- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, here is the reasoning:
Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.
Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time — God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy — the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.
So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause — no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.
Also, the universe cannot be self-caused — nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
Amen and amen, brother.
Father, please use the Holy Spirit to open the eyes and hearts of these good people. These people are all intelligent, but this evil world has polluted their minds and hearts. Truly you showed your love for us on that cross. In the name of Jesus, all glory be to you.
Amen.
Originally posted by DarfiusLOL. What is this?! Are you typing out a prayer?!
Amen and amen, brother.
Father, please use the Holy Spirit to open the eyes and hearts of these good people. These people are all intelligent, but this evil world has polluted their minds and hearts. Truly you showed your love for us on that cross. In the name of Jesus, all glory be to you.
Amen.
LMAOROTFL!
You suck, Barfius.
EDIT - I don't even think I've seen RBHILL do that!!
Oh for Atheism's sake will you never cease?!?!? dj2becker POST SOMETHING ORIGINAL!!! If I wanted to read other people's theories I'd go to their websites or read their books, just as I am reading the bible at the moment. No I am not converting, I am merely researching. Unlike you I actually value knowledge enough to need BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY before I make up my mind. I also like to understand what I am talking about, whilst you seem to have no desire to even hear an opinion other than your preacher's.
And Darfius, you're just too much man, I thought this site had seen everything. RBHILL, Blindfaith101 and dj2becker ruled the waves for months, but you are a new type of crazy, man I can't wait to see you meet bbar, the servers will simply melt under the strain.
Originally posted by StarrmanAllow me to paraphrase:
Oh for Atheism's sake will you never cease?!?!? dj2becker POST SOMETHING ORIGINAL!!! If I wanted to read other people's theories I'd go to their websites or read their books, just as I am reading the bible at the moment. No I am not converting, I am merely researching. Unlike you I actually value knowledge enough to need BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY befor ...[text shortened]... of crazy, man I can't wait to see you meet bbar, the servers will simply melt under the strain.
I have no rebuttal.
Originally posted by StarrmanYeah, it's very original.
Oh for Atheism's sake will you never cease?!?!? dj2becker POST SOMETHING ORIGINAL!!! If I wanted to read other people's theories I'd go to their websites or read their books, just as I am reading the bible at the moment. No I am not converting, I am merely researching. Unlike you I actually value knowledge enough to need BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY befor ...[text shortened]... of crazy, man I can't wait to see you meet bbar, the servers will simply melt under the strain.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html
Then I shall answer for him. It matters because it is the only way dj2becker interacts on these forums. This is a debate thread, a chance for people to express their opinions, not a place to regurgitate the opinions of others. He has shown time and time again that he cannot say what he means in any form other than the blind cut and paste process he so readily adheres to. This is demonstrative of either a feeble mind or a lack of understanding in what he claims to believe in. Neither of these things are much defence when he has of his own volition begun a thread claiming such a strong point of view. If he is going to debate, he should do just that, not fly-post.
Originally posted by dj2beckerwithout a beginning there is no end and there ain't no middle either.
A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should ...[text shortened]... use that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
Nice post Becker. There are some issues with it though. I have heard your line of arguement from Christians before. These are I issues I have with the arguement:
1. You use scientific theories to support a belief that rejects science if it does not conform to the belief. If you use scientific theories, you must conclude from them, not start from the conclusion and work your way back.
2. Most physicists and chemists believe that the entropy of the universe is increasing. And some use this observation as evidence that the universe had a beginning. But many make the clear observation that a universe that had no beginning is still possible under these circumstances. Imagine if the expansion of the universe stops and, due to gravity, starts to contract again. Eventually all mass and energy converge to a singularity. This could result in a new big bang beginning, resulting again in what we currently observe. This senario is not disproved by current observations.
3. You are assuming the 2nd law does not have a loophole.
Nice post 🙂
Originally posted by PullhardThis senario is not disproved by current observations.
Nice post Becker. There are some issues with it though. I have heard your line of arguement from Christians before. These are I issues I have with the arguement:
1. You use scientific theories to support a belief that rejects science if it does not conform to the belief. If you use scientific theories, you must conclude from them, not start from the conc ...[text shortened]... ent observations.
3. You are assuming the 2nd law does not have a loophole.
Nice post 🙂
Is this where I ridicule you for supporting your stance with something that can't be disproven?
You say "singularity" as if that explains where the "singularity" came from. There's no way to get around cause and effect here...unless you're God.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThis seems like a reasonable argument. One major issue I have with this argument is in naming this postulated 'uncaused cause' God.
A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
So a more sophisticated questioner mi ...[text shortened]... isted before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
By the way, for anyone who is interested in this, I first heard this argument in my Introduction to Philosophy class in which they called this UC the First Mover. People have been debating this for a long time; using 'first mover' as a Google search phrase will probably lead you to a lot of discussion on this issue.
I'll abbreviate the 'uncaused cause' as UC.
Naming the UC 'God' carries too many implications which will sidetrack this debate into religion; it's a way to sneak in things that have not been demonstrated. These things are what the characteristics of this UC are other than the fact that it's the First Cause.
In addition to this problem, there is the fact that an alternate explanation would work. Maybe whatever caused the universe itself had a beginning, and it's cause had a beginning, and so on for an arbritrary number of causes in the chain - even an infinite number of causes. If there were an infinite chain like this, then there would be no UC.
I will tentatively accept that anything that had a beginning had a cause, though I don't feel absolutely confident of this. It makes sense I guess.
Another possibility is that there was more than one Uncaused Cause that contributed to the creation of the universe.
One possibility for the cause of the universe would be another universe which was collapsing. I've heard a hypothesis that maybe there is an infinite pattern of expansion and collapse occuring, with Big Bang followed by Big Crunch followed by Big Bang followed by Big Crunch...
Or maybe there was one uncaused Big Crunch. Should we call this previously collapsing universe God? If so, God doesn't exist any more...That's an interesting thought. Maybe the UC no longer exists. Just because it was uncaused doesn't mean it didn't end in the past.
Don't forget that when physicists say "the Universe and time had a beginning" they may not mean it exactly as a layperson might think. For example, I have a really hard time understanding how the dimension of Time can be measured in terms of beginnings and endings; this suggests that the Time dimension is being measured according to itself. Asking "how long ago did time begin?" is like asking "how high is the concept of height?" or "how hot is the concept of temperature?" So when a physicist says Time began a certain number of years ago, I assume that they have some special definition of Time or something such that this statement makes sense.
Clearly assuming that Christianity has all these details right because a book (the Bible) exists is absurd.
Originally posted by DarfiusI deny what?
You claim the universe is 15 billion years old and then you deny it had a beginning.
Which is it? Honestly, you call me crazy, but at least I know what I believe.
you are the guys that say something can exist without ever begining.
edit : its very simple if god had no begining than he dont exist.