Why would a creator god need a creator god?

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by daverupa »

Spiny Norman wrote:
beeblebrox wrote: Why should we try to budge them away from their position?
Yes, and my experience is that trying to often leads to a digging in of heels - perhaps because people have a strong emotional investment in certain beliefs?
True, in large part, as far as I can tell. Onlooking equanimity is worth cultivating.

But which Xians et al here were being argued against? None, I think. It was a discussion of how the First Cause argument works, and what its problems are - at least, the OP thread title seems to suggest this.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by Spiny Norman »

daverupa wrote: None, I think. It was a discussion of how the First Cause argument works, and what its problems are - at least, the OP thread title seems to suggest this.
Some modern Christians equate the big bang with creation, arguing that it must have been caused by something, ie God - but as mentioned that argument could well be flawed. In any case science now seems to be moving in the direction of saying that was something before the big bang, and that possibly time is beginingless - so removing the need for a first cause of any sort. It sounds a bit Buddhist actually. ;)
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by Sherab »

Here's an interesting video on why we believe in gods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by Sherab »

Here's another good video: God is not a good theory. (I think I posted this link before.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by DNS »

Spiny Norman wrote: Some modern Christians equate the big bang with creation, arguing that it must have been caused by something, ie God - but as mentioned that argument could well be flawed. In any case science now seems to be moving in the direction of saying that was something before the big bang, and that possibly time is beginingless - so removing the need for a first cause of any sort. It sounds a bit Buddhist actually. ;)
I've been watching Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos series and in the last episode he discussed the big bang and the beginnings of the universe. He said it is not that the big bang was the beginning, just the beginning of this universe and it is just to the point that current science can show us. In all probability the big bang was born out of the gases and elements of the previous universe, which does sound very Buddhist.
The Buddha wrote:"He recalls to mind his various temporary states in days gone by – one birth, or two or three or four or five births, 10 or 20, 30 or 50, a 100 or a 1,000 or a 100,000 births, through many cycles of cosmic contraction and cosmic expansion . . . Now there comes a time, when sooner or later, after the lapse of a long, long period of contraction, this world-system passes away. And when this happens beings have mostly been re-born in the World of Radiance, and there they dwell made of mind, feeding on joy, radiating light from themselves, traversing the air, dwelling in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. Now there comes also a time, friends, when sooner or later, this universe begins to re-evolve by expansion.
(Digha Nikaya, Brahmajala Sutta)
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by Goofaholix »

binocular wrote:Why would the Creator need to have a creator and so ad infinitum?

I've often seen it claimed that a creator god needs a creator god and so into infinite regress, but never seen it explained why this would necessarily be so.
Because a creator god is usually posited as a solution to the question "How could all this exist without a creator?"

So the response is "If nothing could exist without a creator then how could God exist without a creator?".
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by binocular »

David N. Snyder wrote:
binocular wrote:Where are those members of the Abrahamic faiths who are asking this?
Everywhere.
??
I do meet some theists. The conversation typically lasts a few seconds.
When Buddhists encounter members of Abrahamic faiths and the discussion is religion or the person finds out you are Buddhist, it typically goes something like this or similar to this:
Spiny Norman wrote:A lot of people believe in God, so the subject does come up. A problem I've often experienced in conversations with theists is that of definition. There are so many different ideas around about "God" around that it's become an almost meaningless term. Some people think in terms of a traditional Abrahamic God, but many people now seem to think in new-age terms, "God" meaning some sort of creative energy ( or something ), more like pantheism. I find it all rather confusing!
Well, there's that old instruction not to discuss religion and politics in polite society.

:o
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by binocular »

culaavuso wrote:First, the nature of gratitude. Why must a feeling of appreciation be expressed as gratitude?
And why does it need to be expressed to a person?
On both counts: Because this is what we usually do.
Of course, you are welcome to present a different conceptualization.
Are you able to be grateful to things?
And why can't the universe for which one is grateful simply be given a "person" label for these purposes?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
The idea of gratitude I'm working with just logically extends notions of gratitude back to what is regarded the first cause or the source, ie. God.

E.g. Thomas is grateful to Peter that he picked him up from the airport. This is where we usually stop. But to be precise, since Peter didn't make the car he is driving, nor the roads, we also have to thank all the people involved in making cars and building roads. But, to be precise, these people also didn't make cars and roads out of nothing, there were other people before them providing resources, knowledge etc. So we trace back the credits, and in a theistic explanation of things, the credits go back to God. Ie. God created the Universe, provided time, space, materials, so that people can build cars and roads, so that then Peter could pick up Thomas from the airport.
Why is making up a "God" label any better than just applying an extra "person" label?
For one, it's not about "making up a "God" label." Unless we are to posit that all those people who claim to be theists, are in fact just making stuff up. But if we do posit such a thing, then there's no point in discussing this topic altogether, as it becomes moot.

For two, we're just working with some common theistic definitions of "God." I don't quite see the point of making up our own definitions of God.
Second, Why wouldn't there be an indebtedness and appreciation for God's existence?
It might be; but as long as God is defined as "First Cause," such indebtedness and appreciation for God's existence is not logically possible.
This is because there is a person who does a kindness, and so repaying a kindness is rightly to the person who performed the kindness. There is no need to impute a creator who performed the kindness of creating the universe.
I suppose it depends on how precise, how consistent one wishes to be.
The person who performed a kindness could do so because a thousand circumstances had come together so that he could perform that kindness.
For example, giving someone food is a kindness; but unless the giver has produced the food himself, out of nothing (!), there are obviously numerous other beings and factors involved in the production of food - and strictly speaking, they, too, deserve credit.
A "God" that is merely a convenient conceptual invention is a different thing from a "God" that is actually the creator of the universe.
Obviously, but I'm not sure what your point is with this?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by binocular »

daverupa wrote:Not if we're trying to come to terms of mutual understanding.
Are we trying to come to such understanding?
A language of one is no language, and someone who insists that contradictions aren't contradictions is speaking a language of one. Getting a bunch of those people in a room together doesn't actually remove the problem.
It seems to me that you are decontextualizing the whole God discussion out of it's native theistic discourse. As if you are taking the position that words necessarily speak about objects "out there".
Would you describe yourself as a realist?
Also, are you a semantic atomist?
In short, the argument is that everything needs a cause except a special thing, but the rejoinder is manifold: "why not many causes?"; "why not random flux?"; and so forth. It become one metaphysical proposition among many, and one that falls to contradiction (no forthcoming reason why everything needs a cause except the special thing).
Are you famliar with the concept of pramana?
Depending on which pramana one regards as relevant/authoritative, one's notions of valid/invalid, true/false are shaped.
On principle, meaningful communication between two people is impossible, if each of them holds a different pramana as authoritative.
That isn't preposterous. But claiming to know a red blue is preposterous.
I have never heard a theist claim a red blue.
Anyone insisting on First Cause argumentation is necessarily saying this, in some form.
I suppose that from a position of a decontextualizing realist and semantic atomist, this is in fact so.
daverupa wrote:So to say that things needs causes except Special Thing is to say that one color cannot be another color except for Special Color. It broaches an exception just for the sake of making an argument work - as I said earlier, it's a deus ex machina.
No, trying to understand theism from an atheistic perspective makes God a deus ex machina.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by binocular »

Goofaholix wrote:Because a creator god is usually posited as a solution to the question "How could all this exist without a creator?"

So the response is "If nothing could exist without a creator then how could God exist without a creator?".
greeneggsandsam wrote:The way I have heard this god theory approached was along the lines:
The universe is so complex that there must be an intelligent design out there (more intelligent then humans as human technology and knowledge is incomparable to the complexities of the universe. i.e. we can't even create a human cell).
Then falls the assumption that whatever created the universe must be at least as complex as the universe itself.
Hence, you would need a creator, equally as intelligent as the latter creator or more superior to create that creator.
And then of course this goes on > infinity
I've been trying to understand my confusion around all this ...
I would not ask "How could all this exist without a creator?", it just doesn't occur to me. I suppose this could be why the usual historically famous lines of reasoning connected to that question don't occur to me either ...

beeblebrox wrote:The idea of God stopped making sense because the point was missed altogether, over the time.
Things make sense, or don't make sense to a person.
You seem to propose that a thing can make sense on its own somehow, regardless of people?

Spiny Norman wrote:Yes, and my experience is that trying to often leads to a digging in of heels - perhaps because people have a strong emotional investment in certain beliefs?
Or maybe because they know they are right, so they see no need to budge!
:)

Jetavan wrote:Even a "creator person", in order to create, would have to change, and would thus be subject to change and origination via causes, and conditions (including a different "creator person").
From an atheistic perspective, yes ...
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by daverupa »

binocular, you're taking a question about first causes (the OP) and now using it to broach the differences between foundational & descriptive semantics. I'll not be joining you on this wild, argumentative tangent.

:heart:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by binocular »

daverupa wrote:In short, the argument is that everything needs a cause except a special thing, but the rejoinder is manifold: "why not many causes?"; "why not random flux?"; and so forth. It become one metaphysical proposition among many, and one that falls to contradiction (no forthcoming reason why everything needs a cause except the special thing).
There is fallacious special pleading, and then there are definitions that have an exception clause in them.

"All beings except God are contingent" is not fallacious pleading, it's a definition; "God" is usually defined as that one being that is not contingent, while all others are.

Are you suggesting that you know God, but people who claim to be theists, do not?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by binocular »

daverupa wrote:binocular, you're taking a question about first causes (the OP) and now using it to broach the differences between foundational & descriptive semantics. I'll not be joining you on this wild, argumentative tangent.
?? How is it a tangent??
Whatever happened to self-reflexive criticism?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by daverupa »

wiki wrote:Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counter-evidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations.
So:
binocular wrote:"All beings except God are contingent" is not fallacious pleading, it's a definition; "God" is usually defined as that one being that is not contingent, while all others are.
Why should we accept that definition? To be clear, we can accept it for purposes of conversation if we want to pursue the consequences of this claim's truth-value, but to take it as a piece of evidence for what we ought to believe is a step that does not yet have support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic ... rarguments
binocular wrote:
daverupa wrote:binocular, you're taking a question about first causes (the OP) and now using it to broach the differences between foundational & descriptive semantics. I'll not be joining you on this wild, argumentative tangent.
?? How is it a tangent??
It's moving from a specific argument about the existence of God to a broader discussion of the linguistic turn and what the consequences of that are for truth-claims generally (you reference pramana, but this topic is vast).

So, that's probably worth an OP. Discussing e.g. Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge and so on would be quite interesting.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Jetavan
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by Jetavan »

binocular wrote:
Jetavan wrote:Even a "creator person", in order to create, would have to change, and would thus be subject to change and origination via causes, and conditions (including a different "creator person").
From an atheistic perspective, yes ...
...or from a Mormon perspective.
Post Reply