5 ms·

Things like the big bang seem to be things after the beginning of the universe. In the same way, the issue with a god is "who created god, and who created that

by gcau 4y ago

Things like the big bang seem to be things after the beginning of the universe. In the same way, the issue with a god is "who created god, and who created that who created god...". If he's eternal, who/what made him eternal? We have the same problem in science, and I think any explanation/theory would have the same problem. Also, I dislike that when some physicists explain this they say, "sure, you can get something from nothing" and then change the definition of 'nothing' for their explanation to work. I feel like it's a disservice to not just admit mayyybe we don't know some things. Disclaimer: not a physicist and maybe missing something.

danwee 4y ago
Indeed. We'll never know the beginning of everything; science cannot accomplish that, religion cannot provide satisfactory answers, and philosophy will always leave you half empty half full. That being said, discovering things is fun, so as human beings we should not stop doing science/religion/philosophy/etc ever.
aliasxneo 4y ago
In the case of the Bible, it makes it explicitly clear that God is uncreated. Asking the question, "Who created an uncreated God?" doesn't make much sense in that case.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Of course, but then immediately leads to the question: if we admit that it is possible for God itself to be un-created, why can't the universe itself be uncreated as well?
  - aliasxneo 4y ago
    That was a popular theory for a long time, although I think it's declined over the years. I don't recall the reasons why, though.
    - krapp 4y ago
      Probably the Big Bang and evidence of inflation and the CMB. There is a lot of credible evidence that our universe had a definite beginning.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        Note that I wasn't arguing against the big bang, or even cosmology itself. I was only pointing out that the concept of God doesn't add anything to the conversation. It's also important to note that the big bang theory completely leaves open the question of what there was in the tiny tiny universe before inflation. Basically, the current BBT describes how the universe evolved starting from some time t=t0 + 10^-36 seconds. But that leaves a gap after t0 but before this time. Finally, the question of existence from nothing is traditionally extended to the supposed singularity that existed at t0 as well, though that is on shaker ground.
        krapp 4y ago
        I was just suggesting a reason why the solid state theory of the cosmos fell out of favor - evidence to the contrary.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        Sure, but this thread wasn't referring to the solid state theory - it is referring to the philosophical problem of creation from nothing. That is, in our usual life, everything that exists comes from something else that exists. But we can't easily apply this rule to the very beginning of the universe (be it the big bang or whatever other model). So, the question is - how do we handle this? Thomas Aquinas said that this is itself proof of God's existence: the universe did not exist at some point, then God created the first thing. Of course, the next logical question is - ok, then how does the rule apply to God? And the religious say - well, the rule doesn't apply to God, only to creation. But, if we accept that the rule isn't universal, then we can also choose not to apply it to the beginning of the universe. Instead, we can tweak the rule to say that everything except the singularity at the beginning of the Universe is created by another existing thing; the singularity itself was always there and requires no explanation. This is perfectly consistent with the Big Bang theory, and is in fact how most scientists conceptualize it (or, they say that questions about the origin of that singularity make no sense, since time itself began once the singularity started inflating, but this is philosophically similar). Of course, we can posit anything we want about that singularity and its past (if any), and we will never contradict another theory, since there is no remnant in the existing universe of what came before inflation, so whatever theory we want will be consistent with the current universe. Did a different universe collapse into that singularity, perhaps one with slightly different constants of nature? Sure, why not. Was it a regular black hole in another, larger, universe that still exists, but which is too far away from us to be detectable in any way now that space-time has expanded so much? Possibly, why not. Did gods and demons fight until they a powerful sorceror cast a spell to imprison them into single point, where they and there magic were ground to dust and exploded in the inflation? Perfectly coherent with all known physical theories.
  - ibn_khaldun 4y ago
    The attributes between the universe and The Creator would need to be differentiated. In other words, the properties of that which is uncreated would need to be defined so they can be distinguished from something that is created. These properties have to be understood and accepted as an exclusive set that cannot be "distributed" or "shared" among other beings; in order to dispel the notion that there can be multiple uncreated beings or beings that are created that share attributes with The Creator.
  - ssr2020 4y ago
    The reason for easiness in regard to the complete otherness of His Essence and His unrestrictedness is this: most certainly, the Maker of the universe is not of the same kind as the universe. His Essence resembles no other essence at all. Since this is so, the obstacles and restraints within the sphere of the universe cannot hinder Him, they cannot restrict His actions. He has complete disposal over the whole universe and is able to transform all of it at the same time. If the disposal and actions that are apparent in the universe were to be attributed to it, it would cause so many difficulties and so much confusion that neither would any order remain nor would anything continue to exist; indeed, nothing would be able to come into existence. For example, if the masterly art in vaulted domes is attributed to the stones of the domes, and if the command of a battalion, which properly belongs to its officer, is left to the soldiers, either neither of them would ever come into existence, or with great difficulty and confusion they would achieve a state completely lacking in order. Whereas, if in order for the situation of the stones in the dome to be achieved, it is accorded to a master who is not a stone himself, and if the command of the soldiers in the regiment is referred to an officer who possesses the essential quality of officership, both the art is easy and command and organization are easy. This is because, while the stones and the soldiers are obstacles to each other, the master and the officer can look from every angle, they command without obstacle. from Quran's Light
- kthejoker2 4y ago
  To be clear, it makes a ton of sense to ask such a question. The underlying assumption to the question is why only one thing is allowed to be uncreated .. ? Are there others like them, much like here on Earth where we have many authors writing many books? The Bible doesn't answer those at all, it starts in media res (despite its first three words!) (I have other complaints about such a God but)
  - ARandomerDude 4y ago
    The Bible very explicitly teaches that there are no other gods. Here is one passage among many. Isaiah 44:6-8 ESV Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. [7] Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. [8] Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."
    - hota_mazi 4y ago
      Yes but why should we care what the bible says, especially when what it says contradicts science?
      - tresqotheq 4y ago
        > it says contradicts science? contradicting science is no great flaw. "Science" contradicts itself from time to time.
        craftsman 4y ago
        It would be more accurate to say that science corrects itself. At any given time there are ideas which appear to have been verified as much as possible, others which are near speculation, and others which are quite uncertain with evidence for and against. What I think the parent means by contradicting science is rather different: the Bible says things which go against ideas which we believe have been verified by evidence, but the Bible won’t be changed to reflect that understanding. On the other hand, science will change its idea of what it thinks to be true as more evidence becomes available. Nobody changes things in the Bible.
kirse 4y ago
the issue with a god is "who created god, and who created that who created god..." It is if you assume God is bound to the chain of causation, but obviously any creator is likely unbound by the system of laws in which his creation exists, the same as when we create a video game we stand apart from it. I always liked the Dr. Quantum Flatland as an example of god-like capabilities wrt dimensionality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEVEKL1Fbx0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEVEKL1Fbx0
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 4y ago
  Even if the creator exists outside their creation under different laws of physics (if any), who created the creator or how did the creator come to be? (I can’t watch the video right now.)
  - shukantpal 4y ago
    That question assumes the default state is they didn’t exist already
    - simondw 4y ago
      But how does this "uncaused cause" add anything to our understanding of the cosmos, beyond adding one more entity? Why not say that God was created by God_1, who just already existed?
      - ssijak 4y ago
        seems like both your Gods were created by a SuperGod who is programming the simulation in Python
  - Keyframe 4y ago
    recursion is one of the possible explanations as well. No beginning, no end.
  - tresqotheq 4y ago
    > did the creator come to be.. Time, and causuality, is a construct inside of our universe. Asking who created the creator is like asking which way is down when you are in outer space..
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by gcau 4y ago

danwee 4y ago

Indeed. We'll never know the beginning of everything; science cannot accomplish that, religion cannot provide satisfactory answers, and philosophy will always leave you half empty half full. That being said, discovering things is fun, so as human beings we should not stop doing science/religion/philosophy/etc ever.

aliasxneo 4y ago

In the case of the Bible, it makes it explicitly clear that God is uncreated. Asking the question, "Who created an uncreated God?" doesn't make much sense in that case.

tsimionescu 4y ago
Of course, but then immediately leads to the question: if we admit that it is possible for God itself to be un-created, why can't the universe itself be uncreated as well?
- aliasxneo 4y ago
  That was a popular theory for a long time, although I think it's declined over the years. I don't recall the reasons why, though.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Probably the Big Bang and evidence of inflation and the CMB. There is a lot of credible evidence that our universe had a definite beginning.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Note that I wasn't arguing against the big bang, or even cosmology itself. I was only pointing out that the concept of God doesn't add anything to the conversation. It's also important to note that the big bang theory completely leaves open the question of what there was in the tiny tiny universe before inflation. Basically, the current BBT describes how the universe evolved starting from some time t=t0 + 10^-36 seconds. But that leaves a gap after t0 but before this time. Finally, the question of existence from nothing is traditionally extended to the supposed singularity that existed at t0 as well, though that is on shaker ground.
      - krapp 4y ago
        I was just suggesting a reason why the solid state theory of the cosmos fell out of favor - evidence to the contrary.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        Sure, but this thread wasn't referring to the solid state theory - it is referring to the philosophical problem of creation from nothing. That is, in our usual life, everything that exists comes from something else that exists. But we can't easily apply this rule to the very beginning of the universe (be it the big bang or whatever other model). So, the question is - how do we handle this? Thomas Aquinas said that this is itself proof of God's existence: the universe did not exist at some point, then God created the first thing. Of course, the next logical question is - ok, then how does the rule apply to God? And the religious say - well, the rule doesn't apply to God, only to creation. But, if we accept that the rule isn't universal, then we can also choose not to apply it to the beginning of the universe. Instead, we can tweak the rule to say that everything except the singularity at the beginning of the Universe is created by another existing thing; the singularity itself was always there and requires no explanation. This is perfectly consistent with the Big Bang theory, and is in fact how most scientists conceptualize it (or, they say that questions about the origin of that singularity make no sense, since time itself began once the singularity started inflating, but this is philosophically similar). Of course, we can posit anything we want about that singularity and its past (if any), and we will never contradict another theory, since there is no remnant in the existing universe of what came before inflation, so whatever theory we want will be consistent with the current universe. Did a different universe collapse into that singularity, perhaps one with slightly different constants of nature? Sure, why not. Was it a regular black hole in another, larger, universe that still exists, but which is too far away from us to be detectable in any way now that space-time has expanded so much? Possibly, why not. Did gods and demons fight until they a powerful sorceror cast a spell to imprison them into single point, where they and there magic were ground to dust and exploded in the inflation? Perfectly coherent with all known physical theories.
- ibn_khaldun 4y ago
  The attributes between the universe and The Creator would need to be differentiated. In other words, the properties of that which is uncreated would need to be defined so they can be distinguished from something that is created. These properties have to be understood and accepted as an exclusive set that cannot be "distributed" or "shared" among other beings; in order to dispel the notion that there can be multiple uncreated beings or beings that are created that share attributes with The Creator.
- ssr2020 4y ago
  The reason for easiness in regard to the complete otherness of His Essence and His unrestrictedness is this: most certainly, the Maker of the universe is not of the same kind as the universe. His Essence resembles no other essence at all. Since this is so, the obstacles and restraints within the sphere of the universe cannot hinder Him, they cannot restrict His actions. He has complete disposal over the whole universe and is able to transform all of it at the same time. If the disposal and actions that are apparent in the universe were to be attributed to it, it would cause so many difficulties and so much confusion that neither would any order remain nor would anything continue to exist; indeed, nothing would be able to come into existence. For example, if the masterly art in vaulted domes is attributed to the stones of the domes, and if the command of a battalion, which properly belongs to its officer, is left to the soldiers, either neither of them would ever come into existence, or with great difficulty and confusion they would achieve a state completely lacking in order. Whereas, if in order for the situation of the stones in the dome to be achieved, it is accorded to a master who is not a stone himself, and if the command of the soldiers in the regiment is referred to an officer who possesses the essential quality of officership, both the art is easy and command and organization are easy. This is because, while the stones and the soldiers are obstacles to each other, the master and the officer can look from every angle, they command without obstacle. from Quran's Light
kthejoker2 4y ago
To be clear, it makes a ton of sense to ask such a question. The underlying assumption to the question is why only one thing is allowed to be uncreated .. ? Are there others like them, much like here on Earth where we have many authors writing many books? The Bible doesn't answer those at all, it starts in media res (despite its first three words!) (I have other complaints about such a God but)
- ARandomerDude 4y ago
  The Bible very explicitly teaches that there are no other gods. Here is one passage among many. Isaiah 44:6-8 ESV Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. [7] Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. [8] Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."
  - hota_mazi 4y ago
    Yes but why should we care what the bible says, especially when what it says contradicts science?
    - tresqotheq 4y ago
      > it says contradicts science? contradicting science is no great flaw. "Science" contradicts itself from time to time.
      - craftsman 4y ago
        It would be more accurate to say that science corrects itself. At any given time there are ideas which appear to have been verified as much as possible, others which are near speculation, and others which are quite uncertain with evidence for and against. What I think the parent means by contradicting science is rather different: the Bible says things which go against ideas which we believe have been verified by evidence, but the Bible won’t be changed to reflect that understanding. On the other hand, science will change its idea of what it thinks to be true as more evidence becomes available. Nobody changes things in the Bible.

kirse 4y ago

the issue with a god is "who created god, and who created that who created god..." It is if you assume God is bound to the chain of causation, but obviously any creator is likely unbound by the system of laws in which his creation exists, the same as when we create a video game we stand apart from it. I always liked the Dr. Quantum Flatland as an example of god-like capabilities wrt dimensionality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEVEKL1Fbx0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEVEKL1Fbx0

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 4y ago
Even if the creator exists outside their creation under different laws of physics (if any), who created the creator or how did the creator come to be? (I can’t watch the video right now.)
- shukantpal 4y ago
  That question assumes the default state is they didn’t exist already
  - simondw 4y ago
    But how does this "uncaused cause" add anything to our understanding of the cosmos, beyond adding one more entity? Why not say that God was created by God_1, who just already existed?
    - ssijak 4y ago
      seems like both your Gods were created by a SuperGod who is programming the simulation in Python
- Keyframe 4y ago
  recursion is one of the possible explanations as well. No beginning, no end.
- tresqotheq 4y ago
  > did the creator come to be.. Time, and causuality, is a construct inside of our universe. Asking who created the creator is like asking which way is down when you are in outer space..

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]