Debate:Who created God?

If there exist a God/superior being who created this being. When I ask this question I get " God created himself". How is this logical?-Ros

I'm sure Philip will get involved here—and believe you me, he is far more qualified to answer this question—but I'm going to take a stab at it. The problem that most can't get past is the notion that God "is, was, and ever shall be," the alpha and omega, so on and so forth. God supersedes time; he in fact created time according to the Judeo-Christian theology. There was no past before God/YHWH. Nothing needed to come before him, because he is the source of all things, including time itself. It gets complicated there because it's hard to imagine a universe without time; though technically, there wasn't a universe at all until he created it (once again, according to Judeo-Christian theology or at least my best knowledge of it). I'm going to let Philip chime in here and correct any mistakes I've made, and maybe give you a bit more concise explanation as I'm sure he—or one of the many others here—have come across this question far more often than I have. Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 12:00, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Typical Darwin lover know-it-all question. Ok smart guy, tell me where space ends and I will tell you who created God.-- jp 12:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Okay, Jeffrey W. Lauttamus invited me here to comment, so here I am. God is an uncreated being, so it is nothing more than a nonsense question to ask who created an uncreated being.

That likely then raises the question about how He could be uncreated, to which there are at least two replies:

• As Jeffrey explained, God exists outside of time. He created time; He is not subject to it. A beginning implies a point in time, but as God is outside of it, that He had a beginning doesn't follow.
• Something (or someone) must be eternal. If it's not God, it might be this universe. But science now has good reason to think that the universe is not eternal, which begs the question of who or what created the universe. (And the universe, by the way, is known as the space/time continuum; time itself began with the universe.) Ultimately, as you go back, the only option left is something or someone that is eternal. And as the laws of physics don't allow for something physical to be eternal, then that something/someone must be non-physical, or spiritual.

Philip J. Rayment 12:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok... That makes since. We cannot bound God to logic because he created it. Thanks for clearing that up.-Ros

Huh? Philip J. Rayment 09:45, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

This is an interesting subject. One of the most common argument's for God's existence is some form of the 'watchmaker' analogy - I.E. that the existence of the universe implies that it was created & therefore the existence of a creator (God). Does the existence of God also imply that He was created? And if not, why not? Sideways 10:04, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

The watchmaker analogy is referring to something that was obviously designed because of it's complexity of multiple interacting parts that would not occur naturally. God is not a complexity of multiple interacting parts, so the same argument does not apply to him. Philip J. Rayment 10:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

There are many examples of complex interacting ecosystems occurring naturally. But of course the watchmaker analogy would suggest that these are in fact created. That is the problem with the waychmaker argument - it suggest that what seems to occur naturally actually doesn't occur naturally. It cannot be disproved, but it only proves itself if it assumes itself to be true. Sideways 10:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

No, it's not a circular argument at all. It is arguing from what we observe (that complex things such as watches and other machinery do not occur without a designer) to what we don't observe (the origin of living things). That sort of deduction is perfectly valid, even if not absolute proof. And we are talking about the origin of living things, so I dispute that they do "seem" to occur naturally. Being unobserved, they don't "seem" anything. Philip J. Rayment 10:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)