5 ms·

The modern, rational perspective has not answered the question of "how did we get here?". A divine creator is one of many proposed answers to this ancient quest

The modern, rational perspective has not answered the question of "how did we get here?". A divine creator is one of many proposed answers to this ancient question.

eridius 9y ago
Answering "how did we get here?" with "god did it" is just kicking the can down the road. Where did the god come from?
- simplify 9y ago
  Who could answer? If a being created time and space, we, constrained within that time and space, might not have the capacity to imagine what it's like exist outside of them, only that, as the creator, it is possible.
  - HeroOfAges 9y ago
    I've always found it hard to believe that any human being that ever lived would even begin to understand the intentions of such an entity. It would be like the ants that you've placed in an ant farm claiming to understand why they were placed in the ant farm in the first place and using that knowledge to control the other ants.
    - foldr 9y ago
      That is why most religions have a revelatory component. Hardly anyone thinks that you could figure out from first principles what God's intentions are. But he can tell you his intentions if he wants to.
      - Koshkin 9y ago
        I seriously doubt that you could explain your intentions to an ant (even if you wanted to, for some reason).
        foldr 9y ago
        At the very least, if God gives us commands, we can understand the commands and obey them. I don't see how you could doubt that's possible (on the hypothesis that God does exist).
- cloudsloth 9y ago
  But using that as your basis to ignore the question is ignoring the can. Religion tries to answer the questions on existence, meaning and morality (this is not meant to be defimitively comprehensive). An atheist who calls the religious person a fool for asking a question and finding an answer that still leaves some questions is himself the fool.
  - lilyball 9y ago
    Asking the question is fine. Saying "God did it" is just a cop-out though. It's not a real answer. It's basically equivalent to saying "I don't know". Except it's worse, because it means you stop looking for the actual answer.
    - foldr 9y ago
      I've never seen any religious person who was seriously interested in the question of the origin of the universe stop at "God did it". It's unfair to imply that this is all that theologians have ever had to say on the topic.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Ha. That second sentence is exactly what I said as a teenager; I've since found out how ignorant I was. It's only equivalent to saying "I don't know" if you follow a line like Pascal's Wager, with any sort of faith or conviction you're saying you have established an answer. The Big Bang is widely accepted yet is by normal definition impossible (you need time in order for something to change, the Big Bang requires a change before time existed). It's a cop out that allows people to curtail metaphysical enquiry at the bounds of known physics ... People will challenge a theist "who created god" but don't challenge "who/what created the Big Bang". For some reason ex nihilo is fine for the Universe but preposterous for a creator? (The reason is usually a religious reliance on certain assumptions.) >you stop looking for the actual answer. // Your petitio principii is showing. If I find "I get wet standing outside when it rains" I don't need to find a contradictory reason why I'm getting wetted by rain unless the original theory fails. Of course you stop looking and only consider then opposing answers if they present themselves. When you wake in the morning do you enquire as to the nature of your reality afresh or do you assume it has the same realism as when you went to bed? (Until that realism is challenged?)
- foldr 9y ago
  If there's an ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe, the explanation has to stop somewhere. From a cosmological point of view, the properties of God are just the properties that any such terminus would have to have in order to be a terminus. Anything that comes from something else isn't God, so the question of where God comes from is moot.
  - nitwit005 9y ago
    > If there's an ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe, the explanation has to stop somewhere. Not really. It could be that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, and the big bang was an event that occurs from time to time. No matter what explanation you pick, something came from "nothingness" at some point, which suggests nothingness has some unusual properties.
    - foldr 9y ago
      >Not really. It could be that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, and the big bang was an event that occurs from time to time. That is a scenario where there is no ultimate explanation.
maxander 9y ago
Uh, we got here because a smart primate species evolved on a planet that formed around a heavy-element-rich star about a dozen billion years after this universe emerged from the inflationary paradigm? There's a couple gaps, I'll grant you, but science has this question pretty well covered, all considered.
- simplify 9y ago
  It only covers it so far. A simple "what caused the big bang?" question brings us back to square one.
  - Koshkin 9y ago
    This is but one of many questions, and if history of science is any indication, the answer will be found soon enough.
  - industriousthou 9y ago
    Well, yeah, but there is no solution to the infinite regression problem, right? Adding God to the mix doesn't really change anything.
    - simplify 9y ago
      Ah, but it does change. Given that big bang theory tells us the universe has a beginning, it's not unreasonable to think that something greater than the universe must have created it. One might be curious to see the intentions of this being, if possible :)
flukus 9y ago
> A divine creator is one of many proposed answers to this ancient question. Why only one? What logical reason is there to think that there is only a single god like being?
- Koshkin 9y ago
  Polytheism is nothing new. In fact, monotheism is a relatively recent invention.
  - flukus 9y ago
    Yet I only see people advocating for a single creator. That makes me think their reasoning is grounded more in their beliefs than any honest attempt at reasoning.
    - Koshkin 9y ago
      Interesting. It takes two people to create a person, but it takes one god to create a universe... On the other hand, how can one assume that god has any particular property, such as even being countable?
- simplify 9y ago
  There isn't. I said it was one of many answers, didn't I?

The modern, rational perspective has not answered the question of "how did we get here?". A divine creator is one of many proposed answers to this ancient question.

eridius 9y ago

Answering "how did we get here?" with "god did it" is just kicking the can down the road. Where did the god come from?

simplify 9y ago
Who could answer? If a being created time and space, we, constrained within that time and space, might not have the capacity to imagine what it's like exist outside of them, only that, as the creator, it is possible.
- HeroOfAges 9y ago
  I've always found it hard to believe that any human being that ever lived would even begin to understand the intentions of such an entity. It would be like the ants that you've placed in an ant farm claiming to understand why they were placed in the ant farm in the first place and using that knowledge to control the other ants.
  - foldr 9y ago
    That is why most religions have a revelatory component. Hardly anyone thinks that you could figure out from first principles what God's intentions are. But he can tell you his intentions if he wants to.
    - Koshkin 9y ago
      I seriously doubt that you could explain your intentions to an ant (even if you wanted to, for some reason).
      - foldr 9y ago
        At the very least, if God gives us commands, we can understand the commands and obey them. I don't see how you could doubt that's possible (on the hypothesis that God does exist).
cloudsloth 9y ago
But using that as your basis to ignore the question is ignoring the can. Religion tries to answer the questions on existence, meaning and morality (this is not meant to be defimitively comprehensive). An atheist who calls the religious person a fool for asking a question and finding an answer that still leaves some questions is himself the fool.
- lilyball 9y ago
  Asking the question is fine. Saying "God did it" is just a cop-out though. It's not a real answer. It's basically equivalent to saying "I don't know". Except it's worse, because it means you stop looking for the actual answer.
  - foldr 9y ago
    I've never seen any religious person who was seriously interested in the question of the origin of the universe stop at "God did it". It's unfair to imply that this is all that theologians have ever had to say on the topic.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Ha. That second sentence is exactly what I said as a teenager; I've since found out how ignorant I was. It's only equivalent to saying "I don't know" if you follow a line like Pascal's Wager, with any sort of faith or conviction you're saying you have established an answer. The Big Bang is widely accepted yet is by normal definition impossible (you need time in order for something to change, the Big Bang requires a change before time existed). It's a cop out that allows people to curtail metaphysical enquiry at the bounds of known physics ... People will challenge a theist "who created god" but don't challenge "who/what created the Big Bang". For some reason ex nihilo is fine for the Universe but preposterous for a creator? (The reason is usually a religious reliance on certain assumptions.) >you stop looking for the actual answer. // Your petitio principii is showing. If I find "I get wet standing outside when it rains" I don't need to find a contradictory reason why I'm getting wetted by rain unless the original theory fails. Of course you stop looking and only consider then opposing answers if they present themselves. When you wake in the morning do you enquire as to the nature of your reality afresh or do you assume it has the same realism as when you went to bed? (Until that realism is challenged?)
foldr 9y ago
If there's an ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe, the explanation has to stop somewhere. From a cosmological point of view, the properties of God are just the properties that any such terminus would have to have in order to be a terminus. Anything that comes from something else isn't God, so the question of where God comes from is moot.
- nitwit005 9y ago
  > If there's an ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe, the explanation has to stop somewhere. Not really. It could be that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, and the big bang was an event that occurs from time to time. No matter what explanation you pick, something came from "nothingness" at some point, which suggests nothingness has some unusual properties.
  - foldr 9y ago
    >Not really. It could be that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, and the big bang was an event that occurs from time to time. That is a scenario where there is no ultimate explanation.

maxander 9y ago

Uh, we got here because a smart primate species evolved on a planet that formed around a heavy-element-rich star about a dozen billion years after this universe emerged from the inflationary paradigm? There's a couple gaps, I'll grant you, but science has this question pretty well covered, all considered.

simplify 9y ago
It only covers it so far. A simple "what caused the big bang?" question brings us back to square one.
- Koshkin 9y ago
  This is but one of many questions, and if history of science is any indication, the answer will be found soon enough.
- industriousthou 9y ago
  Well, yeah, but there is no solution to the infinite regression problem, right? Adding God to the mix doesn't really change anything.
  - simplify 9y ago
    Ah, but it does change. Given that big bang theory tells us the universe has a beginning, it's not unreasonable to think that something greater than the universe must have created it. One might be curious to see the intentions of this being, if possible :)

flukus 9y ago

> A divine creator is one of many proposed answers to this ancient question. Why only one? What logical reason is there to think that there is only a single god like being?

Koshkin 9y ago
Polytheism is nothing new. In fact, monotheism is a relatively recent invention.
- flukus 9y ago
  Yet I only see people advocating for a single creator. That makes me think their reasoning is grounded more in their beliefs than any honest attempt at reasoning.
  - Koshkin 9y ago
    Interesting. It takes two people to create a person, but it takes one god to create a universe... On the other hand, how can one assume that god has any particular property, such as even being countable?
simplify 9y ago
There isn't. I said it was one of many answers, didn't I?