If God exists, then where did he come from?

Space_Chief

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
12,950
Anyway, just answer the OP's question - you trying to bombard everyone with links to your favourite pseudo-science author is growing tiresome ;)
Spunky if something has always existed and causes everything else to exist, asking where it comes from becomes meaningless.

I don't think you know what psedo-science is. You should tell Oxford, Stanford, Cambridge, etc that A-T is pseudoscience. I'm sure you'll get a chair there for that brilliant work. ;)
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,374
Spunky if something has always existed and causes everything else to exist, asking where it comes from becomes meaningless.
So, besides man-musings, what evidence is there for this thing that has always existed and causes everything else to exist?
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,374
Irrelevant Spunky. ;) Only my interlocutor has to be an adult. Unless of course you claim to be more more mature then he.


So one can either duh....bwahaha at it and claim there is nothing as an act of faith, or one can try reasoning it out, which takes work. But the guy who bwahaha duh, can't really comment about it until he's taken the time to study things. But since you already refuted the argument with your not-reposted-on-MyBB demonstration, you can just sit this one out. ;)
As much as you are desperate for me to leave you and your ramblings alone, it ain't going to happen :)
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,374
So, besides man-musings, what evidence is there for this thing that has always existed and causes everything else to exist?
Spunky I'm not desperate at all. Don't project your own insecurities on others, ne? :)
Sorry boet, empirically :)))we can observe your repeated attempts to get us to read books and visit sites that support your beliefs. We can also observe your intitial refusal to answer my queries. Then there is you then trying to call me silly, non-intelligent (by implication) and immature. Then you told me to "sit this one out".

Therefore, as empirical conclusions (according to you) do not need to be based on logic or maths, the obvious conclusion to my observations are that you are indeed desperate. :D:D

And as this is an empirical result, it cannot be refuted.
 

Space_Chief

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
12,950
Sorry boet, empirically :)))we can observe your repeated attempts to get us to read books and visit sites that support your beliefs. We can also observe your intitial refusal to answer my queries. Then there is you then trying to call me silly, non-intelligent (by implication) and immature. Then you told me to "sit this one out".
No. You see me repeatedly point you to places which explain the arguments because like a hysterical creature you keep on repeating yourself. Quite empirically it is you who is the problem.

Therefore, as empirical conclusions (according to you) do not need to be based on logic or maths, the obvious conclusion to my observations are that you are indeed desperate. :D:D
No. It was you who claimed mathematics and logic were empirical because they were used in empirical inquiry. Talk about logic fail there.

And as this is an empirical result, it cannot be refuted.
Whoooa you think empirical results don't get refuted? So once you do a study once, there is no need to replicate its results because it will always hold? Again you really need to write to Oxford for that chair.

:)
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,374
No. You see me repeatedly point you to places which explain the arguments because like a hysterical creature you keep on repeating yourself. Quite empirically it is you who is the problem.



No. It was you who claimed mathematics and logic were empirical because they were used in empirical inquiry. Talk about logic fail there.



Whoooa you think empirical results don't get refuted? So once you do a study once, there is no need to replicate its results because it will always hold? Again you really need to write to Oxford for that chair.

:)
ROFL - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery dearest :)

And you were the one who claimed that the although the process of empirical observation is logical and mathematical, the results or "data", as I think you put it, are not - thats all I said above. And my last comment was so obviously tongue in cheek I gag at you not getting it ;)

Anyway, I must admit that this is getting childish, and as you already conceded earlier, and are now just starting to flatter me and make me look good, I shall attempt to divert this to a more scholarly debate......
 
Last edited:

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,374
So, besides man-musings, what evidence is there for this thing that has always existed and causes everything else to exist?
Ok Space, you haven't answered this question. If you say there is any sort of evidence as to the "fact" that there is something that has always existed, and causes everything else to exist, then I will go do some research on sites you point out. Promise.
 

Space_Chief

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
12,950
Ok Space, you haven't answered this question. If you say there is any sort of evidence as to the "fact" that there is something that has always existed, and causes everything else to exist, then I will go do some research on sites you point out. Promise.
Study the arguments, charitably Spunky. That's all. The evidence is in the arguments. After all if these were without merit, why would guys like Anthony Kenny waste their time with them.
 

Space_Chief

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
12,950
And you were the one who claimed that the although the process of empirical observation is logical and mathematical, the results or "data", as I think you put it, are not - thats all I said above. And my last comment was so obviously tongue in cheek I gag at you not getting it ;)
No. I said that not all inquiry is empirical. And logic and mathematics themselves are not themselves empirical, although you can make use of them in empirical inquiry, mathematical and logical laws give us truths which are not empirical. You conceded or agreed when you used the word "subset". Again the point was raised in passing against someone who claimed only empirical knowledge can be true or "logical", which is a self refuting proposition.

I would recommend you get that book. It's not expensive but you'll be able to read about some of the best theistic arguments around. Otherwise one can spend the money on booze and smokes, but that's not so productive. If you want to see a very basic form of the argument (First Way) one of the links I posted, which jingaling followed has a very basic exposition. One still needs to know the difference between actuality and potency, and between per se and per accidens series.
 

HapticSimian

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
15,950
Study the arguments, charitably Spunky. That's all. The evidence is in the arguments. After all if these were without merit, why would guys like Anthony Kenny waste their time with them.
That's no mystery: wish thinking fuelled by degrees of vanity and insecurity.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,451
So why can't some of the attributes of God be attributes of the universe? Is it just a case of special pleading? Or are there valid reasons?
Some of the attributes of God include:
1) God is pure actuality. (From Aquinas' first way)
2) God's Nature or Essence is His act of existing. (From Aquinas' second way)
3) Necessary Being (From Aquinas' third way)

The universe is the sum of all existing material substances. So why don't the above attributes apply to the universe?
1) Material substances of the universe undergo constant change, i.e. they are constantly being raised from potentiality to actuality by something in a state of actuality, here and now (or whenever it happens). So it does not appear that the universe has the attribute of pure actuality since it is constantly being raised from potentiality to actuality.

2) See an example of Aquinas' second way.
1) Whenever water begins to actually exist, its essence is conjoined with its act of existing.
2) Something causes the essence of water to be conjoined to its act of existing and it too has to exist the same moment water begins to exist.
3) Such a cause cannot be water itself and the cause has to be prior in nature and not prior in time (as argued above).
4) The cause may be something contingent.
5) Everything that is contingent has an essence that is distinct from its act of existing (as argued above).
6) If the cause is something that is contingent then it too needs a cause to conjoin its essence with it act of existing.
7) However, essentially ordered causes cannot go on to infinity, as there would then be no explanation for why something begins to exist.
8 ) The First Cause in an essentially ordered series of causes will have to be something whose essence is not distinct from its act of existing. Something whose essence is its act of existing. For the classical theist this is God.

Use this example for any material substance of the universe. There does not appear to be any good reason to consider that the universe's nature is its act of existing.

3) As mentioned before, logic dictates that either something exists contingently, i.e. it can fail to exist and thus needs some reason and/or cause for it coming into existence or its continued existence, or something exists necessarily. i.e. it cannot fail to exist and it's nature or essence just is to exist. To ask what is the cause of a necessary being is like asking what caused an uncaused thing to exit or what moment existed before the first moment or what is the name of the wife of the bachelor. It does not make sense.

So the next question is, what about the universe suggests that it is necessary and not contingent? Well, if we consider the singularity as the first material substance (for arguments sake assume the universe had a beginning), then it was also the first material substance to begin to exist and cease to exist. I.e. it failed to exist and it was thus a contingent being. It gave rise to all kinds of material substances that are also contingent substances (i.e. they can fail to exist). From this there does not appear to be any good reason to think the universe is a necessary being.

So we can see, without special pleading and with good reason, that the above attributes are not attributes of the universe.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,374
No. I said that not all inquiry is empirical. And logic and mathematics themselves are not themselves empirical, although you can make use of them in empirical inquiry, mathematical and logical laws give us truths which are not empirical. You conceded or agreed when you used the word "subset". Again the point was raised in passing against someone who claimed only empirical knowledge can be true or "logical", which is a self refuting proposition.

I would recommend you get that book. It's not expensive but you'll be able to read about some of the best theistic arguments around. Otherwise one can spend the money on booze and smokes, but that's not so productive. If you want to see a very basic form of the argument (First Way) one of the links I posted, which jingaling followed has a very basic exposition. One still needs to know the difference between actuality and potency, and between per se and per accidens series.
Gosh and gee willy wizz. Tell you what, to stop boring the people who are reading, let us both drop the you said/you said childishness about empiricism, ok? Seeing as neither of us are willing to budge an inch :)
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,374
Study the arguments, charitably Spunky. That's all. The evidence is in the arguments. After all if these were without merit, why would guys like Anthony Kenny waste their time with them.
No Space, that is not acceptable. I asked you directly if there is any evidence at all to support these claims. As you are the one who appears to have studied them in-depth, if you are not willing to say there is any evidence, other than the actual semantics of the argument itself, how do you expect me to invest time in it?

Putting aside our recent aggression with each other, surely you can see what I am saying?
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
19,804
Study the arguments, charitably Spunky. That's all. The evidence is in the arguments. After all if these were without merit, why would guys like Anthony Kenny waste their time with them.
My last two posts deal directly with this.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,266
That's just it. The point where the final power rests is what's at question here. To ask this question is meaningless.
Why is "We can't know" acceptable once we've stepped beyond the universe, but not before?

Apparently "Make nonsense up" + "We can't know" is somehow better than a simple "We can't know".
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,266
How so?

Universe = sum of everything in it. And we know that started with the Big Bang. Which had some cause.
We know that the observed universe started with an expansion event (about 14 BYA), we do not know the origin of the singularity from which the observed universe expanded.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,266
But there are no un-caused parts in the universe, as far as we know.
I'm not even certain "As far as we know applies."

Nevertheless, "As far as we know" is very little, there's no point making nonsense up just as we're beginning to discover cool stuff.



We know the universe is not uncaused.
We don't. You're assuming/asserting.

But even if the universe was uncaused and eternal, it would be contingent and depending on a necessary being.
No, seems to me it would be necessary, and everything within it would be contingent. (That neatly does away with the necessity of your second tier necessary being)

It's special pleading to say "universe is uncaused" or "universe caused itself".
It may also be a brute fact.

Notwithstanding, you haven't answered why special pleading a universe into existence is any less right than special pleading a universe maker?

Occum would suggest the inverse.


As said, Aquinas thought the universe may be eternal.

I'm surprised you don't see this. To posit the universe as uncaused is special pleading of its own and something one can't just assume but has to argue for.
I'm neither assuming nor pleading it, I'm merely want a justification for excluding it in favour of a far more complex and less likely option.
 

Rkootknir

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,114
How so?

Universe = sum of everything in it. And we know that started with the Big Bang. Which had some cause.
Not quite. The universe didn't "start" with the Big Bang - no scientific theory proposes this. The Big Bang was just a rapid expansion of the universe.

[edit]
Taking this further: as far as we are concerned the universe has existed forever. We are only causally connected to other events within our light cone that started at the Big Bang. According to the Big Bang Theory the universe was contained within a infinitesimal spacetime at the time the Big Bang occurred (t=0). As such, according to the General Theory, time would have "stood still" while the universe was bound within this infinitesimal spacetime - time-like geodesics have no extension into the past at t=0 when the metric blows up to infinities.
 
Last edited:
Top