Who Created God?

[Dan4reason]

Many religious people like to claim that an all-powerful creator is the only explanation of this universe. This universe seems so complex, how could it have arisen by chance forces? Theists try to say that the only explanation is God.

Atheist Richard Dawkins points out that if there was a guy who created the universe in all his complexity, then one must explain the existence of such a person. Religious people have looked at the universe and made up an explanation for the universe which is unproven, God. God is not proven because we have not been able to observe him in any way. God simply is used to explain complexity. It can be argued that all sorts of things can be used to explain this universe.

Dawkins points out that this explanation is lacking an explanation itself. God is a bad explanation because he does not explain that which is real. God in all his complexity may be able to explain the universe but we need something to explain him. So what do you think of Dawkin's one-liner?

 

[papi_rico]

Sounds like good logic to me.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[whereismynotecard]

The answer would be, if I believed in God, this: "I don't know, but that doesn't disprove God." The fact of the matter is, no matter if you are theist or not, there's always going to be some stuff that you just don't know. There's a lot of "I don't knows" in atheism too. That's life. It's a good question, but there's not an answer. Not even a fake made up one, unless you're really crazy...

 

[Willamena]

This universe is so complex, how could it have arisen except from our imaginations?

I cite daytime soap operas as my proof.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Life, which is very much in us, is what we actually are - is what all existence is. Our body is just a medium for life to express itself variously. The essence of knowledge is to experience life as unity in diversity and diversity in unity. The belief that God created everything is a choice of words to mean the oneness of existence. But when God is separated from his so-called creation, spiritual self-discovery is stunted and in its place we have the discourse of loyalty, reward and punishment. It is this separation that is the root cause of violence in the name of religion.

 

[Sunstone]

What if god is an emergent property of the universe?

 

[Riverwolf]

The thing about the "what created God" argument is that it's really just a response to one God-concept: that of the separate Creator-King of the world who is often used to explain the complexity of the universe. Therefore, while it is a good question (and I doubt Dawkins was the first to put it forth), it hardly disproves God; all it does is expose a logical fallacy that attempts to "prove" God.

 

[Dan4reason]

You cannot disprove all Gods. It is hard to disprove most possible Gods. All atheists can do is show that it is less likely that some Gods exist. There may very well be a God, I don't know. I am not the expert on the universe. However, I see no good evidence for the existence of God. Some Christians do not think they can prove God, but think that God is a good explanation for this universe. Dawkin's argument seems to destroy the explanatory power of God. Some religious people like to claim that they believe because of faith. There is no way to know whether faith will lead one to the truth. So, in my opinion, religious explanations are stuck right there. Without good proof, you cannot go anywhere.

 

[whereismynotecard]

That's what faith is though, believing something without proof. There doesn't have to be proof for you to believe in something. It helps though.

 

[Willamena]

Me. It was me. I admit it.

 

[Corkscrew]

If God created the universe, then he obviously existed in a reality prior to our own. Why would we assume that reality is just like ours? In that reality, it may make absolutely no sense to ask who created God. I’m not saying that there is or isn’t a God; I’m just saying that we are applying our own measuring sticks to a reality that might not use them.

 

[McBell]

If God created the universe, then he obviously existed in a reality prior to our own. Why would we assume that reality is just like ours? In that reality, it may make absolutely no sense to ask who created God. I’m not saying that there is or isn’t a God; I’m just saying that we are applying our own measuring sticks to a reality that might not use them.

Um...
Why would we assume that god even existed in the first place?

 

[Runlikethewind]

...if there was a guy who created the universe in all his complexity, then one must explain the existence of such a person.

It all depends on how one defines God. When defining God as a guy or a person, it seems reasonable to ask where such a guy or person came from. If we look at God more along the lines of K.Venugopal earlier post then such a question begins to loose its strength.

When we really begin to investigate this idea of God then we can begin to grasp an understanding of the concept that makes such an argument irrelevant. For example, if we take the concept: "God is existence", then it makes no sense to ask where God got existence since God is existence. Does that make it true? Not necessarily. But it does make it possible for God to be creator of all without having need of an explanation for God's own existence.

 

[McBell]

But it does make it possible for God to be creator of all without having need of an explanation for God's own existence.

Seems to me that believers in god do not need an explanation for gods existence

 

[tarasan]

Many religious people like to claim that an all-powerful creator is the only explanation of this universe. This universe seems so complex, how could it have arisen by chance forces? Theists try to say that the only explanation is God.

Atheist Richard Dawkins points out that if there was a guy who created the universe in all his complexity, then one must explain the existence of such a person. Religious people have looked at the universe and made up an explanation for the universe which is unproven, God. God is not proven because we have not been able to observe him in any way. God simply is used to explain complexity. It can be argued that all sorts of things can be used to explain this universe.

Dawkins points out that this explanation is lacking an explanation itself. God is a bad explanation because he does not explain that which is real. God in all his complexity may be able to explain the universe but we need something to explain him. So what do you think of Dawkin's one-liner?

I think William Lane Craig is right when he states that you dont need an explanation for an explanation, his reasoning that a good explanation doesnt require an explanation of itself, as it would destroy science, constantly demanding an explanation for another explanation to be acceptable, it would lead to an infinite regress where is would be impossible to affirm anything.

 

[McBell]

I think William Lane Craig is right when he states that you dont need an explanation for an explanation, his reasoning that a good explanation doesnt require an explanation of itself, as it would destroy science, constantly demanding an explanation for another explanation to be acceptable, it would lead to an infinite regress where is would be impossible to affirm anything.

it would "destroy science"?
Are you serious?


Wow

 

[Copernicus]

I think William Lane Craig is right when he states that you dont need an explanation for an explanation...

Great idea. My explanation of God is that people just made him up. No need to elaborate further.

 

[tarasan]

Great idea. My explanation of God is that people just made him up. No need to elaborate further.

Dawkins made that statement about such arguements like the kalam cosmilogical arguement and what not, Craig said that with such arguements we didnt need to know what happened to God as so long as it is a good explanation you dont need an explanation.

 

[tarasan]

it would "destroy science"?
Are you serious?


Wow

think about it you couldnt accept anything, until you give an explanation of that thing, then the explanation of that and that and that until your approaching inifinity or you run out of explanations.

with that you never being able to say we have the best explanation, you would never to able to saying anything with certainty for example gravity, evolution etc.