Board index ‹ God

[Telepathic Chi]

How can you rationalize God's origin? In other words, what is your God's origin logically? I've heard many say things like, "God created Himself" which doesn't make sense. You can't create yourself because you wouldn't exist to begin with to allow for your own inception. Christians tend to use, "You can't create something from nothing" to support Creationism but tend to ignore the fact their God's origin has not been clarified.

I'd like a clear answer to this question.

[jimwalton]

I think we all agree that whatever had a beginning, whatever began to exist, is an effect from a causal mechanism that brought it about. I think we can also agree, based on modern science, that the universe had a beginning—that matter is not eternal. So we all have to deal with the probing question of "Why does anything exist at all?" Everything has to have a reason for existence, and for such there are basically two choices: self, or something outside of self. Well, we already scientifically admit that the universe does not exist in and of itself but is the result of a causative mechanism outside of itself (since the universe didn't exist) that activated the Big Bang. What would be a sufficient cause for such reality?

We know that if we have nothing, we get nothing. If anything can just pop into existence from nothing (like a pink unicorn), then there's no such thing as science. But there IS something. What is the sufficient cause of what exists?

First of all, such a cause must be timeless. According to Kalam's reasoning, if the past is infinite, we would have no present. Only if the past is finite (had a beginning) can there be a present, so the sufficient cause must be timeless.

Secondly, there must also be a personal sufficient cause. We learn from science that impersonal causes (motion, velocity, etc.) must have sufficient first causes. Only personal causes are capable of being first causes. For instance, kinetic energy is energy in motion, which cannot be true "at the beginning" (of the big bang); potential energy is energy stored. So the only way for motion to begin is if there is a personal first cause (somebody has to hit the first cue ball, so to speak).

What if the universe always existed? For the universe to have eternal existence, it must have been static (potential energy), as I said. But what moved the universe into kinetic energy? How did it get in motion? Personal causes are the only things capable of being first causes (though not every personal cause is a first cause.) You can never have an infinite chain of causes—it regresses. Whenever we see a chain of causes, we can always ask, “Who caused it?

Thirdly, there must be a powerful sufficient cause. To bring space, time, and matter into existence requires a sufficient power of some kind.

Fourthly, there must be an intelligent sufficient cause. Let's admit there are three kinds of data:
- random data. Randomness doesn't require an intelligent cause.
- ordered date (1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2). Ordered data doesn't necessarily require an intelligent cause (snowflakes).
- informational data. We have NO scientific example of informational data (such as DNA) that does not come from an intelligent cause.

Now, we have to distinguish between what is possible and what is reasonable. Almost anything is possible. Maybe you’re in an alien trance and what you think is real and where you think you are is all planted in your brain. Is it possible? I guess. But is it reasonable? Just about anything is possible, but not everything is reasonable. When you camp on possibilities for which you have no evidence, it’s called speculation. There’s a difference between possible and reasonable. We don’t try people on a possible doubt, but on a reasonable doubt. Reasonable is the judicial standard. How do we decide what’s reasonable? Adductive Reasoning—reasoning according to the best inference. We compare evidences on one side with explanations on the other side.

We are left with these facts:

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Things just don't pop out of existence from nothing. As far as we know and can reason, that which begins to exist requires a causative mechanism. Logic would tell us that there must be something that self-exists, that always existed—something must be eternal.
3. Logic would tell us that such a cause to be sufficient for the universe would be one that is self-existent, eternal, timeless, personal, powerful, and intelligent.

Now, what we have is a reasonable description of God. Is it possible? Sure. But is it reasonable? Yep. Are there other options? Possibly, but I don't think they're as reasonable, and since we are trying to infer to the most reasonable conclusion, God is a reasonable sufficient cause for what exists.

[Oxygen]

The first premise is flawed. The universe was in an infinitely dense state and then its state expanded into its current form. You have to understand that no scientist is claiming the big bang was actually the beginning. Just the beginning of the current state. Whether or not there is an infinite past or higher order universe is unknown.

[jimwalton]

Current science, by my understanding, considers that before the Big Bang there was an infinitesimal singularity where the laws of physics were not active. It is unknown whether it was infinitely dense state (as you claim), or what was actually in existence or non-existent, though "dimensionless singularity" implies nothing as to matter, energy, density, gravitation, or electromagnetism. My first premise asserts that in the absence of such things, the big bang can be considered a "beginning" necessitating a causative mechanism to activate it. Thus my first premise is not flawed.

In addition, in 2003, cosmologists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe that is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion (as ours is) cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. According to Vilenkin, "Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

But if you agree that what is previous to the Big Bang is unknown, then you are also arguing that lies outside of the realm of science (observable, measurable, repeatable) and all such discussions as we are having now are in the realm of philosophical scientific inquiry and metaphysics. In either case, it suffices to rationalize God's origin.

[Blue Pig]

> If anything can just pop into existence from nothing (like a pink unicorn), then there's no such thing as science.

We know that dark matter pops in and out of existence as far as we can tell. We even went miles below our surface, deeper than any radiation can get to, and found dark matter appearing and disappearing.

Dark matter has turned much of science on it's head.

[jimwalton]

It's interesting that you say "We know that dark matter pops in and out of existence as far as we can tell." You've chosen an intriguing example there. Dark matter is only hypothesized, and its existence and properties are inferred. Nothing is actually KNOWN about dark matter. The wikipedia article says, "Important as dark matter is thought to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive."

[Leech Man]

> but is the result of a causative mechanism outside of itself (since the universe didn't exist) that activated the Big Bang.

See, "outside the Big Bang" makes no sense from a physics standpoint. If you posit there was existence outside the BB, that leaves you with the rather daunting task of coming up with the physics framework that describes this existence and/or the spacetime in which this existence was contained. (Providing evidence for this would be another matter entirely).

> We know that if we have nothing, we get nothing. If anything can just pop into existence from nothing (like a pink unicorn), then there's no such thing as science. But there IS something. What is the sufficient cause of what exists?

Is this something matter? Energy? A concept?

> First of all, such a cause must be timeless. According to Kalam's reasoning, if the past is infinite, we would have no present. Only if the past is finite (had a beginning) can there be a present, so the sufficient cause must be timeless.

The problem with a timeless first cause is that timeless agents can't effect change/cause, as time is required for causality. This is assuming that 'timelessness' is even logical in the first place.

> Only personal causes are capable of being first causes.

By definition or what we observe in reality? We can definitely observe impersonal causes (or first causes) in the physical world. Now, if you mean the first cause, you need to show why it has to be personal, not just define it as such. Same goes for intelligence, which is your following point.

Why is intelligence required, and not just, say an electron that changed state and introduced an anomaly that led to the BB?

> We have NO scientific example of informational data (such as DNA) that does not come from an intelligent cause.

That's begging the question. You can't say DNA comes from an intelligent cause as a premise, if what you are trying to prove is that intelligent causes exist. In fact, DNA would seem to support the opposite conclusion, as DNA first appeared in unicellular organisms, not really what I would call the most intelligent of causes.

[jimwalton]

> See, "outside the Big Bang" makes no sense from a physics standpoint.

That's exactly the point. The singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down. Technically, then, it's both impossible and irrational to come up with a physics framework that describes this existence and/or the space-time in which this existence was contained. At this point it's safe to say that we have no proof (certainly not scientific) of what we all may postulate, but God's eternal existence is not outside of the rational possibilities.

> Is this something matter? Energy? A concept?

The "something" is the universe as we know it, of matter, energy, gravitation, force, velocity, electromagnetism, light, life, etc.

> The problem with a timeless first cause is that timeless agents can't effect change/cause


What concept of time are you using? There are views of time that hold that there is an absolute metaphysical time that exists independently of physical events. And if that is the case, then it would make sense that something or someone could have caused the universe, as they could both be placed on the timeline of "absolute time."

Einstein's theory of relativity evidences that time is flexible and can speed or slow as a function of certain other factors. While it has been proved that time can be slowed relative to velocity, it's still theoretical whether or not time can actually stop in certain situations. (Whether or not that's "illogical," it may be science.) Interestingly enough, juxtaposing relativity and quantum mechanics, David Deutsch speculates that "the actual quantum state is a quantum superposition of states where the time traveller does and does not exist." Logical? In other words, I guess, while logically time relates to causality (since causality presumes a progression), scientifically (quantum theories), it may not be the case. While philosopher David Hume argued that causality could not be extrapolated from science to philosophy, quantum theory says that randomness in the subatomic world is a basis for randomness in life, which effectively takes the principle of causality and applies it to philosophical arguments for life. We cannot conclude with certainty that a timeless first cause can't effect a cause. I recognize that sometimes this stuff gets pretty weird, but that just warns me about drawing a conclusion too quickly.

> We can definitely observe impersonal causes (or first causes) in the physical world.

I'd love an example of this, not of impersonal causes, because there are plenty of those, but of impersonal FIRST causes.

> if you mean the first cause, you need to show why it has to be personal

In nature we only have examples of things that begin to exist only through something already existing. Every example we have of something that begins to exist has a personal first cause.

> Why is intelligence required?

Because informational data ALWAYS has intelligence as its source. Information comes from other information. DNA is information—a unique, specific sequence of data that has come from another cause. As I mentioned, there isn't a single example anywhere in the history of the universe where information came from anything other than an intelligent source.

> DNA first appeared in unicellular organisms, not really what I would call the most intelligent of causes.

This isn't proof that an intelligent source was not the cause. Where did that come from? Scientists have no answer. We're talking about what is rational here. It is reported: "Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advance Science has calculated the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life as one of to 10,000,000,000 to the 124th power. Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe found that the odds of the random formation of a single enzyme from amino acids anywhere on our planet’s surface are on in 10 to the 20th power. Furthermore, there are about 2000 enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000th power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. And this is just one step in the formation of life. Nothing has yet been said about DNA and where it came from, or of the transcription of DNA to RNA, which scientists admit cannot even be numerically computed. Nor has anything been said of mitosis or meiosis. It is without definition or empirical explanation." Carl Sagan has said that all we need is one message with information in it from outer space and we'd be able to recognize the presence of intelligence. Therefore he is admitting that only intelligence can explain informational data.

When it comes to rationalizing God's origin, while the existence of God may be improbable, the nonexistence of God is far more improbable.

[Bliss is Bliss]

> I think we all agree that whatever had a beginning, whatever began to exist, is an effect from a causal mechanism that brought it about.

No, we know of a few phenomenons observed in this universe that have no discernible cause, like radiometric decay and virtual particles.

> I think we can also agree, based on modern science, that the universe had a beginning

Nope, the modern universe as we know it was formed with the BB, it doesn't deal with the beginning of existence. Whatever it was formed of (singularity is a popular hypothesis) existed eternally, as time is a property within this universe.

The rest falls flat, as your premises are wrong.

[jimwalton]

In 2003, cosmologists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe that is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion (as ours is) cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. According to Vilenkin, "Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

> No, we know of a few phenomenons observed in this universe that have no discernible cause, like radiometric decay and virtual particles.

The operative word here is "discernible". By the way, did you mean radioactive decay or radiometric dating? And (just wondering) aren't virtual particles theoretical?

You haven't even begun to convince me with any reasonable logic that my premises are wrong and that my logic falls flat. Stating it doesn't make it so.