Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

If God exists, then who created HIM? HE DOESN'T EXIST! Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Theologians solved this so-called paradox centuries ago. Do keep up.

    What's next? Can God create a married bachelor? Can God create a 4-sided triangle? Can God *insert gibberish here*?
    The funniest one of these blasphemous flawed questions people ask to question God's power is if God can create an object so big that he can't lift it
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    While we can't disprove or prove the existence of a god, we can do the next best thing and disprove certain religions. All religions that state that their gods are omnipotent are demonstrably false. That includes Islam, Christianity, Judaism and a whole bunch of others. The reason is simple: if god is omnipotent then he/she should be able to create a boulder so heavy that even they can't lift it. If they can't, they're not omnipotent. But if they do manage to create the boulder then they're not powerful enough to lift it, so they're not omnipotent.

    That simple paradox is enough to disprove most religious ideas about god(s). Sorry religious people, you're going to need to rethink things a bit.
    Most followers of Abrahamic religions see God as a spiritual figure who doesn't exist in the physical world we know - this is of course explicit in Christianity where God sent his son to interact with humanity on his behalf. Therefore, they would never physically attempt to live something through sheer strength - their potency lies in the ability to create and change the world as they wish, not in animalistic qualities such as strength.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vividly clear)
    The funniest one of these blasphemous flawed questions people ask to question God's power is if God can create an object so big that he can't lift it
    Back when I was an atheist, I was so impressed by the paradox. "Wow!" I thought, God has been taken out effortlessly! I must have made some theists LOL back then :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Back when I was an atheist, I was so impressed by the paradox. "Wow!" I thought, God has been taken out effortlessly! I must have made some theists LOL back then :rofl:
    Certainly, as mediocre questions like" uh where did god come frum uh"

    Are still being asked in the 21st century when religious philosophers, some of them even Gnostics answered that questions hundreds of years ago.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Theists usually employ special pleading by stating that everything must have a cause except God. They usually give reasons such as "everything is so complex therefore it must have a designer", yet this argument does out the window when people ask "who created God?" who is supposed to be the most complex thing in existence.

    Simply put, if it's possible for God to have always existed it's possible for matter and energy to have always existed.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    All religions that state that their gods are omnipotent are demonstrably false.
    Intriguing...

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    if god is omnipotent then he/she should be able to create a boulder so heavy that even they can't lift it. If they can't, they're not omnipotent. But if they do manage to create the boulder then they're not powerful enough to lift it, so they're not omnipotent.
    Ah yes, the old boulder paradox. Have you ever considered why it's a paradox? This is a result of subjecting "God" to a limited arena, where nothing that is absolutely perfect exists, hence the paradox.

    As it follows, like many other paradoxes, attempt to subject God to the limited realm of time, matter and space. Thus, the confusion arises.

    This is essentially contains the same framework as "Where is God?", "What does God consist/made up of? etc etc.

    To keep it short, God and His attributes cannot be subjected to the relative world, as by definition, is absurd. It's essentially the same as subjected a human (limited entity) to the absolute realm of infinity . It doesn't work. Thus, the paradox arises due to our relative mind set of omnipotence and thus the whole argument. The belief of a God is entirely composed of the notion of Him being limitless and outside time, matter and space. Thus, when discussing His attributes, such notions of "creating boulders that he cannot pick up" are frankly absurd.

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    That simple paradox .
    The issue of this paradox is its simplicity, as it fails to holistically consider and understand God.

    *Might I add: all this "paradox" justifies is that God doesn't exist within the limited scope of time, matter and space. Something that is already known and accepted by many theists. Unfortunately, it doesn't disprove the general concept of a infinite God.

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Sorry religious people, you're going to need to rethink things a bit.
    Hmm...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    While we can't disprove or prove the existence of a god, we can do the next best thing and disprove certain religions. All religions that state that their gods are omnipotent are demonstrably false. That includes Islam, Christianity, Judaism and a whole bunch of others. The reason is simple: if god is omnipotent then he/she should be able to create a boulder so heavy that even they can't lift it. If they can't, they're not omnipotent. But if they do manage to create the boulder then they're not powerful enough to lift it, so they're not omnipotent.

    That simple paradox is enough to disprove most religious ideas about god(s). Sorry religious people, you're going to need to rethink things a bit.
    That paradox is actually a good one but what do you mean by 'power'? By it creating such a scenario, wouldn't it still be powerful to create such a sitation?
    In my opinion power isn't only exerted strength wise physically.
    It's still 'powerful' if it has created a scenario where it has willinging allowed certain weaknessness as in the same way, it could use the 'power' which created this scenario orginially, to undo the bolder being so heavy. So maybe it allows itself for a certain time to be unable, but could use the same power of creating that situation to being able to carry the rock again.
    Also there are things apparently God wouldn't do because of its nature. There's things in our nature that is expected, apart of us and without them we could even lose a sense of who we are and our lives. The same way we have laws in the univese and in nature that keeps things functioning properly, it's said to be almost the same with God to some extent (though I would never know). For example, with the Christian God, it's said he will never lie because his nature wouldn't allow it. Though he could, it wouldn't make him a reliable God if he did so. Also in Christianity, the whole idea was God limited himself, denying all power when he decided to have a human experience through Jesus Christ. Jesus who was said to be God having a human experience who wasn't all knowing, was able to experience vulnerability, fear, pain. Taking it out of this context, it would mean this God could limit itself if it wanted.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Back when I was an atheist, I was so impressed by the paradox. "Wow!" I thought, God has been taken out effortlessly! I must have made some theists LOL back then :rofl:
    Curious, were you formerly a Sikh, prior to being an atheist? Also now as theist, are you entertaining adhering to some religion and their deity? (Feel free to ignore).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by string56)
    Curious, were you formerly a Sikh, prior to being an atheist? Also now as theist, are you entertaining adhering to some religion and their deity? (Feel free to ignore).
    I guess you could say I was a "cultural Sikh" since I didn't really know much about the spiritual teachings of the religion. During my atheistic phase I would often "flirt" with other philosophies and spiritual traditions but I've "returned" to Sikhism. I would describe my current theology as monistic panentheism as opposed to classic (mono)theism.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Theists usually employ special pleading by stating that everything must have a cause except God. They usually give reasons such as "everything is so complex therefore it must have a designer", yet this argument does out the window when people ask "who created God?" who is supposed to be the most complex thing in existence.

    Simply put, if it's possible for God to have always existed it's possible for matter and energy to have always existed.
    No one claims God to be the most complex thing in existence. 'Omnicomplex' isn't one of his properties. Indeed, an unembodied mind, what God is, is a very simple concept.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    No one claims God to be the most complex thing in existence. 'Omnicomplex' isn't one of his properties. Indeed, an unembodied mind, what God is, is a very simple concept.
    How could any theist reasonably say there is something more complex than God? A being who knows everything and is able to do everything?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    How could any theist reasonably say there is something more complex than God? A being who knows everything and is able to do everything?
    Power or knowledge have no bearing on the complexity of the being itself. You could use an analogy from engineering: often components become more efficient or powerful as they become more simple and refined.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Power or knowledge have no bearing on complexity.
    How does it not in the case of God? A theist would have to believe that the most complex thing he can think of in reality would have been though of and created by God. Are yo saying God is less complex than his creation?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    How does it not in the case of God? A theist would have to believe that the most complex thing he can think of in reality would have been though of and created by God. Are yo saying God is less complex than his creation?
    Quite possibly, yes. It contradicts with nothing, and would seem logical given that an unembodied mind is a very simple concept.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Quite possibly, yes. It contradicts with nothing, and would seem logical given that an unembodied mind is very a simple concept.
    God usually is not defined as an disembodied mind, rather that it has a mind as well as spiritual components. It's also unhelpful to disingenuously describe God as "just a mind" to try and evade the complexity argument. Both us and dogs have a mind, but it would be inaccurate to say that because of that both our minds were of equal complexity. It also rests on what this mind can do, which is everything and it knows everything. I fail to see how this would not make God complex.

    Also, I feel there would be a contradiction. If you are arguing that God is less complex than creation and that knowledge and power have no bearing on complexity (which I disagree with), on what basis would you consider God to be superior to human beings?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    While we can't disprove or prove the existence of a god, we can do the next best thing and disprove certain religions. All religions that state that their gods are omnipotent are demonstrably false. That includes Islam, Christianity, Judaism and a whole bunch of others. The reason is simple: if god is omnipotent then he/she should be able to create a boulder so heavy that even they can't lift it. If they can't, they're not omnipotent. But if they do manage to create the boulder then they're not powerful enough to lift it, so they're not omnipotent.

    That simple paradox is enough to disprove most religious ideas about god(s). Sorry religious people, you're going to need to rethink things a bit.
    What a stupidly arrogant thing to say: "That simple paradox is enough to disprove most religious ideas about god(s). Sorry religious people, you're going to need to rethink things a bit."
    This paragraph alone massively reduces the credibility of anything you say. It just tells everyone that half your argument is based on hyper-self-righteousness.

    Anyway.
    "But if they do manage to create the boulder then they're not powerful enough to lift it, so they're not omnipotent."
    Is that how you think divine omnipotence would work? It's not something that's supposed to be confined by our ideas of logic. We don't even know exactly what is meant by omnipotence in that context; it's certainly not the scientific, straightforward idea that you think it is.
    That's an incredibly superficial argument that you think refutes every idea of religion.

    I'm not arguing with your point as much as I am arguing with how arrogantly conclusively you presented it.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    what if God controlled the path evolution took?
    God cannot be created or destroyed, just like energy can't be created or destroyed
    cause and effect is a thing of the material world, as is time, and God isn't within it, the same laws don't apply to Him
    Evolution is random mutations providing an advantage over other organisms over time.If god guided evolution then how can the mutations be random?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not religious, but according to Thomas Aquinas's Cosmological Argument everything has a cause (e.g. I was late to school. I was late to school because my car broke down. My car broke down because it's crap etc in a chain). There has to be a first cause because an infinite chain of causes and effects is impossible. Therefore, the Earth must have a first cause. Only God is powerful enough to be the first cause. Therefore God must exist.

    Not sure how God exists ... maybe he was created when dust and stuff came together or formed himself?

    Personally I am an atheist so I don't believe in God :/ x
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    what if God controlled the path evolution took?
    God cannot be created or destroyed, just like energy can't be created or destroyed
    cause and effect is a thing of the material world, as is time, and God isn't within it, the same laws don't apply to Him
    So, if your soul is energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, are you saying your soul has always existed and thus attributing to yourself eternal existence?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc_123_)
    I'm not religious, but according to Thomas Aquinas's Cosmological Argument everything has a cause (e.g. I was late to school. I was late to school because my car broke down. My car broke down because it's crap etc in a chain). There has to be a first cause because an infinite chain of causes and effects is impossible. Therefore, the Earth must have a first cause. Only God is powerful enough to be the first cause. Therefore God must exist.
    The problem with this argument is that it's a total non-sequitur. It not only assumes that God exists with no evidence whatsoever, but also assumes that only a god could be powerful enough: two baseless premises.

    The first cause (if there even is one) need not be sentient, intelligent or magical. It could be an unthinking law of nature/phenomenon.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.