How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?

[Gab123]

That regularity has emerged from initial chaos is a function of the elements of the chaotic system itself.

Geometry and trigonometry employ rationality. The cause of the universe is an Eternal Rational Source and this reality permeates the cosmos, from the macroscopic to the microscopic, as seen in the infinity of snowflakes and their mathematical designs:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[rossum]

The cause of the universe is an Eternal Rational Source

I disagree.

First, the cause does not have to be eternal. It only has to exist at the moment the universe is caused. After that it is no longer required. You need a different argument.

Second, any eternal cause cannot be the sufficient cause of the universe. It may be a necessary cause, but it cannot be sufficient on its own. If it were a sufficient cause then the universe would also be eternal because its sufficient cause has been present eternally. If the cause is eternal, then it cannot be sufficient. There must be some temporary co-cause that was present at the time the universe was created, but not before that.

Since the co-cause was not present for eternity, then that co-cause is not eternal. The overall cause of the universe is a compound of eternal and non-eternal parts.

 

[stoplooklisten]

any eternal cause cannot be the sufficient cause of the universe. It may be a necessary cause, but it cannot be sufficient on its own. If it were a sufficient cause then the universe would also be eternal because its sufficient cause has been present eternally.

A sovereign and eternal cause (God) has discretion. The Eternal Cause can choose to create or not to create. An Eternal Cause can create a dimension called time and then create a universe at a point in time. The universe is not eternal and need not be. Why should the creation of the Creator need to be eternal?

 

[Gab123]

the cause does not have to be eternal

In order for something to have a beginning and an end it must exist In time. The Rational Cause is outside of time itself, thus It has no beginning and thus no possible end, thus the word Eternal

The spectacular news is that it is a great privilege to have existence, and an even greater privilege to be a human being, as are made in the image and likeness of the Eternal Rational Source, which means that we have an intellect and a will. The purpose of our existence as human beings is to have a share in the Life of the Eternal Rational Being, who is itself Truth Goodness and Love. And being that we were made in this image and likeness we call this Cause Our Father, because fatherhood is the principle of generation.

But having an intellect and the faculty to reason and a will to choose between good and evil comes with a great responsibility. Thus the misuse of the intellect and the will causes sin, which is a direct rejection of Our Father, the Eternal Rational Being. Thus when human beings squander the purpose of their existence and knowingly and willingly choose to go against Truth, Goodness and Love, they end up in the abyss Christ warned about.

 

[rossum]

A sovereign and eternal cause (God) has discretion. The Eternal Cause can choose to create or not to create. An Eternal Cause can create a dimension called time and then create a universe at a point in time. The universe is not eternal and need not be. Why should the creation of the Creator need to be eternal?

Then the discretion is not eternal and changes form “I decide not to create” to “I decide to create”. Something that is eternal cannot change; if it did change then it would not exist for all time. We can analyse it into the changing non-eternal part (your ‘discretion’) and an unchanging eternal part.

We know from basic logic that one thing cannot be both eternal and non-eternal. As I said and eternal creator cannot be a necessary cause, but requires a non-eternal co-cause; your ‘discretion’.

 

[rossum]

In order for something to have a beginning and an end it must exist In time. The Rational Cause is outside of time itself, thus It has no beginning and thus no possible end, thus the word Eternal

However, the universe is not eternal, having a beginning. That is why the eternal cause cannot be a sufficient cause. It might be a necessary cause, but on its own it cannot be sufficient. Something changed to change from not-causing to causing. That something I called the co-cause, and that co-cause is not eternal.

 

[Gab123]

However, the universe is not eternal, having a beginning. That is why the eternal cause cannot be a sufficient cause. It might be a necessary cause, but on its own it cannot be sufficient. Something changed to change from not-causing to causing

It’s called Spirit Intellect is inherent to a spiritual being. To better grasp this, we can use an analogy. In a sense, you yourself can will something into existence through mere thought: You bring something into physical existence by wrapping your non-physical idea with matter, in effect bringing something into existence out of something which had existed only in your mind. An idea is not a physical thing, yet it exists. For example, you can will your idea of a chair into existence if you wrap it in matter, going from idea to physical reality.

To further unpack this one has to grasp the concept of the Holy Trinity: Father-Son-and Holy Spirit. “The Father” is the Eternal Thought. “The Son” is The Eternal Word Begotten by the Eternal Father. This Eternal Relationship proceeds the Eternal Holy Spirit. A Spirit is not a thing, as it does not have parts or occupy space; we know Spirit by the way it operates, namely the Power to Produce Ideas

In Scripture the gospel of John starts: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. “Word” is the English translation of the Greek Logos, which is the order and rationality of the universe. Scripture goes on to explain: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…” (Jesus Christ).

In the Christian Cree it states:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father; through him all things were made…

 

[stoplooklisten]

Something that is eternal cannot change

God does stay the same in his attributes but he retains freedom to act consistent with the nature of his being. Therefore, Almighty God can be eternal (from everlasting to everlasting) but retains sovereignty and discretion.

You and I may change. We were born and we will die. But, while we live, we have the freedom and discretion and responsibility to live well according to our abilities and opportunities. God is free. You and I are free. God can choose to create. God is free to set aside the natural order and do supernatural miracles that science can’t explain or duplicate. God is not shackled. Are you trying to define constraints that would limit Almighty God?

 

[o_mlly]

First, the cause does not have to be eternal. It only has to exist at the moment the universe is caused. After that it is no longer required.

The cause of space and time must exist outside space and time. Only a being in space and time can exist in a moment, i.e., a degree of time. A being that exists outside time must be eternal, i.e., its existence is independent of time. To be independent of time is to be eternal.

If it were a sufficient cause then the universe would also be eternal because its sufficient cause has been present eternally. If the cause is eternal, then it cannot be sufficient. There must be some temporary co-cause that was present at the time the universe was created, but not before that.

I do not see your logic that concludes a being in eternity must have a cause. Cause to effect is a normally a temporal sequence, i.e., requires an existence in time. It is possible, however, that in eternity a cause may be its own effect which is implicit in our logic that Creator’s essence is to exist. God causes Himself.

We know from basic logic that one thing cannot be both eternal and non-eternal.

I think you mean in Western logic. But even in Western logic the principle of non-contradiction always adds the space-time dimension, i.e., a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and place in the same way. The principle cannot be applied to a being outside time and space. (See below regarding the Second Person of the Triune Godhead.)

Something changed to change from not-causing to causing. That something I called the co-cause, and that co-cause is not eternal.

A co-creator? Perhaps.

God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word. The Word of God is the Second Person of God.

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing came to be.
…
And the Word became flesh (John 1:1:3, 14).

The Trinity and the Incarnation are mysteries, but the Church has always believed that the Son created with Father, not as a co-creator but as one.

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.

 

[Michaelangelo]

The misconception of a law of nature as Michaelangelo and you describe is a very Newtonian idea. But what we call laws of nature are more than just regularities, they are the natural tendencies of things (or the tendencies of a thing’s nature), which we observe and model in the abstract with mathematics.

The observed regularities (or patterns) are of course the result of the properties of the objects in the system. But we don’t need to know the properties of those objects to recognize a eventual pattern and express that pattern with math. Netwon’s description of gravity is a good example. He had no idea what caused the effect but he described the pattern with great precision.

The same goes for the guys who laid the foundation for our understanding of electricity and magnetism. They had no idea of the properties of the photon, the electron or the positron. Yet they were perfectly capable to describe the patterns they observed with electricity and magnetism. And their equations are still in use today.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

See post #178

Too truncated, I think, as a definition for a law; perhaps serves as a definition of a science fact. My wallpaper’s pattern does not immediately disclose any natural law.

Implicit in a natural law is the relationship of the observed pattern to the conditions necessary to cause it, usually mathematically expressed, e.g., F= G(m1 - m2)/d2. The simpler the formula, the more likely it is to be true.

Exactly how uneducated do you think I am? Seriously?

 

[rossum]

To better grasp this, we can use an analogy. In a sense, you yourself can will something into existence through mere thought

And the thought is not eternal. The ‘something’ comes into existence in time. Hence the cause of that something was existing at that time, but not existing before that time.

If the causative event happened at 12:00, then the cause was not present at 11:00. Part of the overall cause might have been present, but not the entire cause. The part that was not present at 11:00 obviously cannot be eternal.

In Scripture the gospel of John…

I am Buddhist, not Christian. My scripture differs in many respects from the Abrahamic scriptures.

 

[Michaelangelo]

In order for something to have a beginning and an end it must exist In time. The Rational Cause is outside of time itself, thus It has no beginning and thus no possible end, thus the word Eternal

Outside philosophy the concept of something existing outside time is just meaningless.

 

[Gab123]

And the thought is not eternal. The ‘something’ comes into existence in time. Hence the cause of that something was existing at that time, but not existing before that time.

Again, the Cause of Time and Matter are outside of time and matter. For something to have a beginning it must exist in time. Time and matter did not create themselves. You have a beginning because you exist in time. Thus in science they explain that time and matter came into existence d with the Big Bang, thus the Cause of the Big Bang is outside of time and matter.

I am Buddhist, not Christian. My scripture differs in many respects from the Abrahamic scriptures.

Buddhism is a philosophy of life formulated to counter the trappings of Hinduism which, according to legend and superstition, people reincarnate in an endless cycle of incarnations, and for those stuck in certain castes it is a miserable existence; and depending on the life one leads one could return as a bug.

The Bible is based on historical events of divine revelation of God revealing Himself in time to Man.

Being that God is infinite and man is finite, man can grasp certain truths about God through studying nature and the cosmos; but for man to truly know Who and What God is, God Himself has to reach down to Man and reveals Himself. This culminated with the Incarnation, that is, God becoming Man (Jesus Christ) to save is from our sins and to teach us the way that leads to eternal life.

Outside philosophy the concept of something existing outside time is just meaningless.

Science argues that time came into existence with the Big Band, thus the Cause Time is outside of time itself.

 

[rossum]

Buddhism is a philosophy of life formulated to counter the trappings of Hinduism which, according to legend and superstition, people reincarnate in an endless cycle of incarnations, and for those stuck in certain castes it is a miserable existence; and depending on the life one leads one could return as a bug.

Please do not tell me what my religion believes. Would you like me to explain Christianity to you?

Buddhism also accepts reincarnation/rebirth though the series is not endless in either Buddhism or Hinduism. The series ends in nirvana (Buddhism) or moksha (Hinduism).

You would do well to confine your comments to what you know.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

Outside philosophy the concept of something existing outside time is just meaningless.

Science argues that time came into existence with the Big Band, thus the Cause Time is outside of time itself.

No, this is simply not correct. Science does not say anything. Scientists do. And the big bang theory does not say anything about anything coming into existence, neither time or space. Individual scientists do speculate about what happened before the rapid expansion, called the big bang, we still experience. But we have no experimental data supporting these speculations. So, please don’t view speculations done by certain individuals as the view of the scientific collective. Furthermore, just because a particular scientist may be extremely knowledgeble in a specific area does not mean he/she is a good teacher of the subject.

 

[o_mlly]

Exactly how uneducated do you think I am? Seriously?

See post #178.

Outside philosophy the concept of something existing outside time is just meaningless.

Check out the name of this forum.

 

[Gab123]

Please do not tell me what my religion believes.

Please don’t take offense. If you got to university there are courses that teach what different religions believe, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The main purpose of Buddhism is to end the suffering, and to end the suffering Buddha said there is no other way but to avoid being reincarnated.

In Christianity suffering has a purpose and a value in that when united to the sufferings of Christ it becomes redemptive suffering and a means for sanctification.

the big bang theory does not say anything about anything coming into existence, neither time or space. Individual scientists do speculate about what happened before the rapid expansion, called the big bang, we still experience. But we have no experimental data supporting these speculations.

Realize that modern astronomy is founded upon the concept of the Big Bang, which explains that Time and Matter came into existence together. Phycisist Georges Lemaitres used mathematics and physics to show that the universe not only had a beginning, but that it was also expanding. At the time, instead of being open to the theory, atheists called it foolish and widely speculative; ironically it was an atheist scientist who mockingly coined the phrase “the big bang” to dismiss Lemaitre’s theory. But it wasn’t long after that astronomer Edwin Hubble confirmed Lemaitre’s theory with actual observable evidence that the universe was indeed expanding. Today, Lemaitre’s “Big Bang” Theory is the foundation of modern astronomy, and Edwin Hubble has a telescope in space named after him.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Check out the name of this forum.

Then why do you involve science in the discusion?

 

[Gab123]

Then why do you involve science in the discusion?

Because God is the Eternal Rational Source that makes science possible. After all, the fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the Cause behind the Cosmos is a Rational Source