12 ms·
I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force
by unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
I'll try to state the thought more simply.
"God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to be.
It's pretty neutral and sensible to call "everything" the creator, as Spinoza apparently did, cuz "nothing" sure didn't make the universe. And as a matter of definition, that would be God. What's so fascinating is where this thought exercise may lead. We are talking about everything, acting by law unknown, generating an impossible, unexplainable result. What then don't we know of everything and what possibilities does that raise, relative to its consciousness and intelligence on unimaginable scales of time and of space. I mean, are we gnats on God's ... I'd say eyeball but everything clearly is not human so ... presence?
I'm not sure how a serious person who considered the question openly could avoid these conclusions.
- bloopbloop10000 5y agoIs there a name for this line of thought? I’ve run into it a few times and find it compelling.
- analog31 5y agoTo me it seems equivalent to the "first cause" argument of Thomas Aquinas.
- tjader 5y agoDeism?
- notsureaboutpg 5y agoI mean, it's just theism. Atheism is the rejection of this belief. I think it's a pretty logical step from this to, if our origin is unknown there are two options: 1) Our origin was an accident (and whatever creative force there was was undirected and intentionless), this logically leads down the road to nihilism. 2) Our origin was purposeful (and the creative force behind us was directed and intentioned), this logically leads to some kind of religion.
- scythe 5y agoIt's generally called pantheism, although there has been dispute [1] that Spinoza's account was truly pantheism. Similar ideas exist in Hindu philosophy, and some argue the analogy is deep [2]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism 2: https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4546&context=ocj https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=454...
- hcrisp 5y agoCheck out "cosmological argument" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
- ThalesX 5y agoYou can also check out Aristotle's primum movens (prime mover) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
- satvikpendem 5y agoThis is simply a God of the gaps argument [0]. Just because we don't (yet) know how the universe was created does not mean that we must attribute it to some deity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
- mensetmanusman 5y agoAt some point it’s not a gap but an empty set.
- HenryKissinger 5y agoThe Universe has always existed. It does not have a beginning, and it won't have an end. I'm not talking about the 13.4B old Universe we live in. I'm talking about the Universe that came before it. The Universe is cyclical.
- adrianN 5y agoSince time is part of the universe, I'm not sure whether it is meaningful to talk about something that happened before it existed.
- tomrod 5y agoA poetic, yet unproven, conjecture
- achillesheels 5y agoAn unfalsifiable one at that. Unless it is possible to perceive a world independent of light?
- tomrod 5y agoClose your eyes. Touch the ground. You have now perceived a world independent of light.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Retric 5y agoIt’s really interesting how many assumptions get baked into beliefs like this. Existence had a beginning, it was formed by something, that thing didn’t need to be formed by anything, it’s existence doesn’t count as having existed before existence, that thing had the capacity to act, that things actions resulted in the reality we see today etc. Having convinced yourself of all of these things it then feels natural to think of that first mover as somehow complex for creating the universe rather than some infinitesimal speck that started a cascade. To then think in terms of mystical power rather than say energy. It doesn’t feel like you’re less likely to be correct with every assumption which is kind of silly in one way but also seductive.
- figassis 5y agoI don’t think anyone is attributing any properties to God. God could just be a fundamental force like gravity. What parent comment is saying is whatever was the beginning, is God. Maybe there was no beginning, maybe time extends forever in both directions or loops on itself, or maybe some imbalance caused all this, but we just like to give things names that mean something.
- Retric 5y agoI don’t see how you can think this without applying some properties to that first mover. Even when talking bout this you say “is God” or even gravity you’re assuming that it’s still around and wasn’t say destroyed in the process of creating the universe. Which is kind of my point. Even just the word “is” is quite a large assumption that is easy to overlook. I think it’s an outgrowth of saying some thing created existence rather than saying some event created existence. Edit: Even thinking in terms of assumptions it’s hard to list them all. We think of time as a linear progression which naturally suggests a first action. But set that aside and really strange possibilities show up. What if the universe was created at the end by something that’s yet to exist and time flowed backwards from that event? Now it’s last action that created existence. Or even in the middle with a positive time universe moving forward and a negative time universe moving backwards. Or…
- 5y ago
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> cuz "nothing" sure didn't make the universe. How do you know?
- lostmsu 5y agoHow does he even know universe had a "make" point? Or that it had only one past?
- mensetmanusman 5y agoHow do you open excel without a computer?
- anthk 5y agoHow do you create a computer without tools?
- dQw4w9WgXcQ 5y agoCan you point to science that empirically demonstrates something coming from absolutely nothing?
- anthk 5y agoQuantum mechanics, fields/particles raising and fading on vacuum.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoThis is actually an interesting point. Because ‘space time’ is something. We have no idea what it even means to be outside of our expanding spacetime into that ‘nothingness’ because time doesn’t even exist there, so we couldn’t compute a thought if we travelled there anyway to attempt to grok what the hell was going on.
- anders_p 5y agoCan you point to science that empirically demonstrates that the universe didn't come from absolutely nothing? No, right? So the idea that nothing can come from nothing, is based on an assumption. Which was the entire point of the comment you responded to, if I'm not mistaken.
- SapporoChris 5y agoI don't think not having a complete understanding how something (the universe) works is a good reason to attribute it to God.
- chana_masala 5y ago> "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. This is the essence of much of Hinduism, particularly monist sects like Saiva Siddhanta
- Bobylonian 5y agoI think, that English language has a linguistical problem with name of "God", as it has no etymological understanding what is it behind this word and the only meaning to it is coming now only from Christianity. Other languages have different meaning for word God and even etymological meaning behind it. If you translate Greek ancient pantheon... well, Big Bang would fit in it, just like all the gods, that described nature and things that were ruling over people, along with other gods that were describing human behavior. Quite many of etymological meanings to most of names in other languages for God is Giver. It is not much different from Luck - the main difference between those are only in gender, but not in function. So, if someone thinks, that Gods function was to be responsible for Big Bang, they should be very disappointed or very disillusional, as the only function for God for any society was to bring prosperity to the believers(and wrath to enemies). There are many different beliefs what is God, what is soul and so on. There are belieffs, that animals were gods - even today there is a belief in Tibet, that gods incarnate in people - young girls. Gnostics even believed, that humans are Gods and that was a big issue with Christianity... As for something that there was something before - that is Christian construct for most of Europe. Ancient Greeks knew, that first there was a Chaos(a gods name)... for many others there was only a sea from which God emerged as a bird. So, there is not uniform belief, that there was something before, or that gofds themselves appeared into this world before creation of this world - sometimes Gods appeared even much later than Christianity is depicting them and for some American natives Gods appeared only as animals, who created humans. If the discussion is about still unexplainable mechanisms on how this world works, especially about RND and calling it a God... well, there is a problem with English word of God, because it does not have that meaning in etymology and claiming that it is something that we can assing is not really working. Also, none of other God names means any of those things, so it would be better to establish new term for these mechanisms, how the Universe works, as God has nothing to do with that - not to mention, that extension of Christian God is not possible because of clash of meanings. >>>I mean, are we gnats on God's There is always possibility to accept that there is no God(who has eyes? - what about God for worms or trees without eyes, like it is for most of Life?). Rivers run without God, Wind blows without God. Life exists without God and need for it. Humans and not God are responsible for attrocities they are doing for each other and other beings.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 50 5y agoReminds me: For a while now, I've been thinking about apophatic theology, also known as negative theology[1]. Particularly in the sermons by Meister Eckhart, the German theologian and Christian neoplatonist[2]. I wonder about the connection of apophaticism, found in Christian neoplatonism, and nondualism, found in Advaita Vedanta. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology 2. https://cac.org/meister-eckhart-part-ii-2015-07-16/ https://cac.org/meister-eckhart-part-ii-2015-07-16/
- doliveira 5y agoI think the most arrogant thing one can say is that he can somehow find out the Truth about the Universe just by lying down in his couch. One can easily conceive mathematical solutions for all of those. People also thought that something had to keep the planets moving until Newton, that something had to keep them from collapsing due to perturbation until Lagrange (I think), most philosophers wouldn't even consider time travel until Einstein came about...
- Nursie 5y agoTo my reading you throw in intelligence and consciousness where such things are neither needed nor implied. Also as pointed out elsewhere, this assumes that there was a 'first' in any comprehensible way and that that first itself had no prior origin or cause.
- anomosmarxist 5y agohere is a quote: "from the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways-that is, all things which can fall within the sphere of infinite intellect"
- mbrodersen 5y agoWhat is the meaning of no meaning?
- kmmlng 5y agoInterestingly, this line of thought seems compatible with the description of God in the bible to me. If you put aside all your preconceived notions of some dude in the sky and simply read the bible for what it is, you'll find things like "I am what I am", "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end", etc. The Cristian God is called the Father. And what is a father but a source? The first link in a causality chain that leads to new life? Sometimes I really wonder if our current understanding of Christianity is just completely different from what it meant originally.
- wrzuteczka 5y agoWhose understanding of Christianity? Modern day American tech workers? Because that is the traditional understanding. It sure was how Christianity was understood by st. Augustine, st. Thomas Aquinas and st. Anzelm. And how Christian philosophers still understand it today.
- pqs 5y agoI don't understand the down voting. I also believe that the idea of the Christian god that most (non-Christian) people have is quite naive and distinct to the idea of God in the great Christian thinkers, such those mentioned by the comment.
- libertine 5y ago>people have is quite naive and distinct to the idea of God in the great Christian thinkers, such those mentioned by the comment. But that would mean people would need to drop their condescending sense of superiority over others... come on, don't take that away from people for in their eyes it's an easy win.
- Claude_Shannon 5y agoIn defence, that is not the idea of God many people would grow up with. I'm a Pole, even during "religion" classes or in church during preparation to baptism, the idea of God they would try to show us WAS the "man in the clouds" one, not philosophical one.
- st-keller 5y agoWhat if the total energy of the whole universe amounts to zero? If - what we call „everything“ - and that what we call „nothing“ is essentially the same? Structurally they clearly are: Both are „unbounded“ - „borderless“. What if a „void“ isn’t the only form „nothing“ is allowed to take?
- technothrasher 5y ago"It's pretty neutral and sensible to call "everything" the creator, as Spinoza apparently did, cuz "nothing" sure didn't make the universe. And as a matter of definition, that would be God." There are only two choices, either something always existed or something came from nothing. Either way, reality cannot have been created. Perhaps there was an external cause of the universe as we currently know it, but that would have to be shown, not just asserted. While that would be useful to know, it would not solve the problem of first cause, but simply push it back one level. Further, calling this unestablished cause a "creator" and/or a "God" is smuggling in a lot of baggage about intentionality that dovetails into all kinds of other religious beliefs. This is confounding at best, and disingenuous at worst.
- kaiwen1 5y ago> There are only two choices, either something always existed or something came from nothing. Another possibility is that time is a property of our universe, but not a property of the larger reality from which it originated. That reality may have properties utterly unfathomable to human minds, and no amount of speculation will ever move us one iota closer to a hint of what it is. In that case it's neither "always existed" nor "something came from nothing". Such statements don't apply. "Always", "something", "nothing"... these might be just parochial terms that are deep and important here, but have no context in that larger reality.