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

[HarryStotle]

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.

If a child has died and no longer exists, is the parent still a parent? This would seem to nullify your mutually dependent thesis.

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

Also, If God is eternal and the universe as an entirety exists from eternity, but created things within the universe exist in time, then it would seem to make sense from an eternal standpoint that God is eternally speaking the Creator of the universe even though temporal things within the time steam come and go into and out of existence. From an eternal standpoint, the created things that exist as a part of the time-space stream simply exist in the universe.

We actually have things which exist in our STEM universe which fit this paradigm. A story or novel exists in my hand or on my bookshelf and the characters in that narrative, from my perspective simply exist “in the book” or “in the story.” However, if we are referring to the time signature within the story itself, Jedediah may not come into the story, I.e., be born, until chapter six.

The author as “creator” of the story is the creator of Jedediah, the one who “authors” him into existence as the writer of the book. We wouldn’t say the author who created Jedediah only created him in chapter six. The author doesn’t,t exist in the story. In fact, the author may have written him into existence in another earlier book or completely outside the narrative in the draft of something else entirely, even though Jedediah only came into existence in chapter six of this story.

 

[Wesrock]

I made a book recommendation which lays out the entire argument, from premise to omniscience and therefore most closely comparable to what we know as an Intelligence. The informal presentation alone from the argument from motion, start to finish, takes 34 pages. That’s not something I can sum up in its entirety in a web forum post. And also, again, it’s not just a matter of intelligence, but a matter of eternity and being metaphysically simple, which a multiverse certainly isn’t.

But let’s assume that through the cosmological arguments have established that there is a purely actual, eternal first cause of all things that are and could possibly be. Why would this be an intelligence? I will try to summarize the argument (which is already a summary in itself, even though it takes up the last 4 of those 34 pages previously mentioned). Unfortunately, this means I haven’t discussed everything established by the previous 30 pages, nor am I going to recap the 15 page argument later for realism over conceptualism or nominalism. It’s just too much.

I suppose we need to speak about what an intelligence is first. Just an intelligence in general as traditionally understood. First and foremost is the ability of an intelligence to grasp abstract concepts. Not just to see particulars, but to see this man and that man and another man, and abstract from those particulars the general concept of what it is to be a man in general. Less complex, we could, for example, look at triangularity. This is a concept abstracted from encountering and gaining knowledge of particular triangles. But it is more than any individual particular triangle. It is not even a mental image of a triangle, for that would be a particular as well. It’s the grasping of the universal concept of what it is to be a triangle. Second, we expect an intelligence to form these concepts into complete thoughts, for example, “Man is mortal.” And third, an intelligence has the ability to infer one though from others, so if it grasps that “Man is mortal” and that “Socrates is a man”, the intelligence can infer that “Socrates is mortal.” The first point is the most fundamental, as one couldn’t form complete thoughts or reason from one thought to another if one wasn’t able to grasp abstract or universal concepts to begin with.

Continued in next post…

 

[Wesrock]

If we are abstracting the general concept of man or the general concept of triangle from particulars, our minds are grasping the form or pattern of these types of concepts. We see these patterns actually existing in material things, what it is to be a man in men and triangularity in triangles. We are able to bring that same pattern into mind once we’ve abstracted it from the particulars.

Let’s move away from intelligence for a moment. We’ll come back to it. We must also consider causation. The principle of causation is that when a thing changes, it is changed by another. (One might think an animal moves itself, but even within an animal, we see parts moving other parts.) Another point to make about cause and effect is that whatever is in some effect must in some way or other be in the cause, even if not always in the same way. For a cause cannot give what it does not have to give. This is sometimes called the principle of proportionate causality.

Suppose I give you $20. I might have a $20 in my wallet, or some combination of bills and change that would allow me to directly give you $20. Or I might have $20 in my bank account, and I write you a check for $20. Or maybe I have a friend who can print off a $20 bill at my request to give it to you. Or maybe I have enough pull with Congress to pass a law giving you $20. In whatever the case, in order to produce the effect of giving you $20, I must have it in me in some way to give you $20. If no way of giving you $20 is available to me, I cannot produce the effect in you of giving you $20.

If I had the money in my wallet and I hand it to you, it can be said that the effect is in the cause formally. Maybe I don’t have the $20 on hand, but I have it in my bank account and I write the check, so it can be said that the effect is in the cause virtually. Or maybe I neither have the money in hand nor in my account, but I can have Congress pass a law to give you $20. In that case, the cause is in the effect eminently.

Continued in next post.

 

[Wesrock]

So we have a purely actual actualizer (first cause) of the existence of all things. Anything with existence traces its existence back to this first cause. Furthermore, this first cause actualizes things to be particular things, which have universal concepts which can be abstracted from them. That is, part of the effect is that things have a certain pattern (whether it be cats or dogs or this particular elementary particle which is not further reducible). We’ve also noted that whatever is in an effect must exist in the cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently. Put these points together, and what follows is that the patterns of things must exist in the purely actual cause of things; and they must exist in a completely universal or abstract way, because this i the cause of every possible thing fitting a certain pattern. But to have these patterns in this universal or abstract way is just to have that capacity which is fundamental to intelligence. Furthermore, the cause of things is not just the cause of things themselves, but of their being related in any way they might be related. That is to say, it is not only the cause of men but of the fact that _all men are mortal. So there must be some sense in which these effects too exist in their purely actual cause, and it must be in some way that has to do with the combination of the patterns that exist in that cause. That is to say, the effects must exist in the cause in something like the way thoughts exist in us.

So, what exists in the things that the purely actual cause is the cause of preexists in that cause in something like the way the things we make preexist as ideas or plans in our minds before we make them. These things thereby exist in that purely actual cause eminently and virtually even if not formally. For the cause of things is not itself a cat or a tree (and cannot be, since any type of materiality must be caused), but it can cause a cat or a tree or anything else that might exist. But it is not merely intelligence that we can therefore attribute to the cause of things. Consider that as the intelligent cause of everything that exists or could exist, there is nothing that exists or could exist that is not in the range of this cause’s thoughts. It is in that sense all-knowing or omniscient

 

[Wesrock]

jcrichton:

The term “unchanging” does not mean that God does not have the Power to Create; it means that it means that God IS.

The word “unchanging” has a perfectly good dictionary definition, which I use. If you want to redefine the word to suit your particular theological needs, then I disagree with your definition. Unchanging describes something that does not change. The God of the Bible changes, as I have pointed out. Ether the Bible is wrong or you are wrong.

Or you’re not reading scripture correctly.

One of the things that God IS, is changing. He parts seas and He closes them again. He makes fish one day and He makes animals another day. He sends ten different plagues at ten different times. how is that no change, or can I go to the Red Sea and see that the unchanging God has unchangingly parted it?

rossum

rossum

The world is changing. The sea is parted and the sea is not parted. Animals don’t exist one day and exist the next. God is unchanging. He is not moving through time like us. There are no new moments for God nor past moments. He has only one now, and everything proceeds from that, touching different points of time. One action for God, which is made manifest at different points of time for us.

 

[Happymom]

God didn’t come from nothing, God always existed and not only designed He also Created everything into existence. .

 

[rossum]

On the contrary, the only other plane of existence for which we have existence if the heavenly sphere. And you won’t accept that.

I certainly don’t accept the Christian version. My scriptures tell me that there are 27 heavens and 16 hells. Your mere 1 and 1 is obviously undercounting.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Atheists deny everything and debate everything

How is this relevant to me? I am Buddhist, not atheist. My scriptures have a lot more gods than yours do:

Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.

– Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter One

Use my avatar picture of the Prajnaparamita to remind you that I am not atheist.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If God did not create He would not be a creator, but there’s no before He created. He never changed from not creating to creating. There was no 20 billion years ago, no time before creation.

Causation/creation requires time, since the cause must exist before the effect. If they arise simultaneously, then it is impossible to tell cause from effect, and obviously the cause cannot arise after the effect.

Cause and effect requires the prior existence of time, otherwise cause and effect are simultaneous and hence indistinguishable. If you claim your God existed before the creation of the universe, then you are implicitly admitting the existence of an earlier time by using the time-based word “before”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If a child has died and no longer exists, is the parent still a parent?

Yes. Just as if the parents die, the child is still their child.

Also, If God is eternal and the universe as an entirety exists from eternity, but created things within the universe exist in time, then it would seem to make sense from an eternal standpoint that God is eternally speaking the Creator of the universe

God is not and cannot be the creator of the ATE universe, since that would mean He created Himself, and we are assured that God is not created. He did not become “creator of the STEM universe” until the moment of the Big Bang.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I made a book recommendation which lays out the entire argument…

We both have books to suggest. Unfortunately Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika is not at all easy to understand. One description of Nagarjuna’s approach goes:

Nagarjuna’s philosophy represents something of a watershed not only in the history of Indian philosophy but in the history of philosophy as a whole, as it calls into questions certain philosophical assumptions so easily resorted to in our attempt to understand the world. Among these assumptions are the existence of stable substances, the linear and one-directional movement of causation, the atomic individuality of persons, the belief in a fixed identity or selfhood

– IEP Nagarjuna

As with Nargajuna I will challenge those assumptions in any argument made. They are very common. In this discussion it is the “linear and one-directional movement of causation” that I am challenging. Basically my point that the cause is as dependent on the effect as the effect is on the cause.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The world is changing. The sea is parted and the sea is not parted. Animals don’t exist one day and exist the next.

Agreed. This is one of the fundamental insights of Buddhism: everything is changing.

God is unchanging.

But God’s actions are not unchanging: the sea is parted, then the sea is closed. God’s action changes. What causes those actions to happen then, rather than 20 days earlier? The cause of the action was not present 20 days earlier, but it was present on the day.

Are God’s actions caused or uncaused? If they are caused then what caused them to happen when they did? A cause in time cannot be unchanging, since it changes from non-cause to cause. It was a non-cause 20 days before and was a cause on the day.

An unchanging God cannot cause actions in time because then those actions would be happening constantly: the sea would be parting and closing every day because an unchanging God would be causing the action unchangingly.

You are trying to build a chain of cause and effect from an unchanging start to a changing finish. At some point in that chain there will be a link from an unchanging cause to a changing effect. That link is where your argument will fail.

I avoid the problem by acknowledging that everything changes, there are no unchanging entities, just entities that change at different speeds.

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

God is unchanging.

But God’s actions are not unchanging: the sea is parted, then the sea is closed. God’s action changes. What causes those actions to happen then, rather than 20 days earlier? The cause of the action was not present 20 days earlier, but it was present on the day.

By way of imperfect illustration, consider a one-dimensional universe, a timeline, if you will. My finger is laid across the line such that points 1 to 5 are uncovered, 5 to 7 are covered, and 7 to 10 are uncovered. To the point beings moving temporally from 1 to 10, the line is touched by me at year 5 and untouched by me at year 7. Point-beying rossum argues, “Wesrock has changed, for previously he touched the line. He started at 5 and stopped at 7. That is a clear and obvious change in his action.”

Question for you, have I actually changed? Does the point-being rossum actually understand the way I’ve interacted with the world?

Are God’s actions caused or uncaused? If they are caused then what caused them to happen when they did? A cause in time cannot be unchanging, since it changes from non-cause to cause. It was a non-cause 20 days before and was a cause on the day.

Uncaused. His actions have eternally been so.

An unchanging God cannot cause actions in time because then those actions would be happening constantly: the sea would be parting and closing every day because an unchanging God would be causing the action unchangingly.

See my illustration above regarding the finger on the timeline. Now imagine trillions upon trillions of fingers. Now imagine instead this trillion of trillion approaching infinite along with a seemingly infinite number of ways of acting upon the world.

Furthermore, though, we don’t see God as some simply external being acting upon the world. He did not just cause the Red Sea to part, He causes those water molecules, the hydrogen and oxygen, the electrons and protons and neutrons that make those up, the quarks and gluons making those together, and whatever primary particles there are, to be at each and every moment caused by God. The universe is not simply a giant clock designed by God that He “reaches” into to effect, the way in your example God is doing “nothing” prior to the Red Sea part, “acting” when the “Red Sea” is parted, and not acting when it closes again.

You are trying to build a chain of cause and effect from an unchanging start to a changing finish. At some point in that chain there will be a link from an unchanging cause to a changing effect. That link is where your argument will fail.

I avoid the problem by acknowledging that everything changes, there are no unchanging entities, just entities that change at different speeds.

The problem is you’re putting the cause into time alongside the effect, and furthermore, you’re considering only a linear type of series of causes.

 

[Wesrock]

He did not become “creator of the STEM universe” until the moment of the Big Bang.

Which was the very first moment ever, before which there were no moments.

**Let’s presume, for the sake of example, that there is no multiverse or Big Crunch, and that the Big Bang truly represents the start of all existence. If it is not scientifically so, the same statement would apply to whatever is the start of time.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

If God did not create He would not be a creator, but there’s no before He created. He never changed from not creating to creating. There was no 20 billion years ago, no time before creation.

Causation/creation requires time, since the cause must exist before the effect. If they arise simultaneously, then it is impossible to tell cause from effect, and obviously the cause cannot arise after the effect.

Cause and effect requires the prior existence of time, otherwise cause and effect are simultaneous and hence indistinguishable. If you claim your God existed before the creation of the universe, then you are implicitly admitting the existence of an earlier time by using the time-based word “before”.

rossum

How would simultaneity make them indistinguishable? And again, you’re only considering a linear series of cause and effect, not an hierarchical series.

 

[rossum]

Question for you, have I actually changed?

Yes. You are older by the amount of time it took point-rossum to move along the line. In your analogy both Wesrock and point-rossum share the same time dimension.

Uncaused. His actions have eternally been so.

Then you are positing change without a cause. That I do not accept. Are you saying that the sea just happened to open for no reason at that particular time and place? You are prescribing a recipe for a world that does not match the world we live in. In the real world macroscopic actions have causes. Even direct divine intervention in miracles is described as “caused by God”. Are you in fact denying that God can cause miracles?

The problem is you’re putting the cause into time alongside the effect,

That is not a problem, it is a requirement. The action takes place within time, not in some meta-dimension beyond time. You cannot separate the either the cause or the action in time from time.

rossum

 

[rossum]

How would simultaneity make them indistinguishable?

Two entities X and Y appear at the same time. Did X cause Y? Did Y cause X? How can you tell?

rossum

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Rossum!

I do understand. God did not Become God because He Created; further, we do not know what was Created before the Creation so we cannot define a specific moment when God was the Creator based upon the Revelation of this Created Universe.

Yet, regardless of the argument; God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence is not contingent upon Creation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

You are confusing the term.

A satellite is sent out into space; everything has been set to produce a certain effect–everything has been engineered into it; the satellite will be productive for the entirety of its lifespan (unless altered by accidental encounters, problems, or retasking–which could require retrofitting, etc.). Creation was set in motion; everything has been Designed into it; God continues to Act upon Creation, yet, God Himself does not change.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Atheists deny everything and debate everything whether they have evidence of not. But their denials are not evidence. All they prove is that some people will argue with a rock.

Please, stop!

LOL to the third!

Maran atha!

Angel