• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What's the term to describe this?

S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Unveiled Artist said:
No. Not what they experience when they see nature but how they conclude how nature came from god/creator.

I love nature and at awe of everything when I'm out on the trails. But I don't experience a creator-feeling from it. When I see a tree, I see a tree. I don't see/feel god from it because nothing about that tree signifies (like a signature) a god created it.

But other people say it does. Since it's not obvious, is there a term of how they got to that conclusion? (I know fallacy terms have already been listed in this thread)
Click to expand...

I believe that the existence of creation shows that there is a Creator. If you see a building you know that there is a builder.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Skywalker said:
I believe that the existence of creation shows that there is a Creator. If you see a building you know that there is a builder.
Click to expand...

But we can build the building ourselves and we know who the builders are et cetera. So, it's an obvious correlation between buildings and a builder. Trees don't have the same logic; so, it sounds more of an assumption?
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Unveiled Artist said:
But we can build the building ourselves and we know who the builders are et cetera. So, it's an obvious correlation between buildings and a builder. Trees don't have the same logic; so, it sounds more of an assumption?
Click to expand...

Its the law of cause and effect. Every effect has a cause. A tree was once a sapling and that sapling was once a seed. Is God the first cause? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Is God the first cause?"

Answer: The law of cause and effect makes it apparent there must be a “first cause.” If there were a never-ending chain of causality leading into the past, there would never have been a present. Sooner or later, there must be something that itself has no cause and that caused everything else. This reality is logically inescapable, though many people debate over what—or who—this first cause is. Some wonder if God is the first cause. On the other hand, the idea of a first cause is literally beyond doubt. In that sense, it almost makes more sense to ask, “Is the first cause God?”

Combining reason with observation not only leads us to the idea that there is a first cause, but it also gives us clues about what this first cause must be like. When we combine all of that information, we wind up with a description that’s identical to the God of the Bible. God is, in fact, philosophy’s “first cause”; the best fit for all we can deduce about the first cause is the Judeo-Christian God.

Logically, the first cause must be eternal. Since it is not itself “caused,” it cannot have a beginning. God, according to the Bible, fits this description, as the only thing in existence that was not “made.” John 1:3 makes a specific distinction between things that are made and things that are not made. God, as it stands, is the only “thing” that was not made. He is eternal, always existing (Psalm 90:2).

The first cause is also necessary. There are other terms used for this idea, such as noncontingent or basic. Without the first cause, nothing else can exist. So, the first cause must exist, and there can be no reality where it does not. Everything other than the first cause is said to be “contingent.” This simply means that everything that begins—or is caused—owes its origin to something else. The first cause, on the other hand, does not and cannot depend on anything else in order to exist, since it must exist. God, again, matches this description, as the One who simply “is” and must be (Exodus 3:14) and as the One who created—who caused—all other things (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:3).

The first cause must also be changeless, since change is always triggered by some outside force or event. But since the first cause is the “first,” no other causes can affect it. This means the first cause must not only be changeless, but it must also be perfect—it is the standard of all other things, since all other things are caused by and secondary to it. Here, again, the God of the Bible matches this description: He is changeless (Malachi 3:6), perfect (Isaiah 6:3), and the source of all that is (Genesis 2:3).

Observation of the universe suggests additional details about the first cause. The first cause must be creative, since there is a great deal of diversity in the natural world (Psalm 147:4; Psalm 19:1). It must be phenomenally intelligent (Isaiah 55:8), since there is amazing structure and complexity in the universe. This first cause must also be incredibly powerful (Job 38:1–7) in order to create and sustain all of these things. Scripture speaks of exactly this kind of being.

Similarly, the existence of intelligent life in a universe finely tuned to make life possible suggests the first cause is personal. The same is true of “personal” concepts such as morality; the very notion that “what is” is a separate question from “what should be” implies something beyond the physical realm that governs those properties. Again, we are led to the idea of a single, transcendent, perfect standard—our first cause—which again is best matched by the biblical God (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Logic and observation also suggest that God, as a triune being, is easily the best explanation of the first cause. The universe exhibits both uniqueness and unity—different parts but a single system. For a property to be present in the effect, there has to be some origin for it in the cause—so, for the universe to exhibit both diversity and unity, it makes sense for that cause to be both diverse and unified, as is the Trinity.

All in all, the same logic and observations that lead us to conclude there is a “first cause” also point toward the God of the Bible. While the terminology might be different, depending on whether one approaches through philosophy, science, or theology, the end result is the same: God, as defined according to the Bible, is the first cause.
Click to expand...
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Skywalker said:
Its the law of cause and effect. Every effect has a cause. A tree was once a sapling and that sapling was once a seed. Is God the first cause? | GotQuestions.org
Click to expand...

I'm reading this and it looks like a lot of assumptions and intelligent guesses.

"So, the first cause 'must' exist, and there can be no reality where it does not."

We know the building has a builder. Even the observer of the building can build one himself. So, that logic can be made for any man-made thing.

I looked at this site years ago. I'm not sure if it changed, but it's heavily catholic biased.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Unveiled Artist said:
I got everything but the god part. For example, we know the process of having a child from conception in stages to an actual child. We see how the process comes together and don't question how they are interconnected. When we see a seed that grows into a bud and into a flower, we can usually see how that process or growth takes place. So we know the flower came from the seed or the child was conceived by egg and sperm.

But how do these things progress to god being the origin?

This exist so that "must" be true without showing a correlation between the two makes it more of an opinion or claim.
Click to expand...

What caused the sperm and egg to develop, and the seed that became a flower to develop, is too complex to just exist on its own. It could only explained by being God's creation.
 
dybmh

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Unveiled Artist said:
What's the difference?
Click to expand...
In a way they're opposites. Awe is introverted; Glory is extroverted.

The feeling of awe is more restrictive. A person feels small and is impressed by the granduer and majesty of what is surrounding them.

The feeling of glory is harder to describe. Compared to awe it's more expansive. A person feels included and encouraged and built up. From google for the word glorified: "represented in such a way as to appear more elevated or special."

Introverted vs. Extroverted
Restrictive vs. Expansive
Closing vs. Opening

That's why I think glory is a better word for this. Because the feeling that nature proves the existence of God is more extroverted.
 
Last edited:
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Unveiled Artist said:
I'm reading this and it looks like a lot of assumptions and intelligent guesses.

"So, the first cause 'must' exist, and there can be no reality where it does not."

We know the building has a builder. Even the observer of the building can build one himself. So, that logic can be made for any man-made thing.

I looked at this site years ago. I'm not sure if it changed, but it's heavily catholic biased.
Click to expand...

Darwin wasn't an atheist. He said that he didnt deny the existence of God. Darwin said, "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God." https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/was-charles-darwin-an-atheist/
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Skywalker said:
What caused the sperm and egg to develop, and the seed that became a flower to develop, is too complex to just exist on its own. It could only explained by being God's creation.
Click to expand...
This "every effect must have an intentional cause; every creation a creator," has been debunked more times than I can count.
It sounds superficially reasonable, especially when conflated with human creations, but nature doesn't work like that.

"Too complex to exist on its own" is an argument from incredulity.
"It could only be explained by God's creation" is a false dilemma.

You're proposing magic as the only reasonable explanation. Is that reasonable?
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Valjean said:
This "every effect must have an intentional cause; every creation a creator," has been debunked more times than I can count.
It sounds superficially reasonable, especially when conflated with human creations, but nature doesn't work like that.

"Too complex to exist on its own" is an argument from incredulity.
"It could only be explained by God's creation" is a false dilemma.

You're proposing magic as the only reasonable explanation. Is that reasonable?
Click to expand...

Nature doesn't work different from human creations. Things cant just come into existence-there has to be a reason, a design and a purpose. Something being too complex to exist on its own isn't an argument from incredulity because flagellum are irreducibly complex. Saying it could only be explained by God's creation isn't a false dilemma because the moral law and the heavens show that God is real.

I dont believe in magic. Magicians are either into the occult or doing illusions, all of which glorify themselves. God does everything with a design and a purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top