Question for the theists: Who, or what, created your god(s)?

[Modem Butterfly]

Creationists argue that the earth is so complex it demands a creator. Surely if the earth is complex enough to require a creator, such a creator itself demands a creator. If you believe that your god or gods created the earth, what created your god or gods?

[RobertSeattle]

1. I think theists assume God is eternal - having always existed

So there is no necessity for God to be created.

It does make my head hurt though.

[davidinalameda]

2. it's called faith

my gods have always been

no, I can't prove that but it's something I believe

just like I have faith that the sun will set tonight and rise again in the morning

I don't know that for a fact but I believe it will happen

[Modem Butterfly]

5. Did your gods create the universe?

[davidinalameda]

17. I don't know

does it really matter to you

[Modem Butterfly]

20. In what way?

I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want to know. Will it make a big difference in my life? Probably not. But I am curious to understand where you're coming from on this issue.

[davidinalameda]

51. the creation of the universe doesn't matter to me

all that matters to me is that I'm in it

what's come before me doesn't concern me

my concern is living the best life that I can and celebrating what I see as the divine in all

[Guckert]

6. "gods" uh, you should only have one.....and its not George Bush.

[joefree1]

10. Why?

Life is too diverse for one boring God.

[Tux]

11. New trinity

Father, Conservative President, and Republician Party.

[Guckert]

3. MAGIC !!!

[Padraig18]

4. From Paragraph 206 of the Cathecism of the Catholic Church

"In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH ("I AM HE WHO IS," "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHO I AM"), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is—infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the "hidden God," his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men."

This tells us that He is who He has always been, and will be for all Time. IOW, no one created Him. You either believe it, or you don't, basically.

:shrug:

[Guckert]

7. Did he create the dinosours? or did he just start his 6 days 6,000 years a

ago?? just curious

[Padraig18]

50. You'll have to ask a fundamentalist Protestant.

The Catholic Church does not believe in Creationism, er se; that is to say that it believes that there is no essential conflict between the OT account of Creation and Darwinism.

[Guckert]

9. How did Caine and Able have any children?? I'm confused??

or did Adam and Eve have some girls we have not heard of..wait...EWWW :puke:

[ashmanonar]

14. it says clearly in the bible that

there were "others" in the world. IOW, the god yahweh of the hebrew progeneration was a local god, and there were others in other regions with other gods that they celebrated.

Other People

[GodlessBiker]

8. I think it is a mystery for theist and atheist.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Or, Why is there God rather than no God?

[trotsky]

12. The mystery for atheists?

Teller (of Penn & Teller) summed it up pretty well:

"Atheists do look for answers to existence itself. They just don't make them up."

[GodlessBiker]

15. Well, then, I think we have a bit more looking to do.

[murray hill farm]

13. When we speak of "creation"

we speak of a material thing...of how it came together to be what it is....sooooooo...if god, by definition, is not a material being, than god could not be created.

[GodlessBiker]

16. My consciousness is not a material being.

So my consciousness has not been created?

[murray hill farm]

55. Your consciousness is the creation of your body.

it is a response to your senses...and is limited to your senses..and the loop that is your senses and your consciousness. When your body no longer functions, then your consciousness no longer exists either.

[GodlessBiker]

84. No, my consciousness is not my body.

When a brain surgeon cuts my skull open and looks at my brain, she is not looking at my consciousness. My consciousness may have a material basis, but it cannot be reduced to the material.

[murray hill farm]

86. not a material thing...

but consciousness is the result of the loop via neurons to the brain and from the physical sensations from which we are able to determine reality of our existance on earth. we take in information by our senses..the senses of our physical bodies..and this information is sent to our brains which interpreted is what becomes our individual consciousness...and information is then stored in the brain and replayed via the same neuron activity. If a part of your brain is destroyed...whole parts stored in the injured area are gone..whole parts of ones consciousness are gone. All matter is energy...as is the consciousness of a human body.

[sans qualia]

18. Plenitude

All things exist unless their existence would cause a contradiction. If we accept this as a basic fact of the universe, then initial causation is no longer an issue, since the existence of a world in which it is unclear is a logical necessity. But then I'm a pantheist, and I don't believe that God is a person, so I don't know how useful this answer is to you.

[Modem Butterfly]

23. Was there a time before existance?

[sans qualia]

35. No

"Existence" - that is, everything, the totality - does not exist in time. There obviously exist beings within existence who experience time, but this is not so for existence. Think about it like this: a human being is a series of three-dimensional segments, each segment existing in a different three-dimensional "cross-section" of a four-dimensional object. We perceive each cross section as a moment of time, and time appears to "move" for us only because our particular world's causal chain is ordered in such a way that we remember in only one direction - the past. I - the right now I - am not the whole me, but rather an infinitesimal segment of me.

So if the totality existed in time, then it too must exist as a part of a higher-dimensional object, and as an infinitesimal segment of a "total totality," and so it would not be the totality at all. By definition, the totality can not exist in time.

[GodlessBiker]

24. If we accept this as a basic fact of the universe??

How did it come to be that this is a fact of the universe?

[sans qualia]

27. It didn't

I accept it. I'm not offering any justification, it just seems intuitively reasonable to me. You don't have to agree.

[GodlessBiker]

31. I understand.

I was just wondering where that "fact," that "first principle," came from.

[Tux]

19. For me

no one created god. God just is. Think of it this way: we know cause and effect based on memory. By memory we know time. We think that everything has a beginning and an end. It's created and later uncreated (broke, dead, etc). However, space-time effects the material world. It influences the spiritual world (both are linked) but the spiritual world is mostly timeless despite memory and perception. God always existed out of our time but has it's own space-time to reside in that we can't understand (maybe with GUT or string theory we'd get a glimpse). Yes, time does exist without an observer but spiritual time runs differently. Basically, imagine the interior of a black hole. Time is almost stopped yet continues for the rest of the universe. God is timeless in essence thus precedes our universe's big bang by being spiritual and not material.

[Modem Butterfly]

26. Why would a timeless being create time then?

[Tux]

29. Er....

Space-time is needed for matter-energy. All are interconnected. To have matter, you need energy. To have matter, you need space which gives to time since matter and energy change proportions aka sun, fire burning wood, or grass growing.

[GodlessBiker]

30. Forget that. How could a timeless being "create" anything at all?

Don't you need time to "create" or, for that matter, to "do" anything?

[Tux]

32. Look at big bang theory

It states that matter-energy-space-time were the samething. As the universe expanded, they divided some and as the expansion continued, matter became more linked to energy and space to time. But Space is needed for matter and time for energy since energy is simply chance of matter from one state to another. They're still linked but not truely one and the same.

[GodlessBiker]

34. But even with the Big Bang Theory

(which I think is the best explanation we have for the early universe), you still have to wonder where the rules came from that permitted the Big Bang to occur at all.

[Tux]

39. The Physicist in the SKy

God is the best physicists ever. No doubt there (assuming you believe in god/dess(s))

The rules were simple and effective. As the universe first appeared and all were one, the rules were defined. As it expanded they changed to what we know now (at least some we know). How did it all start? The siple rules were made so a material universe could exist. This universe would mirror the spiritual but with time, things change. Life can exist, grow, and die (up for debate but I go for "reincarnation till enlightenment" idea).

To me the meaning of the universe is what meaning we give it. God didn't give it meaning other than we can exist, give meaning, and do as we please. Spirituality helps us connect to god and get ideas or confirm ideas on how to act. Our free will by itself can aid usin making the right choices. We don't need some book to tell us how to believe or think. Our free will, reason, and intelligence provides what we can know. Those religious books contain results of spirituality that died. Time does teach one thing that we may have over looked: life is a process. No results are truely final but the process is worth the effort. Just as the universe changes so must we and our spiritual paths must adpat to our new life conditions, historical events (9/11), and cultural change. Once we learn that, god would reviel itself in our spiritual pursuits more often.

[Democrat Dragon]

65. not to mention that

Scientists say that before the Big Bang, there was no time and energy was zooming around. But where did this energy come from?

[Tux]

89. Never heard

That energy was zooming around. Everytime I read big bang theories, everything was one and the same at the start. Provide a link to that for us and we'll discuss it.

[Stunster]

62. Time is not really real

See,

A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein, by
Palle Yourgrau

and, Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, by Huw Price. More details on his views here: http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/price/TAAP.html

And this from several years ago in the Los Angeles Times:

November 16, 1999

Time, Space Obsolete in New View of Universe

Many physicists are embracing a revolutionary, still mysterious idea
called string theory. The concept rejects several familiar notions and includes the existence of 11 dimensions.

OF SPACE, TIME AND STRINGS. Rocking the foundations of physics. First in a series

By: K.C. COLE
TIMES SCIENCE WRITER

Ever since early astronomers yanked Earth from center stage in the solar system some 500 years ago, scientists have been pulling the rug out from under people's basic beliefs. "The history of physics," says Harvard physicist Andrew Strominger, "is the history of giving up cherished ideas."

No idea has been harder to give up, however--for physicists and
laypeople alike--than everyday notions of space and time, the fundamental "where" and "when" of the universe and everything in it.

Einstein's unsettling insights more than 80 years ago showed that static space and fixed time were flimsy facades, thinly veiling a cosmos where seconds and meters ooze like mud and the rubbery fabric of space-time warps into an unseen fourth dimension. About the same time, the new "quantum mechanical" understanding of the atom revealed that space and time are inherently jittery and uncertain.

Now, some physicists are taking this revolutionary line of thinking one step further: If their theories are right, in the words of Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, space and time may be "doomed."

Concurs physicist Nathan Seiberg, also of the institute: "I am almost
certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions
that will be replaced by something more sophisticated."

I'm not sure if the full article is still available on the web, but the ideas in the article are spelled out in Brian Greene's book, THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE.

[Modem Butterfly]

66. So much for Wigner, eh?

ROFLMAO!

:bounce:

[Tux]

121. Well that gives me some credibility

In physics. And to think I was basing it on relativity only. Maybe I should have majored in physics instead of psych....

[suziedemocrat]

21. I belive Newton's books "Destiny of Souls" and "Journey of Souls"

In it he hints that we, and all living things, are all "God" or the source - born of the source - and we incarnate over and over and progress until we merge back with the source making it stronger.

Check them out on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567184995/qid=1109799847/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-6864275-8705510

[Modem Butterfly]

28. How does this differ from pantheism? Or does it?

[suziedemocrat]

38. I had to look up pantheism on wikipedia - so I don't know.

Sounds very similar at least. I'm not overly religious - raised Catholic - but I've always believed in reincarnation for some reason. Newton's books resonated with me and I like them. They may be hogwash - but to me they rang true.

[ochazuke]

22. Stupid creation myths of a barely sentient spieces

Don't you know that the earth rests on the back of a turtle?

And, if you ask what the turtle rests on -- that's right -- it's turtles all the way down.

[mcscajun]

45. You beat me to the turtles.

That's what I get for replying before I've read the whole thread.

:)

[TreasonousBastard]

25. First...

is this a serious question or yet more of the endless religious trolling?

OK, now that we got that out of the way, the concepts of eternity and infinity have been around in just about all major religions and none of them, to my knowledge, fully defines them or gives satisfactory rational answers.

The God of "the Book" has always existed, but eternal existence is in God's universe and terms, not ours, so we don't really know just when or how he appeared. This does sound like BS, and to some extent it is.

The point is that there are mysteries in the universe, including those about God, that we are unable to know, so we have to do the best we can. And, in Judeo-Christian terms, God is, was, and will be forever.

We just don't worry ourselves all that much about what "forever" might be. It is, simply enough, a lot longer than we are around.

Ignore those who come up with dates and times and claim to make sense of it all. Most of them haven't the foggiest idea what they are talking about.

[ashmanonar]

33. i agree with other people's opinions on the board:

that there was just always gods, and will always be gods (elohim?).

i agree with (and more or less believe in) the tolkien mythos of cosmogenesis (one god called eru or iluvatar, with 14 "ainur" or angels called the Valar in Middle-earth, then a greater number of "maiar", or lesser angels or gods. gandalf and the balrog were maiar, although of different polarities. interestingly, tolkien inspired much of his cosmogenesis from the christian faith.)

it just seems like a much more hopeful/sad version of creation and the history of the gods than that of christianity, which seems to be generally all that of giving in to the will of god or in mindless worship. (rather than the free wills of those in tolkien's mythos) obviously this worship of the christian god is man-inspired instead of god-inspired, but oh well. :shrug:

[xray s]

36. Does it make sense that something exists that transcends the universe?

Why does matter exist at all? What set off The Big Bang? What existed before the Big Bang? What will exist after the universe burns itself out?

What ever it is, its gotta be kick ass, don't you think? For me, its God, because deep down I think the force that created all this must be at its core good. Because there is beauty in the world. Because deep down humans know right from wrong, even though that is against their own selfish interests.

I also believe part of that thing, that spirit, shines through in art and music and nature...especially nature, as intricate and exquisite as nature is. Truly awesome.

And people have developed religions to explain it. Those religions are imperfect, but all of them have part of the truth. For me, Christianity captures it (I'm not talking about things like the rapture myth or fundie literal interpretations of the bible, or a guy in the sky with a big white beard, but Christ's words and thoughts in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, about sacrafice and fairness and truth).

Anyway, that where I am coming from. I have faith, but I also know my knowledge is imperfect.

[Modem Butterfly]

37. Not really, no

At least, not to me. And if anything were to transcend the universe, it doesn't make sense to me that it would be the one thing that wouldn't require a creator itself.

[xray s]

40. that's cool

you are looking for answers...thats all that matters

[suziedemocrat]

41. With "M" theory they now think two "membranes" collided to create

our known universe. I saw a great show on TV about it. Discovery channel or something. Much better than "What the Bleep Do We Know..." I think before too long Science will begin to answer questions that now can only be answered by religion. I think Religion as we know it is having a last great golden age before it almost completely dies.

[Modem Butterfly]

42. I don't know if religion will ever totally die

I think it is flexible enough, and the human mind is creative enough, that it will simply grow and change shape.

[suziedemocrat]

44. Hopefully it will evolve into something more open and less judgemental! nt

[Tux]

47. No

Religion will become spirituality if we can have science. However, that is under attack now thanks to Christians.

And I do mean that any Christian that doesn't speak out against fundies are supporting the fundies. SO far, I heard nothing from them at all on anything.

[GodlessBiker]

52. I saw that show, too. It was very good.

But one can still ask how the membranes got there or how the physics developed that allows that when two membranes collide a universe is created.

[mcscajun]

43. It's turtles all the way down…

You either see 'em or you don't. :)

[Modem Butterfly]

46. Down to what?

:P

[Tux]

48. The Great Turtle

Once there, it's dirt all the way down.

[mcscajun]

49. The Great Turtle, A'Tuin — as imagined by Terry Pratchett

(Of Discworld fame - a great series of reads, IMO)

"Great A'Tuin the turtle comes, swimming slowly through the interstellar gulf, hydrogen frost on his ponderous limbs, his huge and ancient shell pocked with meteor craters. Through sea-sized eyes that are crusted with rheum and asteroid dust He stares fixedly at the Destination.

In a brain bigger than a city, with geological slowness. He thinks only of the Weight.

Most of the weight is of course accounted for by Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon and Jerakeen, the four giant elephants upon whose broad and star-tanned shoulders the Disc of the World rests, garlanded by the long waterfall at its vast circumference and domed by the baby-blue vault of Heaven.

Astropsychology has been, as yet, unable to establish what they think about."

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. I feel I must clear up this vital piece of theology

:-)

A'Tuin is not 'turtles all the way down'. As the quote says, he swims through the interstellar gulf. He is the One Turtle.

Multiturtlism was apparently originated by a little old lady who challenged Bertrand Russell (or some other well known philosopher or scientist) when he gave a lecture about the earth being a planet orbiting the Sun. She said, "No, it's flat, and resting on the back of 4 elephants, which are on a giant turtle". He retorted "But Madam, what does the turtle stand on?" and she replied "You can't fool me, Mr. Russell, it's turtles all the way down".

[mcscajun]

82. A great quote!

:)

Multiturtlism -- priceless. :)

[ochazuke]

87. The "Turtles" quote

I got curious to find out its origins. I can't be sure where it came from, but these versions are interesting:

In this one, it's Thomas Huxley: http://www.lewrockwell.com/cummings/cummings31.html

Here, it's Bertrand Russell: http://renaud.waldura.org/turtles.txt

Somewhere, I saw a version where the old lady says the earth rests on the back of an elephant, which is standing on a giant tortoise. This may be the best version since the succession of earth-elephant-tortoise makes the next question even more obvious than the simpler earth-on-turtle version.

Plus, the juxtaposition of the words tortoise and turtle makes the punch line more powerful.

[Stunster]

53. Complexity, shmoplexity

Do you tell biologists to give up biology in favor of physics because
biological explanations are more complex than physics explanations? Or
economists to give up economics because physics provides simpler explanations of the price of oil?

You're assuming that science itself is completely reductionistic, but that itself is far from being established. It's certainly not clear that from a complete knowledge of physics, one could predict the emergence of higher level properties such as life or consciousness or culture. For one thing, there are serious doubts about whether determinism is true. For another, it's possible that higher level properties supervene on physical properties in virtue of laws that are not themselves laws of physics. And that's just for starters.

So harking on with this complaint that theism posits something of a higher order of complexity is like complaining that mathematicians posit sets to explain numbers.

Nor do I need to accept that God is more complex than the world. In
classical theism, God is a simple, not a composite, being. God is immaterial substance, i.e. is not composed of spatiotemporal parts. Matter, by contrast, always seems to possess a complex essence, with a variety of measurable properties such as position, velocity, momentum, angular momentum, etc.

Simplicity is really a vague, not a well-defined, notion, and I suspect that when used to characterize explanations, it's inherently subjective. But when we use it to characterize, not explanations, but beings, then I think that rational consciousness is less obviously complex (in the sense of being composite or divisible into discrete parts or properties) than is material reality. It's certainly not obvious that mind is more ontologically complex than matter. Plato, Aristotle, Descartes and Leibniz certainly didn't think so.

But even if mind or God is more ontologically or explanatorily complex than material reality, one would still have to show why a correct explanans of any given thing has to be less complex than the explanandum. It seems to me that in science, we often explain something by positing something more complex than the thing being explained. For example, we see an apple fall from a tree. When along comes Einstein with his General Theory of Relativity and his notion of curved space, do we say, "YOU'RE WRONG, ALBERT. YOUR THEORY IS A LOT MORE COMPLEX AND HARDER TO UNDERSTAND THAN A FALLING APPLE! JUST BY ITSELF"?

No, we don't, is the short answer to that. Same with explaining WELCOME TO SCOTLAND signs by reference to conscious rational minds acting purposively. We don't rule out the latter as an explanation for the signs just because we think of conscious rational minds acting purposively as being more complex than the welcome signs. On the contrary, in fact.

[sans qualia]

54. But classical theism is silly...

A simple being would be incapable of making inferences, incapable of acting purposefully, incapable of making moral judgments. A simple God would necessarily lack many of the other qualities theists usually attribute to God. You can argue that consciousness is ontologically simple, but surely you can't say the same of the mind.

In any case, I think you missed the point of the OP's question. Even if what you say is true, the relative simplicity of God doesn't somehow excuse God from causation. The question still stands: where did God come from?

[murray hill farm]

56. If you break down the question, though..

"Where" again refers to a material existance..."did" refers to material action...."come from" refers to physical action...so, there ya are again with using material or physical discriptions of a god, who by all definition is not material or physical. Just because we as humans are subject to "causation"...we tend to believe that all is subject to causation...and by the any and all discription, "god" would not be subject to the causation question at all.

[Modem Butterfly]

60. Yet theists claim that a non-physical, non-matrerial god ...

... created at least this earth, which is physical and material. And many theologies hold that their god or gods are physical and material, or have been (for example, Jesus Christ) and subject to causation. So your god might not be physical or material or subject to causation, but that does not mean all gods fit your description.

[murray hill farm]

83. If a god takes a physical form...

or is believed to have taken a physical form, then as a physical form...would be subject to causation...but the belief that god is spiritual would require that god to not be subject to causation. In the case of jesus...he was seen as a "son" of god...in the same way that we would all be seen as children of god...except that jesus is seen as one who was more like god than the rest of us...more connected and more knowing..and one who spoke to us in worldly parables to explain what to us...who are limited by our physical senses..are unable to conceptualize while in a limited capacity to understand human body...for example...being a "son" of god...since this is how we understand causation and creation as humans.

[Stunster]

58. God's mind

is timeless. That's why the things you think of as being silly in classical theism aren't in fact silly. The best person to read on this is Brian Leftow

http://www.faithquest.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=listarticles&secid=5

It's too big and technically difficult an issue to get into here, but I would recommend getting Leftow's book on divine timelessness.

Ok, next...
Consider the question, why is there anything in existence and not nothing. This question ranges over the whole of reality. So, one can't go outside that range to answer it, because there is nothing outside that range. So, if one is looking for a maker of the ontologically ultimate reality within that range, one ain't going to find it outside of the range. Obviously.

Now consider a set with infinitely many members. And consider the null set. "Why is there something rather than nothing" is like asking why a set has any members rather than none. It is not an answer to that question to say that it has infinite many members.

Or consider an infinite train. It has an infinite number of carriages. To ask, why is there a train, it won't do to say, "Well, it has an infinite number of carriages."

So, something has to be ontologically and explanatorily ultimate.

For theists, the something is God. For materialists, it's material stuff. For nontheistic Platonists, it's the eternal Forms. For Buddhists, it's consciousness, or something (I'm actually not sure about Buddhists). And so on. I mean, I don't think the details matter. Each competing metaphysical picture of the world posits an ultimate.

It just doesn't make sense to ask "Who, or what, made the ontologically/explanatorily ultimate reality?"

[Modem Butterfly]

61. Whoooooooo-weeee!

You're sure using a lot of words to say you don't know.

:7

[GodlessBiker]

85. "So, something has to be ontologically and explanatorily ultimate."

But where does that rule come from? Why does something have to be the ontologically and explanitorilly ultimate?

People look at "stuff" to be the ulitmate - God or matter or consciousness or whatever -- but they don't consider where the rules came from the govern the stuff's existence and behavior.

Where did the rules come from that permit an ultimate reality, to use your words, in the first place?

[Stunster]

92. Logic

We cannot rationally affirm something to exist, or to be the case, that is unintelligible. And intelligibility requires the presence of information (classically called 'form') in that which is affirmed as existing, or as being the case. This requirement for form is ineliminable from rational judgements.

Now, can 'form' be explained by an infinite regress of information?

You've basically got two choices here: positing some form (or information) as ontological/explanatory ultimate reality, or positing an infinite regress. But the latter doesn't explain anything, for the reasons I mentioned in the post you're replying to, and which I reproduce below. Hence it doesn't render it intelligible. Intelligibility ultimately requires the existence of something that is itself not explained by something else, but is self-explanatory (at least in the sense of being intelligible to itself). Otherwise, you get x is explained by y which is explained by z.... ad infinitum. Theists posit God as that which is self-explanatory, because self-intelligible, and I'm explicating that notion as 'infinite self-communicating information, which necessarily constitutes consciousness and value'.

"Why is this book here? Because it's resting on this other book. Why is that one there? Because it's resting on another book....." This sort of exchange doesn't explain why there is an infinite pile of books, rather than no books at all. In short, an infinite explanatory regress isn't explanatory of the fact that the set isn't empty. The non-emptiness of the set isn't explained simply by positing an infinite number of members of the set. Hence, if there are explanatory relations between the members of the set which also explain why the set is non-empty, something in the set has to be unexplained by anything else in the set, and hence it must be explanatorily ultimate. Alternatively, one has to go outside the set to find the explanatory item that explains the set's non-emptiness. But if one goes outside the set, the same problem arises. Either something outside the set is not explained by something else (and hence is an explanatory ultimate), or else one posits another infinite regress. But we saw that an infinite regress doesn't explain that the fact that the number of items in the regress is not zero.

So, if there is any explanation of why there is something rather than nothing, it has to posit an ontological/explanatory ultimate of one sort or another. (Materialism typically selects matter or energy or some kind of physical stuff as the ontologically/explanatorily ultimate reality.

One could say there just isn't any explanation. But that would mean that the existence of something rather than nothing is ultimately unintelligible---because on this view (that there just isn't any explanation) it has no ultimate explanation, which is just another way of saying that reality is ultimately unintelligible; and I said earlier that intelligibility is a criterion of what can be rationally affirmed to exist, or to be the case. "We cannot rationally affirm something to exist, or to be the case, that is unintelligible."

Materialism takes the unexplained-by-anything-else ultimate explanatory/ontologial thing to be material reality. But the problem is the ineliminability and irreducibility of information, even from material reality. There ain't no pure informationless matter, or informationless energy, no matter how far down the scale you go. Even strings are described by string theory, after all, and string theory is a very sophisticated kind of mathematics.

Something has to be ontologically basic, whether one is a materialist or a theist. So, if one thinks of matter, or the 'medium' of information as ontologically basic, then one arrives at a notion of that which is ontologically ultimate being formless, informationless stuff. I don't think that is a coherent or intelligible notion, to be perfectly honest.

In my view, information, classically called 'Form', is what is ontologically basic, because regardless of what reason posits as an existing entity, it does so on the basis that that thing contains information, or what Plato and Aristole would call 'form'.

And I go along with the idea deriving from Plato that God is 'Pure Form', which in my idiom translates to 'unlimited or infinite information'. Which, upon analysis, must be self-communicating because it's ontologically ultimate---hence it doesn't get communicated by something else.


Consider the question, why is there anything in existence and not nothing. This question ranges over the whole of reality. So, one can't go outside that range to answer it, because there is nothing outside that range. So, if one is looking for a maker of the ontologically ultimate reality within that range, one ain't going to find it outside of the range. Obviously.

Now consider a set with infinitely many members. And consider the null set. "Why is there something rather than nothing" is like asking why a set has any members rather than none. It is not an answer to that question to say that it has infinite many members.

Or consider an infinite train. It has an infinite number of carriages. To ask, why is there a train, it won't do to say, "Well, it has an infinite number of carriages."

So, something has to be ontologically and explanatorily ultimate.

For theists, the something is God. For materialists, it's material stuff. For nontheistic Platonists, it's the eternal Forms. For Buddhists, it's consciousness, or something (I'm actually not sure about Buddhists). And so on. I mean, I don't think the details matter. Each competing metaphysical picture of the world posits an ultimate.

It just doesn't make sense to ask "Who, or what, made the ontologically/explanatorily ultimate reality?"

[GodlessBiker]

93. Logic? Good answer, but...

it sounds like you think the rules of logic precede ultimate reality (whatever that is); that is, that the rules of the game come first, then the players are arranged on the game board.


For example: Your rule of the game is: "Intelligibility ultimately requires the existence of something that is itself not explained by something else."

Why is that the case? Where does that logical rule come from? Is it necessary? Does this rule ontologically precede "that which is itself not explained by something else"?


I think you are trying to make the mystery intelligible, but any attempt to do so is doomed to failure.

[Stunster]

94. The classical theist view

is that logic and mathematics are part of the contents of the divine mind.

We never encounter logical validity, or numbers, or sets, or calculus, etc independently of thought, or mind. They are always encountered as the contents of thoughts that are had by a mind.

God is not bound by logic or math as if these things exist as freestanding abstract entities outside of God. They are simply part of what is constitutive of God's own rationality, and I'm suggesting God is self-subsistent Reason. The idea underlying your suggestion is that Reason exists outside of anyone's mind. I'm suggesting that notion is deeply mistaken. Reason and mind are not ontologically independent in the way your suggestion implies, but rather are, as a metaphysical fact, essentially complementary. Or to put it another way, reason isn't something other than, or over and above, the existence of rational mind.

Check out the section entitled "Half a Dozen (or so) ontological (or metaphysical) arguments" at this link to get a more detailed idea of what I'm intending to say here.

[GodlessBiker]

98. I understand, but how did it come to be that the divine mind has

logic and mathematics as part of its contents, as opposed to, let's say, something closer to the thought processes of what we might consider a raving lunatic?

[Stunster]

100. 'Cos that's the ultimate reality!

Remember I said that God is self-subsistent Reason? Another way of saying that is that Reason is the ultimate reality. Math and logic are included in Reason. Hence, if God is self-subsistent Reason, they're included in God.

But what I'm also saying is that Reason exists only insofar as there exists rational minds. It's not something over and above the existence of rational minds. It's not like there's an entity, reason, over here, and other entities, rational minds, over there, and it's merely contingent as to whether the rational minds have contents that are supplied by reason. No, they are rational by the very nature of rational mind. The function of rational mind is to be rational.

When we think or act irrationally, we're not so much thinking or acting in virtue of our mental nature; rather, we're negating or violating that nature, or our own rational mindhood, so to speak, because we're negating or violating the function of mind, which is to be rational. Or to put it in a more standard philosophical vocabulary, rational mind by its very nature is characterized by rational (and moral) normativity. A rational mind that arrives at the conclusion that 2+2=5 is not acting from its rational nature, but from non-rational impulse. (For Kant, immorality is a species of irrationality, but that's a whole other topic).

That's my formal answer.

Here's my informal answer:

Divine rationality....

Eternal rational and moral consciousness....

........exists of metaphysical necessity, and is the Ultimate Reality and explains and understands everything. It is the Necessary Being.... upon which all contingent being metaphysically depends...

It is infinite Mind.....

It is the Unrestricted Act of Understanding....

that understands Itself, and all possible information....

that contains within Itself all possible worlds.....

....and understands all possible natures....

..... and because this Understanding is unlimited....

It eternally understands Itself, and thus eternally begets Consciousness, or the Logos, or the Word:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..."

'Word' is communicated information.

And Value logically supervenes upon this Word, or Logos, or Consciousness. (Notice that we automatically, intuitively associate value with consciousness, and only associate it with nonconscious realities to the extent that it impinges upon consciousness).

This eternal unrestricted Act of Understanding knows Itself as Valuable, and possessing all rationality, all information, within itself, values Itself, and so desires Itself, and so wills its own unity.

And this eternal willing of unity is the procession of the Holy Spirit:

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets."

In Augustinian theology, the Father eternally generates the Son, Who is the Logos or Word or 'Verbum mentale', which I'm rendering as Information eternally generating Consciousness. Not creating it, for it is simply the timeless activity of Information knowing Itself (which is consciousness). And this timeless activity of information knowing Itself also timelessly wills itself because it knows itself as valuable, and hence desirable. And this willing is the what Christians call the procession of the Holy Spirit.


...the "three persons" who exist in God are the reality of word and love in their attachment to each other. They are not substances, personalities in the modern sense, but the relatedness whose pure actuality... does not impair unity of the highest being but fills it out. St Augustine once enshrined this idea in the following formula: "He is not called Father with reference to himself but only in relation to the Son; seen by himself he is simply God." Here the decisive point comes beautifully to light. "Father" is purely a concept of relationship. Only in being-for the other is he Father; in his own being-in-himself he is simply God. Person is the pure relation of being related, nothing else. Relationship is not something extra added to the person, as it is with us; it only exists at all as relatedness.

....the First Person {the Father} does not beget the Son in the sense of the act of begetting coming on top of the finished Person; it {the Father} is the act of begetting, of giving oneself, of streaming forth. It is identical with the act of giving. (Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, pp. 131-132; cf. Augustine, Enarationes in Psalmos 68; De Trinitate VII, 1, 2.)

Much more here.

[Jim__]

117. Uh oh - more trouble for theism

In today's discussion of God, we have:

God is not bound by logic or math as if these things exist as freestanding abstract entities outside of God. They are simply part of what is constitutive of God's own rationality, and I'm suggesting God is self-subsistent Reason.

Previously, when needing to explain how we could have an all-powerful and all-good God, and still have evil things in the world, God was bound by logic (see here):

(Just give me the physics) that would enable human beings to exist, make them incapable of drowning, and not produce greater overall natural harm for them than there is in the actual world.

If there is no logically possible physics---because the mathematics would have to be irrational---that would generate these consequences, then that's just a way of saying that it's not logically possible, given that the beings in question are physical.

If god is not bound by logic, then certainly the physics and mathematics he creates is not bound by our logic; so, it is clearly possible for god to create the physics that would allow such a world.

[Stunster]

123. Thanks

Previously, when needing to explain how we could have an all-powerful and all-good God, and still have evil things in the world, God was bound by logic (see here):

Yeah, bound by logic, which is part of God's own mind, not something outside it. Thanks for making my point for me. Logic is just an aspect of divine rationality, which itself is just an aspect of God.

[Modem Butterfly]

59. On the nose

Stunster's really overthinking the question, perhaps in a way of avoiding it altogether. I don't mind getting into the implications of the question, but solely addressing the implications of the question, and theorizing on the underlying reasons for asking that question without ever addressing the question itself is sound and fury, signifying very little. Sorry, Bill.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sans qualia]

69. Actually I think he's right

The "ultimate reality" necessarily encompasses everything. Everything. To claim that any thing is the "ultimate reality" and also that it was created, caused or otherwise initiated by something else is inconsistent.

[Modem Butterfly]

70. Maybe so...

...but it's a question he made up and is attempting to attribute to me. And that's mental masturbation.

[sans qualia]

72. Not if you define God

as "the ontologically/explanatorily ultimate reality," which he clearly does.

[Modem Butterfly]

74. I have more respect for him than that

But maybe I was wrong.

[Modem Butterfly]

57. Let's try this again

Creationists argue that the earth is so complex it demands a creator. Surely if the earth is complex enough to require a creator, such a creator itself demands a creator. If you believe that your god or gods created the earth, what created your god or gods?

[Stunster]

64. Dumdeedumdeedee

:eyes:

:boring:

[Modem Butterfly]

68. Look, it's a simple question

If you find it boring, maybe it would be better to ignore it rather than attempt to use Freshman-level Philosophy to turn it into something you'd rather answer. Barring that, please try to act like an adult. Thanks!

[sans qualia]

71. Um, speaking as a freshman philosophy major

I can confidently say that what he's using is way beyond freshman-level philosophy. At least where I go to school. I'd like to try to explain his position as I understand it. Stunster, apologies if I've misunderstood anything.

Positing God as a distinct being somehow within the greater context of reality, even an all-powerful one, places God at the mercy of the laws of that greater reality, cause-and-effect and so on. The greater reality itself, however, is not subject to these laws, since they apply to beings in reality, and it is absurd to say that reality is in reality; all things inside of a fishtank exist in water, but this is not necessarily true of the fishtank itself.

Confusion arises here because non-theists tend to view "the universe" as the greater reality, whereas theists say the same of God. In a theist's mind, the universe might require explanation because it exists within the greater reality of God. To an non-theist, the reverse is true.

So for the theist, this is a non-question. God requires no cause, because God is the greater reality in which causation occurs. The common theistic response to your question - that God needs no cause - seems absurd only because non-theists do not identify God with the greater reality.

edit: To clarify: this does not in any way suggest that God actually does exist, since the same claim (requires no cause) can just as rightfuly be made about the universe.

[Modem Butterfly]

73. Not really

It's pretty simple stuff actually. With all due respect to your academic studies, of course.

God requires no cause, because God is the greater reality in which causation occurs.

If God = reality, then you and I are both atheists. The only difference is our terminology.

[sans qualia]

75. I don't disagree with that at all

The latter statement, I mean. Someone who attributes certain other qualities to God might, though.

[Modem Butterfly]

76. I'm not objecting to anyone's belief

Stunster objects to my terminology, however. I have a feeling he might object to yours as well. But I could be wrong.

[sans qualia]

77. Probably

I don't believe that God is a person. God has no mind, no will, no phenomenal experience, no moral agency. When I call myself a pantheist, and I don't always, it's just because my conception of the universe entails a pretty radical cosmology, of the sort that most people wouldn't associate with atheism.

edit: BTW, did I mention that your sig is the coolest thing ever?

[Lerkfish]

96. I agree its a simple question, but the answer is a conundrum

(as I state elsewhere in the thread)
its a logical pretzel, whether you're a theist or not.
only two possiblities exist, logically, either everything ALWAYS existed (and how do you explain that, as theist or atheist?) or evertying SUDDENLY existed when before there was nothing (and how do you explain that, as theist or atheist?)

its a conundrum for either group: if things always existed, then how is that possible? that means things were always created or existant....from what source?
If things suddenly existed from nothingness, you still have a different version of the same conundrum: somehow matter was created/spontaneously self-generated -- from what?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. If I knew that, I'd BE God

:shrug:

Of course, atheists don't know what happened before the Big Bang either, and the whole area of inquiry is so mind-boggling that after reading articles on cosmology in The Scientific American or Discover, my mind stays boggled for several days. :-)

The eternall question: What was there before there was anything at all?

[Behind the Aegis]

79. Khaos

In ancient Greek mythology, the gods were created by Khaos, who was the universe and became conscious and self-aware. She created all other gods, and, in essence, created herself. Now, who created the universe before she became a goddess is still a mystery as much so as what came before the universe and big-bang. Perhaps she just "came to be."

I believe the gods are aspects of ourselves personified, they exist as long as we exist. Their existence is not dependent on our belief in or of them.

[Modem Butterfly]

80. So which gods exist?

Just the Greek pantheon, or do you include other gods as well? And are they still in a position to affect daily life?

[Behind the Aegis]

88. All of them exist

According to Greek mythology, it only describes the origin of the "Greek" gods, but in essence, it is the creation of all gods and goddesses, IMO. Do they still affect daily life? I guess that depends on your view. I feel they are still here in essence, but do they swoop down and change things? Highly unlikely. It doesn't mean I won't ask for additional guidance from them. I personally don't believe the gods are all powerful or completely immortal, so their time does it end, just not in a way we yet understand.

[Modem Butterfly]

90. Interesting!

Are there gods that you feel more comfortable requesting guidance from and some you prefer not to contact? In your opinion, is worship of gods worthwhile, or is it futile?

[Behind the Aegis]

91. My "theory"

I am more comfortable with the Greek pantheon, but I have explored multiple groups/gods/goddesses. I do not often choose the more "chaotic" gods and goddesses (e.g. Kali).

As for the futility or worthwhileness of worship, I feel it is worthwhile if it brings solace and their is an understanding that the gods are not going to 'materialize' and make it all better! However, if you you feel that way (swoop down gods), then you are going to be in for much sadness. It is futile to ask the gods to do something that you, yourself, can do. I also believe it is futile to worship the gods if you are insecure and expect others to believe as you do, in order to validate your own experience.

I guess I can use a personal example. I am currently out of work (21 months). I have had a hell of a time finding a good job. I pray that I have the good sense to apply for the right job and that I am not so short-sighted that I miss a good opportunity. So, after 21 months, I know I am responsible for my choices, but I also feel that there may be intervention keeping me in the current place as if I have something else to learn. It doesn't stop me from asking for divine guidance, in hopes that I will open my eyes further.

Does that explain it better? BTW, feel free to keep asking me questions and don't worry about terminology...calling my belief system 'mythology' is accurate! :)

[Lerkfish]

95. both theists and atheists run into the SAME brick wall here, logically...

neither can explain logically, how matter or the universe came to suddenly exist from nothingness.

Logically, Either everything ALWAYS existed (which is a bizarre concept) or everything SUDDENLY existed from nothing (an equally bizaree concept).

both theists and atheists appear to suggest things simply came into being spontaneously.
The only difference is that theists suggests there was an intelligence involved, and atheists believe it occurred randomly.

I think its the same conundrum for both schools of thought. I am amused, however, when atheists think bringing up this conundrum disproves God, but gloss over the fact that neither can they adequately explain the conundrum sans deity any better than theists can avec deity.

[trotsky]

97. Something from nothing is bizarre, but we know it happens.

Quantum fluctuations occur in the vacuum of space all the time.

Here's a neat read:

http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vacuum%20Fluctuation.htm

[GodlessBiker]

99. That doesn't help us. (Is the vacuum "nothing"?)

If matter can spring from nothingness, where did the rules (quantum mechanics) come from that permit matter to spring from nothingness?


It's still a mystery.

[trotsky]

101. Sure, it's a mystery.

Just like disease used to be a mystery.

Or natural disasters.

Or eclipses.

Or fire.

"Gods" were invoked to explain all of these things - and many, many more - until science and rational inquiry figured them out.

Now, today, the mystery has receded to things like the ultimate origin of the universe.

Religion has a track record of being wrong... every single time.

Science has demolished the religious answer... every single time.

Which one of them do you think has the best chance of solving THIS mystery?

[Lerkfish]

103. you're being overly dogmatic about science, here.

you're having faith that science will answer it and religion won't, even though neither have truly answered it.

I'm saying its the same conundrum for BOTH. NEITHER approach adequately answers the mystery.

You're saying religion cannot answer because they haven't yet, and science will naturally answer it....because they havent' yet.

do you see the illogic of your position?

[trotsky]

105. If that's the label you need to apply.

All I'm doing is looking at track records.

Whenever humans didn't know the answer to something, they attributed it to a god or a supernatural force.

Every single time, science eventually explained the phenomenon. I see no reason whatsoever to think that science WON'T be able to fully explain the origins of the universe. If one thing has worked every time, and one thing has failed every time, isn't it LOGICAL to expect the thing that worked to work again?

Saying "goddidit" is no explanation at all, and worse, one that has had nothing but failure over the past few millenia.

I'm not saying there IS an answer... yet. Only pointing out that religion has never succeeded in its answers.

[Lerkfish]

108. sure, its an accurate label...

definition of dogmatic:

Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

I'd say I've chosen the exact lable appropriate to the discussion.

And, no, it isn't LOGICAL to assume science will have the answer...for one thing, you're basing your assumption on incorrect data.

You say that science has worked every time.....when, in fact, science is frequently incorrect and must adjust its conclusions.

do you know anything of phlogiston? Do you know how many times the theoretical model of atomic structure has changed radically? Do you know how many theories are disproven?

You are incorrectly assigning pristine unblemished accuracy to science -- which is not only untrue, but illogical.

further, your impaired logic is undoing you in this discussion. I always find it interesting that those who oppose religion as irrational and illogical seem incapable of using logic to arrive at that prejudice.

here, let me assist you in the fallacy of logic that is your assumption here:


A: Assertion: religion cannot adequately explain the mechanics of how the universe was generated from nothing.
B: conclusion: Religion is invalid.
C: Science cannot adequately explain the mechanics of how the universe was generated from nothing.
D: conclusion: science is valid.

[trotsky]

109. Wow, that's a completely twisted restatement of what I'm saying.

No wonder you are attacking me as illogical and dogmatic - your strawman certainly is those things!

To be right, science doesn't always have to be right the first time. It has a built-in error-correcting mechanism to help approximate reality. That's why it's ultimately successful, whereas religious explanations ultimately fail.

All I'm saying is, look at the track record. Science has an ever-improving method of getting things right. Religion has no such method, and has consistently been wrong when trying to apply supernaturalistic explanations to phenomena.

If it makes you feel better, yes, I have "faith" that science will eventually explain the origins of the universe. However, it's the same faith I have that my office chair isn't going to collapse when I sit in it. In other words, it's a demonstrated faith.

Not so with religious faith - the only demonstration available is that every time a religious explanation has been invoked to explain a natural phenomenon, it has been wrong.

Feel free to again completely distort what I'm saying, if it helps you score points or whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.

[Lerkfish]

110. LOL!

shrugs...whatever.

I'm saying that both science and religion face the same conundrum, and neither adequately address it. I'm saying its a failing of both. You and others in this thread say its only a failing of religion, and therefore invalidates religion.

My point is that if you consider that an invalidation of religon...this particular conundrum, then you must also consider that an invalidation of science..which you obviously do not.

You have faith that EVENTUALLY science will explain the conundrum. But you criticize those who likewise have faith that EVENTUALLY religion will explain the conundrum. That'
s hypocritical in my view.

I am being fair and evenhanded by assigning inadequacy to both schools of thought because neither have addressed it. You, on the other hand, wish to give science an automatic win in this category, on the basis that you have faith they eventually will. That's nice and all, but it demonstrates a dogmatic attitude regarding science...the same thing that antitheists criticize theists for doing.

[trotsky]

111. You're still mis-stating my position.

But at this point, it's a waste of time to argue any further.

[Lerkfish]

112. of course its a waste of time...

because antitheists are incapable of accepting that a theist could actually have a valid logical point.

messes with their world view, and all.

I understand your position: because in the past science has (in your view) always arrived at the truth, that means they will in this instance as well. I simply don't blindly accept it as valid.

why should I?

I'm saying that I think its possibly an unknowable conundrum, for BOTH science and religion...AND I'm not making an assumption that one or the other will answer it due to track record. Track record is no guarantee of eventual truth.

You already are prejudiced in favor of science and against religion, therefore you arrive at conclusions of future discoveries and call that logic. I'm skeptical of future discovery on this particular issue, and my veiw is more supported by the current status, whereas your view depends on faith that eventually evidence not in hand will be.

I'll stick with my skepticism until proven otherwise.

[trotsky]

114. Ah, so now you too pretend to know what "anti-theists" really think.

Do you regularly bring up inflammatory terms to disparage those who disagree with you?

I'm not sure exactly what I did to incur your wrath, other than disagree with you. But hey, enjoy what you call skepticism.

[Lerkfish]

115. no, I think you're overreacting....

and you're projecting.

but beyond all that...strip that away and look at the gist of the arguments. Look at what I'm saying.

[trotsky]

116. Projecting what, exactly?

Did I start using an inflammatory term to try and assign motives to you? Because that's exactly what "anti-theist" is. I'm not going to strip away your insults to try and find an argument that isn't there. I've looked at what you're saying, and I disagree. Isn't that enough?

[Lerkfish]

118. you disagree that neither side has an answer?

because that's what I'm saying.

[trotsky]

119. I'll agree that neither side has an answer you like.

Of course, what's also apparent is that you and I have different ideas about what an "answer" can be.

[Lerkfish]

120. ok, then, what is the answer you already possess?

whether I like it or not, what is your answer, in hand, as to how the universe was generated from nothing?

so far, all I've seen you say is that there WILL BE an answer, but that is not an answer.

[Lerkfish]

102. but where did space, and quantum physics derive from?

space is still SOMETHING.
and the vacuum of space is not a true vacuum.

do you see that you're just not going back far enough?

there is the brick wall, logically, of where everything came from, even laws of physics.

My point is, its the same brick wall for theists and atheists....the only difference is atheists think the brick wall disproves theists' beliefs, but overlook how the brick wall challenges their own beliefs as well.

I don't know the answer, myself...in fact, it may just be unknowable.

[Stunster]

104. Correct, the quantum vacuum is not strictly nothing

It obeys the laws of quantum mechanics.

It is a 'field' concept.

It is very much a 'something', not a 'nothing'.

[Modem Butterfly]

106. You're getting your metaphysics mixed up with your physics

And not doing a very good job of either.

"Here kitty kitty kitty!" Schroedinger

[Lerkfish]

113. so...what is your answer?

how do YOU address the conundrum?

yes, I'm turning your question back on you.

[Modem Butterfly]

122. Humanity

I don't believe in gods, though.

[Lerkfish]

127. interesting...

you're saying humanity, which has only existed for a mere couple thousands of years, created the universe from nothing?

how does that work, exactly?

[Modem Butterfly]

128. "yes, I'm turning your question back on you."

My question was about the origins of gods.

[Lerkfish]

129. well, sorry...

I meant in the more immediate area of this thread...like the last several posts in this cascade.

[FM Arouet666]

107. The argument from the beginning is non sequitur

Those that claim that the natural world is too complex to be understood, lack understanding. And, this is not ad hominem, this is observation. Scientific exploration of a topic, met with a conundrum, does not find solution in the super natural. If the God concept were a valid solution to our questions, humankind would have never have progressed beyond the discovery of fire.

Oops, spotted the topic as a question for Atheists not theists. Anyway, an atheists point of view, for what ever it is worth. :evilgrin:

[derby378]

124. I don't worry about it much

Might as well asked what came before the Big Bang. The problem with that, according to physicist Taner Edis, is that the BB created not only space, but time as well. Chronologically speaking, there wouldn't be anything before the BB, although linearly there might have been something - but perhaps forever out of our ability to discover it.

Same thing with God as an individual entity or a Prime Mover. But then again, Edis did make some great arguments that the way the universe functions doesn't need a deity to begin with, but I'll let you ponder that on your own.

[supernova]

125. God preexists the universe

from my POV.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

126. There is nothing but God

every molecule, every subatomic particle, every particle and every wave. There is nothing but God.

What created God? What created the universe and everything? The question is the same.

[JerseygirlCT]

130. Well, speaking only for the theology I know

(Christian) we simply believe God is, and was, and always will be. In other words -- exists outside of creation. And I can fully believe in God, in a creator, and still fully believe in science's findings. They're so not incompatible!

What existed before the big bang?