Something I can never understand - can anyone help?

[True Scotsman]

If the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time, then in one sense, the universe has always existed; there was no time in which the universe did not exist; it has existed for all time.

That's absolutely right. Our current understanding starts a few seconds after the big bang anyway because before that the laws of physics which we understand break down at such small scale and we don't even have a theory of what conditions were like before the universe expanded and started to cool enough for matter to form. We have sort of a place holder concept called the "singularity". That's because we don't have a unified theory. We can't currently reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. According to loop quantum gravity theory, an attempt to unify the two, there never was a singularity because space and time and energy can only be compressed so much before it bounces back and therefore there was time before the universe expanded. At that time it was contracting. We simply do not have a fully vetted theory yet about what happened to say one way or the other if time started at the big bang. But regardless of what scientists say, it does not change the fact that asking for a cause of the sum total of what exists is fallacious.

What everyone who asks the question "what caused the universe" have failed to grasp is that the question is fallacious, relying on stolen concepts as it does. If we have to start with something that must be eternal then it makes logical sense to start with the totality of what we know exists. It makes no sense at all to go outside the total and look for a cause for everything that exists because whatever was the cause would have to exist and would therefore be a part of the universe.

Theists, if you use the concept "cause" while denying existence exists, then you are committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. This occurs when you use a concept while denying a concept that it logically depends on, in this case "existence". I've pointed this out countless times to theists and they simply ignore the problem.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What I can't understand is where did this God come from? What do Christians think about the origins of God, and if the answer is that God "just exists", why can't the universe "just exist"?

Well then...you're in good company, Dave, because no one else can understand God's "origins" either. Most of what we can 'know' about God is what He chooses to reveal to us or what He enables us to understand. Otherwise, due to the limitations of simply being human, we're sitting dead in the water when it comes to God's personal nature, epistemologically speaking, and the use of Logic, formal or informal, isn't going to get us anywhere closer to reaching a conclusive answer. Besides, we don't even know about the full nature of our own physical universe.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[True Scotsman]

Well then...you're in good company, Dave, because no one else can understand God's "origins" either. Most of what we can 'know' about God is what He chooses to reveal to us or what He enables us to understand. Otherwise, due to the limitations of simply being human, we're sitting dead in the water when it comes to God's personal nature, epistemologically speaking, and the use of Logic, formal or informal, isn't going to get us anywhere closer to reaching a conclusive answer. Besides, we don't even know about the full nature of our own physical universe.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Actually, I do understand the origins or "God". God originates in the imagination. This is obvious. "God" is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary. The imagination is the only place that something can exist outside the universe, if universe means the sum total of what exists, as I inform the concept. We can all imaging someone or some thing creating the universe by an act of will. We can all imagine that this thing is eternal and needs no explanation for it's existence. We can all imagine these things but we can not form these concepts objectively, by looking outward at reality. Only by looking inward to the contents of our imaginations can we "see" such a thing. But by the primacy of existence principle, i.e. that the things which exist do so independent of anyone's conscious activity, we know that there is a fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary.

 

[Winepress777]

I know a lot of people think that Bible verses are clear cut and free from inference, but I don't think that's the case. So since you didn't actually post your own words to explain what these verses mean to you, I'll infer, and you can tell me if I'm right. No sarcasm here, just my honest best guess.

God chooses who is good and who is bad before they exist. God chooses who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell before they exist. It is not our choices that determine where we go, because God made those choices for us. So it is only God that controls our path and we do not have an effect on where we end up, and how we live our lives. And then we receive mercy or wrath in response to the life that God designed for us, not in response to our own choices, because we don't make them.

And although this means there isn't any real justice, because people are being rewarded for being controlled to be good, and people are being punished for being controlled to be bad, we do not question God because we are mere clay pots in comparison to him, and we have no place to question his judgement.

Again, no sarcasm, not my beliefs, but the best guess at inferring what I think you believe based on your response. Is this accurate?

That's sure a strange concept... So aren't you a Christian to where the Word isn't clear without having another man give his opinion? Or adding your own? I never listen to man's opinion, or I too might begin parroting his carnal theology.

(Rom 3:4) ... yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, I do understand the origins or "God". God originates in the imagination. This is obvious. "God" is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary. The imagination is the only place that something can exist outside the universe, if universe means the sum total of what exists, as I inform the concept. We can all imaging someone or some thing creating the universe by an act of will. We can all imagine that this thing is eternal and needs no explanation for it's existence. We can all imagine these things but we can not form these concepts objectively, by looking outward at reality. Only by looking inward to the contents of our imaginations can we "see" such a thing. But by the primacy of existence principle, i.e. that the things which exist do so independent of anyone's conscious activity, we know that there is a fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary.

So...I wonder how many other atheists on this Forum will agree fully with every sentence you said above. Hmmmm.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Ana the Ist]

God is Reality. he contemplates/begets the seed form of things and so the foundation for all things is the same thing. non-locality is the incorporeal reality of intelligences that form the endless ocean of the mind of God. the so-called "physical universe" is engulfed in and flowing with the rest of reality, i.e. the "incorporeal minds" or "the kingdom of God". so I would say that everything that is 'just exist'.

So there's no real point to any religion? If god is so literally everywhere, for example, all that stuff that christians say about non-christians going to hell because god cannot exist in the same place as sin...all that would have to be incorrect. Clearly god can exist in the same place as sin and there wouldn't be any need for hell.

Come to think of it, lots of aspects of christianity would be flat out wrong. Why need a close relationship with god if part of him literally exists inside you?

 

[True Scotsman]

So...I wonder how many other atheists on this Forum will agree fully with every sentence you said above. Hmmmm.

2PhiloVoid

I don't know. What does it matter?

 

[Ana the Ist]

In theory it could. In practice science tells us that all that is began at the Big Bang; a historic event. That is, an event in time, and from which all time began.

Hey Catherine Anne,

I wanted to share a couple of things. Your explanation of the Big Bang above is a little off in a very small but important way. It's not an "event in time from which all time began" it's "the moment time as we know it began". You might think that substantively...there's no difference between the two. There is though. When you say it as you've said it...there's the implication that time doesn't exist outside of our universe (if outside of our universe has any meaning). Since we don't know if time exists outside our universe, scientists hesitate to state it that way. It also implies time didn't exist "before" the big bang....again, this isn't something that we can know for sure.

Also, quite interestingly, a new theory that our universe has always existed is gaining traction. If significant evidence is found for this theory...that would put an end to all creation stories entirely.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know. What does it matter?

For one, it might be good to see the extent to which others will vouch for your viewpoint, that they affirm the "truth" of the propositions you've presented. That way I might become more aware as to my need to learn something new from you or whether I should just see you as someone who slides around upon solipsistic incoherencies.

Just sayin'.

 

[True Scotsman]

For one, it might be good to see the extent to which others will vouch for your viewpoint, that they affirm the "truth" of the propositions you've presented. That way I might become more aware as to my need to learn something new from you or whether I should just see you as someone who slides around upon solipsistic incoherencies.

Just sayin'.

So if others vouch for my viewpoint, would that make it true? And where did you get "solipsistic incoherencies" from what I said? I'm am no Solipsist. I simply recognize the fact that the only alternative I have in apprehending "God" is by using my imagination and that something which is indistinguishable from something that is imaginary is in fact imaginary.

 

[Catherineanne]

Hey Catherine Anne,

I wanted to share a couple of things. Your explanation of the Big Bang above is a little off in a very small but important way. It's not an "event in time from which all time began" it's "the moment time as we know it began". You might think that substantively...there's no difference between the two. There is though. When you say it as you've said it...there's the implication that time doesn't exist outside of our universe (if outside of our universe has any meaning). Since we don't know if time exists outside our universe, scientists hesitate to state it that way. It also implies time didn't exist "before" the big bang....again, this isn't something that we can know for sure.

I am not sure what difference your point makes as it does not negate anything I have said.

Time does not exist before the Big Bang because time can only be measured from that point.

Therefore, all time begins from that point, and nothing can be said about 'before'. Time itself did not exist before the Big Bang. Something else may have existed but we have no way of knowing and therefore anything that is said can only be guesswork.

Also, quite interestingly, a new theory that our universe has always existed is gaining traction. If significant evidence is found for this theory...that would put an end to all creation stories entirely.

No, it would not put an end to anything, given that creation stories are already very well accepted as being not history but mythology. This forum may seem to indicate otherwise, but that is because it is not particularly typical of mainstream Christian teaching but rather slanted towards a more predominant evangelical outlook. Most Christians today have no problem with science, no problem with evolution and no problem with the creation stories as a variant of mythology; still containing truth but not intended as historical truth as we know it today.

 

[True Scotsman]

For one, it might be good to see the extent to which others will vouch for your viewpoint, that they affirm the "truth" of the propositions you've presented. That way I might become more aware as to my need to learn something new from you or whether I should just see you as someone who slides around upon solipsistic incoherencies.

Just sayin'.

I really don't care whether other atheists vouch for it or not. Most atheists I've met are skeptics and claim that we can never be certain about anything, which on my view is a self refuting statement. If you understand how concepts are formed and their relation to reality and if you understand the axioms and the primacy of existence then it follows that "gods" have their origins in the imagination.

 

[Catherineanne]

I really don't care whether other atheists vouch for it or not. Most atheists I've met are skeptics and claim that we can never be certain about anything, which on my view is a self refuting statement. If you understand how concepts are formed and their relation to reality and if you understand the axioms and the primacy of existence then it follows that "gods" have their origins in the imagination.

Not really. Given that mankind is predisposed to finding pattern and meaning it makes sense for us also to seek for meaning in existence. In that sense we are predisposed to finding God.

Christians express this as God creating within each of us a need for himself, so that we will try to find him. Of course some people will fill this need for meaning in other ways; they may follow humanism, or they may follow Buddhism or even hedonism. But we all need to find a reason to carry on.

 

[True Scotsman]

Hi Resha,

I finally have time to sit down and respond to your post to me.

Some may not phrase their answers well. Do you try to get at the intent of their answer or do you pick apart clumsy phrasing?

I look at the content. I analyze it in several ways. First I look at the concepts and see if they are valid concepts to begin with, i.e., are they objectively defined. I look to see if the statement is arbitrary, i.e., unsupported by any objective evidence. I reduce it to its essentials and then compare with those fundamental principles that I know to be true. If they contradict, then I do not accept the statement as true. In analyzing the statement that "God exists eternally and does not need an explanation" I was able to identify the logical errors which I listed.

I'm stating 2 things here: 1) Whatever alternative you try to provide, you will end up with the same dilemma. You'll face the same potential pitfalls - the same logical challenges. If you think you've solved those challenges, I'd be curious to know why your solution necessarily excludes sentience.

I don't end up with the same problems. I start with existence and the recognition that it exists independently of anyone's conscious actions. I recognize that it is fallacious to ask for a cause in the absence of existence. I recognize that there can be no cause prior to existence or the universe as a whole. I do not commit the fallacy of the stolen concept by asking for such a thing. I do not commit the fallacy of pure self-reference by proposing a consciousness with no objects to be conscious of (as would be the case if "God" created everything that exists apart from it). I do not violate the primacy of existence principle by proposing that the universe or existence was created by an act of conscious will.

My alternative, that something has always existed, is conceptually sound given that there can not be an infinite regress of causes or explanations and that both the law of causality and consciousness presuppose that something exists to do the causing and to be conscious. My conclusion excludes a form of consciousness as the first cause by recourse to the primacy of existence, that things exist and are what they are independent of anyone's conscious wishes, likes or wants. There are no logical problems here. Only recognition of axiomatic truths that are self evident.

2) Because we all end up at the same place, there is a valid conclusion in the form "It just is." Within Christianity it ends with the claim that God is the first cause (Exodus 3:14). So, I'm not saying you can't ask questions. But I am telling you eventually the answer will be, "God is." Again, if your answer avoids coming to something that equates to either "It just is" or "I don't know", I'd be curious to hear it.

I'm glad we agree that there can not be an infinite regress of causes or explanations. But when Christians, or any other religion for that matter, propose the Christian God as the first cause, this is fallacious for the reasons I've already outlined. It commits the fallacy of the stolen concept by proposing a cause prior to existence. It commits the fallacy of pure self-reference by positing a consciousness in the beginning with no objects other than its own object-less referencing. It violates the primacy of existence principle by proposing that the universe was created by an act of conscious will.

My answer is that existence exists, and only existence exists. Therefore it is fallacious to even ask "what created the universe".

 

[True Scotsman]

Not really. Given that mankind is predisposed to finding pattern and meaning it makes sense for us also to seek for meaning in existence. In that sense we are predisposed to finding God.

Christians express this as God creating within each of us a need for himself, so that we will try to find him. Of course some people will fill this need for meaning in other ways; they may follow humanism, or they may follow Buddhism or even hedonism. But we all need to find a reason to carry on.

Certainly we all look for answers and many look inward to the contents of their imagination for those answers. Others look outward at the world and use a process of logic to gain answers.

 

[Winepress777]

So there's no real point to any religion? If god is so literally everywhere, for example, all that stuff that christians say about non-christians going to hell because god cannot exist in the same place as sin...all that would have to be incorrect. Clearly god can exist in the same place as sin and there wouldn't be any need for hell.

Come to think of it, lots of aspects of christianity would be flat out wrong. Why need a close relationship with god if part of him literally exists inside you?

God doesn't literally exist in you unless you receive Him. His Name is Jesus. He is Holy and He is Spirit, and He WANTS you to invite Him. He sure won't come into you in spite of you. He respects your wishes.
And yes, if a Christian told you God doesn't inhabit everywhere, including hell, he was mistaken, and probably because he believed a Baptist or catholic type "Dante's Inferno" torture like the idea of certain (spurious) theology teachings. And God most certainly is in hell, (underground/graves/hades)
(Psa 139:8) If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

 

[cjstabbo]

Christians, well in fact Muslims and Jews and for all I know many other religions "explain" the existence of the universe, the solar system, humanity etc by the fact it was created by a God (maybe the same god, maybe not?), and some justify this by saying that the chances of intelligent life are near impossible without a creator.

What I can't understand is where did this God come from? If the chances of intelligent life evolving over billions of years are very remote, then what are the chances of a being existing who is capable of making the heavens and everything in them just by willing it to happen. Where did he/ she/ it come from, who made God?

in my atheist, logical mind, the existence of this all powerful, all pervading being seems much more unlikely than natural forces evolving in tiny steps over billions of years, resulting in where we are now. What do Christians think about the origins of God, and if the answer is that God "just exists", why can't the universe "just exist"?

God is life eternal, nothing more, nothing less. This life eternal is unfathomable untill we reach life.

So life eternal made a evolutionary system so each user can share this life once it evolved to understand desire.

For it was life eternal that created us to desire life too.

 

[Catherineanne]

Certainly we all look for answers and many look inward to the contents of their imagination for those answers. Others look outward at the world and use a process of logic to gain answers.

I am afraid that makes no sense at all.

If I looked inward for my faith I would no doubt create one of fairies and unicorns, with me as Queen of Everything. On the contrary I looked outward, and found a faith all around me; Christianity, specifically Anglicanism. This is not a figment of my imagination; it is in the world, it has churches and Cathedrals, a theology and it has a reality. At no point did I have to put logic aside and rely on whimsy; I use logic every day, and I use it within my faith.

It is a complete nonsense for non believers of any kind to claim to be logical and rational, and to disparage people of faith as emotional idiots without any rationality whatever. But by all means carry on believing it if it makes you feel more secure.

 

[Catherineanne]

God doesn't literally exist in you unless you receive Him. His Name is Jesus. He is Holy and He is Spirit, and He WANTS you to invite Him. He sure won't come into you in spite of you. He respects your wishes.
And yes, if a Christian told you God doesn't inhabit everywhere, including hell, he was mistaken, and probably because he believed a Baptist or catholic type "Dante's Inferno" torture like the idea of certain (spurious) theology teachings. And God most certainly is in hell, (underground/graves/hades)
(Psa 139:8) If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

I am afraid your theology is a bit non standard.

God is indeed in every person; life is sustained by his Holy Spirit so wherever there is life there is the Spirit of God.

God's name is not Jesus; Jesus is called Jesus, God is called God. Both are part of the Godhead, but they are distinct persons within the Godhead, as is the Holy Spirit.

God is everywhere except where he withdraws his presence. He does this in places where evil exists, in order to show mercy to those who happen to be there. If God and evil were to share space then evil would be totally destroyed; even Moses was not able to look God in the face. People who become enmeshed in sin will find themselves further and further from God as he gives them the time and space to repent. Eventually, however, we will all stand face to face before him, and the more engrained we are in sin, the more unpleasant we will find it. God's fire is one of refinement; those who are most pure will stand like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace and not be harmed. Those who are least pure will find it rather less pleasant.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-3/

 

[Catherineanne]

God is life eternal, nothing more, nothing less. This life eternal is unfathomable untill we reach life.

So life eternal made a evolutionary system so each user can share this life once it evolved to understand desire.

For it was life eternal that created us to desire life too.

That is a shade non standard as well. God is many things; love, mercy, compassion, truth, beauty, purity, wisdom; lots of things. He offers us life eternal, but he himself is far more than this.

http://catholictradition.org/Litanies/litanies1c.htm