What caused the Universe?

[victorinus]

Yes, please.

every effect must have a cause
-and-
this ultimately requires an uncaused cause

 

[doubtingmerle]

And why cannot the uncaused cause be a non-personal ultimate reality that always existed?

 

[victorinus]

And why cannot the uncaused cause be a non-personal ultimate reality that always existed?

it can be
-if-
you can ignore reason

 

[rockytopva]

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

When God said... Let there be light... The mass dissociated into a big boom and expanded out from a point of origin. As for a cause I find three groups of angels...

1. Michael - Archangel over strong angels
2. Gabriel - Archangel over wise angels
3. Lucifer -Archangel over worshiping angels

The cause of the creation of the universe was Lucifer's rebellion. We are created to fill the vacated third.

 

[rockytopva]

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

When God said... Let there be light... The mass dissociated into a big boom and expanded out from a point of origin. As for a cause I find three groups of angels...

1. Michael - Archangel over strong angels
2. Gabriel - Archangel over wise angels
3. Lucifer -Archangel over worshiping angels

The cause of the creation of the universe was Lucifer's rebellion. We are created to fill the vacated third.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. - 2 Peter 3:10

Soon the mass will disassociate into the plasma and energy from whence it was created and reassociate into a new heaven and a new earth... As the Father wills it.

 

[quatona]

every effect must have a cause

Sure. Now you just have to explain why the universe must be an effect...

this ultimately requires an uncaused cause

Sure. Now we just have to determine what this uncaused cause is and what its effects are.

Also, you would have to explain how you get from "uncaused cause" to "somebody".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

every effect must have a cause

By definition of the word "effect", so that's just a semantic thingy.
Like saying "every bachelor must not be married". Well, duh.

Now for the actual question: is everything an effect?

 

[Dave-W]

Thats strictly a matter of faith.

Indeed. As it is written: "Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him..."

 

[Dave-W]

I think I will mark your homework incomplete. The assignment was, "tell us what caused it, and how you know you are right." You gave an answer, but it seems you haven't shown your work. "I have faith that I am right" hardly qualifies as a convincing argument for your position.

What you would consider a valid proof would negate faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Indeed. As it is written: "Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him..."

I would have written:
"With faith alone, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be rationally justified in believing anything".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you would consider a valid proof would negate faith.

And what you call "faith", could be used to believe any fantastical idea your imagination can come up with.

But I'm sure that in every other area of your life, you would never settle for such argumentation.
Only your religion is given that privilege.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This seems to me to be quite different from your previous talk about "theological answer" concerning the thread topic: "what caused the universe?".

It's not.

Also note that saying "Thor creates lightning" is not an attempt at explaining how that happens, either.

And note that I've already said "I don't know, therefore God" is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

But when science uncovered how it actually happens, it simultanously showed that Thor, or any other deity, had nothing to do with it.

Not true. This presumes that naturalistic explanations exclude divinity.

I don't see why the question concerning the origins of the universe, should be any different.

By speaking of a scientific answer and a theological one I'm saying that naturalistic explanations are not in opposition to theological explanations. Attributing the universe's existence to God is not in opposition to whatever naturalistic explanations we might uncover in the future about the origins of the universe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Speedwell]

By speaking of a scientific answer and a theological one I'm saying that naturalistic explanations are not in opposition to theological explanations. Attributing the universe's existence to God is not in opposition to whatever naturalistic explanations we might uncover in the future about the origins of the universe.

A statement which should not be ignored or overlooked.

 

[victorinus]

Sure. Now you just have to explain why the universe must be an effect...


Sure. Now we just have to determine what this uncaused cause is and what its effects are.

Also, you would have to explain how you get from "uncaused cause" to "somebody".

first I have to teach you how to think

 

[victorinus]

Now for the actual question: is everything an effect?

this is just a reasonable guess
-
all but one

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

this is just a reasonable guess
-
all but one

What "one"?
And what makes that guess "reasonable"?
Are there any other "reasonable" guesses? Why or why not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And note that I've already said "I don't know, therefore God" is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

It is. But here's the problem: I'm not seeing how your "theological answer" is not such a fallacy.

Not true. This presumes that naturalistic explanations exclude divinity.

There is no presumption. It's just so that the scientific answer, which happens to be a natural mechanism, is sufficient to explain lightning.

Why would you add any undemonstrable, unfalsifiable ingredients/parameters/factors to a mechanism that works perfectly fine without them?

And if we don't know about a working, sufficient, mechanism... then still, why would we add any undemonstrable, unfalsifiable ingredients/parameters/factors?

What use does it have? What is the point?

By speaking of a scientific answer and a theological one I'm saying that naturalistic explanations are not in opposition to theological explanations.

Yes, you've said this already. I know that that is what you claim / believe. I don't see how this actually works in the real world. In fact, as I said, of all instances I know of where a "theological answer" preceded an actual scientific answer... the scientific answer always kind of pushed that theological one aside. I don't really know of any instances where they "complemented" eachother.

Attributing the universe's existence to God is not in opposition to whatever naturalistic explanations we might uncover in the future about the origins of the universe.

Change "universe" to "lightning" and see if it still works. I say: no, it doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A statement which should not be ignored or overlooked.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm directly addressing it.
I'm saying that that clearly isn't necessarily correct.

We have PLENTY of precedents where the "theological answer" was pushed aside, literally, when the "scientific answer" was discovered.

In fact, I know of no instance where it was ever otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

first I have to teach you how to think

Address his post, instead of making such unconstructive comments.

 

[Speedwell]

There is no presumption. It's just so that the scientific answer, which happens to be a natural mechanism, is sufficient to explain lightning.

And the universe as well. You are making the same philosophical error as the YECs, that an apparently sufficient naturalistic explanation proves that "God didn't do it."

Why would you add any undemonstrable, unfalsifiable ingredients/parameters/factors to a mechanism that works perfectly fine without them?

Because it pleases us to do so. If it doesn't please you, then don't do it.