Where Does God Come From?

[Bluegoat]

No, you’ve answered perfectly well, thank you.

I don’t think anybody believes that the universe has always existed - the Big Bang theory contradicts this. The fact is that nobody really knows how the Universe came about. I don’t think anybody really think it just popped into existence without cause either, just that the chain of causality is beyond analysis prior to the Big Bang.

If I understand you correctly, you’re not equating a self-existent god with a self-existent Universe, but with a self-existent law that caused the Universe to start. My problem with this comparison is that God is an awfully complex phenomenen, ascribed as it is with sentience, purpose and emotion. By contrast a physical law (or pre-physical, whatever that might look like) has none of this baggage and therefore is objectively a far more parsimonious hypothesis.

Truth is, we’ll almost certainly never know.

One step at a time! Most modern Westerners do tend to think that the idea of God includes all of those “extra” characteristics, but that has not at all been the case historically. Christians and and the Jews generally say that God has these kinds of characteristics (Although not emotion - no theology I know of says God has emotions in the proper sense.) But the pre-Christian pagans did not say that, and some of the Eastern religions do not say that. Aristotle and Plato, as the most important pagan examples, did not think god was even aware of his creation or had any knowledge of it, and they didn’t think he willed it either. They did say of all things god was most like a mind, but not with the emotions and changes and dependence on things outside of itself that our minds have. The neoplatonists said that you couldn’t really describe god at all, and terms that one might use for it (not he!) like the One or the Good were really just pointers of a sort, and would have been shocked at a theology that said he was a person. Plato thought about God, especially in his later writings, in almost mathematical terms.

Christians and Jews of course say that God is in fact aware of his creation, and wills creation, and is a person - in fact three persons according to Christians. They also say that this is not properly speaking a philosophical opinion that one could arrive at through natural reason alone, but is rather something they know as a matter of special revelation - that is, God choose to reveal it to them directly. It does, however, solve a number of conundrums and difficulties that the pre-Christian pagans philosophers had with their systems, so we would not say that this idea of a personal God who wills creation is non-rational so much as super-rational.

But it is quite possible to affirm a theistic point of view without going so far as to say that God is like the Christian God.

Also - as far as a universe that has always existed: for a long time that was in fact the dominent opinion - that is what the ancient philosophers thought, and it is also what most scientists of the modern period up until the Big Bang theory became dominent thought. I lot of modern critisism of religion actually comes out of that period, and I suspect that is in fact what they were thinking - that the universe was self-existant in that way. So the idea of the Big Bang, if it did represent a real beginning to the universe, would imply a need to rethink those philosophic assumptions - I don’t think that always happens though.

Also, if it is the case as some seem to think that there have been a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, then there is a sense in which there has always been something, although I don’t know what you would call it. A sort of seed perhaps.

But in his recent book, Hawking said that gravity was sufficient alone to bring the universe into being. I must confess that I have some questions about this and haven’t read his book. But if he means that the law of gravity itself brought the material universe into being, that is very much like the idea of a self-existent immaterial reality - what the ancients would call a first cause or god. Or if he means there was something and gravity caused it to form the universe, then there is still a self-existent material reality of some kind. Of course, I may be totally mangling his suggestion here.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no reason to believe that “why” is a valid question when applied to the workings of the universe. It is irrational to see purpose in humans and assume that it cannot exist without an underlying purpose to the universe. To believe that purpose in humans necessitates a purposeful creator of the universe is a non-sequitur, and when challenged, is usually defended with an example of the Argument from Ignorance. As can be seen in your second paragraph.

This is quite clearly your favourite pseudo-argument - “purpose can’t come from purposeless particles.” I see it from you all the time. It makes no sense, no matter how many times you type it.

Your objection makes no sense no matter how many times you type it because you never explain how purpose is derived from purposeless particles. Purpose implies foresight and directiveness whereas inanimate objects are lacking both. Ironically your objection is based on ignorance - which you consider a virtue when it suits your preconceived conclusion!

 

[Fink]

In what way is God = Love? In what way is God = Existence? Please describe, for my benefit, if you would be so kind.

An explanation of the inner Life of God has to be given to another poster on this thread; so stick around.
There`s no point in repeating oneself.
Probably better: see the PPS.

You’d like to think this, I suppose, as it allows you to just dismiss valid arguments as uneducated fluff.

Likewise with you: your attitude allows you to dismiss valid arguments with sarcasm/contempt.
Dont forget that youre displaying yourself in public.

What do you think Dawkins has lied about, btw?

One example: his slanderous lie last year, claiming that Hitler was a Catholic for the whole of his life. It says a lot about the state of Dawkins` mind, and probably his soul.
As for other examples, there are probably some on a thread you started a couple of years back, asking why are so many folks dead set against him.

What truth? You’ve capitalised it, so am I to assume that the “Truth” you refer to is the subjective doctrine of the Catholic church? As my sig says, that’s not the sort of “Truth” I value, I’m afraid.

No, i`ve noticed. Very narrow.

You’re right of course. Silly of me to display healthy, rational skepticism of outlandish and baseless claims.

It`s even sillier to display ignorance.

This comment does nothing but demonstrate how unquestioningly ensconced in dogma you are. Quite logically, if there’s zero proof for the existence of God (and this is certainly the situation) then any claim to know anything of his origin, nature or attributes is nothing but conjecture.** Nobody knows.** For your claim that this is “wrong” to stand, you need to demonstrate how you know. Otherwise, you’re just belching hot air.

Actually, it took decades to come to the Truth. So, if you want to catch up, you better get stuck into it.

What was offensive about my post? If you get offended just because someone has a different opinion to you, then you need to sort yourself out.

What do you mean?

i dont mean any offence: ***at least no more than youve already given***; in fact, hopefully a lot less; but, are you a bit slow?

That’s an ad hominem, but never mind. My attitude flows from healthy skepticism of the truth claims of religion, coupled with a ***resentment ***that the religious seem to think they should be moral arbiters of everybody else, and that they have the right to dictate anything about how others should live their lives (remove the beam from thine own eye and all that). Coupled with an innate dislike of miseducation and its implications for society.

You certainly have a resentment! It makes me wonder whether you were raised a Catholic; and then “something” unpleasant happened. Please don`t take offence at that last comment! i mean that in all sincerity.

The “fear” thing is often trotted out by theists, it’s just a straw man. What do I have to be afraid of? I mean really, what?

TRUTH.
Maybe the reality that theres a Being Whos smarter than the rest of us.

I`m sorry - do you think that proves something?

If you want to hold a conversation with yourself, feel free.

Not because what I said is wrong…

• it rebuts your empty claim…

Ironically, this is a red herring, and utterly fails to addres the point I made!

The whole world can hear you!

Of course you will - that’s the nature of dogmatic religious belief.

Spot on!

And is this what you would call “open-minded?” Believing outrageous claims without a jot of evidence? This is where we came in, I think.

If it were not for your attitude, you`d find that there IS evidence.

As I said, I realise this. Some religious people are open to re-evaluating their beliefs, the vast majority aren’t. Your demonstration of closed-mindedness is complete with your assessment of atheism as a religion. Ironic, given*** your exhortation for me to understand you!***

i dont think youd understand the concepts. Not yet, anyway.

Now who’s baiting? Think what you like of me, but my arguments are sound. Sorry.

Your arguments are sound, all right, in the sense that they make a lot of noise.

I’ve done so, and they’re summarised above. Not sure what you’re waffling on about regarding my sanity, it sounds like desperation.

It`s probably no good doing a self-examination: you need a professional.
To be so full of venom, there has to be something wrong.

PS
Youre doing me an unexpected service. The last thing id ever do would be to give Dawkins a cent of my cash. If you stay on this thread for much longer, you`ll probably end up quoting the entirety of "The God Delusion’. A free copy!

PPS
If you ARE genuinely interested in the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, this is deeper than anything i could ever put on paper:
thesumma.info/reality/index.php

 

[razredge]

Logically, there has to be a necessary being/thing somewhere which does not depend on another being for its existence.

This can either be God or some physical system - however it cannot be our universe since it has a beginning at the Big Bang.

I do agree that it is strange - all other things being equal to posit an intelligence as the necessary being though, but perhaps the evidence leads us to that conclusion.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Logically, there has to be a necessary being/thing somewhere which does not depend on another being for its existence. This can either be God or some physical system

Physical systems inherently possess potentiality, and this would mean that such a system could not be the first efficient cause, correct?

 

[razredge]

Physical systems inherently possess potentiality, and this would mean that such a system could not be the first efficient cause, correct?

Why not?

 

[benedictus2]

Why not?

Because a physical system is always contingent.

 

[razredge]

Because a physical system is always contingent.

Who says?

 

[Fink]

Who says?

Saint Thomas Aquinas?

 

[benedictus2]

Saint Thomas Aquinas?

Also from Raz’s own statement. The universe started with the Big Bang. Matter started with the Big Bang.

 

[razredge]

Also from Raz’s own statement. The universe started with the Big Bang. Matter started with the Big Bang.

Not necessarily, if the Big Bang began due to a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum, itself pre-existing then matter (or energy which is equivalent to matter) would pre-exist the Big Bang.

And it is possible that the universe itself is the one necessary being if it is shown to be eternal (which of course it hasn’t due to the Big Bang and the rate of cosmic expansion).

 

[benedictus2]

Not necessarily, if the Big Bang began due to a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum, itself pre-existing then matter (or energy which is equivalent to matter) would pre-exist the Big Bang.

Energy is not equivalent to matter. Energy can be converted to matter but matter is not energy.

If energy is what is at the beginning, it still does not mean that energy is the necessary being since by itself is also contingent. One must ask where did the energy come from?

And it is possible that the universe itself is the one necessary being if it is shown to be eternal (which of course it hasn’t due to the Big Bang and the rate of cosmic expansion).

If the universe itself has a beginning then it is not a necessary being.

Also, Newton has been disproved. The universe has spatial and temporal bounderies, therefore not eternal.

 

[Fink]

And it is possible that the universe itself is the one necessary being if it is shown to be eternal (which of course it hasn’t due to the Big Bang and the rate of cosmic expansion).

Thatd be a slide into the New Age. One characteristic of matter is that, by its very nature, it continuously changes. Thats not a good feature of a candidate for Self-existence.

God has an attribute which is unbeatable:
He is IMMUTABLE.
His essence/nature is totally without material substance: spirit “only”, utterly simple, indivisible.

At the risk of being called a parrot:
thesumma.info/reality/index.php

 

[benedictus2]

Thatd be a slide into the New Age. One characteristic of matter is that, by its very nature, it continuously changes. Thats not a good feature of a candidate for Self-existence.

God has an attribute which is unbeatable:
He is IMMUTABLE.
His essence/nature is totally without material substance: spirit “only”, utterly simple, indivisible.

Brilliant!!

 

[wanstronian]

Your objection makes no sense no matter how many times you type it because you never explain how purpose is derived from purposeless particles.

And as I’ve explained to you countless times - not knowing how something happened is not a valid reason to conclude that it didn’t happen. This is a very simple premise, and I don’t believe that you don’t understand it. You just deny it for some reason.

Purpose implies foresight and directiveness whereas inanimate objects are lacking both. Ironically your objection is based on ignorance - which you consider a virtue when it suits your preconceived conclusion!

What does this prove? Humans have purpose, and yes, they have foresight. So what? They also have eyes, but none of the particles from which eyes are built can see. You’re ignoring, perhaps even unconsciously, the plain fact that an item can be more than just the sum of its parts. The evidence of this is abundant - just look around you - but clearly it doesn’t serve your purpose to acknowledge it in the context of anything having to do with human sentience.

My objection is based not on ignorance, but on the wisdom of not jumping to false conclusions purely because they happen to support your worldview.

 

[razredge]

Energy is not equivalent to matter. Energy can be converted to matter but matter is not energy.
E=mc^2 so matter is a form of energy, like ice is a form of water.

If energy is what is at the beginning, it still does not mean that energy is the necessary being since by itself is also contingent. One must ask where did the energy come from?

 

[wanstronian]

An explanation of the inner Life of God has to be given to another poster on this thread; so stick around.
There`s no point in repeating oneself.
Probably better: see the PPS.

What makes you, or anybody else for that matter, think they are qualified to comment on the “inner life of God?” You can’t even prove it exists, how can you explain its characteristics?

Likewise with you: your attitude allows you to dismiss valid arguments with sarcasm/contempt.

Sorry, but I genuinely, honestly don’t believe I’ve heard a valid argument. Actually, that’s not strictly true. There are plenty of valid theistic arguments, but none which are sound. In other words, the arguments themselves may be valid, but built as they are upon unsafe premises, they are not sound.

Dont forget that youre displaying yourself in public.

And I’ve said nothing I’m ashamed of!

One example: his slanderous lie last year, claiming that Hitler was a Catholic for the whole of his life.

Nobody is a Catholic for the whole of their life - a newborn is unable to make such a decision. However, there is plenty of evidence that shows that Hitler was undoubtedly a Catholic for most, if not all, of his adult life. This insistence by theists that he was an atheist is nothing but a desperate scramble to put an air gap between biblical Christian doctrine, and an evil mass murderer. Hitler was undoubtedly Christian, and to go on denying it makes as much sense as denying evolution. It’s just laughable.

It says a lot about the state of Dawkins` mind, and probably his soul.

Just because you don’t like what he has to say that doesn’t put you in a position of authority to comment on his intellect or motives.

As for other examples, there are probably some on a thread you started a couple of years back, asking why are so many folks dead set against him.

I remember it - it was my first thread. Most of the complaints seemed to be not with his arguments, but that he was so blunt about how he phrased them. I don’t think bluntness and speaking one’s mind is something to be ashamed of.

No, i`ve noticed. Very narrow.

Actually, the exact opposite. It’s a far more open approach than dogmatically sticking to arbitrary doctrine in the absence of any and all evidence that it contains any truth content.

It`s even sillier to display ignorance.

There’s nothing wrong with ignorance. What’s poor form is trying to cover up ignorance by pretending you know the answer.

Actually, it took decades to come to the Truth. So, if you want to catch up, you better get stuck into it.

What you call “the Truth” is nothing of the kind. It’s speculation, pure and simple. If it were the truth, it would be simple to demonstrate. No such demonstration has ever been provided.

i dont mean any offence: ***at least no more than youve already given***; in fact, hopefully a lot less; but, are you a bit slow?

More ad hominem! No, I’m not slow. My initial comment was not offensive unless you have a very low threshold for offense. The most plausible objective answer to the OP, all things considered, is that God is a human invention. And being Christian, you probably do. Do I find your assertion that God exists offensive? No - so why do you so find my opinion that he doesn’t?

You certainly have a resentment! It makes me wonder whether you were raised a Catholic; and then “something” unpleasant happened. Please don`t take offence at that last comment! i mean that in all sincerity.

Yes - as I said, I resent the miseducation of religion, and the impact that has on the young and impressionable, and the far-reaching implications that such miseducation potentially brings.

No offense taken - I was not raised anything at all, my parents let me decide for myself. It was an easy decision - I chose not to believe in the tooth fairy for the same reasons.

TRUTH.
Maybe the reality that theres a Being Whos smarter than the rest of us.

This highlights the problem with many theists - they just can’t grasp the fact that atheists don’t believe. Do you not realise that if I was scared of a Big Smart Deity, then I’d be a de facto believer? I have no fear of a non-existent entity! Why do theists find this so hard to grasp? Think of it this way - are you scared that you might get bitten by a vampire? The reason you aren’t is the same reason I have no fear of a BDS.

The whole world can hear you!

So what!??

Spot on!

So, you’re proud of your closed-minded dogmatism? Well, at least you’re honest about it I suppose. I’d be a bit embarassed, but diff’rent strokes, as they say.

If it were not for your attitude, you`d find that there IS evidence.

No, there really isn’t - not to the standard required to support a truth claim such as the existence of God. If there were, everyone would believe in God, the way everyone believes in gravity. What there is, is sufficient philosophical waffle to enable a pre-believer to think they’ve got sound reasons for continuing to believe. It’s not the same thing at all.

If you think there’s evidence, then describe one experiment that makes use of this evidence to demonstrate the existence of God.

i dont think youd understand the concepts. Not yet, anyway.

Ah - that old chestnut again. Already refuted I’m afraid. Try again.

Your arguments are sound, all right, in the sense that they make a lot of noise.

…

It`s probably no good doing a self-examination: you need a professional.
To be so full of venom, there has to be something wrong.

More desperation. When unable to prove your point, resort to personal attacks.

 

[razredge]

One characteristic of matter is that, by its very nature, it continuously changes. That`s not a good feature of a candidate for Self-existence.

So? why can’t we have a pre-existent quantum sea of energy? Is this merely an aesthetic argument that you’d prefer to have the cause of the universe

God has an attribute which is unbeatable:
He is IMMUTABLE.
His essence/nature is totally without material substance: spirit “only”, utterly simple, indivisible.

Why can’t something physical be immutable?

 

[tonyrey]

And as I’ve explained to you countless times - not knowing how something happened is not a valid reason to conclude that it didn’t happen.

It is certainly not a valid reason to reject an explanation.

What does this prove? Humans have purpose, and yes, they have foresight. So what? They also have eyes, but none of the particles from which eyes are built can see. You’re ignoring, perhaps even unconsciously, the plain fact that an item can be more than just the sum of its parts.

You’re ignoring, perhaps even unconsciously, the issues of **how **and **why **things are more than just the sum of its parts.

The evidence of this is abundant - just look around you - but clearly it doesn’t serve your purpose to acknowledge it in the context of anything having to do with human sentience.

it doesn’t serve your purpose to acknowledge that it has any significance!

My objection is based not on ignorance, but on the wisdom of not jumping to false conclusions purely because they happen to support your worldview.

Your objection is based both on ignorance of how purpose originated and on the folly of ignoring the fact that you are using your power of reason to deny that rational beings have a rational origin. It would be more consistent to reject reason altogether, regard it as an illusion and reduce it to the random movements of purposeless particles - which have the magical power to create entities which imagine they are reasonable…

 

[JackQ]

Well, you said: “understanding my point would require the acknowledgement of existence independent of existing things.”

You’re asking me to acknowledge something that I don’t think is possible. I’m just saying I’ll acknowledge it if you can show it to be true. Otherwise the “understanding” of your point would have to rely on an unsafe premise.

It may be that I just don’t understand your statement that I’ve quoted above, but regardless, I can’t see how saying that “God is existence” explains anything. What context of “existence” are you using? Can you point to a dictionary definition so I can understand the equation you’re making?

It’s not an equation, really, because I’m not saying that God = existence, only that the existence of which everything partakes is God. But the question is whether there is existence independent of existing things or if it is more in the nature of an emergent property, i.e., there would be no existence if there was not at least one existing thing other than existence itself. I hold to the former because prior to (and I don’t mean that in a temporal sense) any one thing existing there must be the potentiality of that thing. The potentiality exists, hence there is existence prior to even the first thing. I guess you could say that in the beginning there was existence and potentiality, except that I don’t want to be misunderstood as making claims about whatever events took place along any time lines.

Besides, I was trying to answer the question: “Where does God come from?” As far as proving the existence of God, that’s wholly different, because if God didn’t exist it would be accurate only to say that he came from human minds.

I don’t see how a determined atheist can be persuaded with logic, since the best we can do is point to things such as love, truth, and existence which we Catholics hold to be of God’s essence. If you don’t believe that they are, then we reach an impasse, since the universe can indeed be explained without the God of Catholicism, though I have difficulty conceptualizing the universe without so much as the God of Deism. And, as best as I can see, it’s real hard to make the case for a universe without a prior existence and potentiality.

So there is something that has priority over everything, but that leaves room for a lot of debate over what that truth entails. We Catholics believe what we believe because of faith. I don’t know what kind of proof you’re looking for, but logic will only take us so far, and the terms for scientific proof are such that a proof for the existence of God is not going to come from that quarter anytime soon.

I happen to believe that every rational creature has an immediate intuition of God. Atheists exist because that intuition can be suppressed. The mind is indispensable, but God is met and understood in the heart.

If you respond to this, it might be awhile before I can respond since I’m going on a vacation.