" god by saying "everything that begins has a cause, and god's the cause of everything", the natural question of course is: who/what caused god? It's a self-invalidating argument in that context: they use a premise to argue for something that violates that premise.

The flaw in applying this question to people who say everything that begins has a cause lies in the logistical and philisophical definition of their deity. Namely, their deity has no beginning. Therefore, their deity cannot have a cause. Now, if you want to dispute whether or not things can exist without a beginning, by all means but that amounts to the same thing as I argued before. It is counterproductive, since it eventually will defeat most non-theist theories on the universe.

Incorrect. In first order logic they say:
∀x∃y Cause(y, x)
First we have to define "AncestorCause(y,x)" where:
AncestorCause(y,x) := Cause(y,x) OR (AncestorCause(y,z) AND Cause(z,x))
Then they say that we either have infinite:
∃g∀x AncestorCause(g, x) AND (,¬Ã¢Ë†Æ’y AncestorCause(y, g))
And that that g is "god" and that obviously that g is a sentient omnipotent omniscient being who is both the most complex being in existence AND is so perfectly simple that occam's razor doesn't count, and that this argument proves you should give their church 10% of your income.

The problem is that I can derive a contradiction (I won't bore you with the actual math unless you really want to see it):
∃g∀y ,¬Cause(y, g) AND Cause(y, g)

In simpler less rigorous terminology:
They say that for all X, there is something that caused it, but they also say that there is an X that was not caused. This is a contradiction. That you say "well they define it that way" is immaterial: if they define it that way then their argument is invalid.

There are also more complex and philisophical definitions for the hypothetical deity than simply saying, "It exists."

That hardly helps the theist perspective; if anything it hurts. Deists hold by far the most easily defensible position (well, beyond those who say "well the universe is like, totally god man, open your mind man, it's totally awesome"; but I hardly think they count).

I assume you are claiming that the latter is more simplistic, thus justifying your invocation of Occam's Razor but as we should all know, Occam's Razor is misleading

I'll leave you to deal with hackenslash, especially since this:

Simply because something is simple doesn't mean it is correct.
...
However, either can explain themselves, using empirical data and conceptual reasoning, probably with near equal strength.

Demonstrates that you have a very poor understanding of Occam's Razor (either that or very poor reading comprehension (at least of my post)).

In either case, the point was to ask why must causality exist?

Your question has no more meaning than "why is there something rather than nothing?" or "why must the earth be so perfectly adapted to human life?" or the puddle's question "why does this hole fit me so well?"

Causality exists as an idea we created for order, but that is what it is- an idea not empirical perception

I find it horribly ironic that here you say causality is just an idea, while in another thread you argue that logic/math/love are non-material things that exist whether man is around to perceive them or not.

We created the notion of causality, it isn't a condition of actuality. Therefore we can't rely on it nor can we assume it always exists.

Please demonstrate the possibility of the existence of a universe without causality. Also please demonstrate how that it is at all relevant to anything, especially more-so relevant than the idea that "it's not like the universe has to exist" or some other such "point".

So if we are back to reasoning and abstract concepts devoid of observation than again, any argument made against a universe lacking cause with no deity or a universe caused by a deity with no cause are essentially tantamount statements, contingent upon the definition of said deity and contingent upon the model for said universe lacking cause.

Seriously, did you miss the class where they discussed Occam's Razor?

Perhaps more importantly: you implicitly rule out the validity of the (often true) answer "I don't know" and the reality that "I don't know" can be the superior answer.

1) all things without qualification must have a cause

While the topical question doesn't necessarily apply when someone says "all things except god must have a cause", it's hardly a better argument because it relies on special pleading even when phrased that way.

2) god isn't eternal or doesn't exist outside time/space

Certainly, but then of course we return to the very standard yet still unanswered question: what evidence is there for a being so far removed from the universe?