If there is a God and who created everything, who created God and who created God?

Answer of the Theists: No one created God because he exists forever.What exists eternally cannot have a creator and no cause.

At the same time, they claim that everything has a cause.But you have already mentioned one exception: God – he has no cause. Consequently, the rule “Everything has a cause” cannot be generally valid.

There is also a small problem: everything we know about causes, as well as effects, are material interactions:

A acts on B by transferring energy to B and thus changes the state of B. B transfers the same amount of energy back to A (hence interaction).

For example, when you kick a football, your foot exerts a force on the ball.But the same force is also transferred from the ball to the foot.

From“Everything has a cause” they conclude that the universe must have a cause.Unfortunately, the claim is false, because if God has no cause, the rule must be “Not everything can have a cause.From the corrected rule, however, one cannot deduce that the universe musthave a cause.Matter could exist forever and then does not need a cause for its existence – what exists eternally cannot have a cause.

One postulates a rule, derives God from this rule, and then contests the general validity of the rule – which invalidates the derivation.This corked mindset – called “the mistake of the stolen concept” – is the fault of the majority of monotheists, and they stubbornly refuse to see their mistake, and then marvel at the atheists’ head-shaking.

If the rule “everything has a cause” – and if we overlook the leap from material causes to spiritual causes – then God must have a cause, otherwise one cannot invoke the rule.This is elementary logic.

But that is where the problems begin. One has a rule whose validity one denies, takes material causes, makes a spiritual one out of it – and then overlooks the fact that, in the case of the causes we know, it must be assumed that A and B exist that the exercise of the effect presupposes time. there must be one before and after effect) that A and B must be local, i.e. adjacent, in space-time, and that in every known case energy (i.e. matter – that is the same) is transferred.None of the conditions are fulfilled if god is used. There is therefore no “cause of existence”, the existence of matter cannot have a cause. The amount of ignorance that has been spent is astonishing.

One could also interpret it differently: everything that exists must have an origin.This does not make it any better – because the origin must exist, so we would have to have an origin again, and we are again at an infinite (infinite) regression of origins. Here, too, a rule is postulated, which is then immediately disputed again. By the way, when we say “something comes (or arises) from nothing”, then it is analogy with “something has no origin”. So God comes out of nowhere – something that in turn should be impossible, which would mean that God and the universe could not exist either. But from the universe we know it is there. If “nothing comes from nothing”, then God could not have created the universe out of nothing – is also ignored again. Apart from that, one wonders what one would have to assume in order to be able to claim that the rule “nothing comes from nothing” is valid?

Exactly – in this case, logic should apply unreservedly, and that is the rule.Nothingis is nothing – in it there are rules that have no cause, no origin, therefore come from nothing, from nowhere. Again, you shoot yourself in the eye from behind. A thing in which rules apply is a “something” and not “nothing”, because it has characteristics. The complete absence of attributes is the property of all things that do not exist. The “absolute nothingness” of the theists therefore does not exist.

But the existence of an “absolute nothingness” must presuppose that they immediately turn it into an “existing something” again, only to then claim that nothing can come of this thing.Those who do not shake their heads in the face of this logic have either done none or none.

On the basis of what considerations do one assume that non-existence is the natural basic state of all things?Exactly – this is not based at all on reflection or reflection, this is reflected, because it is written in some ancient texts that do not take it so precisely with logic. These texts were written by people who couldn’t think about them either, and they are being used as role models.

Then one is outraged, when atheists turn this “theist logic” against them and say that if everything has to have a creator, the creator must also have a super-creator, etc.Usf.

If one applies the “logic” of the monotheists consistently, there should be no God and no universe.But the universe is there – so something can’t be right with the thinking of the theists. The more they are questioned, the more they become entangled in contradictions. When they have finally got tangled up, they deny the validity of the logic they used before to postulate the existence of God. But if there is no logic, something can arise from absolute nothingness, because logic is the prerequisite that is needed to establish any rules. The whole thing would be funny if it weren’t so sad that intelligent people have acquired such quirky ways of thinking – or were forced on them when they can’t think properly, and now they can’t think about it properly, and now they can’t get away with it. free from it?

That would mean that monotheists have just enough intelligence to apply logic when the result suits them, but not enough to see the flaws on which this House of Cards stands.When a believer invokes his intelligence, one can only answer: it may be sufficient for everyday things, but it suspends as soon as it comes to God. Believing in God blocks the intellectual abilities of believers. God is a kind of stop signal: as soon as the logic that one presupposes leads you to doubt God, you must immediately cease all logical thinking.Here we atheists are clearly intellectually superior to believers – we do not stop thinking as soon as we hear the word “God”, we lack this instinctive reflex. Even the most intelligent believers suffer from an “island impoverishment” here and therefore, when it comes to God, cannot invoke to be intelligent. Blessed are the spiritually poor.

Now the faithful will again be outraged, because I deny them the intelligence.Well, first of all, I don’t do it in general, but only when it comes to God. Secondly, this is a provable fact and not an insult – anyone who finds facts offensive has a disturbed relationship with reality. That, in turn, is what is left when you stopbelieving in it.Faith is an obstacle to thinking, and those who believe in the religious sense cannot rely on the intelligence that they have just thrown overboard.

By the way, also funny: If God is rational, and if the evidence of God had a rational reason, God himself would have to believe that he was created.If he does not, he is either irrational, he thinks like the believers, or he knows what he does not know.

By the way, all the knowledge of God also comes from nowhere – it has no cause and no origin.Basically, an omniscient God knows everything he will think the same way – which means he can’t think at all, he can only recapitulate existing thinking.

I could now point out even more errors of thought that make up all of this, but I think that is enough for the time being.God – a house of cards, solidly built on nothing. Anyone who asks why we atheists do not believe in God – this is not to be helped.