Our Websites

Who Created God?

Kayla wrote in with this question:

Eric, I have a question: If a person that believes in evolution asks you who created God or where did God come from, what do you tell them?

This question shows a lack of knowledge of who God is. God did not have a creator; He is eternal. By definition, He was not created. So when someone says, “Where did God come from?,” it is a question that misrepresents the very nature of God Himself.

Contrast that to what evolutionists believe: “Everything came from nothing.” Come on now, who has more faith?

,

Leave45 Responses to testWho Created God?

  1. Andrew Gibs November 17, 2010 at 8:16 am #

    I dont think either side is gonna win any arguments with either of these statements. However, it’s important to remember we are not here to win arguments but to teach those who would listen.

  2. H. Bosma November 17, 2010 at 9:11 am #

    God is created by mankind.
    When science was not a progressed as it is now, a lack of knowledge was filled by inventing a higher power (think rain gods etc).

  3. Daniel Garcia November 17, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    what Mr. Hovind said is true and accurate, but i decided to go down a different path when i was talking to an evolutionist/agnostic/seeker when then asked me this question.
    I started something like this:

    Now, that is a great question but in order to understand my answer you need to understand some presuppositions:

    first, at the very beginning when God started to create. the Bible says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The first thing He created was time, space and matter. before He created that there was nothing.
    second you need to understand is in order for God to create time, space and matter He has to be outside of it, in other words, He is not subject to it. you can’t create something that you are part of. He is out side of time space and matter.
    third, because He is out side of Time, Space and Matter, He is not subject to an of the laws within time space and matter. He stands apart.
    Finally the answer to your question, God has no beginning and end, He has no creator/maker/starting point because that is a subject of time, space and matter.
    God is the creator. He created everything. He is the only being that does not require something else to existed, within Himself He is sufficient.

    Every time i use this argument, i get insults, i have had my mother insulted, they have attacked my intellect, but to date, i have not hear anyone say anything against my logic or again my reasoning.

    i hate to do this but to bring a little validity to my statement. I am an electronic engineer working for an engineering firm. the people i have debated most with are my professors & fellow students, a few Alumni and people on the stress.

    I pray this helps. also, if you see fault in my statement, help me to correct it in order that i may be able to win the maximum number of people.
    thanks for reading.

  4. Allen Jones November 17, 2010 at 9:46 am #

    The observation of causality gives a definitive answer Andrew..

    All things that begin to exist, must have a cause. The universe having been observed to have begun at a finite point in the past demands that the universe has a cause.

    The cause of the universe must exist wholly separate from the universe in order to cause the universe. Our universe is bound by time and space which would require that the cause being wholly separate from the universe is both infinite and eternal (uncreated).

    This is completely rational to accept.

    May God bless you, and His will be done!

  5. Ed Snipples November 17, 2010 at 9:51 am #

    If you make the claim, “something can’t come from nothing” and you view god as something, you can’t make the claim that god is eternal.
    When you are saying that god is eternal, then you are saying that god came from nothing. So somthing, “god, did come from nothing.

  6. John Bebbington November 17, 2010 at 9:55 am #

    “Contrast that to what evolutionists believe: “Everything came from nothing.”

    No, we don’t. We believe that matter came from part of the energy of the so-called Big Bang. Where that energy came from we can only speculate. On the other hand, creationists do believe that matter came from nothing.

    However, some cosmologists speculate that if the total gravitational energy of the universe is added to the energy of matter (from e = mc^2) and the negative energy causing the expansion of the universe is subtracted then the net energy of the universe is zero.

    If this is true then nothing has been created. Perhaps the universe is nothing but the separation of light (matter + gravitational & electromagnetic energy) from dark (the dark matter and dark energy) as described in Genesis.

  7. David Rose November 17, 2010 at 11:16 am #

    I would answer them that in order for anything to exists something always had to exist. We believe something is someone and that someone is God.
    This answer makes more sense than “In the beginning there was nothing, and the nothing exploded when nothing happened to it and created everything there is.”

  8. Geno Castagnoli November 17, 2010 at 11:35 am #

    Eric wrote:
    Contrast that to what evolutionists believe: “Everything came from nothing.” Come on now, who has more faith?
    ######
    Geno points out:
    And exactly what did God create everything from?

    That’s right….. NOTHING.

    In fact, the creationist “scientific journal” used to be named “Creation ex Nihilo” (Creation from Nothing). So don’t even begin to pretend you have the better argument here.

  9. Geno Castagnoli November 17, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    Geno wrote before:
    I’m talking about Dr. Jason Lisle and his “new” explanation of why he thinks light from distant stars isn’t a problem. You had presented Lisle’s new paper for a possible explanation of our ability to directly observe distant objects. Lisle made a claim his dual speed of light idea was untestable yet it took me less than 10 minutes to devise a way to test it. Now, if an “expert” makes a claim and it only takes you a few minutes to figure out his claim is wrong, how much credibility would that expert have with you?

    For the record, here’s Lisle’s claim and a way to test it:
    Dr. Lisle proposes light travels at an infinite speed toward an observer but at only half “c” when travelling away. Leaving aside for the moment the paradox this creates in having light arrive at its destination at two different times, here is the simple test.
    Place two test stations some distance apart. Put a third station halfway between the other two. Send a pulse from the middle station to each of the end stations. The pulse will arrive at each end station at the same time and can be used to set a clock. Time at the two end stations will then be synchronized. Then, at a predetermined time send a pulse from one end station to the other. If the speed of light is infinately fast travelling toward the destination, the recieving station will get the pulse with no time delay.

    Stephen replied:
    No, your test doesn’t work. It assumes that the light travelling in different directions is the same speed, which is exactly what is in question. If you would have spent more than 5 minutes on it, you might have caught that.
    ######
    Geno answers:
    Lisle’s claim was that light travelling TOWARD the observer is at infinate speed and travelling AWAY from the observer it is at half “c”. His argument was that this would account for our ability to see those distant objects since their light would reach us instantly. At the same time, it would account for the measured value of “c”.

    Since the light in my experiment is travelling TOWARD each observer from the central station, it should reach them instantly. Their clocks would be synchronized under either Lisle’s model or the existing model.
    #####

    Stephen said:
    Measuring the speed of light by the speed of light is inherently circular.
    #####
    Geno answers:
    I’m not trying to quantify the speed of light other than to determine if it travels at a different velocity moving toward the observer than it does moving away from the observer (as Lisle claimed was UNTESTABLE). The test I’ve constructed will easily determine exactly that.

    Stephen:
    For the record, the paper I suggested to you earlier was one written back in 2007, but the above is from his paper from Sept. 2010 that discusses Anisotropic Synchrony. I suggest you actually read it and give it some consideration before being so quick to pooh-pooh it.
    #####
    Geno answers:
    If I get a a chance I may read it in more detail, but due to Lisle’s earlier claims, his credibility is seriously damaged.

  10. Geno Castagnoli November 17, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Stephen initially asked:
    7. Was Jesus confused when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”? Mark 10:6
    ##########
    Geno responded:
    OK… Looks like you’re saying Jesus was speaking of from the creation of mankind, mankind has been male and female. I have no issue with that. Like I said, I was using the same context as you when I pointed that out.
    ##########
    Stephen claimed:
    Why would Jesus say, “from the creation of mankind, mankind has been male and female.”? That goes without saying. He is saying from the beginning of the universe man has been here as male and female. That rules out evolutionism. period.
    #####
    Geno answers:
    Sorry, Stephen. You had argued the context was that from the creation of man humans were made male and female. Then you argue that when the passage speaks of creation it is talking of “the beginning of the universe.”

    You are mixing context and I won’t let you get away with it. The context of the entire passage is that Christ was talking about marriage. If you want to say he made humans male and female from the first persons on, fine. If you want to say Christ was talking about making male and female persons from the first of creation, that is wrong. Man the last thing made. In fact, woman wasn’t created until after man.

    Sorry, Stephen, the context of the passage makes it clear Jesus was speaking about the sanctity of marriage.

  11. Kenneth Tyner November 17, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    Actually, the origin of God is not relevant to the origin of what God created. This is what is commonly known as a “red herring”. It’s an attempt to shift the argument away from the original argument to another argument, as if the new argument is relevant when it has no bearing on the original argument.
    Furthermore, only that which has a beginning has a cause to its beginning. God is the uncaused cause, or prime mover.

  12. andrew Ryan November 17, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    “Everything came from nothing.” Come on now, who has more faith?”

    So God didn’t make the universe from nothing. Interesting. What did he make it out of then?

  13. Joshua Zafar November 17, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

    God is OMNI Consciousness. No one created God.
    The infinite regress of contingency theory is rejected, so at what point did it all start?

  14. Jay Liemowitz November 17, 2010 at 8:19 pm #

    Hi Eric,

    I would like to request that you make a post addressing special pleading.

    Specifically, I would like to understand better why it is that you believe that you’re not utilizing special pleading in this argument, or alternatively, why you believe that special pleading should be a convincing argument for your case.

    I’ll address what I feel is a misrepresentation of our position in our next post, but I sincerely would like to hear your response to the above. I think that much of the discussion you’re addressing is entirely based on a misunderstand of the opposing side’s argument, and why we express it. I would like for both sides to better understand each others point of view, so that we don’t continue to move in circles, proposing the same objections to each others points, only to return to the very same points in the next sentence, never moving the conversation forward.

  15. Jay Liemowitz November 17, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    This isn’t the first time I’ve said this, and I fear it won’t be the last time I have to point this out, but, like all words, there are many different definitions of “nothing” and many different ways to interpret it when it’s used.

    When Steven Hawking said that the universe was created out of “nothing” he didn’t mean it in the same way you do Eric. This is evidenced by the fact that he credits the law of gravity as having created this universe; thus, SOMETHING existed prior to this universe as we know it, in this case, AT LEAST gravity existed (according to Steven Hawking).

    This is why your argument is unconvincing. Both you and Steven admit that some “thing” has always existed for at least all the time that there has been time. We claim that this something is some set of natural constants or laws that exist outside of, or irrespective of time as we understand it. You claim that this something is a sentient, personable entity. I see no reason to believe that personal, sentient entities powerful enough to create universes exist. Gravity and other natural forces however, have been shown to exist, and are known to be the most powerful forces of nature that we can measure and witness. So why, I ask, is a personal entity with human qualities and emotions necessary to create universes, when natural forces are perfectly adequate? I would say it requires far more faith to believe that an unseen person has created all we see, when observed forces are known to be sufficient.

    We have common ground here Eric. As I alluded to in my previous post, we have to understand our common ground before we can understand our differences.

    Common ground: Some thing is eternal, and this eternal thing (or things), brought the universe into it’s current state of existence.

    Difference: You believe this “thing” is an omnipotent being, with consciousness and personality that simply exists uncaused . We think this “thing” is not a sentient being, but instead a set of natural laws, that simply exist uncaused.

    So I ask that you or other believers to make your case for the following: why do you believe that the eternal “thing” that created the universe must have intelligence and consciousness? Please justify this assumption.

  16. Jay Liemowitz November 17, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    To Stephen Holshouser,

    I’ve been meaning to respond to a post you made to me over a week ago regarding what you claimed was strong proof to me that I should believe (November 5th, in the “What is Truth” post).

    I still plan to address this claim at length when I get the time, but before that I wanted to simply say that I’ve enjoyed our discourse. Your posts are respectful and thoughtful, and I don’t feel as if you intend to insult or belittle when you respond. From my experience, this is a rare quality in these types of discussions, and I greatly respect that.

    I have no doubt that you mean well, and have nothing but the most noble intentions to do good as you see it. Now, to be clear, I still believe you are profoundly wrong on a great many topics :-) … but you’re ok in my book.

  17. Don Carr November 17, 2010 at 11:54 pm #

    A quick search on wikipedia seems to point to the Catholics creating “God.”
    Wikipedia suggests the word may be rooted in – to invoke.

    Isaiah 65 v11 speaks of – Gad, a god of luck (fortune).

    Gad (fortune) is also one of the 12 tribes of Israel.

    So it seems the Catholics and Roman Empire created both the bible in its current configuration, and God.

    Good thing YHWH supercedes all…

  18. Jaymes S. November 18, 2010 at 4:11 am #

    Got it, so you believe that nothing created God.

    Interesting position.

  19. Carl M November 18, 2010 at 7:51 am #

    God did not have a creator; He is eternal. By definition, He was not created.

    Circular Reasoning is fun!

  20. andrew Ryan November 18, 2010 at 8:40 am #

    “Contrast that to what evolutionists believe: “Everything came from nothing.””

    Eric, I know you place importance in the truth, so I thought I’d give you a heads-up that you’ve made a mistake here. Whether or not someone accepts the evidence that evolution takes place tells you little about their ideas about the origin of the universe. In fact the majority of people who accept evolution also believe that God created the universe.

    Now that you know this, I’m sure you will want to correct your error.

  21. Jim Klingenberg November 18, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    Mr. Gibs wrote, “I dont think either side is gonna win any arguments with either of these statements. However, it’s important to remember we are not here to win arguments but to teach those who would listen.”

    I wholeheartedly agree here, but i am seeing a lot of you respond to these scoffers who refuse to believe in our Lord. That being said, I suggest we respond to those who are truly searching and not just taking up space to argue their illogical and close-minded view of their own religion of evolution. Arguing whatever point they are trying to make or refute gets us nowhere. There will always be scoffers, they will never be turned no matter what we say or prove to them.

    Leave them to God to deal with…our job is to gather in the flock who hear His voice and those He calls…the others are merely fiery darts the enemy has put in our way as he attempts to draw our attention away from the real issue of eternal salvation.

  22. Jessalynn Carnes November 18, 2010 at 12:55 pm #

    Yes, that’s SO right, Daniel, He created these laws by which our universe operates, including time! He does not have to abide by any of the laws He creates. He is all powerful. If anyone making theories about God hasn’t read their whole Bible, they should. And pray for God to give them His Holy Spirit to discern truth. Plus, your understanding of Science has seemed to help. Like we study in science, the theory of relativity, and the speed of light, that if you move so fast, you can actually move outside of time. Imagine God as this fast (not that He really has to, but it might help our weak minds to grasp His power!), it might help in your explanation. People won’t argue as much if you bring Einstein into it, people thought his ideas were pretty wierd at first, too, but then it made sense, and once again, his theory affirms the supernatural realm, or what science junkies would call “science fiction”. Studying physics/astronomy/science in general brought my husband closer to God in faith, it affirms the Bible and the Bible affirms science (except the parts where God uses his power outside of science like in miracles! We should never try to naturally explain HOW God performed a miracle! That would be insulting His Power to stand OUTSIDE of the Laws that HE CREATED!).

  23. Jessalynn Carnes November 18, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    God says: I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. God proclaims that “I AM”. Eternity, past, present and future does not exist without Him, He created it ALL! If one cannot grasp this, pray to God and ask Him to reveal Himself to you as you seek Him and study His Word.

    That scripture that people use to prove that God Sloooowly created earth possibly through evolution? “A thousand years is to the Lord as a day, and a day is as a thousand years” this scripture is trying to help you grasp the power of God to stand outside of time, He can see his whole creation, time included, as though it were a masterpiece before Him, His masterpiece, His creation. Back then, people couldn’t look at science to understand God, so this scripture was the best way to help man understand God’s attributes. It was not saying that any of the days mentioned in the Bible can be construed to be 1 thousand years, since the context surrounding that scripture is not talking about days at all.

    When we “go into” the Bible just LOOKING for proofs of evolution we miss this very important factor in understanding God’s character when reading a scripture. This part of His character we find in His Word speaks so much about what He does and why. So many things in life become clear.

  24. Jessalynn Carnes November 18, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    @Jay, yes I watched a science documentary last night (all of them favor evolution, of course!) that said that gravity is the creator of the universe.

    Stephen Hawking, yep. Still. Does that not mean: “In the beginning, gravity”? Gravity is your god, then, isn’t it?

    They said emphatically “the universe has a beginning and an end”

    I don’t argue that fact. This universe will come to an end just as it had a beginning. But something was there to create it.

    Stephen Hawkings says it’s gravity.
    I say it’s God.

    Both faiths. Period.

  25. toni popov November 18, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    Daniel Garcia, very nice. I like to have proofs for God’s existence outside of the bible.
    John Bebbington, I also believe that there was a Big Bang. But there was some Big enough to do that Bang.
    Even thou: the question Who created God? asked by an atheist, doesn’t make sense, because for him God doesn’t exist. What’s the point of the question than?

  26. Geno Castagnoli November 18, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

    John Bebbington wrote:
    However, some cosmologists speculate that if the total gravitational energy of the universe is added to the energy of matter (from e = mc^2) and the negative energy causing the expansion of the universe is subtracted then the net energy of the universe is zero.
    ######
    Geno adds:
    Sometimes I point out to my students that scientists have been able to determine that everything in the universe is made of one of four forces: Strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity. They have been able to link strong, weak, and electromagnetic as manifestations of the same force. If they can link gravity to the other three, they will have proven everything is (at the most basic level) the same thing.

    Then I point out that some cosmologists have added up all the mass and energy in the universe and it appears the total may be zero.

    This leads to the conclusion everything is the same thing and that thing is nothing.

    “The universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is, it’s weirder than we can imagine it is.” (Feynman (?))

  27. Alfred Russell Wallace November 19, 2010 at 10:24 am #

    Eric, I have a question: If a person that believes in God asks you who created the Universe or where did the Universe come from, what do you tell them?

    This question shows a lack of knowledge of what the Universe is. The Universe did not have a creator; it is eternal. By definition, it was not created. So when someone says, “Where did the Universe come from?,” it is a question that misrepresents the very nature of the Universe itself.
    Contrast that to what creationists believe: “Everything came from God.” Come on now, who has more faith?

    Fixed.

  28. Stephen Holshouser November 19, 2010 at 10:45 am #

    Jay,

    I haven’t read all your posts, but you seem to be relatively respectful as well, which I appreciate (unlike some here who seem to love to spue that which is designed to be offensive and blasphemous). After I win you over with kindness, then I’ll feel more free to promote bigotry and hatred. : ) Just fyi; being a “good guy” won’t help us any when we stand before the Lord… only Jesus’ righteousness on our account will do. No hurry on your response… I’ll go back and see what I wrote to you.

    praying for godly wisdom for both of us, SH

  29. Stephen Holshouser November 19, 2010 at 11:12 am #

    Geno responds to Eric:
    And exactly what did God create everything from?
    That’s right….. NOTHING.
    In fact, the creationist “scientific journal” used to be named “Creation ex Nihilo” (Creation from Nothing). So don’t even begin to pretend you have the better argument here.
    #########
    Stephen writes:
    The point is that the eternal, self-existent, Almighty God created the finely-tuned universe from nothing (or as Hebrew 11:2 puts it- things which are seen were not made of things which do appear) as opposed to “nothing created the universe from nothing.” There’s an eternity’s worth of difference here. Only one of these views is logical… the other is just plain nonsense.

    What is amazing is that there are actually people who hate the idea of an eternal Creator-God so much, they pick the “nothing made everything” theory. Unfortunately for them, that still doesn’t get rid of God.

  30. Stephen Holshouser November 19, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    Geno previously answered:
    Lisle’s claim was that light travelling TOWARD the observer is at infinate speed and travelling AWAY from the observer it is at half “c”. His argument was that this would account for our ability to see those distant objects since their light would reach us instantly. At the same time, it would account for the measured value of “c”.
    Since the light in my experiment is travelling TOWARD each observer from the central station, it should reach them instantly. Their clocks would be synchronized under either Lisle’s model or the existing model.
    If I get a a chance I may read it in more detail, but due to Lisle’s earlier claims, his credibility is seriously damaged.
    ##########
    Stephen responds:
    As I read thru his paper, I didn’t see him mention anything about the speed of light to any old observer, but specifically inwardly directed starlight. I don’t think he claimed that his theory alone could not be tested, but that none of the different CONVENTIONS (Einstein’s convention, Anisotropic synchrony, or any other) themselves were able to be tested for truthfulness. Here’s an excerpt from his paper:

    “We have seen that synchrony conventions amount to a choice of coordinate system. They are stipulated on the basis of their usefulness. They are not a hypothesis; they are not something that can be “tested” for truthfulness. Stipulating a synchrony convention is mathematically equivalent to stipulating the one-way speed of light. Though it may seem counter-intuitive to those unfamiliar with Relativity, the one-way speed of light cannot be measured without first stipulating it either explicitly or implicitly. In the same way that we cannot test whether the English system or the metric system is “correct,” so we cannot test the one-way speed of light. It is chosen as a matter of convention.

    There are an infinite number of possible synchrony conventions. However, two of them turn out to be extremely useful. The Einstein (standard) synchrony convention has the advantage that two observers with the same velocity will agree on which events are simultaneous (regardless of position). The anisotropic synchrony convention has the advantage that two observers with the same position will agree on which events are simultaneous (regardless of velocity). Since Relativity is primarily concerned with velocity frames, it is normally formulated according to the Einstein convention in which the equations take on their simplest form due to symmetry.”

    Then here is part of his conclusion:

    “Yet, starlight is not a challenge for a young universe when we consider the anisotropic synchrony convention. Taking all the Scriptural information into account, ASC seems to be implied by the Bible, and naturally solves the starlight problem by reducing inward-directed light-travel-time to zero. Moreover, ASC forms the basis for a new young-universe cosmological model which has made successful predictions.”

  31. Stephen Holshouser November 19, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    Stephen initially asked:
    7. Was Jesus confused when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”? Mark 10:6
    ##########
    Geno responded:
    OK… Looks like you’re saying Jesus was speaking of from the creation of mankind, mankind has been male and female. I have no issue with that. Like I said, I was using the same context as you when I pointed that out.
    ##########
    Stephen claimed:
    Why would Jesus say, “from the creation of mankind, mankind has been male and female.”? That goes without saying. He is saying from the beginning of the universe man has been here as male and female. That rules out evolutionism. period.
    #####
    Geno answers:
    Sorry, Stephen. You had argued the context was that from the creation of man humans were made male and female. Then you argue that when the passage speaks of creation it is talking of “the beginning of the universe.”
    You are mixing context and I won’t let you get away with it. The context of the entire passage is that Christ was talking about marriage. If you want to say he made humans male and female from the first persons on, fine. If you want to say Christ was talking about making male and female persons from the first of creation, that is wrong. Man the last thing made. In fact, woman wasn’t created until after man.
    Sorry, Stephen, the context of the passage makes it clear Jesus was speaking about the sanctity of marriage.
    ########
    Stephen responds further:
    We live in God’s creation (aka. the universe), right? Jesus is simply stating that at the beginning of this creation/universe that we currently live in, God made mankind as male and female. The first 6 days were when this creation/universe was created, just like Genesis says, which is exactly what Jesus is refering to. That is when mankind came into being as male and female… during the creation of this creation. That is all he is saying there, however, I fully recognize that His statement must be explained away for your theory to work. The context IS about marriage and its importance and He is saying marriage has been here since the beginning of the world. Read the corresponding passage from Matthew 19:4-8. In these passages Jesus is quoting directly from Genesis 2:24… Jesus says, “Have ye not read…?” Genesis is pretty clear on how it all went down… it all happened at the beginning of time (the first six 24-hour days).

    What is it that you actually believe about this? Did a non-human give birth to a human? Were those non-humans male and female or something else? or do you believe that billions of years after the origin of the universe God made man as described in Genesis? I am curious to know what YOUR stance is.

  32. Jacques Kuun November 19, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    I would just like to ask, if God doesnt exists, who created the law of gravity? Or the very concept of music? Have you ever seen an ape making music? I doubt it. Who created light itself? Whats the chance of these things coming from nothing? 1 in 500 billion would still seem small. And you just think that plane chance created everything from light to love to music

  33. Ricky R November 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

    @ H. Bosma: who wrote “God is created by mankind.
    When science was not a progressed as it is now, a lack of knowledge was filled by inventing a higher power (think rain gods etc).”= very good explanation. Couldn’t of said it better myself.

  34. Mr T November 20, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    Hi from the UK. Good to see your site allowing blogs.

    I find “Origins” a mind bending discussion, I guess primarily ‘cos we are in a temporal time frame that cannot be eternal.

    God presents himself as “from eternity to eternity”, and also Omnipotent (all-powerful) so I think the energy (and matter) may have came from within God.
    Even if it didn’t, the miracle of “everything from nothing” is within God’s ability (nothing is impossible with God), but certainly outside the realms of a satisfactory natural explanation.

    I am still trying to get my head round the other two explanations I’ve seen by Naturalists for origins of the universe, neither of which I find scientific.
    1. Collision of two or more Multi-verses.
    2. There’s an infinite (or very large) number of universes.

    The second makes me laugh. They don’t have a good explanation on the origin of our universe with their Big Bang theory. Now they want us to assume many universes, presumably so the chances of life arising somewhere can be explained.

    Finally, even if our universe could theoretically have a naturalistic origin, doesn’t mean it did. cf Adam & Eve, wine from water (Jesus first miracle).

  35. ant bourdon November 20, 2010 at 9:02 pm #

    Lets put some philosophical stuff here. I made a “proof” of a creator outside the Universe which needs to be characterised by having a free will. No one that understood it could refute it since I assembled it; so I submit it to your careful observation. I know some of you will say that I make baseless assertion, but be careful when saying that, that you really understand what I write in my proof. I don’t want to argue with people that confuse everything. I know that some of you will find it interesting.

    Proof of God or a Free Will as the first cause

    1. every effect must have a cause.

    2. a cause do not necessarily have a cause because there must be a first cause. (infinite regress impossible)

    3. every effect follows it cause in time since if the effect was simultaneous with it cause, it wouldn’t be caused at all.

    4. there can’t be infinite time since it’s impossible to go through an infinite amount of time, an infinite road, etc. If there was infinite time, we couldn’t be here to talk about it. This moment wouldn’t have happened yet.

    5. If there is no infinite time, then everything that depends on the time law had a beginning.

    6. All matter depends on the time law. Therefore, the whole Universe had a beginning.

    7. If the Universe had a beginning, it is an effect. Therefore, it needs a cause.

    8. everything that precedes time do not follow anything in time. But anything that is caused must follow it cause in time. Therefore, anything that precedes time cannot be caused. (Therefore, if there was something existent before the appearance of the Universe, it was always there).

    9. Nothing can follow anything in time prior to the existence of time. It follows that any process that has steps with different results would produce all his results simultaneously prior to the existence of time.

    10. any non-free or deterministic process produces always the same possible results unless there is a cause to the change. But there cannot be a cause to effect relation prior to the existence of time. Therefore, any non-free process cannot change it possible results prior to the existence of time.

    11. 10 show that there cannot be any change to a non-free process prior to the existence of time. But point 9 show that results from any process that necessitate steps are simultaneous. Therefore, any non-free process that necessitate steps to produce different results would always produce the same results simultaneously prior to time.

    12. Since all results coming out from a non-free process would be simultaneous prior to time, it follows that time would be automatically produced if it was a possible result of that non-free process.

    (when talking about these non-free processes that necessitate steps, I’m in fact talking about an automatic system of chance results (spontaneity) or a computer (determinism) that would generate the Universe by some processes)

    13. Prior to time, there was no time. But we know that every result that come out of a non-free process are simultaneous prior to time. It follows that time should have been produced automatically prior to time if it was caused by a non-free process. It also follows that time should be eternal if it was the result of a non-free process since there could always be another moment prior to the appearance of time that we could think of where time should have been produced by the non-free process.

    14. Since point 4 show that there is no infinite time, it follows that time is not the result of a non-free process because the non-free process can only produce an eternal time.

    15. If time is not the result of a non-free process, then it must be the result of a free process also called free will because it still needs a cause.

    16. a free will can also be called a person. Therefore, a person was the cause of the appearance of time and of the Universe.

  36. ant bourdon November 21, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    Hi Geno;

    creation from nothing is different than evolution from nothing. Creationists propose that the Universe was supernaturally produced. Evolutionists (not you but atheists) pretend that the Universe emerged naturally from nothing. This, you will agree is having more faith than a creationist.

    I don’t quite understand why you do that, could you enlighten me? Why is it that you take always the opposite side of the Hovinds even when what they say go accordingly with your own beliefs. If your goal is to convert creationists to evolutionism, why don’t you find points that you have in common instead of creating a larger division than there actually is.

    For example, if I look at my strategy; when talking to atheists I try to accentuate the points that we have in common such as hate of evil, honesty, rationality, freedom, love. When speaking to someone that believe in god, but not religion, I approve his beliefs and try to explain what unicity is for, etc. If your dialogue is done by crushing the opposition, you won’t convert anyone. Try approving some points and correcting the bad points. That way, you might gain friends even if you don’t convert anyone.

    But you may ignore what I tell you, but this whole blog will be fruitless with the conventional methods. Creationists here are deeply convinced as evolutionists and atheists are deeply convinced in their worldview. If we present ourselves as being completely opposited one to another, this might just cause a war. Take care.

  37. Duane November 21, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    Studying physics/astronomy/science is what allowed me to finally give up God. Despite the belief in here, all real evidence points to an old universe. Creationism has never adequately explained the starlight problem. We see stars that are billions of light years away. There are stars out there that dwarf our entire solar system. It takes light 14.5 seconds to go the circumference of the Sun (that is, the distance). There are stars that are so big it takes 2 and a half hours for light to travel as far as their circumference! There are a 100 Billion to 1 Trillion stars in an average galaxy and there are a 100 Billion to 1 Trillion galaxies in the universe. There are countless planets around those stars. They existed billions of years before we got here and will exist billions after we are gone. I don’t know what caused it all, but I do know that it is incredibly arrogant to assume that whatever it was that caused the entire universe into being and put it into motion cares if you mix linen and cotton in your clothing, or if you eat a cheeseburger, or if you cheat on your taxes. I know the universe is a vast, imposing place and that it helps some people to put a human face upon it to feel less lonely. The truth is, the universe goes about its business whether you and I are here or not. We are special, in that we can comprehend it all, but not so special that all of this was put here just for us. When this religion thing was conceived, we really didn’t understand the nature of the universe. It helped to attribute it all to an unseen father who worked and acted just like us. Now, we are in a post-God society and it just seems silly and presumptuous to believe some goat herders got it right some 2000 years ago. Science doesn’t have all the answers and it doesn’t claim to be definitive, but it is the most reliable method we have for obtaining the truth about the nature of reality.

    The question becomes, whose science do we trust? When one side claims to have models based upon observation, reason, experimentation and the other side has little more than emotional arguments, faulty logic, special pleading and biased researchers I think it becomes obvious which one to trust.

  38. Kenneth Tyner November 21, 2010 at 9:18 pm #

    Why do people keep claiming that God created everything from nothing? That’s not what is written in the scriptures.

    In Genesis 1, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters and separated the waters. We don’t know what the waters of space is, but it certainly is something rather than nothing.

  39. ant bourdon November 21, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

    Duane,

    An old Universe wouldn’t disprove God. Even if the universe would be old, it still can’t be infinite therefore needs a cause outside itself or supernatural. See my proof of a free will causing the Universe higher. Take care.

  40. ant bourdon November 21, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    You might also look at your own statements when saying religion is emotional. This is true for many, but saying that some herders were not right because they lived 2-4000 years ago is surely an emotional statement based on the belief that these people were uneducated. If you want to learn that God is provable from a philosophical view point without the need to appeal to religion, study Aristotle.

  41. Alfred Russell Wallace November 21, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    >>I would just like to ask, if God doesnt exists, who created the law of gravity?

    Physical laws are not “created” they just exist. That’s the difference between descriptive and prescriptive laws. As humans we can make laws, but we use another term for laws to describe natural phenomena.

    >>>Or the very concept of music?

    We, as the primate Homo sapiens, created our concept of music.

    >>>Have you ever seen an ape making music? I doubt it.

    Check out Kanzi the Bonobo, she understands and recognizes thousands of human words, she has discussions with humans using her lexigram. There is a video of her cooking soup, she shows empathy and compassion. Oh yes, and she can make music with drums.

    >>>Who created light itself?

    No one. ?

    >>>Whats the chance of these things coming from nothing? 1 in 500 billion would still seem small.

    Please check out a lecture by Lawrence Kraus which is called “a Universe from nothing” which presents theories about dark matter and the energy potential that is within non-spaces. It’s hard to wrap your mind around, but there is quantum probability that shows how our universe came about from nothing.

    >>>And you just think that plane chance created everything from light to love to music

    Natural selection, sexual selection, quantum physics, plate-techtonics. None of these involve “plane chance”.

  42. sky taylor November 21, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

    so the vast universe is so impressive to you

    all it is is balls of burning gas and matter , how can anything be more impressive than life, conciouse beings that can choose right from wrong and know the difference, compared to that i think the vast universe, even as big as it is , its really not that impressive

    as far a what to trust , well you dont need to believe in god to understand where cheating on your taxes will get you, i dont care how smart you think you are, the bible is so full of true to life wisdom that it cant be denied and passed off as 2000 year old goat hearders that didnt know anything

    as far as proof as what is true , well there is none , ther is only faith , faith in modern sience , faith in god , no proof , no matter what is true you need to have faith for either ,

    as for me i got tired of looking for evedince listening to both sides i will choose to belive in god and the bible becouse at the end of the day love, compassion , selflessness ,morality , is what really matters and feels right im my heart.

    so that is why i choose god, i cant tell anyone its true becouse theres proof but frankly its the only thing worth believeing in.

  43. Duane November 23, 2010 at 5:04 am #

    “@ant bourdon November 21st at 10:06 pm

    Duane,

    An old Universe wouldn’t disprove God. Even if the universe would be old, it still can’t be infinite therefore needs a cause outside itself or supernatural. See my proof of a free will causing the Universe higher. Take care.

    You might also look at your own statements when saying religion is emotional. This is true for many, but saying that some herders were not right because they lived 2-4000 years ago is surely an emotional statement based on the belief that these people were uneducated. [**Not that they were uneducated, but that humanity in general didn't understand the way the world worked or that we could actually understand the way the world worked, so they made up folklore to explain it**] If you want to learn that God is provable from a philosophical view point without the need to appeal to religion, study Aristotle.”

    I looked at your proof, and it appears to be the same one that has existed for centuries. There are some obvious problems with it. First, the first statement and the second statement contradict each other. One must therefore be false. Either some things can exist without cause or nothing can. It can’t be both ways. To insist that it doesn’t apply to God is special pleading. If “God” can be presumed to have not had a cause, then why can’t the universe itself? We know from quantum physics that the cause issue is an approximation that works for basic experience. At the quantum level particles pop in and out of existence uncaused all the time. Then there’s the Fallacy of Equivocation. The first premise is that everything must have a cause and the second is that the universe must therefore have a cause. When we say something that begins to exist has a cause, what we really mean is pre-existing materials were combined by something or someone in order to form a new entity. The second premise, “the universe began to exist”, implies that there were no pre-existing materials. Without pre-existing materials from which to form the universe, the cause of the beginning of the universe would not be equivalent to the cause of other things that begin to exist by a rearrangement of pre-existing materials. As to the second half, I couldn’t make sense of it. Lots of repetition and assumptions and non sequitors. If nothing can happen prior to time, then why the assumptions of stepped events that happen simultaneously prior to time? Before the existence of time, nothing happens by definition, least of all stepped events. Free will or deterministism is irrelevent if nothing can happen prior to time. If there’s some meta level of time that allows for a process to generate the universe (like, say God saying magic words or M Theory Brane cosmology) then we no longer have the need for meta events to happen simultaneously. There’s nothing to indicate whether these meta events are free or deterministic since we can’t know if there could have been alternate results.

    None of this proves that this first cause is God, especially the God of Abraham. At that point, we are doing little more than Personification, like “Old Man Winter”, or “Mother Nature”, or “Baby New Year”. We are putting a human face on natural forces or events like a metaphor or poetry. What I think it disproves is the Chick tract level of religious concepts that most people have of God. Most people will argue some vague Deist belief about an ultimate first cause who is outside time and physics when nailed down, but in practice they go right back to believing in the big guy sitting on a white throne watching everything they do while handing out judgments and punishments and rewards. How is that any different than a paranoid delusion? I’m sure it helps people to pretend to have a personal relationship with a heavenly father “creator of the universe”, but ultimately it is just that, pretend. That warm fuzzy feeling you get is no different than others have gotten from their opposing religions, or from cults, or from meeting their “soulmate”, or from tasting a really good slice of cheesecake, for that matter. It’s just part of how our brain works. It can even be stimutated by magnetic manipulation of the temporal lobes. At a certain point, it becomes obvious that believers aren’t really talking to whom they claim to be talking. We aren’t isolated from you guys. Most of us were brought up in the church and around believers or were once believers ourselves. Most of the “relationship” I see is a one-sided sycophantic toadying praisefest. The few that claim to actually get messages back never seem to receive anything that they didn’t already know or believe. No one comes out of prayer with some new knowedge. Would it have hurt God to have given someone a clue about, say, penicillin centuries ago? How many lives would have been saved over the millenia?

    Life is indeed impressive. It is a marvel that we are here and can comprehend it all. We might not EVER get the actual answers we are looking for. It’s just that in a universe as large and as old as it appears to be, that we are its ultimate purpose and the cosmos is merely a lightshow for our benefit is presumptuous. There’s a big leap from a theoretical First Cause to a cosmic tinkerer who plays favorites with an obscure tribe in the armpit of the world, who is jealous and proud of it, quick to be offended, and is a single father who punishes people for being human. Oh yeah, and He’s a best selling author of possibly one of several books, depending on which culture you are born in.

    No, we’re all out here alone in a vast, vast universe trying our best to make sense of it all. For some people, it helps to follow the beliefs of those that came before us. While they might have some insights into the human condition (along with how to treat slaves and women), it seems silly to take what are obviously myths about our origins and treat them as scientific fact, backed up by the pseudo-scientific ravings of biased cranks.

  44. Abe Geo November 23, 2010 at 7:30 am #

    Dear All,

    Just because you are in this dimension doesn’t mean that there isn’t any other dimensions out there.Probably you will need a spiritual body to enter those dimensions.We are in this dimension because we only need this much to live in this dimension.

    GOD is not limited by this dimension,He lives in a time free dimension.we are locked here with our physical bodies.You question implicates that you know everything about everything.But no one knows everything about everything.May be there are other things out there in that part you don’t know yet.

    I would like to say we live in a constant miracle.Waking up every morning to a beautiful brand new day is a miracle.Being alive today is a miracle.Try to get a big picture.Sun shines on you everyday.Moonlight soothes you every night.Bazillions of other things work constantly and in a perfect order for your existence which you have no control on.yet you wish that it would be there for you everyday for you and your family to live.Do we think about it?Do we say Grace to give thanks.Just imagine any one of those bazillion things cease to work?

    Now there you can see GOD’s participation in your lives even though you question his existence.

    May GOD bless you all

    Love

    Abin

  45. Mr T November 23, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    Duane

    There are at least four cosmological models by creationists that deal with the starlight time distance problem.
    1. Russ Humphrey’s White Hole Cosmology.
    2. John Hartnetts Cosmological Special Relativity.
    3. Barry Setterfields ZPE Cosmology (Zero Point Energy)
    4. Steve Millers Near Real Time Cosmology.

    There are more (eg Jason Lisle’s imminant paper), but these ones are better than the Big Bang since it has own light speed issue called “the event horison problem”.

    There are some features about our universe that are not well known, the best example being the homoginous nature of the universe. It appears fully formed but youthful at nearly all distances and directions from earth. Even in the Hubble deep field scans (10+bn LYA) there are fully formed galaxies, yet a mere 50million light years away (in distance) are galaxies with very little spiralling. In other words the looking back in history based on constant light speed is barely observed.

    Remember that man has only measured light arriving on earth in fairly recent times.
    eg. Light arriving from a source 100mn LYA.
    We haven’t measured light speed 1000 years ago.
    We haven’t measured light speed 10 light years away from our solar system.
    I’ll let you do the percentages cos they’re sooooo small.

    Please note that “C” is within the radioactive decay equations so it is not independant corroboration of the age of the universe.