Now, as I’m sure you can tell from my signature, I’m not a Christian, nor a theist — so this thread isn’t an advocacy of religious theism. But when I see invalid, nay, stupid questions used as refutations to the prime mover or first cause argument, namely " If God caused the universe, then what caused God? ", it makes me want to club baby seals. Now, some of you may ask " How is that question invalid ? ". It’s invalid, because God ( the conventional Abrahamic one ) by definition is ETERNAL, beyond space and time. God caused space and time to come into existence, so asking " what caused God " presupposes that God is subject to those things, rather than being creations of his. God as the uncaused cause is supposed to be a solution to the infinite regress problem, so putting forth that silly question, totally, misunderstands or ignores the nature of the debate.
Eternal just means time + infinity. Besides, the Bible speaks of eternal damnation, which means that God will send us to a place where we’re just like God except in hell, which means God can create beings exactly like God (eternal).
Everything we know of so far only exists within space and time. Presuming that something exists beyond space and time or outside of it is therefore nothing more than an argument from ignorance. There is no empirical grounds for it.
As an extension to 1, all minds we know of so far are produced by physical brains, within space and time. We have no empirical basis for proposing a disembodied mind. I’d add to that that personally, after learning about the theory of evolution, it also goes against my intuition to believe in God - there has been a consistent growth of organisms from simplest to most complex, with intelligence evolving over time. To assume an intelligent being existing before first lifeforms breaks that consistency.
I’d agree that the “what caused God” isn’t the best response, but it is because some people apparently never seem to be satisfied with nature now that we’ve explored it, knowledge scares the living hell out of them. Humans prefer the unknown, the mysterious, as they can then fill it with whatever fantasy they want to. The proper response to people saying ‘God caused the universe, he is the first uncaused cause’ would be something along the lines of: ‘Why? Why couldn’t the universe have always existed/existed from a certain point in a certain form, as a singularity for example, and then manifest itself when it became unstable’ or something like that. There is no reason to presuppose God before the universe and that the universe, for some reason, couldn’t have been the uncaused cause. The point being that religious people will always claim something along the lines of ‘Nature couldn’t have caused itself, so there must be supernature’, and to THAT a valid response is analogous to the one about God.
Also, I would add this as
We have never, really, observed something come into existence. We’ve only observed things already existing take different forms. You didn’t, literally, “come into existence”, nor did I. Every atom that ultimately constitutes us has existed before either of us did. Here’s a vid of a guy explaining it:
I think with respect to the idea about evolution, God is considered the simplest being in the universe, and we have fallen from grace by becoming more complex… so simple that god doesn’t even have moving parts! =) That sure sounds like a being that doesn’t exist to me…
…until they realize that God IS that eternal “cause and effect” itself (aka “First Principle”, “First Cause”).
Then they feel that egg on their face thing.
I don’t think it’s silly to posit God as a theoretical solution to the infinite regress problem. Just because something is unproven, that doesn’t mean it’s silly to speculate on it per se. Not sure how theists would reject premise 1 by throwing God into the mix, since god is the one who " created " cause and effect, as prior mentioned ( not subject to them ). God by definition is capable of " doing " such things, given his nature.
It still seems like you have an erroneous notion of " God ". You seem to be insinuating that God is subject to cause and effect, that God has a finite existence, that he " came " into existence from a prior cause; you still think the question " what caused God? " is valid, even though the very question itself misconstrues God’s nature. If God had a cause, if there was something else before him, then God wouldn’t be God. HE " exists " eternally, not in some casual, sequential way — but eternally in the static sense.
I don’t believe in God and I think there are much better ways to go about showing this, as Atheris likewise stated. I’m simply honest about poor refutations, irrespective of their position on the atheist vs theist pole.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. -Wittgenstein -Tractatus
The above is a simple sentence but it has very deep meaning which can be supported by Kant’s critical philosophy. To W, when we speak of the ‘cannot-be-spoken’ [God for example] we are speaking nonsense.
IMO, in an encounter with an infinite regression, it is best not jump to conclusion to end it.
Jumping to conclusion of finality is leveraged upon very deep embedded psychological impulses we inherited from our very ancient ancestors.
Btw I don’t think you get my refutation and claims of conflation and equivocation in the argument.
As I understand it, God is an impossible concept/idea, thus qualifying God with cause and effect and as first cause make no sense in reality. The idea of God can be logical, but only within transcendental logic which is a long way from empirical-based logic and reality.
Perhaps I didn’t understand, or maybe you are obfuscating…
Even if the God hypothesis is asinine, asking " what caused God ? " doesn’t make any sense at all. It would be like asking " how do tigers fly?". The question is indicative of a lack of knowledge about God’s characteristics.
Of course God would be associated with transcendental logic, since he transcends the dynamics of the universe.
Like I said, I don’t believe in God and there are plenty of ways to demonstrate how his existence is implausible. This thread is merely about the incoherency of the question " what caused God?" It doesn’t make any sense as a refutation, nor as a genuine question in itself.
I ask people a very similar question… I ask people, did God create gods first thought or desire, is God even sentient? People claim God created everything… so I just ask them If God created God… if they say God didn’t create God because God is eternal, then i ask them if God has thoughts, and whether God created these, and if they say God has thoughts but they are eternal, then I ask if God has desires… such as the desire to create a different plane of existence (without which the plane couldn’t have been created)… and this is where they start to run into problems, because if this desire has been there forever, then we’ve been here forever, or the desire wasn’t there forever, which means that God created Gods own desire ex nihilo.
True, but we theorize/speculate all the time about things beyond our experience ( E.g., black holes ).
This is actually incorrect, or insubstantial; there isn’t conclusive proof that brains produce minds/consciousness. Yes minds are correlated to brains, but correlation doesn’t mean causation ( See " Hard Problem of Consciousness " ). The latter part of your paragraph is also erroneous; God is, as an " entity" in itself, simple ( Divine Simplicity ),i.e., not constructed with a multiplicity of intricate parts. But He does have complex thoughts, even though as a " thing " in itself, he is simple. So - God, as an entity in itself, could be argued to be the most simple " thing " in reality; immateriality.
Well, modern cosmology suggests that the universe did have a beginning, so the question " Why can’t the universe just be eternal, why invoke a God? " is settled with that. Some theists may even argue that the universe IS an emanation of the prime mover, like rays on the sun ( not something wholly distinct ).
A theist could solve this problem by subscribing to the emanationist theology, i.e., that we ( and everything for that matter ) are incarnations of God’s eternal energy.
Immateriality does not imply simplicity. I don’t even know what it could mean to say something like “God is simple”. By what measure?
No, it isn’t settled with that. Many cosmologists think the universe is likely eternal, but the fact of the matter is that we just don’t know. So, an eternal universe is no less probable than a universe created by a God. To say this issue has been settled is ridiculous.
Can you give an example that specifically refutes the argument from first cause?
In this case, it does. What could be more simple than " something " timeless, spaceless, and immaterial? 0 proceeds 1.
Never said that issue was solved. Re-read my post and you will get it, hopefully.
No, not really; I think it’s a sound argument for a " prime mover deity ". But there are other ways to show that the conventional religious God is NOT the uncaused cause.
We don’t know of anything like that, so how can we say it’s simple? You’re not describing simplicity here, you’re describing nonexistence. Zero doesn’t signify simplicity, it signifies nothing.
That’s exactly what you said; I quoted you. Maybe you can explain what I misunderstood.
You’re not playing devils advocate for the conventional religious God here. You seem to be making God as vague as possible.
I didn’t mean to suggest that the fundamental issues of ontology were solved, but rather that there is evidence ( not absolute ) that the universe came into existence, or began to exist. And that positing a prime mover ( God ) is tenable.
Ontology? I’m talking about cosmology. Assuming the universe had a beginning, a prime mover argument is tenable, I agree. I’m saying we don’t have enough evidence to conclude the universe did have a beginning, and many cosmologists do think the universe is likely eternal.
It wasn’t a criticism. I was just pointing out that, thus far, you’re essentially defending a deistic God rather than a typical theistic God that intervenes in reality.
.
The god hypothesis isn’t actually asinine as there is a universe and it came to be somehow. What is asinine of course is that we seem to feel that we know so much about this supposed god and that we have made this god into our own image and likeness for our own sakes which actually makes this god disappear and become further from the truth.
Why doesn’t it make sense Erik? That is always the final question which I come to when admitting that this god or this Something is a possibility. God caused the universe (speaking as an agnostic lol). But what I want to know is where did this god come from? Of course, we can never have the answer to this but I don’t think it’s stupid to ask the question. An enquiring mind wants to know, wants to go further in his/her exploration of the truth.
Not really - since tigers do not fly.
And what characteristics would they be, Erik? Do you know god personally?
Calling something eternal is no satisfying answer to the origin of god…at least not to me it isn’t.
We call this so-called something eternal because we just can’t know. How did it get to BE eternal? This is what I want to know.
I’m going to address Statik first, then Arc in this one post.
Not too familiar with theology or mysticism are ya?
Yeah, a bit of a misnomer on my part. " Cosmogony " is more apt, much more apt. I agree that there isn’t sufficient evidence to claim that the universe had a beginning, to parade around with it as an axiomatic truth, but there is evidence and it is appropriate to theorize about it.
Well, yeah - I’m defending the possibility of a deistic God. I don’t recall making apologies for Jehova per se…But obviously Jehova does have similar characteristics to the deistic God, namely being eternal. And in this context, that’s what I’m emphasizing. I’m not defending Christians, Jews, or Muslims in general, but for this specific case, I’m pointing out the error in the question " what caused God?".
[size=150]
Arc, [/size]
Well, that’s debatable, Arc; the universe may be eternal.
God was “created” in our image, I agree.
It doesn’t make sense, because the question itself mistakes God’s eternal nature. A better question to ask would be " How is God eternal? ", but even that question seems off…Their would be a sort of circular logic to it; " He just IS ".
If God " came " from somewhere, then he wouldn’t be eternal…
Precisely! And God wasn’t caused.
Yes, God and I are best friends, actually; he hooks me up with all the finest angels
