the causality issue...there is no issue

[flupke]

Regardless of what religion 'believers' stick to, there is a common spirit of "the world/universe is so beautiful/complex, it has to have been created by someone".

But, on the same note, a 'creator' making something this 'wonderful', is at least as wonderful as the thing that was created, which means that, using the same argument as above, the creator has been created by something else.

And here stops the 'logic' by believers: "god created himself" or "god doesn't have to be created" without further explanation.

If one can accept that a God can constitute the beginning of a causal chain, then why not accept that "the beginning of the universe" (big bang or whatever new theory) is the beginning of a causal chain ?
Many believers see a 'creator' as a logical necessity, whereas it is not.
Are there believers out there who see that there is no logical necessity for a creator ?

 

[Elphineas]

This is why I'm a Henotheist. I'm pretty sure there's a God. There may be more than one, but I'm sure of at least one.



I believe that it was this God who was the cause of existence and non-existence.



People ask me, "Who created your God?"



And I answer "God".



Not that I believe that God didn't need to be created. Perhaps he was. But it's the God that created the God who created the God who created existence of whom I'm speaking.



I don't know how many times it goes back. The number of Gods there were before the Gods we have now are not important to me.



I believe in the Creator of existence. The One whom I will ever know, because that One is impossible to know.



Even that Creator may have had a Creator... So I go back farther, and farther, until the time before time when there was no one but that One, and He was One. The first Cause.



The Gods we know today may have been created by Him, and one of them may even be Him. I may never know, because it seems likely that the One has no interest in our affairs.



That is why I don't worship him.



I simply believe that he existed and may still exist and that he was (in a round-about way) responsible for my existence. Therefore, He is my God.

 

[michel]

Regardless of what religion 'believers' stick to, there is a common spirit of "the world/universe is so beautiful/complex, it has to have been created by someone".

But, on the same note, a 'creator' making something this 'wonderful', is at least as wonderful as the thing that was created, which means that, using the same argument as above, the creator has been created by something else.

And here stops the 'logic' by believers: "god created himself" or "god doesn't have to be created" without further explanation.

If one can accept that a God can constitute the beginning of a causal chain, then why not accept that "the beginning of the universe" (big bang or whatever new theory) is the beginning of a causal chain ?
Many believers see a 'creator' as a logical necessity, whereas it is not.
Are there believers out there who see that there is no logical necessity for a creator ?

Perhaps no logical necessity, but more as a spiritual one..........

 

[Arkangel]

Perhaps no logical necessity, but more as a spiritual one..........

Can you please explain on this. Why do we need God for a spiritual reason. I am not trying to be sarcastic just need to know what you think on this topic.

 

[flupke]

I believe in the Creator of existence. The One whom I will ever know, because that One is impossible to know.



Even that Creator may have had a Creator... So I go back farther, and farther, until the time before time when there was no one but that One, and He was One. The first Cause.
.

Whether you 'believe' there was a creator is besides the point. The question was wether you see it as a LOGICAL NECESSITY that what exists needs to have had a cause. Since you are assuming that there may have been a first cause (creator-creator-creator-...-creator), you just answered the question: some things can just 'exist' without having to have been created.

 

[Elphineas]

some things can just 'exist' without having to have been created.

In a Klein Bottle sort of way. I still leave room for perhapses, though. If our universe is indeed in a Klein Bottle shape, we may have created ourselves. Not directly, of course. It'd be like looking into a spyglass and seeing your bum in the lens.



In linear time, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Out of linear time, it's probably perfectly possible for it to appear and disappear at random. Yet I'm not sure which kind of non-linear time could present the possibility.



But how did matter go from non-linear time to linear time unless something could observe both fabrics simultaneously?



The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics states that "In the absence of observation, there is no reality".



If no one was there to observe our universe, how did it get here in the first place? And don't ask me how my God got here if He was not also observed. Quantum physics do not apply to those who weren't made in this universe in the first place.

 

[ladylazarus]

There's also the fact that acausal events happen.

 

[michel]

Can you please explain on this. Why do we need God for a spiritual reason. I am not trying to be sarcastic just need to know what you think on this topic.

Maybe 'need' is the wrong word................

There is a God, of that, I am certain. If there is a God, he must be beyond anything that our little minds can imagine.

I actually believe that there may be different dimensions, all running concurrently (Heaven being one of them). To me, a God that can achieve that has to be so powerful that he can do anything, such as build himself up. O.K, I know, there's going to be a what do you mean...?

God is Nature; God is Love, God is everything that is Good; maybe God is just a energy.......does that make sense ?

 

[flupke]

God is Nature; God is Love, God is everything that is Good; maybe God is just a energy.......does that make sense ?

If you really use this 'definition' of what God is, then that's pretty different from seeing God as a creator. If God is the 'feeling of love', then me, atheist, will promptly be converted to a theist, since it's pretty obvious that I have different feelings, including love. But since I currently accept that any feeling we have is an emergent property of a complex neural network (our brain), this would clearly be a very reduced God.

If no one was there to observe our universe, how did it get here in the first place? And don't ask me how my God got here if He was not also observed. Quantum physics do not apply to those who weren't made in this universe in the first place.

This is clearly an extrapolation of quantum mechanics to a time for which there are no observations and thus no proof of the omnivalidity of quantum mechanics. Your argument can be countered in a way similar to the 'necessity of causality' argument: if you're willing to assume that rules of quantum mechanics don't apply to God, you might as well accept they don't apply to an early universe. (quantum mechanics is largely hypothetical for macroscopic objects).

There's also the fact that acausal events happen.

Can you give examples of proven acausal events (excluding the start of the universe and the existence of a creator, which obviously are not proven). What you mean probably depends on your definition of causality and/or determinism, but I'm curious what you're referring to here.