• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

The "Created God" Paradox

grounder

*sneezes*
That's the best title I can come up with... I checked the rules and couldn't see any problems, but there might be some... It's been a while since I've posted here. Hope the way I used my words don't offend. XD

If God created the Universe, how was God created?

If you want to post for the sake of getting your point stated, just sit for a while and think. HARD.
If you can't come up with an original post or anything which corresponds adequately to this topic or the posts on this first page which concern the paradox directly and solely, don't post it. It doesn't matter.


I am attempting to deny the preceding paradox that non-Christians (this includes atheists, agnostics, even Buddhists and Pantheists) often make against Christians. As such, I will deny it from a Christian perspective. I do not intend to take any other approach toward the matter, though others are invited to do so.

The intention (that I see) of the God/Creation Paradox is to rhetorically discredit the Christian, or Chris's, claims that God exists, uncreated, and also created the Universe. This means that the answer is expected to be "Well, since the Universe has been created, that must mean God is created as well. But Chris thinks that God isn't created, and he won't give an answer as to what created God. He must be wrong about the existence of God."

However, this is a wrong assumption to make.

Chris's meaning of God creating the Universe depends on one fundamental concept: the beginning of Creation. This concept illustrates that God started Creation. No other being(s) before God's Creation period (illustrated as 7 days in Genesis) were created beings. This is because there was no such thing as being created.

Let me draw an analogy. Radioactivity is based upon the instability of atoms of elements, and radioactive decay forms atoms of lighter elements than the previous decayed atoms. But if there was a period where all atoms were stable and not radioactive, there would be no atoms derived from radioactive decay. Such a thing would be insane or ignorant to suggest.

As the people who make its assertion usually don't want to be associated with any religious teaching (due to their choice), they lack extensive knowledge of what they talk about. This is commonly defined as ignorance, and it's what I propose this paradox is based upon when dealing with Chris's ideas.

That's it. Any comments/questions/arguments?
 
Last edited:

Mini Minun

Twin Bolts of Light
So how come the Universe can't start on its own?
 

ChronaMew

Demonic Warrior
I agree with the above

People argue that everything must have a beginning - If the universe had a beginning, why not God?

If you say God was there forever, that argument could easily be applied to the universe - Forever repeating the endless cycle of Big Bang to Big Crunch
 

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
Chris's meaning of God creating the Universe depends on one fundamental concept: the beginning of Creation. This concept illustrates that God started Creation. No other being(s) before God's Creation period (illustrated as 7 days in Genesis) were created beings. This is because there was no such thing as being created.
The problem is that you are not using any logical method to arrive at your conclusion that God always was and is and started the "chain of creation" other than the Bible, which cannot really be used as any form of strong evidence in a debate like this. If we were to work logically we would indeed arrive at the conclusion that God was created somehow.

Premise 1: All things have a beginning and an end
Premise 2: God is a thing
Conclusion: God has a beginning and an end

Or how about this one?

Premise 1: The universe is existence
Premise 2: The universe has a beginning and an end
Premise 3: All things that do not have a beginning or an end do not exist
Premise 4: God does not have a beginning or an end
Conclusion: God does not exist.

That last one's just a little bit of fun I cooked up to see where we can take it :)

What you are doing is complicating the matter by using evidence from the Bible to assert that God does not need a creator. Let me ask you this, why would it be a problem if God was created? Surely as He would still be the creator and protector of this universe there is no reason to not worship or believe?
 

grounder

*sneezes*
I hope you all read that I was trying to point out the Christian view on such an issue. To say that any belief is completely based on logical reasoning is to deny certain uncertainties which any rational sane being is subject to.

Tim the turtle said:
Premise 1: All things have a beginning and an end
Premise 2: God is a thing
Conclusion: God has a beginning and an end
How do you prove that all things have a beginning and an end? And how do you prove that God is a thing? These are all indirect assumptions based upon what you observe, which can breed untruthful bias.

Tim the turtle said:
Premise 1: The universe is existence
Premise 2: The universe has a beginning and an end
Premise 3: All things that do not have a beginning or an end do not exist
Premise 4: God does not have a beginning or an end
Conclusion: God does not exist.
Again, how do you prove your premise that the universe is existence? Such a bold claim is akin to a claim that Earth is the only planet with currently existing life forms. Even if you decide that anything not currently seen (such as other worlds which have direct proof of intelligent life forms) cannot completely dismantle the claim of Earth as the only island of life left (as Mars is proven to have had life with fossilized bacteria), it cannot and should not be ignored. With this illustration, I hope to show how few things, if any, can be trusted on a purely logical frame of mind.
 
If God created the Universe, how was God created?
?

I'd like to respond with a question.

If the Big Bang/ us coming from bacteria is real, than where did the bacteria/Matter to cause the Big Bang come from? And you can't just say "It was there" because it had to have come from somewhere, which is your argument against God. Also if you have anything supenatural in your explenation I will deny it, because your theory is supposedly based on concrete evidence, and supernatural interference in unscientific, so if you put faith in anything, you cannot deny a god So go ahead, I'm listening with open ears.
 

DarkRidley

Deals and Issues
Why should a huge man-shaped omnipotent being be the "beginning"? If God is the "cause of everything" (according to Thomas Aquinas), then why is he "uncaused"? Why should the Big Bang be more illogical than a large, white, bearded human with unlimited power, a huge imagination and a will to do good, popping out of empty space?

Of course we can't prove what the Big Bang was caused by, but at least we accept that there is a paradox, because it is a paradox, whether you're Christian or not. I mean, if you don't accept it, then you don't accept it. It's not like it means that I'm denying Christianity entirely, but this aspect is a serious paradox.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
If the Big Bang/ us coming from bacteria is real, than where did the bacteria/Matter to cause the Big Bang come from? And you can't just say "It was there" because it had to have come from somewhere, which is your argument against God. Also if you have anything supenatural in your explenation I will deny it, because your theory is supposedly based on concrete evidence, and supernatural interference in unscientific, so if you put faith in anything, you cannot deny a god So go ahead, I'm listening with open ears.
no you are not listening with open ears. you cant pass your faith as a serious argument in a debate.

the point of this topic is to simply say that if god cant have a beginning, then why should anything else? 'faith' isnt going to cut it.
 

DarkRidley

Deals and Issues
Then, in that case, what caused God? No difference, just a change of circumstance. No one can honestly say what created the universe as of yet, so saying that God is the only solution to the problem is completely illogical.
 

Kate

Banned
Is there any particular reason why God, or the universe have to have a beginning?

Premise 1: All things have a beginning and an end
Premise 2: God is a thing
Conclusion: God has a beginning and an end

All things we know of, and have experienced.

Now explain once more, why must God, or the universe need a beginning?
 

crobatman

Well-Known Member
You guys are assumming that god has a beginning, when God is the creator of Time! God lives outside of the physical universe, he lives outside of time. that is why he is called the Alpha and Omega. That is what eternal means.
 

DarkRidley

Deals and Issues
You say it doesn't need a beginning. Okay, then why is it that everything in the known universe, except the universe itself, has a beginning?

We're talking in terms of human experience here, otherwise the scope gets stupidly wide, everything gets ridiculously theoretical, and then there's no debate. Tim the turtle's argument makes perfect sense. He based theory off fact. Saying that the universe may not be what we perceive and therefore things don't need beginnings is basing a theory off another theory.

EDIT: Crobatman, that doesn't make sense. If he created Time, it doesn't matter - he stills needs to come into existence, wherever he is, whether inside or outside the universe. He's a large bearded man, a physical being. Physical beings don't pop out of nowhere.
 
Last edited:

crobatman

Well-Known Member
You say it doesn't need a beginning. Okay, then why is it that everything in the known universe, except the universe itself, has a beginning?

We're talking in terms of human experience here, otherwise the scope gets stupidly wide, everything gets ridiculously theoretical, and then there's no debate. Tim the turtle's argument makes perfect sense. He based theory off fact. Saying that the universe may not be what we perceive and therefore things don't need beginnings is basing a theory off another theory.

I can do the same thing as Tim the turtle.


Premise 1: All things have a beginning and an end.
Premise 2: God is not a thing
conclusion: God does not have a beginning and an end.
 

DarkRidley

Deals and Issues
^How is he not a thing? He's male, human, with a white beard, as far as I know. What is he then, a huge consciousness? Either way, he exists, and is therefore a thing, whether physical or not. In other words, he needs to be caused.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
if God isnt even a thing then he doesnt exist.

Kate said:
Now explain once more, why must God, or the universe need a beginning?
we're not saying they need a beginning (at least i'm not, anyway); however, many theists say that it's impossible for anything to happen without a creator because 'everything needs a beginning'.

we call it a 'paradox' (maybe not even the right word for it) simply because they do not apply the same logic to their god.
 

crobatman

Well-Known Member
EDIT: Crobatman, that doesn't make sense. If he created Time, it doesn't matter - he stills needs to come into existence, wherever he is, whether inside or outside the universe. He's a large bearded man, a physical being. Physical beings don't pop out of nowhere.

A physical being? In the bible, he is the creator. He is a spiritual being. Is your Spirit a thing? can you see it? can you measure it? Is love not real because I can not see it?
 

DarkRidley

Deals and Issues
we're not saying they need a beginning (at least i'm not, anyway); however, many theists say that it's impossible for anything to happen without a creator because 'everything needs a beginning'.

we call it a 'paradox' (maybe not even the right word for it) simply because they do not apply the same logic to their god.

Don't apply logic? That's true. And it smells like doublethink to me.

Also, crobatman, if spirits exist, they are things. I personally believe in neither God nor spirits, but both exist according to you, so in your world, they are things and need a beginning like everything else. A non-existent thing doesn't exist.

EDIT: Oh, yes, and love is a thing. It begins. It ends. Just like everything else. If you can't measure, see, feel, smell, hear or taste it, that just means it's not physical. But it's still a thing.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
A physical being? In the bible, he is the creator. He is a spiritual being. Is your Spirit a thing? can you see it? can you measure it? Is love not real because I can not see it?
to be a thing all you have to do is exist in some form. thing doesnt even depend on whether it's detectable or not by mortal humans.
 

Kate

Banned
You say it doesn't need a beginning. Okay, then why is it that everything in the known universe, except the universe itself, has a beginning?

Argument from ignorance.

We're talking in terms of human experience here, otherwise the scope gets stupidly wide, everything gets ridiculously theoretical, and then there's no debate. Tim the turtle's argument makes perfect sense. He based theory off fact. Saying that the universe may not be what we perceive and therefore things don't need beginnings is basing a theory off another theory.

Not really. He based it off of human experience as you said. If the universe does not have a beginning, there is no reason why God can't have one either. God isn't bound by our own physical and mental constraints. You are complaining by using this argument that I'm somehow delving too far, or reaching too far into the abstract. That's not a very wise accusation to make considering God is an abstract concept within itself. It shouldn't be a surprise to you that abstract terms and concepts are being thrown around and toyed with. It doesn't mean that there is no debate, it means the debate is over.
 
Top