Why would a creator god need a creator god?

[plwk]

Agree.
But how do you teach, Morality and positive behavior towards others to a fool?
Due to fear some people avoid bad action.

I know one colleague of mine in an ex company, a young married father of 4 kids, who has a reputation of clandestine affairs with some of the women at work and yes, he's a god believer & follower and even attempted several times to convert me to his Abrahamic religion.

So, how do you teach morality and positive behaviour towards such a 'fool' like him? By using atheism?
Remember the late Hitchens and his ramblings on the 'morality predates religion' thingy?

[SarathW]

Psychologist Matt J. Rossano muses that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[14] The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

[binocular]

If the universe needs a creator as a means for expressing gratitude for the universe, then to whom should we express gratitude for the creator?

It's not that "the universe needs a creator as a means to express gratitude". It's that we cannot express gratitude to anyone but persons. We can appreciate things, but gratitude can be expressed only to persons, not to things. Indebtedness can be felt only toward persons, not to things.

So if we are to cultivate gratitude, if we are to acknowledge our indebtedness, we can only do so in reference to persons, not things.

This -

"Monks, these two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful for a kindness done and feels obligated to repay it. These two people are hard to find in the world."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

is possible only between persons.

[binocular]

Well, some members of the Abrahamic faiths always ask us where did the world come from, who created the universe?

Where are those members of the Abrahamic faiths who are asking this?
I mean, unless one actually goes out of one's way to strike up conversations with theists or read their materials, the topic hardly ever comes up.

So whence the atheist and anti-theist teachings in Buddhism?

I think one reason why a creator would need to have a creator is that, in order to be a creator, one must 'act' in such a way that one 'creates' something. If 'action' occurs, then some sort of change in the creator is occurring. If the creator is 'acting', that is, 'changing', then the creator is not unchanging; thus, the creator, like any other conditioned entity, 'changes'.

Everything that changes, changes due to causes and conditions. Thus, the creator (as something that changes) itself needs a creator. And that creator needs a creator. And so on.

Not if "God" is defined as a person.

Why a creator god in the first place?

Why get into conversations about it in the first place?

My intention here is to understand how come so many Buddhists get into conversations about God.

In other words, the idea of a creator god creates more questions.

Only for those who place their focus outside of themselves ...

[binocular]

Psychologist Matt J. Rossano muses that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[14] The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Interesting conceptualization.

Why talk about "selfishness" - and not about greed, anger, and delusion?

[binocular]

But how do you teach, Morality and positive behavior towards others to a fool?

Why would you have to teach anyone anything?
Can you explain?

Well, they can be instructed in the consequences of actions without lying to them about the existence of a creator deity.

This last always takes the form of unmoved mover (e.g. causeless cause) ideation, which is basically a "here there be dragons" for the edges of cognitive space.

I don't see it that way at all.

Some theists simply define "God" as The First Cause. I see no problem with that. To me, this is the same kind of thing as, say, the meaning of a word in a foreign language. If the Turkish-English dictionary tells me that "elma" means 'apple,' then I take it at its word. I see no need to write my own Turkish dictionary.

To me, a theist discourse is like a foreign language, and it doesn't occur to me to redefine the terms. To question whether "God" is the "First Cause" is to me the same as to question whether "elma" is "apple" in Turkish. I wouldn't do it.

[daverupa]

Some theists simply define "God" as The First Cause. I see no problem with that. To me, this is the same kind of thing as, say, the meaning of a word in a foreign language. If the Turkish-English dictionary tells me that "elma" means 'apple,' then I take it at its word.

But it's English, so there's no additional foreign language issue here. It's the fact that "First Cause" is a bankrupt idea, so defining God as First Cause makes that sort of god an impossible one. It doesn't make any hay to say that it's been defined that way, and that's just the way it is. God, when defined as e.g. a First Cause, functions as a "here there be dragons" - which is to say, a reason to stop drawing certain cognitive maps without simply admitting that it's unknown territory.

On the other hand, e.g. SN 15.3 describes the situation as an inconstruable beginning. Very different than saying "and then, it's just the end, and there's a God there doing deus ex machina because of philosophers and their questions."

[binocular]

But it's English, so there's no additional foreign language issue here.

There is - it's a matter of a different, a foreign discourse. A discourse is a language. That's how I mean it here -

discourse
/.../
The totality of codified language (vocabulary) used in a given field of intellectual enquiry and of social practice, such as legal discourse, medical discourse, religious discourse, et cetera.[2]

/.../
In the humanities and in the social sciences, the term discourse describes a formal way of thinking that can be expressed through language, a social boundary that defines what can be said about a specific topic; as Judith Butler said, “the limits of acceptable speech”, the limits of possible truth.

Discourses are seen to affect our views on all things; it is not possible to avoid discourse. For example, two notably distinct discourses can be used about various guerrilla movements describing them either as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". In other words, the chosen discourse provides the vocabulary, expressions and perhaps also the style needed to communicate.

Discourses are embedded in different rhetorical genres and metagenres that constrain and enable them. That is language talking about language, for instance the American Psychiatric Association's DSMIV manual tells which terms have to be used in talking about mental health, thereby mediating meanings and dictating practices of the professionals of psychology and psychiatry.[5]
/.../
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse

Just like there is, say, "feminist discourse," and in it, particular terms have their own specific meanings that they don't necessarily have in other discourses.
To then argue that the feminists have it wrong, is to assume that one has a discourse that is superior to all others. (This is where it gets iffy.)

It's the fact that "First Cause" is a bankrupt idea,

I still fail to see why.

It doesn't make any hay to say that it's been defined that way, and that's just the way it is.

I think it makes perfect sense to say "God is defined by some theisms as First Cause, and that's just the way it is."

I wouldn't try to understand a Turkish word outside of Turkish. In the same manner, I wouldn't try to understand a theistic term outside of the theistic discourse.

God, when defined as e.g. a First Cause, functions as a "here there be dragons" - which is to say, a reason to stop drawing certain cognitive maps without simply admitting that it's unknown territory.

That's a projection. It's assuming, among other things, that those who claim to know about God have arrived at that knowledge the same way the speaker assumes he would.

On the other hand, e.g. SN 15.3 describes the situation as an inconstruable beginning.

Maybe to some people, that beginning is evident. Why should this be such a preposterous proposition - namely, that some other people may know things one doesn't know?

Very different than saying "and then, it's just the end, and there's a God there doing deus ex machina because of philosophers and their questions."

Yet nobody here is saying that.

[greeneggsandsam]

This is from another thread:

Say some one ask the question "Who create God" when some one answer "God create the world"
Can the answer be "You have gone too far .......... etc"

If not why?

No, because the question is advocating creation and intelligent design hence the creator must also has a creator and so forth to keep the logic alive.

In Buddhism, creation of the world does not apply. It is formation and natural order.

Why would the Creator need to have a creator and so ad infinitum?

I've often seen it claimed that a creator god needs a creator god and so into infinite regress, but never seen it explained why this would necessarily be so.

The way I have heard this god theory approached was along the lines:

The universe is so complex that there must be an intelligent design out there (more intelligent then humans as human technology and knowledge is incomparable to the complexities of the universe. i.e. we can't even create a human cell).

Then falls the assumption that whatever created the universe must be at least as complex as the universe itself.

Hence, you would need a creator, equally as intelligent as the latter creator or more superior to create that creator.

And then of course this goes on > infinity

[DNS]

Well, some members of the Abrahamic faiths always ask us where did the world come from, who created the universe?

Where are those members of the Abrahamic faiths who are asking this?

Everywhere. When Buddhists encounter members of Abrahamic faiths and the discussion is religion or the person finds out you are Buddhist, it typically goes something like this or similar to this:

Q. So you worship Buddha?
A. No, the Buddha was a human being who became enlightened.
Q. So you still worship God and Buddha was a prophet of God?
A. No, Buddhism is non-theistic.

And then you can see where it goes from there, with the added explanations, etc.

[plwk]

...and Buddha was a prophet of God?

Well David, at least this guy seems to think not...

phpBB .

[culaavuso]

It's that we cannot express gratitude to anyone but persons. We can appreciate things, but gratitude can be expressed only to persons, not to things. Indebtedness can be felt only toward persons, not to things.

So if we are to cultivate gratitude, if we are to acknowledge our indebtedness, we can only do so in reference to persons, not things.

This appears to assume two concepts implicitly without explaining why it should be so.

First, the nature of gratitude. Why must a feeling of appreciation be expressed as gratitude? And why does it need to be expressed to a person? And why can't the universe for which one is grateful simply be given a "person" label for these purposes? Why is making up a "God" label any better than just applying an extra "person" label?

Second, Why wouldn't there be an indebtedness and appreciation for God's existence? In that case, what person is responsible for creating God to whom gratitude can be expressed?

This -

"Monks, these two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful for a kindness done and feels obligated to repay it. These two people are hard to find in the world."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

is possible only between persons.

This is because there is a person who does a kindness, and so repaying a kindness is rightly to the person who performed the kindness. There is no need to impute a creator who performed the kindness of creating the universe. This seems to describe a situation where a feeling of appreciation is present, giving rise to a strong desire to express gratitude out of being accustomed to such behavior with people. However, in this case there is no person to whom gratitude can be expressed and so a conceptual invention of "God" is created so that someone can go through the motions of expressing gratitude. A "God" that is merely a convenient conceptual invention is a different thing from a "God" that is actually the creator of the universe.

[Jetavan]

....

I think one reason why a creator would need to have a creator is that, in order to be a creator, one must 'act' in such a way that one 'creates' something. If 'action' occurs, then some sort of change in the creator is occurring. If the creator is 'acting', that is, 'changing', then the creator is not unchanging; thus, the creator, like any other conditioned entity, 'changes'.

Everything that changes, changes due to causes and conditions. Thus, the creator (as something that changes) itself needs a creator. And that creator needs a creator. And so on.

Not if "God" is defined as a person.

Even a "creator person", in order to create, would have to change, and would thus be subject to change and origination via causes, and conditions (including a different "creator person").

[barcsimalsi]

Well, some members of the Abrahamic faiths always ask us where did the world come from, who created the universe?

Where are those members of the Abrahamic faiths who are asking this?

Everywhere. When Buddhists encounter members of Abrahamic faiths and the discussion is religion or the person finds out you are Buddhist, it typically goes something like this or similar to this:

Q. So you worship Buddha?
A. No, the Buddha was a human being who became enlightened.
Q. So you still worship God and Buddha was a prophet of God?
A. No, Buddhism is non-theistic.

And then you can see where it goes from there, with the added explanations, etc.

Another type( with ending):
T: you believe in kamma?

B: i think so, it justified some lots of things.

T: for the universe to have such incredible pattern of cause and effect, don’t you think there’s higher intelligent behind all this mechanism?

B: mmm…Buddha says it is incomprehensible.

T: see, that’s the limit of being a human and buddha, time to submit to the creator god?

B: not yet, incomprehensible doesn’t mean there must be a creator god. Even if the creator exists, it doesn’t mean He is the uncreated first cause.

T: the scripture says so.

B: it only proof that the imaginary creator is a stubborn atheist himself for not believing in a higher creator god.

[Spiny Norman]

My intention here is to understand how come so many Buddhists get into conversations about God.

A lot of people believe in God, so the subject does come up. A problem I've often experienced in conversations with theists is that of definition. There are so many different ideas around about "God" around that it's become an almost meaningless term. Some people think in terms of a traditional Abrahamic God, but many people now seem to think in new-age terms, "God" meaning some sort of creative energy ( or something ), more like pantheism. I find it all rather confusing!