The ultimate question for theists

[Rational Agnostic]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

 

[George-ananda]

I'll try to answer from my Advaita position. God/Brahman and the who/what/why of its existence is a mystery to our finite rational minds. What we know about reality comes from those souls who in a transcendent state have experienced reality beyond our normal limitations and tell of a pure conscious state that is eternal and unchanging and beyond all material conditioning and this is called Brahman/God.

This is the experience of the rishis/sages of the Vedic tradition. For the skeptic in us all, I would say the rishis would say not to take their word for it but to look and experience yourself so you will know and not just be told. Now, such insight is not likely to be reached by an average meditator so they say we should take what they say as only a hypothesis. And for me it is just the most reasonable hypothesis I have heard after multiple avenues of investigation especially when considering this mysterious thing called consciousness that rational science can not get behind

In the end I can't solve the Ultimate Question you have asked.

 

[Nakosis]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

Because it's what their religion tells them happened.
Since you have no alternate explanation to provide, why shouldn't they trust their Holy Book which they trust a great deal more than they trust you. A person who offers no alternate solution.

If your going to say the universe could be uncaused the why not accepting God is uncaused? Plus a long history of folks who spoke to God confirming their explanation whereas you still got nothing to offer.

Some religion do have an hierarchy of Gods. Gods given birth to other Gods etc....

Me, I just assume the universe has always existed in some form or another. I suppose one could assume God has always existed just the same. Thereby negating any need of a First cause or an uncaused cause.

You accept you don't know. You want to believe nobody else know. Other folks don't want to accept your belief that nobody knows.

 

[bobhikes]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

Lets look at it your way there is no first cause the universe just exists. Are scientists going to stop looking for a first cause and just be satisfied that the universe exists? Why do they need to know are they going to create there own universe? Is it logical to keep trying to find our how the universe began? Perhaps its just human nature that drives them. In the same token its just Human nature that allows others to see God as the first cause

 

[Nakosis]

I'll try to answer from my Advaita position. God/Brahman and the who/what/why of its existence is a mystery to our finite rational minds. What we know about reality comes from those souls who in a transcendent state have experienced reality beyond our normal limitations and tell of a pure conscious state that is eternal and unchanging and beyond all material conditioning and this is called Brahman/God.

This is the experience of the rishis/sages of the Vedic tradition. For the skeptic in us all, I would say the rishis would say not to take their word for it but to look and experience yourself so you will know and not just be told. Now, such insight is not likely to be reached by an average meditator so they say we should take what they say as only a hypothesis. And for me it is just the most reasonable hypothesis I have heard after multiple avenues of investigation especially when considering this mysterious thing called consciousness that rational science can not get behind.

That's what I said, well kind of.

The problem I have with self discovery, is the creative ability of the mind. When we sleep/dream it can create an alternate reality with other folks running around doing autonomous actions. It can create emotions, experiences, cast you as a completely different person.

How can we tell these experience which occur under meditation are not a result of tapping into the minds ability to create these experiences? The experience of communicating with God can be very real. Or the experience of nothingness or Heaven or whatever the mind can subconsciously create for you.

I not saying there is something wrong with these experiences, just there doesn't seem to be a way to know whether these experiences are not something we/our mind has created for us.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A straw argument that I think is typical of your other threads. First you define all theists as creationists, and then you imply you have debunked theism by debunking creationism.

Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails.

The fault in the first cause argument is that God's existence is by definition unprovable, since God is invisible. A subset of theists have the problem of trying to prove something that is not provable, but theism does not have a problem. It is not a logical problem for theism. Actually you are talking about two different branches of theism, one that insists on a provable God and one that is based on faith.

 

[suncowiam]

The answer is simple.
God's god created god.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The answer is simple.
God's god created god.

God's god's god created God's god. God's god's god's god created God's god's god etc. etc. etc. ad. infinatum.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

A straw argument that I think is typical of your other threads. First you define all theists as creationists, and then you imply you have debunked theism by debunking creationism.

I never use straw-man arguments, or at least I certainly never do intentionally. Also, I never defined all theists as creationists. The creation/evolution issue is unrelated to this thread.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I never use straw-man arguments, or at least I certainly never do intentionally. Also, I never defined all theists as creationists. The creation/evolution issue is unrelated to this thread.

First-cause arguments are Creationism, so Creationism is relevant whether that is convenient to your straw argument or not. Its straw because it debunks one group of Creationist Theists and then claims to have debunked all theists.

 

[suncowiam]

God's god's god created God's god. God's god's god's god created God's god's god etc. etc. etc. ad. infinatum.

Infinity exists.

 

[siti]

First-cause arguments are Creationism, so Creationism is relevant whether that is convenient to your straw argument or not. Its straw because it debunks one group of Creationist Theists and then claims to have debunked all theists.

I'm not grokking this to be honest. What is "God" to a theist who does not believe in Creation? This is an honest question - I just can't get my head around the notion of a non-creating 'theos'. What does such a God actually do?

 

[siti]

Infinity exists.

But then you could also have... God created the universe created God created the universe...etc...ad infinitum and there would be no way you could know which came first. And its not really as bizarre as it sounds...its just the cyclic pantheism of an endlessly rebounding universe. Boing!

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not grokking this to be honest. What is "God" to a theist who does not believe in Creation? This is an honest question - I just can't get my head around the notion of a non-creating 'theos'. What does such a God actually do?

In answering your question about how there can be a non-creating 'theos' I'm continuing a thought from here: What is Theism Anyway?

Still working with John's gospel in answer (underlined below) to that question: There is more than one kind of creation. In John's gospel, for example, there is the creation of a world that begins with Jesus ministry. This is an abstract concept in which the light of creation is the Logos, which is a Greek philosophical term in which all that exists is part of the order in Theos. So there is a creation in people of Theos by means of Logos. All Christians are part of the new creation. You have chaotic matter and then the Logos gives it order and structure. Jesus ministry creates the Christian universe, and his ministry is of Theos. To unbelievers it appears to be the work of people, because God is invisible and intangible. You cannot see how God causes it, therefore you ask "But what does God actually do?" What you do not have is faith that God is behind it. This God, the invisible God, cannot be perceived without faith and cannot be pleased without it. It is part of theism that is not ontological or tangible. It is a theology of 'The Unknown God'.

 

[siti]

Still working with John's gospel in answer (underlined below) to that question: There is more than one kind of creation. In John's gospel, for example, there is the creation of a world that begins with Jesus ministry. This is an abstract concept in which the light of creation is the Logos, which is a Greek philosophical term in which all that exists is part of the order in Theos. So there is a creation in people of Theos by means of Logos. All Christians are part of the new creation. You have chaotic matter and then the Logos gives it order and structure. Jesus ministry creates the Christian universe, and his ministry is of Theos. To unbelievers it appears to be the work of people, because God is invisible and intangible. You cannot see how God causes it, therefore you ask "But what does God actually do?" What you do not have is faith that God is behind it. This God, the invisible God, cannot be perceived without faith and cannot be pleased without it. It is part of theism that is not ontological or tangible. It is a theology of 'The Unkown God'.

OK - so "more than one kind of creation" - I get that. But through whom and how - if not through the 'Theos by means of Logos' - is the physical creation supposed (by those with faith) to have come into existence?

 

[Brickjectivity]

OK - so "more than one kind of creation" - I get that. But through whom and how - if not through the 'Theos by means of Logos' - is the physical creation supposed (by those with faith) to have come into existence?

It can exist without us knowing exactly how, and physical creation is less important than the creation that matters to people concerned with moral living. This is true in John as well. Repentance is resurrection and is all that matters in John. To John this physical world is the ghost, and Jesus world is the real one. To John you are resurrected when you repent, but to the physical world nothing appears to happen. I know Christians do argue about the nature of resurrection, but that is beside the point. The point is there is non-ontological theism, and John exemplifies it. it involves a peculiar way of viewing the physical world as unreal, but it is theism and is non-ontological. Far from being concerned with physical creation, John is entirely unconcerned with the physical world. Our physical death is not death to him. Death to him is a life of sin. Theos creates his world, the one that matters. It is an entirely different form of theism than one that is per-ocuppied with physical creationism yet is legitimately called theism.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?"

Heathen Perspective:

While wholly unknowable, it is believed that the first Gods - and Ymir - were created from the clash of Niflheimr and Múspellsheimr; unbeing and being (the "Big Bang"). From those first beings were birthed and created following generations of Gods.

 

[suncowiam]

But then you could also have... God created the universe created God created the universe...etc...ad infinitum and there would be no way you could know which came first. And its not really as bizarre as it sounds...its just the cyclic pantheism of an endlessly rebounding universe. Boing!

A black hole exists, we just cant explain what truly happens inside. We probably never will. It's ok. I'm more interested in watching my Warriors win the championship.

 

[siti]

It can exist without us knowing exactly how, and physical creation is less important than the creation that matters to people concerned with moral living. This is true in John as well. Repentance is resurrection and is all that matters in John. To John this physical world is the ghost, and Jesus world is the real one. To John you are resurrected when you repent, but to the physical world nothing appears to happen. I know Christians do argue about the nature of resurrection, but that is beside the point. The point is there is non-ontological theism, and John exemplifies it. it involves a peculiar way of viewing the physical world as unreal, but it is theism and is non-ontological. Far from being concerned with physical creation, John is entirely unconcerned with the physical world. Our physical death is not death to him. Death to him is a life of sin. Theos creates his world, the one that matters. It is an entirely different form of theism than one that is per-ocuppied with physical creationism yet is legitimately called theism.

I'm not sure I would say "non-ontological", but rather (perhaps) that John presents an ontology of the spiritual rather than the physical. "God IS a spirit"..."I AM not of the world"..."glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was"..."Before Abraham was I AM"..."that they [Christians] may be one, even as we are one"...etc. God, Christ and Christians are all ontologically established as part of the realm of the "spiritual". But even in these quotes the reality of "the [physical] world", and the undeniable fact that even the most "spiritually-inclined" and "faith-filled" Christian cannot possibly avoid having to live in the reality of the physical world, is not denied. Indeed, even Jesus himself seems to grapple with this issue in prayer in Chapter 17. So I don't think, on balance, that John (or John's Jesus) is really "entirely unconcerned with the physical world". He might not have much to say about how it came to be, but taking that as meaning it (the reality or the subject of physical creation) was/is not important is a bit like saying that (the reality or the subject of) physics is not important because it is not mentioned much in Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica. Of course the spiritual realities are of great importance to theism, just as the principles of mathematics are to physics, but a theism that declines to address the question of physical creation is surely as deficient as a physics that declines to address the question of the origins of the physical universe. We might not have pat answers - but we can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend there isn't even a question.

My point here - and I may have overstepped the line in a non-debate forum - but I think it is a fair question - is this: how complete is a theism that does not address the question of how the physical world came to be?

 

[George-ananda]

That's what I said, well kind of.

The problem I have with self discovery, is the creative ability of the mind. When we sleep/dream it can create an alternate reality with other folks running around doing autonomous actions. It can create emotions, experiences, cast you as a completely different person.

How can we tell these experience which occur under meditation are not a result of tapping into the minds ability to create these experiences? The experience of communicating with God can be very real. Or the experience of nothingness or Heaven or whatever the mind can subconsciously create for you.

I not saying there is something wrong with these experiences, just there doesn't seem to be a way to know whether these experiences are not something we/our mind has created for us.

OK, I understand your concerns for the likes of you and me regarding meditative insight BUT I believe there are advanced souls that take incarnation in the physical to teach. I believe that includes many masters/gurus/avatars in the eastern/Indian tradition.