"Where did god come from" is not an argument, it's a question. And the answer [i]is[/i], "He was just there." Your potential mistake is here:
It's not a big no-no in religion, it's a big no-no in science. The reason things need an explanation for where they came from is because we see as plain as day that they need one- things in this world have causes that bring them about, they exist for a little while, and they they fall into decay and dissolusion. That's just the nature of the physical universe we are in, and the reason the question of it's origins needs an answer. God, on the other hand, is not made out of physical stuff, and is not subject to this problem.
So, we need to answer where the universe came from because 'things come from other things' is one of the principal behaviors of the physical universe. The only possible answer (the cosmological argument says) is that there is something that does[i] not [/i]come from other things behind it all.
I think I'm losing your point. You said that things being 'just there' with no explanation is a big nono in religion, and that that's why the atheist needs to explain the existence of things, right? I'm saying no, there are things that are 'just there' in just about every religion- not only is it not a no-no, it's pretty much a rule. In Christianity, the thing that's 'just there' is God. In other religions it could be the world, or darkness, or chaos, or a big egg, or what-have-you.
It is science, and really just general observation, that makes us ask where things come from, because the things we observe all come from somewhere.
If they believe all things lead up to one mystical creature who was just there, why can’t I believe that all matter was just there. Every religious arguement that I get into the opposing person feels that they win the arguement because I can’t define a basis from where things originated. Yet at the same time they believe that god had no basis. So both parties believe in something that had no orgin, so thus the reason I’m sick of hearing the ignorant arguement.
and a note I was reading over this a few times and it seems like I’m arguing with another person, this is based off of several arguements.
Uccisore is right. You will always lose this argument for the reasons he has already given.
If you are a rationalist you have absolutely no way of explaining how things came into being, and at the end of the day you have to admit that you cannot “explain” creation.
In contrast, the person of faith CAN explain creation, and through faith CAN accept the possibility of a God who always existed.
So at the end of the discussion you will have to admit certain limitations in your argument while your opponent will not. This doesn’t mean that he/she is right or that you are wrong. Just that if you start with different assumptions, some things are easier to explain than others.
Take all religious vs. atheistic connotations out of it. Just see that when understanding the universe, there are two options:
There is a chain of temporal things causing other temporal things all the way back for infinite amounts of time.
If you go back far enough, there is a First Thing that follows slightly different rules, in that it doesn't need anything previous to have caused it.
Seems easy to answer to me- the source of all creation doesn't have a source, or else it isn't really the source of all creation. Does any mountain have a peak yet higher than it's highest peak?
If the top of the mountain is foggy, how do we know we have reached the summit?
At what point do we know we have found The source?
If we find god should we just accept that he is the source or would you ask what created him? And if he said that something created him would you ask what created that something?
If he said nothing created him, would that be a satisfying answer?
Maybe for some…
Either there’s an endless amount of stuff creating other stuff forever and ever into the past,
or else somewhere back there far enough in time there is Something that doesn’t follow those rules, exists without having been created, and is responsible for the existence of everything that came later.
If you take the second option, it’s your perogative whether or not you call that thing “God”. All we know about it (if you take that option) is that it’s the uncreated creator.
Whether or not this is the same thing as the Christian God, or whether or not there is such a thing as the Christian God, is completely besides the point. The cosmological argument shows only that there is something at the beginning. It establishes that something with a couple of the qualities of God does (or did) in fact exist.
Mr.Sun wanted to know why he can’t say the universe doesn’t exist forever, if religious people can say that God exists forever, and the answer is just this- science tells us that the stuff of the universe isn’t the kind of stuff that could have always been there. Things like rocks and stars need a cause. The very definition of ‘God’ as it relates to this argument is ‘the sort of thing that doesn’t need to be caused’.
Because neither are relevant to the thing we’re discussing. Whether or not Odin is the uncreated creator is something we can discuss, but only once we’ve both accepted that there IS an uncreated creator and are willing to take that step.
No defense to which argument? It is true that God doesn’t need a creator, and it is true that the Universe does. It is false that you can claim the universe has ‘always been there’ just as well as I can claim that God has always been there. Are we accepting all that, and moving on? I’m a little lost again. (:
— So, we need to answer where the universe came from because ‘things come from other things’ is one of the principal behaviors of the physical universe. The only possible answer (the cosmological argument says) is that there is something that does not come from other things behind it all.
When arguing with the christian, for example, we can from a common acknowledgement of reality agree that effects have causes. This is an agreement nonetheless and not some experience into the root of all being. We could almost say that we feel that an effect “should” have cause.
Va Bene.
From there comes the idea of an either infinite regression of causes, or the arrival at an uncaused cause, and this, they say, they call God. But whether we call it God or Unmoved Mover, the fact remains that this is just an opinion into what reality should be like and not based on any experience. A belief in the necessity of a cause for every effect comes from observing nature. Where does the belief come for the end of this condition?
In any case, even if were to I posit that the universe has always existed (and some scientists favor this view, I believe the name is Ekpyrotic theory) or that God created the universe, in both cases I posit some eternal thing, be it God or nature.
Make a choice. What is clear is that it is not certain that a root cause is necessary in itself and that God becomes necessary in order to restore the standard eternity some take from nature.
