Who made God?

None of the arguments forwarded by philosophical naturalism —
(1) the universe is merely an illusion; (2) the universe sprang from
nothing; (3) the universe eternally existed — satisfactorily account
for the existence of the universe. Logically, we can turn only to the
possibility that “God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis
1:1). If that’s the case, however, it immediately brings up the question
— Who made God?
First, unlike the universe, which according to modern science had
a beginning, God is infinite and eternal. Thus, as an infinite eternal
being, God logically can be demonstrated to be the uncaused First
Cause.
Furthermore, to suppose that because the universe had a cause, the
cause of the universe must have had a cause simply leads to a logical
dead end. An infinite regression of finite causes does not answer the
question of source; it merely makes the effects more numerous.
Finally, simple logic dictates that the universe is not merely an
illusion; it did not spring out of nothing (nothing comes from
nothing, nothing ever could); and it has not eternally existed (the
law of entropy predicts that a universe that has eternally existed
would have died an “eternity ago” of heat loss). Thus, the only
philosophically plausible possibility that remains is that the universe
was made by an unmade Cause greater than itself.

“Before the mountains were born
or you brought forth the earth
and the world, from everlasting to
everlasting you are God.”
(Psalm 90:2)

from www.equip.org

Broadway writes:
Logically, we can turn only to the possibility that "God created the heavens and the earth"

Logically? LOL!!!!!

Andrew

To borrow a phrase from Fox News;

Some would say
Man created God as a way to explain what is not understood.

Hey, let's entertain it!

Well, there are lots of other possibilities, besides those core three. My favorite is

(4) - This universe is an artifact of interactions between phenomena of a higher order.

Simply put, we are aware of 4 dimensions only. The idea of there being higher order spaces is plausible. There are beings in this space, meaning the idea of higher order beings is plausible as well.

My point being to rebut: [Logically, we can turn only to the
possibility that “God created the heavens and the earth”]

Not so. For that statement to be viable, we have to demonstrate the elements used to support it are inclusive; otherwise, the word "only" makes it false. If we get rid of the word "only" in the above, we are left with the idea that there is a God being plausible. With that comes multiple Gods, and or no God too.

Result = We just don't know, so it's a choice each of us gets to make. Additionally, it may not be possible to know, given the above.

This also takes 1.1 off the table, leaving the rest of the content a matter of idle conjecture.

Believing God created the heavens and the earth is actually the most illogical conclusion one can come to. That notion is based entirely on belief and faith rather than any sort of concrete evidence. As we delve further and further into space exploration we're constantly discovering new galaxies and planet formations that mirror our very own. Given the possible existence of planetary systems that are constructed similarly to our own, to think our universe was solely created by a supreme being with a manlike image is naive and, as Spock might say, highly illogical.

Too big to get my brain around this one. But for anyone to claim he or she knows the answer, I say you must be the SMARTEST person on Earth.

The good news is God is about the only thing not made in China.

God is the name the scared gave to explain the Big Bang. Hmm?

"Thus, as an infinite eternal
being, God logically can be demonstrated to be the uncaused First
Cause."

So demonstrate, big fella. Your next paragraph, to have any relevance and fidelity, depends on such a demonstration. You can not infer the next paragraph, "therefore," as the basis. First you must separately demonstrate and confirm your hypothesis and then you may extrapolate a conclusion. (You can't claim, e.g. that "2+2=4" and then substitute in another equation. First, you must prove it.)


"Furthermore, to suppose that because the universe had a cause, the
cause of the universe must have had a cause simply leads to a logical
dead end. An infinite regression of finite causes does not answer the
question of source; it merely makes the effects more numerous.

Doublespeak of dubious meaning. see Cause-effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

"Finally, simple logic dictates that the universe is not merely an
illusion;

Define "simple logic."

it did not spring out of nothing (nothing comes from
nothing, nothing ever could);

Now you're contradicting yourself. Nothing is everything. ergo, nothing comes from something.

and it has not eternally existed (the
law of entropy predicts that a universe that has eternally existed
would have died an “eternity ago” of heat loss). Thus, the only
philosophically plausible possibility that remains is that the universe
was made by an unmade Cause greater than itself. "

You just flunked thermodynamics, bubba.

So, Broadway, who made God?

Broadway, I read that post more than a few times. Let me just ask you plainly; Do you understand it? I mean, most of the time when you post things, and then you get a response, you usually come back with " Good grief. I'm just a simple Christian trying to do the Lord's work." But that post has a loopy logic too it that uses big words, but connects them in a way that I just do not follow at all.

And frankly, if Andy Brown can pick this apart in his sleep like that, I know it's probably over my head anyway.

Still though, I ask; Do you understand what is being said in your own post?

"None of the arguments forwarded by philosophical naturalism...satisfactorily account
for the existence of the universe."

Whoa, you need to stop right there. That's a HUGE assertion to make. What makes these arguments "unsatisfying"? Is it because they don't give you warm fuzzies? Is it because they fail logically, or contradict currently known evidence? It sounds like you are attempting to do some deep philosophical work, but you have skipped over some major stuff.

Frankly, it's been kind of nice lately with the religious talk going away for the most part. And there's a big reason for that.

"the law of entropy"

In the distant future, the entire universe will die from "heat death." I'm a bit surprised the nutty wingnuts on the right haven't used this scientific fact to slam Earth first folks!

Hank Hanegraaff who wrote the above article is a noted theologion/apologist/radio host.

http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2548383/k.8D97/Hank_Hanegraaff.htm

Don't claim have near the same intellectual prowess as he does but many of you think/communicated on these levels so thought you'd enjoy his take on the question.

No offense, but the Hank Hanegraaff quote above sounds like a bunch of scientific buzz words thrown together. I don't see this as being much different than when marketing types come out and repeat the same talking points about why some new product is so great because it is "digital," not even knowing what the term means. I would like to see Hanegraaff actually perform some scientific work to prove his claims. The Hanegraaff quote that started this thread just says, in a roundabout way, turn to the Bible for the final answer.

"We are solidly on track in rolling out our *entropy* installation plan, which continues to strengthen our long-term growth potential..."

Oh no, it's an incremental entropy, fully organic implementation plan, with stage gate value recovery.

The non-organic plans, emphasize long-term growth because they have little to no short-term growth and carry a lot of risk.

The organic plan delivers it's value at each growth stage for short-term, mid-term, and long-term growth. It's growth all the time!

..remember THIS:

GOD spelled backwards...is DOG

Wow!!!!!!!!!!! now i feel the need for a tab of windowpane

Who made God?

Man, in an attempt to symbolically represent their irrational fear of things rational.

And that, Broadway, is Nietzsche. It would do you good to read some of his work sometime.

OK:

which came first?

..the chicken or the egg?

The Rooster!

>>irrational fear

The "fear" of death and the afterlife is irrational?

>>the chicken or the egg?

God made both but probably the chicken when He created all animals.

>>Nietzsche

No need/want to learn more about a Godless man.

Why?

Threatened maybe?

Yep. Anything that invalidates your view is easily handled by just burying your head in the sand.

His mommy.

"The "fear" of death and the afterlife is irrational?"

Yes. Last I heard, *scratches head*...about 10 out of every 10 people born on this Earth will, in fact, die at some point in their life. It will eventually happen to YOU, Broadway. Could be within the next five seconds, could be next week, could be thirty years from now for all I know or really even care.

Why should I fear an afterlife? If it will make you satisfied Broadway (and I know full well it won't, but I will say it anyways, regardless) I am planning to be buried next to my Grandparents and we had/have an excellent relationship (considering instabilities throughout the rest of my family, the details of which I am *not* getting into here, so don't even bother asking) so I will be in very good company. Nothing for me to "fear" there.

">>Nietzsche

No need/want to learn more about a Godless man."

And this one line speaks volumes about your obvious narrow-mindedness Broadway.

I studied Nietzschean philosophy (and Platoan....I fell asleep through most of that tho! ;o) when I was in college and it affected me tremendously. And I believe that is why few people even try to pursue that kind of stuff nowdays: it makes you think. People are afraid of that. People would rather have their thoughts spoon-fed to them via Capitol Hill, TBN, The 700 Club, TMZ, Fox Noise, etc.

But that (like all the rest of this post) is just my personal belief......................

Okay, I am going to "come out" now: Born Catholic, raised Mormon, worshipped Lutheran. Received a *huge load* of conflicting values and ideologies throughout the first twenty years of my development. Finally decided I needed to give up on religion altogether a couple of years ago whilst attending a performance of "Streetcar Named Desire" with my now ex-GF @ the Schnitz. Because that is when the following questions just suddenly hit me: what is this God I keep hearing about, why do I need to worship It and what has It done for my life? Answers that hit me: something created by Man a really long time ago to substantiate things they couldn't logically understand, because my Family essentially made me through what is essentially brainwashing, nothing really, and 42.

That and I really couldn't take the hypocrisy any longer.

I will say openly and outright that that was possibly the first moment in my life thus far, in which I have felt truly liberated. The next moment of true liberation, of course, occured when we broke up. Remember: herbivores and carnivores do NOT mix. Kinda' like oil and water.

(And as for the CJCLDS and its member Mormons: I have my reservations about all that too. E mail me if you want all the bloody little details.)

Yes, I know my family (specifically my parents) still haven't forgiven me for denouncing mytheir faith(s). But then again our parents-child relationship went sour ages upon ages ago. Didn't have much to lose there.

(You know how on that TV show "Malcolm In The Middle", how Francis is always having a row about something with Lois? That is how I get along with Father. VERY sad but very true.)

And the hypocrisy I mentioned above: Why is it that Christianity teaches its followers to love all our fellow inhabitants of this Earth, yet denounces all other religions as somehow being inherently evil?

A good example of this can be seen in the seemingly never-ending "pissed-off-right-wing-trailer-trash-old-white-man-GOP-conservative-Christian-pu ndit-fearmongers-and-whatever-other-descriptive-epithets-you-can-come-up-with versus practically-every-single-Muslim-living-in-the-United-States-or-so-it-seems-being -branded-a-terrorist-even-if-they-have-never-committed-a-single-act-of-terror-in -their-life-simply-because-some-extremist-assholes-gave-Islam-a-bad-name-several -years-ago-and-their-religious-views-are-a-bit-different-than-others" debacle that's been kicking around the news for what now seems like, forever. It appears to me to be very self-counterdicting in that regard.

Nope, no more of that for me.

Moto, we have a LOT in common!

IMHO, a solid review of the great philosophers should be required high school education.

I'm just starting on those now. Turned 40 this year and should have done it way sooner. It does make you think! Hardly a waste of time either. Until very recently, I've not consumed any of their works. Absolutely would have arrived at some things far quicker had I done so.

Oh well, the journey has been good.

One way to discover just what it is you believe is to consider the beliefs of others. In fact, I am prepared to go out on a limb and say that a belief held, without this exercise, is just obedience, not true and just conviction.

And that position is exactly why I have no problem discussing religion, and it is also, combined wit own terrible 20's, a sober realization as to the quality of people our founders were.

It's not possible to underappreciate the gift they gave us, in this respect.

Moto,

I've always been where you have arrived recently. Never raised in the church, always respectful of them and their members, but couldn't buy they premises the put forth for their belief systems.

Since I have never been "burned" by religion, I tend to have a great respect for those who are still staunch believers. I like to describe belief and faith as the 'operating system' for the soul. Everyone has to put what they see, hear, and think into context. Some, by upbringing, habit or choice, decide to use belief and faith in God(s) as their way of viewing the world. Others, as you seem to have done, can step away from those dogmatic structures and view the world much more critically, rationally, fully, and truthfully.

The cool thing in that my world view makes perfect sense to me up, down, and sideways. I've never had those nagging questions or incongruities that seem to always arise from religious belief. I'm sorry if I'm starting to sound righteous - I really try not to do that. Everyone is trying to make sense of the world - the religious, and the nonreligious. Having the "right" answer to these huge questions is ultimately unimportant. What is important is that your worldview gives you strength, stability, sanity, and helps you be the best person you can be for yourself and others during this life. My devout Mormon neighbors are the nicest people I know, and have raised a great family. If their Mormon faith helped to get them to where they are, then yay for Mormonism. Doesn't work for me, but seems great for them.

Anyhoo...nice to hear your story. If sharing here helps you resolve any lingering issues, bring it on.

>>Why is it that Christianity teaches its followers to love all our fellow inhabitants of this Earth, yet denounces all other religions as somehow being inherently evil

Not evil, just sincerely misguided...but other religions think the same/worse of Christianity

>>speaks volumes about your obvious narrow-mindedness Broadway

just not very impressed by the "wisdom" of man.

>>spoon-fed to them via Capitol Hill, TBN, The 700 Club, TMZ, Fox Noise, etc

but have a daily diet of FoxNews, Townhall.com, Drudge, CNN, conservative/christian talk radio, local paper online, and different online versions of the Bible. No TBN,700 Club...TMZ...gotta be kidding...a real sad show...

Motozak shared his experience and nailed it down. That is something that deserves respect and reflection. Broadway, to be so flippant in your response shows a lack of seriousness on your part. Studying different points of view is a fundamental part of a rounded education. A rounded education makes for an informed point of view. One does not need to agree to see that it is valid.

Any Christian without the faith to tackle Friedrich Nietzsche -- or any other philosopher -- has a problem in my book. Why are you afraid of the son of a Lutheran minister? I do not agree with everything he observed, but it is important to actually read his writings before formulating an offhand opinion of the man. A non-Christian who is unfamiliar with scripture, but rails against it, is talking out of the exact same region of their God-given ass.

Without man's wisdom, we'd be living in caves and dying of easily treatable ailments. We’d be ruled by superstition and naiveté . Wisdom is a good thing -- balanced with common sense. I mean really, should people have been put to death because they declared the Earth to be round and not flat?

A non-Christian who is unfamiliar with scripture, but rails against it, is talking out of the exact same region of their God-given ass.

I have to take issue with this. I'm not even going to bother with reading the scripture because nobody has shown any evidence that these are the words of God in the first place. I'm calling it bunk at the first step unless compelling and irrefutable evidence is provided FIRST.

I wouldn't expect anyone to read the scripture I wrote on behalf of the spagetti monster without evidence that She exists, let alone that She told me what to write in it.

Ah, but the Spaghetti Monster does exist!

>>compelling and irrefutable evidence

your existence to question God is enough for me along with the creation of a few ba-zillion stars or so.