Who Created the Creator?

There is a rageing debate going on about old earthers trying to make the big bang sound more logical than the young earthers because they think we both have a problem. Young earthers look at the problem of who created the matter and the energy. The old earthers look at the matter of who created the creator.
Well there is a simple answer to that question, and it simply is that time and space is irrelivant in and for a spiritual being such as the Creator God of the Bible. It is simply mind boggling for us to think of an 'eternity' or an 'always been'. But we can only view and see our 3 dimentions (time not considered a demention) and test it, analyze it, experiment with it. We know that matter could have not always been and they just come back and say who created the creator, which is unfortunately irrelevant to what science is able to consider.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
There is a rageing debate going on about old earthers trying to make the big bang sound more logical than the young earthers because they think we both have a problem. Young earthers look at the problem of who created the matter and the energy. The old earthers look at the matter of who created the creator.
Well there is a simple answer to that question, and it simply is that time and space is irrelivant in and for a spiritual being such as the Creator God of the Bible. It is simply mind boggling for us to think of an 'eternity' or an 'always been'. But we can only view and see our 3 dimentions (time not considered a demention) and test it, analyze it, experiment with it. We know that matter could have not always been and they just come back and say who created the creator, which is unfortunately irrelevant to what science is able to consider.

---

Why does every debate you bring up "rage on" can`t any debates just proceed calmly to a logical conclusion?Of course there are those that would say given the complete lack of evidence for a creator, why bother postulating one in the first place?On a side note that should be dimension not demention, demention 9presumably something to do with demantia) is something quite different...Oh and why must mass/energy have been created ex nihilo do you have any evidence for this or is it an article of faith?You are also misunderstanding the context in which the question is asked, it is merely posed to point out that any argument of it exists thus it started therefore it had a creator can be applied to a creator as well.... A corollary to this is that any refutation for a creator holds true for mass/energy.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-19-2001]

I don't use 'rage on' in context as like in a fight or a brawl. I like to think of it as like an excitement, I look forward to seeing responses and exchanging of ideas.Why would you point to a 'lack of evidence of a creator'. A creator is a basis of faith, and should not be included in the realm of science because it is something that we cannot test to be either disprovable, or provable, so there is no evidence of anything period. Its a statement of faith on which I believe. I admit Creationism is a religion, I would just like to see Evolutionists say the same about their religious ideas.
I do mean dimension, excuse my spelling, I try to quickly post my replies and I type respectively fast.
Just like the statements that God Created it, It created itself, or its Always been there, they are ALL statements of faith. We simply don't know what happend, we don't know as fact that it was the big bang, or whatever it was prior the big bang. But when you include the supernatural then production ex nihilo isn't an argument.
Would you display your theory on what you think it was, with conclusive evidence or would you base it on your own article of faith?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Why would you point to a 'lack of evidence of a creator'. A creator is a basis of faith, and should not be included in the realm of science because it is something that we cannot test to be either disprovable, or provable, so there is no evidence of anything period.

---

I quite agree that with no evidence something cannot be studied, however I have argued against this theory that "God is above science"(see the 5 questions thread)...

quote:

---

Its a statement of faith on which I believe. I admit Creationism is a religion, I would just like to see Evolutionists say the same about their religious ideas. Just like the statements that God Created it, It created itself, or its Always been there, they are ALL statements of faith. We simply don't know what happend, we don't know as fact that it was the big bang, or whatever it was prior the big bang. But when you include the supernatural then production ex nihilo isn't an argument.

​

Would you display your theory on what you think it was, with conclusive evidence or would you base it on your own article of faith?

---

Actually being an agnostic/weak atheist (a weak atheist is someone who seeing no evidence for a God does not believe in God) I have no religious views....Oh and I never said it created itself/it was always there I merely pointed out that any argument for the creator always existing could be applied to the universe....And if you introduce the supernatural to explain away creation you really have to answer the question "with no evidence of the supernatural why include it?"...Oh and see 5 questions thread for my views (in the absence of any evidence it is incorrect to take any firm position)...

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-20-2001]

I fail to see this as a debate for neither side, it's obvious there's no such thing as a beginning. Perhaps there is a beginning to this known universe, yet can there ever really be a beginning?

God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question "Who created God?" is illogical.So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: "If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?"Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.It's important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the Creator of the whole universe, he is the Creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. Therefore He doesn't have a cause.In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the best solution is that the universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.Now, what if you accept that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But is it self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science, history and law enforcement would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it was brought into existence, a logical absurdity.Sooooo..The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have a beginning.It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

Let’s start with a wee bit of nonsense and then get on to the meat of the argumentGod by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical.The question is illogical IF one accepts the definition. The question is really prodding at the internal consistency of the definition. For example, I could define a Foobar as a fish, the same size as a trout, but much bigger and then fend off any discussion of the size of the Foobar as being illogical in terms of the definition, but this doesn’t hold water. So let’s not be disingenuous about our definitions.More positively, it appears that we can agree on the following: the universe has a beginning and I can further agree that this beginning represents also the instantiation of time and matter.What happens at this event? Again, I think we can agree in general terms, the creation of matter and time out of nothing. Our dispute is not really about this but concerns how the event came about. Am I wrong?If I hold that the beginning of the universe represents a collapse of a singularity creating matter out of nothing and another holds that the same event is the result of the agency of a deity who created matter out of nothing, then we could possibly interchange terms. God = collapse of singularity and creation of physical laws etc. Thus Hawking’s famously bland statement about knowing the mind of God. Then again, I need not have any theories about how the universe began, so I could put this more bluntly: God = shorthand for how matter and time came into existence.But Creationists in particular, and many theists in general, wish to go further than this, and hold that God is personal, eternal, unchanging, moral and has existence: the word existing beyond time as the Scottish Liturgy beautifully puts it.So here is the challenge. Why predicate additional properties personality and morality to how matter and time came into existence?Let’s try to imagine God without the universe. Can he have personality or individuality if nothing else existed from which he could be distinguished. There would be no not-God. Without the universe, could he have power? No: there would be no not-God for this power to be exercised over. Could he be moral? No: there would be no action possible because there would be no not-God with which he could interact and therefore no possibility of immorality or morality. Could he be personal? No: there would be no not-God from which he could be distinct.So the challenge remains - in what sense can we establish the creator of the universe AS the creator of the universe to be a personal being rather than a synonym for how the universe came to be.I would be genuinely most interested in, and receptive to, answers to this challenge.

I agree we both agree the universe had to have a beginning. And that this presents the beginning of time and matter.
Our dispute is about the logic inside the answer of how matter, energy, and a 'beginning' of time becomes matter ex nihlo.
My answer requires a supernatural being that has always been. Yours may require nothing, nothing, and more of nothing. But notice when you say 'created' every creation has to have a 'creator'. I don't know what someone would call it if it was produced out of nothing.
One thing is that you just can't excuse the beginning of the universe because it involves the supernatural, you always have to consider the possibility, and it is very possible.
If a God would have the desire to Create a universe, create living beings that think and feel emotions and give that created being a spirit, why not else go ahead and say that he wanted to do that for a reason. If god didn't want personality and relationship then it would be logical to not do these things in the first place. It is hard to imagine that there was a beginning of time, or even what God was doing for all that 'time' before 'time' began. Its just plain mind boggling to think about it.
If I locked you up in an air-tight, sound-proof room, and all you could see was white. Would this make you have no personality? Would this make you any less powerful than how you were before you were locked in the room? No you would just not be using your power or strength. Conserning 'morality' morality is a dispute of right and wrong. But what we have if there is a God is that right and wrong is only what is right and what is wrong in Gods eyes, everything he does is his own good will. Now some people will say well then he could just kill us all for no good reason if he wanted. But they would be forgetting that that isn't the nature of God, and God has a plan. Could he be personal? Not untill he created something to be personal with. Otherwize he is just himself, but this does not limit God and before you pop a blood vessel try not to think about what God did with all that 'time' before 'time' was created. I can tell you one thing though, if God was small enough for me to figure out, he would not be worthy of worship.

We’re close to agreement here.You do, actually, know what someone would call it if it was produced out of nothing. If that someone was you, they would call it an act of God. If that someone was me, they would say I don’t know but we could possibly know one day. And if that someone was some other on this forum they might say collapse of a singularity or some such theoretical cosmology. But my point is that we are describing something produced out of nothing.I certainly don’t rule out the supernatural in this particular sense: the start-point of time or the collapse of the singularity could well be totally different and even contradictory to the physics of this universe. I believe I recall the early Hawking-Penrose discussions included just such conjectures — I may be wrong, but I see no great difficulty in the principle. And this is very close to being a paraphrase of your supernatural involvement.Where I then diverge from traditional monotheists is that I do not see any need for something out of nothing to be the agency of a being.Your example of the airtight, soundproof room is not quite right, though I agree that the point we are addressing is mind-boggling. The difference is this: I exist separately from the room, so I would be aware of things outside myself — the whiteness and the roomness of the room. But when nothing else exists, there is no such distinction. Indeed one cannot say that outside space and time God has ANY properties — because all properties are predicated on distinction from something that either shares or contrasts with the property. But if there is only God, there is no not-God for there to be any contrasting aspects.I’m afraid I find your position on morality quite dangerous. Right and wrong is only what is right and what is wrong in God’s eyes. I think Leibniz gets to the core of this position beautifully: In saying, therefore, that things are not good according to any standard of goodness, but simply by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory; for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary? Leibniz, as you may know, was a most profound and committed theist, who was lampooned by Voltaire for his insistence on the necessary goodness of God’s creation.But we can still rescue our positions here, and let’s see if we cannot yet move closer to agreement. If God defines goodness, then we can’t really use goodness to define God: it’s just a simple circular argument.But I’m sure you and I (though perhaps not everyone in the forum) would be able to agree that there are objective moral facts — a standard of goodness. Again, the difference is that a traditional theist appends to this transcendent morality a personality, and in your case an agency, which you call God’s will.So where have we got to? We could agree on something out of nothing and a standard of goodness, both of which you ascribe to the agency of a personal God.The challenge remains: why ascribe personality and agency?

I think we are close to agreement on many aspects of the question and answers dispite our differential beliefs and views.
I agree with you on saying 'they would call it an act of God. If that someone was me, they would say I don’t know but we could possibly know one day' signifying that what you believe is a belief, therefore it requires some sort of faith, am I not right on this? Yes we are describing 'something produced ex nihilo'.
You don't see any need for something out of nothing to be eht agency of a 'being', but what you do consider as being another explination for something out of nothing is 'I don’t know but we could possibly know one day'. Just as mine is an act of faith and belief regarless of even there being evidence for my views, yours also you would agree seems as a statement of a belief requiring 'faith'.
I do agree that my example of an airtight, soundproof room is not exactly right, it isn't the best analogy but it does attribute enough information so that you can see what I am getting at. I guess the meaning of 'existence' somewhat seems to be confined in the realm of the physical dimensions we comprehend as our universe. Though I do consider the possibility that with this 'supernatural dimension', we don't really know what would be considered an object or something that can be given characteristics and attributes in this 'supernatural dimention' that existed before time began. Thus it was not confined to time, physics, or cause and effect. We don't know what God did in all that 'time' before time began. Obviously he wouldn't of just floated in virtually 'nothing' curled up in a little ball waiting for him to take action to his plan for the universe. But then again this brings us back to the 'mind boggling' questions of aspects of 'before time'.
I know what you mean by you finding my position on morality dangerous. But if there is a God it is true that morality in a conclusive sence is what God sees as a right and a wrong, but that it would be against Gods nature of love and thus would be a liar with no reason to lie to his creation, because he knows everything. If take morality and give it attributes to a universe without God then you have attributed morality to the will of man. Now this doesn't mean that everyone is going to go around and kill everyone because they have decided that is a moral thing to do. Though that does give rise to consideration of mans choosing of a 'right' and a 'wrong'. I agree with what leibniz states but I believe there is something she is missing. She misses the aspect of who God is, God is 'good' because his goodness is an attribute to the nature of his 'personality' as God of his Creation. The Goodness of God is from his Love as God and Father of all his creations, this is why we praise him. To deny Gods very nature would be to deny his Goodness, Gods nature is his Goodness, if he were to change that nature, he would no longer be a lover of his creation, thus not a loving God. His nature attributes to his plan, to say his nature is not what he says it is, or for him to change it, would make him a lier but with no reason to lie to his creation. Even this is slightly mind boggling, seeing we almost have to think about Gods position as God when we have not much of any idea accept what we read from his book.
The sence of a 'moral facts' is defined by a persons own will, obviously we know by our nature (we were made in the image of God) what 'wrong from right' would be, but lets not stretch it to what is moraly right and wrong. Such as sex out of marriage.
The difference is that there is a higher athority for insite on morality according to the highest athority, God, thus Gods will.
To ascribe personality and agency to God is because as I think i slightly explained before because it would not be logical for God to create something such as us with the ability to connect as in prayer, give us this Bible claiming to be inspired by the living God (God breathed). There is a reason God created as us that we are so. He gave us the ability to make choices, and direct our own path and love God because we choose to when he first loved us.

"what you believe is a belief, therefore it requires some sort of faith, am I not right on this?"I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but let me try an answer. I presume that when you say "what you believe is a belief" you mean more than "what I think is what I think." You perhaps mean that I cannot be certain that my version of events (or "the creation event") is accurate, so I must be adopting a kind of fallback position until evidence is available. And this fallback position requires me to hold something to be true
that I cannot be certain is true, therefore it is "belief" rather than of knowledge.Well, in a way. But what I am really trying to get at is this: how matter and time came about is not that important to me- interesting, but not that important. My objection to traditional theism is that I think an eternal, personal God is actually inconsistent with the creation of time and space. However it came about, it couldn't be by the agency of a personal being.Imagine I am working through my son's arithmetic with him and I happen to glance at the answers at the back of book. I may not know how one gets 37 as the answer, but I know you don't get it by adding 3 and 7. (This isn't a random example, because sometimes scientific puzzles such as the age of the earth and evolution seem to get this kind of answer from some creationists. "Of course you can add 3 and 7 to get 37, you need only understand the special, true meaning of "add" in this context." Surely sometimes you see that kind of thing yourself, though I do
recognize that you try to avoid it yourself.)There is a sense in which you could say I "believe" this argument to be true - that is that I have faith in my understanding of the logic. But I'm uncertain where such a position leads - everything that anyone can disagree with is a matter of "faith"? I think we would want to distinguish between this week sense of faith (I think x is right, but someone could disagree with it) and a stronger sense (I cannot know the answer to x, but I hold position y, fully aware that the answer is beyond me.)"I guess the meaning of 'existence' somewhat seems to be confined in the realm of the physical dimensions we comprehend as our universe."Yup. I agree. And this would mean that if God exists beyond the universe of space time, he would do so in a special sense of "exist" which is incompatible with "personalhood" or "agency." And my position is that there is no need to add personhood or agency to the concept of God when considered with a Universe - indeed I would say it doesn't make sense to do so.On Morality, I don't think Leibniz did overlook the loving nature of God as he saw him. His worry was that if goodness depends solely on God's will, then we could not have any sense of what is moral except by knowing God's will.An example. Was it morally right or wrong for the hijackers to crash those planes in New York and Washington? In your scenario that depends on whether God willed it or not. And we cannot know God's ultimate will for us, for he has this infinite overview of everything, in which perhaps it was right for those men to do it. Can we say, "but God couldn't wish such a thing"? No, because that would suggest that God's will is bounded by moral rules - but the only moral rules are what he wills.My position is, once again, that we cannot make sense of morality when it is attributed to a personal being. But I do hold that it is possible to have an objective morality without a God. From my comments on the flood in another topic, you will understand that I especially do not believe the Bible presents a perfectly moral, eternal, unchanging God.Thank you for taking my questions and comments seriously. I am enjoying this thread very much, and you are surely helping me think through these profound questions.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 12-21-2001]

quote:

---

I admit Creationism is a religion,

---

Then why do you attempt to use science to prove it? If your faith was strong, wouldn't that be all you needed?

quote:

---

I would just like to see Evolutionists say the same about their religious ideas.

---

Biology is not religious, it is evidence-based. I "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow because the sun has always risen. I do not "believe" in evolution the same way people "believe" in God or Jesus or Vishnu or Allah. It is the best explanation of the evidence, which may change is the evidence leads it to change. Religions, by contrast, do not change in light of new evidence. They are believed regardless of the evidence.BTW, why do a few radical sects of Protestant Christianity single out the ToE for criticism? It is a scientific theory just like any other. Why not criticize the Germ Theory of Disease? What about Atomic Theory, or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System?

I can remember a good analogy to something very similar to what we are talking about.Pretend if you don't think that there is, pretend you can see God in his world 'spiritual dimention, everything outside the chalkboard' and he is standing infront of a chalk board. He has a peice of chalk in his hands and decides he is going to create a creation, so he draws Mr. Flat, and Mrs. Flat on the chalk board and they are alive(ok comeon just pretend, hehe). The chalk board simbolizes our world and universe. Mr. Flat and Mrs. Flat have no concept at all to a third dimention. Mr. Flat when looking at Mrs. Flat sees nothing but a line, and can walk around Mrs. Flat and perceive 2 dimentions and see that she is a square. They can see one dimention, and percieves 2 dimentions. Suppose God feels like showing himself to them, so he sticks two fingers in the board by Mr. Flat and then Sticks 3 fingers in the board by Mrs. Flat. Mr. Flat says oh look God is 2 circles, and Mrs. Flat is oh no Mr. Flat your wrong, God is 3 circles. Neither of them have any idea nor concept or is able to understandind God. Now they both are probley going to go start each their own church of the 2 circles and the 3 circles, but anyways.God understands his own dimentions, the 3rd dimention in this case. Is God personal? My 'opinion' is yes, and I can see that as logical seeing that he had his own 'universe' persay before he created us on the 'chalkboard'.
In a conclusion I think that this is one thing we are going to disagree on, though we both have many questions and aspects of answers we can agree on. I find this logical, and reasonable.

Then why do you attempt to use science to prove it? If your faith was strong, wouldn't that be all you needed?
-----I don't use science to 'prove' that it indeed happend, and it happend this way, neither can Evolutionist 'prove' that evolution happend, let alone, that it happend this way. My 'faith' cannot be proven at all to even the smallest degree, because my 'faith' is my interperetation of the evidence, I see things and say oh look, god made this 6000 years ago and I see that it is entirely possible using science that it is so.Biology is not religious, it is evidence-based. I "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow because the sun has always risen. I do not "believe" in evolution the same way people "believe" in God or Jesus or Vishnu or Allah. It is the best explanation of the evidence, which may change is the evidence leads it to change. Religions, by contrast, do not change in light of new evidence. They are believed regardless of the evidence.
-----Biology is not religious I agree, but also biology does not prove that we came from anything more than a human, what people say is that scince we can see little changes they think they can add many many little changes and make big changes, is this based on a 'belief'? Yes it is, why is it? Because it cannot, and never has been observed. The analogy of a sun rising and setting is not a very good one. Why isn't it? Because we've seen it happen repeatedly every day of our lives. It isn't the best explination of the evidence, but according to your 'opinion' you think it is. I think that the evidence best fits a very young earth based on my interperetation of the evidence, likewize you think it is old based on your interperetation of the evidence. If you follow the creation and evolution debate with a keen eye you will see that there is alot of this 'interperetation of the evidence' that goes on. One says that the Grand canyon was formed by a little bit of water and alot of time, another person says that it took alot of water and a little bit of time.
I find it odd how Biblical Creationists can have successfully been able to use the same stories over and over again and find nothing that will change it. Evolution is greatly being fashioned and patched up all the time. I believe, in regard to the evidence.
I've seen people give regard to a 'ToE', I am unaware of this abreviation, care to tell me so I may comment on it?

Is ToE, Theory of Evolution?