Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does God negate the need for his own existence?
boolean
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 30 (299583)
03-30-2006 12:27 PM


I was wondering today if the very fact that God exists contradicts that God would need to exist in the first place.
When it comes to figuring out what happened before the big bang, there are two main lines of thought:
1) God has been around for eternity, and he created the universe
2) The pre-big bang universe has always been there in a very small state
People will say though that the universe had to come from something, and since something cant come from nothing, it makes sense that God created the universe. When asked where God came from, the general consensus seems to be that he has been around for eternity, and since he created the laws we live by (such as time), he doesn’t actually have a beginning.
There seems to be a bit of a paradox in this though. It’s wrong to say that the universe could start from absolutely nothing, but didn’t the same happen to God? Essentially he is something (a god), and he obviously came from nothing himself, so we could go straight back and say the universe then could have come from nothing on its own too (because obviously something can come from nothing). One can't be true without the other being true, and an endless cycle suddenly emerges.
Is it any more reasonable to say God came from nothing and existed for eternity over saying the universe came from nothing and existed for eternity? Isn't the only reason the universe needs a creator the same event that created the creator (ie. something coming from nothing)? If God is real, does he negate the need for his own existence?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 03-30-2006 12:35 PM boolean has replied
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-30-2006 12:53 PM boolean has replied
 Message 5 by jar, posted 03-30-2006 12:59 PM boolean has not replied
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 03-31-2006 2:36 AM boolean has not replied
 Message 12 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2006 7:17 PM boolean has not replied
 Message 27 by 1.61803, posted 04-05-2006 5:11 PM boolean has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 30 (299584)
03-30-2006 12:29 PM


Does God negate the need for his own existence?
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 30 (299585)
03-30-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by boolean
03-30-2006 12:27 PM


Is it any more reasonable to say God came from nothing and existed for eternity over saying the universe came from nothing and existed for eternity? Isn't the only reason the universe needs a creator the same event that created the creator (ie. something coming from nothing)? If God is real, does he negate the need for his own existence?
By definition, God would not have come from nothing. He would have always existed.
The two choices don't involve something coming from nothing. They involve the choice of an eternal Being creating the universe or the universe always existing.
There's no reason to pick one of these choices over another.
ABE: that is to say, there is no reason to pick one over the other if the creation of the universe is all we are considering.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-30-2006 11:36 AM

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by boolean, posted 03-30-2006 12:27 PM boolean has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by boolean, posted 03-31-2006 2:43 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 30 (299588)
03-30-2006 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by boolean
03-30-2006 12:27 PM


God is different
It’s wrong to say that the universe could start from absolutely nothing, but didn’t the same happen to God?
It is diferent for god because he isn't held to the same natural laws that the universe is held to. You can't say that because the universe can't come from nothing then god can't come from nothing either, god can do things the universe cannot.
Essentially he is something (a god), and he obviously came from nothing himself, so we could go straight back and say the universe then could have come from nothing on its own too (because obviously something can come from nothing).
I think the part I bolded is not true. The point of describing him as eternal is that he did not come into being, he was always there, at no point was he not there.
One can't be true without the other being true, and an endless cycle suddenly emerges.
IMO, neither is true and the cycle does not emerge.
Is it any more reasonable to say God came from nothing and existed for eternity over saying the universe came from nothing and existed for eternity?
No.
Isn't the only reason the universe needs a creator the same event that created the creator (ie. something coming from nothing)?
No.
If God is real, does he negate the need for his own existence?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by boolean, posted 03-30-2006 12:27 PM boolean has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by boolean, posted 03-31-2006 5:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 30 (299589)
03-30-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by boolean
03-30-2006 12:27 PM


maybe a third
For many of us, GOD is that which has always existed.
The Big Bang relates to our universe. From our perspective, whether or not the singularity always existed or came into being is something that is simply unknown. What does seem to be indicated, at least from the evidence available so far is that there was a change at one point in that singularity. That change led to the universe we occupy.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by boolean, posted 03-30-2006 12:27 PM boolean has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 6 of 30 (299724)
03-31-2006 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by boolean
03-30-2006 12:27 PM


>>>>>>>Origins<<<<<<<<<<<
Only something which is created needs to have a beginning. Since God by definition was not created, He needs no beginning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by boolean, posted 03-30-2006 12:27 PM boolean has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 03-31-2006 9:19 AM Phat has replied

  
boolean
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 30 (299726)
03-31-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
03-30-2006 12:35 PM


robinrohan writes:
By definition, God would not have come from nothing. He would have always existed.
Exactly. He was never created, he has just ”always been’. It would appear then that this is a legitimate event to just always exist for eternity, which goes against the idea that the universe HAS to come from something, because it couldn’t have ”just always been’. The idea of the universe existing for eternity in pre-big bang mode without a creator seems preposterous (even if it was in a state of a single atom floating in nothing), so people say there must be a creator (eg. "Where did that atom come from?"). In that case, if the universe couldn’t have just ”always been’ because it’s impossible, why do we then say it’s a legitimate state for God because it IS possible?
robinrohan writes:
The two choices don't involve something coming from nothing. They involve the choice of an eternal Being creating the universe or the universe always existing.
God existing for eternity and creating the universe = plausible
Universe existing for eternity in pre-big bang mode = not plausible.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 03-30-2006 12:35 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 04-05-2006 3:48 AM boolean has not replied

  
boolean
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 30 (299741)
03-31-2006 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
03-30-2006 12:53 PM


Re: God is different
Catholic Scientist writes:
Boolean writes:
It’s wrong to say that the universe could start from absolutely nothing, but didn’t the same happen to God?
It is different for god because he isn't held to the same natural laws that the universe is held to. You can't say that because the universe can't come from nothing then god can't come from nothing either, god can do things the universe cannot.
If the universe existed in its current state for eternity, yes, you would have a point. But pre-big bang, it would be hard to imagine the laws of today being in effect either. Whatever state it was in would have been so tiny that laws we know today would have broken down at that level. It's possible that even the law of time didn't exist because the thing was just so freakishly small (who knows what breaks down at that level). But is it any harder to imagine this pre-big bang universe in a state where time is not a law yet, over God existing for eternity in a state where time is not a law yet? Both are something that has existed for eternity, yet only one is seen as possible. Both could have existed at a point where there were no laws, but only one is seen as possible. Both could be attributed to causing the creation of the universe, but only one is seen as possible. Why? Because everything needs to come from something, and so the universe had to be made somehow. God on the other hand doesn't need to be made. Why is that? If he doesn't need to be made, and it IS possible for something somewhere to exist for eternity in a non-time state and spark creation (ie. God), why did we need to come up with the concept of God in the first place? Didn't we come up with him because something can't exist without being created?
Catholic Scientist writes:
boolean writes:
Essentially he is something (a god), and he obviously came from nothing himself, so we could go straight back and say the universe then could have come from nothing on its own too (because obviously something can come from nothing).
I think the part I bolded is not true. The point of describing him as eternal is that he did not come into being, he was always there, at no point was he not there.
So saying "The universe did not come into being, it was always there, at no point was it not there" is an impossible statement, so we need a creator who "did not come into being, he was always there, at no point was he not there", and that seems perfectly reasonable? Aren’t we just applying the same problems to the different scenario? Didn’t we come up with scenario two because scenario one was impossible, but base scenario two off the exact same ideas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-30-2006 12:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2006 10:42 AM boolean has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 9 of 30 (299766)
03-31-2006 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
03-31-2006 2:36 AM


Re: >>>>>>>Origins<<<<<<<<<<<
So, why does the conditions that allowed the universe (as described as the inflation known as the 'Big Bang" "always" exist, but without the characteristics of being an intelligent being who made the universe for a purpose, and is interested in humanity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 03-31-2006 2:36 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 03-31-2006 11:21 AM ramoss has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 30 (299789)
03-31-2006 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by boolean
03-31-2006 5:50 AM


Re: God is different
But is it any harder to imagine this pre-big bang universe in a state where time is not a law yet, over God existing for eternity in a state where time is not a law yet?
Yes, it is harder. God has magical powers and can do anything he wants. The universe is governed by physical laws that seem to lack any supernatural abilities (ie something from nothing, infinite dimensions).
I think the idea is that existing for eternity or appearing from nothing is something that seems to be impossible according to the laws of our universe, so a supernatural god with magical powers is needed to create it, but because the universe is limited to these laws does not mean the god has to be too.
The thing is, that when you get closer to singularity, the laws break down and anything is possible. Is it any harder to imagine a limitless god than our universe in a supernatural state?
I agree with you that if god can exist forever then the universe can exist forever and we cannot rule out an eternal universe based on that. I disagree that because the universe can exist forever then the existence of god is ruled out. Is his need negated? Perhaps.
So saying "The universe did not come into being, it was always there, at no point was it not there" is an impossible statement, so we need a creator who "did not come into being, he was always there, at no point was he not there", and that seems perfectly reasonable?
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with an infinite universe.
Didn’t we come up with scenario two because scenario one was impossible, but base scenario two off the exact same ideas?
well, personally, no.
I agree that the argument for god existing because the universe couldn’t exist forever is a bad argument. But, just because that argument is invalid does not mean that god doesn’t exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by boolean, posted 03-31-2006 5:50 AM boolean has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 30 (299793)
03-31-2006 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ramoss
03-31-2006 9:19 AM


Re: >>>>>>>Origins<<<<<<<<<<<
ramoss writes:
why does the conditions that allowed the universe (as described as the inflation known as the 'Big Bang" "always" exist, but without the characteristics of being an intelligent being who made the universe for a purpose, and is interested in humanity?
Let me attempt to rephrase your question more concisely.
Why do the conditions(observed reality or theory) allow for a universe such as we know to exist without the characteristics of a God Who is personally interested in humanity? Does that sum up what you are asking?
This message has been edited by Phat, 03-31-2006 09:24 AM

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 03-31-2006 9:19 AM ramoss has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 12 of 30 (300368)
04-02-2006 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by boolean
03-30-2006 12:27 PM


There seems to be a bit of a paradox in this though. It’s wrong to say that the universe could start from absolutely nothing, but didn’t the same happen to God? Essentially he is something (a god), and he obviously came from nothing himself, so we could go straight back and say the universe then could have come from nothing on its own too (because obviously something can come from nothing). One can't be true without the other being true, and an endless cycle suddenly emerges.
I used to worry about that all the time. Who created God?
But that whole question and paradox is based on our subjective view of the universe. IF He just spoke it all into existance, then who are we but mere specks? And maybe we shouldn't even ask that question. It may not be able to be understaood by us anyway.
About the only thing biblically we have to go on, is that we were created in His image.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by boolean, posted 03-30-2006 12:27 PM boolean has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by rgb, posted 04-03-2006 1:25 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 30 (300462)
04-03-2006 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by riVeRraT
04-02-2006 7:17 PM


riverrat,
quote:
And maybe we shouldn't even ask that question.
Some would say this is intellectually lazy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2006 7:17 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 8:27 AM rgb has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 14 of 30 (300514)
04-03-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by rgb
04-03-2006 1:25 AM


riverrat,
quote:And maybe we shouldn't even ask that question.
Some would say this is intellectually lazy.
When you take that thought out of context of it's original paragraph, yes, it could be considered lazy. But I expressed intellectually why I said that, it wasn't a blind statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by rgb, posted 04-03-2006 1:25 AM rgb has not replied

  
Dierotao
Junior Member (Idle past 6094 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 04-03-2006


Message 15 of 30 (301022)
04-05-2006 12:08 AM


In answer to the original question: "if God created the universe, then who created God". Though I don't have any records, I'm quite certain that question has been asked billions of times over the past couple millennia. That's not to say it's bad of course. I asked myself the same many times over the years, and I rather enjoy flipping it around my mind on occasion. That being said, I think the simple answer looks like:
If all substance (material, matter/energy) of the physical universe requires a cause
Then something outside (beyond) the physical universe must have caused the physical universe
Therefore, something beyond the physical universe caused all substance of the physical universe
Or
If all that is physical (natural) requires a cause
Then something metaphysical (supernatural) must have caused it
Therefore, something metaphysical (supernatural) caused all that is physical (natural)
Thus, it is not that something bigger (God) is needed to create something smaller (the physical universe), and so something would still have needed to created the bigger thing (God). It's the logical conclusion that since the known laws of the physical universe dictate that all effects have a cause, or all reactions have an action, that something metaphysical must exist (or have existed), to push the first domino (caused the first cause). The governing laws of the physical universe neccesitate the existence of 'God' (a metaphysical or supernatural entity).
Another way to look at it is; without an uncaused cause, or unmoved mover, cause and effect become infinite regression. Fine for theory (or more often, disproving theory), but an absurdity when applied to reality (the physical universe). Or, similarly, infinity is impossible in reality. Maybe you've heard this. If you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and occupants, and a room is emptied, how many rooms are full? Infinity minus one? What if one more occupant fills a room? Do you have infinity plus one occupants? Math is fun to play with, and of great value, but sometimes when applied to the real-world it becomes a logical absurdity. Or, if theory denies the reality upon which it is based, theory becomes absurdity. So an infinity of time in the physical universe is an impossibility by the laws of this physical universe. Something metaphysical, something outside the laws which govern this universe, must have started time.
That's the simple answer. I hope I explained it clearly. I tried to restate words and phrases, as philosophy seems to have a really difficult time defining it's own language.
There were also some comments about the laws of time and causality being "broken down" in the pre-big bang 'dot universe' (all time/space/matter/energy supressed to a minuscule 'dot'), and so a 'creator' would not be needed. But why would this 'dot' do anything different than it had done 'before' (for lack of a better term). I.e. if it were eternally existant, why is it not still a 'dot'. Another aspect of the above arguments is that unless the supernatural entity is intelligent, why would it have 'begun' anything. The cause needed for the physical universe is not merely a supernatural universe (an empty universe existing outside our own with no governing laws), but a supernatural intelligence which caused the supernatual ability of the supernatural entity to cause the physical universe. So an ungoverned-universe-dot still would require a 'cause' to not remain an ungoverned-universe-dot.
Hopefully that's written intelligably. Feel free to ask for further explanation. I only ask that you be wary of derisive critisism unless you really understand what I'm talking about (i.e. you've studied these matters before in greater depth).

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-05-2006 4:53 PM Dierotao has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024