Nothing. God doesn't exist. Atleast in my opinion, religion was created to control the masses.
Though it does beg the question, what was the beginning of time? The big bang?, or was there something before it.
Like, who or what created god?
Knowing Him personally, probably created Himself. He seems like the type of guy to do that.
So you’ve (inadvertently) asked quite an important philosophical question. The question is whether God is the first necessarily existent being, as opposed to a being who’s existence is contingent.
Contingent existence refers to something that might not have existed, for example this post would not have existed had I not written. This post is contingently dependant on may writing it. Necessary existence refers to something that must always exist and can’t go out of existence.
A great philosopher who wrote on this question is St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and he documented five ways in which God created the universe and was the first necessary being. I’ll briefly summarise three.
I have put important pieces of information in bold.
His first way is an argument from motion-
P1. Some things in the world are in motion.
P1a. For example, a cricket ball moving towards the batsman.
P2. Whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by something else.
P2a. For example, the bowler.
P3. If A is put in motion by B, then something else (C) must have caused B’s motion… and so on.
P4. If this chain goes on infinitely, then there is no first mover.
P5. If there is no first mover, then there are no subsequent movers, and so nothing would ever be in motion.
P6. Things are in motion
C1. There must be a first mover
C2. This first mover is God
This argument should sufficiently answer your question, because whatever the first mover is - that entity is God. The first mover must be God, because their existence is necessary not contingent.
So, if something created “God”, then that being is in fact not God. The entity that created “God” is the real God.
Aquinas’ second way is an argument from causation, which is actually quite similar to his argument from motion -
P1. Everything in the universe is subject to cause and effect.
P1a. For example, throwing a rock caused a window to smash
P2. C is caused by B, and B is caused by A.
P3. If there is an infinite chain of causation, there would be no first cause.
P4. If there is no first cause, there would be no subsequent causes or effects.
P5. There are causes and effects.
C1. There must have been a first cause
C2. This first cause is God.
The analysis for this way is identical to my analysis for Aquinas’ first way, just replace “motion” with “causation”.
Aquinas’s third way relies on the use of contingent and necessary existences -
P1. Everything that exists contingently did not exist at some point
P1a. For example, this post would not exist had I not written it.
P2. If everything exists contingently, then at some point nothing existed.
P3. If nothing existed at one point, then nothing could begin to exist.
P4. Since things did begin to exist, there was never nothing in existence.
C1. Therefore, there must be something that does not exist contingently, but exists necessarily.
C2. This necessary being is God.
Here Aquinas argues that the fact that we have an existence, albeit a contingent one, is proof enough that there was an initial necessary being. Your initial question should be answered if not by Aquinas’ first way, then by his third way.
In your post, you describe God as being a contingent being by suggesting that it is possible that something created him. God is actually a necessary being, which means that He does not rely on anything to be created. This is what Aquinas attempts to prove in his third way.
Hopefully this helps, if you (or anyone) has any questions just reply and I’ll answer them. There are also quite a few objections to Aquinas’ arguments, I can go over them if people are interested.
There are also quite a few objections to Aquinas’ arguments, I can go over them if people are interested.
I'm interested
An excerpt from the book of the Psalms (Psalm 90:2), which is canonical for Jews, Christians and (I think) Muslims, is one of many cases in which God is defined as without a beginning or end. This conflicts with our perception of reality, as we and everything we (currently) know had a beginning, and we struggle to imagine something that goes beyond our concept of time.
I'm not familiar with Aquinas but the way the Bible defines God's existence would probably get along well with his definitions of necessary existence and prime cause.
Nothing. God doesn't exist. Atleast in my opinion, religion was created to control the masses.
Though it does beg the question, what was the beginning of time? The big bang?, or was there something before it.
seems ignorant. god may not exist how we imagine him, but the first particle to appear in the universe set in motion every single event in history - is it wrong to call such a particle god?
Nothing. God doesn't exist. Atleast in my opinion, religion was created to control the masses.
Though it does beg the question, what was the beginning of time? The big bang?, or was there something before it.
seems ignorant. god may not exist how we imagine him, but the first particle to appear in the universe set in motion every single event in history - is it wrong to call such a particle god?
Alright, I’d be willing to see the first particle as a “God” type figure, but I don’t see him as an all powerful being who is conscious, though again that is only my opinion, others are allowed there own.
I did. It was me.
