Throughout introductory readings of philosophy and theology, I have come to my own conclusions on why a God or higher being must exist. I am not privy to previous discussions on this subject because I am new to this forum. That being said, If my ideas have been expressed elsewhere to any degree, I hope you will understand. Also, I wish to only endorse the existance of a higher being and not a particular religon.
Some friends of mine who are atheists or indifferent to religous activities seem to push the following argument:
You, as a religous individual, have to prove to me the existance of a God (or higher being) before I will accept any argument you present to me that is founded in religon. This is because I have never seen, felt, or heard a god myself.
I beleive the view above is founded in the scientific mentality our society has which demands tangible proof for everything. This is fine when discussing arithmatic or chemistry; but, points of divinity should be held to more thoughtful analysis!
MY POINT IS THIS:
Nothing creates itself, least of all the universe. What was the source of the first atoms and the big bang? It is unlikely that they came from nothingness. It is my conviction that a higher power created the universe. Because we cannot and never will be able to explain first creation rationally, their must be a higher power.
Any thoughts? Your free to make this argument look like swiss cheese if you like!
The irony of this statement is awesome. Unfortunatly, the idea of a higher power is much more irrational than things just existing. Nothing based on faith can be rational.
Atoms were not originally created, they just existed. Then through a series of accidental collisions, we now have the universe we live in today.
I struggle with how something has simply existed forever. Please explain how this is possible.
It would seem to me that If I was all alone on the earth with nothing around me, I would beleive I had always existed (if capable of rational thought ofcourse)-that there was no source of this existance. I would not be able to comprehend that I had a mother and father as you can now.
You have made the statement “Nothing creates itself” - do you know this, or have the necessary knowledge of the nature of the universe or even of your own perception of the universe?
To have a theory grow out of a question is very problematic - “What was the source of the first atoms and the big bang?” means you don’t know and are speculating, namely, that a higher power must be involved. At the same time, you are assuming that God is something material, or is the source of the matter of the universe.
Have you considered something that permeates matter and mind and to which we are drawn by a yet unknown magnetism? What if this ineffable permeation is what creates awareness in biological life rather than create the raw material itself?
There are many possibilities - it isn’t wise to consider one “proven” beyond a doubt.
Cannot God be rational, only beyond our reason?
How could an irrational Deity give birth to a rational world?
There are several ways to get logically from the contingent universe to a creating God. There seems to be a jump there in your argument.
Have you read Aquinas on this?
Except of course there are those who will ask, “Who created the Creator?” But then again, if we’re speaking in terms of Eternity, we’re speaking of that which has no beginning. We do know however or, so this is how it is postulated, that the Universe has a beginning, in which case it must have been stirred into existence by that which is Eternal and, has no beginning.
brady, the idea of a creator doesn’t solve the mystery of how something came from nothing, it defers it. This is Iacchus’s point. In fact, if anything if makes the issue more complicated, and needlessly so.
The human mind is incapable of comprehending the Universe in itself because we put everything into 3D space and through time. These modes of thinking - which, like Newtonian mechanics, work fine in our day-to-day lives - break down as they approach their extremes, and leave us with unfathomable paradoxes. As sagesound says: “time does not exist” (we know this from relativity too, as it happens) - so we shouldn’t led it lead us on wild goose chases.
And what if it were possible to stand outside of time and space? Isn’t this in effect what happens by means of our observation of it? Certainly the observer and that which is being observed is not one and the same is it? Indeed, this is the very thing which gives rise to our notion of “objectivity.” So, could it be that we’re speaking of a fifth dimension here, hence a continuum – which, gave rise to the first four dimensions – called consciousness? If so, then I see plenty of possibilities for a Creator.
Time and space aren’t things that we observe, they’re the things that make observation possible. They’re subjective, and don’t belong to that which is objectified in-itself, hence my saying that we’re incapable of knowing the latter accurately and fully.
I don’t get your bit about a fifth dimension and the subsequent increased liklihood of a creator…
What is knowledge then, but the accounting (hence observation) of those things that exist within time and space?
And by “subjectivity” you seem to suggest we have somehow alienated ourselves from reality. This is not possible. There is nothing about us which is not an incorporated aspect of this “objective reality.” And, by virtue of the fact that we are aware, we become increasingly objective to it, regardless of what we experience. Objectivity is bound up in sentience in other words.
I’m saying that if God exists outside time and space, which He must, then it must entail at least one other dimension which existed prior to the creation of time and space. And being the intelligent, sentient Creator that He is, the very objective reality itself, it follows that these characteristics should originate from within this dimension as well … and of course extend itself into (by means of influx) the dimensions of time and space.
Of course, we all sprung from the “one” reality (in quotes because singularity is only possible in comparison with plurality, and these things are meaningless to the Universe in-itself), and even though in consciousness we perceive it in an inherently distorted way, we’re by no means “separate” from it. If spatial extension was a property of the Universe in-itself, then the old paradox of where-does-it-end would appear and drive us all mad!
To be honest with you, I can’t argue against this idea, but what I can say is that, having applied Ockham’s razor, my money’s on there being no such entity.
…good points by all and they are well taken. This is what I love about philosophical discussion, the minute you think you are right about something someone out thinks you.
I have in fact stood in the spirit, and know that this other dimension exists. Albeit many will attempt to debate with me, and suggest that it was merely a dream … which, is fair enough. I can’t ask people to accept something which they haven’t experienced for themselves. I do know where I would be putting my money though.
I, like you, was a religious person at the beginning of my college experience. However, I can remember as a child that some of the views and opinions presented to me by various religious figures were very problematic.
First of all, the stories in the bible never seemed real. There was too much magic and fantasy present in the stories.
Then I went to college.
The argument that you’re talking about is called the uncausable cause (I think). It is flawed and as people mentioned earlier in this post, it merely defers the question about initial cause and makes the problem more complex.
Why is a god necessary to have created the universe? What created God? Any answer you give about God not needing a creator can also be applied to the universe, and actually that is more rational than the god created the universe idea.
Brady, you claim not to be endorsing any religion, but there seems to be a lot of religious background in your conclusions. Calling what you’ve sought to prove a “being” is to give the conclusion somewhat of a monotheistic slant. Really, all you’ve proven (assuming that your argument is sound and so proves anything) is that something existed forever (a “something” so vague as to leave the possibility that it was the universe itself). There is no reason to give whatever has existed any characteristic besides the essential.
Iacchus, I think you should read into neuroscience and psychology before you claim the spirit as the cause of your vision. I had a dream the other night that I was on mars and talking to Dr. Seuss about Metal Gear Solid. What spirit’s presence was I in? Dreams happen all the time, their a fact of human mental existence. It just seems too convenient to interpret a dream as a message from some deity. It doesn’t make any sense at all, frankly. To be blunt, a critical mind would not be so ready to accept such an outlandish claim on such scant evidence.
Indeed, what would humans possess, without their mental faculties? It’s all mental … And, when that mental aspect departs – from the body – it was like we were never here.
