Arguing for the existence of God how do you answer: the Designer needs a designer

[rossum]

The theist arguments already respond to such objections; they don’t avoid them.

So, tell me how God came to be there in terms that a cosmologist could not use about the mulitverse. So, “God has always existed” is not acceptable; compare with “the multiverse has always existed.”

rossum

 

[rossum]

The fact that the first designer needs a designer means that it is finite limited and dependent on another and did not design itself, it had a beginning necessarily, the product of an Uncaused Cause

Any cause is automatically dependent. A cause is dependent on the existence of some effect. If X does not have any effect then X cannot be a cause, since it does not meet the requirements to be a cause. There was no “creator of the universe” before the creation of the universe. At most there was a creator-to-be, but not an actual creator before the act of creation.

A parent cannot be a parent unless there are also children. Anyone who claims to be a parent without children is obviously lying.

Cause and effect are mutually dependent. Hence all causes are dependent. If there is no effect then they are not causes, but non-causes which have not caused anything.

rossum

 

[rossum]

For example, the Catholic answer to our construct is that God has always been there. God has no beginning and no end. You may not like the answer, but that is the answer none the less.

The cosmologists answer is that the multiverse has always been there. The multiverse has no beginning and no end. You may not like the answer, but that is the answer none the less.

Convinced? Do you find that answer satisfactory? Now put yourself in my shoes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Whereas, the Traditions of the Catholic Church were documented in the Scriptures by contemporary eyewitnesses. This is a form of evidence that is acceptable in any court of law in the world.

The miracle of Vimalakirti was witnessed by 80,000 people. Your point is?

All religions have special texts which they claim are true. All religions have miracles with many witnesses. Your religion has nothing that other religions do not, except your personal belief in it.

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The theist arguments already respond to such objections; they don’t avoid them.

So, tell me how God came to be there in terms that a cosmologist could not use about the mulitverse. So, “God has always existed” is not acceptable; compare with “the multiverse has always existed.”

rossum

You’re putting the cart before the horse. No learned theist makes the claim “everything has a cause” and then just ignores the fact that they believe God exists. They don’t make the claim “everything has a cause” at all.

The cosmological arguments follow from basic premises. Some examples:

• Everything in motion (changing) has a cause.
• What is moved is moved by another.
• Everything that is composite has a cause.
• Everything that is teleologically directed towards some end beyond itself is directed by another.
• There’s an argument from realism based on universals, but that’s more complicated.
• Everything has that by virtue of which it exists, either intrinsically or from another.
• What is contingent has a cause.

You follow each of these premises to their end, and you’re left with a non-composite (divinely simple), eternal, unmoving being of pure actuality that is the cause of all things that are and could possibly be and which is most closely analogous to a mind which knows all things.

The point being, without walking through all the steps, is that the universe or multiverse does not satisfy as being the conclusion of those premises. The multiverse cannot be said to non-composite or not contingent, or any number of premises, and cannot therefore be uncaused.

As to whether the non-composite, eternal, unmoving being of pure actuality that is the cause of all things that are and could possibly be and which is most closely analogous to a mind which knows all things follows from the premises, or whether these are good premises, is a different discussion, but you’re essentially accusing theists of claiming “everything must have a cause” and saying it can be rebutted “but why arbitrarily special plead for God when it could just be the universe”, but that just shows you don’t even understand the supposed arguments you think you’re undermining.

EDIT: If you’re looking to see these arguments laid out, from first premise down to an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immutable mind, I recommend Edward Feser’s Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Note, these are not Thomas’ Five Ways, it’s a modern formulation of Aristotles’ argument from motion, Plotinus’ argument from composite things, Augustine’s agument from universals (and includes an argument for a moderate realism over nominalism/conceptualism/Plato’s hard realism, too), Thomas Aquinas’ argument from contingency, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’ argument from the Principle of Sufficient Reason, along with systematic replies to various objections that are made, and after all of the arguments doubles down on how they imply certain attributes to God. He has a background in Thomism, but the book was intentionally written to try to drop the philosophical baggage.

 

[rossum]

Everything in motion (changing) has a cause.

Your God either changes, and so has a cause, or is unchanging and hence incapable of any action in time.

Consider Moses arriving at the banks of the Red Sea, with Pharaoh’s chariots close behind:

Lord! Please part the sea for us so that your people may escape Pharaoh and his chariots.

I am sorry Moses. I did not part the sea yesterday and, because I am unchanging, I cannot do anything today that I did not do yesterday. I cannot part the sea for you.

Change is defined as difference in time. Any unchanging entity is unable to do anything new; all it can do it to repeat the same actions for all time.

The God described in the Bible changes. He says different things on different days. He creates different things on different days. He starts a flood; sustains it for a year and then lets the water drain away. He parts the sea, then closes it again. The God of the Bible obviously changes. How can you justify an “unchanging” God?

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

I just edited in a book recommendation to my previous post, if you’d like to see some arguments laid out in their entirety, from the premise down to the eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient being we refer to as God.

Wesrock:

Everything in motion (changing) has a cause.

Your God either changes, and so has a cause, or is unchanging and hence incapable of any action in time.

Consider Moses arriving at the banks of the Red Sea, with Pharaoh’s chariots close behind:

Lord! Please part the sea for us so that your people may escape Pharaoh and his chariots.

I am sorry Moses. I did not part the sea yesterday and, because I am unchanging, I cannot do anything today that I did not do yesterday. I cannot part the sea for you.

Change is defined as difference in time. Any unchanging entity is unable to do anything new; all it can do it to repeat the same actions for all time.

The God described in the Bible changes. He says different things on different days. He creates different things on different days. He starts a flood; sustains it for a year and then lets the water drain away. He parts the sea, then closes it again. The God of the Bible obviously changes. How can you justify an “unchanging” God?

rossum

Because to God, from the moment of creation, to speaking to Moses on the Red Sea, to Christ walking on the Earth, to my typing this message, all of these realities separated by time are part of the one experiential now He lives in eternally. He knows how things are ordered from our perspective, but to Him there is only one now, and there is only one act. This is how God has been conceived for 2,000 years, from second century Christian writers to the present. It might do for you to read some of them or more contemporary sources.

 

[rossum]

Because to God, from the moment of creation, to speaking to Moses on the Red Sea, to Christ walking on the Earth, to my typing this message, all of these realities separated by time are part of the one experiential now He lives in eternally. He knows how things are ordered from our perspective, but to Him there is only one now, and there is only one act. This is how God has been conceived for 2,000 years, from second century Christian writers to the present. It might do for you to read some of them or more contemporary sources.

If your god exists, then your God is part of, not the cause of, the ATE universe. If you are merely claiming that your God is the cause of the STEM universe then how do you justify the differences between your God and the cosmologists’ multiverse? The multiverse is not intelligent; why does your God have to be intelligent?

As to suggested reading, try some Nagarjuna. He is a useful antidote to some of the assumptions of Western philosophy.

rossum

 

[De_Maria]

The cosmologists answer is that the multiverse has always been there. …

1. But the cosmologist has to deal with the science which provides evidence that the universe has not always been here.
2. Then provide evidence for the other universes they claim exist alongside the first.

I don’t think they can do either.

Convinced? Do you find that answer satisfactory? Now put yourself in my shoes.

I don’t see the difference in shoes between yours and mine when listening to the cosmologist. Did you not learn the scientific evidence for the Big Bang? Did you not know that there is only evidence for one physical universe, the one we are in?

If I were you I would dismiss their claim, post haste.

 

[De_Maria]

The miracle of Vimalakirti was witnessed by 80,000 people. Your point is?

Lol! The miracles of the Hebrew/Judaic God were not only witnessed by thousands, but were documented. And, when it comes to the Catholic Church, they continue to this day? Have you heard of Fatima, the Shroud of Turin, Guadalupe?

For example. There’s an image of our Lady in South America. Our Lady of Las Lajas. The image is on a rock and according to scientists who have studied it, has existed since before mankind.
http://www.myconsecration.org/about-the-miraculous-image-of-our-lady-of-las-lajas/

The image of our Lady of Guadalupe on a 500 year old garment made of cactus fiber is unprecedented. Not only do men not know how it was painted nor with what material, but they can’t reproduce the image even with today’s technology. Not to mention that the garment should have decayed hundreds of years ago but hasn’t.
https://cruxnow.com/faith/2014/12/12/four-awesome-facts-about-our-lady-of-guadalupe/

These are just two out of thousands of miracles to which any Catholic could point to substantiate his belief in the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

All religions have special texts which they claim are true. All religions have miracles with many witnesses. Your religion has nothing that other religions do not, except your personal belief in it.

Neh. They have claims. But none have an organized and systematic method of testing, preserving and recording the miracles for the people to view and be edified.

Other religions make claims. The Catholic Church substantiates her claims with evidence you can objectively observe.

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Rossum!

The problem is that God is not a creature but the Creator.

Since I know very little, and less even about Buddhism there’s nothing I can offer… except that the arrow, not yet existing, took shape in the mind of man, as did the bow–it took an intelligence to conceive the concept, put together the materials, and bring the thought into reality… get my drift?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Rossum!

…so you believe that saying something means that it is?

Multiverse reality or fiction… well, no proof of multiverse, ever.

Universe reality of fiction… well, we exist therefore it are.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ynotzap]

any cause that is automatically dependent is a finite cause not an independent cause which would be needed in a series of causes. A finite cause may be a secondary cause, meaning it depends on an independent cause. An effect is a product of it’s cause and preceded by it and the cause does not depend on it’s effect The finite cause exists before it’s effects in time, In time an effect can be or not be. An effect can be in potency and not actualized an effect is a potential state of the cause

 

[Thom18]

The designer can’t have a designer because that designer would also need a designer, and this would go on perpetually. If the designer had a designer, we wouldn’t be here because there would be no beginning to all of this.

 

[ynotzap]

any finite cause is automatically dependent, any infinite cause is not for it exist for ever, it has no beginning and no end, it always is. Cause and effect is a cosmological phenomenon, it is the passage of potency to act, or change. Change belongs to a world that is finite. composed of act and potency. It is true if X does not have any effect and is not capable of one it can not be a cause of anything. Do you have proof that there is an X that can not produce an effect. How can there be no Creator before the Creation And how can there be a Creator to be, who actualizes the Creator unless He is Pure Act. What you are saying is that the Creator depends on His effects to exist? This is a contradiction, and impossibility and is opposed to the universal principle of Cause and Effect

 

[rossum]

1. But the cosmologist has to deal with the science which provides evidence that the universe has not always been here.
2. Then provide evidence for the other universes they claim exist alongside the first.

You are confusing the universe that started at the Big Bang, our current universe with the multiverse.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The miracles of the Hebrew/Judaic God were not only witnessed by thousands, but were documented.

The miracle of Vimalakirti was witnesses by 80,000 people and documented in chapter 10 of the Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra. Furthermore, modern astronomy has confirmed one aspect of the story – the existence of extra-solar planets. Thus showing that the writers of the sutra had a better knowledge of astronomy than the writers of the Bible.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The problem is that God is not a creature but the Creator.

God has not always been the creator. 20 billion years ago, God was not the creator since there was no universe 20 billion years ago. He only became the creator at the instant of the Big Bang.

If I claim to be “rossum, creator of universes” and I assure you that I am going to create some universes next Thursday, do you think that my self-awarded title is valid?

God was not the creator before He created anything. The title of “creator” is contingent on actually having created something. “rossum, creator of posts on Catholic.com” is a valid designation, unlike “rossum, creator of universes”…

rossum

 

[rossum]

any cause that is automatically dependent is a finite cause not an independent cause

I do not accept the existence of any independent cause. All causes are contingent on the existence of an effect. See my reply to @jcritchon above, talking about “rossum, creator of universes”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

any finite cause is automatically dependent, any infinite cause is not for it exist for ever, it has no beginning and no end, it always is.

Did God exist 20 billion years ago? Did the universe exist 20 billion years ago? Tell me why the universe is not 20 billion years old if the God who created the universe is unchanging?

The God of the Bible is not unchanging. If He were, then Genesis would read very differently:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the second day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the third day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the fourth day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the fifth day…

An unchanging cause is very limited in what it can do.

rossum