Does God need a creator?

[BCRanger10]

Does God need a creator? Does God require a being higher than he is, with superior knowledge, initiative, competence, and authority in order to do the things that he does and to exist as he does? And if so, why?

[FreyaRed]

God or gods could be first sentient being in this universe who evolved before other civilizations. However some scientists have the opinion complex life couldn't evolve in you universe because there wasn't enough heavy elements from supernovas and huge stars had too short living spans for evolution of complex civilizations. So it's good possible we are the first ones and we will be gods in few thousand years for other civilizations if we don't kill each other. Of course gods could exist before our universe existed or came from another one that is older.

Do gods need a creator in shape of evolution and time? Very Likely.

[SixFootSexy]

God would be the ultimate source. There's an origin point for everything.

Different philosophers have attempted to explain this in scientific terms, such as the Big Bang or monad, but the design inherent in the cosmos suggests a grand designer. The amount of DNA in every living creature is mind-boggling and the odds of it being assembled by random chance is astronomically improbable.

There are 'godlings' that pop up throughout history that probably built the pyramids or other megaliths around the world. Some examples might be the Norse or Greek gods, but there is likely one supreme God that is in charge of the entire hierarchy. A true God doesn't need any outside authority, power, consent or anything to establish a will on creation.

[Dargil]

Isaiah 45:18

For this is what the Lord says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other.

Works for me!

[Agape93]

Nothing is permanent. Nothing. For everything, there is a starting point and an ending point. There are no exceptions.

[Grond21]

Even ideas?

[Agape93]

@Grond21 Even ideas. Especially ideas.

[Grond21]

So, what about the idea that nothing is permanent? Does that idea end too?
Either way, I can't see any way to square it without self contradicting

[Agape93]

@Grond21 Correct it dies too. Once everyone is dead, who holds the idea of permanence or non permanence? Nobody, ergo, the idea is gone.

[Grond21]

So if the idea that nothing is permanent ends, then something must be permanent. Which is a contradiction.
The only way I see out of it is to have something that is permanent. Otherwise we are stuck in a logical contradiction

[Agape93]

@Grond21 Not really. The lack of something, an antiexistence, is not a thing or a concept, it's simply nothing. Entropy.

[Grond21]

Yes, that's true. So is the idea that all matter and energy cease to exist?

[genericname85]

yes. because if you wanna argue that humans are a "creation", cause everything that exists has a "creator", then god must have a creator unless you're willing to say god doesn't exist.

[BCRanger10]

Why's that?

[genericname85]

why's what exactly?

[BCRanger10]

Why does God require a creator, otherwise he doesn't exist?

[genericname85]

oh i was making a reference to a very popular argument for god, which is: "everything needs a creator to exist". the people who use that argument always fail to provide a logically coherent reason why that logic should not apply to god himself. because if "something" can have the property of always having been there, why not apply that to litterally everything? i know that makes the existence of god kind of pointless but rally what's the point of believing in a god?

[BCRanger10]

"because if "something" can have the property of always having been there, why not apply that to litterally everything?" Because then that lends itself to pantheism. A cause has to precede the effect, even if by only a fragment of a second.

And that, consequently, is why I have such a huge problem with what you said at the beginning of this reply. I mean, who's to say that you wouldn't accept a logically coherent reason, or that you wouldn't understand it as such?

[genericname85]

Pantheism can't logically follow from that cause that would make the argument circular. You can't say God must exist cause everything that exists needs a creator. It's a logically incoherent argument, cause if everything that exists needed a creator, then god needed a creator. So that popular argument is a logically incoherent attempt to end the causal chain by arbitrarily letting the causal chain end at god. I was trying to point that fact out. Because if god didn't need a creator to exist, that means things can in fact exist without a creator. I don't see a logically coherent argument as to why God should be an exception here. Therefore we don't need a creator to explain existence, which makes gods completely redundant. And from that follows that: if you wanna say God exists, you can't use the "everything needs a creator" argument. You gotta take an argument that isn't either circular or incoherent.

[BCRanger10]

The "everything that exists needs a creator, God exists, so therefore God needs a creator" is also a circular argument. Either that or you end up with the "who created God, then who created Super God, then who created Uber God, then who created Admin God (G@G joke; come one, admit it, you at least chuckled)" argument which ends up in infinite regress.

I don't buy the "God needs a creator" argument because things that exist receive their existence from something or someone that has that already exists. As it relates to this question though, that which exists requires something or someone whose nature it is to exist. Meaning that there needs to be a, if you will, "prime exister... or existor... I dunno". Put another way, if there is movement, there needs to be a mover. It would have to be a being or a thing that conceived of and willed the movement or existence. It would have to have been a being of a higher nature than that which they created.

So yes, God exists, but that is because he IS existence.

[genericname85]

No that's not a circular argument. It just doesn't make a completely random exception for a rule just cause it's god that's talked about. And if god "is" existence, then do you think the word existence is a joke? Why would we name the to same thing 2 different names. That's not the point of language.

[genericname85]

There doesn't need to be a prime existor. Infinity is a thing so it can just go on forever.

[strateguy632]

Logic is, " everything has a cause" so how is god any different? Oh Religious people need to be "humble" to trust others, priests, when things don't make sense!

[Berethor]

Well Men creatored all the Gods, and here a pretty nice video about that, enjoy. :)

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ODetOE6cbbc

[Grond21]

No, because he isn't a creature. He is qualitatively different from everything else, he is existence itself, the answer to the question, and Necessary when everything else is Contingent

[Communicationisking]

Some theories about god is that god is love and without us there is no love for god so essentially we are his creator in that sense.

[Joshydavid25]

No, because then that creator of the creator would "need" a creator.. There needs to have been a cause..

[DishLady]

No. It’s why in metaphysics he’s the “first cause” or “first mover”.

[DishLady]

“Prime”

[tulgablake]

God is superior and doesn’t need anything from anyone. GOD is GOD

[Miah06]

When i die.

All will be revealed to me.

And i am fine not knowing until it's time to know and understand

[AngryCarl2]

Theoretically if God is all-powerful he can will himself into existence.

I'm not saying that's the case, but it sounds fine in theory.

[sage2021]

God Is the creator! What do you mean? 🙏 ✝️

[WonderingManII]

No He doesn't.