The First Cause was not God.

[Thief]

You were the one who called him "spirit" and "not substance", weren't you?

What do we call something without substance? Insubstantial.

If you're uncomfortable with the implications of what you're saying, you're free to change your mind.

Let's see....insubstantial....is in small?
I didn't say that.
Weak?......didn't say that either.

Let's review that list I did post.....
Bigger, stronger, faster, more intelligent and greatly experienced.

And I have been saying Spirit first.

Coupled with the ability to create......ALMIGHTY!

Now if you would lay claim to being greater.........
I would love to be there when you do it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's see....insubstantial....is in small?
I didn't say that.
Weak?......didn't say that either.

Insubstantial means "without substance", not "weak" or "small".

Let's review that list I did post.....
Bigger, stronger, faster, more intelligent and greatly experienced.

Words like "bigger", "stronger", and "faster" can only be validly applied to things of substance.

And I have been saying Spirit first.

Coupled with the ability to create......ALMIGHTY!

Not almighty; paradox. That which affects the physical is physical itself. If your God can create substantial things, then he's "substance", as you put it.

Now if you would lay claim to being greater.........
I would love to be there when you do it.

Red herring. Another logical fallacy. Can you manage an entire post without one?

 

[idav]

Let's see....stand before the Almighty and call Him.....insubstantial.....

God would be the first substance.

 

[Sonofason]

But if we have all of the "real answers" and God isn't among them, why would you?

I am not sure why you are so quick to dismiss God as an answer. No one has ever shown that God is never the answer. God created the heavens and the earth. No one can dispute it. No one can prove it false. I am simply saying that when you do have all your answers, to all of your "real questions" God will be the common thread, He will remain the grandest of all explanations. He shall never be successfully refuted.

 

[Bunyip]

I am not sure why you are so quick to dismiss God as an answer. No one has ever shown that God is never the answer.

Sure, because nobody needs to.

God created the heavens and the earth. No one can dispute it.

Anyone can dispute that, it has not been evidenced.

No one can prove it false. I am simply saying that when you do have all your answers, to all of your "real questions" God will be the common thread, He will remain the grandest of all explanations. He shall never be successfully refuted.

 

[Thief]

Insubstantial means "without substance", not "weak" or "small".


Words like "bigger", "stronger", and "faster" can only be validly applied to things of substance.


Not almighty; paradox. That which affects the physical is physical itself. If your God can create substantial things, then he's "substance", as you put it.


Red herring. Another logical fallacy. Can you manage an entire post without one?

So I did check the definition of insubstantial before posting.
I got it right.

But to be fair the lesser item you are attempting to use is there.
I simply does not apply to spirit.

Substance and spirit are not the same thing.

and imagining the universe without a Creator is shallow.
Spirit first....then substance.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This, of course, assumes that there was a First Cause in the first place. Nevermind the concept of the multiverse.

 

[Sonofason]

Sure, because nobody needs to.

Anyone can dispute that, it has not been evidenced.

Certainly, God is evidenced by every person who believes in Him. But there again, you may think that it has not been evidenced because God has not been evidenced to you. That may say a lot about you, but it says nothing about God.

The fact that you have not received evidence of God says a whole lot more about you than it says about God.

 

[Ouroboros]

God would be the first substance.

I like that concept much better than "First Cause." Simple because I reject the idea of causality to be properly understood, both here and right now and back then. God as the first substance leaves the problems of naturalistic understanding of causality behind. *thumbs up*

 

[Runewolf1973]

Found something interesting while skimming through Wikipedia…

Thich Nhat Hanh explains: Pratitya samutpada is sometimes called the teaching of cause and effect, but that can be misleading, because we usually think of cause and effect as separate entities, with cause always preceding effect, and one cause leading to one effect. According to the teaching of Interdependent Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise (samutpada) and everything is a result of multiple causes and conditions... In the sutras, this image is given: "Three cut reeds can stand only by leaning on one another. If you take one away, the other two will fall." For a table to exist, we need wood, a carpenter, time, skillfulness, and many other causes. And each of these causes needs other causes to be. The wood needs the forest, the sunshine, the rain, and so on. The carpenter needs his parents, breakfast, fresh air, and so on. And each of those things, in turn, has to be brought about by other causes and conditions. If we continue to look in this way, we'll see that nothing has been left out. Everything in the cosmos has come together to bring us this table. Looking deeply at the sunshine, the leaves of the tree, and my butts, we can see the table. The one can be seen in the all, and the all can be seen in the one. One cause is never enough to bring about an effect. A cause must, at the same time, be an effect, and every effect must also be the cause of something else. Cause and effect inter-are. The idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself need a cause, cannot be applied.

I look at it this way also. Thich Nhat Hanh calls it inter-are, I call it interaction. There is no cause that is not also an effect. Cause and effect are one and the same. Interaction was the cause, interaction was the effect.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Certainly, God is evidenced by every person who believes in Him. But there again, you may think that it has not been evidenced because God has not been evidenced to you. That may say a lot about you, but it says nothing about God.

The fact that you have not received evidence of God says a whole lot more about you than it says about God.

Then that means all other Gods/Goddesses also exist because people experience Them and believe in Them.

 

[Thief]

Found something interesting while skimming through Wikipedia…

Thich Nhat Hanh explains: Pratitya samutpada is sometimes called the teaching of cause and effect, but that can be misleading, because we usually think of cause and effect as separate entities, with cause always preceding effect, and one cause leading to one effect. According to the teaching of Interdependent Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise (samutpada) and everything is a result of multiple causes and conditions... In the sutras, this image is given: "Three cut reeds can stand only by leaning on one another. If you take one away, the other two will fall." For a table to exist, we need wood, a carpenter, time, skillfulness, and many other causes. And each of these causes needs other causes to be. The wood needs the forest, the sunshine, the rain, and so on. The carpenter needs his parents, breakfast, fresh air, and so on. And each of those things, in turn, has to be brought about by other causes and conditions. If we continue to look in this way, we'll see that nothing has been left out. Everything in the cosmos has come together to bring us this table. Looking deeply at the sunshine, the leaves of the tree, and my butts, we can see the table. The one can be seen in the all, and the all can be seen in the one. One cause is never enough to bring about an effect. A cause must, at the same time, be an effect, and every effect must also be the cause of something else. Cause and effect inter-are. The idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself need a cause, cannot be applied.

I look at it this way also. Thich Nhat Hanh calls it inter-are, I call it interaction. There is no cause that is not also an effect. Cause and effect are one and the same. Interaction was the cause, interaction was the effect.

Oh no you don't......
You gave a list of influence and label them causes.

And this thread is not going to approach a list of conditions for the universe.

God as creator would be the Cause.
There are no details before the 'bang'.

There will not be a collection of photos, fingerprints, equations or experiments.

There will be no proof other than the universe (one word).

I don't believe substance to be a living entity of it's own.
Substance will not do anything until Something moves it.

Such is cause and effect.
Such is the Cause and His creation.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Oh no you don't......

I just did. Such is life...

 

[NicholasJClark]

i agree..

 

[Robert.Evans]

There was a First Cause. That First Cause was not something supernatural or spiritual. It was not God. It was a naturally existing force or interaction. A Fundamental Force even more fundamental than gravity or electromagnetism. Someday science will find a way to unify the four Fundamental Forces into a single, all-encompassing force. This will be the origin of the universe, the First Cause, the First Interaction.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force..." Max Plank

There is in fact something behind the existence of those Fundamental Forces. That "matrix of all matter" is not God, nor is it a conscious or intelligent mind. I believe it is another naturally existing Fundamental Force or Fundamental Interaction that science just hasn't figured out yet.

It is not God as we would think of him... it is the simple before it becomes the compoex. Science will never find that, only things physical. Science is limited.

 

[outhouse]

Science is limited.

And mythology is limited much more. Night and day difference.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The first cause argument is probably the best example of a "round house" argument I have known. Even assuming a natural origins, there is still the question of what caused that, and what caused that, and what caused that. Round and round it goes, where it stops, it never will.

 

[Robert.Evans]

And mythology is limited much more. Night and day difference.

It would depend on what you were speaking of.

Intelligence as a cause is better than luck..... your luck will not suffice. It is the problem with atheists that you never seriously address this.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am not sure why you are so quick to dismiss God as an answer. No one has ever shown that God is never the answer. God created the heavens and the earth. No one can dispute it. No one can prove it false. I am simply saying that when you do have all your answers, to all of your "real questions" God will be the common thread, He will remain the grandest of all explanations. He shall never be successfully refuted.

As you say: "He will remain the grandest of all explanations"

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It would depend on what you were speaking of.

Intelligence as a cause is better than luck..... your luck will not suffice. It is the problem with atheists that you never seriously address this.

Lets address this. What are you talking about specifically? Are you invoking this with evolution? Because we have a pretty good idea of how we evolved all the way from a simple cell to now. Nothing else required. Abiogensis is something we are not sure of but it is possible and it is the best answer we currently have evidence for.

The big bang? We don't know what caused it but there is much disorder in the universe. Then onto the universe. Do you know how many stars there are in our own Galaxy? Roughly 300 Billion stars. Do you know that galaxies form clusters. Sometimes those clusters can form super-clusters with millions and billions of galaxes? And from there they form the observable universe which is structred in string like structures called galaxy filament.

The best estimate we have for the number of stars is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. That is a trillion trillion. And this is assumed to be a gross underestimation. At "least" this many.

For life to have started on Earth a phenomenal amount of "luck" must have happened. But the probability of it happening and it happening in other places is statistically likely.