Author Topic: God's First Cause  (Read 928 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Darwins +50/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
God's First Cause
« on: May 30, 2014, 06:28:41 PM »
Does Biblegod know how he came to be? If he does, does that not indicate that he was created by something out with himself?

If he doesn't know, obvious implications for his omniscience.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1154
  • Darwins +35/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2014, 07:41:06 PM »
i can only answer this in a zen context
Signature goes here...

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2014, 10:41:18 PM »
Does Biblegod know how he came to be?
What does this mean?
[/quote]
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2014, 05:11:54 PM »
Nobody ever suggested that god has a cause or came into being at all.
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1568
  • Darwins +63/-0
  • I shall smite thee, in HIS honor
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2014, 06:31:49 PM »
Nobody ever suggested that god has a cause or came into being at all.

Nobody? Ever?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where God should have come up and said hello. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you fucking turn up and say well done." - Eddie Izzard

You keep using that word. I do not think it means

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2014, 06:47:42 PM »
Nobody ever suggested that god has a cause or came into being at all.

Nobody? Ever?

The only people I can think of that might have said that Yahweh came into existence are the Mormons and maybe the Gnostics, but you didn't direct your question at them, you said specifically "biblegod", which I can only interperate as "God, as described in the bible". And the bible clearly describes a god who did not come into existence but always existed.
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline dloubet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1287
  • Darwins +54/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • Denisloubet.com
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2014, 06:57:28 PM »
You should rather ask the biblegod where its actions come from. Due to its omniscience about itself, it can make no decisions, it can only do what it knows it does. Yet clearly it is described as performing actions that require decisions. Where did the decisions regarding those actions come from?
Denis Loubet

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7270
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2014, 07:22:26 PM »
God is only an idea. And it's not even a good one.

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Darwins +50/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2014, 01:56:26 AM »
Does Biblegod know how he came to be?
What does this mean?
[/quote]

If Biblegod exists and one were to ask him; "How did you come to exist?", surely he could only reply in one of two ways?

1. I have always been here.
2. I came to exist because (insert reason).

If his answer is; "I have always been here", then surely he cannot be omniscient as he does not know how he came to be?
If he replies; "I came to exist because (insert reason)", then that implies that he was caused by something outside himself?
I suppose one might say that 'Biblegod created himself', but unless you can show how this is possible I would consider it a nonsense answer.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1568
  • Darwins +63/-0
  • I shall smite thee, in HIS honor
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2014, 05:18:24 AM »
The only people I can think of that might have said that Yahweh came into existence are the Mormons and maybe the Gnostics, but you didn't direct your question at them, you said specifically "biblegod", which I can only interperate as "God, as described in the bible". And the bible clearly describes a god who did not come into existence but always existed.

Really? So even though the Mormons DO use the bible,[1] you would not consider their god as 'biblegod'? What do you call it? 'Mormongod'?

lol. Mormongod. Sounds like some sort of superhero.
 1. As well as their own Book of Mormon, yes, I know; but that really is just a supplement. Much like some Christians consider the OT as a supplement.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where God should have come up and said hello. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you fucking turn up and say well done." - Eddie Izzard

You keep using that word. I do not think it means

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Darwins +50/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2014, 06:58:01 AM »
Nobody ever suggested that god has a cause or came into being at all.

It matters not what mortals do or do not suggest. Either Biblegod knows how he came to exist or he doesn't. Either way, it would seem that he was either created or he isn't omniscient.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7270
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2014, 07:00:33 AM »

It matters not what mortals do or do not suggest. Either Biblegod knows how he came to exist or he doesn't. Either way, it would seem that he was either created or he isn't omniscient.

Excellent point. I am going to run this by some friends to see how they respond.

Offline John 3 16

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2014, 08:18:12 AM »
I suppose one might say that 'Biblegod created himself', but unless you can show how this is possible I would consider it a nonsense answer.
The bible says God is self-existent.  No beginning or ending.

Quote
If his answer is; "I have always been here", then surely he cannot be omniscient as he does not know how he came to be?
You have got to be kidding right?
Are you a hatheist?  (hey-thee-ist)

A person who vocally hates on religious individuals, often criticizing such persons for being uneducated hillbillies.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10610
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2014, 08:19:00 AM »
The bible says God is self-existent.  No beginning or ending.

The Book of the One Above All says that "God (sic)" does not exist.
Your move.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6457
  • Darwins +470/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2014, 08:22:47 AM »
The bible says God is self-existent.  No beginning or ending.
How does that work then? Is it magic? Or did someone just say that to stop awkward questions?
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1200
  • Darwins +124/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2014, 08:25:01 AM »
God exists because man created him.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Offline John 3 16

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2014, 08:25:38 AM »
Now, shall we turn the table and talk about the origin of the universe and atheism?

What do you say about the origin of the universe?

a)the big bang?
b)has always existed?
c)don't know?
Are you a hatheist?  (hey-thee-ist)

A person who vocally hates on religious individuals, often criticizing such persons for being uneducated hillbillies.

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Darwins +50/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2014, 08:26:49 AM »
I suppose one might say that 'Biblegod created himself', but unless you can show how this is possible I would consider it a nonsense answer.
The bible says God is self-existent.  No beginning or ending.

Quote
If his answer is; "I have always been here", then surely he cannot be omniscient as he does not know how he came to be?
You have got to be kidding right?

If Biblegod does not know how he came to 'always just exist', then he is not all knowing. He doesn't know where his intelligence or powers came from. Nothing difficult there.
I can see what you're angling at; if Biblegod has always existed then he obviously wouldn't know how he came to be. Therefore, he is not omniscient.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Darwins +50/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2014, 08:29:37 AM »
Now, shall we turn the table and talk about the origin of the universe and atheism?

What do you say about the origin of the universe?

a)the big bang?
b)has always existed?
c)don't know?

By all means feel free to start a new thread on those questions.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10610
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2014, 08:31:50 AM »
Now, shall we turn the table and talk about the origin of the universe and atheism?

What do you say about the origin of the universe?

a)the big bang?
b)has always existed?
c)don't know?

My book says your god doesn't exist. Stop trying to change the subject. Either prove My book to be false (and explain why that logic doesn't apply to yours), or accept that your god is false. Or be honest and admit that a book without any evidence is irrelevant when it comes to determining truth.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline John 3 16

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2014, 08:35:35 AM »
By all means feel free to start a new thread on those questions.
Okay.
Are you a hatheist?  (hey-thee-ist)

A person who vocally hates on religious individuals, often criticizing such persons for being uneducated hillbillies.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2014, 11:25:20 AM »
The bible says God is self-existent.  No beginning or ending.
How does that work then? Is it magic? Or did someone just say that to stop awkward questions?

The irony is, somebody said that to stop awkward questions, but not about god, about the universe.

If everything has a cause, but everything also has a beginning, then that beginning can't have had a cause. And so, if premise's A and B are true, then we need to posit an uncaused cause in order to explain that beginning. It was a logical problem that was patched up by saying "et's just posit an uncaused cause, otherwise we'll regress through causation until the end of time.
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2014, 11:53:17 AM »
If everything has a cause, but everything also has a beginning, then that beginning can't have had a cause.

Can you give an example of something other than a human label beginning?  For instance, we can say "The computer I am using right now began in 2008" - but all that happened is that matter was re-arranged into something humans label a "computer".  Nothing really began or ended, other than the matter now qualifying for that label.  So far as I know, every single instance of "beginning" ever observed follows that pattern:  Something(s) qualifying for label A changing into something(s) qualifying for label B.  And it's just human language that does the qualifying.

Rather than everything having a beginning, I put the question to you:  What reason do we have to believe that "beginning" in an ultimate sense is even a meaningful concept?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2014, 12:42:05 PM »
If everything has a cause, but everything also has a beginning, then that beginning can't have had a cause.

Can you give an example of something other than a human label beginning?  For instance, we can say "The computer I am using right now began in 2008" - but all that happened is that matter was re-arranged into something humans label a "computer".  Nothing really began or ended, other than the matter now qualifying for that label.  So far as I know, every single instance of "beginning" ever observed follows that pattern:  Something(s) qualifying for label A changing into something(s) qualifying for label B.  And it's just human language that does the qualifying.

Rather than everything having a beginning, I put the question to you:  What reason do we have to believe that "beginning" in an ultimate sense is even a meaningful concept?

Cosmologists talk about the beginning all the time, it's called the big bang. the only question is, was the big bang an effect requiring a cause?

Right now, we don't have an answer. We barely know and understand what happened in the first few seconds after the big bang, let alone what happened or would have to have happened before it.

But, my point here was in answer to the question of why God is said to be causeless. The answer is, because scientists and philosophers in the past who proceeded from he assumption that the world is an effect, needed to posit a cause that was its self uncaused to keep their brains from hurting.



"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2014, 01:07:11 PM »
Cosmologists talk about the beginning all the time, it's called the big bang.

This does not answer my question.  Everyone talks of beginnings.  It's a colloquial term.  It refers to the label-qualification I described above.

the only question is, was the big bang an effect requiring a cause?

Everything else that happens seems to be.  Supposing that the cause is a super-person is an arrogant stretch, but I suppose it could qualify as an example of something's ultimate beginning.  Just not one we've observed.  Which brings us back to my unanswered question above.

Right now, we don't have an answer. We barely know and understand what happened in the first few seconds after the big bang, let alone what happened or would have to have happened before it.

The boundaries of our knowledge are very frequently the place where people positively claim gods to be present.

But, my point here was in answer to the question of why God is said to be causeless. The answer is, because scientists and philosophers in the past who proceeded from he assumption that the world is an effect, needed to posit a cause that was its self uncaused to keep their brains from hurting.

Kind of pointless to do that.  Infinite regress is only a problem to the same degree as Zeno's Paradox is a problem.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2014, 02:20:51 PM »
Quote from: Azdgari
Everything else that happens seems to be.  Supposing that the cause is a super-person is an arrogant stretch, but I suppose it could qualify as an example of something's ultimate beginning.

The first cause argument doesn't state that the cause is a super person, only that we need to posit an uncaused cause.   

Quote from: Azdgari
Which brings us back to my unanswered question above.

I might need you to restate the question, I don't think I understood it.

Quote from: Azdgari
The boundaries of our knowledge are very frequently the place where people positively claim gods to be present.

And I think that not knowing what causes a thing is a very bad reason to posit a deity to explain it.

But, my point here was in answer to the question of why God is said to be causeless. The answer is, because scientists and philosophers in the past who proceeded from he assumption that the world is an effect, needed to posit a cause that was its self uncaused to keep their brains from hurting.

Quote from: Azdgari
Kind of pointless to do that.  Infinite regress is only a problem to the same degree as Zeno's Paradox is a problem.

I find that hard to accept considering that scientists and cosmologists are currently trying to discover such a cause. By the same token as we don't run up against a problem, give up, and say "We don't know so God must have done it", I don't think we ought to run up against a problem, give up and say "We don't know so there must not be a cause". 
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2014, 04:01:42 PM »
The first cause argument doesn't state that the cause is a super person, only that we need to posit an uncaused cause.

Depends on the first-cause argument in question.  In my experience, the motivation for positing such an argument is almost always in order to insert one's cultural super-person (ie. a deity) as that uncaused cause.

I might need you to restate the question, I don't think I understood it.

I am asking you to establish that beginning to exist is a meaningful concept for humans to impose on the universe or anything within it.  There is no evidence of it in nature.  Even virtual particles are a change that occurs to a piece of space, and their net energy generated is zero.  One thing changing into another is the only thing that humans have ever been able to observe, as far as I know.  Do you know differently?  And citing the Big Bang or something similar would be circular reasoning.

And I think that not knowing what causes a thing is a very bad reason to posit a deity to explain it.

So you don't posit a deity as the "first cause".  Cool.

I find that hard to accept considering that scientists and cosmologists are currently trying to discover such a cause.

Is that really what they're trying to do?

By the same token as we don't run up against a problem, give up, and say "We don't know so God must have done it", I don't think we ought to run up against a problem, give up and say "We don't know so there must not be a cause".

Who has ever advocated that?  I for one advocate continuing to research, rather than to proclaim some discovered or undiscovered cause as the "first" one and leave it at that.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1851
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2014, 04:03:20 PM »
I find that hard to accept considering that scientists and cosmologists are currently trying to discover such a cause.
They may be trying to discover a cause, but I don't think they're necessarily trying to discover an uncaused cause (which seems to be what you're implying with the phrasing of 'discover such a cause').

Quote
By the same token as we don't run up against a problem, give up, and say "We don't know so God must have done it", I don't think we ought to run up against a problem, give up and say "We don't know so there must not be a cause".

Right.  But we also don't give and and say "we don't know so there must not be infinite regress".  Or, to put it a different way, we don't give up and say "infinite regress of cause and effect makes our brains hurt - there must not be infinite regress of cause and effect."

And the only reason to bring up an uncaused cause is to solve the problem of infinite regress.  I'm not sure if it's valid to say that there cannot be an infinite procession of causes.

I guess that's what I'm missing - why is an uncaused cause necessary?  Just to keep our brains from hurting?  Just because it seems too hard to be able to conceive of an infinite succession of effects preceded by an infinite succession of causes?  It just seems to be arbitrary to assume that, in order to logically explain every effect, there must be an effect for which there is no explanation.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: God's First Cause
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2014, 04:08:41 PM »
I would love to see someone address this:
You should rather ask the biblegod where its actions come from. Due to its omniscience about itself, it can make no decisions, it can only do what it knows it does. Yet clearly it is described as performing actions that require decisions. Where did the decisions regarding those actions come from?

Folks rarely actually address dloubet's points, but they're generally very good points.  Then again maybe there's some cause and effect there too...
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.