Should believers in god(s), the creator(s), ask the question what created them?

[Raymond]

In explaining the presence of the universe, you can assume the laws of the universe brought it into existence, which leaves the question: how can these laws, and the stuff they describe, have brought themselves into existence? Aren't they too stupid for that?

You can say in response that the laws and the stuff of the universe are eternal, but this leaves a gnawling. From where comes this eternal stuff with its laws?

The solution: intelligent gods. The are eternal and have the intelligence that the laws and stuff lack to bring themselves into eternal existence.

Should we go one step further again? Which means, asking what caused the gods? If they are eternal, why should we ask? We did this for an eternal universe, but we did that because the universe is not intelligent enough. Eternal intelligence need not be explained.

I read in an answer to a question somewhere:

"Whoever argues that a first cause is needed and that this first cause is god, has to answer the question: What is the cause of the creator god?"

Any thoughts are welcome.

[EricPH]

Something did not come from anything, or something had no beginning. What other choices are there?

[stevie]

Any thoughts are welcome.

Thoughts are the essence of all this but what is the essence of thoughts? A substantial essence might be restless materiality that science knows to be the cause of excitatory potentials. But then again "science knows" is merely another expression for "thoughts". Circularity is an inherent characteristic of thinking, thus speculating about "a first cause" or a causal sequence appears to be the play of mental ignorance trapped in the ignorance inherent in its source materiality.

[Raymond]

Any thoughts are welcome.

Thoughts are the essence of all this but what is the essence of thoughts? A substantial essence might be restless materiality that science knows to be the cause of excitatory potentials. But then again "science knows" is merely another expression for "thoughts". Circularity is an inherent characteristic of thinking, thus speculating about "a first cause" or a causal sequence appears to be the play of mental ignorance trapped in the ignorance inherent in its source materiality.

Could it be that the essence of thoughts is an essence in matter? Like charge in an electron?

[Raymond]

Something did not come from anything, or something had no beginning. What other choices are there?

Something eternal could have come from the gods.

[Sunday66]

I read in an answer to a question somewhere:

"Whoever argues that a first cause is needed and that this first cause is god, has to answer the question: What is the cause of the creator god?"

Yes, this is when I gave up on religion. Why used the concept of causation if we cannot ask what caused God.

[paulm12]

I read in an answer to a question somewhere:
"Whoever argues that a first cause is needed and that this first cause is god, has to answer the question: What is the cause of the creator god?"

God is definitely a loaded term that can mean a whole variety of different things. But I think most theists take God as someone/something that is omniscient, omnipotent, and exists outside of time, so it doesn't need to follow out typical idea of causality. He/It just "exists." You can also look into the idea of a Deistic God or a sort of "creative force" that set the universe in motion too, which is different than most ideas of a theistic God but a lot of the arguments are similar.

If you're interested in the debate, look at William Lane Craig and some of the responses to his Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.
He argues:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
He follows it with specifics about a personal God which I haven't gotten into too much. But the reason Craig argues God doesn't need a cause is because He/It didn't "begin" to exist, (if I remember correctly, Craig claims God exists necessarily).

But to summarize, I think when people are using terms like "God," by definition He/It is outside of time and thus doesn't need a cause. To me, asking what "caused" or "created" God would be like asking "Why are bachelors unmarried??"

[Leontiskos]

I read in an answer to a question somewhere:

"Whoever argues that a first cause is needed and that this first cause is god, has to answer the question: What is the cause of the creator god?"

Yes, this is when I gave up on religion. Why use the concept of causation if we cannot ask what caused God.

Why use the concept of God if you are asking what caused it?

If you think God is the sort of thing that can be caused, then you don't understand what that word refers to. Most don't.

[Raymond]

I think the gods can cause the universe but the gods themselves can't have a cause. The laws of nature and the stuff they apply to seem to stupid to cause themselves, especially when they are eternal. Eternal intelligence doesn't need an intelligent creator. Stupid stuff and the laws applying to it are in need of intelligent creators.

[Sunday66]

I read in an answer to a question somewhere:

"Whoever argues that a first cause is needed and that this first cause is god, has to answer the question: What is the cause of the creator god?"

Yes, this is when I gave up on religion. Why use the concept of causation if we cannot ask what caused God.

Why use the concept of God if you are asking what caused it?

If you think God is the sort of thing that can be caused, then you don't understand what that word refers to. Most don't.

I know what "cause" means, at least in its physical or scientific use. Christians use causation in a way no philosopher would.

[heracleitos]

Yes, this is when I gave up on religion. Why used the concept of causation if we cannot ask what caused God.

That actually amounts to a more general rejection than just of religion. It amounts to the wholesale rejection of foundationalism:

Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.

If basic beliefs underpinning others is the problem, then you can also reject axiomatic subjects such as mathematics on the same grounds.

[Sunday66]

Yes, this is when I gave up on religion. Why used the concept of causation if we cannot ask what caused God.

That actually amounts to a more general rejection than just of religion. It amounts to the wholesale rejection of foundationalism:

Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.

If basic beliefs underpinning others is the problem, then you can also reject axiomatic subjects such as mathematics on the same grounds.

Sure, let's take Aristotle. The question of motion is what caused it? Then, what happened before, what caused that cause.
In the case of God (Prime Mover), the cause of motion is not itself in motion. But for Aristotle, the Prime Mover has no cause, but neither does the physical world have a cause.
So, in Christianity, God causes the physical universe.

[heracleitos]

Sure, let's take Aristotle. The question of motion is what caused it? Then, what happened before, what caused that cause.

In the case of God (Prime Mover), the cause of motion is not itself in motion. But for Aristotle, the Prime Mover has no cause, but neither does the physical world have a cause.

Aristotle apparently believed that foundationalism is suitable for all subjects, including empirical ones. In modern times, we came to the conclusion that empirical subjects need to be tested, or at the very least, observed.

Therefore, I agree that Aristotle's foundationalist Prime Mover theory, necessarily in absence of testing (or observation) is unsuitable for the purpose of determining the origin of the universe.

- What can we test to determine the origin of the universe? (science)
- Which witness can we ask? (history)

Answer: Nothing much and nobody much.

Therefore, the origin of the universe is not a legitimate subject for investigation with a legitimate empirical knowledge-justification method.

Therefore, whatever anybody believes about it, it cannot possibly be a formally justified belief.

If I believe in God, this is not because I would be able to formally justify it. I even reject all attempts at formal justification. The reason why I believe, is that I find this choice several orders of magnitude more useful than the disbelief.

When you have to arbitrarily choose yes[ or no, the only relevant question ultimately turns out to be:

What's in it for me?

I believe that one answer will turn out to be useful for me, while the other answer cannot be properly repurposed into a useful instrument to achieve any desired result.

[Sunday66]

Sure, let's take Aristotle. The question of motion is what caused it? Then, what happened before, what caused that cause.

In the case of God (Prime Mover), the cause of motion is not itself in motion. But for Aristotle, the Prime Mover has no cause, but neither does the physical world have a cause.

Aristotle apparently believed that foundationalism is suitable for all subjects, including empirical ones. In modern times, we came to the conclusion that empirical subjects need to be tested, or at the very least, observed

I do not know what you mean by foundationalism.

[Sunday66]

Sure, let's take Aristotle. The question of motion is what caused it? Then, what happened before, what caused that cause.

In the case of God (Prime Mover), the cause of motion is not itself in motion. But for Aristotle, the Prime Mover has no cause, but neither does the physical world have a cause.

Aristotle apparently believed that foundationalism is suitable for all subjects, including empirical ones. In modern times, we came to the conclusion that empirical subjects need to be tested, or at the very least, observed.

Therefore, I agree that Aristotle's foundationalist Prime Mover theory, necessarily in absence of testing (or observation) is unsuitable for the purpose of determining the origin of the universe.

- What can we test to determine the origin of the universe? (science)
- Which witness can we ask? (history)

Answer: Nothing much and nobody much.

Therefore, the origin of the universe is not a legitimate subject for investigation with a legitimate empirical knowledge-justification method.

Therefore, whatever anybody believes about it, it cannot possibly be a formally justified belief.

If I believe in God, this is not because I would be able to formally justify it. I even reject all attempts at formal justification. The reason why I believe, is that I find this choice several orders of magnitude more useful than the disbelief.

When you have to arbitrarily choose yes[ or no, the only relevant question ultimately turns out to be:

What's in it for me?

I believe that one answer will turn out to be useful for me, while the other answer cannot be properly repurposed into a useful instrument to achieve any desired result.

By "God" I understand Aristotle to mean consciousness or intelligence. I don't need to believe in either to see it.