God the middleman

[gaara4158]

The cause is God, God knows the reason, we are not able to understand the mind of God, so the reason will remain unknown to us.

Why is an incomprehensible god acceptable but an incomprehensible universe isn’t?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Sure thing. Bye!

You're leaving your own thread?

 

[Paulomycin]

RE: OP

It's because most of us were misinformed about the law of causality while growing up.

An omnipotent being doesn't require a cause. Only effects require a cause. Why?

Because the law of causality is the abstract logical relationship between cause and effect.

NOT "cause & things." <-- That's the moron interpretation of it.

NOT "Everything requires a cause." <-- That's still "cause & things."

QUESTION: "If God made the world/universe...then who made God?'

This is the "gotcha" argument that tries to counter the causality argument for God. There's a lot of history on this.

It originates from Bertrand Russell via his godfather John Stuart Mill (ironic, I know).

At one point Russell was (briefly) theistic himself, until he read Mill's argument, "If everything requires a cause then who created God?"

Which is a gross error in the definition of law of causality. An error Russell took to his grave. But an error that atheists tend to perpetuate regardless.

The law of causality is not "everything requires a cause," but rather, "Every effect requires an antecedent cause."

Every thing in the universe is an effect.

"God" is never defined as a contingent effect.

Ta-daaa!

Conclusion: The causality argument is still in-play, as it has been that way all along. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable.

 

[Paulomycin]

What you have stated here is false. You're confused on the facts. The OP was four sentences long, please try to keep up.

Facts don't exist on bare assertion alone.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Not really. The Big Bang merely describes the universe expanding rapidly from that central point. Essentially, the universe already existed when the Big Bang happened, and the Big Bang spread it all out.

The conclusion upon which religious metaphysicians East and West have generally agreed is that it cannot possibly be the case that there are only contingent realities. If, beyond the scintillating, shifting, intermingling, coalescing, and dissolving spectacle of finitude, there is no reality that is independent, changeless, and logically self-explanatory, then nothing at all could ever come into or be sustained in existence; on the logical “other side” of all contingent things lies nothingness, and nothing can arise from nothing. As Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan writes, in his magisterial exposition of the metaphysics of the Upanishads, “Either we must postulate a first cause, in which case causality ceases to be a universal maxim, or we have an endless regress”; this, he says, is a “puzzle” that is resolved only by the further postulation of the “self-existent Brahman” who is “independent of time, space, and cause.” Here, I should note, Radhakrishnan is using the word “cause” to mean “contingent cause” or (in Western scholastic terms) “secondary cause” (see below), but otherwise he is merely stating a logical intuition expressed in some form or another in the metaphysical traditions of all the major theistic creeds. It can be found with equal ease in the thought of a Muslim like Ibn Sina (c. 980–1037), of a Vishishtadvaita Hindu like Ramanuja (tenth to eleventh century), of a Christian like Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), or of any of a vast number of other thinkers. It is simply the intuition that a reality based entirely upon possibility, not “upheld in being” by the creative power of any self-subsistent source of actuality, could not exist at all. Reason seems to dictate that there cannot be an endless regress of purely contingent causes of existence; each cause in that chain would have to be enabled by some logically prior cause, which would itself have to be enabled by another prior cause, and so on, and if this regress were infinite it would never be reducible back to an actual beginning; the sequence, reaching back as it must into an infinite abyss of unrealized possibilities, would never actually begin. Such an infinite regress would therefore be equivalent to nonexistence. On the other hand, neither could this chain of prior causes be traced back simply to some first finite thing, as nothing intrinsically contingent can come into being without a prior cause; the first cause could not be some limited thing that just magically happens to be there. So a finite regress of dependent causes would also be equivalent to nonexistence. At some point, then, at the source of all sources and origin of all origins, the contingent must rest upon the absolute.

One will not understand this line of reasoning properly, however, unless one recognizes that it is not concerned with the question of the temporal origins of the universe; it would make no difference for the argument whatsoever if it should turn out that the universe has existed forever and will go on existing eternally, without beginning or end, or that it belongs to some beginningless and endless succession of universes. The aforementioned Ramanuja, for instance, had no concept of an absolute beginning to the universe, and he was quite unambiguous in asserting that creation ought to be thought of not as some event occurring in time, but as the logical dependency of the world (in all its recurring cycles) upon God. Ibn Sina (or Avicenna, to give his Latin name) believed that the cosmos was eternal, rather eccentrically for a Muslim perhaps, but still argued that all contingent realities must ultimately depend on one uncaused cause that has “necessary being of itself” (wajib al-wujud bi-dhatihi). Thomas, on the other hand, happened to believe as a matter of faith that the created order did have a first moment, but he explicitly stated that there is no independent philosophical warrant for assuming the cosmos has not always existed, and strictly distinguished the question of cosmic beginnings from the question of creation. Whenever he spoke of the “first cause” of beings he was referring to an ontological, not a chronological, priority; and it was solely with this sort of causal priority that he was concerned in, for instance, the first three of his Five Ways (even the third, which is often mistaken—due partly to its almost telegraphic terseness—for an argument regarding how the universe started).

David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you asking the person who just posted that we do not know the mind of God?

Is there are reason to think that God exists for a reason at all?

 

[Halbhh]

Christians say that this is a reasonable statement which explains existence:

The universe exists because it was created by a God who exists for no reason and with no cause.



But that this is not a reasonable statement and it explains nothing:

The universe exists for no reason and with no cause.

Both are faith statements.

When you see Nature as the Eternal Creator of all that is, then you've kinda renamed God with a new name, via the key attribute: Originator of all that is. We've simply discovered more about God though, perhaps by willingness or wonder, or the humble (perceptive) awe of the child looking at the stars, for instance.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I never heard a Christian claim that God has no purpose or reason for creation. New to me. So I agree, it is not a reasonable statement.

I don't understand why you need to paraphrase it in a way that possibly changes the meaning. I said that the Christian God exists for no reason and with no cause.

Do you believe there is a cause which resulted in God's existence? Is his existence owed to some reason or does he exist no matter what?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You're leaving your own thread?

I said goodbye to you. Please follow through with leaving or else contribute to the thread. Posts like this are pollution.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Both are faith statements.

But do you believe that one is reasonable and the other is not? Or are they both reasonable or are they both unreasonable?

When you see Nature as the Eternal Creator of all that is, then you've kinda renamed God with a new name, via the key attribute: Originator of all that is. We've simply discovered more about God though, perhaps by willingness or wonder, or the humble (perceptive) awe of the child looking at the stars, for instance.

What is it that you have discovered about God?

 

[Halbhh]

But do you believe that one is reasonable and the other is not? Or are they both reasonable or are they both unreasonable?



What is it that you have discovered about God?

Both are equally 'reasonable', but one turns out to be more informative than the other.

About the last question: I have tried, and found out that I just cannot word things better (and I know from having tried over and over and over for years) than the typical wordings in the common bible. If you want to learn the most accurately and well said attributes about God, there just isn't better wording than in the bible. I really did try a lot to find more wordings, and this is just the result after many years.

For a single book from the bible, I'd suggest one of the 4 gospels to discover things about God. I could not write it shorter or better.
Here's one: John 1 NIV

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Both are equally 'reasonable', but one turns out to be more informative than the other.

About the last question: I have tried, and found out that I just cannot word things better (and I know from having tried over and over and over for years) than the typical wordings in the common bible. If you want to learn the most accurately and well said attributes about God, there just isn't better wording than in the bible. I really did try a lot to find more wordings, and this is just the result after many years.

For a single book from the bible, I'd suggest one of the 4 gospels to discover things about God. I could not write it shorter or better.
Here's one: John 1 NIV

How is it more informative to say that God created the universe? You just said it's a statement of faith, which presumably means it is not established fact, which would mean it is not actual information.

 

[Halbhh]

How is it more informative to say that God created the universe? You just said it's a statement of faith, which presumably means it is not established fact, which would mean it is not actual information.

The way I end up taking things in the Bible on faith that I haven't been able to test (such as details about past events) is by the associations to things that I know from testing hold reliably to work as they are said to work. Of course, that Christ Himself quoted things from Isaiah or from Genesis gives powerful credence to those, as it's mostly the instructions of Christ that I spent so much time putting into action and getting results on. When I learned He is so reliable, then slowly I learned I could rely on His understanding, by experience. This isn't the only way to learn that, but it's the way I did.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The way I end up taking things in the Bible on faith that I haven't been able to test (such as details about past events) is by the associations to things that I know from testing hold reliably to work as they are said to work. Of course, that Christ Himself quoted things from Isaiah or from Genesis gives powerful credence to those, as it's mostly the instructions of Christ that I spent so much time putting into action and getting results on.

Are you describing some sort of prosperity gospel? Or are the results you're getting some kind of intangible peace or wisdom? If it's wisdom, how do you actually know you're so wise? There is the Dunning-Kruger effect, after all. Following Christ should not lead you to what the world considers to be success. What exactly is it that you're doing that Christ said to do and in what way are you benefiting? Furthermore, if I listened to some random guru and benefited from his teachings, does that automatically mean his religious beliefs are correct?

When I learned He is so reliable, then slowly I learned I could rely on His understanding, by experience. This isn't the only way to learn that, but it's the way I did.

God is reliable? Hmm. Tell that to the children who were serially raped by priests and had their lives destroyed by the mental illness that resulted.

 

[Halbhh]

Are you describing some sort of prosperity gospel?

Nope. Thanks for asking.

Or are the results you're getting some kind of intangible peace or wisdom?

Those are each an outcome that is possible (and I found). They are not at not the only things we gain.

There is the Dunning-Kruger effect, after all.

Here's it looks to me like you are harming yourself for no apparent gain. If you want all other people to be not worth talking to, then disconnect from the internet and so on.

If it's wisdom, how do you actually know you're so wise?

There's a good question. I didn't claim to be, but here's something wise: to learn from experience. When something doesn't work, then change what you are doing. Also, it's classic conventional wisdom that it's wise to learn from others if you are able to do so. I figured then that Christ would be a possible source, having a reputation and standing the test of time as being thought wise through 2 millenia now. Is it wise to take a course and learn the content of the course? I think the answer would depend on how that content works in real life: Is the learning valuable when put into action. The only way to know would be to try and find out. The only experimenter that typically succeeds in more advanced experiments (such as in physics) is one that takes care and dedication to do the experiment well and carefully.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nope. Thanks for asking.


Those are each an outcome that is possible (and I found). They are not at not the only things we gain.

Ok. I'm getting nothing from your answers so far.

Here's it looks to me like you are harming yourself for no apparent gain. If you want all other people to be not worth talking to, then disconnect from the internet and so on.

It is the Bible which says, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

I'm wondering if you are professing yourself to be wise. Below you decline to do so. Good on you.

There's a good question. I didn't claim to be, but here's something wise: to learn from experience. When something doesn't work, then change what you are doing. Also, it's classic conventional wisdom that it's wise to learn from others if you are able to do so. I figured then that Christ would be a possible source, having a reputation and standing the test of time as being thought wise through 2 millenia now. Is it wise to take a course and learn the content of the course? I think the answer would depend on how that content works in real life: Is the learning valuable when put into action. The only way to know would be to try and find out. The only experimenter that typically succeeds in more advanced experiments (such as in physics) is one that takes care and dedication to do the experiment well and carefully.

The only experimenter that succeeds is the one that gets the research grant.

 

[Halbhh]

Humility is explicitly and repeatedly in the text as an absolute requirement for God's grace.

The only experimenter that succeeds is the one that gets the research grant.

Which researcher is more likely then to get the research grant? Perhaps one that is showing they are taking care and dedication generally in their efforts. And another factor can be whether they are working on a key thing that matters or could help to a breakthrough or expansion starting from important aspects of the field. One can apply all those parallels to trying out the instructions in the bible.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Humility is explicitly and repeatedly in the text as an absolute requirement for God's grace.

Yes, and believe it or not I've met many Christians who take pride in their humility.

Which researcher is more likely then to get the research grant? Perhaps one that is showing they are taking care and dedication generally in their efforts.

Perhaps the one who has the most connections.

And another factor can be whether they are working on a key thing that matters or could help to a breakthrough or expansion starting from important aspects of the field. One can apply all those parallels to trying out the instructions in the bible.

I totally disagree but it doesn't matter - we're way off course from the OP.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Christians say that this is a reasonable statement which explains existence:

The universe exists because it was created by a God who exists for no reason and with no cause.



But that this is not a reasonable statement and it explains nothing:

The universe exists for no reason and with no cause.

Which Christians say this? Do you have a source?

 

[cloudyday2]

"God" is never defined as a contingent effect.

If humans can have a give-and-take relationship with God then God must respond to our behavior. This makes God's behavior in time an effect contingent on our behavior in time.

Sometimes I have wondered if "God the Father" is "God existing OUTSIDE time" and "God the Son" is "God existing INSIDE time". So we can only have a relationship with "God the Son" because time is required for both parties.

Another observation: the word "creation" assumes a "before" and an "after" and therefore assumes that "time" already exists.

The "first cause" argument seems pretty weak to me, because it doesn't seem to address the importance of time. Life and thought seem to require time. It almost seems that time must be an innate part of God rather than being created by God so that God can be always alive? Of course in that case the distinction between God the Father and God the Son disappears, because there is only God inside time and no God outside time.

Just brainstorming some incomplete ideas.