What Caused God to Create the Universe?

[NowAgnostic]

When First Cause cosmological arguments get to the end, they posit an Uncaused Cause, which is taken to be “God”; the word however is used equivocally. The necessary distinction is not made between God’s existence and God’s action. God’s existence is not the direct cause of the universe. His creative action is, and this would be uncaused unless one wishes to posit that His existence is the cause of His action. That would make His action logically necessary (since a necessary cause produces a necessary effect), and lead to modal collapse.

Now, if the universe is contingent, God’s creative action is also contingent. Which means, God’s creative action is a totally unexplained brute fact, an entity which exists without cause or explanation. Which means, ultimately, theism has no more explanatory power than atheism insofar as there is an unexplained brute fact. And, moreover, anything logically contingent cannot be a purely actual entity (since a purely actual entity, if it exists, exists necessarily) - thus God’s action cannot be purely actual, and the causal chain ends up with an eternal entity but one a mixture of potency and act.

The doctrine of divine simplicity, however, would make God’s existence identical to His action since He can have no real distinctions. In that case His action would be logically necessary as is His existence.

 

[RedSoxFan]

So what you are really telling us is that you believe in a fallacy.

You have my sympathies.

Personal Message me if you want.
~RSF

 

[HyeDetroit]

I’m having a hard time following your logic. What book/author did you get this from?

As to your question, What caused God to create the universe?

When you think about God, many generally think of a being that is more intelligent than us. I would say that’s an understatement, but nonetheless, more intelligent.

How can we ever wrap our brains around the reason why God would create the universe?
That’s like a mouse wondering why an engineer created a house.

Does it really matter to the mouse, as long as he gets fed and has a place to live?
Will he ever understand the achitectual and structual aspects of the house?

Just more things for you to think about lol

 

[Kalos]

A great question, and i would like to give you a spiritual and Biblical answer. The reason why God created remained a mystery throughout the old testament, but then St. Paul revealed it for us in the book of Colossians. This book is centered on Christ. We find in the first chapter that all things were created for Christ. The Father desired to create all things for the glory of the Son.

This is one of the great revelations of the Bible. i hope you do not find it too simplistic because it is really very deep.

 

[Ghosty]

Now, if the universe is contingent, God’s creative action is also contingent.

This is a false statement, and the root of your problem. It is equivalent to saying that since the universe is caused, God is caused.

The cause of the universe is the simple will of God. Since God is Himself First Cause, there need be no cause outside Himself for His willing anything, since He is His own Will.

Peace and God bless!

 

[James_S_Saint]

…The necessary distinction is not made between God’s existence and God’s action. God’s existence is not the direct cause of the universe. His creative action is, and this would be uncaused unless one wishes to posit that His existence is the cause of His action. .
.
.
The doctrine of divine simplicity, however, would make God’s existence identical to His action since He can have no real distinctions. In that case His action would be logically necessary as is His existence.

I don’t see the proposed problem in that…?

But from where did this come;
“God’s existence is not the direct cause of the universe.”?

As far as I know, God’s existence and Gods action are one and the same, unless you have some odd definition involved.

 

[Sunflower15]

…
Now, if the universe is contingent, God’s creative action is also contingent. Which means, God’s creative action is a totally unexplained brute fact, an entity which exists without cause or explanation. …

In the first sentence, you are distinguishing between the Being [God] and His Action [Creation], but in the second sentence, you are mixing these up again…saying that since His Action is ‘unexplained’ then the Being is ‘without explanation’…

You cannot make the distinction and then roll them together in the same argument.[contradiction]

However, what you seem to be looking for, is not proof for the existence of the Being [God], but for the existence of His Action [Creation].

If this is correct, then
the nature of the Being is the answer…

a SPIRITUAL BEING has two powers by definition
[maybe more, but at least we know of these 2]

the INTELLECT [meaning He has the means to create if He wants to],
and the FREE WILL [meaning He has the Freedom to Act if He so desires to]…
the nature of the BEING would explain the ‘necessity’ or the logical argument for the Creation of all that is ‘seen and unseen’ to come into existence ‘out of nothing’ by the power of this Being…

The doctrine of divine simplicity, however, would make God’s existence identical to His action since He can have no real distinctions. In that case His action would be logically necessary as is His existence.

I am not familiar with this theory…can it be similar to what I explained in that the nature of the Being is not just its existence but also its action?

In other words, dogs bark, ducks quack, Humans reason, God Exists * and Creates…their ‘being’ includes their ‘actions’ or their ‘actions’ are part of the nature of their ‘being’…
*

 

[James_S_Saint]

The short answer to your title question would simply be, “Logic”.

What causes consistency? What causes the inside of a volume to always be less than the outside? What causes 2+2 to always equal 4 whether we know of it or not?

We use words and language to point at things and to reveal relationships between them, but we do not actually cause the reality of what our statements infer.

So what does?

We name it Logic, Consistency, Truth, Reality, Elohim, Love, and many other names.

What makes you think it hasn’t also been called “God” all along?

 

[Sunflower15]

I don’t see the proposed problem in that…?

But from where did this come;
“God’s existence is not the direct cause of the universe.”?

As far as I know, God’s existence and Gods action are one and the same, unless you have some odd definition involved.

It seems that is precisely what he is asking, whether His BEING and His ACTION are the same or not…

I posit that they are, since His ACTION stems from the nature of His BEING…*

In other words, for God to BE and to CREATE [or to WILL creation] are His nature, otherwise, IF the ACTION is optional, then he suggests that simply to prove God’s existence is not enough to prove that He created ALL…

Which may lead to a strange conclusion of the possibility* of having a GOD and still have a universe that is unrelated to the God, or at least not caused by Him…

I never heard that one!

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well, I guess this all goes along with the notion that God had a choice to not create the universe. I immediately see that as silly non-sense, but I guess if people want to go there.

As pointed out in the “Before God??” thread, immediately at the arrival of God the universe created. No time can pass, and actually God couldn’t have done otherwise nor have made it different.

---

Or if you want to get seriously metaphysical, the answer is, “the logical impossibility of indifference”.

 

[Fran65]

Actually, God didn’t ‘arrive’. He is eternal. I hope that someone pointed this out on the other thread!

 

[Eucharisted]

Look at the Universe, study it, and you will see that a loving God - a loving perfect being - had to have created it. There are an almost infinite number of possibilities that the Universe could have come out. The gravity of the Universe’s order is of such magnitude that only a being of love and wisdom could have created it, for it takes love to make good and it takes wisdom to plan out that good; indeed, if one bit of the Universe’s order was off by even a little - the position of the Earth, the amount of hydrogen in outer space, the Milky Way, the chromosomes, the process of evolution, the working of time, the expansion of the continuum, the various laws, the number of cells in the human body - we would be dead. Now if a loving and wise God created such a wonderous and grand Universe for us to live in, than surely it was out of love and wisdom that He created us.

And while both love and wisdom are the same thing - one attribute - in God, who is absolutely one, absolutely simple, absolutely perfect - we distinguish the many “marks” of God so as to better understand Him, and He, far from being disappointed at our attempt to understand Him in a human way, is the One who gives us this understanding and helps us to comprehend Him, first revealing Himself to man and deepening his understanding of Him, He who is the same Lord that created man as he is, for his greater good and for His glory, in His love and wisdom, or love-wisdom.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Actually, God didn’t ‘arrive’. He is eternal. I hope that someone pointed this out on the other thread!

And neither did the universe. That was the point to the other thread.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Look at the Universe, study it, and you will see that a loving God - a loving perfect being - had to have created it. There are an almost infinite number of possibilities that the Universe could have come out.

This is an “appeal to the heart”, but is non-sequetor. It is not a “logical” argument whether true or not. And in the case of NowAgnostic, it has no bearing or foundation.

 

[Eucharisted]

This is an “appeal to the heart”, but is non-sequetor. It is not a “logical” argument whether true or not. And in the case of NowAgnostic, it has no bearing or foundation.

It would certainly be a fallacy if I left my comment off at the point you decided to chop it off. But I did not. I explained what I meant.

 

[James_S_Saint]

It would certainly be a fallacy if I left my comment off at the point you decided to chop it off. But I did not. I explained what I meant.

I wasn’t claiming it to be a fallacy, just not of interest to the OPer… sorry.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Look at the Universe, study it, and you will see that a loving God - a loving perfect being - had to have created it. There are an almost infinite number of possibilities that the Universe could have come out. The gravity of the Universe’s order is of such magnitude that only a being of love and wisdom could have created it, for it takes love to make good and it takes wisdom to plan out that good; indeed, if one bit of the Universe’s order was off by even a little - the position of the Earth, the amount of hydrogen in outer space, the Milky Way, the chromosomes, the process of evolution, the working of time, the expansion of the continuum, the various laws, the number of cells in the human body - we would be dead.

The fine tuning argument does not hold water, it is just an incorrect interpretation of statistics. It like throwing out a 1000 cards in random order, then once you have the order claiming god must have picked the order, for if one card had been in a different order we would not have had the exact order they came out in. Stats like this don’t work in reverse.

This is a classic case of the god of the gaps. We don’t understand the exact origin of the constants therefore god did it. However past experience tells us that with proper research god did it invariably can be replace with a more adequate explanation.

ADW.

 

[redneck22]

When First Cause cosmological arguments get to the end, they posit an Uncaused Cause, which is taken to be “God”; the word however is used equivocally. The necessary distinction is not made between God’s existence and God’s action. God’s existence is not the direct cause of the universe. His creative action is, and this would be uncaused unless one wishes to posit that His existence is the cause of His action. That would make His action logically necessary (since a necessary cause produces a necessary effect), and lead to modal collapse.

Now, if the universe is contingent, God’s creative action is also contingent. Which means, God’s creative action is a totally unexplained brute fact, an entity which exists without cause or explanation. Which means, ultimately, theism has no more explanatory power than atheism insofar as there is an unexplained brute fact. And, moreover, anything logically contingent cannot be a purely actual entity (since a purely actual entity, if it exists, exists necessarily) - thus God’s action cannot be purely actual, and the causal chain ends up with an eternal entity but one a mixture of potency and act.

The doctrine of divine simplicity, however, would make God’s existence identical to His action since He can have no real distinctions. In that case His action would be logically necessary as is His existence.

I think your on to something here, Now Agnostic, and you make some good points. My answer would be that GOD IS LOVE, a that through absolute love God created the universe and more importantly, us.

A modern argument by Bruce R. Reichenbach for the existence of God goes like this:-

A contingent being exists.

a. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another;

b. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible. Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence. That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a noncontingent (necessary) being.

c. If (3), then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so on to infinity.
Therefore, that which causes (provides sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being.

An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.

Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists.

.

 

[tonyrey]

I think your on to something here, Now Agnostic, and you make some good points. My answer would be that GOD IS LOVE, a that through absolute love God created the universe and more importantly, us.

A modern argument by Bruce R. Reichenbach for the existence of God goes like this:-

A contingent being exists.

a. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another;

b. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible. Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence. That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a noncontingent (necessary) being.

c. If (3), then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so on to infinity.
Therefore, that which causes (provides sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being.

An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.

Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists.

.

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by redneck22

             *I think you're on to something here, Now Agnostic, and you make some good points. My answer would be that GOD IS LOVE, that through absolute love God created the universe and more importantly, us.

A modern argument by Bruce R. Reichenbach for the existence of God goes like this:-
A contingent being exists.

a. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another;

b. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible. Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence. That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a noncontingent (necessary) being.

c. If (3), then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so on to infinity.
Therefore, that which causes (provides sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being.

An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.

Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists.
*
A good argument. But the concept of a necessary being seems to imply that it is caused by itself and would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible!
There is a simple solution which corresponds to our experience:
The argument assumes that the only type of causality is physical and temporal. Or to put it another way, that the only type of power is physical but the existence of a necessary Being presupposes a different type of rational, creative, purposeful power which is non-physical and atemporal. We ourselves experience this power when we transcend our environment by thinking of the past, planning for the future and exercising our free will.