Why God doesn't need a creater vs Why does the universe need a creator? People say if God doesn't need nor?

Question

People say if God doesn't need to nor does the Universe.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

This is most definitely a Logical Fallacy.
This is an error of reasoning.
God by definition is the eternal spirit or human or both. He is God and cannot be limited to it's definition. Meaning he is more profound than we can to put into words. We may distinguish him from other beings but cannot truly classify him in such words.

The universe can be defined, and can be limited to laws of physics. It also most definitely has a beginning, cause it has an age.

For this reason alone it is a reasoning mistake or error.
God can be anything he wants to. That is one of the abilities a God has. God is the eternal spirit that is immaterial. Meaning immaterial is like space that is out there, it exist (that is why we call it space) and this space does not need a creator because it is immaterial and such immaterial things are not made of matter, bones, or energy. In other words, they are intangible things. As intangible things you cannot touch nor you cannot create because you don't need to create nothing. Nothing exist like space and does not need to be created because it is nothing. The only thing that does not need create is nothing. If you don't follow this logic than you are no more smarter than a roach.
God is this immaterial thing that is intangible and not need created like space.

Vs

The universe in which is potential energy, matter, and the invisible space. All this things can be detected, can be measure, and can be seen. Energy can be detected, space can be measure from point a to point b, and matter can be seen. Material things like cars, diamonds, the Earth, the Sun, are all matter or energy. They exist in the material world. I can build a paper airplane, I can make a fire from a match. All this things can be made. In exchange for God. Sorry you cannot. For you people to understand this, I must brake it to you softly cause it will hurt you. You exist because your material parents made you. So you are a non-godly entity or human. Would you have needed parents if you were not born?
If you say no, you are a logical mortal human (Material entity). Born humans or material that need to be created.
Now forward this question to God?
If God says no, then he is the unborn God (Immaterial entity) that is a logical God. Unborn or immaterial need not be created.

THIS IS THE LOGICAL FALLACY. The fallacy in which is incorrect reasoning is that an unborn God needs a parent or creator, Why does he need a parent if he is unborn?, immaterial things are intangible, and unborn or uncreated. Material things need to be created because they are not immaterial, space, or nothing. You cannot say material things doesn't need to be created because they are not space and are matter. Fallacy i repeat again. It's like saying, I can create nothing. It's a Fallacy, how can you create nothing whe you are doing something. I am human born child, I do not need a parent. The only way you can say that is when you are unborn. That is why God says you are my off-springs, because through him we exist from an unborn perspective and live here in the material world, in the flesh.

Also, I want to state that it is logical to talk about immaterial. In math and in human life understanding's it exist. I math there are negative numbers which are:

Further explanation

An integer is a "whole number." It has no fractional part to it. A negative integer is simply an integer less than 0. A positive integer, on the other hand, is an integer greater than 0. Technically, 0 is neither positive nor negative.

Therefore anything less than zero or less than nothing is immaterial. It exist. In everyday life people owe you money, this quantity of money owed you may say it's immaterial. You don't have it but you know the money that is owed does exist in your mind until you recieve it.

Answer 1

It is not a logical fallacy unless you assume God is subject to the same laws that His creation is subject to.



Because you cannot comprehend how God could transcend the laws of His Universe does not exclude the possibility that He can.

Answer 2

"He is God and cannot be limited to it's definition. Meaning he is more profound than we can to put into words...... The universe can be defined, and can be limited to laws of physics."

No, the ways that the universe works are unknown. We know very little about the universe. For you to say that the universe is defined, you would have to know every laws that the universe works by.

God is not "nothing". He is (described by the bible) a conscious being and therefore, metaphysical. But metaphysicians cannot avoid making their statements nonverifiable, because if they made them verifiable, the decision about the truth or falsehood of their doctrines would depend upon experience and therefore belong to the region of empirical science. This consequence they wish to avoid, because they pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science. Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their statements and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense.



That "vs." paragraph that talks about matter, you made no point. You were supposed to talk about how the universe cannot be created, not about us (human being).

Answer 3

by way of fact you elect to remember on a nicely-liked technological know-how "authority," I heard Sagan say as quickly as "The universe developed know-how so as to examine itself," as though the universe grew to become into in countless entity, yet he did no longer say why or maybe posit the question of why is it doing this, by way of fact, such as you, he grew to become into warding off the prospect of God. the priority isn't regardless of if God exists and if He does then who created Him, and due to that logical fallacy, then why don't you the universe constantly latest. the priority is why could and how did rely evolve existence. technological know-how additionally believes the universe had a initiating from the huge bang, which you very actually disregarded of your argument, so as that in the time of addition they ought to have self belief, logically, that the universe ought to have an end. What you're doing is saying that the perception in God is illogical to you and which you have self belief in technological know-how's slender and illogical perception in Darwin. you're able to have self belief what you elect, besides the undeniable fact that that is purely that, a perception, no diverse than the perception in God. What you at the instant are not answering nevertheless is how and why is there area, rely and power, and how ought to and why could mindless and purposeless rely evolve into residing forms of guy or woman “beings” with self-based egos that they become attentive to with and then conflict to outlive and procreate? existence and evolution of people could no longer have befell via random risk, even over an limitless volume of time, by way of fact there is not any reason for rely to try this, no longer except there's a clothier and a purpose for it.

Answer 4

We are simply not told and the only thing we have to go by is that everything we know had a beginning. Logic tells us that there must be an opposite, just as there is an up to a down, a ying to a yang.

Answer 5

A. You are using Special Pleading to describe your god.



B. You are trying to very hard to put your god as "unborn" based on "Appeal to superstitions"



C. "0" is technically not a number. It is a representation of Null. Therefore you cannot divide a null Moreover, if you want to use a null to describe your god, that would be correct. Your god does not exist.



--------

Again, another logic fallacy, you are appealing to your own judgment.

Answer 6

Such an impressive wall of text, yet the giant ball of crazy it hinges on is in the first few lines :)



"God by definition is...He is God and cannot be limited to it's definition...



...The universe can be defined, and can be limited to laws of physics."



God exists by definition, huh? Let me show you the problem with trying to dictate reality by deciding what words mean.





"Squelck (interj.): 1. A term just invented by CAustin IV, meaning that God does not exist. Implication is always true."



As you can see, that word I just made up means that God does not exist, and it's true by definition.

Answer 7

How about god is every aspect of existence? You'll have to modify your views of god being a magic man in the clouds, but at least you'll solve your problem.

Answer 8

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure you just made a number line and basically said, "left of zero is God!"



Really?

Answer 9

"He is God and cannot be limited to it's definition. Meaning he is more profound than we can to put into words" is where *your logic gets lost

Answer 10

the universe doesnt think

it is space, matter, and energy

Answer 11

don't be silly ... OF COURSE THERE IS NO GOD ...grow up .. and NO father xmas too ..!!!