Did God Create Him/Herself?

xtra- your last posts are in and of themselves equally as judgemental as mine was.

If I can point out to a fellow so called believer what he does not have eyes to see at this time, and he turns, it will be worth the extra purification process I am sure to be subject to.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Rex wrote:

Quote:
The universe has been proven to have had a beginning-- thus, it is not eternal. God, however, requires no beginning.

Come on Rex, you know better than that.

The point is: the whole argument of "Everything has a cause, so the first cause must be a god" breaks down when you start excluding things like gods from the category "everything"

You got this all wrong. The thing is that logic (which is all about cause and effect) requires a first cause to be meaningful. The religious calls this first cause God, and to Him they ascribe the attributes self-existent, eternal and uncreated. This first cause must by necessity transcend logic since logic isn't something that exists in itself of itself unlike God. God is the source of all sources, the first link in all chains and ultimate reality itself. He doesn't need a beginning, because He Himself is self-existent, and therefore independent of cause and effect. He is the One uncaused. Everything that exists exists in Him and of Him. Nothing is external to Him.

0 Replies

Deveron, if I grant that some things (like gods) need not have had a cause, then do you not equally have to grant that other things could also not have had a cause?

The logical argument is a theist argument "proving" the universe had to have a cause - because everything does. You see, it's instantly self-defeating.

To say - "My things don't need causes, but your things do" is a pretty weak argument.

0 Replies

Algis, if God is a director,Martin Scorsese could be God?!

0 Replies

No Way! If god is a director, he is Peter Jackson!

0 Replies

Not even Speilberg?Surely Lucas!

0 Replies

Isnt Jackson the guy that did some movies about jewelery?

0 Replies

Yeah but he lost the goods....clumsy, that.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Deveron, if I grant that some things (like gods) need not have had a cause, then do you not equally have to grant that other things could also not have had a cause?

The logical argument is a theist argument "proving" the universe had to have a cause - because everything does. You see, it's instantly self-defeating.

To say - "My things don't need causes, but your things do" is a pretty weak argument.

When you talk of gods in plural it is obvious that you misunderstand the concept. I'm not talking about "gods" or "things". I'm talking about God. The difference is immense. I'm not talking about something external, isolated, I'm talking about something all-encompassing in which everything else is contained. God can simply not be compared to anything or anyone. Nothing is like God. He is beyond all comparison. Above all understanding. Above everything. From Him everything proceeds. In fact, no human can understand anything about God whatsoever, except for that which He chooses to reveal to us.

0 Replies

Where is the difference?

If I grant that just one god need not have a cause, then one universe also need not have a cause.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Where is the difference?

If I grant that just one god need not have a cause, then one universe also need not have a cause.

Your "just one god" shows that you still haven't understood what I'm talking about. I'm talking about God the All-encompassing Ultimate Reality and Wholeness of Existence, Beingness itself, in Whom everything is comprised, and without Whom nothing or no one has existence. You simply can't put a "one" before the totality of everything. God is not a "thing", nor is He something external that can be compared to "things". The finite time/space-universe is a part of God, it's not a cause in itself.

0 Replies

If you call god the "totality of everything", how is that different than the "totality of everything" (ie no god at all)?

0 Replies

The problem with the argument of first cause is, as Setanta pointed out, that the universe could have existed into infinite past, before the 'big bang', so to speak. The problem with Setanta's observation lies in our perception of causality. An omnipotent God would, of necessity, not be subject to the same rules of cause and effect as are we.

It might be presumptuous to proclaim God to have been the creator of cause and effect or of space and time, but He certainly is not bound by them in the way we are. His biblical name does mean "He who causes to become."

0 Replies

Yeah neo, kinda.

See I'm ok with the idea of god not being subject to cause and effect, but not while trying to use cause and effect to prove his existence by saying that universe itself requires a cause, due to the fact that everything MUST have a cause....except god. The proof simply fails.

0 Replies

On that we agree. Yet I have come to a conclusion that the bible is God's inspired word and you have not. How could two reasonably intelligent people reach what seems to be mutually exclusive conclusions? That's what the forum is for.

0 Replies

I haven't said that this is a proof of God's existence. Obviously His existence (or nonexistence) cannot be logically or scientifically proven. My point is simply that saying that "the universe itself could be eternal" is a contradictory statement. Many atheists "worship" logic as their god. To them, there is nothing higher than it. The problem, though, is that logic is almost exclusively about cause and effect, and when it comes to explaining why cause and effect exists, they are totally at loss to give you an answer.

0 Replies

Well, Deveron, my original point with Rex was that he was referring to that very "proof".

The "First Cause" argument for god is an attempt to use "our own logic against us" to prove god exists.

It goes like this:
1. Every cause must have an effect.
2. The first effect must have had a cause.
3. That cause must be god, because only he is outside the rules.

There are two main problems with the logic....
firstly that axiom 1 may or may not be true (quantum physics suggests not) and secondly that the conclusion invalidates axiom 1 anyway.

as for being at a loss to explain why cause and effect exists at all...not having the answer still doesn't prove your god exists.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

as for being at a loss to explain why cause and effect exists at all...not having the answer still doesn't prove your god exists.

Agreed.

As it cannot prove He does not exist. In the end, we have to evaluate our beliefs according to only a few rules which I think can be clearly stated:

Do we believe in God because of a credulous hope for some reward or because His existence has been clearly demonstrated? OR

Do we not believe in God because his non existence has been clearly demonstrated or because we desire a convenient license to sin?

The stated and implied consequences of our answers are important, right?

Did God Create Him/Herself?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know