The Cause of God

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

God lives in a place completely separate from the universe. this is pretty much evident as we observe the universe. because of this uncertainty, i can come up with an easy reason to add a point to the Pro-God column and stop anybody from saying that the infinite age of the universe rules out a ‘creation’ and pretty much any other time-based suspicion of god.

a) god doesnt want us to find his existence, if you assume this is a morality test

b) if we found the ‘cause’ of the universe that would prove his existence

c) all he/it/they/we has to do to ‘prove’ to us that there is no cause and that the universe has been around ‘forever’ is to show us evidence that we are in a cycle without visible friction or slowdown

d)if you dont think god would be affected by gravity, then he also wouldnt be affected by time, or any other law seen only in this universe

e) i believe time to exist exclusively in this universe because of relativity. we can modify time by going fast or going near a real big piece of gravity. i believe that because of this, time will soon be a thing that we can define as an interaction between matter and light and whatever other materials contained in the observable, calculatable universe.

if our ‘souls’ leave our body and cannot be detected to be made up of the same thing as any of the materials in our universe, and time is a(-soon-to-be-)completely definable product of those specific materials, there is no reason to believe that the soul would be subject to a process which is defined using materials that it does not consist of.

f)just because time exists within god’s little machine, our universe, (and therefore laws like cause and effect exist) does not mean they exist in whatever machine he ‘is in’. god did not need to exist ‘before’ the ‘infinitely old’ universe in order to ‘cause’ it. he would describe our ‘creation’ in a way that doesnt make any sense to those of us educated in this time dependent machine.

im on a quest to find somebody who has had these kind of thoughts and come to a more useful conclusion than i have.

2

Future Man-

a) god doesnt want us to find his existence, if you assume this is a morality test

Quite frankly, that is a HUGE if. HUGE. There’s no evidence that this is a morality test, since “just desserts” are rarely received. This is hardly a just world.

b) if we found the ‘cause’ of the universe that would prove his existence

Perhaps if you clarify? Because as it stands, finding the cause of the universe would either prove God’s existence or not. We could find, for example, that the Big Bang caused it, or that some goat puked into a lake, thus stirring life.

c) all he/it/they/we has to do to ‘prove’ to us that there is no cause and that the universe has been around ‘forever’ is to show us evidence that we are in a cycle without visible friction or slowdown

But then we are back to a non-creation story. Your choice, I guess. If God has a cause, then the universe must.

d)if you dont think god would be affected by gravity, then he also wouldnt be affected by time, or any other law seen only in this universe

Gravity and time are not on the level. Gravity is a natural law manifested within spacetime. Time is much more basic. Assuming there is a God, if he did something, and then did something else, time would exist. If two things happen NOT at the same time, time exists. Simple.

Any attempt to define God as not subject to time is unsubstantiated equivocation.

i believe that because of this, time will soon be a thing that we can define as an interaction between matter and light and whatever other materials contained in the observable, calculatable universe.

In the "Origin or Morality thread, you stated that science has gotten us as far as it’s going to go, it’s at a dead end. Which is it, if I may ask?

if our ‘souls’ leave our body and cannot be detected to be made up of the same thing as any of the materials in our universe, and time is a(-soon-to-be-)completely definable product of those specific materials, there is no reason to believe that the soul would be subject to a process which is defined using materials that it does not consist of.

I beg your pardon, but the last sentence doesn’t make sense. If you could clarify it for me, I would owe you one.

f)just because time exists within god’s little machine, our universe, (and therefore laws like cause and effect exist) does not mean they exist in whatever machine he ‘is in’.

If cause and effect did not exist in the machine He is in, then our little machine here would not exist. If cause and effect do not exist where God is, how is he supposed to CREATE our universe.

God acts—>Universe exists.

God acts Universe exists.

In the first case, causation exists. Therefore, God created our universe. In the second, no causation exists. Therefore, God cannot be said to have created our universe. It came about of its own accord, or someone elses besides God’s.

god did not need to exist ‘before’ the ‘infinitely old’ universe in order to ‘cause’ it.

Um, yes he would. So he created a universe that existed always (or before him) ex post facto? I cannot understand this. The past doesn’t exist tangibly. So he created nothing.

he would describe our ‘creation’ in a way that doesnt make any sense to those of us educated in this time dependent machine.

This sounds alot like the God of the Gaps. Whatever we can’t explain, it’s God!

Sincerely,

Floyd

3

im not saying ive proved god, just that ive won a little skirmish in that war. im trying to prove that arguments against god that involve time are not proven or provable by observation in this universe.

but we dont know that they arent after you die. also if we were able to detect the ‘just desserts’, we could prove god exists and that we ought to try hard to be nice because we are selfish and afraid of retribution, not because we are really empathetic.

thats what i meant.

i dont think we can. i think that whatever we observe as evidence of the big bang is going to be made up of the universe-material that we see and subject to the laws of time in the same way. you could ask what created the big bang, but not what created a soul. the big bang exists in time, the soul might not.

i dont know what that is. but the quote it’s refering to was also misspoken the same as before, i meant both creation or non, but also assumed we are talking about proving god.

we dont know that time isnt manifested in the same category as gravity and electro. what if time is merely a matter of how many zero-point-field particles you bump into. if you believe my shadow gravity theory and einsteins special relativity, i believe the zpf and how often your matter interact with it will be affected when going fast and being near gravity. so that could completely explain the reason why time exists given the existence of its factors.

thats a work in progress but it doesnt matter, theres no reason not to think that time will be discovered as a product of this universe in the same way other forces hopefully will soon be defined. if so, theres no reason to think that the same force would exist in a universe made up of material fundamentally separate from that which we see here.

weve never seen that universe, if their ‘particles’ are different, they will interact differently, resulting in things not necesarily resembling time. we know that the soul exists in a universe that does not connect to the body in a way that we are familiar with and/or does not contain particles that can be observed by current technology.

nobody knows what god ever did. we dont know that it happened sequentially like this, could be some kind of time circle where someday we creatures will do something that modifies the universe in relation to those specific parts that control time and catastrophically send time bouncing backwards. whatever it is, we can never know what started everything in the chain if it’s in a friction-free cycle with intermittent big bangs (and theres no other meta-matter hanging around that we can observe).

therefore the idea of a chain through time has a problem. nothing in the universe lasts forever, and… wait im lost…

i made an assumption that the universe has an infinite past and people use that to say that god, like every other object in the universe, cant have existed forever. i hope this is what people have said and im not making it up. im kind of high all of a sudden.

so what im saying is that god, since he is not observed to be in our universe, must exist outside, and therefore the laws of time and all others do not necesarily apply to him. im not proving god exists, im stopping some people from disproving him by saying that nothing lasts forever, 2nd law of thermo doesnt apply.

science has gotten us as far as it can towards the answer of the question “what put everything here that we ever observe using our human existence.”
the only two options are nothing, or something bigger that we dont and cant understand with certainty. science cant address this problem because of the nature of the question.

a)assume time is defined very specifically as an interaction between tauons and tachyons, particles so common they permeate all matter, and the strongoweak force.

b) set up an array of various antennas and such to observe somebody die to see if anything at all is physically emitted from the body, like a soul containing tauons.

c) assume that time is caused by tauons and assume that our consciousness does in fact leave the body along with brain activity

d) if no tauons are emitted from the dier, then either there is no soul, or the soul is not subject to time as we know it, as an interaction involving tauons.

(does anybody know if sufficient experiments of this kind have been done?)

we’re not supposed to thats the point. we arent supposed to be able to understand how god created an infinitely old universe. thats because we are unable to understand infinity in this universe, it makes sense somewhere where there are no tauons.

im not saying this is why i believe in god, im saying this is why you cant make any argument against him involving time and infinity.