Does Our Creator Have A Creator Itself?

[Answer]

i've just recently found out about this board, and i think that Michio Kaku is a genius, and i just thought i'd register and try to get active. I'm only 15 though, so bare with me because I am not as smart as some of these people here who are college students, but anyways, i was just wondering..when people say that everything had to come from somewhere (assumed to be god) than where did god come from? he couldn't have created himself? so is it possible for our own god to have a god himself, or is it like a never ending chain of gods?? It's just confusing for me, give me your opinions.

 

[arildno]

Would you really BARE yourself in my company? ()
As to your question, don't you find it lays bare the inadequacy of the "God hypothesis" as an explanation to everything?

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Would you really BARE yourself in my company? ()

i heard the norwegians anyway bare themselves in the lakes there in norway, so perhaps it's a custom in your land.

 

[saviourmachine]

when people say that everything had to come from somewhere (assumed to be god) than where did god come from?

An opponent would say: 1) Not everything has a cause. 2) God's definition is such that it doesn't need a cause. I'd like to agree with 1) but it's difficult issue. And about 2): the nature of these 'supernatural' phenomena is such that it doesn't need 'natural reasons', but supernatural ones suffice. IMHO the supernatural and the non-existing do have much in common.

 

[fizzzzzzzzzzzy]

If God was created, he would by definition, not be God.

 

[StatusX]

the important point is, there's no need for a god. its superfluous. if you say that god is supernatural, and therefore does not need a creator, then why not just say the universe is supernatural, and it created itself? I am not saying i know there's no god, I am saying it doesn't help explain anything.

 

[olde drunk]

our god, creator, may not know any better than we, whether or not s/he/it has a creator.

who knows, we may have spawned (created) infinite universes with our thoughts.? our thoughts are energy and energy creates worlds, ?

just typing out loud.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Canute]

Lol, I like the idea of "typing out loud".

Alfred North Whitehead called Christianity a "religion in search of a netaphysic". I suspect that what he meant was exactly the God problem. Postulating a creator God doesn't in itself solve the creation problem, it just moves it back by a step.

 

[PIT2]

I would think that in the domain where time and space do not exist, there is no need for a first cause anymore.

 

[StatusX]

The question "why does god exist?" is not a trivial one, as some would have you think. Sure, you can say "it's beyond our understanding," and that's probably true. But you have to understand, that doesn't answer the question, and it doesn't help us understand why we're here.

 

[Vega]

What does it mean to say something is a god? For religions that believe in many gods, it seems that being a very mighty being who exists in a supernatural realm is enough to qualify. For religions that believe in one god, then only the supernatural being that created everything qualifies to be considered a god.

If you were created by a lesser god, then would you consider that it deserves worship for being your creator, or would only the ultimate being who created it qualify? What if the creator wasn't an intelligent being, would it then still deserve worship?

 

[Sariaht]

God has obviously tried to create superior beings like himself, wouldn't you say? he created beings called angels that were both good and bad to help God but only some did.

God obviously needs to evolve, or else he might die and some of his angels might take over.

 

[selfAdjoint]

God has obviously tried to create superior beings like himself, wouldn't you say? he created beings called angels that were both good and bad to help God but only some did.

God obviously needs to evolve, or else he might die and some of his angels might take over.

This seems to get us back to the squabbling, inept gods of the Iliad and the Goetterdemmerung.

 

[Jeebus]

This seems to get us back to the squabbling, inept gods of the Iliad and the Goetterdemmerung.

Too much nonsense to me.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

i've just recently found out about this board, and i think that Michio Kaku is a genius, and i just thought i'd register and try to get active. I'm only 15 though, so bare with me because I am not as smart as some of these people here who are college students

age doesn't really have too much to do with being smart...dont worry about it. I'm only 18 and i actively participate in these things too. ...so welcome

 

[abitofnothingleft]

God has obviously tried to create superior beings like himself, wouldn't you say? he created beings called angels that were both good and bad to help God but only some did.

God obviously needs to evolve, or else he might die and some of his angels might take over.

wow...i don't even believe in god but don't you believe that god has always been there? from the beginning of time? and if so...isnt he eternal and cannot die?

 

[Sariaht]

Mythically God created the world in only six days in the beginning of time for them who exist in this world so he must have used a motive for this masterpiece. Other worlds must have allready existed. I don't know if god has always been there or if he will always exist. Perhaps there are other worlds with other gods etc.

 

[harvey1]

God makes sense, a causeless universe does not

the important point is, there's no need for a god. its superfluous. if you say that god is supernatural, and therefore does not need a creator, then why not just say the universe is supernatural, and it created itself? I am not saying i know there's no god, I am saying it doesn't help explain anything.

A material universe is by definition causeless since its existence is dependent on brute fact. A self-creating universe is no exception since an infinite time ago the universe still existed, hence it never was created, it just always existed - therefore, even a self-creating universe existed without cause. This means that there exists an infinite collection of 'past moments' that were uncaused, which contradicts our notion of causation as being something that is linked to the previous actions (and not something that always existed). Thus, a material universe without God is non-sensical.

A logical-based universe is quite another story. In this case, there are logico-mathematical laws that require there to be a universe, and the 'cause' of every event is based on a holistic account of matter, energy, and physical law (i.e., metaphysical laws) that provide a causative account for every event in the universe.

Since any logico-mathematical law is a deduction from its axioms, the axioms are 'true'. If something is inherently 'true', this requires there to be a conceptual structure that provides meaning to the term 'true'. This meaning of truth requires for their to be intelligence and consciousness since axiomatic truths are language based, and language requires intelligence and consciousness to exist. Therefore, God is synonymous with the existing of truth (and logic).

 

[Dovekie]

I think our supposed "creator" was created by those he supposedly "created", that is, the Almighty is just a Godly figure that man dreamt up to cure his insecurities.

 

[harvey1]

I think our supposed "creator" was created by those he supposedly "created", that is, the Almighty is just a Godly figure that man dreamt up to cure his insecurities.

No, that's not correct.

 

[Sariaht]

"the Almighty is just a Godly figure that man dreamt up to cure his insecurities"

Dreams is weird stuff. How come we can have dreams? Perhaps because some sort of beings gives us dream, perhaps talks through dreams.

 

[Entheos]

No, that's not correct.

How do you know?

My advice to everyone on this subject. You cannot purpote to know what God thinks and why he/she/it does things, if indeed he/she/it exists.

If you truly want to find God, there is only one place you will ever be able to do this. And that is within yourself. Unless you have found God here, you have not found God at all. But I admit I could be wrong, but my heart tells me I'm right. Yours should too.

 

[RAD4921]

The chicken or the egg?

This paradox is caused by linear thinking which is the way us humans think, no wat around it.

 

[harvey1]

How do you know?

My advice to everyone on this subject. You cannot purpote to know what God thinks and why he/she/it does things, if indeed he/she/it exists.

If you truly want to find God, there is only one place you will ever be able to do this. And that is within yourself. Unless you have found God here, you have not found God at all. But I admit I could be wrong, but my heart tells me I'm right. Yours should too.

How do I know? It's really pretty straightforward reasoning. If there is such a thing as 'truth' existing, then such a thing requires for intelligence to exist, and therefore God is not a mere invention. On the other hand, if there is no 'truth' that exists, then that in itself is a 'truth', which requires for God to exist. Either way, God exists.

 

[CeeAnne]

Logically speaking, god is an assumption. Most religion is based on the assumption that god exists.

The most irrational thought makes perfect sense to its thinker. - French Proverb - (I hope it's French, I know it's a proverb)

 

[StatusX]

A material universe is by definition causeless since its existence is dependent on brute fact.

I don't understand what youre saying here. Please explain it more clearly.

A self-creating universe is no exception since an infinite time ago the universe still existed, hence it never was created, it just always existed - therefore, even a self-creating universe existed without cause. This means that there exists an infinite collection of 'past moments' that were uncaused, which contradicts our notion of causation as being something that is linked to the previous actions (and not something that always existed). Thus, a material universe without God is non-sensical.

You presuppose time exists outside the scope of the universe, which has no basis. It's easier to think of it as a four dimensional object, 3 of space and 1 of time, that was simply created, or popped into existence. Note that I use the past tense "created" or "popped" not because the universe was created at a specific point in time in the past, but because it is here now. It is a flaw of our language which arises because our conception of things requires something that exists now to have been created in the past. This logic is misleading when applied to the universe, since every object we can conceive exists and interacts completely within it.

Since any logico-mathematical law is a deduction from its axioms, the axioms are 'true'. If something is inherently 'true', this requires there to be a conceptual structure that provides meaning to the term 'true'. This meaning of truth requires for their to be intelligence and consciousness since axiomatic truths are language based, and language requires intelligence and consciousness to exist. Therefore, God is synonymous with the existing of truth (and logic).

There are no "true" laws of physics. We assume laws are true because they have always turned out to be verified by experiment, but this does not constitute a logical proof. Your assumption that truth requires consciousness is again presupposing your conclusion there is a god. It is logically possible for a universe to exist where there are truths (eg., gravity is an attractive force) but not conscious beings or gods to derive and appreciate them. If you disagree with this, please explain your reasoning instead of just reciting your opinion.

 

[Brad Barron]

From your statement, it sounds as if you're calling god a biological being. I don't believe god is a biological being, but something beyond our comprehension.

Before pondering on the topic of god being created, you need to gather all of your beliefs and filter them with logic.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Logically speaking, god is an assumption. Most religion is based on the assumption that god exists.

Without in-depth research into what is behind the claims about God, it is also an assumption to say God is only an assumption. (Hint: religion is not the best place to look for what might make sense about the idea of God.)

 

[bross7]

If God had a creator and was still considered God, then would that not make something as simple as a mother giving birth the God of the offspring.

The question would then have to be asked does the creator of the creator have a creator and the creator's, creator's, creator's, creater, etc.

Nobody knows who/what God truly is, and as far as I am concerned the path that religion takes is misconstrued and molded to best serve their needs. To say that religions have not benefitted from the concept of a single Father to every being would be quite the understatement.

If God is a biological being then it is quite possible that It has a creator. But for all we know God could just be the son/daughter/whatever of some other creator and there may be many Universes similar to our own that are "watched" by one of these creators.
If God is not a biological being, It still could be created but it may not actually be a "living" thing.

On the other hand the concept of God may just be created by humans themselves as an answer to all of life's problems. Understanding is a driving force in the human race and God definitely simplifies the ability to understand when concepts are all delegated to an all-powerful being.

 

[Sariaht]

If the universe is in caos which i cannot prove (but it's possible if there is an ether), the intelligence of the beings in the universe should be constant. Life should be pointless kind of and gods should come and go but if they create each other i don't know! I wouldn't think so.

 

[CeeAnne]

Religionists support the religion. At best, god is a pseudoscience. In a addition to pseudoscience having the uncanny ability to explain everything, the difference between a science and pseudoscience is that scientific statements can be proved wrong and pseudoscientific statements cannot. By this definition, you will find that a surprising number of seemingly scientific assertions - perhaps even many in which you devoutly believe - are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly this is not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of them may be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to claim the cast-iron assurance and reliance that you can have, and place, in scientific facts.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Religionists support the religion. At best, god is a pseudoscience. In a addition to pseudoscience having the uncanny ability to explain everything, the difference between a science and pseudoscience is that scientific statements can be proved wrong and pseudoscientific statements cannot. By this definition, you will find that a surprising number of seemingly scientific assertions - perhaps even many in which you devoutly believe - are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly this is not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of them may be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to claim the cast-iron assurance and reliance that you can have, and place, in scientific facts.

I don't know if you are responding to my comment to you, but this response assumes you are.

You are right to say religionists support religion; I assume when you say "god is a pseudoscience" you mean that some of the explanations the religious sometimes give have elements of science woven into non-scientific beliefs. I have heard a lot of that, and little of it makes sense.

However not all opinions about God are equal. What people do is look at religions and think that is all there is to the claim (that God exists), but it isn't. Personally I have no use for religion, and never have. But I became interested in if there were any experiences that people have had which could be a logical basis for thinking there is, let's say, "something more" (i.e., like some sort of consciousness that's part of the universe?), which is less apparent than the physcial world which we've become so adept at studying.

You might not realize it but your statement about pseudoscience contains an epistomological assumption about what produces knowledge. You seem to imply that only science reveals reality to us, and in philosophy that belief is sometimes referred to as scientism.

Now, what makes science work? It is the requirement that sense data confirm one's hypotheses. Without sense experience, science would be just another speculative philosophy. The senses are "avenues" linking the extenal world to internal consciousness where experience occurs. While the senses provide information, it is experience that causes knowing. Further, if experience is internal, almost like the "heart" of consciousness, we can conclude that senses and experience are two different things (sensory deprivation devices seem to confirm this).

Okay, here's where it gets interesting. There is a 3000 year old history of people who have practiced withdrawing from the senses to experience pure consciousness. Some, like the Buddha, seemed to have achieved a new ability with consciousness called enlightenment, and part of that new ability was the perception of "something more." I've studied the history of the enlightenment experience extensively, and I am convinced it is the main origin of the God concept that inspired the major religions. I emphasized "main" because there obviously have been superstitious concepts of "gods," and lots of other imagined stuff.

My point is, it is not a valid assumption, at least before you look at the evidence I've described, that science is the ONLY avenue to knowledge. Senses are used in science, and that is why science is only good for studying external reality. If that inner experience is what it takes to find out if there is "something more," then plainly science isn't going to tell us anything about it. And if inner experience is what it takes to see why people have said there is a God, then anyone wanting to fairly evaluate their claims is going to have to develop that skill.

 

[harvey1]

Religionists support the religion. At best, god is a pseudoscience. In a addition to pseudoscience having the uncanny ability to explain everything, the difference between a science and pseudoscience is that scientific statements can be proved wrong and pseudoscientific statements cannot. By this definition, you will find that a surprising number of seemingly scientific assertions - perhaps even many in which you devoutly believe - are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly this is not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of them may be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to claim the cast-iron assurance and reliance that you can have, and place, in scientific facts.

No, this is incorrect. Religionists for the most part do not think they are engaging in science with their advocating the necessity of God. Science is, strictly speaking, a methodological approach to providing knowledge about the world that is pragmatically successful in manipulating and understanding natural phenomena. Scientific theories may or may not be 'true', but regardless, the main justification is not truth or approximate truth, their main justification is their usefulness in prediction and coherent explanations about the phenomena in question.

Religionists take a step back from trying to explain natural phenomena, and instead, the questions are much more philosophical in nature. For example, is there meaning to our lives? Can humans live beyond death? Is there a purpose for the universe? Is the universe designed for life? Is there a designer?

True, religionists take definite stances on these issues, but it is not a scientific stance (for the most part). Science cannot answer these questions because there are no observables to make any theoretical predictions about them. So, any attempt to answer these questions is neither scientific or pseudoscientific, they are merely unscientific.

But, there's nothing wrong with religionists to pursue these issues, since science is mainly a methodology based on its own philosophical justifications. To say that religionists are not entitled to justify their beliefs with philosophical justifications is not much different than saying that science is also not justified in making its own philosophical justifications. To be rational, a religionist can make a argument that is philosophical in nature as long as they make it rationally. This is why science is really outside the scope of religion (for the most part), and religion is outside the scope of science (for the most part). If either strays into the other domain, then religion must choose to make a scientific argument (or be made a pseudoscience - eg special creationism), or science must choose to make a philosophical argument (which as another poster mentioned, is no longer science per se, but is scientism, materialism, etc).

 

[harvey1]

A material universe is by definition causeless since its existence is dependent on brute fact.

I don't understand what youre saying here. Please explain it more clearly.

.

I should say, a materialist view of the universe is by definition causeless since material things exist without there being an explanation for a material universe.

A self-creating universe is no exception since an infinite time ago the universe still existed, hence it never was created, it just always existed - therefore, even a self-creating universe existed without cause. This means that there exists an infinite collection of 'past moments' that were uncaused, which contradicts our notion of causation as being something that is linked to the previous actions (and not something that always existed). Thus, a material universe without God is non-sensical.

You presuppose time exists outside the scope of the universe, which has no basis. It's easier to think of it as a four dimensional object, 3 of space and 1 of time, that was simply created, or popped into existence. Note that I use the past tense "created" or "popped" not because the universe was created at a specific point in time in the past, but because it is here now. It is a flaw of our language which arises because our conception of things requires something that exists now to have been created in the past. This logic is misleading when applied to the universe, since every object we can conceive exists and interacts completely within it.

Okay, let's view our universe as 3+1 dimensional object. The 3+1 dimensional object exists without cause. Each event in that 3+1 dimensional object is causeless (since the object as a whole exists without a cause, each individual component of that object exists without a cause). This contradicts the appearance of causation present in our universe and its history. For example, your post is 'causeless' (i.e., not connected to what happen before since there is no 'before' in a 3+1 self-existing object), and my posting this reply to your post is also 'causeless' for the same reason. This contradicts the obvious fact that you posted because you were posting a reply to my post, and I am posting this because of your reply. If the universe were a causeless 3+1 dimensional object, then you would not expect such a thing.

Since any logico-mathematical law is a deduction from its axioms, the axioms are 'true'. If something is inherently 'true', this requires there to be a conceptual structure that provides meaning to the term 'true'. This meaning of truth requires for their to be intelligence and consciousness since axiomatic truths are language based, and language requires intelligence and consciousness to exist. Therefore, God is synonymous with the existing of truth (and logic).

There are no "true" laws of physics. We assume laws are true because they have always turned out to be verified by experiment, but this does not constitute a logical proof.

There are laws of physics that are possibly 'true' (i.e., they are dependent on there being some inherent truths to the Universe). For example, there is work in the foundations of physics (e.g., symmetry) that show how the laws of physics can be derived from a simple set of assumptions. These approaches don't prove that the laws of physics are true, but they show a relationship exists between complex laws of physical phenomena, simple assumptions that these foundation attempts demonstrate. So, it is not as simple as having a whole collection of physical descriptions and on some whim saying that there is something 'true' that underlies these descriptions. It's much more than that. Due to the philosophical nature of such attempts, it's probably not possible to ever conclude this issue. There will always exist a philosophical argument which can open the door.

Your assumption that truth requires consciousness is again presupposing your conclusion there is a god. It is logically possible for a universe to exist where there are truths (eg., gravity is an attractive force) but not conscious beings or gods to derive and appreciate them. If you disagree with this, please explain your reasoning instead of just reciting your opinion.

How does supposing there is truth that exists presume a God exists? I suppose truth exists because it is difficult to eliminate this possibility, and the other possibility (i.e., no truth exists, just matter in some primitive composition of it), presents real difficulties with regard to the causal history of our universe (as mentioned above). Truth, as we understand it, is language based, and therefore truth requires comprehension. If truth exists, it would appear that comprehension does as well (i.e., Mind exists). Hence, God.

As for your argument that you can have truths without comprehension, I think you are ignoring the full implication of truth having an ontological existence. Yes, "gravity is an attractive force" might be 'true', but this is not necessarily an ontologically existing truth. For example, "all birds that landed on my yard today are blue" is not necessary an ontological truth of the Universe. It might be that the next bird that lands on my yard is red.

When you talk about ontological truth, this is an entirely different issue. You have to ask what makes a particular ontological truth a truth of the Universe. To this you have to look for the correlation between the ontological statement and the state of affairs that exist (or possibly can exist), and that's the aspect of ontological truth that requires for there to be Mind. Mind must exist to equate a statement with a state of affairs (or possible state of affairs). If no such mind exists, then you cannot say there is a relationship between the ontological statement and state of affairs, in which case you cannot have an ontological truth.

As I alluded to above, an ontological truth becomes necessary to consider when we ask the foundation questions of our universe. If causality exists, then it does so because of some logico-causal order to the world, and this implies ontological truth. If you can dismiss causality as a mirage, then perhaps you can dismiss ontological truth as a fantasy, but then you run into all the problems that a causal world can provide a straightforward solution (e.g., why you disagree with my posts).

 

[CeeAnne]

Gosh, you know, there's a awful lot of noise in that which we term mind. Mind, like life and weather is an emergent system. The brain seems a sort of processor with parallel input and lots of internal interaction or feedback. I view the feedback as the control mechanism and the associated feedback delay as consciousness. It seems to function somewhat and seems very cause-and-effect. I like that in a brain. Pretty much all it knows is right there. It doesn't receive strange messages from faroff people or places and politely doesn't broadcast them. It doesn't come up with valid answers to the universe out of the blue. It's mostly hormonally motivated and consequently a complete mess logically. So, when it develops nice little filters like physics and maths which help determine what really is and help to somewhat organise its self-awareness and perception of the surroundings, this brain likes that and wants more. The god and higher levels concepts are filters, too, I suppose, and although they probably work similarly, I'll take the maths.