4 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
I 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…
- achillesheels 5y ago
  What presupposes the question is if there is a reason for the creation? As Aristotle mentions in his physics a beginning presupposes an end. In that, there is a principled order towards attaining an end. What principles things? Minds do. So a blind cosmic event does not due the the creation of the cosmos justice. In that, it was a marvelous idea.
- theroncross 5y ago
  This. There's a reason the number 0 was only invented a couple of times. Human minds don't do well with the idea of nothing. It's not that there was nothing here - it's that there was no here.

Retric 5y ago

I 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…

achillesheels 5y ago
What presupposes the question is if there is a reason for the creation? As Aristotle mentions in his physics a beginning presupposes an end. In that, there is a principled order towards attaining an end. What principles things? Minds do. So a blind cosmic event does not due the the creation of the cosmos justice. In that, it was a marvelous idea.
theroncross 5y ago
This. There's a reason the number 0 was only invented a couple of times. Human minds don't do well with the idea of nothing. It's not that there was nothing here - it's that there was no here.