Because there is always a cause and effect.What makes you think that there must be an explanation for the universe?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Because there is always a cause and effect.What makes you think that there must be an explanation for the universe?
Because there is always a cause and effect.
Who/what caused God then?
God is spiritual... not physical. We are talking about physical laws of cause and effect. Different dimensions, different laws.
It's because we can ask, that we need an answer. "God" is the term most humans apply to those 'unanswered/unanswerable answers'. Faith in God is how we trust that the answers are there, and are wise beyond our cognition, even though we don't know this to be so.Pretty much every theistic argument I've encountered has had essentially the same structure, namely, "God is necessary to explain X." X can be a wide variety of things: the universe, the apparent design in living things, the existence of logical or mathematical truths, the existence of moral truths, the existence of beauty, the existence of love, the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe, etc. But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all. After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place. There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all.
It's because we can ask, that we need an answer. "God" is the term most humans apply to those 'unanswered/unanswerable answers'.
Well... think of it this way... physical laws says "stand on water" and you sink. Spiritual laws are more along the lines of "If you have faith, Peter, just walk to where I am at on the water".What makes you think that a physical law of cause and effect exists and applies to the universe as a whole rather than just its parts?
Well... think of it this way... physical laws says "stand on water" and you sink. Spiritual laws are more along the lines of "If you have faith, Peter, just walk to where I am at on the water".
That might be too far of a stretch for some, so a different example.
Jesus curses the fig tree.... natural course the tree dies from the leaves downward, spiritually it died from the roots upward.
Or...
A leper is leprous one moment and totally healed the next.
All have the same principle
Of course, there are modern day examples too... these are just examples during Jesus time.
Interesting perspective but by far not complete. There are other arguments that don't belong to the Aristotelian group of "goddidit" explanation. The ontological argument is different, Pascals wager doesn't argue for gods existence at all and arguments from personal experience lay somewhere in between.Pretty much every theistic argument I've encountered has had essentially the same structure, namely, "God is necessary to explain X." X can be a wide variety of things: the universe, the apparent design in living things, the existence of logical or mathematical truths, the existence of moral truths, the existence of beauty, the existence of love, the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe, etc. But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all. After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place. There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all.
I don't really see how any of that is relevant. You asserted that the universe must have a cause due to "physical laws of cause and effect" but you haven't provided any evidence that these "laws of cause and effect" apply to the universe.
Simple physics? Simple biology? Sperm meets egg... something happens? H2 meets O and you get water?
Can you give me an example of no cause and effect?
All of those things are examples of the law of cause and effect applying to components of the universe. But that is no reason to assume that the same law applies to the entire universe (the combination of all components). That's the fallacy of composition. It seems that you're saying, because all of the parts of the universe that we observe have a cause, then the universe must have had a cause. But this is the same fallacious reasoning that could be used to argue "All humans have a mother, therefore, the human race has a mother" which is obviously false.
Is there a scientists that offers a different viewpoint? I noticed you couldn't give me an example of how I was wrong.
So... you have a position but no support and no scientist that would support your position.Every human has a mother does not imply the human race has a mother.
In the same way, every part of the universe has a cause does not imply the universe has a cause.
It's a huge leap to assume the "laws" that apply to parts of the universe also apply to the whole.
Simple physics? Simple biology? Sperm meets egg... something happens? H2 meets O and you get water?
Can you give me an example of no cause and effect?
Because we are human. Humans survive and thrive by understanding their environment. When we encounter aspects of our environment that we don't understand, we feel vulnerable, and frightened.(1) Why does every question that can be asked need an answer?
It was a way of feeling like they understood something that they did not understand. A way of coping with their vulnerability. We humans are not good at letting the mysteries be. It's the same reason scientists invent theories of existential physics, today.(2) So, when ancients thought the sunrise was a god riding his chariot across the sky, was that a reasonable answer for that unanswered question at the time?
But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all.
After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place
You assert that God is unexplained, but you have no proof of this.
What? You use that copout all the time. "Where's your proof of..."
Though actually, theologians do have explanations for the nature of God.
From this we know that there is a God the Father, who makes all things that we can see and that we can't.
We know that Jesus is one being with God, and made of the same substance. We hear that God is Light (and apparently Love, and also Kingdom Hearts is Light... maybe). We know that Jesus is eternally begotten. This is a strange phrase because to be begotten means to be born, but to be eternal means a being or process has no beginning and no end. That is to say, Jesus was NOT born once at 6 B.C. but is ALWAYS being born and reborn. Begotten not made, means that Jesus is God, not a creation of God at some point. God is eternal, Jesus is eternal. Through Jesus all things were made, as Jesus is part of the Trinity, like God. He also came from Heaven by the power of the Holy Spirit. He lived, died, and rose again. And at some point he's coming back to judge the living and the dead.
We then are told that God and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit and God sent Jesus earlier through incarnation. And both God and Jesus made all things.
Oh yes, it's explained. It just makes the same sort of sense as this.
Gunnerkrigg Court - By Tom Siddell
I have put in one crucial item that you missed. It is shown in red fonts above. Now, tell us what you find unconvincing? Do you find 'existence of you' convincingly explainable by any of your belief systems?