' formerly known as Saoradh
-
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 01:12 PM)
Why do you think that?
If god is the creator, and the universe is the created, then
"If the creator requires no creator then nor does the created, and if the created requires a creator then so does the creator."
Still logical? Because I'm having trouble seeing the logic of asserting that something which is created doesn't require a creator. After all, nothing can create itself.
In any case, asking who or what created God is like asking what came before the first or what comes after the last. -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 02:01 PM)
In the context of the First Cause argument in and of itself, the universe could be the "first cause" if it is indeed ultimately uncaused. But for it to be "God", it would need to be more than simply the 'first cause.' But we're talking about the question of who or what created God. Let's assume for the sake of
this
discussion that the universe itself is uncaused
Who or what caused the universe?
See how that works? Or rather, see how that
doesn't
work? For if it was caused, it isn't the "universe". -
rowan_morrison — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 02:07 PM)
If you "assume that the universe itself is uncaused"
then the answer to the question:
"Who or what caused the universe?"
is nothing.
Ditto any gods you can imagine.
Good job, you just demonstrated that the universe could be a god.
p u r p l e
o r a n g e -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 02:12 PM)
If you "assume that the universe itself is uncaused"
then the answer to the question:
"Who or what caused the universe?"
is nothing.
Don't be silly. Nothing can't do anything.
Good job, you just demonstrated that the universe could be a god.
You missed something:
"for it to be "God", it would need to be more than simply the 'first cause.'" -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 03:28 AM)
You missed something:
"for it to be "God", it would need to be more than simply the 'first cause.'"
So no true god is simply the first cause? Does it need a back story, too? Or is it that it has to be deliberate?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 03:29 PM)
So no true god is simply the first cause? Does it need a back story, too? Or is it that it has to be deliberate?
It has to be something more than simply the 'first cause'. But you knew that already, didn't you? Given our discussions about this in the past, I'd say yes, I think you did. -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 07:16 AM)
It has to be something more than simply the 'first cause'
This just seems to be you deciding what 'god' has to be, and especially what it has to be responsible for. It is not even certain, as this board shows that the (traditional) god 'has to' exist at all. It hardly needs to be said that other views are available and you know this. Given our discussions in the past I am sure, yes, you ought.
But you haven't said what other things you think characterises 'god'. Does it have to be deliberate, sane, efficient or singular for instance? Indeed can a uniquely great Cause be separate from that it causes if by imagining something more than the Cause we therefore must be able to think of a combined something greater than it? Suppose a there is a First Cause which is just responsible for the start of everything as it is, and can be, and has since done no more. Why is that impossible when a god presumably can do everything (including choosing to do nothing)?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 10:03 PM)
This just seems to be you deciding what 'god' has to be
No, this is what
we
decided when
you
said it must be deliberate.
But you haven't said what other things you think characterises 'god'.
I suppose sentience might be one of those things.
Suppose a there is a First Cause which is just responsible for the start of everything as it is, and can be, and has since done no more.
Are you a deist, then? Isn't that what Antony Flew decided after he rejected atheism?
Why is that impossible when a god presumably can do everything (including choosing to do nothing)?
For every argument about omni-whatever I tackle, two more pop up in its place. -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 09:04 AM)
Don't be silly. Nothing can't do anything.
We've been through this before. You like to make this claim, but you have nothing whatsoever to back it up beyond your intuition that it must be so.
You missed something:
"for it to be "God", it would need to be more than simply the 'first cause.'"
For somebody who likes to say you're not talking about "your" god, you have an awfully strict interpretation of how it must be defined.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
DramatisPersona — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 11:36 AM)
You like to make this claim, but you have nothing whatsoever to back it up beyond your intuition that it must be so.
Well, in this case intuition is the only thing that one has. Sense perception and experience is useless. To say that something can come from nothing is another way of saying that being can arise from non-being in the most generic sense of the terms, which is just saying that being can arise without a cause/explanation. Thus, there can be no "reason", because cause/explanation is presupposed in the definition of the term. It is metaphysically impossible to prove that something can arise without a cause, because it presupposes that one can distinguish between a cause and a non-cause, which itself is impossible. Nothing is the absence of everything, which means it is a void and therefore can't contain anything, even first principles or causes, initial activity, or the like, so it can't
do
anything.
I want a unicorn.