Question

...
Makai

Does 'Who Created God' commit the Double Counting fallacy

Is the question 'Who created God?' considered to be a double counting fallacy when dealing with the 'god created everything' argument?

asked on Thursday, May 28, 2020 11:35:31 PM by Makai

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
1
Makai writes:

I think the "who" in "Who created god" is also a fallacy because it implies the creator of god would have to be a conscious being. If god did exist, then perhaps it was created by a natural process that randomly produces gods. "Who or what created god?" would be a better question.

posted on Saturday, Jun 06, 2020 01:27:45 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Grow Intellectually by Taking Dr. Bo's Online Courses

Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.

View All Dr. Bo's Courses

Answers

...
Jason Mathias
3

This is the argument in syllogistic form: (I am paraphrasing here only because there wasn't enough information given. But since I have seen this argument before, I am rephrasing the argument to what I believe you are referring to.)

Person 1: "The universe and everything that exists needs a creator, it couldn't have just popped into existence from nothing. Therefore God must have created everything." 

Person 2: "Using your own logic, If God created everything, and everything that exists needs a creator, then who created God?"

Person 1: "No, God doesn't need a creator because he's God. There has to be a first cause and that cause is God."

Person 2 is just using person 1's logic against them to point out an inconsistency within their logic. An inconsistency is a violation of law of non contradiction which would be an Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) Fallacy. Person 1 is also committing a Special Pleading Fallacy for God and not the universe. 

answered on Friday, May 29, 2020 11:53:43 AM by Jason Mathias

Jason Mathias Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Bryan
2

I've not heard of that one, but it seems to deal with counting events twice in relation to probability. I don't think you can assign probability to things which are only hypothesised and which we have no examples of, and "who created god" isn't an event. 

It sounds more like the complex question fallacy (which I know better as à loaded question) which includes a presupposition. However, if it's in response to a claim that god created everything "because everything has to have a cause",  then it isn't a presupposition at all, it's raising the point that in that argument god is a thing and would require a cause as well (otherwise you have special pleading).

answered on Friday, May 29, 2020 05:32:11 AM by Bryan

Bryan Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
2

Double Counting is a probability fallacy where the same event is counted multiple times, returning a false probability with correct numbers.

There's no fallacy in your statement. "Who created God?" is a valid question of origin. 

answered on Friday, May 29, 2020 05:16:18 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Kaiden
1

Hi, John300974!

            As with others here who have answered, I don’t see how the question commits the Double Counting fallacy, but maybe you can clarify. The question is, however, answered by the argument. God created God, if God exists and created everything. (And that is a capital “G” because ultimate reality is what is being referred to. Capitalizing it has nothing to do with whether you as an individual are a theist, an atheist, or agnostic.) In other words, the “God created everything” argument, if sound, entails an instance of self-causation. But self-causation is absurd. Therefore, the “God created everything” argument is unsound. That is the gist of the critique, as I understand it: a reductio ad absurdum. I think it is a strong objection.

                Alternatively, as others have pointed out the question may also aim to reveal an inconsistency in Johnson’s view itself (let “Johnson” name the defender of the “God created everything” argument). For Johnson states that God created everything, but presumably also denies that God has a creator. If this presumption on our part is right, then Johnson contradicts himself. This route, like the one mentioned in the above paragraph, also leads to a strong objection.

               Regardless of what happens with Johnson, however, there is nothing here of concern for defenders of traditional and contemporary First Cause argument, just to make sure we understand that, too. No major proponent of a First Cause argument in the history of Western Philosophy has stood behind an argument that states that God created everything. Moreover, under the traditional Christian view of God (which can be found in the works of Judaic and Islamic philosophers, as well)—in which God is absolute simplicity in act —the question of who created God is easily answered with “no one” because absolute simplicity in act (God) could not in principle have a cause.

             Within the context of Natural Theology, then, the objection of “(if everything has a creator) then who created God” is very ignorant and incompetent, even if it is a strong objection against the gross caricature of First Cause arguments that your OP references. Although, in neither case do I yet see it as committing a Double Counting fallacy.

Thank you, John300974.

From, Kaiden 

 

answered on Saturday, Jun 06, 2020 03:50:38 PM by Kaiden

Kaiden Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Colin P
0

No, the double counting fallacy is a probability calculation error.  The Bible says God is eternal, that is he exists ('God is') but was never created ('eternal').

answered on Friday, May 29, 2020 10:47:02 PM by Colin P

Colin P Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Bryan writes:

Whilst what the bible says is irrelevant to facts, it says nothing whatsoever about "god" being eternal. There are comments about people having eternal life, which doesn't deal with their origins, but nothing about "god" being eternal. Quite the opposite, Revelation 22:13 says:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

posted on Monday, Jun 01, 2020 10:53:56 AM
...
-1
Colin P writes:
[To Bryan]

The words you quote are Jesus' and they are about the finality of God's revelation of himself to us. God has revealed himself through creation, through his word, and supremely through Jesus. There is nothing to add to, and nothing to subtract from, what God's word has taught us about Jesus, and what Jesus has taught us about God. Thus when it comes to knowing God, Jesus is Alpha-Omega, First to Last, Beginning and End.

Look and see, there are places where the Bible describes God as "eternal", and from "everlasting to everlasting". For example Deuteronomy 33 and Psalm 90.

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Jun 03, 2020 04:49:42 PM
...
0
Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

Ah so you don't believe Jesus is god? Fair enough.

However, as for eternal, we are discussing eternal as without a beginning and those verses do not say any such thing. In both cases these verses deal with what Moses says, and are not attributed as god's word. Would he be privy to such knowledge? It's a moot point though, because neither verse says anything about a beginning or lack of beginning.

Deuteronomy 33 is Moses speaking , not god describing himself, thus the description would be what Moses thinks and not confirmed. More importantly the Hebrew word used is qedem which means ancient or beginning. Rather than describing something without beginning, it literally means the opposite. 

In psalms 90 we don't see the word eternal at all, unless you're looking at a specific  translation , and instead we see the word everlasting, which says nothing about having a beginning or not in our language, and is translated from the Hebrew word ō·w·lām , which means :

long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

None of which says anything about not having a beginning. 

As I said, the bible doesn't say anything of the sort. And is still irrelevant to begin with.

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Jun 03, 2020 05:39:23 PM
...
0
Colin P writes:
[To Bryan]

Don't miss why Revelation 22 is there. That is to say, it's main points.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Jun 04, 2020 02:14:22 PM
...
0
Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

Is it something which doesn't say eternal by any chance?

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jun 05, 2020 06:41:36 AM
...
-3
Colin P writes:

Jesus is God, and from everlasting to everlasting has no beginning.or end

posted on Wednesday, Jun 03, 2020 05:43:52 PM
...
0
Shawn writes:
[To Colin P]

Your comment has zero to do with the topic. And Jesus is not God. He was a man. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Jun 06, 2020 06:44:10 AM
...
0
Colin P writes:
[To Shawn]

Hi, I was replying to a point Bryan made.  The Bible makes clear that this is who Jesus claims to be.

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Jun 06, 2020 10:48:31 AM
...
0
Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

There is nothing clear about the bible. Other than that it's written by ignorant men.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2020 11:57:12 PM
...
0
Makai writes:
[To Colin P]

Depending on how you interpret the bible, it could imply god and Jesus are the same being or it could imply they are separate beings. 

Matt 3:16-17:

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.

Clearly three separate entities. 

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Jun 06, 2020 02:04:35 PM
...
0
Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

You're not very consistent are you? You said:

"Thus when it comes to knowing God, Jesus is Alpha-Omega, First to Last, Beginning and End."

Now you're claiming no beginning or end. I believe this is known as cognitive dissonance.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 16, 2020 11:50:14 PM