Food for thought.

[GrowingSmaller]

• "God" as an answer is not an explanation, as God often seems to be beyond the understanding of humans and something that we do not understand is not an explanation - it is just a more complicated way of saying, 'I don't know.'

I am not sure that "God" is not an explanation, just not a scientific one. That would be "scientism" on your part I suppose. Looking for explanatory power and material causation in a theoretic context. But the idea that only truths are scientific, if that's what you're thinking, is not proven. There's philosophy, where we can glimpse more abstract ideas etc, and if there why not with theology too. Science is actually grounded in the history of philosophy, and philosophy stemmed from religion to some degree, in that were debating grand cosmic ideas.

"But, cant we do away with faith now?" I suppose you'll ask.

Its a good debate and will be fruitful in logic and theory I suppose. Just like the old medieval scrutiny of "angels on pin heads" etc actually helped to keep the debate moving on.

 

[David Colin Gould]

I agree that it depends on what someone means by 'explanation'. But every time thus far someone has posited a deity as an explanation, it has been because the person did not know what was going on. For me, this says that 'God' - when used as an explanation - is simply a place holder for 'I don't know'. 'God' used as something other than an explanation - such as a comfort in times of trouble - is different.

 

[quatona]

Well, what we´ve seen here presented as an explanation was the statement "There must be an explanation beyond our knowledge, and God knows this explanation". Thus, "God" isn´t the explanation, by the very standard and definition the speaker used.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The question is:

Since we don't know an eternal infinite God does not exist, is it possible that this God created the universe?

No it isn't. We were discussing an afterlife, not the creation of the universe. But even though you're dishonestly changing the subject, I'll play along.

If we say yes, this means we're accepting the truth that this eternal infinite God is possible and could have created the universe. This is the most rational answer to the question.

If we say no, this means we're rejecting the truth that this eternal infinite God is possible. How can we reject that truth when we actually don't know if this eternal infinite God does not exist? Doesn't the fact that we don't know mean that this God could possibly exist and we can rationally accept this as a true possibility?

Again with the false dichotomies. If you're doing this on purpose, then you're being dishonest. If you're not doing this on purpose, then (once again) please pick up a book on logic so you don't make a fool of yourself.

Anyway, there's three, not two, answers to this question (hence the false dichotomy):

1. I believe it's possible that a god could have created the universe.
2. I believe it is not possible that a god could have created the universe.
3. I do not believe it is possible that a god could have created the universe.

One and two are positive statement, both having the burden of proof. Meaning they both require evidence to be held rationally.

Three (the view I hold) is not a positive statement, it's a denial of the both option 1 and 2. It does not have a burden of proof, and is the ONLY rational point of view if no good evidence exists for either option 1 or 2.

So, if you hold option 1 to be true, please present some good evidence to back that up. Be aware that arguments from ignorance are fallacious, and therefore NOT good evidence.

 

[Deidre32]

Some simple questions to get you thinking.

Why shouldn't there be a reason for everything?

Why shouldn't there be a reason for existence?

Why shouldn't there be a reason that the universe exists?

Why shouldn't there be a reason that I exist?

A simple answer to the above is that the reason behind everything is to know the truth.


I'll assume rebuttal questions will be:

Why should there be a reason for everything?

Why should there be a reason for existence?

Why should there be a reason that the universe exists?

Why should there be a reason that I exist?

A simple answer to these questions is that one wouldn't ask a question unless one had a reason to ask, thus supporting the idea that there is a reason behind everything, even the very questions one asks.

Thoughts?

There could be reasons...there most likely are, but we may never know the reasons. It is okay to not know all of the answers, and to have a sense of wonder in the world. I'm coming back slowly to the faith, but I'm cautious to not make the leap to dubbing things that mankind doesn't yet have an 'answer for,' as God did it.

Also, the reasons that you may assign for the above questions, might not be the same as another's. KWIM?

 

[KCfromNC]

I am not sure that "God" is not an explanation, just not a scientific one. That would be "scientism" on your part I suppose. Looking for explanatory power and material causation in a theoretic context. But the idea that only truths are scientific, if that's what you're thinking, is not proven.

This is a lot of words to avoid talking about what exactly it is that god is supposed to explain, and more importantly, how it does.

Science is actually grounded in the history of philosophy

Not at all. It is grounded in being a useful method for producing working models of empirical observations. No science major is required to take a history of philosophy course to get a degree - regardless of how important a few philosophers might feel their subject is the reality is that no one else cares.

 

[variant]

A simple answer to these questions is that one wouldn't ask a question unless one had a reason to ask, thus supporting the idea that there is a reason behind everything, even the very questions one asks.

Thoughts?

You may have reason to question whether things have reasons behind them, but it doesn't follow that this would mean there are in fact reasons behind the things you are questioning.

Just because you are curious and seeking out meaning doesn't mean you are going to find any externally.

Personifying the universe and externalizing our personal meanings onto it is perfectly natural as a sentient being, some of us just take it a bit too seriously.

 

[Chad Farwell]

question is the only thing not worth questioning

 

[Cearbhall]

Why shouldn't there be a reason for everything?

Why shouldn't there be a reason for existence?

Why shouldn't there be a reason that the universe exists?

Why shouldn't there be a reason that I exist?

No reason why not. No reason why there should be, either.

 

[Chriliman]

No reason why not. No reason why there should be, either.

So it's just as reasonable to believe the reason behind everything is God and it's just as reasonable to believe God is not the reason behind everything?

So the truth is that God gives reasons for everything.

or

The truth is that people give reasons that God is not the reason.

Either truth is not testable or verifiable, therefore, either truth requires you personally to believe one or the other.

So which truth do you believe?

 

[Freodin]

So it's just as reasonable to believe the reason behind everything is God and it's just as reasonable to believe God is not the reason behind everything?

So the truth is that God gives reasons for everything.

or

The truth is that people give reasons that God is not the reason.

Either truth is not testable or verifiable, therefore, either truth requires you personally to believe one or the other.

So which truth do you believe?

Well... reasons. Such a vague term. What does it mean here? Cause? Justification? Intent?

"God is the reason behind everything". Does that mean that God is the ultimate, "first cause" of everything. That would leave room for other things as "reason behing specific things."
That God intented everything? That would result in some several rather weird theological consequences.
That God justifies everything, or that the existence of God is the justification of everything? Again, some theological consequences that I am sure you wouldn't agree with.

You know what? Neither would I. I think the logical consequences of all these opions are not real, not worth to be considered.
And that leaves me with another set of two reasonable options: God is not "the reason behind everything"... or you mean something completely different with "the reason behind everything" that I haven't yet considered.

Do you mean something different?

 

[Cearbhall]

So it's just as reasonable to believe the reason behind everything is God and it's just as reasonable to believe God is not the reason behind everything?

Yes. I don't know of any proof for either of these statements, so I would consider them to be of equal value.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am not sure that "God" is not an explanation, just not a scientific one. That would be "scientism" on your part I suppose. Looking for explanatory power and material causation in a theoretic context. But the idea that only truths are scientific, if that's what you're thinking, is not proven. There's philosophy, where we can glimpse more abstract ideas etc, and if there why not with theology too. Science is actually grounded in the history of philosophy, and philosophy stemmed from religion to some degree, in that were debating grand cosmic ideas.

"But, cant we do away with faith now?" I suppose you'll ask.

Its a good debate and will be fruitful in logic and theory I suppose. Just like the old medieval scrutiny of "angels on pin heads" etc actually helped to keep the debate moving on.

Keep in mind though, what is meant by "explanatory power". When atheists say that "god did it" isn't an explanation...what they mean is that it lacks any explanatory power. For example, if someone asks, "What is the beginning of the universe?" someone will inevitably answer "the big bang". The first person may say, "that doesn't explain much..." and the person answering can then go into the entire process of the big bang, the evidence for it, the predictions it makes etc etc. You end up with a rather well detailed explanation of the beginning of the universe. You may have some gaps in that explanation...but they aren't substantial enough to discount the big bang as an explanation.

Compare that with the explanatory power of "god did it". God only explains "who" created the universe...which wasn't even a part of the question. It explains literally none of the phenomena that the big bang explains. Worse still, it leaves more questions than it answers.

To answer questions about the beginning of the universe, believers would need to answer "how did god create the universe?"...and they don't. The few answers I've seen for that question are basically nonsensical. Answers like "god willed it into existence" or "god spoke it into existence" are worse than just saying "I don't know". Nothing has ever been spoken or willed into existence...so why do believers accept these answers?

What surprises me the most though, is the double standard believers hold all other beliefs to. If I get asked "what happened before the big bang?" And I reply "I don't know."...I often get mocked or ridiculed for not knowing. Yet if I ask a believer, "how did god create the universe?"...suddenly "I don't know" becomes an acceptable answer for a christian.

 

[Chriliman]

Well... reasons. Such a vague term. What does it mean here? Cause? Justification? Intent?

"God is the reason behind everything". Does that mean that God is the ultimate, "first cause" of everything. That would leave room for other things as "reason behing specific things."
That God intented everything? That would result in some several rather weird theological consequences.
That God justifies everything, or that the existence of God is the justification of everything? Again, some theological consequences that I am sure you wouldn't agree with.

You know what? Neither would I. I think the logical consequences of all these opions are not real, not worth to be considered.
And that leaves me with another set of two reasonable options: God is not "the reason behind everything"... or you mean something completely different with "the reason behind everything" that I haven't yet considered.

Do you mean something different?

Since I believe God is the reason behind everything, I'm suggesting God is the initial eternal state of existence and everything else that exists was caused/created by God for a specific eternal reason. Finite humans can never fully grasp the reasoning until the final answer to everything is given by God which then explains everything behind all the things caused/created by God.

 

[anonymous person]

Have you looked into Anselm's ontological argument Chriliman?

 

[Chriliman]

Have you looked into Anselm's ontological argument Chriliman?

I've heard of it, but haven't studied it in depth. Thanks for the suggestion

 

[Freodin]

Since I believe God is the reason behind everything, I'm suggesting God is the initial eternal state of existence and everything else that exists was caused/created by God for a specific eternal reason. Finite humans can never fully grasp the reasoning until the final answer to everything is given by God which then explains everything behind all the things caused/created by God.

Sorry if I have to dig deeper here again... I think this is still a little too vague.

So "everything [...] that exists was caused/created by God for a specific eternal reason."

Do you think we are having a conversation here... or has God created this thread for a specific eternal reason?

 

[anonymous person]

Sorry if I have to dig deeper here again... I think this is still a little too vague.

So "everything [...] that exists was caused/created by God for a specific eternal reason."

Do you think we are having a conversation here... or has God created this thread for a specific eternal reason?

If you can explain to us why we should see it as either or, then we will answer the question. If not then we won't.

 

[Chriliman]

Sorry if I have to dig deeper here again... I think this is still a little too vague.

So "everything [...] that exists was caused/created by God for a specific eternal reason."

Do you think we are having a conversation here... or has God created this thread for a specific eternal reason?

God has created me for many reasons and one of those reasons is so that I would create this thread. The only reason I created this thread was because I believe in God and I believe God can speak to people through me.

However, since I am finite I can't possibly understand the affects this thread has had on each individual who may have been affected by it, but I trust God understands the affects on each individual completely because he has infinite understanding.

If it weren't for God, I would have never created this thread and therefore would have never had an affect on your life. That affect may seem minuscule right now, but this doesn't mean it does not have infinite ramifications.

 

[Freodin]

God has created me for many reasons and one of those reasons is so that I would create this thread. The only reason I created this thread was because I believe in God and I believe God can speak to people through me.

However, since I am finite I can't possibly understand the affects this thread has had on each individual who may have been affected by it, but I trust God understands the affects on each individual completely because he has infinite understanding.

If it weren't for God, I would have never created this thread and therefore would have never had an affect on your life. That affect may seem minuscule right now, but this doesn't mean it does not have infinite ramifications.

You might have missed it... but you are not alone in this - or other threads.

So God is the creator of everything. Not only you, through whom he speaks, in order to affect other individuals... but also me, through whom he speaks, in order to affect other individuals.

We both are God's voice, talking to ourselves. Weird, huh?