Who created God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
coolduude said:
Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn’t, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, “Don’t look to me for the final explanation. I’m just an instrument. Something else caused me.” If that’s all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, “The buck stops here.”
Click to expand...
But the whole Universe is unexplained! Nobody knows how it got here…

All we know is that something exploded or expanded. We don’t know what, we don’t know why… All we know is how, from T=ZERO onwards…
 
Thiests know- it’s called God. In the athiest model the universe is exactly what you said: unexplained. The thiestic model says God created the universe. So what’s more implausible? The universe just ‘poping’ into existence, or God creating it? O think everyone knows my vote.
 
I think if something cannot be seen, measured, created, destroyed or detected in any way, that is very compelling evidence that there’s actually nothing there.

Rebutt: If God is incorporeal, He is no physical. If he in not physical, science cannot detect His essence becuase science is limited to the physical realm.

Intellect requires complexity. It also requires to be driven by energy. The human brain constitutes nearly a quarter of our total energy requirements and it is the most complex object in the known Universe.

Rebutt: God’s very essence could be composed with some type of energy that is incorporeal in nature and cannot be detected.

All we know is that something exploded or expanded. We don’t know what, we don’t know why… All we know is how, from T=ZERO onwards…
Exactly, and a transcedent First Cause is the most logical explanation. Your presumtpion that ALL in reality must be purely physcial and natural is very audacious.
 
UnworthyApostle said:
Rebutt: If God is incorporeal, He is no physical. If he in not physical, science cannot detect His essence becuase science is limited to the physical realm.
Click to expand...
And there could be a tea pot in orbit around Neptune to, that found it’s way there through a highly improbable quantum tunnelling event. Do you think it likely there is?
Rebutt: God’s very essence could be composed with some type of energy that is incorporeal in nature and cannot be detected.
Click to expand...
Could you provide an example of this?
 
coolduude said:
Thiests know- it’s called God. In the athiest model the universe is exactly what you said: unexplained. The thiestic model says God created the universe. So what’s more implausible? The universe just ‘poping’ into existence, or God creating it? O think everyone knows my vote.
Click to expand...
I have never heard of the theory of the Universe just “popping” into existence. Interesting. I’ll have to look that one up…
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I have never heard of the theory of the Universe just “popping” into existence. Interesting. I’ll have to look that one up…
Click to expand...
I’ve heard it from hardcore athiests who won’t accept God. They contend that the universe ‘poped’ into existence.

Now look- time cannot be infinite. Therefore, the universe had a beginning before which there was nothing. So, without God, the universe did just ‘pop’ into existence. With God, however, there is a plausible, logical explination for the creation of the universe put of nothing. God is the safest bet on the creation of the universe, IMO.
 
coolduude said:
I’ve heard it from hardcore athiests who won’t accept God. They contend that the universe ‘poped’ into existence.

Now look- time cannot be infinite. Therefore, the universe had a beginning before which there was nothing. So, without God, the universe did just ‘pop’ into existence. With God, however, there is a plausible, logical explination for the creation of the universe put of nothing. God is the safest bet on the creation of the universe, IMO.
Click to expand...
Again you’re making an assumption, that the only two options are time or nothing. What on Earth makes you think that?

There could be anything outside / before the Universe. We don’t know what there might be. We probably never will.

Invoking a God who is by nature even more complicated than the issue you’re trying to explain is not logical and is an affront to common sense. You are simply making the problem worse than it already is…
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Again you’re making an assumption, that the only two options are time or nothing. What on Earth makes you think that?

There could be anything outside / before the Universe. We don’t know what there might be. We probably never will.

Invoking a God who is by nature even more complicated than the issue you’re trying to explain is not logical and is an affront to common sense. You are simply making the problem worse than it already is…
Click to expand...
Even if there is something outside the universe* (I suppose you are referencing M-theory?) it would still have to be explained. It would not affect the existence of God.

I think you’re talking about a multiverse theory so this is what I have to say:
Even if there are other ‘branes’, they can not go on for infinity (there can not be an actual infinite). Therefore, there has to be a first, a second, a third, etc. And from there we wind up back to the First Cause: there must be a First Cause who is existence itself to create everything else. If no first cause, no second cause, etc. So, in sum, even if there are other universes they all still need an ultimate Creator (God).
Moonstruck888 said:
Why not? How do you know?
Click to expand...
Because an actual infinite can’t exist.

If there was an infinite number of subsequent causes and events in the past, there is no way we could have actually reached the present - we would have had to traverse an infinite number of events to get to today - and you cannot traverse an infinite number of events.

Another way to put it is that a series of infinite past events would have to come to an end in the present to get to today - but a series of infinite events cannot come to an end - could not have reached the present.

The universe would have had to start somewhere in order to reach today so we could even be having this discussion about it at all.
*I must note that by definition there can’t be multiple universes- the definition of ‘universe’ is “All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.” (thefreedictionary.com) How can there be two of everything, or three, or four? From the start this argument is flawed.
 
coolduude said:
Even if there is something outside the universe* (I suppose you are referencing M-theory?) it would still have to be explained. It would not affect the existence of God.
Click to expand...
No I am not referring to any particular hypothesis.
I think you’re talking about a multiverse theory so this is what I have to say:
Even if there are other ‘branes’, they can not go on for infinity (there can not be an actual infinite). Therefore, there has to be a first, a second, a third, etc. And from there we wind up back to the First Cause: there must be a First Cause who is existence itself to create everything else. If no first cause, no second cause, etc. So, in sum, even if there are other universes they all still need an ultimate Creator (God).
Click to expand...
I am simply saying that nobody knows. I don’t know, you don’t know, Richard Dawkins doesn’t know and Pope Benedict doesn’t know. No one does.
Because an actual infinite can’t exist.
Click to expand...
Says who? That is another assumption. Let’s try to get through this without simply making things up, no?
If there was an infinite number of subsequent causes and events in the past, there is no way we could have actually reached the present - we would have had to traverse an infinite number of events to get to today - and you cannot traverse an infinite number of events.
Click to expand...
There is an infinite set of numbers between one and two.

Can you count to two?
Another way to put it is that a series of infinite past events would have to come to an end in the present to get to today - but a series of infinite events cannot come to an end - could not have reached the present.
Click to expand...
The universe would have had to start somewhere in order to reach today so we could even be having this discussion about it at all.
Click to expand...
The Mandelbrot set has an infinite surface area, and yet it can fit on a computer screen. Your reasoning doesn’t hold water…
 
Rather, it is your reasoning that doesn’t hold.

First, I don’t think saying time has a beginning is an assumption. No, I think it’s fact backed up by science (big bang cosmology) and logic which, for some reason you reject.

As to infinity: numbers can be infinite. But that’s not an actual infinite. An actual infinite would be an infinite number of books or an ifinite number of pencils. An actual infinite exists in reality. Numbers do go on infinitely, but they are abstract ideas and thus are not actual infinites.

Finally, a Madelbrot set is not infinite (as far as I can tell. I could be wrong): (mathematics) a set of complex numbers, C, for which the iteration zn+1 = zn2 + C has a finite limit; a graph of this set having each value of the finite limit in a different colour - the boundary of this graph is a fractal. (definition provided by wikipedia).
 
coolduude said:
Rather, it is your reasoning that doesn’t hold.

First, I don’t think saying time has a beginning is an assumption. No, I think it’s fact backed up by science (big bang cosmology) and logic which, for some reason you reject.
Click to expand...
I thought we had already agreed that science cannot prove that. Science cannot prove what is outside the Universe or before the Universe, so whether infinity lies outside is not a scientific question. If science can prove that nothing can be infinite, then it stands to reason that neither can God.
As to infinity: numbers can be infinite. But that’s not an actual infinite. An actual infinite would be an infinite number of books or an ifinite number of pencils. An actual infinite exists in reality. Numbers do go on infinitely, but they are abstract ideas and thus are not actual infinites.
Click to expand...
So why does God get an exemption? Why can God be infinite but nothing else can? Would it be because God doesn’t exist in reality either? Then we agree on something.
Finally, a Madelbrot set is not infinite (as far as I can tell. I could be wrong): (mathematics) a set of complex numbers, C, for which the iteration zn+1 = zn2 + C has a finite limit; a graph of this set having each value of the finite limit in a different colour - the boundary of this graph is a fractal. (definition provided by wikipedia).
Click to expand...
It is infinite in theory… No matter how far you go into it, you can just keep adding more iterations… In reality of course, your computer will eventually run out of memory and crash.
 
Regarding God- God can be infinite because He is the First Cause- He is existence. By nature He has to be infinite. If He wasn’t, He wouldn’t be God.

On Mandelbrots- again, as far as I know (my knowledge of Mandelbrot sets is limited) they are mathmatical concepts. Yes, they are graphed on the computer. But are they tangible? I don’t think so. The only reason they can theretically (sp.) go on forever is because they are being graphed abstractly, i.e. on a computer. The same goes for the Internet. It’s abstract. Can you touch the Internet? No. Therefore, it can be infinite because it’s abstract. But, like I said earlier, an actual infinite can not exist.
 
coolduude said:
Regarding God- God can be infinite because He is the First Cause- He is existence. By nature He has to be infinite. If He wasn’t, He wouldn’t be God.
Click to expand...
That’s not a reason, that’s a circular argument, a fox chasing it’s own tail. If he is existence, then why can’t he be observed?

Incidentally does God have a female counterpart? If not, why does he have a male gender?
On Mandelbrots- again, as far as I know (my knowledge of Mandelbrot sets is limited) they are mathmatical concepts. Yes, they are graphed on the computer. But are they tangible? I don’t think so. The only reason they can theretically (sp.) go on forever is because they are being graphed abstractly, i.e. on a computer. The same goes for the Internet. It’s abstract. Can you touch the Internet? No. Therefore, it can be infinite because it’s abstract. But, like I said earlier, an actual infinite can not exist.
Click to expand...
You can touch the internet. The internet is stored on hard disks. They are physical and tangibile. I don’t want to get too caught up in debating the Mandelbrot set, I merely brought up infinite sets to demonstrate that infinity is not merely a buzzword.
 
Go can’t be observed in the empiracal way because He’s not made of matter. We discussed earlier that He is pure spirit. God’s effects are everywhere though- you, me, nature. We’re all created by God. When you look out the window you are seeing the handiwork of God. It’s as easy as that 😃
 
coolduude said:
Go can’t be observed in the empiracal way because He’s not made of matter. We discussed earlier that He is pure spirit. God’s effects are everywhere though- you, me, nature. We’re all created by God. When you look out the window you are seeing the handiwork of God. It’s as easy as that 😃
Click to expand...
Great, now we’re back to square one…

If you want me to believe your claim, I want you to provide some proof of it.

Since there is nothing in this Universe that cannot be explained without God or the supernatural, I put it to you that assigning a God to it is unwarranted.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Then these atheists are not very well informed.
Now look- time cannot be infinite.
Click to expand...
Infinity is unachievable. There can’t be an infinite number of days prior to today. You can’t get here from there. There is no starting point from which to move forward into the future. Any time you interject a moment in time in which to begin the journey from the past to the present you just made time finite.
Click to expand...
 
cranster said:
Infinity is unachievable. There can’t be an infinite number of days prior to today. You can’t get here from there. There is no starting point from which to move forward into the future. Any time you interject a moment in time in which to begin the journey from the past to the present you just made time finite.
Click to expand...
All those seem like pretty good arguments against the God hypothesis to me. What makes God immune from your beautifully illustrated chain of reasoning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top