The ultimate question for theists

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not sure I would say "non-ontological", but rather (perhaps) that John presents an ontology of the spiritual rather than the physical. "God IS a spirit"..."I AM not of the world"..."glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was"..."Before Abraham was I AM"..."that they [Christians] may be one, even as we are one"...etc. God, Christ and Christians are all ontologically established as part of the realm of the "spiritual". But even in these quotes the reality of "the [physical] world", and the undeniable fact that even the most "spiritually-inclined" and "faith-filled" Christian cannot possibly avoid having to live in the reality of the physical world, is not denied. Indeed, even Jesus himself seems to grapple with this issue in prayer in Chapter 17. So I don't think, on balance, that John (or John's Jesus) is really "entirely unconcerned with the physical world". He might not have much to say about how it came to be, but taking that as meaning it (the reality or the subject of physical creation) was/is not important is a bit like saying that (the reality or the subject of) physics is not important because it is not mentioned much in Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica. Of course the spiritual realities are of great importance to theism, just as the principles of mathematics are to physics, but a theism that declines to address the question of physical creation is surely as deficient as a physics that declines to address the question of the origins of the physical universe. We might not have pat answers - but we can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend there isn't even a question.

My point here - and I may have overstepped the line in a non-debate forum - but I think it is a fair question - is this: how complete is a theism that does not address the question of how the physical world came to be?

Its a thoughtful reply, however if you insist that theism must address the question of physical creation, then you are insisting upon a tangible, visible God along with presuppositions about reality. If you believe (as John seems to) that you become increasingly real as you become more righteous then you have a sliding scale for physical reality. The concept of false realities is an ancient one and occurs in multiple cultures. People think about it all the time. Its also debated in Physics as people continue to question the nature of reality. Its what people do, so it should not surprise.

Catholics often believe that they are leaving this world and moving towards heaven as they approach eucharist in a church. Neopagans have 'Sacred spaces' which are places with an altered reality. Buddhists very logically ask what is real and whether this world is a dream. It is quite common for people to question physical reality. You can be a theist and not care about the creation of this physical appearance if what you care about is the creation of something else -- like some kind of sacred space or existence.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not sure "created" has any clear meaning in this context. If you're talking from science, we have no reason to believe that anything has ever or could ever be created in the sense of going from non-existent to existent; when we create things normally, we're shifting matter or energy from one form to another, not causing it to exist. That matter needs to have been "created" is a claim that makes no inherent sense to me except as a metaphor, since we have never in fact seen this happen. If it did, it is beyond the reach of science to help us understand, whether it is the universe, God, or both at once.

But we can talk, and I do talk, about God creating the universe in the usual sense of creation, ie, giving it its present form. This, to me, makes more sense (and frankly is more Biblical if you look at the second line of the book carefully) than the whole ex nihilo thing and doesn't require any special philosophical language. And since we are never given any sense that God has a consistent form, asking whether he or she was created as that form strikes me as an assumption too far. I have long believed that we are all part and parcel of the form of God, but even if panentheism isn't your cup of tea, anyone would have to agree that gods, in any tradition, are not contained by any particular form, and reinvent themselves as they please. It's central to what makes them gods at all: they create things, their own occasional physical manifestations included.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

As you note, the apparent 'first cause' paradox apples to either explanation 'where did THAT come from?' so that part is a wash, and a moot point, because- here we are, obviously there is a solution one way or the other!

We also know that both creative intelligence and 'natural' mechanisms exist IN the universe...

But what's not even is the capacity of creative intelligence v unguided mechanism to create the universe. Here atheism presents an additional paradox of creation without creativity.

Creative intelligence is the only phenomena that can solve this paradox of an otherwise infinite regression of automated cause and effect.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I'm not sure "created" has any clear meaning in this context. If you're talking from science, we have no reason to believe that anything has ever or could ever be created in the sense of going from non-existent to existent; when we create things normally, we're shifting matter or energy from one form to another, not causing it to exist. That matter needs to have been "created" is a claim that makes no inherent sense to me except as a metaphor, since we have never in fact seen this happen. If it did, it is beyond the reach of science to help us understand, whether it is the universe, God, or both at once.
But we can talk, and I do talk, about God creating the universe in the usual sense of creation, ie, giving it its present form. This, to me, makes more sense (and frankly is more Biblical if you look at the second line of the book carefully) than the whole ex nihilo thing and doesn't require any special philosophical language. .

So, basically, you are proposing the idea that the matter that the universe consists of has always existed, but God manipulated it in such a way that it would lead to the universe we have now? I agree this is a somewhat more logical view than the traditional view of ex nihilo creation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

This "problem" is no such thing:

1. If an atheist raises the issue, they demonstrate their a priori belief that ALL THINGS including a god MUST have a CREATOR. "Oops!"

2. If an atheist insists the universe (or what made this universe from outside the universe) was not created, and was therefore eternal, then theists can say the same thing about God, that God was always here, uncreated.

And now we need not ever hear this question again.

 

[MansFriend]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

There is a book within the book, so to speak, where holy writ is concerned. If you acquire all of the keys of interpretation in order to fully decipher the real meanings, you would find the answer to your question. In short, God recreates himself/herself every time there is a "new heavens and a new earth". I put that in quotes because cosmological references are symbolic in nature. It doesn't require a new physical universe, galaxy, solar system, planet, etc. for this to happen.

A good example I use is the programming environment I write computer software in was written by itself. Delphi is written in Delphi. If you want to answer the question of how something can be written by itself and recreate itself over and over, just make a study of how it came to be that Delphi is written in Delphi and you will get much closer to an understanding of the truth.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

This "problem" is no such thing:

1. If an atheist raises the issue, they demonstrate their a priori belief that ALL THINGS including a god MUST have a CREATOR. "Oops!"

2. If an atheist insists the universe (or what made this universe from outside the universe) was not created, and was therefore eternal, then theists can say the same thing about God, that God was always here, uncreated.

And now we need not ever hear this question again.

But why make the supposition that an eternal God exists? Why not save a step and regard the universe as uncaused? Certainly if all things require a cause, then God cannot exist, because God, by definition is causeless. So, in order for God to exist, we must accept that the law of causality does not always apply. But, if it doesn't, then there is no need for a God to cause the universe, since the cosmological argument is based upon the premise that the law of causality is true.

 

[miodrag]

...The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?"

Definitions and conventions, again. What is the Universe, what is God?

Gaudiya Vaishnava "definition" of God (rather: convention, I hold that there can be no definition of God) is given in the first verse of Brahma-samhita 5.1:

Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ, sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ, anādir ādir govindaḥ, sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam.

Translation:
Krsna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.

Btw, this also means God is not invisible.

So, the very convention of what we consider as God is that He is eternal. Whatever was created, it cannot be God, but comes out of Him.

Common understanding of the Universe is that it is everything that exist. Not so in Vaishnavism, which says that our material Universe was created, along with many others, and they all form clusters, like a foam in the sea of creation. All this is called the mahat-tattva, or the sum total of the material creation. Beyond this, there is a spiritual Universe, which is eternal. Salvation means crossing from material to the spiritual world.

So, your dilemma does not apply to Vaishnavism, but only to certain ideologies, and you basically question if these ideologies are valid. Your objections are not logical, but based on presumptions.

In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused,

Because that's not what happened.

Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being.

They must not, they can just settle with leaving it as the unknown. Scope of our knowledge may be limited.

Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God.

No logic here, again. What is wrong with God being eternal, and then creating a material Universe, which will last for some time, then perish, and then maybe another Universe will be created?

To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know.

There are two ways of gaining knowledge, according to Hinduism. One way is upwards, exploring and learning by our own efforts, and another way is downwards, asking those who already have the answers. Considering our nature and the nature of some questions, we may conclude that we cannot possibly find all the answers following the upwards way, since our mind and senses are imperfect and limited. Dogma is the downwards way and it means an information revealed by a higher authority.

 

[neologist]

. . . if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. . .

No argument for (or against) the existence of God can be stated with certainty.

Whatever one believes, it should be without desire for license or grasp for reward.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

Because it's turtles all the way down, until you get to the elephant.

 

[Politesse]

So, basically, you are proposing the idea that the matter that the universe consists of has always existed, but God manipulated it in such a way that it would lead to the universe we have now? I agree this is a somewhat more logical view than the traditional view of ex nihilo creation.

I suppose. Truthfully, I don't think we know a lot about the origin of the universe, if it has one, one way or another. But what you describe seems more coherent with what we do know. So when I talk about God creating things, that's what I mean. If there is a deeper truth beyond that, we have no access to it, nor expectation of such access any time soon.

 

[cirillo]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

As a believer in the bible my opinion is very simple: God has always existed and at some point in history has created the universe

 

[Searching1981]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

This is a great question. I know the answer from my mystical perspective but you will not be satisfied with the answer. How do I describe it to you so that you are at least a little bit more aware. Hmmmmm....

The problem you are facing, respectfully, is that you feel you were born and have a beginning because that is the illusion of this universe i.e. we have a beginning and an end. The reality is me, you, everyone all throughout the Universe always was even before this place and always be without beginning or end.

We are all from the Darma which I call Everything where we lived with ideal bodies and in an effort to transcend Everything or the Darma we come to this place where we face the illusion of beginning, end and nothing.

The reality is nothing is not a concept in the absolute but a relative term; life and existence and the infinite are the standard outside this place. So, just like we always were and will be God and Goddess always are and will be. So, then what are we? We are the literal embodiment of our ideas (The physical representation of ideas) where God and Goddess are the literal embodiment of all ideas. Think Platonism where Plato knew the idea is transcendent and always is even if the material suggests it is not there at the moment.

Cheers!

 

[slave_of_god]

But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

Not sure what the issue is. The first thing we need to establish is the fact that we cannot have an infinite past. If there was an infinite past, we would never have the present.
So, there was at some time a "beginning" of time, space ,matter, energy, which is in line with the modern theory of inflation and so on.
Also, we can only go by what science tells us. If the leading cosmologists are saying that the universe had a beginning, then why go against their theory and come up with fairy tales about infinity, multiverse etc.

The real problem is for Atheism to prove things like non-existence of a Creator, consciousness, origin of reason, rationality, objective morality etc.

 

[Robert Vincelette]

To have cause and effect and a primary cause at the beginning of time you have to have time which did not exist before time itself existed. There is no reason we have to understand or expect to conform to our limited experiences something that came from beyond time and space. Thus, we do not know enough to make any conclusions about so narrow a question as within the confines of time and space.

 

[Searching1981]

Not sure what the issue is. The first thing we need to establish is the fact that we cannot have an infinite past. If there was an infinite past, we would never have the present.

Please, hash that idea out. Why can we not have an infinite past and what is the danger of an infinite past to the concept of the present?

 

[fire]

Most people that imply "I'm interested" are in fact NOT interested but prefer to argue their beliefs or dogma, otherwise they would themself be enlightened.
First off, the premise of your question is based upon the false belief that indeed, things are created, or that the universe is real and tangible. When you judge true reality with a touchstone made from unicorn horns, the truth is impossible to discover.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...... The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

In Scripture I find God is also known as Creator [singular], so how can a Creator have a creator, to me, he can't.
The words in Psalms ' from everlasting ' are mentioned in connection to God/Creator.
So, God/Creator had No beginning. Just as we can everlastingly count both forwards and backwards forever.
To me, the principle of ' cause and effect ' goes hand in hand.
God/Creator ' purposed ' for a visible material realm of existence.
Kind of like the Creator was branching out in His 'creation business' to include physical life.
In purposing our Universe, God/Creator used His 'power' and 'strength' [His dynamic energy] to create the visible world of existence according to Isaiah 40:26. In other words, God/Creator did Not create out of nothing.
Through God/Creator's abundantly needed energy, then God ' caused ' the material world into existence with the everlasting ' effect ' that mankind can exist on Earth forever.

 

[slave_of_god]

Most people that imply "I'm interested" are in fact NOT interested but prefer to argue their beliefs or dogma, otherwise they would themself be enlightened.
First off, the premise of your question is based upon the false belief that indeed, things are created, or that the universe is real and tangible. When you judge true reality with a touchstone made from unicorn horns, the truth is impossible to discover.

How would you interpret reality then? Are you suggesting that everything around you is just a construct of your mind?

 

[slave_of_god]

Please, hash that idea out. Why can we not have an infinite past and what is the danger of an infinite past to the concept of the present?

If you keep going back in a physical past of events, you would only keep going back without coming forward. Think about it. This is why there is no such thing as infinity. It is merely an abstract mathematical concept if you interpret the universe naturally.
0 + 0 is not equal to 1.