Who created god

A thought came to mind.

If you believe God(swt) was created, who created the creator that Created God(swt)?

That could continue on ad infinitum, ad nauseum with the logical conclusion being that at some point there had to be a creator who was not created by a creator.

If one believes God(swt) exists part of that belief has to be that God(swt) is eternal without a creator, having always existed. It is an attribute that is a necessary attribute of a divine eternal God(swt)

If you believe God(swt) was created, you do not believe in God(swt)

So the only question that needs to be answered is "Does God(swt) exist"
 
Some ancient shaman believed that the earth was perched on the back of a giant turtle. Somebody asked "on what is that turtle standing" and he replied "another turtle". Then they asked "and on what is that turtle perched?" and he replied. "Its turtles all the way down".

This is an ancient quandry and one there has never been a really good answer to, much like the problem of evil. It is the proper counter-argument to the watchmaker argument.

The theist argues that a watch must need a creator. Look how complicated and wonderful it is. Surely it didn't come into existence by itself. We know just by looking at it that its wonderful and required a creator - and so too does man who is so much more complicated and wonderful. The atheist then remarks and the God you speak of is even more complex and wonderful - so he/she/it must have been created even more so.
 
Last edited:
Oh my goodness. You mean I put the same thought in two separate threads over my time here? I'm sure nobody has ever done that before. Bad me.

The paradox is created by following through on the watchmaker argument. Perhaps it shows that the watchmaker argument is flawed.
 
More dulling to the senses than anything-- it isn't a piece of information whereby repeating it adds any value to makeup for loss of web space .. be that as it may, if it weren't for aberrations by what standards do folks set the baseline for the norm?
 
Last edited:
Pygoscelis said:
The atheist then remarks and the God you speak of is even more complex and wonderful - so he/she/it must have been created even more so.
Click to expand...

That is flawed from the start...

1. To be "complex" you have to be a physical entity... God is not an object, machine, creature, substance etc etc. He does not have physical form. Therefore you can not apply that condition to him.

2. If he was created then he can not be classified as God. If he is God then he is not created. The creator can not exist within the Creation. If you say he was created that automatically disqualifies him from being God.

3. If you are willing to beleive something as absurd as:
An unknown force which existed since infinity caused the universe to come into existence... then why then is it so hard to believe that unknown force could be a conscious force which we refer to as "God".

erm... yeah thats pretty much everything I wanted to say lol.

Peace.
 
Hamayun said:
1. To be "complex" you have to be a physical entity... God is not an object, machine, creature, substance etc etc. He does not have physical form. Therefore you can not apply that condition to him.
Click to expand...

Huh? What about complex thoughts or complex personalities?
 
Trumble said:
Huh? What about complex thoughts or complex personalities?
Click to expand...

Hi trumble,
can you touch a "thought"?------- lol even with an respected intelect like you, even you should know that well beining "physical" means that you can touch it or like see it or am i mistaken? you can not touch thoughts, it is not physical.
 
Hamayun said:
That is flawed from the start...

1. To be "complex" you have to be a physical entity... God is not an object, machine, creature, substance etc etc.
Click to expand...

you have to be physical as in be able to touch it; like an object, thoughts can not be touched, can they?
 
Trumble said:
Huh? What about complex thoughts or complex personalities?
Click to expand...

Huh? :? Are your thoughts capable of creating universes?

We are clearly not on the same page here. Not in a mood to get dragged into some irrelevant banter so I will leave it alone...
 
Ali_Cena said:
Hi trumble,
can you touch a "thought"?------- lol even with an respected intelect like you, even you should know that well beining "physical" means that you can touch it or like see it or am i mistaken? you can not touch thoughts, it is not physical.
Click to expand...

I am not disputing what 'physical' means. I am disputing Hamayun's claim that for something to be complex it must be physical, specifically by the provision of counter-examples showing that claim is false.


Hamayun said:
Huh? :? Are your thoughts capable of creating universes?
Click to expand...

Physical universes, no. Complex trains of thought and even mental 'universes', perhaps. But what do my thoughts have to do with anything, I thought we were talking about God?

We are clearly not on the same page here. Not in a mood to get dragged into some irrelevant banter so I will leave it alone...
Click to expand...

As you wish.
 
Hamayun said:
That is flawed from the start...

1. To be "complex" you have to be a physical entity... God is not an object, machine, creature, substance etc etc. He does not have physical form. Therefore you can not apply that condition to him.
Click to expand...

Trumble addressed this point already and you seem to have attacked your own argument in response to him. If God doesn't have a physical form, and you need the physical to create the physical, how could he have created the universe?

2. If he was created then he can not be classified as God. If he is God then he is not created. The creator can not exist within the Creation. If you say he was created that automatically disqualifies him from being God.
Click to expand...

Semantics.

3. If you are willing to beleive something as absurd as:
An unknown force which existed since infinity caused the universe to come into existence... then why then is it so hard to believe that unknown force could be a conscious force which we refer to as "God".
Click to expand...

First, I'm not sure I do accept that an unknown force which existed since infinity caused the universe to come into existence.

Second, if we accept that, why would we assume it was concious? And if we accept it was concious, why would we accept any other claim about it? It is one thing to accept a creation force. Quite another to accept it wrote a book or wants you to worship it or not eat certain things.

Finally, none of this addresses my point, which is a counter to the creationist claim that complexity requires creation. If complexity and wonderfulness requires creation then the more complex and wonderful requires creation moreso. And something able to intelligently design an entire universe would certainly qualify as complex and wonderful.
 
lol whatsthepoint
can you touch my thought right now?
thats like saying (i presume you got a girlfriend of a partner who you like) and me saying i can touch your love---literaly, TOUCH YOUR LOVE, how can you literaly touch "love" or "thoughts" in that instance, think about it-----honestly???????? if you think you can then your just makeing an excuse to make you sound like you are right......
 
Sorry but all I see is blah blah blah... leading to a dead end where none of us will ever reach a conclusion or see eye to eye...

If it makes you happy then you are right... you can carry on beleiving that :bravo:Good for you :beard:

Toodle pip :)
 
Whatsthepoint said:
Aren't thoughts and personalities basically just neural networks, therefore physical?
Click to expand...

Only if you are a reductive materialist. I'm not; I find the suggestion that thoughts as we experience them can be directly identified as 'neural networks' or any other physical phenomenon both counter-intuitive and totally unconvincing.
 
Trumble said:
Only if you are a reductive materialist. I'm not; I find the suggestion that thoughts as we experience them can be directly identified as 'neural networks' or any other physical phenomenon both counter-intuitive and totally unconvincing.
Click to expand...

Besides that it is an elusive booger-bear that has not been found.

Quite simply if that were the case stimulating the same neurons in different people should elicit the same thought. That has not happened, You can stimulant the same neurons in different people, but the thoughts elicited will differ. Something besides neural networking is taking place.
 
Woodrow said:
Besides that it is an elusive booger-bear that has not been found.

Quite simply if that were the case stimulating the same neurons in different people should elicit the same thought. That has not happened, You can stimulant the same neurons in different people, but the thoughts elicited will differ. Something besides neural networking is taking place.
Click to expand...

There's no requirement that they should be the same neurons or even neurons at all (the phrase 'neural network' is also applied to computer implementations these days). Whatsthepoint's description doesn't rule out the possibility of multiple realizability. Even so I agree something else is taking place. It takes a lot more to prove that an apple is in fact an orange than just saying that it is!
 
Last edited:
Faisal Pervaiz said:
Thanks, Also i was telling some people that in order for life there must be billions of conditons in order for life to be maintained, and they said that there are billions are planets so there is a good chance that a planet with nesassary condtions will arrive at some point.

What do you think about this?
Click to expand...

Those people must instead think that Allahu Ta'ala tried to give human being the simplest thinking that even the dumbest people could understand that is:

Likely that Allah meant "I could create the bad planet and those which aren't deserve to be populated by organism and it is in various kinds, and I could make the planet which is worthy to be populated, and that's only 1(earth).
So I hath created the Heaven for people who want to follow the ONLY path from Me, and created the Hellfire for people who want to follow the DIVERSE paths, which is by doing so they are following Syaithan."

Allahu Ta'ala is the All Knowing so He creates things which shown His knowledge in creation and Syari'ah, and He is All Wise so He could creates things which are so easy for a retard to understand that He had sent down Islam as the way of live, through His Kalam(speech) which is Al Qur'an, and His Al Hikmah which is Al Hadits.


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.
 
Last edited:
Woodrow said:
Besides that it is an elusive booger-bear that has not been found.

Quite simply if that were the case stimulating the same neurons in different people should elicit the same thought. That has not happened, You can stimulant the same neurons in different people, but the thoughts elicited will differ. Something besides neural networking is taking place.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it is a fact, I'm saying it is a possibility.
That hasn't happened beacuse:
1. not a single person has the same brain
2. we can only stimulate certain areas of the brain, we're no way near stimulating single neurons, let alone a giant combination thereof.
If we were to find the way the human brain produces thoughts, I am confident we would be able to elicit dame thoughts in two separate individuals. That's faith though.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top