What are religious systems where super-god is the legit answer to this question?

What are religious systems where super-god is the legit answer to this question?

Other urls found in this thread:

commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6113
youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ
youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas
youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM
youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw
youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg
youtube.com/watch?v=XbLJtxn_OCo
youtube.com/watch?v=bj0lekx-NiQ
youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
youtube.com/watch?v=xnBTJDje5xk
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0
plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/madhyamaka/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>If there is no God then who created the universe?
hurr big bang durr

Probably another god.

> another god
Isn't it basically Gnosticism?

worship of plato's faggot asshole and murderous whore of a mother

God is literally a shitty fanfic-tier Mary Sue. Zeus was cooler.

Well you are not wrong. Jesus is literal self-insert of the author in his universe.

He was the original Mary Sue.

Neoplatonism

>Isn't it basically Gnosticism?
No, it's turtles all the way down

literally Gnosticism

God is the necessary being. The chain of causal explanation stops at him.

Why?

> God is the necessary being.
Why him and not say super-god, the one who is one step beyond?

Read the summa. Basically if he wasn't, then there would be a higher being than god, and that higher being, not the first, would be god, and so in to infinity until you arrive at an ultimate cause. This series can't go on to infinity because this would mean that there wasn't a first cause. But since the universe and everything exist, we know that there must have been a first cause. That first cause we call God.

Christianity by technicality, I suppose. At no point is it strictly monotheistic. You're just told not to worship any other gods.

Mormonism.

Just in case anyone thinks OP is a good response to a theist:

commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6113

> Since the universe and everything exist, we know that there must have been the first cause
The chain that starts from first cause can't exist as there is basically no reason for an existence of its first step. We know that chain exist and so we can be sure that the first cause doesn't. The chain without a first cause must be infinite one.

The more you think about it the more it seems that the causality itself is some kind of illusion that is deeply flawed for common perceptions.

Uh, it's exactly the opposite. The chain exists because the first cause exists otherwise it wouldn't exist. The first cause exist because god is the necessary being (see argument from contingency). He doesn't have a cause, otherwise he would be another link in the chain.

Nice digits satan

This. Causality is literally just a human prejudice.

If Super God created God then who created Super God?

Actually no. It's pretty straightforward argument if any of you bothered reading the summa it instead of asking for someone else to sum it up for you. Denying causality altogether is the hardest explanation and a gigantic leap of faith.

That's because it is. It's something we frequently see and therefore frequently impose upon the universe, without much justification to do so. Even though, as Newton has basically proved, it doesn't quite work the way we think it does.

Chain exist only because there is cause for any link and if the first one is based on nothing then all chain falls into nonexistence.

Actually no. Causality is universally applied and denying causality is a human prejudice and used selectively against arguments that the person objecting them is not willing to concede.

Trick question, but I am sure that there is Super Super God who is above both of them.

No. It literally takes no faith at all. What you are doing is taking your everyday experience of cause and effect, and applying this to the universe as a whole.

the demiurge is merely an emanation of the uncreated and eternal One

In the beginning there was nothing

No, again, it's because you are looking at the first cause as just another link in the chain that needs another cause for its existence, when it has already been stated that is not the case. But now I realize that you're a troll, because nobody can be this thick, so this is your last (You).

> Denying causality altogether
You are denying causality by claiming the existence of the uncaused first cause. If there are things that need no cause than causality is denied on principle.

Of course, an infinite regression is not perfect but it is the truest solution if you want to preserve causation more than anything, even if it lacks in other desired qualities.

> emanation
Can you remind me what does that term means?

So god can't have a superior, merely because rationalist excercises tell us so? We would be worshipping the great god, instead of his subordinate?

Actually never mind, the point I was trying to get at was the entire concept of God is based on rationalist principles. Also I should point out that the universe did indeed exist before the "Big Bang", and that whether or not our universe exists is always up for debate

Even the idea of a "creator" is just superimposing human traits onto nature. It's a figment of primate psychology, not a necessary principle.

It's called common sense. You, on the other hand, is picking an abstract conception (namely that there is no causality) of which there is virtually no observable phenomena in the entire universe and arguing that this actually universally true and causality is the exception and something we impose on the universe. All this because you think this will win you an argument, and on the next day or next sentence you will assume causality again as if nothing had happened.

Without causality there's no basis for scientific knowledge, or knowledge of any kind. If there were no basis for knowledge it would be pointless to have his conversation and insist on either point.

Even if it is some cause outside of a chain, that does not mean that it can exist without any kind of cause behind.

Knowledge is limited and so must be causality between random events.

Because then super-god would be god

and god would be a demi-god

god is by definition the most powerful one

>infinite regression is not perfect
No. You don't understand, an infinite regress has no beginning. If the chain of events that led to a particular effect had no beginning then the effect would have never come about. This is why you need a cause less first term.

From now on I'm only worshiping Super Duper God, all these little middleman Gods aren't powerful or impressive enough for me to bother worshiping.

Common sense isn't an argument. I don't know if you've noticed, but the universe is counterintuitive sometimes.
And no, I'm not using causality as an imposition ad hoc. I use causality on a basis of usefulness, where causality and common sense breaks down is where I abandon it; which occurs within discussing the universe as a whole.

Fuck off back to your grave Hume

Quantum mechanics break causality

Talking is easy, you can suspend the laws of the universe and thought if you think this will win you an argument, but the burden of proof is on you. You're like a child that changes the rule of the game when he's losing, and back again when it's convenient.

First of all, you don't know quantum mechanics. Second, not entirely understood phenomena on the frontiers of science challenge scientific paradigms. In Ptolemy's day the apparent retrograde movement of the planets seemed to challenge the scientific paradigm. They thought that the magnet had a "soul" because it moved objects without touching them. Etc. The easiest explanation is that causality doesn't exist right? No. Science advanced and new explanatory models were proposed.

All I did was reject your claim of causality applying to the whole universe and gave you my reasons why. I didn't accept the negative. I have no burden of proof. It is on you to prove causality as a universal function, rather than a pragmatic concept.
Causality is far from a law, at least as you are thinking of it.
Learn to fucking debate.

Actually, since there's no observable phenomena that conclusively prove (not suggest) that causality does not apply, yes, the burden of proof is on you. Also, since the only reason you have for challenging causality is for the purpose of "debate", it tells me that you are a spoiled brat.

>prove (not suggest)
You're playing god of the gaps.

I don't challenge causality *just* for the purpose of debate. (which is okay to do, by the way) This is something I do apply.

Something causeless will never start anything, to begin with, it is equal to saying that we need things to happen without any actual reason i.e. equal to denying the law of causality itself.

>not worshipping hyper super duper x 1000 God
Wew.

>his power level is only HSDxK
heh, come call me when you are at least on the million magnitude order, kiddo

>something causeless will never start anything
Except for God, of course.

Quantum mechanics is causal, just probabilitistic.

I disagree with your claim, I've never seen any evidence that a causeless thing started God.

Are you implying that Super God doesn't have the power to create God?

How can you prove that causality does not apply between something?

I already explained this. God is a necessary being from the argument from contingency. Only contingent beings require cause for them to exist, namely the necessary being which is God. Your mistake is to treat God as just another link in the chain of contingent beings, one that would require another cause or his existence. We're just going in circles by now. I've entertained you enough for one morning.

But Super God isn't causeless, he was created by MegaGod.

No, no. We've played enough already. Time to brush your teeth.

Gigagod laughs at your claims. Heretic.

Why do you assume is the necessary first cause a "being"? Seems anthropocentric.

More honest to label it a "phenomenon" or more accuratly "concept" and to not declare it as a special exception, but to consider it the universal link to an unknown category which very well may be an infinite regression for all we know about he pre-universal state.

Otherwise we are conceding to religious sentiment which is never a good idea.

Asatru, somewhat. God was created by the right and left feet of a giant fucking each other. And the giant popped out from nowhere as a result of ice and fire colliding.

sorry for the grammar i'm retarded

I can add that even if God doesn't need a cause to exist, nothing stops Super God to cause God into existence and nothing really suggests, that there can't exist even more beings, that are free from causal requirements. The first cause may be not the single and only one.

I don't really care who created God or if God is uncreated. Once a being reaches immortal, eternal omnipotence he is God to me and anything he has to deal with is beyond my reckoning.

> Ásatrúarfélagið
Never heard of them before, I should check.

Actually, you theologians have a very vague and obscure idea of causality. You're just projecting logical and mathematical necessity on the stream of existence. Everything there is is becoming, it only happens that it is significantly intelligible and we can use parts of it to predict what will happen next.

>If the chain of events that led to a particular effect had no beginning then the effect would have never come about.
That would only be true if time moved itself through time, but it is our perception of reality that moves itself.

God is infinite. The alpha and omega. He who always was and always will be. You can't get larger than infinite.

You are actually incapable of observing causality.

>laughing quantum mechanics.jpg

The problem with logical arguments for the origin of the universe is that logic itself has only ever proven itself useful for understanding logic and things constructed with logic in mind (e.g. computers). The idea that the universe has to conform to our notions of logic is strictly a human prejudice.

In a lot of mythologies, the God arrives or is "born" somehow, so OP's question is about Gods who need a Super God to create them.

>It's another "Atheists get BTFO" episode

>Worst Objection to Theism: Who Created God?
youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

>Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence
youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM

>Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

>The Introspective Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw

>The Teleological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

>What Atheists Confuse
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=XbLJtxn_OCo
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=bj0lekx-NiQ

>Is Atheism a Delusion?
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=xnBTJDje5xk

>Atheists Don't Exist
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

God exists, deal with it.

Infinite regression not admisible.

The answer would be god, if there a deity hiearchy or command chain it is impossible for us to know

This is literally gnosticism. Most gnostics attribute the creation of the universe to a lower being, a "demiurge", and claim that he in turn was created by supergod, a being so vastly powerful and alien as to be unknowable by us.

>God created universe
This answer is due to an old "paradox" regarding the start of causal-chain. A non-causal entity was the answer greeks/theologists chose. That non-causal entity being God.

Alternatively, Buddhist were looking at the same problem as well but they came up with a very different answer, bit complex but stay with me for abit. They posit "start" of the causal-chain is misleading. The cause-effect chain is filled with erroneous understand of relations between the cause and effect. First, cause and effect must either be independent of each other or dependent of each other. If they are independent, then there is no cause-effect to begin with. If they are dependent, then they cannot exist separately to say one is cause and other is effect. Hence they propose mutual-existence. So when the question then is asked, what was the "first cause"? The buddhist saw this question as an issue.

I'm probably not explaining it thoroughly but the argument should be close enough. Some ancient buddhist guy name Nagarjuna clarifies this position more clearly.

Initially it is difficult to understand, because we think of cause and effect from a timeline. Space and time are variables that can be distorted. God created time and space. I believe that God always existed, because time did not exist. It was God who created time.

The dogs who didn't stay on the porch.

>It's another "I will spam shit and not engage in any argument" episode

Get out of the way ya lil yappers...
da BIG DAWG commin' through!!

If the best atheist can do to deny God is to resort to desperation tactics such as trying to deny all logic, reason and causation, then we believers are doing good.

"God Did It" wins again!

I was thinking of studying Nagarjuna, I have similar views on causality (and other matters as "substantiality", by what I've read about him). I see causality more as a "pragmatic truth" than as a "real truth", for I can't see how it would make sense if it were the latter case.

I'm and I'm denying shit, so you can't include me. Moreover, I can't see any atheist denying logic and reason here, only your (mis)understanding of causation.
If the best you theists can do is to resort to desperate tactics such as trying to avoid your opponents' arguments through strawmen fallacies, then we non-believers are doing good.

Just read the books or articles about his views. There are plenty of western literature buddhologist clarifying his works in these day and age.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/madhyamaka/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india/

I don't see how the "call the First Cause a God" logic even counts as a religious system, more of a thought experiment or word game. It's not really religious per se because it doesn't prompt any rituals or behaviors.

Moreover, if someone WAS religious and they play the First Cause game and call it "God", that doesn't get you across the universal gap to upholding your current religious dogma anyway? It doesn't validate any mythology. It doesn't even contribute to an active, intentional God either, it's just a dumb Big Bang so to speak.

So this has nothing to do with a God, no matter how you consider the question.

ty
I've read a bit about him on IEP and downloaded a book with some things he wrote and commentaries.

They usually go further to attribute omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc. to their First Cause, but yes, it can't get you farther than Deism, much less to some specific flavour of Christianity or Islam.

I wonder what if there is super hell for people who are too bad for hell or super heavens for ones who are too good for heaven.

>Otherwise we are conceding to religious sentiment which is never a good idea.
Says who?

God is the creation itself

If God doesn't have a creator then he always existed. So then why bother having a God and not just saying the universe itself always existed?

because we know that the universe hasn't always existed

Who created Super-God? Super-Super-God? It could go on forever.

But evil exists within creation.

The universe as we know it hasn't always existed. the big bang didn't create the universe, it existed beforehand.

Actually we do. the universe is an eternal cycle of Big Bang, heat death, Big Bang, etc.