CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
If God created everything, then what created God?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - 'the Epicurean paradox
No, after Super, it goes to Mega Super Ultra God. They are the ultimate of Gods and the supreme ruler over all dimensions. I say "they" because millions of conscious thoughts reside within.
The statement "If God created everything, then what created God?" has, as a premise for the question, the assumption that there is/was a god that created everything. Taking that as a premise, then the question itself is immaterial. The question assumes we're crediting a supernatural event for everything that we see; being supernatural, it does not require its own cause as it is already outside the realm of science, cause and effect, etc. that we can observe.
There is also a key problem in the 'paradox' cited- "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." Non sequitur. I may be able, for example, to lend someone money, but not willing to do so for any number of reasons. That doesn't make me malevolent or even greedy; there isn't enough information provided to draw that conclusion. I can think of two scenarios where a god may be able to prevent evil and not willing to do so that do not imply malevolence. Firstly, a pact with another god or something similar to not interfere with humanity, possibly as part of a peace treaty. Secondly, humanity and the whole world being a huge experiment, and being unwilling to compromise said experiment. In the case of the latter, one could argue that given that people can think and feel, allowing them to suffer is wrong; but a god capable of conceiving and creating a universe this complicated would essentially require a level of intelligence far beyond what we can comprehend. We would be less than ants compared to an omnipotent god. Various religions like to dress us up as the chosen life forms, some even go so far as to state we were created in the image of a god, but whos to say, really? We don't consider a human being to be malevolent or evil if they wipe out a colony of ants in the construction of a house, or just because they're irritated at an infestation in their kitchen.
He said it is ok for a God to be a total dick if he is running an experiment. I am wondering if he also thinks that lab rats should feel that scientists are great. Nothing about heaven and hell.
That's a rather silly idea, I would think. I'm not trying to make an argument for any religion or other here, was just pointing out a flaw in the paradox.
That was one potential case of two listed where a god would be able to prevent evil but not willing to do so, without necessarily being malevolent. As such, that portion of the paradox is a non sequitur and the paradox as written is not valid.
As to the question of 'why call him god?' I would answer inertia. Whether a god interferes in human life or abstains from such is immaterial in that regard; we already have a word that generally means creator or supreme being, so it doesn't make much sense to come up with a new one just because some aspects don't fit the mold so to speak; in fact, no two religions seem to agree on exactly what 'the mold' is!
A better question would be (assuming a god that created everything and merely observes it as an experiment, not interfering at all) "Why call him/her/it anything at all?" If it is outside of the system and does not interact with the system it is no longer a variable in the system.
That was one potential case of two listed where a god would be able to prevent evil but not willing to do so, without necessarily being malevolent. As such, that portion of the paradox is a non sequitur and the paradox as written is not valid.
I pointed out that it brings up the same exact issue, not a non sequitur.
As to the question of 'why call him god?' I would answer inertia. Whether a god interferes in human life or abstains from such is immaterial in that regard; we already have a word that generally means creator or supreme being, so it doesn't make much sense to come up with a new one just because some aspects don't fit the mold so to speak; in fact, no two religions seem to agree on exactly what 'the mold' is!
If we called something God, shouldn't it have some of the properties that people associate with their made up character? Doesn't saying, yes God exists (in the sense of the creating force in the universe, which must exist because the universe exists) allow people to be confused when you quickly say well that God doesn't actually have any of the properties defined for God in all those religions.
A better question would be (assuming a god that created everything and merely observes it as an experiment, not interfering at all) "Why call him/her/it anything at all?" If it is outside of the system and does not interact with the system it is no longer a variable in the system.
That is basically the exact same question, you are just overthinking it.
I'm going to have to disagree. Not intervening does not imply malevolence at any rate, which more or less invalidates the paradox. I've yet to see anything that addresses this, no offense meant.
Insofar as the terminology goes, pretty much the only thing most religions have in common regarding their god or gods is their involvement in the origins of mankind and the universe- even that isn't always the case; the ancient greek gods come to mind, and they weren't involved in the creation of the universe. My meaning was that the term god has already been pretty well diluted. I suppose we could call it a creating force, but any way you slice it, it would match up to at most one (and most likely zero) of the 'pictures' we've 'painted' of god.
I'll acknowledge that I'm probably overthinking it.
I'm going to have to disagree. Not intervening does not imply malevolence at any rate, which more or less invalidates the paradox. I've yet to see anything that addresses this, no offense meant.
According to you when He isn't malevolent, He is still not worthy of being a God. Since the same conclusion can be made, any apparent flaw in the paradox is kind of invalidated.
I would rather think that if there is a god or gods of any kind, whether or not we consider them worthy or not is largely immaterial.
Also consider the other alternative I proposed; noninterference on earth being part of the terms of a treaty or agreement with another being. In that scenario, the stance would be rather benevolent; letting us endure our own evil within this hypothetical divine demilitarized zone rather than be at the center of a direct conflict between two deities. I'm not saying that this is necessarily likely, that any of it is likely, but still.
The same conclusion could be drawn, certainly, but it removes the paradoxical aspect of it. It can still be considered reasoning, but not a paradox.
All powerful does not exclude the possibility of another being of equal power.
Nor, for that matter, does the ability to create the universe as we know it imply that any god or gods is/are truly all powerful- just far, far beyond our capabilities.
All powerful does not exclude the possibility of another being of equal power.
I think you are wrong there.
Nor, for that matter, does the ability to create the universe as we know it imply that any god or gods is/are truly all powerful- just far, far beyond our capabilities.
You have also pointed out that creating the universe doesn't imply a God in the first place which is what we are trying to point out.
I don't think I'm wrong. If one being has unlimited power, and another being also has unlimited power, the existence of the other does not decrease the power of either.
I'm not by any means married to the idea of a god- I just have issue with the specific quote above, really, for the reasons I've detailed.
I don't think I'm wrong. If one being has unlimited power, and another being also has unlimited power, the existence of the other does not decrease the power of either.
Neither has the power to stop the other, hence not all powerful.
I'm not by any means married to the idea of a god- I just have issue with the specific quote above, really, for the reasons I've detailed.
But, your objections seem meaningless because you are led to the same conclusion anyway. I guess you have a point though. I am glad you are critically thinking at least.
If two individuals are fighting and are equally matched, it is not a case of not having the power to stop one another, but rather a problem with leaving oneself open in so doing; eventually even an even match comes out in favor of one or the other, and oftentimes has more to do with luck and one exploiting a tiny mistake that the other made.
Perhaps they do in fact both have the power to stop one another, but doing so would cause far too much collateral damage?
But I think we've exhausted this topic pretty thoroughly at this point, heh.
"God created everything" as described in the Bible. And Bible mentioned his existence, and it wouldn't happen if someone wouldn't be lazy to take an ink feather and start to write fictions about worshiping and a philosophical explanation for our existence. It was a plain stupid theory long long time ago. It's just that people instead of thinking presume that it's good to be holly as their parents are on and on back in the past. - I like this question thou. Explain this Christians!
God is the unmoved mover. There has to be a first cause, otherwise there is an eternal regress. The universe cannot make itself move. Hence, it cannot be a mover. Hence, there must be something before the universe. Since the universe is all natural, then that which is the mover must be supernatural. Hence, this mover is supernatural. Hence, God is real. You can't get around logic; God needs no mover, since He is the unmoved mover.
Don't you find it weird when you describe your God in terms that don't make sense?
The universe cannot make itself move.
Unsubstantiated claim.
Since the universe is all natural, then that which is the mover must be supernatural.
Not necessarily. It could be something other than the universe that is natural that moves the universe. You have not established any reason this isn't true.
Hence, God is real.
Is God the only thing that can be supernatural?
God needs no mover, since He is the unmoved mover.
So God is something that starts the universe off and nothing more. Well, I guess I can't argue against that.
Don't you find it weird when you describe your God in terms that don't make sense?
Someone hasn't read Aristotle.
Unsubstantiated claim.
The unmoved mover idea is that, for there to not be an eternal regress, then there must be something that started the first movement, which caused the other movements after it (this is where we get the notion of "metaphysics" from, since meta means together). The universe is non-life in total, since it is simply a bunch of energy. Hence, this energy must come from somewhere by definition of this energy requiring a cause. Moreover, the universe is non-life and cannot causes itself to move.
Not necessarily. It could be something other than the universe that is natural that moves the universe. You have not established any reason this isn't true.
The universe is everything that is natural. If you want to say that it was a multi-verse, then you run into the same problem.
Is God the only thing that can be supernatural?
Name another supernatural element that could cause the universe to start.
So God is something that starts the universe off and nothing more. Well, I guess I can't argue against that.
How did you derive that? Please follow logic, not your whims.
I haven't read Aristotle, and you are no Aristotle.
The unmoved mover idea is that, for there to not be an eternal regress, then there must be something that started the first movement, which caused the other movements after it (this is where we get the notion of "metaphysics" from, since meta means together).
So your claim that your unmoved mover idea is correct is that that's how the unmoved mover idea works. So, your overall "proof" is worthless.
The universe is non-life in total, since it is simply a bunch of energy. Hence, this energy must come from somewhere by definition of this energy requiring a cause. Moreover, the universe is non-life and cannot causes itself to move.
Again, no evidence this is true.
The universe is everything that is natural.
You haven't demonstrated that the thing that caused the universe to move is not part of what is natural. You say that it is not part of nature to use that as proof that it is not part of nature.
Name another supernatural element that could cause the universe to start.
It was just a question to see what your thoughts were. We could describe that supernatural force in a different way that doesn't make it God.
How did you derive that? Please follow logic, not your whims.
That is what you have proved and nothing more. You can't say because God exists in this example that the same "God" created humans. You have only established that there was a supernatural force that started the movement of the universe. No other conclusion can be drawn from that. Did I miss something?
Why does it matter to you personally to find an answer to the 'what' in "What created God?"?
And if you find an answer that suites you either way, what will that accomplish?
I ask these questions because personally, to me, it does not matter what created God. The question is what, if anything, created us? No need to go further beyond what we're already having trouble trying to understand.
Im trying to put out to theists a giant flaw in their belief, they often say something cannot come from nothing, so God must have created it, but I am pointing out if that was the case, where did God come from
So you're just trying to attempt to point out a flaw with the statement "nothing comes from something" (thanks to theists), rather than anything that's personal to you? Okay...
What would you say if a theist says "something comes from something"...would you still ask "what came before that something"? Like an endless cycle?
