If God Created Everything Who Created God????

[Æsahættr]

There are basically three arguments:
The argument from sufficient reason (Liebnitz)
Nothing exists without sufficient reason and therefore a cause

The argument from contingency (Aristotle, Aquinas, et al.)
As above, plus:
Movement/change in a thing can only take place when caused by something external to itself ... a refinement of the above argument.

The 'Kalaam' argument
That the universe had a beginning in time - and that an infinite can only exists in theory, but not in actuality as a complete thing.

One can aaccept or reject the arguments, but one cannot prove or disprove them, although the theory and evidence stacks up prtetty favourably on the side of a finite universe.

All argue that the Cause without Cause, the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover etc., can be called God - the definition of God being that which causes/moves but is not itself caused/moved - but none of these arguments are in any way proofs of God as Christianity would understand the term.

That argument is self-defeating. Everything has a cause, therefore there is something that does not have a cause? If there is room for a Cause without Cause at the end, then there is room for one before then, which invalidates the entire argument.

 

[Fade]

Make it stop! My brain is dribbling out of my ears!

 

[michel]

I think the common theory is that God is self created or always existed. The greater irony though is the notion that God can be self created or always exist but the universe cannot.

What if you accept that both God and the Universe have always existed ?

 

[Fade]

What if you accept that both God and the Universe have always existed ?

Then what would be the point of God?

 

[Krie]

i think that in that case, god is just another person to keep humanity following rules. B/c there are ppl that don't even follow the rules laid down by the law but they do have a god that they value enough to listen to their rules. If in their life there was no god then they would have no boundries to their life and so they would do in our eyes outragious things that they think are nessisary to survive

 

[Tom Davidson]

If there is room for a Cause without Cause at the end, then there is room for one before then, which invalidates the entire argument.

Not really. Put another way, the First Cause is that which is the cause of all, and yet is not itself caused. There cannot be a cause before the First Cause, precisely because 'First' assumes nothing prior, no more than there can be a number before 'one'.

I was not offering this as a proof, but rather to highlight that the acceptance of the theistic argument is no less logical than the acceptance of the non-theist - neither argument can be proved - and both are logical 'within' themselves, on the premise that there is, or there is not, a God.

So the argument, either way, is based on a matter of faith.

Thomas

 

[michel]

Then what would be the point of God?

I can come straight back to you and ask:- What is the point of the universe? What is the point of humans?

 

[Æsahættr]

If there is room for a Cause without Cause at the end, then there is room for one before then, which invalidates the entire argument.

Not really. Put another way, the First Cause is that which is the cause of all, and yet is not itself caused. There cannot be a cause before the First Cause, precisely because 'First' assumes nothing prior, no more than there can be a number before 'one'.

I was not offering this as a proof, but rather to highlight that the acceptance of the theistic argument is no less logical than the acceptance of the non-theist - neither argument can be proved - and both are logical 'within' themselves, on the premise that there is, or there is not, a God.

So the argument, either way, is based on a matter of faith.

Thomas

Yes. I wasn't trying to argue that the theistic position is illogical. I thought that you were trying to suggest that that the causality argument is overall one in favour of theism, when in fact, as you say, it supports both views.

However, I don't think that the argument that there must be a First Cause is really logical. There could be a First Cause that is caused by nothing else, or there could be plenty of things that do not need a cause.

 

[randb]

Being God, He is all-powerful. He can do anything. That puts him beyond our laws, even beyond our understanding. It's sort of obvious, isn't it? That is someone is all powerful, nothing that applies to us has to apply to them.

The first law of thermodynamics is NEVER permanently violated anywhere in the universe. So, no...its not obvious!!!!

 

[Fade]

I can come straight back to you and ask:- What is the point of the universe? What is the point of humans?

There is no point to the universe or humans. That's why we invented God/religion and philosophy. So we could pretend that there is a purpose to it all.

 

[Tom Davidson]

The first law of thermodynamics is NEVER permanently violated anywhere in the universe. So, no...its not obvious!!!!

The answer to that would be that the universe is an enclosed system created by God, and the laws of thermodynamics apply to the system - not to God.

There are many theological debates on the first and second laws that demonstrate that they do not preclude belief in God, but rather point to intelligent design, but again, accpetance becomes a matter of faith, not proof.

Hi Æsahættr –

How about this:
1 - There was a First Cause
2a - There was not a First Cause - the universe is infinite and eternal;
2b - There was not a First Cause - the universe just happened.

1 - There was a First Cause
And that is what we call God (not the God of Scripture, however)

2a - There was not a First Cause - the universe is infinite and eternal;
The Kalaam Cosmological argument 'disproves' this proposition:
If the universe is infinite, we can never 'go back' to the beginning, the further we go back, the further back the infinite goes ahead of us (infinite regress), but;
If the universe in infinite, the law must hold both ways (infinite procession);
If the universe is infinite, the time between 'moments' is infinite, and can never be crossed - each second would be of infinite duration.
The universe would be composed of an infinite number of moments, and each moment would be infinite, like a fractal - one would travel eternally in time and space, and never get anywhere ... oh, the mind boggles.

Note:
An infinite series can be mentally posited - but that does not mean it exists. A complete set of numbers does not exist (one more can always be added to the set). Anselm's ontological argument, that because God can be posited mentally as 'a thing of which there is nothing greater' God must exists actually because mentally and actuality is greater than mentally alone ... Aquinas refuted that one.

2b - There was not a First Cause - the universe just happened.
This, thanks to Quantum Physics, gets really wild, because experiment and observation indicates that effects appear to come into existence prior to their causes. Science can demonstrate it, but simply cannot explain it, without abandoning everything else ... so the jury is out...

True philosophy lies not in an answer, but in the impetus to inquire. As long as the mind inquires about the nature of things, philosophy is alive (even if in error - the Greeks were wrong about a lot of things, but by following the process of inquiry that follows the 'best practice' established by the Greeks, we came to know the truth)

The 'end of philosophy' occurs when we settle for an answer, and too often we call this phase 'the enlightenment' - the 'answer' of the 17thc enlightenment was that by the power of technology man would be freed from a dependence upon nature - we would bring nature to heel - and look at trhe mess that's caused!

So I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just speculating on the ramifications ...

Thomas

 

[michel]

There is no point to the universe or humans. That's why we invented God/religion and philosophy. So we could pretend that there is a purpose to it all.

It takes an Irishman to make that argument the way you did (and that is not derogatory):biglaugh:
Do you therefore believe that anyone who isn't 'enjoying' life should have the right to end it ? (On the concept that there is no purpose to life, there is no God............etc)

 

[Æsahættr]

How about this:
1 - There was a First Cause
2a - There was not a First Cause - the universe is infinite and eternal;
2b - There was not a First Cause - the universe just happened.

1 - There was a First Cause
And that is what we call God (not the God of Scripture, however)

There's one suggestion I'd like to make, that I'm wondering which category you'd place into. Is it not possible that the Universe itself is its own cause.
I came up with an interesting idea when thinking about causality the other day. Imagine that you have a piece of string that represents a line of causality. Each point on the string represents an event, and as you go back along the string, each event is caused by the preceding one. Now, try to imagine our Universe comprised of strings like these. Since a cause can have more than one effect, and an effect can have more than one cause, these strings would be interlocking in a highly complex fashion. Since every single little particle in the Universe, and every single bit of energy is part of this web of causality, the Universe itself would seem to be a single block of string, as there are so many of them tightly wound together.

So, we now have a shape that represents the Universe. If you go back to the beginning of the Universe, this shape begins to funnel down into a point. It's at this point that things get interesting. Say there was a God, a First Cause. In this case, when we reach the Big Bang, there will be a line of string extending from the point that is the beginning of the Universe. Now, since this First Cause is self causing, this string must form a closed shape at the other end. What this shape is doesn't matter, the point is that however the line of causality extends back before the Universe, it must be closed off, self-contained at the opposite end to the end where it merges into the Universe. So, if you need to close off the line of causality somewhere, you could if you wanted close it off at the Big Bang. All those lines of string going back could just do a loop.

The consequence of this idea is that the Universe could be the self causing thing. In that case, do you call it the First Cause and therefore God? You could, although it doesn't make any difference what you call it. I think that the word Universe is sufficient, we don't need another word to describe it.

This, thanks to Quantum Physics, gets really wild, because experiment and observation indicates that effects appear to come into existence prior to their causes. Science can demonstrate it, but simply cannot explain it, without abandoning everything else ... so the jury is out...

It's interesting that you mentioned quantum physics, which I think is very interesting to philosophy. You are referring in your post I believe to the fluctuations in the energy of the vacuum of space. which can spontaneously create a proton, an antineutrino and a pion, if you look at it from a linear perspective of time. In that case, you could say that the cause of this creation is the energy fluctuations (the 3 particles need to anhilate quickly though in order to prevent the average energy from being changed and therefore violate the conservation laws).

However, since anti-particles can be thought of as particles moving backwards in time, you could think of this event as a proton and a neutron chasing each other in a time loop, and actually being the same particle. The proton travels forwards in time until it meets a pion, whereby it turns into a neutron and starts travelling backwards in time, until it gives off a pion and starts travelling forwards in time as a proton again. Thought of that way, this event does not have an external cause. The entire loop is self contained.

I think it's a little harsh to say that science "cannot explain it." If science cannot explain it, then that is only because it is difficult to explain in a way that we understand. In terms of actually explaining why it is that this happens, quantum physics does absolutely fine. It doesn't need everything else to be abandoned, at least not eveything else scientific. It does mean though that cetain common sense assumptions are simply wrong. I think the notion that everything has a cause is one that we are gradually going to see to be wrong. Causality is simply a consequence of thinking of time as perfectly linear, as a background against which things are played, which is really only one way of looking at it, and probably not the best. Seeing as both quntum physics and relativity agree that time does not necessarily work in that way, and they are the two cornerstones of modern physics, I think we can fairly safely say that time probably does not work like that.

2a - There was not a First Cause - the universe is infinite and eternal;
The Kalaam Cosmological argument 'disproves' this proposition:
If the universe is infinite, we can never 'go back' to the beginning, the further we go back, the further back the infinite goes ahead of us (infinite regress), but;
If the universe in infinite, the law must hold both ways (infinite procession);
If the universe is infinite, the time between 'moments' is infinite, and can never be crossed - each second would be of infinite duration.
The universe would be composed of an infinite number of moments, and each moment would be infinite, like a fractal - one would travel eternally in time and space, and never get anywhere ... oh, the mind boggles.

Yes, that reminds me of the Xeno's runner and the tortoise problem. You're right of course, it is definitely an incorrect idea. I think the best explanation for exactly why that isn't the case is that time is actually discrete rather than continuous, that you cannot divide time any smaller than the Planck time.

Note:
A complete set of numbers does not exist (one more can always be added to the set).

Just being pedantic here, you mean an infinite complete set of numbers does not exist. There's no shortage of complete finite sets.

True philosophy lies not in an answer, but in the impetus to inquire. As long as the mind inquires about the nature of things, philosophy is alive (even if in error - the Greeks were wrong about a lot of things, but by following the process of inquiry that follows the 'best practice' established by the Greeks, we came to know the truth)

The 'end of philosophy' occurs when we settle for an answer, and too often we call this phase 'the enlightenment' - the 'answer' of the 17thc enlightenment was that by the power of technology man would be freed from a dependence upon nature - we would bring nature to heel - and look at trhe mess that's caused!

So I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just speculating on the ramifications ...

Nice to see the good old Greek tradition of philosophy continuing. Just to be clear again, I wasn't at any point trying to argue that there cannot have been a first cause, just attempting to refute the argument that there must be one.
I agree that it's never good to reach an answer such that you stop being inquistive altogether, but just to be clear, you're not going too near the post-modernist thoughts that the concept that there is a correct answer out there is wrong are you? We do of course always need to question things, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an objective truth to be discovered, it's just that we can never be 100% sure that we've got it.

 

[Fade]

It takes an Irishman to make that argument the way you did (and that is not derogatory):biglaugh:
Do you therefore believe that anyone who isn't 'enjoying' life should have the right to end it ? (On the concept that there is no purpose to life, there is no God............etc)

I do believe that people should have the right to end their lives. It is their life afterall.
Basically my philosophy on life the universe and everything was neatly summed up by the late great Bill Hicks.

"Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I ****, what I take into my body – as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"

"The world is like a ride at an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question: Is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, 'Hey – don't worry, don't be afraid ever, because this is just a ride ...' And we ... kill those people. Ha ha, 'Shut him up. We have a lot invested in this ride. Shut him up. Look at my furrows of worry. Look at my big bank account and my family. This just has to be real.' It's just a ride. But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. But it doesn't matter, because – it's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.

 

[Ody]

how did god get there in the first place???? something had to create him.

nope he has always been, and always will be

 

[Tom Davidson]

you're not going too near the post-modernist thoughts that the concept that there is a correct answer out there is wrong are you?

Oh no, no no! Lord preserve me from post-modernism.

And just to clarify, I'm not arguing that there must be a First Cause ... well I am I suppose ... but I cannot argue a proof.

Actually I'm quite enjoying the discussion, and thanks for filling in some details on the Quantum side of things.

And not pedantic at all, re numbers, Perhaps if you could tell me how to explain to my daughters that my pockets are equally finite...?

Thomas

 

[SunMessenger]

The first law of thermodynamics is NEVER permanently violated anywhere in the universe. So, no...its not obvious!!!!

The Lord Our God has blessed many with what we call scientific knowledge of how some of the universe works. How wonderful God is to have done that. I emphasize that as vast as the knowledge provided is, it is still only just some. The overall concept would be beyond mans intelligence to grasp. I am always surprised how man can easily subscribe to man made theories and defend them as strongly as they do. One is the theory of relativity. It has yet to be physically proven but it remains defended as a scientific fact. Well Dear Scientists may I help to define God to your analytical minds ? God is the most powerful energy that exists. Since God is composed of such powerful energy, then using scientific explanations , He can neither be created nor destroyed. In His Mercy He has given us enough scientific knowledge to know that energy is eternal. Therefore, how could He ever have been created and how do we think He could ever be destroyed. He is God. He is all powerful. He is all that is all. We are a mere microscopic spark of Him. With this spark of God, brighten your world. Pray for the forgiveness of sins so that when the time is right, your spark will be able to rejoin its Eternal Source Of Brilliance.

 

[Fade]

The Lord Our God has blessed many with what we call scientific knowledge of how some of the universe works. How wonderful God is to have done that. I emphasize that as vast as the knowledge provided is, it is still only just some. The overall concept would be beyond mans intelligence to grasp. I am always surprised how man can easily subscribe to man made theories and defend them as strongly as they do. One is the theory of relativity. It has yet to be physically proven but it remains defended as a scientific fact. Well Dear Scientists may I help to define God to your analytical minds ? God is the most powerful energy that exists. Since God is composed of such powerful energy, then using scientific explanations , He can neither be created nor destroyed. In His Mercy He has given us enough scientific knowledge to know that energy is eternal. Therefore, how could He ever have been created and how do we think He could ever be destroyed. He is God. He is all powerful. He is all that is all. We are a mere microscopic spark of Him. With this spark of God, brighten your world. Pray for the forgiveness of sins so that when the time is right, your spark will be able to rejoin its Eternal Source Of Brilliance.

I love it when God botherers patronise Scientific Enquiry.
No, god didn't bless anyone with scientific knowledge. People rose up against religious dogma and looked at the world around them with clear, rational and above all curious eyes and worked it out for themselves.

The overall concept is not beyond mans ability to grasp, yours maybe, but not everybodies.

It's not surprising that man will subscribe to his own theories, what else are they for? Don't forget that your religion is one too.
That man will subscribe to and defend baseless superstition like yours is the real surprise. :bonk:

 

[SunMessenger]

I love it when God botherers patronise Scientific Enquiry.
No, god didn't bless anyone with scientific knowledge. People rose up against religious dogma and looked at the world around them with clear, rational and above all curious eyes and worked it out for themselves.

The overall concept is not beyond mans ability to grasp, yours maybe, but not everybodies.

It's not surprising that man will subscribe to his own theories, what else are they for? Don't forget that your religion is one too.
That man will subscribe to and defend baseless superstition like yours is the real surprise. :bonk:

Being well educated and always interested in the sciences , I have left my mind open to all the possibilities that have yet to be discovered. I encourage all scientific pursuits made with good intentions. My degree is also in the sciences. I do not have a doctorate and do not want to falsely represent myself. I could continue if I chose to and I know that having such a prestigious degree is attainable within my abilities. This is offered as background not to boast. I am very happy that you have found contentment in your beliefs. It is important to remember that as a scientist one should not shut out all possibilities. I believe it is that open minded investigation of the universe that truly defines a scientist. I can only advise you of my observations outside the current realm of scientific understanding . Why not investigate further for yourself. Consider it an experiment. Ask, as I have, to be shown the other side of the veil and perhaps your surprise will turn to wonder when shown the Beautiful Peace that comes with Our Lord. I only suggest a science experiment. You will need to decide the rest. That is what free will is all about. I close with wishing you all the best this world and the next has to offer ...

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Albert Einstein
</IMG>

 

[Fade]

Being well educated and always interested in the sciences , I have left my mind open to all the possibilities that have yet to be discovered. I encourage all scientific pursuits made with good intentions. My degree is also in the sciences. I do not have a doctorate and do not want to falsely represent myself. I could continue if I chose to and I know that having such a prestigious degree is attainable within my abilities. This is offered as background not to boast. I am very happy that you have found contentment in your beliefs. It is important to remember that as a scientist one should not shut out all possibilities. I believe it is that open minded investigation of the universe that truly defines a scientist. I can only advise you of my observations outside the current realm of scientific understanding . Why not investigate further for yourself. Consider it an experiment. Ask, as I have, to be shown the other side of the veil and perhaps your surprise will turn to wonder when shown the Beautiful Peace that comes with Our Lord. I only suggest a science experiment. You will need to decide the rest. That is what free will is all about. I close with wishing you all the best this world and the next has to offer ...

A science experiment?
Okay, show me the other side of the veil.