God the middleman

[Nihilist Virus]

Which Christians say this? Do you have a source?

Well, how about you? You'll be my source. Do you dispute a single thing in the OP?

 

[Paulomycin]

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.

- This doesn't follow. Why is God ever obligated to respond to our behavior?
- An omnipotent being is never contingent to anything.

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

Correct. In one form or another. Either Newtonian time or Leibnizian time. I prefer the latter.

The "first cause" argument seems pretty weak to me, because it doesn't seem to address the importance of time.

Law of cause & effect is not dependent on spacetime. According to Leibniz's concept of time, it doesn't exist as an actual thing. To Leibniz, time is merely how we measure the relationship between two or more objects in motion relative to one another.

Just brainstorming some incomplete ideas.

Understood. You can have the last word.

 

[Sketcher]

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.

That's when the elements came into being, so it would be more creative or at least transformative than that.

God is the cause.

God caused the Big Bang, yes. But some people need a trail of breadcrumbs in order to get there.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's when the elements came into being, so it would be more creative or at least transformative than that.

Science cannot describe the elements coming into being, as that would violate the law of conservation of matter and energy.

God caused the Big Bang, yes.

This is actually nonsense but tentatively granted for the purposes of this thread. However, you leave the point of the thread unaddressed.

But some people need a trail of breadcrumbs in order to get there.

And what exactly are the breadcrumbs?

 

[Sketcher]

Science cannot describe the elements coming into being, as that would violate the law of conservation of matter and energy.

Well, science tries:

What I'm getting at is that when you don't have the atomic structure for an element, you don't have the element, even if you have the subatomic particles.

This is actually nonsense but tentatively granted for the purposes of this thread. However, you leave the point of the thread unaddressed.

And what exactly are the breadcrumbs?

Everything that had a beginning had some sort of a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe was caused.
Because the universe was caused, someone or something caused it.
The cause of the universe must be greater than that which makes up the universe.
Therefore, the universe was caused by someone or something greater than it.
If that cause had a beginning, then someone or something than that caused it.
You can either regress like this ad infinitum, or you can say there will eventually be an uncaused cause which is eternal. By the time you get here, you're in the realm of conjecture and/or faith. By faith, the Abrahamic religions say that the uncaused cause is God.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, science tries:

What I'm getting at is that when you don't have the atomic structure for an element, you don't have the element, even if you have the subatomic particles.

Lol, you literally meant elements. Well, I've got news for you. If your criteria for the universe existing is that all of matter has coalesced into basic element atomic form, then the universe still does not exist 13 billion years after the Big Bang.

Everything that had a beginning had some sort of a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe was caused.

The Kalam Cosmological has yet to prove the first premise.

Also, what do you mean by "begin"? Does a chair "begin" to exist when it is assembled? It does have pre-existing components which comprise it, and that is nothing like creatio ex nihilo. There is no precedent for creatio ex nihilo. The Kalam Cosmological argument can only even attempt to claim that the universe must have been created out of pre-existing material.

Because the universe was caused,

This is not established.

someone or something caused it.
The cause of the universe must be greater than that which makes up the universe.

What do you mean by greater? And why must the cause be "greater"? It sounds like you're trying to apply the laws of entropy to a situation wherein the universe itself does not even exist yet, and hence the laws of entropy and thermodynamics would not exist.

Therefore, the universe was caused by someone or something greater than it.
If that cause had a beginning, then someone or something than that caused it.
You can either regress like this ad infinitum, or you can say there will eventually be an uncaused cause which is eternal. By the time you get here, you're in the realm of conjecture and/or faith. By faith, the Abrahamic religions say that the uncaused cause is God.

And after all of this, you still have yet to address the point of the OP. Why is it ok for God to exist for no reason and with no cause and yet the universe cannot do the same? Why regress past the point of the universe existing to the existence of a God, and then stop there? Why not have either infinite regress or no regress? Arbitrarily stopping at the marker designated by your pre-conceived bias is not convincing to anyone.

 

[Paulomycin]

The Kalam Cosmological has yet to prove the first premise.

That's just because the 1st premise is the law of causality in a different format. I'm surprised you never noticed.

This is not established.

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." - Stephen Hawking
​

If "beginning," then we're begging the question of cause, here. Question-begging is fallacious. Law of causality is necessary.

 

[disciple Clint]

No. It couldn't. I've stopped caring about what you have to say at this point. You have one more chance to get back on track and respond to what was actually stated, or we can be done. Up to this point it's been a complete waste of time.

Thank you for your kind offer to give me one more chance, however I am only interested in having discussions with people who are respectful and are able to defend or at least provide an intelligent explanation for their own positions.

 

[disciple Clint]

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

It would seem that both are at this point incomprehensible, there are many unanswered questions about the universe.

 

[Moral Orel]

That's when the elements came into being, so it would be more creative or at least transformative than that.

Okay, but stuff already existed when the Big Bang happened. The universe is all the stuff, so the universe already existed when the Big Bang happened. So transformative, yes. Things transformed through the Big Bang into the things we see today.

 

[gaara4158]

It would seem that both are at this point incomprehensible, there are many unanswered questions about the universe.

Indeed there are. So the category of apologetic that rests on the premise that the origins or ontological nature of the universe cannot be considered unknowable in a coherent worldview, thus the need for belief in God, is rather weak, is it not?

 

[disciple Clint]

Indeed there are. So the category of apologetic that rests on the premise that the origins or ontological nature of the universe cannot be considered unknowable in a coherent worldview, thus the need for belief in God, is rather weak, is it not?

Do I need to know everything about God in order to believe in God? Do I need to know everything about the universe in order to know that it had a start? Do I need to know anything beyond the fact that all things that have a beginning have a cause? If something has a cause then, do I need to know everything to know that at some point if I go back far enough I am going to find a cause that was uncaused?

 

[gaara4158]

Do I need to know everything about God in order to believe in God? Do I need to know everything about the universe in order to know that it had a start? Do I need to know anything beyond the fact that all things that have a beginning have a cause? If something has a cause then, do I need to know everything to know that at some point if I go back far enough I am going to find a cause that was uncaused?

I’m not sure this relates to my question. You can make arguments for the universe having a beginning or creator, but appealing to the universe’s mysterious nature isn’t a good one.

 

[disciple Clint]

I’m not sure this relates to my question. You can make arguments for the universe having a beginning or creator, but appealing to the universe’s mysterious nature isn’t a good one.

I never said it was you raised the question in your post number 21.

 

[gaara4158]

I never said it was you raised the question in your post number 21.

The issues you’re raising are separate to the question of the OP or my question in post 21. To address what you added:

Do I need to know everything about God in order to believe in God? Do I need to know everything about the universe in order to know that it had a start? Do I need to know anything beyond the fact that all things that have a beginning have a cause? If something has a cause then, do I need to know everything to know that at some point if I go back far enough I am going to find a cause that was uncaused?

Can you know that the universe itself is caused, or that its cause wasn’t some nontheistic phenomenon, itself uncaused?

 

[Kenny'sID]

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:

It explains nothing, yet it explains everything. It's a very unsatisfying comment, not to mention a true mind blower.

 

[Halbhh]

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.

In physics time is actually a thing which is quantified in various ways, and appears in equations, and then becomes possibly just a type of thing, where other types can exist possibly. So, 'real time' -- meaning the thing most people call 'time', the kind we all know first hand -- that thing, 'real time', began with this Universe, at the same moment this Universe began.

"Time" began with this Universe, and is an aspect of it also, exists from it and of it and because of it.

But other things that are time-like can exist theoretically. Other types of 'time' -- that is, another time-like dimension.

i.e. here's another type of time, not so constrained the same way as the above "time" -- Imaginary time - Wikipedia

This isn't just a wild theory without good causes to think could exist. It has a lot of seeming sense to it (though that doesn't make it necessarily likely!)

Some theories turn out later in time ( ;-) ) to be realistic (supported by observational evidence).

 

[Matt5]

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.

The universe is running down. Eventually the lights will go out. There is no known way that would cause the universe to collapse back on itself.

The known universe must have come from something else with characteristics unlike what we see in the present universe. For example, it must be timeless - exist forever. If that were not true then long ago universes would no longer be created.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

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.

Very good question I don't think there are simple answers.

If God exists outside of time—not in time, but timeless and eternal—what would that mean about God's nature? God would never 'lose' the past or anticipate the future. God would not need to know the future, because to a timeless God, there would be no future. Everything would be ever-present in one timeless moment. But how could a timeless God relate to human beings?

Is God Outside of Time? | Closer to Truth

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The universe is running down. Eventually the lights will go out. There is no known way that would cause the universe to collapse back on itself.

Couldn't gravity cause the universe to collapse back on itself? We project that the universe will expand forever due to dark energy, but we don't understand dark energy or know what it is.

The known universe must have come from something else with characteristics unlike what we see in the present universe. For example, it must be timeless - exist forever. If that were not true then long ago universes would no longer be created.

How do you know so much about the creation of a universe?