by Justin
What caused God?
11:59 pm in Matters of Faith, Video by Justin
What caused God?
82
Leave a Reply
To start connecting please log in first. You can also create an account.
Recently Active Member Avatars
Secured by
Z.
Firstly is not joking silly? You said yourself you were joking, that is enough to be labled silly in my book.
Secondly, Where have you disproved anything?…
How does on disprove something that they do not accept exists at all? One must first provide grounds to accept the thing, then go about proving how the “thing” does not fit those grounds that would make it acceptable.
Your most nobel attempts to “disprove” God would only be to provide reason why one view of God, or another, is incorrect.
D.
“How does on disprove something that they do not accept exists at all?”
Are you saying I couldn’t try to disprove… Oh, I don’t know…. Three inch talk men that live under my sink, who have fun making the drain pipe leak? I don’t think there are any three inch talk men that live under my sink. So I should try to disprove their existence to someone who believes there are? Really?
D.
Anyway, I was disproving the Christian god, not Thor. So you don’t need to get all upset.
You know sometimes a person will make a joke for serious reasons. Do you judge everyone like this? If you do you must not have very many friends. Do you every make jokes? I guess not… You should be glad that I don’t have a book to put your name in, who knows what I would write next to it. Made “over judgmental”? But I don’t have one so I won’t write it down. After all we are all multidimensional in our personalities right?
How about if you explain to me where I when wrong in my proof. Or is this not a good place for that kind of thing?
Myles,
I don’t agree that premise 1 commits the fallacy of composition. For one thing, there is significant justification for premise 1. If the universe did not have an efficient cause, that means that it came from nothing. Out of nothing, comes nothing. So to reject premise 1 would be to accept that this universe came from nothing. That, of course, is not logical. So the premise still stands.
According to the fallacy of composition, it is fallacious to say that the whole of the argument has the same characteristics as its individual parts. In your reply, you assume the universe to be the whole, and everything within it to be its parts. I don’t think that is what the Kalam Cosmological Argument implies:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This argument does not deem the universe as the whole. It makes existence the whole. Therefore, everything that began within existence must have a cause. This includes the universe, since the universe exists, and it began. To say that the universe began but had a cause would be special pleading. Since everything else that began within existence had a cause.
Sorry I meant to say: To say that the universe began but did not have a cause would be special pleading. Sorry about that.
Holyfire, when i wrote universe I meant the sum of existence. Are you saying that they are not the same thing? Can you name something that is part of existence but not part of the universe?
If you arent saying the sum of existence must have a cause because its consituent parts appeat to then why do you assume it does?(Please there is no need to rewrite the 3 premises again, i think we are familiar enough with this arguement by now. It is not a new one, having predated christianity by several centuries.)To quote Mackie ” Even if the Causal Principle applies to events in the world, we cannot extrapolate from the way the world works to the world as a whole. To assume that the universe complies with our own preferences for causal order is not justified.”
And lastly I am not special pleading because I never said that the universe was the only thing that does not require a cause. Perhaps there are other things that do not as well.
Well I think the point of the debate we are having is to find out whether or not the universe is the sum of all existence. I do believe that God exists outside of the universe, but that He also works within it. So I would answer yes to your question.
The problem with saying that this universe came from nothing, is that you have no way of explaining its existence. I’m not saying that not knowing exactly how this universe was created proves God’s existence, however, if it came from nothing then there is no explanation to be found. If one were to ask what created the universe, the reply would be “Nothing”. If one were to ask what happened at the beginning, the answer would be “Nothing”. However, this isn’t logical. Premise 2 has evidence to show that something happened at the beginning, therefore, something had to make it happen.
1. If the universe came from nothing, then nothing happened at its beginning.
2. We have evidence to show that something happened at the beginning.
3. Therefore, our universe did not come from nothing.
Since our universe couldn’t have come from nothing, then it is fair to say that it isn’t the sum of all existence. Therefore, it is logical to say that, since it had a beginning, it would also need a cause just like everything else that began to exist.
Have a good day!
You see, you are extrapolating that the universe needs a cause because everything within it has a cause when you say”Therefore, it is logical to say that, since it had a beginning, it would also need a cause just like everything else that began to exist.” But again, just because everything that that composes somthing appears to possesses a trait does not mean that the whole possesses the same trait. Especially when the trait in question is a relational trait like cause and effect.
It may sound illogical to say that something came from nothing or that the universe ’caused itself’. The law of conservation says that energy can not be created or destroyed but that only applies to the amount existing in the system, not to the system itself. To paraphrase Mackie, there is no reason to assume that the universe adheres to our quaint notions of order that we derive from our everyday lives. Also cause and effect only make sense when thought about within the context of time. Before there was time(as in before the universe was) then cause and effect would not have meaning.
Again, you are assuming that the universe is the sum of all existence. If nothing existed before the universe, then there was nothing to cause the universe to exist; this is what your argument asserts. My question is how do you logically conclude that an effect can take place without a cause?
Also, in reference to you assertion that cause and effect presuppose time, how do you define causality? And why do you assume that it presupposes time and space? I can already show that cause and effect does not require space. Subsequent mental thoughts do not require space in order to have a cause and effect relationship.
Also, if simultaneous cause and effect relationships exist, then it would not be neccesary for the cause to be present prior(in time) to the cause. They would take place simultaneously. Thus time wouldn’t be necessary either. Cause and effect could exist in an asymetric dependency relation. As Dr. Craid says, “For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don’t support the ceiling!”
To quote Dr. Craig again:
“Imagine C and E are the cause and the effect. If C were to vanish before the time at which E is produced, would E nevertheless come into being? Surely not! But if time is continuous, then no matter how close to E’s appearance C’s disappearance takes place, there will always be an interval of time between C’s disappearance and E’s appearance. But then why or how E came into being when it does seems utterly mysterious, for there is no cause at that moment to produce it.”
There is no logical reason to assume that an effect can take place without a cause. Mackie’s assertion:
“there is no reason to assume that the universe adheres to our quaint notions of order that we derive from our everyday lives.”— This doesn’t hold any logical weight. He provides no evidence of something beginning to exsit without a cause. He only assumes that the universe must not have a cause. Why he believes this is unclear to me.
Z.
I find your lack of understanding, and dismissal of other’s comment appaling. If you have read what I have said you would have seen that I am a Christian, and thus worship the God of those christians. I also am a floklorist and see that you don’t really understand the faiths you pull into your conversations. By overt comparison of the Christian Creator God with Thor the Nors Justice God, you are diminishing the value placed on the seperate ideals of the two religions.
You also say you are serious and yet joking. This is independantly and oximoron. So your flipantness was serious joking?
D.
ok…
I don’t understand, you don’t understand. Lets call it good.
I didn’t know you were a folklorist. What do you think about J.R.R. Tolkien? He was somewhat of a folklorist also.
Holyfire it is irrelevant to my point whether the universe is the sum of existence or not. And I do not need to demonstrate how an effect can exist wihtout a cause. Your arguement posits that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I am questioning this assumption. Tell me, why do you assume that this is so? As you correctly pointed out earlier just because I do not know how the universe came about does not prove there is a god. Basically what you are saying is that god must exist because you can not concieve of a universe(or anything else) that exists without a cause. Mackie is not saying that the universe does not have a cause, merely that we can not assume that it does just by observing how the parts of it seem to act.
I feel like i have to respond to Ditchu as well. Just because Thor was not regarded as a creator in Norse mythos does not mean that there can be no comparison with he and the christian god. Also, people may worship him as a creator now even though that was not how he was traditionally recognised. Since you are a folklorist you must know how myths are not static but are constantly changing.
Z.
Although way off topic here… J.R.R. Tolkien is one of my “heros.”
I do see the folklorist in his work, I also note others as folklorists yet lesser known than the wold acclaimed Tolkien: Hugh Nibblie, and Daniel Wojcik…
My list goes on but at the moment I do not have enough time to do it justice.
God bless,
-D
Myles,
Of course Myth is constantly changing, as the Mythos tries to match the needs of the people, as the preception of the mass changes so to it affects the understanding and relationship to their Mythos and thus even our current view of our God may differ, however slightly, from that of people mentioned in our Myths. I am sure when Moses wrote the first 5 books of our modern age Bible he did not inturprate that we would have people eat bread and drink water or wine in symbology of the body and blood of Jesus christ the redeamer.
Thor was not the Creator god of the norse, but a comparison may be made, however that comparison would need either include many gods of the norse to compair differing attributes to the Christian God, or one would have to relate all the attributes of the Christian God that do not apply to Thor. Else we belittle our own intelligance and attempt to just make the entire view of both religions into a joke.
That display of contempt has no place in the discussion of religion nor the study of folklore.
Myles,
I believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause, because something cannot begin to exist without a cause. By saying we cannot assume that the universe has a cause, Mackie is affirming the plausibility of the opposite, which is, this universe came from nothing, or had no cause. Yet if we are to assume that that statement is true, we must have a reason to do so. Yet Mackie provides no such reason, and he fails to provide the much needed explanation of how an effect can happen without a cause. Without this reasoning, his statement can only be classified as an opinion, and therefore, holds no sway in a logical debate.
It is not always fallacious to draw conclusions on a whole based on the parts; as long as one provides logical reasoning behind that conclusion. The logical reasoning behind premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that it is impossible for something to begin to exist (effect) without a cause. If Mackie wishes to logically assert that we cannot assume this to be true, he will have to explain how an effect can happen without a cause. So the reason I accpet premise 1 to be true, is because to assume anything different is illogical. The only logical explanation of an effect is a cause.
Perhaps the universe DID have a cause that would not necassarily mean that the cause was from an external source. Perhaps the universe caused itself.
Holyfire, you accepted earlier that cause and effect need not be based in time and that causes can occur simultaneously.
Here is a quote by Quentin Smith.
“The history of science also gives us cases of mutual, simultaneous causation. Newton’s theory provides an uncontroversial example. We can think of a possible world where an instantaneous or ‘infinitely fast’ gravitational force is the only factor that causally affects the motion of bodies. (For example, we can imagine smaller bodies, such as moons, orbiting larger bodies, such as planets.) There is an instantaneous gravitational attraction between two moving bodies at the instant t. Each body’s infinitesimal state of motion at the instant t is an effect of an instantaneous gravitational force exerted by the other body at the instant t. In this case, the infinitesimal motion of the first body is an effect of an instantaneous gravitational force exerted by the second body, and the infinitesimal motion of the second body is an effect of an instantaneous gravitational force of the first body. This is a case of the existence of a state S1 being caused by another state S2, with the existence of S2 being simultaneously caused by S1.
If it is physically possible, actual or necessary that some states of bodies or particles are instantaneously caused to begin to exist by other such states, then this is both metaphysically possible and logically possible. Suppose we have a first state of the universe that consists of the initial temporal part (initial state) of three particulars (e.g., elementary particles). Let us call the three initial states or temporal parts of the three particles the states a, b and c. (For simplicity’s sake, we shall adopt a ‘geni-identical’ theory of objects, namely, that objects are not enduring particulars but a succession of causally connected temporal parts (states, events).) The temporal part or state a of one of the particles instantaneously causes the state b to begin to exist, b instantaneously causes c to begin to exist, and c instantaneously causes a to begin to exist. This causal loop obtains at the first instant of time, t = 0.
In this case, the universe begins to exist, is caused to begin to exist, but is not caused to begin to exist by God or any other cause(s) external to the universe. Perhaps it is worth spelling this out in detail. The universe at t = 0 is nothing other than the particles’ temporal parts a and b and c. Each of these time-slices of the particles is caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, namely, by one of the time-slices or states of one of the other three particles. If the universe at t = 0 is a, b and c, and a, b and c are each caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, it follows that the universe is caused to begin to exist, but not by anything external to the universe. The universe is self-caused in the sense that each part of the universe is caused to exist by some other part of the universe.”
“In this case, the universe begins to exist, is caused to begin to exist, but is not caused to begin to exist by God or any other cause(s) external to the universe.”
The problem with this is that while causes and effects might be able to happen simultaneously, Smith’s example posits that the universe was caused by forces that were already part of the universe. However, the universe could not have been created by natural forces because natural forces did not exist until after the universe was created. So while the cause could have been simultaneous to the effect, the cause would still have to be external to the universe, because any possible internal causes could not have come about until after the effect i.e. the creation of our universe.
You write “…any possible internal causes could not have come about until AFTER the effect i.e. the creation of our universe.”
But Smith is making the claim that the causes were simultaneous, before and after would not apply in this case,especially when one of the mutual causes was time itself. This theory is similiar in this aspect to that of many theists.
Smith writes ” the theist typically holds that God’s act of causing the universe to begin to exist did not occur earlier than the universe’s first state. The theist typically says that God timelessly causes the universe to begin to exist or simultaneously causes the universe to begin to exist.
What Smith is saying is that space, time, and matter caused space, time, and matter. This doesn’t make sense. Smith is just replacing the cause with the effect–saying that the effect caused the effect. I hold no issue with Smith saying that causes and effects can happen simultaneously. However, the cause must be external to the universe i.e. space, time, and matter.
Space, time, and matter are the effect. So while the cause could have been simultaneous with their creation, they could not have created themselves. An effect cannot come about without a cause. Simply replacing the cause with the effect, takes the cause out of the equation and leaves us with two effects. This makes no logical sense either.
1. The universe is the effect.
2. An effect cannot cause itself.
3. Therefore, the cause of the universe was not the universe.
I guess smith is making the statement that an effect was also a cause. Could you explain why something can not be both a cause and an effect?
The very definition of cause and effect is based on the fact that the two are different. If an effect was its own cause, then it ceases to be an effect entirely. If it ceases to be an effect, then there is no need for a cause. The whole concept falls apart at this point. Your question could easily be rephrased to ask how something can come out of nothing. Because that is really what you’re asking. Cause and effect, by definition, are different. And while the cause can be simultaneous with the effect, it cannot be the same as the effect. The two must be different in order to classify as a cause and an effect. Let’s look at the Kalam Cosmologcial Argument again, only let’s rephrase it:
1. Everything that begins to exist is an effect.
2. Every effect is the result of a cause.
3. This universe began to exist.
4. Thus, this universe is an effect.
5. Therefore, this universe has a cause.
holyfire,
For academic purposes only (Not argumentative), What is your backing for point #1. “Everything that begins to exist is an effect”?
elaborate on this statement please, so I can understand in which context you are making it.
Also, how are you defining existence? Are you limiting existence to the relm of the physical?
Does the spirit not exist?
Where we created spiritually before we were created physically?
If so, Was there some form prior to spirit?
If not then our spirits must have eternal existence, without beginning nor end.
I see you are using fundamental physics to justify your position in this discussion, also as the measure of logic in the same. Yet we have not come to realize a flaw in the common string when dealing with these fundamentals of physics. It is primary to understand that the same physics used in this discussion also state that something can never come from nothing, as only nothing comes from nothing and there must be some source from which any something would originate. Thus there is no beginning to existence altogether, just a beginning to the current state of existence of any given subject or object.
To clarify, God did not bring into existence this creation from nothing, but rather moved it from some other form of existence into this physical state of existence. Shall I suggest that… All that exists now had no beginning or existence but rather a beginning of its current state of existence. It is the one thing that Einstein proved with his energy/matter equation and nuclear fission. Energy and matter can change into each-other but never can not be removed from existence.
My backing for premise one is that if something begins to exist, it needs a cause. The fact that it needs a cause makes it an effect.
I do not classify existence as only that which is physical. I believe there are things that exist other than what we see in this universe. God exists outside of this universe, so to say that this universe is all that exists would be accepting a naturalistic worldview and rejecting the existence of God. However, I believe that God exists so I am forced to assume that there is more to existence than just this universe.
I don’t think any mortal human can know for sure whether or not we were created spiritualy before we were created physically. However, I do believe that our spirits, like our physical bodies, have a finite past. If our spirits had an infinite past then that would mean we [our spirits] were uncaused. Thus, God would cease to be our creator.
Just like I believe our spirits have a finite past, I believe the same would be true for the universe. God created the universe using his omnipotent power. Einstein’s law only applies to those within this universe. God is not bound by physical laws. If that were so, He could not have raised Himself from the dead since that is physically impossible. If God did not create the universe but, instead, brought it from a different state of existence to another state, He would, again cease to be the creator of the universe and become the reformer of the universe.
The Bible says that God spoke this universe into existence. It does not mean our universe came from nothing. It means our universe came from God.
Does that make sense?
HolyFire,
I have grave disagreements with some of the things you say.
As for Creator/reformer: Is there a real differance from create or reform. Looking at the energy/matter paradigm, we have noted the creation of energy from the distruction of matter. This is no less of a creation than if matterial popped out of thin air. God’s means, even if they adhear to the rules he set in motion do not detractr from his power and authority, nor does it make him any less of a creator, and God. It is niavie to think that God is less because he found a way to work with-in the order he set into place.
Is it more awsome to create a rock out of nothing, and have it sit unchanging, and untouched. To articluate ever minute speck of it to add to it until it is your creation, then apply the rules of nature to it that is observed by science… Or to create a star that burns bright and briliant constantly changing and evolving until it blasts out of sight to become more than just a star, to evolve to become a new star and planets… a complete solar system, all the while applying the rules that govern this creation never steping outside those rules? I think God is more than he would be by adhearing to the rules he placed on his creation, and by applying the right ingreadients in the correct order, orgnizing them to his creation.
Oh, the knowledge and understanding and tollarance and care that are limitless it would take to orgnize that which was into that that is, more so than to bring about something that never was anything at all.
HF,
Yes that makes sense and thus GOd is no less of a GOd because he reformed something to make his creation, as you said it did not come from nothing it came from God.
After explaining your viewpoint more I do agree with you that it does not demean God’s omnipotence if he were to use the laws He created to create the universe. My main point in my last post was to clarify that God created those laws as well, and that they are not separate from God in terms of their origins. I see nothing wrong with the notion of God creating laws and then creating the universe within those laws. However, I don’t think God is obligated by any means to adhere to them. The Bible is filled with instances where God blatantly disregards the physical laws of the universe. That’s all I was saying.
Holyfire,
You stated: “The Bible is filled with instances where God blatantly disregards the physical laws of the universe.”
“Filled” is a bit too agressive. In point of fact I would like you to list the instances you think break the laws of physics.
Many “Miracles” seem to break these laws but with a better look ther in acuality rely on those very same principles, making these physical laws work for the ultimate outcome. I do not demean the acts of God but can see how God uses the same laws that govern our plain of existance (even the physical) to enact his Miracles. It makes him no less a God. To ascribe my point further, I will state: through any effort of my own I cannot make a Tree. I may create an artiface of a Tree but it will not grow nor will it in truth be a tree.
God bless,
-D
There are many instances in the Bible where the laws of physics are broken. When Moses saw the burning bush, it was engulfed in flames yet it did not wither. Any instance where Jesus raised someone from the dead ( I can think of at least two as we speak), when Jesus raised Himself from the dead, when Moses parted the Red Sea, when Moses threw his staff to the ground and it became a snake, when Moses reached into his pocket and his hand was white with leprosy, when Jesus calmed the rough seas by speaking to them, when Jesus fed the five thousand with a small amount of food, when Jesus turned the water into wine, when God made the sun stand still (this was actually the earth that stopped moving but still…), anytime Jesus healed a blind person, the list goes on. Forgive me, I do not mean to sound rude, but I am not sure how this pertains to premise 1 of my argument.
Healing does not go against physics. The parting of the Red sea used physics, not breaking them, There was a documentary on this that did a good job of explaining how this could have happened using the mechanics of our world… Timing it just right. I do not see any of this as breaking the laws of physics, but maybe using physics in a way we have yet to understand.
Point is that it seems you are happy saying “Ohhh-Ahhh, wow what a miracle.” When in amazemwnt I am cerious how God did such deeds, and am more impressed when he didn’t simpily snap his fingers and like magic it happened. I see the hard work that goes into his creation and into his miracles, not just the power.
Like
Moses, he does something god commands him and the miracle happens, then Pharo’s preists copy Moses and make do the same things.
God still has the power, but there is more to it than a spoken word.
Ditchu dont you see that Holyfires arguement for the existence of God depends on a deity that is external to creation? But I think he is correct when he writes ” Einstein’s law only applies to those within this universe”. Indeed the law of conservation of energy only applies to the net ammount of matter/energy within the system not to the system itself.
Ditchu since you think that the universe was not created ex nihilo then how do you refute the Kalam arguement?(if in fact you do refute it)
What is the Kalam argument?