sschlichter

because it would take denying that we do not have infinite simplicity. The 5 ways go together. You cannot argue them separately. I am not even arguing that you couldn't. I am just stating that I cannot conceive of a self-causing, self-designing, eternally present, moving without being moved, universe.

George S

With apologies for the off-topic remark, but I thought it might be of general interest.
To multi-quote, choose all to be included (except the last) by activating the "multi-quote" button. Then when the last is chosen by clicking "Quote" the multi-quoted ones come along.
Sorry for the commercial interruption. Now back to your thread.

elevator

If you can't conceive of a self-causing, self-designing, eternally present, moving without being moved universe, why can you so easily conceive of a God with those exact same properties? And to complicate things further; an eternally existing entity (be it God or the universe) has no need to be self-caused (it is by definition uncaused) or self-designed (its by definition eternal). Like I said though, if you want an more in dept discussion on the subject this forum contains numerous discussions of the cosmological argument and there are plenty of easy-to-read philosophy books that do to.

Here's Nigel Warburton's objection, for example, in his "Philosophy: The Basics" (very easy to read and understand for beginner philosophers):

George S

Alrighty then, you invoke the Argument from Incredulity.

This "self-causing, self-designing, eternally present, moving without being moved, universe" I call choice B, not finding it quite as incredible as choice A. (Without a doubt the universe is more surprising than we can imagine. Bell's Inequality is Violated! By Mother Nature Herself! There are no hidden variables! Impossible (by ordinary logic). Never mind.) The alternative is nothing more than the exact same statement with one word changed: self-causing, self-designing, eternally present, moving without being moved, god.

A universe that was a tiny, tiny (even smaller than you can imagine) bit of stuff that had all the energy there ever was to be came to be, ex nihilo.

Or a hugely complex god (even more complex than you can imagine) that in turn created all the rest came to be, ex nihilo.

What recommends that latter choice?

When I opt for the former, I have to admit an interesting fact to the Facts of the Known Universe. Something-from-Nothing is, indeed, possible. It happened once, why not again? And again.

Oh, yeah, there's this vacuum energy and quantum foam of chaotic (continuous?) creation. Is Hoyle's Static State Universe back in play now that we know that 75% of the universe's energy (Dark Energy) is not covered by our prior math.

sschlichter

here we are again, enumerating invisible green dragons.

I recommend a hugely complex God, for not one overwhelming reason but an overwhelming trickle of reasons.

When comparing your green dragons include all Aquinas 5 ways at once. (if the cosmological argument is really your cup of tea). For example, you skipped design in your response and I find an inifinitely small universe carrying less and less weight in that regard. Also, include the progressive and historically invasive revelation of the Bible and the person of Christ, and while we are at it, you are also going to have to convince me that my own experiences with a personal creator are delusional and may require medication.

It may turn out that I am not really an author, just an actor - possibly at an improv.

~Steve

George S

An actor at an improv. Perfect.

You recognize moral agency (otherwise improvisation is impossible). Now, what is morality?

I would propose one possible answer:

Taking a perspective larger-than mere self.

• self and family.
• family and community.
• community and mankind.
• mankind and all consciousness.
• all consciousness and all life.
• all life and its environment.

ohmi

Some say that time is an illusion, but whatever, time is integral to this universe ... thus if it exists then it is created along with the universe ... but there can be no cause without time ... thus cause is 'created' too ...

But without time there can be no creation act either, and no consciousness to perceive or control it.

How does one even sensibly talk about it then, the words are inadequate because they evolved to point at things within this universe , not things beyond time , beyond our physics ?

ohmi

I am saying that as the unreal virtual characters, what we think can be wholly determined , even to imagining that our perceptions are real , but time, consciousness, cause, etc are all unreal to a time-less uncaused God in His reality, the spirit.

Cause is time-dependent by nature , time-less God cannot have cause , has no purpose because He has no time ... some say that time is an illusion, but to timeless God it must be illusion , unreal , just as must life be to God, consciousness, because these things are only as real as time is.

God is 'spirit' and as the scripture states, man is made in the image of God ... the reality of man is our spirit, that which moves us ... this is what religion gets wrong , creating an image of God as a man, a personal god, not seeing that the physical is the unreality, the spirit is the reality.

Once one sees that time is an illusion then it is possible to understand prophecy, that the 'whole of time' is simply a fixed finite object 'imagined' by God , known from 'beginning to end' [as we would say] , that only we have the illusion of passage through time [and are beginning already to be able to understand that it is an illusion, even from 'within' the illusion]

As to the finiteness of 'space-time' , even from within we can see now the finiteness of space, and the beginning of time ... the end of time is still but one hypothesis to us, but the only alternative is 'entropic doom' [which assumes closure of the universe which we know to be open]

Simply observing mankind [as psychologists do for instance] one finds that men's deepest desire is to love and be loved [even atheists attempt to create 'moralities' on basis of love, just as the saints have explained is the basis of God's command for a perfect life] , yet something from outside men creates the urge to be unloving in conflict and overcoming this inherent deep desire to be loving ... this ongoing conflict within all men is a proof of God [and detailed in scripture], it simply does not occur in animals and has no 'evolutional value' ,but is actually a major detriment to life...

The spirit then is witnessed to men as the reality, but men have perfected lying, even to ourselves, and live in strong [but never complete]delusion then , even in denial of what we are and what we truly deeply want to do :-

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

It is thus hard indeed to perceive what is beyond the apparent physical reality, but the evidence is there... seeing through the illusion of time is a useful first step perhaps ?

ohmi

The idea of cause takes away ALL 'responsibility' , it becomes just a silly game played by humans on one another where no-one can prevent the causes within them to be responsible, but gets abused by others [hypocrites] who claim things could have been otherwise [whilst hoping no-one notices their 'aresponsibility' ]

elevator

That is of course entirely a thought experiment. Like I said before, this analogy is assuming that nothing is created out of nothing (not something out of nothing). There is no reason to imagine a creation event for non-corporeal entities. It would be purely a thought experiment; kind of like myself imagining a universe inside my head.

I thought you said God was a personal god? Now you make it sound as if God is just a spirit within us, and that concepts such as love, consciousness and morality is just manifestations of this higher reality within us? It is of course equally unsupported compared to those who claim the existence of a personal God (omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent), a moral judge of sorts.

The difference is though, that at least you don't claim doctrinal truth. It is easier to believe in "a God" or "higher reality" than to believe in that plus a whole lot of truth claims that collectively gets known as Christianity or Islam or whatever religion you believe in. That makes the task objectively easier for you; you just have to prove that God exists. A Christian on the other hand must not only prove that God exists but also prove all the dogmas and truth-claims that build the Christian faith.

But at the end of the day there is nothing to separate the existence of any divine reality as more true than a reality devoid of any divine forces. There is simply no evidence except your own personal faith.