Something I can never understand - can anyone help?

[Dave RP]

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"?

 

[True Scotsman]

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"?

You're not supposed to ask that. He just is and needs no explanation. You've got to realize that when you start asking questions like who created the universe, you're no longer dealing with logic so it's perfectly OK to say that something existed before anything existed as long as this thing is a form of consciousness.

 

[Noxot]

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'.

 

[Resha Caner]

You're not supposed to ask that. He just is and needs no explanation. You've got to realize that when you start asking questions like who created the universe, you're no longer dealing with logic so it's perfectly OK to say that something existed before anything existed as long as this thing is a form of consciousness.

Not quite. I don't think it's possible to quantify the probability of God, but there is a qualitative sense in which God is very, very improbable. OK. So what. The KC Royals were a very, very long shot to come within 1 run in the 9th innning of the 7th game for a World Series win. But it happened. Small probabilities do not mean zero probability.

The issue may be that you think Christians are claiming they went looking for this small probability and an amazingly large number of them found this small probability. If that is indeed what people are claiming, I would agree such a claim is ridiculous. But that is not the claim - at least not as I see it. My claim is not that I found God, but that he found me. So the probability of his existence is irrelevant. If he didn't exist, he wouldn't have found me, but he does exist and he did find me.

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?

This is just the infinite turtles game. I can play that same game with the universe. Where did the universe come from? It came from X. Where did X come from? From Y. Where did Y come from? From Z. Where did Z come from? I don't know.

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"?

Despite what True Scotsman says, it's perfectly fine to ask questions about God and Christianity. There is no "blind faith" requirement. It's just that sometimes the questions people ask are loaded, and we have to unload them first. So, let's not play the infinite turtles game.

The universe can't "just exist" because physics indicates it doesn't. The universe is going to experience heat death. If the universe is finite, what came before? The honest answer is, "Physicists don't know, but they have some hypotheses." What I find interesting about all those hypotheses is that in one way or another they eventually require an infinity in one form or another. So, the only difference between a physicist's need for an infinity and my need for an infinity is that mine is sentient and theirs isn't.

 

[Catherineanne]

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"?

Science and faith say the same thing, funnily enough.

If you ask a scientist about before the Big Bang they will tell you something to the effect that the question has no meaning; time began at the Big Bang, and everything we can see or measure or evaluate dates from that point.

If you push the question and say, but what came the day before; where did all that matter which exploded just suddenly appear from, there can be no answer. Nothing measurable, nothing that can be seen or inferred. Just nothing.

So either you have an incomprehensible Nothing, or you have an incomprehensible Someone. It strikes me that the degree of faith needed to believe in either the one or the other is about the same. Neither can be measured, evaluated or proven. Both are assumptions from which all else follows. Both are a great mystery.

The difference, to me, is that choosing Nothing does not add anything to the sum of knowledge; no meaning, no pattern, no shape. Choosing Someone, on the other hand, provides all of these. And given that mankind is rather predisposed to finding patterns, it makes sense that we are also predisposed to find a Creator, and a meaning.

 

[Soyeong]

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?

If every explanation required an explanation before we could accept it, then that would lead to infinite regress and it would be impossible to accept any explanation. For instance, if we had discovered a mysterious artifact on the dark side of the moon, it would be reasonable to suggest that it was put there by aliens even if we knew nothing about these aliens or where they came from. I think the chances of intelligent life existing on the planet points to a creator of life, not necessarily the creator of the universe, so it can be reasonable to say that there is probably a creator of life without knowing the origin of the universe.

A causal ordered series, such as a hand moving a stick, which is moving a rock, which is moving a leaf can not exist without a primary member, or in this case the hand starting the movement from which all the secondary members derive their causal power, but which does not derive its causal power from anything else. If it did derive its causal power from something else, then it would just be another secondary member of the series. So if such a series exists, then it's not a matter of whether there probably is a primary member, but rather there necessarily is a primary member. In other words, it is impossible for the primary member to not exist or to have been different.

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"?

Something can not come from nothing. "Nothing" has no properties that would allow something to come from it. While it is possible that the universe is necessary, and didn't come into existence, I don't see a good reason to think that that is the case. Science indicates that the universe came into existence and is proceeding towards heat death, so that doesn't fit with something that is impossible to not exist. Why should we think that universe could not have had a different number of atoms. If the universe could have been different, then then there is something that caused it to be the way it is and not in a way that is different.

 

[Catherineanne]

If every explanation required an explanation before you could accept it, then that would lead to infinite regress and it would be impossible to accept any explanation. For instance, if we had discovered a mysterious artifact on the dark side of the moon, it would be reasonable to suggest that it was put there by aliens even if we knew nothing about these aliens or where they came from. I think the chances of intelligent life existing on the planet points to a creator of life, not necessarily the creator of the universe, so it can be reasonable to say that there is probably a creator of life without knowing the origin of the universe.

A causal ordered series, such as a hand moving a stick, which is moving a rock, which is moving a leaf can not without a primary member, or in this case the hand starting the movement from which all the secondary members derive their causal power, but which does not derive its causal power from anything else. If it did derive its causal power from something else, then it would just be another secondary member of the series. So if such a series exists, then it's not a matter of whether there probably is a primary member, but rather there necessarily is a primary member. In other words, it is impossible for the primary member to not exist or to have been different.

Something can not come from nothing. "Nothing" has no properties that would allow something to come from it. While it is possible that the universe is necessary, and didn't come into existence, I don't see a good reason to think that that is the case. Science indicates that the universe came into existence and is proceeding towards heat death, so that doesn't fit with something that is impossible to not exist. Why should we think that universe could not have had a different number of atoms. If the universe could have been different, then then there is something that caused it to be the way it is and not in a way that is different.

Yes, I agree, there is something that caused the universe to be as it is. Believers might call that something, 'God'. Others can call it whatever they like; it is up to them.

 

[Soyeong]

Yes, I agree, there is something that caused the universe to be as it is. Believers might call that something, 'God'. Others can call it whatever they like; it is up to them.

If there is something that causes the universe to be the way it is, then there is something in existence that has an attribute that corresponds to our idea of God.

 

[True Scotsman]

Despite what True Scotsman says, it's perfectly fine to ask questions about God and Christianity. There is no "blind faith" requirement. It's just that sometimes the questions people ask are loaded, and we have to unload them first. So, let's not play the infinite turtles game.

I was simply repeating what believers have told me. You can't ask that question. God just is. He is self existent and sui generous. This is blatant special pleading.

How do you avoid the infinite turtles game? I think the OP's observation is accurate. If a God can "just exist" eternally without a cause why can't existence, as a whole, i.e. the sum total of everything that exists, not "just exist" without a cause. After all we know that existence exists. We know that matter and energy change form but do not come into or go out of existence. What logic leads some to start with nothing and then seek a cause for existence. In asking the question "what caused the universe?" how do you avoid a stolen concept fallacy? How do you avoid the problem of the fallacy of pure self-reference that the concept of "God" commits by positing a consciousness which references only its own object-less referencing? And lastly, how do you reconcile the blatant and irreconcilable contradiction between the primacy of consciousness, which the god concept affirms, and the primacy of existence which we observe in all cases in reality? The orientation of the relationship between the subject of consciousness and the objects of consciousness can not go one direction for some consciousnesses and the reverse for others. That would be a fundamental contradiction.

These are not loaded questions. They are perfectly valid.

 

[Resha Caner]

I was simply repeating what believers have told me. You can't ask that question. God just is. He is self existent and sui generous. This is blatant special pleading.

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'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. 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.

 

[JGG]

If you push the question and say, but what came the day before; where did all that matter which exploded just suddenly appear from, there can be no answer. Nothing measurable, nothing that can be seen or inferred. Just nothing.

So either you have an incomprehensible Nothing, or you have an incomprehensible Someone. It strikes me that the degree of faith needed to believe in either the one or the other is about the same. Neither can be measured, evaluated or proven. Both are assumptions from which all else follows. Both are a great mystery.

You've made something of a false dichotomy. Why is it either nothing or someone? Why not something? Why not someones? I prefer to think that we have a choice of nothing and not-nothing. And yes, both are a great mystery. I am not prepared to choose either option.

The difference, to me, is that choosing Nothing does not add anything to the sum of knowledge; no meaning, no pattern, no shape. Choosing Someone, on the other hand, provides all of these.

Again, I will point out that we are just choosing between nothing and not-nothing. Choosing not-nothing still does not provide knowledge, meaning, pattern, or shape, and still seems arbitrary. It does not seem beneficial to me to arbitrarily fill in the blanks just to have an answer. I would rather find the truth.

 

[BabylonWeary]

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"?

You're looking for an object within the creation, something tangible you can quantify, and if that is God or not... You can't squeeze infinity into a finite space. It's like trying to find the artist who painted a landscape by looking into the painting, at best you're only going to find the artist's signature. In a way, this is what Christianity is all about, that God put an image of Himself into His creation, though it's a bit more complex than that. If you are truly interested, then read Exodus 20:2-7 and consider that your logical mind is already appropriate for understanding the law prohibiting idolatry, and thank you for not being a jerk.

 

[TaylorDonBarrett]

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"?

First, I would just like to point out that evolution is not just improbable, its literally impossible.


But, God, by His very definition, is eternal and uncreated.
Therefore, He does not have an origin.
One of His names is "I Am that I Am"
Or, more simply: "I AM!"
He is the self-existent one.

Regards,
-Taylor

 

[PastorFreud]

Again, I will point out that we are just choosing between nothing and not-nothing. Choosing not-nothing still does not provide knowledge, meaning, pattern, or shape, and still seems arbitrary. It does not seem beneficial to me to arbitrarily fill in the blanks just to have an answer. I would rather find the truth.

I find your analysis insightful. The "not-nothing" could be any variety of options. Social history confirms exactly this as different civilizations have ascribed different types of gods to this role. I think it was beneficial for some ancient peoples as the not-nothing they selected represented a positive ideal that they strove to emulate. It gave them meaning and purpose and positive guidance. It probably promoted the success of their communities. If the truth is that it is a great mystery, unknowable, the only tenable position is agnosticism. Are there benefits to choosing nothing over a benevolent non-nothing? Are there benefits for choosing an capricious non-nothing who you believe values you over others and brings you favor while punishing others? I think there must be since people can and do believe in such a god (or gods). I would like to hear more about the benefits of choosing nothing, as this choice is typically demonized.

 

[fatherjimparker]

The answer is not quite "God just exists" but that God has always existed, He is self-existent.

That is beyond the logical mind (atheist or otherwise) to conceive.

On the other hand, nothing is the physical universe, to the best of our knowledge, has always existed or has just "become" without any cause.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Science and faith say the same thing, funnily enough.

If you ask a scientist about before the Big Bang they will tell you something to the effect that the question has no meaning; time began at the Big Bang, and everything we can see or measure or evaluate dates from that point.

If you push the question and say, but what came the day before; where did all that matter which exploded just suddenly appear from, there can be no answer. Nothing measurable, nothing that can be seen or inferred. Just nothing.

Absent a definition of "nothing," I don't think we can be certain of this. We don't know what came before the Big Bang, if "before" even makes sense.

So either you have an incomprehensible Nothing, or you have an incomprehensible Someone. It strikes me that the degree of faith needed to believe in either the one or the other is about the same. Neither can be measured, evaluated or proven. Both are assumptions from which all else follows. Both are a great mystery.

Except people don't pray to an incomprehensible nothing. They don't claim to know the nature, identity, and will of an incomprehensible nothing. In fact, many don't even claim that an incomprehensible nothing was ever a real state of affairs. They say "I don't know" because they genuinely do not know.

The difference, to me, is that choosing Nothing does not add anything to the sum of knowledge; no meaning, no pattern, no shape. Choosing Someone, on the other hand, provides all of these.

In what way does "Someone" advance our understanding of the origins of the universe any further than "I don't know"?

And given that mankind is rather predisposed to finding patterns, it makes sense that we are also predisposed to find a Creator, and a meaning.

We are very adept at finding patterns, but many patterns are spurious. Science helps us differentiate meaningful patterns from spurious ones.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, I agree, there is something that caused the universe to be as it is. Believers might call that something, 'God'. Others can call it whatever they like; it is up to them.

To clarify, would you call that something "God" even if that something scarcely resembles any recognisable concept of God?

 

[Catherineanne]

If there is something that causes the universe to be the way it is, then there is something in existence that has an attribute that corresponds to our idea of God.

Yes. But that does not mean our idea is necessarily right; God would still need to reveal something of himself to us.

 

[Catherineanne]

I was simply repeating what believers have told me. You can't ask that question. God just is. He is self existent and sui generous. This is blatant special pleading.

How do you avoid the infinite turtles game? I think the OP's observation is accurate. If a God can "just exist" eternally without a cause why can't existence, as a whole, i.e. the sum total of everything that exists, not "just exist" without a cause.

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.

After all we know that existence exists. We know that matter and energy change form but do not come into or go out of existence. What logic leads some to start with nothing and then seek a cause for existence. In asking the question "what caused the universe?" how do you avoid a stolen concept fallacy? How do you avoid the problem of the fallacy of pure self-reference that the concept of "God" commits by positing a consciousness which references only its own object-less referencing? And lastly, how do you reconcile the blatant and irreconcilable contradiction between the primacy of consciousness, which the god concept affirms, and the primacy of existence which we observe in all cases in reality? The orientation of the relationship between the subject of consciousness and the objects of consciousness can not go one direction for some consciousnesses and the reverse for others. That would be a fundamental contradiction.

Those contradictions exist in our own universe, but God created that universe; he does not answer to laws of existence because he created them. There may be a story that God could tell about his own existence, but we do not have that story; as far as we can know he has always existed.

These are not loaded questions. They are perfectly valid.

There is nothing wrong with the questions. I suspect your concept of God is too small. This is not unusual; it is true of many religions as well. It is probably impossible for us to grasp all that God is, and how immensely capable he is.

 

[Catherineanne]

You've made something of a false dichotomy. Why is it either nothing or someone? Why not something? Why not someones? I prefer to think that we have a choice of nothing and not-nothing. And yes, both are a great mystery. I am not prepared to choose either option.

You can have as many options as you like, as long as one of them is 'someone.'

Again, I will point out that we are just choosing between nothing and not-nothing. Choosing not-nothing still does not provide knowledge, meaning, pattern, or shape, and still seems arbitrary. It does not seem beneficial to me to arbitrarily fill in the blanks just to have an answer. I would rather find the truth.

Me too. I did not approach finding God by this particular route.