• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Causation and a suposed god.

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
If there is no causation, then there is no need for a god;

If there must be causation, then what was the cause of a supposed god?

What say you?
I actually agree: since you are the cause of causation, there is no need for a supposed god to be the cause of causation.
 

Danmac

Well-Known Member
If there is no causation, then there is no need for a god;

If there must be causation, then what was the cause of a supposed god?

What say you?

The good of universal being is intrinsically and infinitely valuable for its own sake. Or in a nutshell , L-O-V-E
 

logician

Well-Known Member
Actually the fact that we can conceive of tinkering around with matter and energy is the foundation of scientific and other kinds of knowledge. If we can tinker with such things – is it not unreasonable to imagine and consider that someone smarter than us could do with such things on a proportionately larger or longer scale?

If man can evolve in this universe with how long this universe has existed – what greater beings could evolve if we but think outside the little box that this universe is; in what we imagine as forever and ever?


Zadok

Uh, but those "evolved" beings would not be a creator god or any god as man has conceived it, they would be super intelligent aliens, something that could well exist.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Okay...I didn't see it...must be an oversight.

An object at rest will remain at rest.....until Something causes it to move.
 
Here's a link to an interesting article I read just the other day. Thought it might fit nicely into this conversation.

Roger Penrose: Non-stop cosmos, non-stop career - opinion - 10 March 2010 - New Scientist

Here's the part I thought most interesting.

"at the very end of the universe, the only remaining particles will be massless. That means everything that exists will travel at the speed of light, making the flow of time meaningless. After a few mathematical manipulations of infinity, out popped a never-ending universe, where new big bangs are the inevitable result of a universe's demise. In Penrose's theory, one cosmos leads to another. "I used to call it a crazy scheme, but I'm starting to believe it now," he says."
 
God exists, god is all knowing=Inescapable hard determinism.

God exists, god isn't all knowing, but still first cause = Inescapable hard determinism

God doesn't exist, unknown first cause=inescapable hard determinism.

God exists/doesn't exist, acausal universe=debunked.

It seems to me like the matter of 'god' is quite irrelevant to this question.
 

McBell

Unbound
God exists, god is all knowing=Inescapable hard determinism.

God exists, god isn't all knowing, but still first cause = Inescapable hard determinism

God doesn't exist, unknown first cause=inescapable hard determinism.

God exists/doesn't exist, acausal universe=debunked.

It seems to me like the matter of 'god' is quite irrelevant to this question.
But glory has to be given to god.
I matters nt that he actually deserves it, or even exists, glory has to be given.
 

Danmac

Well-Known Member
God exists, god is all knowing=Inescapable hard determinism.

God exists, god isn't all knowing, but still first cause = Inescapable hard determinism

God doesn't exist, unknown first cause=inescapable hard determinism.

God exists/doesn't exist, acausal universe=debunked.

It seems to me like the matter of 'god' is quite irrelevant to this question.

Now I'm really confused. Thanks a lot.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
The argument is that because of the complexity of the universe, there has to be a cause for said complexity.
The cause for said complexity is supposed to be God.
Yet that rule is tossed out the window when applied to God.


No, that assumption is made by the one who claims that the complexity had to come from God.
I wasn't aware that complexity was brought up in the OP.
 
Top