who made god?

Originally posted by rwingett
Theists claim that god is eternal and that he was not 'caused.'

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Aseity (Latin a, from; se, itself: ens a se) is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. It will be easily understood that this property belongs, and can belong only, to God. When we look for the efficient, exemplary, and final cause of all things, of their existence, nature, and organization, we come ultimately to a Being Who does not depend for His existence, realization, or end on any cause other than Himself; Who has within Himself His own reason of existence, Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01774b.htm

Sounds like they argue that God is His own cause?

Originally posted by rwingett
Theists claim that god is eternal and that he was not 'caused.'

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Aseity (Latin a, from; se, itself: ens a se) is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. It will be easily understood that this property belongs, and can belong only, to God. When we look for the efficient, exemplary, and final cause of all things, of their existence, nature, and organization, we come ultimately to a Being Who does not depend for His existence, realization, or end on any cause other than Himself; Who has within Himself His own reason of existence, Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01774b.htm

Sounds like they argue that God is His own cause?

Originally posted by rwingett
Theists claim that god is eternal and that he was not 'caused.'

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Aseity (Latin a, from; se, itself: ens a se) is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. It will be easily understood that this property belongs, and can belong only, to God. When we look for the efficient, exemplary, and final cause of all things, of their existence, nature, and organization, we come ultimately to a Being Who does not depend for His existence, realization, or end on any cause other than Himself; Who has within Himself His own reason of existence, Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01774b.htm

I have no idea why that just posted three times. I only clicked once.

Originally posted by Conrau K
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Aseity (Latin a, from; se, itself: ens a se) is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. It will be easily understood that this property belongs, and can belong only, to God. When we look for the efficient, exemplary, and final cause of all things, of their existence, nature, and organization, we co ...[text shortened]... elf His own exemplary and final cause.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01774b.htm[/b]

You are not interpreting your source correctly. It is not at all saying what you think it is. This passage from Wikipedia is much clearer:

Aseity is a theological term, referring to the characteristic of being un-derived (from Latin a "from" and se "self", plus -ity) in contrast to being derived from or dependent on another, hence (apriori) predicable only of God in classical theology. Ideally, this term means that God necessarily exists as opposed to it happening to be the case that God exists. Indeed, this is understood by its users to be the content of the term 'God'.

The term Aseity is used to describe One who is the Ultimate Being. God is said to ‘possess’ aseity, since He was not created, but rather must always have existed and must always exist. He is His own existence, and nothing can exist without Him.

Whether or not this being should be described as God turns on whether the label 'Creator' is a rigid designator of God. Given that most theists understand all that is not God to be brought about by God, and that many (for example, Aquinas) argue from the non-aseity of the universe to the existence of God, this problem is somewhat theoretical.

Some people claim that the universe should be described as having aseity. This is sometimes a position held by atheists.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have no idea why that just posted three times. I only clicked once.

It is because you lack aseity. If you had that then you would know the cause (presumably).

Originally posted by rwingett
You are not interpreting your source correctly. It is not at all saying what you think it is. This passage from Wikipedia is much clearer:

What alternative interpretation do you propose for the following:

Who has within Himself His own reason of existence, Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause.

Originally posted by rwingett
It is because you lack aseity. If you had that then you would know the cause (presumably).

I thought that was omniscience. I'm trying.

Originally posted by Conrau K
What alternative interpretation do you propose for the following:

Who has within Himself His own reason of existence, Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause.

To have "within Himself His own reason of existence" means he is a non-contingent being. I'm not sure what they mean by "His own exemplary". But by final cause they mean that he is at the end of the causal chain. If you trace causality backwards, He is the final cause (or first cause). He is the necessary uncaused cause of everything else.

The sentence you cite is poorly worded and is not entirely clear. I can see how you blundered into your mistaken interpretation, but you are simply wrong. Having aseity means to have a necessary and uncaused existence, regardless of what you think the bloody Catholics are saying. As I said, the Wikipedia entry is much clearer. Especially to those with less penetrating insights into theological nuance. But in the spirit of Jesus, I will forgive you your errors. Go in peace and do not sin again.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your argument is ridiculous. Theists claim that god is eternal and that he was not 'caused.' To escape from the eternal causal regression they plug him in as the first cause, or the 'uncaused cause.' The atheists rightfully question what basis they have for making that claim. Since Big Bang theorists do not necessarily make any claims for what preceded the ...[text shortened]... do with the other. It's an open question as to what (or if anything) preceded the Big Bang.

first of all, i dont appreciate the way you look down upon everyone's views that don't go along w/ yours and calling an idea ridiculous is rude. second of all, maybe big bang theorists dont say what preceeded the big bang because they believe it is what started it all.

Originally posted by rwingett
To have "within Himself His own reason of existence" means he is a non-contingent being. I'm not sure what they mean by "His own exemplary". But by final cause they mean that he is at the end of the causal chain. If you trace causality backwards, He is the final cause (or first cause). He is the necessary uncaused cause of everything else.

The sentence ...[text shortened]... t in the spirit of Jesus, I will forgive you your errors. Go in peace and do not sin again.

Prep-English, class 1: Can you distinguish semantically between the words "the" and "his"?

You will find the selected quote read, "Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause." It does not say "the exemplary and final cause." Therefore, I must wonder why you conclude that the quote means,

He is the necessary uncaused cause of everything else.

Obviously to say he "is the exemplary and final cause" is radically different from to say "He is His own exemplary and final cause." The latter implies self-cause, does it not? But it seems you have appointed yourself the magic code-breaker, the only one who can decipher what the "bloody Catholics are saying."

If you actually had a grasp of Catholic theology, you might know that a contingent being is one that is not sufficient explanation of itself, that it requires something else to explain it. The opposite of a contingent being, then, is not a non-contingent being but a self-contingent being (one of whom the self is sufficient to explain its existence. Other terms often used are necessary being, self-existing being, etc.)

Self-contingent, self-caused and self-created mean essentially the same thing. But God still remains un-caused; just as a self-dependent person remains independent. Just admit you have no idea what you are writing about. And try to avoid manipulating words in a lame attempt to clinch an argument.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
first of all, i dont appreciate the way you look down upon everyone's views that don't go along w/ yours and calling an idea ridiculous is rude. second of all, maybe big bang theorists dont say what preceeded the big bang because they believe it is what started it all.

Well, I would have shouted STRAWMAN! because your initial post shows that either
1. You do not understand the argument you are attempting to refute
or
2. You are intentionally setting up a strawman.

When someone asks "who made God" they are not, as you claim, attempting to disprove the existence of God, but rather they are highlighting a flaw in the popular theist claim (yes theist not just creationists) that the existence of God is a logical deduction from the infinite causal regression paradox.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
first of all, i dont appreciate the way you look down upon everyone's views that don't go along w/ yours and calling an idea ridiculous is rude. second of all, maybe big bang theorists dont say what preceeded the big bang because they believe it is what started it all.

Shut up, pig!






Now that is an example of a rude statement. Calling a ridiculous notion ridiculous is not rude. But getting back to your ridiculous notion; when the theists present their god as the first cause, they're claiming it is the absolute truth. When cosmologists speculate as to what (or if anything) preceded the Big Bang, they present their ideas as mere possibilities for consideration. MAYBE it did start it all and MAYBE it didn't. The theists present their position as a fait accompli to which they all agree, while the cosmologists present theirs as mere possibilities on which there is no wide consensus. Questioning the former in no way impinges upon the latter.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Prep-English, class 1: Can you distinguish semantically between the words "the" and "his"?

You will find the selected quote read, "Who is for Himself [b]His own exemplary and final cause." It does not say "the exemplary and final cause." Therefore, I must wonder why you conclude that the quote means,

[quote]He is the necessary unca ...[text shortened]... bout. And try to avoid manipulating words in a lame attempt to clinch an argument.[/b]

Your obstinate idiocy begins to tire me. I have no interest in pursuing an interminable semantic struggle with a half-wit like yourself. So why don't we open the question to the theists themselves to answer? I mean, after all, it is their god.

Hello, theists! Do you believe that god created himself or that he has always existed and is uncaused? If the esteemed Conrau K objects to my phrasing of that particular question then be so kind as to re-read the discussion between us and give us your verdict on who is right.

Originally posted by rwingett
Hello, theists! Do you believe that god created himself or that he has always existed and is uncaused?

Yes.