http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsYmFBg7YD2i85i._gKQm.Xsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071201142022AAfKyET
I didn't check the question til like 10 minutes after I posted it, so I couldn't add details because noone would see them.
So anyways, I'm saying there's always a 1st starter. God would be the 1st starter of the universe. Saying "Who created god?" would mean there is a never ending chain of creators, which, ofcourse, isn't true. I'm just saying noone created God, he was the first creator. Everything has a creator but God because he would be the first. I'm not saying you believe this, of course, because I'm telling Atheists this, i'm just answering your questions.
2007-12-01 09:35:59 · 31 answers · asked by Plain and Tall 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
narrow minded isn't a very good thing to be. No one can ever be sure of anything.
2007-12-01 09:42:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
"Saying "Who created god?" would mean there is a never ending chain of creators, which, ofcourse, isn't true. I'm just saying noone created God, he was the first creator."
How do you know there's not a neverending chain of creators? What you're basically saying is "the chicken came first"...
Well...where did the chicken come from? Who created it? It's a perfectly logical question to ask "who created God" if "God was there first..."....
The atheists logical answer..."I don't know..."
We don't....we just have a hard time believing that some supernatural, all powerful force got bored one afternoon about 4.6 billion years ago and decided, on a whim to create playthings to keep himself amused.
2007-12-01 09:43:37 · answer #2 · answered by Adam G 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh, of course it makes sense that there was a first cause. But that does not mean god exists. A first cause does not have to have a conscience and a plan and does not have to be good. It's possible, sure, but there is not really any reason to suppose all those things. Such arguments have nothing to do with the main characters in various holy books. Some religions, such as Hinduism, clearly see their first causes as general principles, not a person, like Christianity does. The word "God" to me implies a person, not just any first cause.
2007-12-01 09:47:58 · answer #3 · answered by Ray Patterson - The dude abides 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am perfectly happy concede that at some level there had to be "something" to create the universe (if the universe is an open system, if it is a closed system it could theoretically have always existed in some form, but that's another debate for another time), what I refuse to concede is that this "thing", this "first cause", was intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, invisible, everywhere, male, named "Yahweh", is a single father and writes books. If you have evidence that it is then by all means show it to the class.
2007-12-01 09:45:53 · answer #4 · answered by whitewizard1988 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why could the Big Bang not be the first mover then?
Why is an infinite chain of starters not possible then?
If there was a first mover, why must it be intelligent?
Why must it be I Am Who Am, why not Chronos and Gaia or the World Yew or Cosmic Egg?
2007-12-01 09:45:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry, but a god would have to have come from something if we study your initial argument that everything comes from something. How do you define god?
By religion? By science? What are your parameters for something without evidence that supposedly exists outside of time and space? What qualities would it have?
A complex intelligence does not arise on its own. The
"primary mover" argument is not feasible to me. In order to show that a god does not have to come from something, you must also have evidence to define that god -- or else we just take your assumptions as fact.
2007-12-01 09:40:44 · answer #6 · answered by Dalarus 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
So basically your god existed for...how many millenia?...before he suddenly got an idea and created the universe? What did he do before that time? And the time before that? And before that?
How much of his infinite existence went by with him doing NOTHING before he blinked the universe into existence? Why did he siddenly decide to make it in the first place? Boredom?
2007-12-01 09:45:52 · answer #7 · answered by Scott M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
all matter at one point was crushed under it's own gravitational force to the size less than a period and then boom it exploded then everything went into effect. no creator needed. go read some science books. or watch the history channel (yeah they have things like that on there which is odd you would think they would be on discovery.)
2007-12-01 09:45:49 · answer #8 · answered by Dr. R PhD in Revolution 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm actually a Christian, but want to ask you in response:
Since you seem to know the nature of God's existence please enlighten me. If no one created God, how did he come into existence, and why does he even exist? Was he just sitting there forever and got bored one day and decided to have a little experiment, and thus created the universe and all of us?
2007-12-01 09:43:08 · answer #9 · answered by endavis02 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
And why exactly couldn't the Big Bang be the "1st starter"?
Also, defining God as "that which started the universe" doesn't necessarily guarantee that God has any of the qualities people generally attribute to God. (Omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence, a free will, etc.)
2007-12-01 09:39:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
The problem really stems from the assumption of creation. It isn't necessary.
If you postulate that god wasn't created and was always there, why not eliminate the middle man, and postulate that the universe was always there?
It is a lot simpler.
2007-12-01 09:41:09 · answer #11 · answered by CC 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋