Who Made God?

I am in the process of reading a question and answer book by a group of well known Christian apologists. The book, named Who Made God? and answers to over 100 other tough questions of Faith is compiled by two well known apologists: Ravi Zacharias and Dr. Norman Geisler . The questions, over 100 of them, can be found here. Just browse the contents of the book.I have not finished the book yet, and am also already debating and discussing it with some of my EvC buddies. (Faith, you would like it!)Sidelined has already countered some of the arguments---and it just goes to show why I like EvC so much---we never quite agree! This message has been edited by Phat, 03-14-2006 01:59 AM

Thread copied here from the Who Made God? thread in the The Book Nook forum.(I moved my old thread into the coffee house since we can start threads here anyway. It was easier than simply renaming a new thread the same name.~~Phat)Edited by AdminPhat, : explanation

I wanted to start a thread with the title of "Who Made God" and after using the EvC search feature, I found that I myself had previously made a thread in 2006 with the same title. It had never received any answers back then, and so I simply moved it here.My question has changed in 7 years, however. Back then I looked to books and opinions/beliefs of others to attempt to answer my questions about God. (and yes, I know this would probably fit better in faith/belief, but I felt I would overstep my authority by moving it there without administrative approval...any other admins feel free to move it if you so wish.)Anyway...my assertion and focus on this topic is simple. God was never made. God always was, is, and forever shall be...as long as there is time. HEAD
re'shit OT:7225, Re'shit connotes the "beginning" of a fixed period of time: "...(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)...in other words, before time began, God was. Jesus, as the living word, defines the entire concept of words, thoughts and ideas as created. Humans never create words in a strict sense...we merely define things. WORD---1. logos NT:3056 denotes (I) "the expression of thought"-- not the mere name of an object-- (a) as embodying a conception or idea, e. g., Luke 7:7; 1 Cor 14:9,19; (b) a saying or statement, (1) by God, e. g., John 15:25; Rom 9:9,28, RV, "word" (KJV, "work"); Gal 5:14; Heb 4:12; (2) by Christ, e. g., Matt 24:35 (plur.); John 2:22; 4:41; 14:23 (plur.); 15:20. In connection with (1) and (2) the phrase "the word of the Lord," i. e., the revealed will of God (very frequent in the OT), is used of a direct revelation given by Christ, 1 Thess 4:15; of the gospel, Acts 8:25; 13:49; 15:35,36; 16:32; 19:10; 1 Thess 1:8; 2 Thess 3:1; in this respect it is the message from the Lord, delivered with His authority and made effective by His power (cf. Acts 10:36); for other instances relating to the gospel see Acts 13:26; 14:3; 15:7; 1 Cor 1:18, RV; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 5:19; 6:7; Gal 6:6; Eph 1:13; Phil 2:16; Col 1:5; Heb 5:13; sometimes it is used as the sum of God's utterances, e. g., Mark 7:13; John 10:35; Rev 1:2,9; (c) discourse, speech, of instruction, etc., e. g., Acts 2:40; 1 Cor 2:13; 12:8; 2 Cor 1:18; 1 Thess 1:5; 2 Thess 2:15; Heb 6:1, RV, marg.; doctrine, e. g., Matt 13:20; Col 3:16; 1 Tim 4:6; 2 Tim 1:13; Titus 1:9; 1 John 2:7;(II) "The Personal Word," a title of the Son of God; this identification is substantiated by the statements of doctrine in John 1:1-18, declaring in verses 1 and 2 (1) His distinct and superfinite Personality, (2) His relation in the Godhead (pros, "with," not mere company, but the most intimate communion), (3) His deity; in v. 3 His creative power; in v. 14 His incarnation ("became flesh," expressing His voluntary act; not as KJV, "was made"), the reality and totality of His human nature, and His glory "as of the only begotten from the Father," RV (marg., "an only begotten from a father"), the absence of the article in each place lending stress to the nature and character of the relationship; His was the shekinah glory in open manifestation; v. 18 consummates the identification: "the only-begotten Son (RV marg., many ancient authorities read "God only begotten,"), which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him," thus fulfilling the significance of the title "Logos," the "Word," the personal manifestation, not of a part of the divine nature, but of the whole deity
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)Any thoughts on this topic as we start our days and drink our coffee?

I'll just comment on your subtitle line.It is my understanding that uncaused quantum events are happening all the time.So who needs an uncaused cause, when such uncaused things are all around us?

The first answer that comes to my mind is that we made God in the same way that we made Zeus, Thor, and the thousands and thousands of other gods that humans have believed in.

Asking, "Who made God?" is like asking, "Who made all of those cars?" Just like the cars, those gods were made by a lot of different manufacturers, often with different goals in mind.

You assert that a particular and specific notion of the Christian God is some sort of un-caused cause.Then you cite a load of passages from the Christian holy book.What are we supposed to conclude here? That if one accepts the tenets of Christianity as some sort of unquestionable premise then one will also conclude that the Christian God is the un-caused cause?Is that you point?If so - Pardon me for being underwhelmed....

Question: Who made God? Conclusion: No one made God.Are you sure you mean to assume your own conclusion? It doesn't leave much room for discussion...Or do you mean to say that this is merely your conclusion, and that you understand that your conclusion is an assertion with no evidence?In that case, I agree with Taq and ringo... we made God.God just seems so anthropomorphic that considering him not to be made by us... seems like a pretty big stretch.

Well, might I add a further premise. God made us long before we were even evolved enough to talk and think much beyond grabbing a banana off of a tree. Jesus Himself knew language to the point of being able to speak every known word that humans of all languages could speak. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I suppose that I should have labeled it a premise rather than a conclusion, though in the context of my belief it is my current conclusion as well. The light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it.I suppose its human nature to reject something that we cannot explain. Some critics say that we reject anything that challenges our own reasoning and that deep down its in our nature to reject an authority higher than our own human wisdom. Of course, I know you well enough to know that you have a good heart and are just asking honest questions and providing your own conclusions to this philosophical question.

Granted I will give you the idea that human understanding of God is limited and is entirely made up by us.I will say, however, that Some of us believe from time to time that God (and His Word) are alive and speak to us...and we start topics like this one and post our ideas and beliefs for others to agree with or challenge and disagree with. Hence...here we are. Is it illogical to accept the belief that God existed before we did and that He has a definite character that we didn't ascribe to Him?

Well, this question begs so many questions.First of all, and for most, it assumes there is a God to begin with.Can you show there is a God , so show that God exists independently of what people made up about she/he/it?

I think that it might be an idea to get away from this discussion being Christian specific. How about we just start with either a theistic or deistic creative intelligence. In other words who or what would have created the creative intelligent agent that brought our world into existence.I think that we could also ask the question from a different POV. The question would be, "how could a creative agent exist infinitely". If that question can be hypothetically answered then we would have at least one possible explanation that would make the original question moot.In "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene, (one of my favourite books), he writes the following after talking about how we only experience time in one direction, and that we would expect there to be a law that confirms this.

quote:

---

"The perplexing thing is that no one has discovered any such law. What's more, the laws of physics that have been articulated from Newton through Maxwell and Einstein, and up to until today, show a complete symmetry between past and future. Nowhere in any of these laws do we find a stipulation that they apply one way in time but not the other. Nowhere is there any distinction between how the laws look or behave when applied in either direction in time. The laws treat what we call past and future on a completely equal footing."

---

It seems that our current understanding of the laws of physics indicate that theoretically it should be possible to exist by either going forward or back in time. This alone would allow for an infinite existence. We also know that some scientific theories such as string theory suggest that there might be even more, and maybe even 26 spacetime dimensions. In our existence that has 3 spatial dimensions we can move infinitely around our globe. I am not claiming this as anything but highly speculative but it seems to me that If our intelligent creator experienced existence in a world with 3 dimensions of time, then he/she/it would be able to move around infinitely in time just as we can travel infinitely around our globe.It seems to me that this gives one possible explanation that allows for a creator that has always existed, and will always exist, negating the need for a creator of the creator.

Excellent GDR. However I think ramoss may have a point.It seems useless to show in the science one possible explanation that allows for some entity to be infinite in time when no one can show in the science that such an entity exists or could exist.Seems to me that since the existence of some creator is born of the magic of faith it is disingenuous to try to usurp science into explaining any of its attributes.But I do applaud your creativity.

I agree he has a point but I don't see it as being germane to the topic. It seems to me that the topic is based on the debating point that if God exists and He created us then who created God and it's turtles all the way down. The argument is based on the assumption that God exists. Once again the discussion is based on the assumption that God exists. The question then is who created God and I am saying that one possible answer would be that it isn't necessary for God to have been created. It seems to me that what we generally call faith is more than about whether or not there is an intelligent first cause. Faith generally refers to what we believe about the nature of this intelligence.Beyond faith the question of who created the creator is essentially a question that can best be addressed by science. What is disingenuous about that?All I am saying is that theoretical physics does present us with the possibility of eternity. I am not trying to say that my answer is conclusive, but it does provide one possible answer that is consistent with our current scientific knowledge. Thanks