IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN WHO CREATED GOD?
             Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein, has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give a most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question. Let me first quote from the book “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking:
       “The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe. There is something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.”
                                                                    - Chapter: The origin and fate of the universe, page 136.
              Here the question stops. So the clue is this: if we can ultimately arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised, and there will be no infinite regression. What I intend to do here is something similar to that. I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about His origin. And here comes Einstein with his special theory of relativity for giving us the necessary empirical support to our project. 
                      God is a Being. Therefore God will have existence as well as essence. So I will have to show that both from the point of view of existence as well as from the point of view of essence God is zero. It is almost a common parlance that God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero, change is zero. But how to prove that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless, and changeless? From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light both distance and time become unreal. For light even an infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero. The volume of an infinite universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. A universe with zero volume is a spaceless universe. Again at the speed of light time totally stops. So a universe full of light only is a spaceless, timeless universe. But these are the properties of light only! How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless, timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light. Here is the proof. 
                      Scientists have shown that total energy of the universe is always zero. If total energy is zero, then total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. Now if there is a God, then scientists have calculated the total energy and mass of the universe by taking into consideration the fact that there is also a God. In other words, if there is a God, then this total energy-mass calculation by the scientists is God-inclusive, not God-exclusive. This is due to two reasons. First of all, even if there is a God, they are not aware of the fact that there is a God. Secondly, they do not believe that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making this calculation, because they do not know that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept Him aside and then made this calculation, because by saying that they will admit that there is a God. At most they can say that there is no God. But we are not going to accept that statement as the final verdict on God-issue, because we are disputing that statement. So the matter of the fact is this: if God is really there, then total mass and total energy of the universe including that God are both zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero. God is without any mass, without any energy. And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. In other words, it will be light. So, if God is there, then God will also be light, and therefore He will be spaceless, timeless. So from the point of view of existence God is zero, because he is spaceless, timeless, without any mass, without any energy.

Now we will have to show that from the point of view of essence also God is zero. If there is only one being in the universe, and if there is no second being other than that being, then that being cannot have any such property as love, hate, cruelty, compassion, benevolence, etc. Let us say that God is cruel. Now to whom can He be cruel if there is no other being other than God Himself? So, if God is cruel, then is He cruel to Himself? Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom He can show His love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere Him, for the simple reason that He is not our creator! It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. (Book: A History of Western Philosophy, Ch: Plato’s Utopia). Therefore, if God is the ultimate Being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can He be evil. God is beyond good and evil. Like Hindu’s Brahma, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; without any name, without any quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero. Mystics usually say that their God is a no-thing. This is the real God, not the God of the scriptures. So, why should there be any need for creation here, if God is existentially, as well as essentially, zero? But if there is someone who is intelligent and clever enough, then he will not stop arguing here. He will point out to another infinite regression. If God is light, then He will no doubt be spaceless, timeless, etc. Therefore one infinite regression is thus arrested. But what about the second regression? How, and from whom, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully arrested the first regression? So, here is another infinite regression. But we need not have to worry much about this regression, because this problem has already been solved. A whole thing, by virtue of its being the whole thing, will have all the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness. It need not have to depend on any other external source for getting these properties. Thus no further infinite regression will be there. H. S. Pal

OK OK OK … You’re probably right that I’ve gone too far in the direction of giving people too many outs, I’ll try to keep my points more to the point and not go too far. On the other hand, you should acknowledge that there are MANY religious (and otherwise spiritual) people who do not subscribe to the full package.

OK OK OK … You’re probably right that I’ve gone too far in the direction of giving people too many outs, I’ll try to keep my points more to the point and not go too far. On the other hand, you should acknowledge that there are MANY religious (and otherwise spiritual) people who do not subscribe to the full package.

I understand your desire to give people the benefit of the doubt, but at some point you just have to acknowledge that these people are simply delusional.

I understand your desire to give people the benefit of the doubt, but at some point you just have to acknowledge that these people are simply delusional.

(For the record, the statistics I find most frightening are the ones about teaching creationism in place of evolution in SCIENCE classes.) Many bealieve that we are ALL children of God. To believe that Jesus was also a child of God does not necessarily place him in a special class. And, though I don’t think that this is really the point about Jesus’ virgin birth, virgin births are certainly possible these days with technology … and really have always been possible with an “almost” loss of virginity. I wouldn’t be too surprised if there has been a virgin birth somewhere in human history.

(For the record, the statistics I find most frightening are the ones about teaching creationism in place of evolution in SCIENCE classes.) Many bealieve that we are ALL children of God. To believe that Jesus was also a child of God does not necessarily place him in a special class. And, though I don’t think that this is really the point about Jesus’ virgin birth, virgin births are certainly possible these days with technology … and really have always been possible with an “almost” loss of virginity. I wouldn’t be too surprised if there has been a virgin birth somewhere in human history.

I totally accept that there could be other creation scenarios, and that some of them may consider a degree of suffering as necessary. I also accept that not all perspectives (Christian and otherwise) require that the God figure be omniscient.

This perspective was specifically aimed at CLASSICAL beliefs held by most American Christians. Perhaps you feel this is a misrepresentation to assume that so many believe this extreme version of the Bible. Think again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/

The reality is quite depressing. 79% of American’s believe in Jesus’s LITERAL virgin birth. 82% believe that Jesus was the actual son of God. 62% favor teaching creationism along with evolution in schools. 43% favor teaching it INSTEAD of evolution.

So I am not merely picking some radical option and choosing to knock it down as straw man. This set of rules that I’ve used to set up my argument is actually believed by an overwhelming number of people in this country. I think it’s completely valid to attack that specific model because of the vast number of people that believe it.

But yeah, I agree with all your points about the other options. I only chose this because its such a commonly held belief.

I totally accept that there could be other creation scenarios, and that some of them may consider a degree of suffering as necessary. I also accept that not all perspectives (Christian and otherwise) require that the God figure be omniscient.

This perspective was specifically aimed at CLASSICAL beliefs held by most American Christians. Perhaps you feel this is a misrepresentation to assume that so many believe this extreme version of the Bible. Think again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/

The reality is quite depressing. 79% of American’s believe in Jesus’s LITERAL virgin birth. 82% believe that Jesus was the actual son of God. 62% favor teaching creationism along with evolution in schools. 43% favor teaching it INSTEAD of evolution.

So I am not merely picking some radical option and choosing to knock it down as straw man. This set of rules that I’ve used to set up my argument is actually believed by an overwhelming number of people in this country. I think it’s completely valid to attack that specific model because of the vast number of people that believe it.

But yeah, I agree with all your points about the other options. I only chose this because its such a commonly held belief.

You’re still missing the point. Let’s suppose that you wanted to create life and that you wanted that life to REALLY EXPERIENCE HAPPINESS (and not just have a mental state that simulates happiness — we can debate in a separate thread if there is really a distinction to be made here .. I just need you to accept that there COULD be a distinction). MAYBE (just maybe) it is necessary that this new life ALSO experiences suffering as part of the deal. If so (and if happiness is the goal), then it would be immoral NOT to create a world with suffering.

I would ALSO argue that a primary impetus to growth (as we humans define it) is suffering in one form or another, but this is a separate argument that suffering may be necessary for us to have as rich an experience as we have.

Finally, I still maintain that a world without ANY suffering (how much is the right amount is another argument .. and may involve some slippery slopes) would be FAR inferior to the one we inhabit. (And, yes, I realize that this is easy to say from the vantage point of one who is NOT experiencing any significant suffering at the moment.)

–

One last point .. “God doesn’t learn ANYTHING, ever. He’s omniscient.” Not everyone’s God is omnicient. Even many Christians believe in a Creator God who set things in motion but does not necessarily know where things are headed. Perhaps there is even evidence in the Bible (if one was to take it literally) that God is not omnicient. One could argue that if he knew that people would become evil, he’d not have lost his temper and wiped (most of) them out with the flood. As I recall, He then apologized to Noah and created the rainbow as a symbol that He’s got his temper under control now and won’t lose it again.

I’m not suggesting that you’re wrong that we made the whole thing up (for example, we understand the physics of rainbows now), but I am suggesting that you’re oversimplifying and not listening to other possibilities. There’s the Sci Fi vision of our universe being a laboratory creation in some other universe. The creator scientist set things in motion and did so to see what would happen (not knowing this in advance). Was this scientist immoral to create our universe? Maybe some in his universe would argue that he was. I’m personally happy to have had the opportunity to live, love, create, etc. So, given the two options of THIS UNIVERSE or NOTHING, I’d choose THIS UNIVERSE.

If it is possible to logically prove or disprove the existence of God (or even whether or not God could be omnicient or “good” or whatever), I’ve not seen a convincing proof. My goal in the responses I’ve posted here is to keep people from making claims purported to be based on logic that do not follow logically from their arguments. In a sense (and quite ironically I suppose) I am playing devil’s advocate in pointing out the logical flaws in the arguments that God CAN’T exist (or CAN’T have some property).

You’re still missing the point. Let’s suppose that you wanted to create life and that you wanted that life to REALLY EXPERIENCE HAPPINESS (and not just have a mental state that simulates happiness — we can debate in a separate thread if there is really a distinction to be made here .. I just need you to accept that there COULD be a distinction). MAYBE (just maybe) it is necessary that this new life ALSO experiences suffering as part of the deal. If so (and if happiness is the goal), then it would be immoral NOT to create a world with suffering.

I would ALSO argue that a primary impetus to growth (as we humans define it) is suffering in one form or another, but this is a separate argument that suffering may be necessary for us to have as rich an experience as we have.

Finally, I still maintain that a world without ANY suffering (how much is the right amount is another argument .. and may involve some slippery slopes) would be FAR inferior to the one we inhabit. (And, yes, I realize that this is easy to say from the vantage point of one who is NOT experiencing any significant suffering at the moment.)

–

One last point .. “God doesn’t learn ANYTHING, ever. He’s omniscient.” Not everyone’s God is omnicient. Even many Christians believe in a Creator God who set things in motion but does not necessarily know where things are headed. Perhaps there is even evidence in the Bible (if one was to take it literally) that God is not omnicient. One could argue that if he knew that people would become evil, he’d not have lost his temper and wiped (most of) them out with the flood. As I recall, He then apologized to Noah and created the rainbow as a symbol that He’s got his temper under control now and won’t lose it again.

I’m not suggesting that you’re wrong that we made the whole thing up (for example, we understand the physics of rainbows now), but I am suggesting that you’re oversimplifying and not listening to other possibilities. There’s the Sci Fi vision of our universe being a laboratory creation in some other universe. The creator scientist set things in motion and did so to see what would happen (not knowing this in advance). Was this scientist immoral to create our universe? Maybe some in his universe would argue that he was. I’m personally happy to have had the opportunity to live, love, create, etc. So, given the two options of THIS UNIVERSE or NOTHING, I’d choose THIS UNIVERSE.

If it is possible to logically prove or disprove the existence of God (or even whether or not God could be omnicient or “good” or whatever), I’ve not seen a convincing proof. My goal in the responses I’ve posted here is to keep people from making claims purported to be based on logic that do not follow logically from their arguments. In a sense (and quite ironically I suppose) I am playing devil’s advocate in pointing out the logical flaws in the arguments that God CAN’T exist (or CAN’T have some property).

If God learns vicariously through our experiences, what would he learn if we all still lived in the Garden of Eden?

God doesn’t learn ANYTHING, ever. He’s omniscient. And you don’t create a life form from nothingness in order to “teach it something” while requiring it to suffer horribly in the mean time. That’s not moral behavior.

Luckily God isn’t immoral as this would indicate. The reality is that we just made the whole thing up.

If God learns vicariously through our experiences, what would he learn if we all still lived in the Garden of Eden?

God doesn’t learn ANYTHING, ever. He’s omniscient. And you don’t create a life form from nothingness in order to “teach it something” while requiring it to suffer horribly in the mean time. That’s not moral behavior.

Luckily God isn’t immoral as this would indicate. The reality is that we just made the whole thing up.

Anyone who sits in their comfort zone and does not take risks is probably not growing as a person. Why would a compassionate God pluck us down in a cushy life so that we were unable to grow; to deny us the satisfaction of being creative or productive, experiencing growth, balancing losses with wins, and goal achievement? I’d rather not bother. Whether things have turned out according to there original design or not, perhaps this was the original plan. If God learns vicariously through our experiences, what would he learn if we all still lived in the Garden of Eden?

Anyone who sits in their comfort zone and does not take risks is probably not growing as a person. Why would a compassionate God pluck us down in a cushy life so that we were unable to grow; to deny us the satisfaction of being creative or productive, experiencing growth, balancing losses with wins, and goal achievement? I’d rather not bother. Whether things have turned out according to there original design or not, perhaps this was the original plan. If God learns vicariously through our experiences, what would he learn if we all still lived in the Garden of Eden?

“How can you conclude that the Universe was designed …” I’m sure this is not directed at me, but just in case .. I’m certain that I didn’t state a conclusion that the Universe was designed (nor that humans occupy any particularly special part of it).

“How can you conclude that the Universe was designed …” I’m sure this is not directed at me, but just in case .. I’m certain that I didn’t state a conclusion that the Universe was designed (nor that humans occupy any particularly special part of it).