What Created God

[elman]

Many people justify their Christian beliefs by using Aquinas' First Cause theory. This states that something must have started off the Universe. Even the Big Bang, must have been started by something, and that, is God.

But following this line of logic, God must have been created by something or someone. It makes no sense to argue that there must be a God using the First Cause Theory, because God, being part of existence, could well have been created.

And if there was indeed a first cause, why need this be God?

I am a Christian, yet I have a problem with this line of argument.

If God is uncreated and all else is created then what is the first cause of everything if it is not God?

 

[AlbinoTigress]

It is bad logic. The existance/non-existance of God is a matter of faith not science. This is why YECism/creation science is constantly under fire from those that take the time to study the universe. They are trying to remove faith and prove something that cannot be proven. While doing this they jump to false conclusions and some outright lie because they feel that they cannot be wrong, their belief in God will crumble because they have removed faith from their lives.

Science can show is the creativity of God but it cannot show us God.

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo true

 

[JGL53]

If God is uncreated and all else is created then what is the first cause of everything if it is not God?

A rather big "if".

OTOH, if there is no god and the universe is eternal - problem solved.

 

[Code-Monkey]

A rather big "if".

OTOH, if there is no god and the universe is eternal - problem solved.

Then we get to the statement...

If it's possible for there to be an infinite regression of cause/effect or an infinite regression of time, then there can be no beginning.

That's a mighty big "if". On the other hand, if there is a first cause, then the problem's solved. And logically, if ever there was to be something that has a "will", then it would surely be that first cause. As it would have had to have sparked the big bang, and there wouldn't be anything else to have caused it to act. It would have had to have been an act purely by it's own "desire" or nature.

 

[samsonknight]

Many people justify their Christian beliefs by using Aquinas' First Cause theory. This states that something must have started off the Universe. Even the Big Bang, must have been started by something, and that, is God.

But following this line of logic, God must have been created by something or someone. It makes no sense to argue that there must be a God using the First Cause Theory, because God, being part of existence, could well have been created.

And if there was indeed a first cause, why need this be God?

I am a Christian, yet I have a problem with this line of argument.

i say when you stand before god i doubt no one will really care who created him as he has such a huge presence of love and passion that it will be so glorious, so eye watering and so unbelivably amazing that i dont think anyone will care. who needs to really know since you will be spending infinite paradise with him and never have a trouble, a sin, z tear of sadness. you will never be sad, you will cry but only because of his love.

if youve felt the holy spirit i think you know what im talking about.

 

[JGL53]

Then we get to the statement...

If it's possible for there to be an infinite regression of cause/effect or an infinite regression of time, then there can be no beginning.

That's a mighty big "if". On the other hand, if there is a first cause, then the problem's solved. And logically, if ever there was to be something that has a "will", then it would surely be that first cause. As it would have had to have sparked the big bang, and there wouldn't be anything else to have caused it to act. It would have had to have been an act purely by it's own "desire" or nature.

If you, for some reason, demand an act of "will" as the first cause of the perceived universe, then you can be a Vedantist (Hindu) and assume the Divine Self manifests our observable universe - out of itself. Pantheism is logically sound - problem solved

However, there is no reason the universe cannot be eternal - the so-called big bang just being one of those things that occurs now and then in an eternal multiverse. And scientists see the big bang as a "quantum fluctuation". That sounds pretty "accidental" to me - and problem solved also.

The third choice, theism, is a form of dualism that presents more problems than it solves. It apparently is the most acceptable to YOU because it was what you were inculcated with from the time you were a baby, learning the language.

You need to try to think outside the box. Or do you just "prefer" thinking and believing the way you always have because that requires the least effort?

 

[JGL53]

i say when you stand before god i doubt no one will really care who created him as he has such a huge presence of love and passion that it will be so glorious, so eye watering and so unbelievably amazing that i dont think anyone will care. who needs to really know since you will be spending infinite paradise with him and never have a trouble, a sin, z tear of sadness. you will never be sad, you will cry but only because of his love...

Wow. Sounds pretty cool. Very poetic. Have you ever given thought to writing fiction for a living?

...if you’ve felt the holy spirit i think you know what i’m talking about...

Argument from personal experience is fallacious logic. You could be hallucinating. You could have had a stroke. You could be lying. Plus, Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims and many others who are not christians, and who may even think christians are extremely wrong-headed in their beliefs, give testimony all the time to religious experience, epiphany, and personal revelation, many of an entirely different type than what you claim.

So - on what grounds should I discount THEIR testimony but accept YOURS?

 

[Lucretius]

You guys have yet to demonstrate that there is something fundamentally wrong with the notion of an infinite chain of regression. You might not like it personally, but that is different from actually demonstrating that it isn't logical. I see an infinitely old God as logical as an infinite regression chain.

 

[quatona]

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo true

On a scale of how many possible O´s?

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. Everything that begins has a cause.
2. The universe began.
C. Therefore the universe has a cause.

I don't think that the universe necessarily had a beginning. It may be that time had a beginning instead, and this would not involve any problems with infinite regress.

 

[Im_A]

Many people justify their Christian beliefs by using Aquinas' First Cause theory. This states that something must have started off the Universe. Even the Big Bang, must have been started by something, and that, is God.

But following this line of logic, God must have been created by something or someone. It makes no sense to argue that there must be a God using the First Cause Theory, because God, being part of existence, could well have been created.

And if there was indeed a first cause, why need this be God?

I am a Christian, yet I have a problem with this line of argument.

theory of deduction never made any sense, and i find rather offensive to God.

and i agree if Aquinas was right, then God must have been created by some thing, but of course the apologetic for the Christian faith will come in after the logic and reasoning after the First Cause Theory run its course.

infinity can only be speculated by the finite being. just simple definitions between the two are worlds apart.

 

[EverlastingMan]

But following this line of logic, God must have been created by something or someone. It makes no sense to argue that there must be a God using the First Cause Theory, because God, being part of existence, could well have been created.

No, following Aquinas's, though I think Augustine was the first to give that argument, there is an umoved first mover. Which is to say an uncreated first creator. This being we have dubbed God. It doesn't follow using this argument that God must be created because the whole point of his argument is that the buck must start somewhere and God is where it started. If god was created, then he is quite simply not god.

And if there was indeed a first cause, why need this be God?

Well christain thology scripture and all that states that God is supreme and lampoons idols because they are created and then worshipped. For christianity to be valid about god's he cannot have been created. If he was, he would be subordinate.

I am a Christian, yet I have a problem with this line of argument.[/quote]

 

[happygrl35]

Many people justify their Christian beliefs by using Aquinas' First Cause theory. This states that something must have started off the Universe. Even the Big Bang, must have been started by something, and that, is God.

But following this line of logic, God must have been created by something or someone. It makes no sense to argue that there must be a God using the First Cause Theory, because God, being part of existence, could well have been created.

And if there was indeed a first cause, why need this be God?

I am a Christian, yet I have a problem with this line of argument.

Not actually,the Christian Theistic God is described as being *eternal*existing outside of time,*non-material* existing outside of space,therefore the Christian Theistic God isn't prone to the laws of casuality.The universe *all natural existence* IS prone to the laws of casuality so it makes sense to ask what caused it or what is it's origin.

 

[quatona]

Not actually,the Christian Theistic God is described as being *eternal*existing outside of time,*non-material* existing outside of space,therefore the Christian Theistic God isn't prone to the laws of casuality.The universe *all natural existence* IS prone to the laws of casuality so it makes sense to ask what caused it or what is it's origin.

I´m not sure we have established that the universe itself is "all natural" in the way you´d need it for your argument.
Although it is indeed universally agreed upon that everything WITHIN the universe is bound to physical laws, time, causality etc., this does not necessarily allow the conclusion that the universe itself is.
If - in the realm in which you assume God to exist and to have created the universe - these laws are not valid, the universe can have come into being there without any cause easily.

That said, I have serious problems considering what can or can not happen in hypothetical realms beyond logic, time and space. Mindgames.

 

[happygrl35]

I´m not sure we have established that the universe itself is "all natural" in the way you´d need it for your argument.
Although it is indeed universally agreed upon that everything WITHIN the universe is bound to physical laws, time, causality etc., this does not necessarily allow the conclusion that the universe itself is.
If - in the realm in which you assume God to exist and to have created the universe - these laws are not valid, the universe can have come into being there without any cause easily.

That said, I have serious problems considering what can or can not happen in hypothetical realms beyond logic, time and space. Mindgames.

I´m not sure we have established that the universe itself is "all natural" in the way you´d need it for your argument.

non-natural would be non-material,the only thing we know that exists in a non-material way are abstracts and minds.? The universe itself is deffined by it's components (space/time-matter/energy) take all these things away even in there barest form and you have no universe,you have nothing

agreed upon that everything WITHIN the universe is bound to physical laws, time, causality etc., this does not necessarily allow the conclusion that the universe itself is.

Yes,but if the universe is just a composition of it's components (space/time-energy/matter) and these things are contingent,then it's a case of special pleading to assume the universe itself isn't contingent.

If - in the realm in which you assume God to exist and to have created the universe - these laws are not valid, the universe can have come into being there without any cause easily.

There need not be a realm* for God's existence,and God need not have created the universe for it to still be contingent upon him for existence.Example:
Everlasting sunlight doesn't have a temporal cause by deffinition,but is still contingent on an everlasting sun.Regardless my point wasn't to prove the existence of God,but to show that IF the christian theistic God DOES exist,by deffinition and understanding the question of "what made God or where did God come from " is irrelevant.These questions only apply to space/time bound material beings.

 

[quatona]

Hi , and thanks for your response!
Last point first:

Regardless my point wasn't to prove the existence of God,but to show that IF the christian theistic God DOES exist,by deffinition and understanding the question of "what made God or where did God come from " is irrelevant.These questions only apply to space/time bound material beings.

Yes, although I didn´t understand you trying to prove god´s existence, we might indeed be chasing different rabbits.
I´m not so much interested in the question whether we can evade the need for logic and the laws and conditions as we know them by simply defining things to be beyond logic and the these laws and conditions. In fact, I agree that this is the easiest thing to do. Once you or I or both of us have the admission to do that, we will be able to solve every self-contradiction and inconsistency immediately. Plus we can have a lot of fun.
What however I am questioning is that doing this provides us with explanations. I am inclined to think that it is merely a cop-out, replacing „I have no clue“ by saying „it happened outside logic (etc.)“ or „an entity that´s not bound by logic etc. did it“. Once we don´t limit our arguments and assertions to logic (etc.), everything must be accepted as an explanation for everything. I´m not sure I want to go there, and I doubt that you want that, either.

non-natural would be non-material,the only thing we know that exists in a non-material way are abstracts and minds.? The universe itself is deffined by it's components (space/time-matter/energy) take all these things away even in there barest form

I´m not sure I can follow. Are you saying or implying that abstractions, thoughts, feelings etc. are not part of the universe?
Although I doubt that
a)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]the definition of the universe you provided is agreed upon
b)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]I quite apparently understand „universe“ to mean something different
c)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]the idea is established that a system is limited in the same way its components are (in fact I think the opposite is established),

let´s work from this your assumption:
The universe is bound to the same limitations of logic/time/space/whatnot as everything within it.
Now let´s take a look at what´s happening within this universe. Do we see material coming into being? No. Everything we observe is transformation. „Coming into existence“ is nothing we have ever observed. Two already existing cells grow into another being if treated and fed properly with things that already exist, too, and which transform into this being. You get the idea.
Thus, if we assume the universe to be bound to the physical properties of what happens within it, it cannot have „come into existence“ – it must have always existed, in this shape and form or another.

and you have no universe,you have nothing

Which is an impossibility according to your own reasoning. „Nothing“ is impossible within the universe, and if the universe is bound to the same laws, it cannot have been or turn into nothing.

Yes,but if the universe is just a composition of it's components (space/time-energy/matter) and these things are contingent,

...which I don´t think you have established so far...

then it's a case of special pleading to assume the universe itself isn't contingent.

Sure. Depending on your definition of something, you can define all other ideas to be special pleading.
I have accepted your starting point for the sake of the argument. From this starting point it follows that the universe cannot have come into existence.
If you want to change your premise („the universe itself is bound to the same limitations as what is within it“) – any time. This would lead to a completely different line of reasoning, of course.

There need not be a realm* for God's existence,and God need not have created the universe for it to still be contingent upon him for existence.Example:
Everlasting sunlight doesn't have a temporal cause by deffinition,but is still contingent on an everlasting sun.

I´m sure you have a point there with this example – unfortunately I seem to fail to understand it. Please explain.
Greetings
quatona

 

[happygrl35]

quatona

I think you missed my point in my original post.I was merely stating the difference between the God concept and the universe, therfore not making the mistake of asking for a cause for God in the cosmological argument.IMO both the theistic and atheistic versions of the cosmological argument are question begging.Regardless the christian theistic version of the God concept is that of necessary being,so IF God does exist then God does not need a (cause,reason,or origin) for his being.The necessity of the Universe has never or probably never will be established although it's ASSUMED the existence of the universe is a brute fact.IMO opinion thats an arbitrary necessity.​

 

[happygrl35]

[

I´m not sure we have established that the universe itself is "all natural"

Are you suggesting that the universe contains components that are non-material *supernatural*?

 

[Telephone]

the Christian Theistic God is described as being *eternal*existing outside of time...

What does this mean - "existing outside of time" ?

If 'eternal' means to exist forever into the past and forever into the future - how can god be 'eternal' and exist outside of time ?

If an entity is removed from time (whatever this nonsense could possibly mean!) how could it then display a facet of the very thing it is said to be divorced or discrete from?

...*non-material* existing outside of space,therefore the Christian Theistic God isn't prone to the laws of casuality.

What does "non-material" mean ?

Practically what does it mean to say something is "non-material", is it the same as saying "it does not exist" ?

You may replace the word with "supernatural", but this is just semantics and the question remains, What does "supernatural" mean to any of us other than something we don't understand.

This is all nothing more than a typical religious recourse to abstract semantics to answer nonsense ideas.

You may find true enlightenment when you, at least consider, that you just may have been wrong all along about these superstitious beliefs.

The universe *all natural existence* IS prone to the laws of casuality so it makes sense to ask what caused it or what is it's origin.

This is not true.

In the field of quantum mechanics we have events such as 'virtual' particles popping into being without cause, we have particles 'borrowing' energy from own their future state within the quantum fluctuation, this transfer of energy is on a vastly small scale and the period of time that the energy travels 'backwards' through time is equally tiny. Practically this would appear to mean very little, but consider that at the very start of the period of massive inflation we call the big bang, when we believe matter was compressed into a singularity, quantum effects would be 'universal' in their influence.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Many people justify their Christian beliefs by using Aquinas' First Cause theory. This states that something must have started off the Universe. Even the Big Bang, must have been started by something, and that, is God.

But following this line of logic, God must have been created by something or someone. It makes no sense to argue that there must be a God using the First Cause Theory, because God, being part of existence, could well have been created.And if there was indeed a first cause, why need this be God?

Trying to find the first cause just leads to an infinite regress because in 'cause and effect' it is impossible to trace back to the uncaused cause.

It is just a wild imagination to assume that there is a first cause which started of this cause and effect cycle. The question of whether the first cause is God or not is secondary.

By theory, in cause and effect, a cause must be an effect of some other cause which in turn must be an effect of some other cause and it goes on infinitely. Of course I am talking about a cause within space-time and not out of it.

If it can be assumed that there indeed is something which is uncaused, it is only logical to deduce that it never produced an effect.