If God can be 'uncreated & unchanging', why not the universe too?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As usual when Sagan stepped out of science and into philosophy, it was a train wreck.
 
Bahman said:
The universe could be uncaused but it cannot be eternal.
Click to expand...
So you are saying the universe could have created itself from nothing? Even the past atheists who believed in an eternal universe thought that to be absurd.
 
Your question is just another way of restating what we must all admit: That there must have always existed some “thing.” That is, there has never been nothing; some ultimate reality must have always existed or have existence as its very nature.

The question then becomes what is the nature of that which exists necessarily? We can observe our universe (the only universe we can observe – any others are speculative). And we can see that it has contingent traits. Our Universe is always changing. Science has led us to think our Universe even had a beginning – that matter, energy, space, time all came into existence together. No single item in the universe exists necessarily because we can think of it or observe it as existing differently or not existing at all. The same goes for any collection of things within the Universe. And then lastly I would say that the Universe itself, which is really the collection of all things “within” it, cannot also exist necessarily, as it contains all contingent things.

Really the only source of hope for the atheist is some unknown multiverse or physical reality outside of our own universe. But we cannot observe either. It is pure speculation. And if there really are multiple Universes, one would have to ask what makes one or more of these exist necessarily (as opposed to our own, which we see is conditioned). Then beyond thinking reasonably or philosophically about what the nature of necessary existence must be (simple, one, infinite, eternal, etc.), there are some other clues:

(1) Claims to Revelation, such as Jesus Christ
(2) Miraculous phenomenon (think of the lives of the saints, Fatima, Lourdes, Eucharistic miracles, healings, etc.)
(3) The very existence of human beings, with consciousness, the ability to reason and love, and who can think about these questions and relate to God, whether imagined or not
 
DaddyGirl said:
Which of Bradski’s conclusions do you think are incorrect?
They sound more correct than most.

The “knowable” God you speak of seems to have limits, too.
But just because a god is unknowable, as Bradski describes,doesn’t mean we wouldn’t be able to observe limits from our POV.

.
Click to expand...
It is a self contradiction to say that something is unknowable. Because how do you know that? If you say you know that it is unknowable then you are saying you know something about it (that it is unknowable) which contradicts your claim. If you say you don’t know if it is unknowable then you are speaking nonsense that we should be ignoring. 🙂

It is impossible for us to disprove the existence of something outside the universe (unless it was a logical contradiction). However, it is possible to provide evidence for something outside the universe. For example God’s existence can be derived from the things he has made and done. Miracles for instance.
 
fisherman_carl said:
In addition the universe would have had to exist for infinite time. Yet, it is impossible that there should have been an infinite amount of time before now. You could have a potential infinite, but not an actual infinite number of things. You for instance could not actually attain living for an infinite amount of time, because it doesn’t matter how long you have lived, you could always live longer, and therefore infinite amount of time is never reached. But if you say the universe is infinitely old then you are saying that an infinite amount of time has been reached, which is impossible
Click to expand...
I am not convinced by your argument claiming that “it is impossible that there should have been an infinite amount of time before now.” It seems logically possible to me since the real line is infinite in both the positive and negative direction and there is no contradiction in assuming so.
 
Nixbits said:
The assumption that change implies imperfection (in the metaphysical sense) and thereby implies purpose (i.e. a defined goal) is flawed. Justification is needed to support such an assertion.
Click to expand...
Whats the rebuttal for this argument?
 
Tomdstone said:
I am not convinced by your argument claiming that “it is impossible that there should have been an infinite amount of time before now.” It seems logically possible to me since the real line is infinite in both the positive and negative direction and there is no contradiction in assuming so.
Click to expand...
:twocents:

Time is an abstraction. Change exists and a mind is required to isolate a moment, comparing the duration of an event to standardized phenomena such as a day. Although there exists time and we can mentally go back in time, time as change, has only one direction. We can imagine things played back in reverse, but they cannot change back. That is not how causality works. There is no force that can cause us to grow young and become embryos. This is important because, although we may imagine that time goes back, or goes forward forever, what happens is determined by the nature of the causes which operate in the world. We ascribe properties and patterns to what we observe, to make it understandable. As an example of something in this world, while there is nothing that logically tells us that the Collesium does not have a triangular form. The reality is that it is circular. That is the better description of its appearance. In terms of the universe, we may still not know very much, but we do know that this all had a beginning.

So, numbers become ever more positive and negative the further they are from zero; those numbers may or may not apply to reality. In the case of the universe, they do not. We need more than our imaginings to discover how the world works. We approach and make contact with it through our reason. Disconnected from reality, our reason cannot discern the truth, be it physical or metaphysical.

Applying mathematics to metaphysics, we may begin by observing that zero is the start of numbers going in a positive or negative direction.
The cause of the number series is the addition to or subtraction from zero of “n”.
We can imagine the universe proceeding as it does causally in one direction in a similar manner from nothing, no time, growing or whatever it is doing, as it ages.
The cause is outside creation, just as the equation is outside and something different from the set of numbers - a mathematical God.
 
fisherman_carl said:
For example God’s existence can be derived from the things he has made and done. Miracles for instance.
Click to expand...
Many miracles have natural explanations which do not rely on invoking divine intervention. Atheists sometimes say that they are looking for an example of a soldier, coming back from war, who had his arms or legs torn off and he and his family prayed that these limbs be restored and completely grown back. Do you know of any case within the past 50 years of such a miracle occurring?
 
Aloysium said:
:twocents:

Time is an abstraction. Change exists and a mind is required to isolate a moment, comparing the duration of an event to standardized phenomena such as a day. Although there exists time and we can mentally go back in time, time as change, has only one direction. We can imagine things played back in reverse, but they cannot change back. That is not how causality works. There is no force that can cause us to grow young and become embryos. This is important because, although we may imagine that time goes back, or goes forward forever, what happens is determined by the nature of the causes which operate in the world. We asccribe properties and patterns that make them understandable. For example, while there is nothing that logically tells us that the Collesium does not have a triangular form. The reality is that it is circular. That is the better description of its appearance. In terms of the universe, we may still not know very much, but we do know that this all had a beginning. .
Click to expand...
It is true that time has only one direction and that we exist in the present. Yes.
 
fisherman_carl said:
So you are saying the universe could have created itself from nothing?
Click to expand...
What I am saying that “noting leads to noting” is the result of our observation of this world. It is not an indisputable fact. We in fact can have something out of nothing as the result of quantum mechanics fluctuation for example Big Bang.
fisherman_carl said:
Even the past atheists who believed in an eternal universe thought that to be absurd.
Click to expand...
Universe cannot be eternal since it take infinite waiting from eternal past to now, hence it is impossible.
 
Bahman said:
Universe cannot be eternal since it take infinite waiting from eternal past to now, hence it is impossible.
Click to expand...
Your argument is unconvincing since the real line extends infinitely into the past and into the future.
 
Tomdstone said:
Your argument is unconvincing since the real line extends infinitely into the past and into the future.
Click to expand...
That is not true. That is simply our abstract from concept of time. We know well that time started at Big Bang.
 
Tomdstone said:
Is a hypothesis. Not known for sure.
Click to expand...
The question is simple: How something can come from nothing? You can answer it two ways: Something can come out of nothing accepting the fact causality does not rule when there is nothing. That can be true accepting the fact that we accept the causality by observing our environment. You can either answer that something can come out of nothing by Divine intervention. The question which raise latter is where all power of God comes from? So at the end of the day we are left with a dilemma we cannot resolve since we don’t know the truth.
 
Bahman said:
The question is simple: How something can come from nothing?
Click to expand...
That is the question of the atheist who will ask it about God. How did He come from nothing? The theist will answer that God always was and is. But the atheist will respond that he posits that of the universe.
 
Tomdstone said:
That is the question of the atheist who will ask it about God. How did He come from nothing? The theist will answer that God always was and is. But the atheist will respond that he posits that of the universe
.
Click to expand...
The answer to question of how does something come from nothing is a mystery. Mystery is the result of our ignorance. What we know is the result of our attempts to resolve mysteries. We can simply put a mysteries inside a box calling it X. This however means that you have accepted the fact that you are defeated. This however does not help you to understand the Truth.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
Why is it illogical for the universe to be eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible?..but not illogical for God to have those attributes?

Why does the universe have to have a beginning and not God? What would happen if the universe DID in fact always exist?

(Without resorting to scientific evidence. I’m asking from a purely philosophical point of view)
Click to expand...
Life is the only intelligible existence. The universe does not have Life’s spirit animating it. Chance cannot be eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible. The universe thrives on chance. An intelligible being does not require probability to exist, therefore, God is immutable because he is not a probable being, he is an absolute being. There is something absolute within ourselves of this being.

It’s not probable that we exist, we absolutely exist. We being the intelligence that can take a probable universe and manipulate it concerning our lives. The universe has no will but the will that directs it, which is separate from the universe, namely God.

I can throw a ball, north, south east west. In which ever direction I will it. The universe doesn’t have such will. It has physical law, meaning that it can only come together according to such law. It cannot stray away from the law, it cannot manipulate the law for a different causal outcome. It’s inanimate. Spirit is required to animate a body. God’s spirit animates the world. The world is merely manipulated by Spirit and not the world is not in possession of will. A rock does not have brains.

You can either say that life came first or the world came first. How could something unintelligent precede that which is the spirit of life? People with this notion are dumb. They do not realize their own life within themselves. They do not see the master of the universe within themselves.

If we exist then a being far superior to our own capabilities exists. We are not the end of life nor its beginning. If we exist (who are weak beyond comparison) then God exists in his perfection.

If there is a hierarchy of existence within beings then there must be, logic concludes, there must be a supreme being whom we identify as God, Sovereign of the Universe.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
Why is it illogical for the universe to be eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible?..but not illogical for God to have those attributes?

Why does the universe have to have a beginning and not God? What would happen if the universe DID in fact always exist?

(Without resorting to scientific evidence. I’m asking from a purely philosophical point of view)
Click to expand...
You can tell that the universe is created. You can tell by looking at the stars. New stars are born, Old stars die. Galaxies collide, ripped apart by black holes. The process of creation is evident through science.

If the universe was uncreated then there would be none of this process evident. There would be no life cycle of the stars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top