If God exists then what created God?

We did

People that use that line of argument usually resort to the "first cause" argument as it calls out that need for a cause for everything. Which is really bunk as it requires you to believe in an uncaused cause. That being God the eternal.

The problem with that is apparent. Its makes no sense. If God is eternal, why isn't the existence? If existence isn't eternal, then why is God eternal? etc etc.

This problem is highlighted by the Indian thinker like Nagarjuana (plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/#Cau). Where he points out the problems of casual understanding of causality. The problem being our assumption with what constitutes as "cause" and what is "effect", what makes them different or same, what the relation between the two is, what the core of each is, etc. The answer he presents is one of identity. Where he claims things do not have core-identity and thus are defined only by relations. This relation is misunderstood by us as having separate unique identity, then extrapolated into cause-effect, then creating this initial problem of identifying what is cause and what is effect.

Wait. Indians had philosophy?

I thought they all lived in mudhuts before Englishmen educated them

Technically they didn't live in mudhuts and philosophize. The ascetic/naked philosophers gave up their mortal goods and lived a life of destitution.

Well, time didn't exist yet so things don't have to have a cause to exist. But, God existed as a child who was born of the second son of The Father who was connected via the trinity to The Son, actual jesus christ (not the nazareen!) who was his brother. His mother was the last survivor of the city of Sodom that was destroyed by The Father, so her children (who were all leviations, including her) went off to destroy The Father. They eventually succeeded, and when he died Elohim (the long-begotton son of Sodom, Elijah) became God. Which is a title and a name.

Impossible to prove a negative

your face is not an argument

easier done in a warm climate

God itself is the creation force. God is not a person, or a thing, it's an idea, probably too esoteric for you (or any human) to grasp. God is beyond time, beyond a linear view of history, beyond "before", beyond "after". God is a first cause, or source. Probably doesn't even exist solely in our universe.

what?

>God is a mix of the Force and game of throneian charectar motivations
okay user, you been playing dwarf fortress too much?

God is everywhere, retard

God is nothing.
God is immaterial and out of the time, so God doesn't exist if for existing we understand something that appear to our sense.
So, we can't even think something about God, cause it's outside of the view of our senses.

You are literally just describing the universe as we understand it. There's no need for God in this equation.

Humans have a lot of the divine treasures that God has

A lot of flaws too. Like jealousy, wrath, and pride.

There's a needed if op make the cuestion.
Also, we can't deny something only because we can't had a prove of them. God is something like these, we can't affirm or deny anything of him.

>I own a pink dog with a cat's tail.
>Y-you technically can't disprove that statement, therefore it's true!

I KNOW YOURE A THEIST BUT WHY ARE YOU BEING THIS RETARDED

God and the atheist nothing are the same, ie an infinite, uncreated creative power

> i beilive in chi

if you experience God, face to face, you will know it, and you will call him by his name
once you get a direct experience, all the description of God will suddenly make sense
words can't bring you closer to that experience
they can only give you an idea of "what" God is, same way they can give an idea of color to a blind person
by telling you metaphors and telling you what it isn't
but that idea will be wrong ...at best it'll be a pointer to something you don't know

>I don't believe in chi
>I know what chi is
pick one

>if you experience God, face to face, you will know it, and you will call him by his name
>once you get a direct experience, all the description of God will suddenly make sense
>words can't bring you closer to that experience
>they can only give you an idea of "what" God is, same way they can give an idea of color to a blind person
>by telling you metaphors and telling you what it isn't
>but that idea will be wrong ...at best it'll be a pointer to something you don't know

Such ridiculous levels of brainwashing.

God doesn't need a reason for existence. The same as you. You exist by random.

>brainwashing
yeah, because there is totally someone who benefits from me coming into that conclusion
benefits exactly how you fucking moron?
you're ridiculous

Nope, that user was right, if you think God needs to be "proven" you're doing it wrong. There is literally nothing I can say that will convince you why this is the case. You're operating at a really shallow level, a phase most grow out of.

>You're operating at a really shallow level, a phase most grow out of.

Such ridiculous levels of brainwashing.

Whatever you say m8

Why do you even bother posting when your whole argument is dependent on God convincing the person? Who the fuck would even bother debating you when you're not even the person they should be arguing with?

A discussion about God is inevitably going to revolve around how he cannot be discussed and more of an inward reality than a syllogism.

God is what we call the mystery, the unsayable, the more you are in touch with this dimension in yourself the more you are in touch with God. Why call it God? Because determinate ideas, determinate forms, wither in the ineffable, God is precisely what you get when you subtract the content of existence from its actuality: "I am that I am"

Imagine being this smug about your point of view

So in other words, a load of vomit that boils down to "idk ask someone else". Your whole post is pointless because in the end, you don't have any answers, or even any points. You just defer it all to God. I'd much rather talk to him than his handpuppet, if I'm honest.
I mean it makes sense if you're not out to convince anyone and just want to spank yourself online.

God is Uncreated. The non-physical substance of His thoughtform (aeon) Monogenes is the pure expression of this reality. Read the Gospel of John.

>Read the Gospel of John

or Harry Potter.

B-b-because Harry P-Potter is a philosophical work combing early Christian mysticism with Greek philosophy and Jewish messianism! THey're equally usable to understand questions in t-theology!

Ok

if something exists outside of time then it doesn't need to have a beginning or to have been created.

>B-b-because Harry P-Potter is a philosophical work combing early Christian mysticism with Greek philosophy and Jewish messianism!

It is actually. You must have missed the point.

God created the universe by number, weight and meassure.

Why couldn't he have always existed?

If you can imagine a man in the sky who created the world, is it so outrageous to think that he did not need to be created but was always there?

Glad you understand
If you don't, then I'm sure there's someone out there who can knock some sense into you. Trust me, they exist

Bruh please, come back when you get your diploma from reddit

You can disprove that because you can observe the absence of the dog.
However, we can't observe God because God is unobservable. This doesn't make his existence false, but provides that we cannot understand or measure the presence of God because he is beyond any mortal perception, ideas, or concepts such as time, tangibility, or basic human awareness.
You can't detect, measure, or prove the existence of God, nor can you disprove his existence since it's impossible.
>inb4 le flying spaghreddit monster

It's pretty depressing listening to you when God isn't feeding you lines. Do you mind bringing him round? I'd love talking to him.
I'm not even kidding. Having a talk with God would be so enlightening. Not you though. You're worthless.

It's amusing that you said "inb4 le flying spaghreddit monster", it almost as if you are self aware enough, for once, to recognise the weakness of what you just said. You could make up anything and just claim it is undetectable etc etc. You could be some numpty claiming they are a Jedi and the Force is real and come out with exactly the same stuff you do.

>something cant come from nothing
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

This is also one of the many theories about how the big bang occurred, and how a potential new big bang could occur in the far future after entropy/particle decay.

Then who or what created God?

>N-nothing god has always been

Then why can the same aspect not be ascribed for the greater universe and its many facets?

>no proofs

I don't need to prove the universe has always been and always will be because that is the exact same argument used to define god.

Spinoza btfo this argument centuries ago.

Why do you want to know?

Who's asking?

The Universe is beholden to they physical reality of Cause and Effect. An extra-universal being would not be. That's the difference that some people find compelling.

this is a very crude oversimplification and you gotta look beyond what I'm saying but,
if you examine the universe closely enough it fits the description of God
God doesn't have that many names but one of them is Truth, and there is a reason for that
it is the truth about the nature of reality

actually, god is way closer to nothing than something, way more than you think
god is omnipotent, something is realized potential
nothing has infinite potential
through the forces of negation and affirmation a potential is realized, a something is created, when those forces cancel out it returns back to nothingness
nothing is the alpha and omega
the only reason god is not nothing is because nothing, as we humans are able to understand it, is still something because you can grasp it
pure nothingness cannot be grasped by the mind but it can be noticed in the direct awareness if your concentration muscle is strong enough and your mind is clear

The same logic could be applied to any imaginable entity.
The le flying spaghetti monster perfectly encapsulates the fallacy of this argument and greentexting it changes nothing.

No, god is not an entity but the principle of entities' appearing to themselves, or the ground of existence in more simplified terms

I didn't mean entity as a physical object

>No, god is not an entity but the principle of entities' appearing to themselves, or the ground of existence in more simplified terms

So is le flying spaghetti thingie.

then we're talking about the same thing you're just using a different name
though I wonder where did the "flying" and "spaghetti" came from

>missing the point
It doesn't have to be a spaghetti monster, it could be a jellyfish, a norweigan oak tree, a used condom. The point is that the argument of "you just cant observe him" "he's a spiritual thing and we mortals can't comprehend him" essentially boils down to "you can't disprove his existence, therefore he exists" which is a logical fallacy, and it's shown to be as such with things like spaghetti monster because I could just as easily say "you cant disprove that somewhere, somehow there is a fluong spaghetti monster, therefore it exists" which we know is a stupid claim but operates on the same logic you've presented.

>then we're talking about the same thing

This thing that we are talking about that you cannot define in any way other than to go on about how it is undefinable?

I'm not the one missing the point, I don't think you understood what the user you were quoting was saying, there cannot be two "grounds of existence"
being able to grasp something with your mind and being able to notice it in your direct awareness are two different things
you can't do the first one but the second one is possible and it's the single reason why humanity built monasteries

>implying that's or unreasonable thing to say
would a definition of color do any good to a blind person?
what I'm saying is nothing new
>The dao that can be expressed is not the eternal dao
protip:[spoiler]Dao is just a different name for God[/spoiler]

>would a definition of color do any good to a blind person?

That's not an answer to what I just said.

>protip:[spoiler]Dao is just a different name for God[/spoiler]

Except Tao has certain properties that make it different by definition from say Yahweh or Hanuman.

God isn't a being, god is the universe and everything within it

Organized religion fags out

Ayy another spinozabro

Pantheism is the only right answer.

That something like being is revealed to being is God. There's no proving or refuting it. It's presupposed by the very investigation.

>Except Tao has certain properties that make it different by definition from say Yahweh or Hanuman.
at the core it really is no different
the problem with organized religions is that they don't practice what they preach
instead they believe it but they don't have the needed experiences and therefore the needed framework to interpret those beliefs to and therefore their interpretation goes completely off tangent
your definition of god, while "accurate" is not going to bring you any loser to God and the truth or do any good, unless you do the practice yourself
as Jesus faith without works is dead

>at the core it really is no different
Wrong.

>Jesus faith without works is dead
So you reveal yourself to be a follower of "Jesus" and "Yahweh" while claiming Chinese belief systems that fundamentally clash with yours actually support it. What nonsensical horseshit.

nice arguments you get there pal

Thanks for your agreement.

>So you reveal yourself to be a follower of "Jesus"and "Yahweh"
where?
>while claiming Chinese belief systems
where?
>clash with yours actually support it
can you point me to the contradiction?

If you create as perfect of a vacuum as you can, particles will spontaneously appear...

I'm confused. Are you claiming you merely started dropping references to Jesus and Yahweh into your "point" or are you genuinely asking how Taoism conflicts with the claim that "God" followed around a specific tribe helping them out in wars for a couple of millenia and then sent himself to Earth in the Middle East with a specific doctrine?

I've been making references to bible the entire time if you haven't noticed
that doesn't mean I consider myself christian or that I'm a Jew
God's will is by definition that which is occurring, naturally because God is the source of everything
if something occurs, that helps a specific tribe, then that help naturally comes from God

And how does any of that actually fit in with Taoism?

I'm sorry, can you point me to the contradiction or clarify what you mean?

The Tao doesn't have a specific set of opinions or make decisions.

waluigi

>Then who or what created God?
You can't even know what it's that thing that we called God. Can u know even what created it or if it was even "created"?

There are two major concepts in the human collective consciousness that are entirely fictional and do not exist in reality that relate to this:

1.) Infinity
2.) Nothing

While there are illusions that lead us to conclude these things are part of our reality, time and again, further observation proves it not to be the case.

Granted, it doesn't say much about the proposed question, as most widely adopted modern models of God exist both inside and outside the reality, which does render the whole "something can't come from nothing" point moot. There is and never has been nothing within the finite span time and reality covers, but outside of that, there be dragons (or flying ponies, wtf knows).

Which leads us to the tired old pop-sci video with the intro from atheist guy:
youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

But when it comes to God, the answer is "Fuck you, magic". Not that it truly matters to the truly religious whether God exists or not, nor should it matter to science, provided the god in question does not interfere with the chain of causality insofar as one can ever tell - which also, makes his existence moot.

what do you think comes first?
rules being written down or people acting them out?
I'll tell you the answer
its the second one

those rules, they are not arbitrary, they go through selection process
those rules help you survive and thrive, get selected
and living and thriving is what you want
if this universe is so that if you follow those rules you will survive and thrive, get what you want
and if god is the source of this universe
then that means God wants you to follow those rules
it doesn't mean "God has a biological brain", the very fact of reality being this way is the process of wanting
these are the God's "opinions" and "decisions"

Nothing and Infinity are two sides of the same coin they are the same shit
what you're looking at right now is nothing and infinity
if you have nothing, you have infinite potential and that infinite potential expresses itself and you have the universe

>what do you think comes first?
>rules being written down or people acting them out?
>I'll tell you the answer
>its the second one
>those rules, they are not arbitrary, they go through selection process
>those rules help you survive and thrive, get selected
>and living and thriving is what you want
>if this universe is so that if you follow those rules you will survive and thrive, get what you want
>and if god is the source of this universe
>then that means God wants you to follow those rules
>it doesn't mean "God has a biological brain", the very fact of reality being this way is the process of wanting
>these are the God's "opinions" and "decisions"

This is just a lengthy way of trying to circumvent what I said to you and doesn't remotely address the difference between the concepts of "Tao" and "Yahweh".

those are not concepts
did you forgot about "the dao is not the dao" alredy?
those concepts are pointers and they point to the same thing
the truth about the nature of reality the people who wrote about it have realized and experienced
their purpose is to help you to get to the real thing

>those are not concepts

Yes they are.

>did you forgot about "the dao is not the dao" alredy?

Top kek.

>those concepts are pointers and they point to >the same thing
>the truth about the nature of reality the people who wrote about it have realized and experienced
>their purpose is to help you to get to the real thing

And that just happens to be the religion you happened to be raised in and not Yazidism.

There are two basic modes of consciousness: being and doing. Being is "being in the moment," cultivated by mindfulness meditation. In this mode past and future are not experienced because one's inner monologue is silenced, all that is experienced is a singular ever-present moment and instantaneous change in this moment. Doing is the mode of planning, anticipating, remembering and thinking. In this mode there is no one moment but a range of them comprising past, present, and future, all of which are perceived as equally existant much like frames on a film strip.

These two modes are not mere psychological constructs but fundamental aspects of our reality: cumulative and instantaneous change. Calculus, the mathematical study of change, proves that they are exclusive and in conflict but two inverse processes of the same thing. This is also the purest essence of yin and yang, with Eastern thought tending towards the instantaneous/yin (the illusion of the self is the experience of it being absent during mindfulness meditation, the self being a narrative construct that requires temporality) and Western towards the cumualtive/yang (The self is viewed as the foundation of reality, "I think therefore I am," and Western religion emphacizes eternity, infinity, and cumulative meaning.)

As far as philosophies of time, presentism and eternalism/temporalism aren't in conflict, but two different perceived reference frames of time and moment. The conflict comes from the artificially created conflict between the two, which is the root of all social and spiritual problems. The God of Christianity is the God of accumulation, the "alpha and omega" that consumed the delta. Eastern concepts of God assume that past and future are a subset of the present, and view the God head as the continual destruction and rebirth of the cosmos in the singular ever-present moment.

>And that just happens to be the religion you happened to be raised
really? like seriously? you're not responding to anything I said, why quote me?
you're just recycling the same ages old, retarded arguments from youtube comment section atheists who use them to argue against creationists who somehow got the access to the interne, without any kind of coherence
you may as well go full
>muh spaghetti monster
>if god exist why do I feel pain
>who created god
oh wait we already went there

I'm not talking about "my" religion, I'm culturally catholic but I'm do not consider myself follower of any religion
I'm not saying some religions are right and others are wrong
I'm saying they are all right as long they get you to the ultimate truth, and wrong to the degree they don't
I don't know about Yazidism but I know for a fact that
>Hinduism and religions derived from Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, in Christianity especially gnosticism and orthodox Christianity, Catholicism mainly back in the middle ages when it was a predominately monastic religion
>even Islam
all have this capability

We are all aspects of the universe. God is a meaningless concept. Everything is part of the whole. Existence is "god".

Everything is a fractal spiral, you can see the entire universe in a drop of moisture that condensates on your bottle of mountain dew. Interpersonal relations, the mind, all is dead matter running along the path laid out by physics and the initial conditions of this quantum bubble.

Perhaps this is a simulation or a Boltzman universe.

Just do LSD, it's really obvious.

>just distort your view of the world to find out the answers to everything
baka

>le drugs have an exclusively deleterious effect on your cognition meme
pls stop it

the problem with psychedelics is that they won't elevate the base level of concentration and awareness that much, they give you a huge boost but once the trip is over it's gone, and all the illusions come back
you can get insights that are associated with that state, but you have no way of dealing them afterwards
and then mechanism in your brain that is supposed to keep your worldview coherent kicks in and makes up some shit to keep your worldview coherent
also the fact that you're not sober and hallucinating under the effect of most of those substances doesn't help with retaining clarity either

who dis

>implying I implied they were deleterious
I only implied you can't find answers to universal questions by ingesting chemicals and looking inwards. They just make you feel enlightened.

Sounds like your brain is not configured for integrating new information. You can become more mentally flexible by doing LSD repeatedly and regularly, but you need a strong rational core, or you might end up like all those psychonauts from the 60s who went on to believe in really dumb shit.

Epep the toad.

Don't take me for a theist but for all we know something could exist outside of time and therefor be eternal. Asking "what created god?" is just a dumb question.