Trying to fathom the beginning of all things always mind f***s me.
How did God begin?
11,471 Views |
143 Replies |
Last: 10 mo ago by Rudyjax
Some early human started thinking about existence and decided there must be something powerful that created it all.
the first cause argument always fascinated me. probably because the idea of God always existing and having no starting point, and the big bang being the true beginning of time with nothing before it both equally break my brain and make no sense.
love me a good existential crisis on a Friday morning
love me a good existential crisis on a Friday morning
schmendeler said:
Some early human started thinking about existence and decided there must be something powerful that created it all.
How did the Universe begin
What we know and experience as "the universe" now likely began at the big bang. The evidence seems to point towards that.
He begat the Son and spirated the Holy Spirit.
schmendeler said:
What we know and experience as "the universe" now likely began at the big bang. The evidence seems to point towards that.
..but, what set the Big Bang in motion? I can't believe that something as complex as the Universe just happened randomly, out of nowhere.
I don't know. But it seems like you may already have some opinions formed yourself.
Some 20th century human started thinking about existence and decided there must be something powerful that created it all.schmendeler said:
What we know and experience as "the universe" now likely began at the big bang. The evidence seems to point towards that.
...And the available evidence has shown that that idea has a significant degree of merit.
God has always been. He is the Alpha and Omega.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I like Aquinas's argument from efficient causes.
Aquinas' argument from efficient causes, also known as "the second way"is straightforward and does not lend itself to many interpretative disputes. The argument is as follows:
In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for then it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate [cause] is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (ST Ia 2.3).
For our purposes, it might be helpful to present Aquinas' argument in a more formal way:
[ol]
The world contains instances of efficient causation (given). Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. So, every efficient cause seems to have a prior cause. But we cannot have an infinite regress of efficient causes. So there must be a first efficient cause "to which everyone gives the name God." [/ol]
https://iep.utm.edu/thomas-aquinas-political-theology/
Aquinas' argument from efficient causes, also known as "the second way"is straightforward and does not lend itself to many interpretative disputes. The argument is as follows:
In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for then it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate [cause] is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (ST Ia 2.3).
For our purposes, it might be helpful to present Aquinas' argument in a more formal way:
[ol]
https://iep.utm.edu/thomas-aquinas-political-theology/
schmendeler said:
I don't know. But it seems like you may already have some opinions formed yourself.
I just don't understand Atheists. You think the idea of a creator is outlandish. You think everything just randomly happened out of nowhere, which I think is outlandish.
I don't necessarily believe in a Christian God btw. I just believe in a creator of some sort. It blows my mind to try and imagine this creator beginning.
Andrew Dufresne said:schmendeler said:
I don't know. But it seems like you may already have some opinions formed yourself.
I just don't understand Atheists. You think the idea of a creator is outlandish. You think everything just randomly happened out of nowhere, which I think is outlandish.
I don't necessarily believe in a Christian God btw. I just believe in a creator of some sort. It blows my mind to try and imagine this creator beginning.
I think most Atheists would say about the question of existence that they do not know. Personally, I certainly would not assert that everything just 'happened from nowhere' or even that existence has purely material explanations.
The problem with a Creator is nearly the same as the problem of material explanation in that the Creator needs an origin or an explanation. The claim that God does not need an origin or explanation is purely speculation. Ascribing characteristics to a Creator like infinite, timeless, outside of time, outside of existence, outside of material reality, or saying that God has no origin and no beginning . . . . none of it means anything. None of those terms can be experienced, or described, or tested, or examined. Their meaning is the same as 'I don't know', but disguised as something else.
I think that any solution put forth to explain existence is outlandish. And expect that whatever the Truth is is probably even more outlandish than we can imagine.
This is where I'm at. Any attributes we associate with a deity can only be expressed within the limits of the human mind and our evolutionary and personal experiences. Our ability to describe and perceive the universe is similarly limited by our biology and the environment we exist in. Any ultimate answer is likely always beyond our comprehension. If people want to use this to justify belief in a God, okay. But it's not something that actually answers the questions, it's just an assumption of an answer.
this is my issue too. the universe is far too immense to be comprehended by a tiny human brain. it is under no obligation to make sense to us.
I do find origin explanations frustrating for this reason. none of it makes any sense. Stephen Hawking said the phrase "before the big bang" is like saying "north of the north pole" i.e. it's impossible to go beyond that point. I also get frustrated thinking about that. this is a question that human beings will likely never answer.
I do find origin explanations frustrating for this reason. none of it makes any sense. Stephen Hawking said the phrase "before the big bang" is like saying "north of the north pole" i.e. it's impossible to go beyond that point. I also get frustrated thinking about that. this is a question that human beings will likely never answer.
The size of the universe compared to us has no bearing on the point of beginnings. If you allow for the possibility that the was some other "thing" before our universe that caused it into being, then there are a couple of points about that. First would be that our equations for the early universe are just missing some terms that we don't know yet, because they go to infinity at the singularity. But more importantly, the "thing" that caused our universe to begin must, itself have a beginning. It's impossible to have an infinite regression of causes for an infinite past, because if there was an infinite past, then today would not have arrived yet. The fact that anything exists today, right now, is proof there was a beginning that could only have come from nothing and no time before that moment.
kurt vonnegut said:Andrew Dufresne said:schmendeler said:
I don't know. But it seems like you may already have some opinions formed yourself.
I just don't understand Atheists. You think the idea of a creator is outlandish. You think everything just randomly happened out of nowhere, which I think is outlandish.
I don't necessarily believe in a Christian God btw. I just believe in a creator of some sort. It blows my mind to try and imagine this creator beginning.
I think most Atheists would say about the question of existence that they do not know. Personally, I certainly would not assert that everything just 'happened from nowhere' or even that existence has purely material explanations.
The problem with a Creator is nearly the same as the problem of material explanation in that the Creator needs an origin or an explanation. The claim that God does not need an origin or explanation is purely speculation. Ascribing characteristics to a Creator like infinite, timeless, outside of time, outside of existence, outside of material reality, or saying that God has no origin and no beginning . . . . none of it means anything. None of those terms can be experienced, or described, or tested, or examined. Their meaning is the same as 'I don't know', but disguised as something else.
I think that any solution put forth to explain existence is outlandish. And expect that whatever the Truth is is probably even more outlandish than we can imagine.
Denying the existence of a creator is still positing a materialist view of the universe. Some intellectually honest atheists will ultimately say they don't know when faced with an argument like the one above attributed to Aquinas, but they are still making a positive claim about the genesis of the universe. Otherwise they should be indifferent. "Creationism, materialism. Who knows?" Right?
this always happens I've noticed. That atheists grant to themselves that the non existence of a creator is the likeliest scenario, therefore Christianity at least has a much heavier burden in any discussion because they're the only ones making a positive truth claim.
If you believe that empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence or that you can't know if a thing is true absent scientific evidence, then you'll deny the existence of a creator, but then you should also deny observational science and everything that's based on the assumption that we can rely on our sense perceptions. You cannot make positive claims about anything at all, ever.
That's quite a leap to make. I can fly in a plane, use a smart phone, navigate using satellites, get immunizations against diseases, among a thousand other things brought to us by observational science.
Religion has none of that.
If you want to say they are equal then you might as well assume that nothing other than your own mind exists and everything else is a dream or simulation.
Religion has none of that.
If you want to say they are equal then you might as well assume that nothing other than your own mind exists and everything else is a dream or simulation.
schmendeler said:
That's quite a leap to make. I can fly in a plane, use a smart phone, navigate using satellites, get immunizations against diseases, among a thousand other things brought to us by observational science.
Religion has none of that.
If you want to say they are equal then you might as well assume that nothing other than your own mind exists and everything else is a dream or simulation.
Which is an actual philosophy. Solipsism. And it's the logical conclusion of radical empiricism.
You can't think of it as linear like time. God has no beginning. Even if you take the religious tone out of the question and asked how did the void begin before the big bang?Andrew Dufresne said:
Trying to fathom the beginning of all things always mind f***s me.
Its definitely a great deal more difficult to fathom this idea because we only live in a world where time is linear and we perceive a beginning and end based on that.
kurt vonnegut said:Andrew Dufresne said:schmendeler said:
I don't know. But it seems like you may already have some opinions formed yourself.
I just don't understand Atheists. You think the idea of a creator is outlandish. You think everything just randomly happened out of nowhere, which I think is outlandish.
I don't necessarily believe in a Christian God btw. I just believe in a creator of some sort. It blows my mind to try and imagine this creator beginning.
I think most Atheists would say about the question of existence that they do not know. Personally, I certainly would not assert that everything just 'happened from nowhere' or even that existence has purely material explanations.
The problem with a Creator is nearly the same as the problem of material explanation in that the Creator needs an origin or an explanation. The claim that God does not need an origin or explanation is purely speculation. Ascribing characteristics to a Creator like infinite, timeless, outside of time, outside of existence, outside of material reality, or saying that God has no origin and no beginning . . . . none of it means anything. None of those terms can be experienced, or described, or tested, or examined. Their meaning is the same as 'I don't know', but disguised as something else.
I think that any solution put forth to explain existence is outlandish. And expect that whatever the Truth is is probably even more outlandish than we can imagine.
Not to derail too much but doesn't this break down into a problem of your personal experience being the measure of reality?
To expound, liturgical Christians would say that we do participate in time in a non-linear fashion every time we take communion. Christ is present but not re-sacrificed; it is participation in the original sacrifice. Likewise some churches sing what is said in Ezekiel and Revelation as the angels and archangels do. We would say we participate in eternal worship with heaven rather than simply performing some meaningless symbolic ritual on a linear timeline on earth.
So I view it as a bit of a quandary for the atheist to say they don't know but to rule out the explanation of others. It's the step beyond their knowledge that seems unsupportable.
Liturgical Christians can claim this, but there's zero evidence to back that claim up. It's just a claim. It's metaphysics by definition: it's beyond physics or any ability to verify.
kurt vonnegut said:Andrew Dufresne said:schmendeler said:
I don't know. But it seems like you may already have some opinions formed yourself.
I just don't understand Atheists. You think the idea of a creator is outlandish. You think everything just randomly happened out of nowhere, which I think is outlandish.
I don't necessarily believe in a Christian God btw. I just believe in a creator of some sort. It blows my mind to try and imagine this creator beginning.
I think most Atheists would say about the question of existence that they do not know. Personally, I certainly would not assert that everything just 'happened from nowhere' or even that existence has purely material explanations.
I'm not necessarily trying to quote you but I did want to clarify a piece of this; atheists may not know the answer to how or why we exist but, by definition, they believe it CANNOT be a deity. That is the literal definition of atheism, no? "I think most Atheists would say about the question of existence that they do not know... Except that they know it can't be a deity"
I'd put your quote more as an agnostic belief. Simply put, there is no way to know.
Someone feel free to correct me.
Sapper Redux said:
Liturgical Christians can claim this, but there's zero evidence to back that claim up. It's just a claim. It's metaphysics by definition: it's beyond physics or any ability to verify.
No doubt but so is any theory of the universe. You can't know what you don't know and you can't verify what you don't know. That's why certainty rests at the individual level in this discussion. 'Honest' inquiry in this context requires you to reject also the idea of others being wrong because you don't know the limits of your own knowledge. All you could reasonably and agreeably say is that something isn't provable with your chosen methods at a given time.
How do you invalidate my experience of time or description of it? You not knowing how to test it doesn't mean I don't experience it, or that it ultimately can't be tested.
So much of what people are attributing to an atheist is really that of an agnostic.kurt vonnegut said:Andrew Dufresne said:schmendeler said:
I don't know. But it seems like you may already have some opinions formed yourself.
I just don't understand Atheists. You think the idea of a creator is outlandish. You think everything just randomly happened out of nowhere, which I think is outlandish.
I don't necessarily believe in a Christian God btw. I just believe in a creator of some sort. It blows my mind to try and imagine this creator beginning.
I think most Atheists would say about the question of existence that they do not know. Personally, I certainly would not assert that everything just 'happened from nowhere' or even that existence has purely material explanations.
The problem with a Creator is nearly the same as the problem of material explanation in that the Creator needs an origin or an explanation. The claim that God does not need an origin or explanation is purely speculation. Ascribing characteristics to a Creator like infinite, timeless, outside of time, outside of existence, outside of material reality, or saying that God has no origin and no beginning . . . . none of it means anything. None of those terms can be experienced, or described, or tested, or examined. Their meaning is the same as 'I don't know', but disguised as something else.
I think that any solution put forth to explain existence is outlandish. And expect that whatever the Truth is is probably even more outlandish than we can imagine.
I will second Schmendeler's link. The term agnostic atheist seems to apply pretty well to most of the atheists here. While I may reject a belief in a specific Gods or gods, I don't hold the positive belief that there must not be a God. And I am unconvinced that such knowledge is even accessible to us.
First, Kurt, I love your posts here. You are articulate and well reasoned.Quote:
And I am unconvinced that such knowledge is even accessible to us.
However, I do disagree with your statement quoted above. Such knowledge is not only accessible but abundant and clear.
From many of your previous posts you seem to pick apart (quite ably) individual arguments or evidences for the existence of God and/or the truth of Christianity. You show, in essence, that each individual argument or evidence may not be quite absolute.
However, there seems to be at least two errors in your overall approach. First, there is no absolute argument or evidence for anything in life. I can neither prove to you or even myself that the chair I'm sitting in exists. However, it is unreasonable for me to deny its existence for any number or resons. The title of McDowell's magnus opus, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", captures this point very well. We cannot expect "proof" of anything. Rather, like the court system, we should base our conclusions on the weight of the evidence. The evidence for God is similarly so abundant that it is unreasonable to deny it even though we are incapable of proving his existence.
Second, you ignore the compounding power of thevidence and arguments. Let's say, by way of hypothetical, that there are 5 arguments for the existence of God. You go through each one and show how each has weaknesses. You, in effect, show that each argument has only a 70% chance of being correct, and that simply isn't powerful enough for you.
However, it seems to me, that you ignore the fact that all 5 arguments must be false for there to be no God. If any one is correct, then there is a God. Using elementary statistics (which even at that level is way over my head), then there's actually a 99.8% chance that God exists (1 minus 30% to the 5th power).
I hesitate to use statistics to prove the existence of God. Rather, my use here is simply to illlustrate the power of all of the evidences and arguments for God in the aggregate. And, on the other side, there do not seem to be many arguments or evidences against the existence of God. Instead, the arguments, on this board at least, seem to be simply "we can't know".
We can know, do know, and the evidence is everywhere around us.
I think you overstate the compelling degree of those arguments to someone not already inclined to believe them.
I don't think so. My point clearly was not based on the compelling nature of any particular argument, but on the compound effect of all of the arguments. Even if the odds of any specific argument for God as being correct is only 1/99, at some point the number of such arguments makes the statistical odds of there being no god essentially zero. Again, all it takes is for any one of the arguments to be true.schmendeler said:
I think you overstate the compelling degree of those arguments to someone not already inclined to believe them.
And many of the arguments for God are compelling. Simply because some deny their probative value does not make them non-probative. Many of the arguments for God (or a hyper-intelligent designer) have no alternative purely materialistic explanation.
You can apply that to anything. Just reverse it and show that after enough arguments against god with some arbitrarily low percentage assigned to them stacked together then the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of god not existing. Or do it for the Muslim god or Hindu gods ect.
This of course assumes all arguments and results are truly independent.
The is a more formal way of reasoning through statistics based on bayes theorem that isn't inherently absurd it's just the probability distribution and priors are simply made up nonsense. You can find Bayesian arguments that the probability of god existing is 79% and another one arguing that Jesus didn't even exist as a near certainty. Neither one does anything explicitly wrong in terms of math or theory it's just different proirs and distributions.
You even have inconsistencies of what "god" is going to mean. You get very different results with god or not god, then god of religion x denomination y or god of philosophy z interpretation w.
I find both of these a sort of navel gazing. I think an atheist will find such arguments just as compelling as a Christian would the reverse-not at all.
This of course assumes all arguments and results are truly independent.
The is a more formal way of reasoning through statistics based on bayes theorem that isn't inherently absurd it's just the probability distribution and priors are simply made up nonsense. You can find Bayesian arguments that the probability of god existing is 79% and another one arguing that Jesus didn't even exist as a near certainty. Neither one does anything explicitly wrong in terms of math or theory it's just different proirs and distributions.
You even have inconsistencies of what "god" is going to mean. You get very different results with god or not god, then god of religion x denomination y or god of philosophy z interpretation w.
I find both of these a sort of navel gazing. I think an atheist will find such arguments just as compelling as a Christian would the reverse-not at all.
Without God, it is impossible to have any authority for the laws of logic to exist.
So…what can we be sure of knowing that is not material?
So…what can we be sure of knowing that is not material?
Except the arguments being made here are not that God does not exist, but rather that people are unsure if he exists.
Also, I'm not aware of arguments that constitute a proof that God does not exist, per se. Can you summarize them for me? Most of the arguments I've seen from a materialistic perspective are that there is no evidence that God exists, which obviously is completely different than an affirmative argument that God does not exist.
Finally, you refer to the gods of the Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Were we talking specifically about the God of Christianity? I thought that this thread was simply about the existence of god, whatever brand he/she/it might be.
Also, I'm not aware of arguments that constitute a proof that God does not exist, per se. Can you summarize them for me? Most of the arguments I've seen from a materialistic perspective are that there is no evidence that God exists, which obviously is completely different than an affirmative argument that God does not exist.
Finally, you refer to the gods of the Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Were we talking specifically about the God of Christianity? I thought that this thread was simply about the existence of god, whatever brand he/she/it might be.
Fine. I may debate that later. But the evidence of God's existence is found directly above your post.
Featured Stories
See All
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
8h ago
4.6k
12:07
7h ago
7.5k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
1:54
22h ago
1.0k
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger