Does the universe need a cause? (Creator, theist, eternal, point of view)

[michel]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

The only thing I can think of as a possible criticism to this argument is that it seems unnecessarily complicated. Additionally, it appears to place the burden of evidence on the sceptic rather than the believer.

In my mind, it would be preferable to ask the person who believed (via the cosmological arguments) that God was the first cause two questions "Why do you stop your investigations at God?" and "Why can't the universe be the first cause?" since these destroy the cosmological arguments, place the burden on the believer and avoid creating an argument which can subsequently be attacked by the believer.

One of the 'leaps' in Faith that I have made since joining this Forum is the acceptance that there is no reason why the Universe could not have existed before God; that was an idea that frankly had never crossed my mind.

I have also learned to accept that there is no way of describing God, and that perhaps the best way to do so is that God is everything........if that makes sense.

[pandamonk]

So God, in creating the universe, must have adhered to these natural laws. This is the basis for the theists argument.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

This is a HUGE oversimplification of what MANY theists believe. In fact, it is a completely false statement when it applies to this theist.

Why did God HAVE to adhere to these natural laws? Perhaps, since he formulated and created these laws, he is not subject to them. But again, trot out the rule book or give us the logic whereby God HAD to adhere to any natural law.

I didn't say that he had to, i said that he must have. As I've said before, many claim that everything in existence needs a cause. This, they may claim, is a natural law. I said "the theist", meaning, the theist offering the argument(possibly the watchmaker argument)not every theist or even some. So if it true that everything needs a cause to exist, and God is the cause, then God adhered to this law.

If we take away the natural law, then we are left in a position where nothing needs a cause to exist, so the universe could have formed without a cause(God).

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Merely stating this fallacious imperitive does not make it so. Again, why would we be in such a position? There must be a huge amount of assumption going on here as most of your reasoning does not seem to follow reality.

I don't think you understood what i meant. "If we took away the natural law", ie the need for everything that exists to have a cause, then nothing would need a cause, lol. I can't actually remember why i said this. It may be because if God created the law of nature, then there would have been a point before then that it would have been possible for the universe to not need a cause. It could, or may, have formed without a cause.

Also, before there were natural laws(if there ever was a time)nothing would need a cause to exist, so the natural laws could have formed without a cause.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

So your contention is that GOD is not a "cause". Honda is the creator or "cause" of my Ridgeline. They "caused" many of these cars to be created and there were few natural processes used in the creation of this awesome piece of tin.

I never said that it has to be a natural cause, i said that many believe it to be a natural law, ie a law which applies to everything within the universe the everything that exists must need a cause.

God is not needed to explain the universe and nature. The only basis i can see for believing that God created the universe, is through Michels beliefs that God is nature.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

I am certain that God is relieved that there is one less person that he must explain the essence of nature to. However, I don't believe that God ever felt obliged to explain natural sciences to us. He left that for us to puzzle out on our own. I must admit, it WOWS the heck out of me on a continual basis. This should not be used as an inference that God was not directly responsible for wonderful earth: just that he is comfortable with the fact that he created it all and has left the puzzle on just how he did it intact for us to occupy our time.

You are twisting my words. I never said that i don't need God to explain the essence of nature. I said, or meant, that the existence of the universe and nature does not require a god as an explanation

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by michel

One of the 'leaps' in Faith that I have made since joining this Forum is the acceptance that there is no reason why the Universe could not have existed before God; that was an idea that frankly had never crossed my mind.

I have also learned to accept that there is no way of describing God, and that perhaps the best way to do so is that God is everything........if that makes sense.

If God is nature, and there was a point where he did not exist, and a natural law is that everything in existence needs a creator, then yes before nature, or God, the universe could have formed without this need. Unfortunately, i believe this leaves you with a problem: Where the hell did God come from?

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by michel

One of the 'leaps' in Faith that I have made since joining this Forum is the acceptance that there is no reason why the Universe could not have existed before God; that was an idea that frankly had never crossed my mind.

I have also learned to accept that there is no way of describing God, and that perhaps the best way to do so is that God is everything........if that makes sense.

If God is everything and the universe is something, then God could not have formed after the universe, unless there was a time that he was not everything.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by pandamonk

So God, in creating the universe, must have adhered to these natural laws. This is the basis for the theists argument.
I didn't say that he had to, i said that he must have.

You are going around in circles here. Say this outloud and the fallacy should become apparent.

Originally Posted by pandamonk

As I've said before, many claim that everything in existence needs a cause. This, they may claim, is a natural law. I said "the theist", meaning, the theist offering the argument(possibly the watchmaker argument)not every theist or even some. So if it true that everything needs a cause to exist, and God is the cause, then God adhered to this law.

But GOD is a cause. God is THE cause. You are missing that the rules created by God, have GOD as their cause.

Originally Posted by pandamonk

If we take away the natural law, then we are left in a position where nothing needs a cause to exist, so the universe could have formed without a cause(God).

No... you have painted yourself into a logical corner and have no one but yourself to blame. I painted my porch in the other direction and am under no such restrictions.

Originally Posted by pandamonk

I don't think you understood what i meant.

That, or you don't understand what you think you meant with all of the inherent implications.

Originally Posted by pandamonk

You are twisting my words. I never said that i don't need God to explain the essence of nature. I said, or meant, that the existence of the universe and nature does not require a god as an explanation

No, I didn't twist your words. I have merely shown you their illogical conclusions.

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

No, I didn't twist your words. I have merely shown you their illogical conclusions.

It's not illogical to believe that it's possible that God is not the cause of existance. It doesn't have to start with God, or anything else for that matter.

[pandamonk]

So God, in creating the universe, must have adhered to these natural laws. This is the basis for the theists argument.
I didn't say that he had to, i said that he must have.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

You are going around in circles here. Say this outloud and the fallacy should become apparent.

Tried it and i don't get it. Could YOU please explain where the fallacy lies.
As I've said before, many claim that everything in existence needs a cause. This, they may claim, is a natural law. I said "the theist", meaning, the theist offering the argument(possibly the watchmaker argument)not every theist or even some. So if it true that everything needs a cause to exist, and God is the cause, then God adhered to this law.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

But GOD is a cause. God is THE cause. You are missing that the rules created by God, have GOD as their cause.

But what's to say God exists? The "law" which i have given is not that God is the cause of everything(he did not cause the computer i am using), the "law" which i gave is that everything needs a cause. I do not even believe that everything does need a cause, but many have said that it does and this is what I'm debating. I'll explain in detail, so that it, hopefully, you will understand: Many say that everything that exists has a cause. An argument which they use is that if you find a watch you would not think that it came together by itself, but that it has a creator(watchmaker). So, how can we look at the universe which is more complicated than a watch and say that it does not have a creator(God)? Ok, so the reasoning of the theist(who produces this argument)is that everything needs a cause, and therefore that the universe needs a cause, which they believe in a god.
If we take away the natural law, then we are left in a position where nothing needs a cause to exist, so the universe could have formed without a cause(God).

Originally Posted by NetDoc

No... you have painted yourself into a logical corner and have no one but yourself to blame. I painted my porch in the other direction and am under no such restrictions.

Please show me the fault in my reasoning, and how you have managed to keep from doing this...
I don't think you understood what i meant.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

That, or you don't understand what you think you meant with all of the inherent implications.

I do understand what i meant, and i have repeatedly explained it.
You are twisting my words. I never said that i don't need God to explain the essence of nature. I said, or meant, that the existence of the universe and nature does not require a god as an explanation

Originally Posted by NetDoc

No, I didn't twist your words. I have merely shown you their illogical conclusions.

illogical conclusions? No. I said something, and you mistakingly took it to mean something else. I have explained what i meant...

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

It's not illogical to believe that it's possible that God is not the cause of existance. It doesn't have to start with God, or anything else for that matter.

Thank you MaddLlama

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

It's not illogical to believe that it's possible that God is not the cause of existance. It doesn't have to start with God, or anything else for that matter.

That wasn't the question at hand. He is trying to use "natural law" to disprove God and that is illogical. Stay on task!