Where did God come from?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is the best part. It makes God real.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The logical definition of God is something that fulfills the requirement of being the first point of causation, creation, and motion. Logically for effect to exist, there must be a first; uncausable, cause. For all things created there must be an uncreateable Creator, and for all things to be in motion, there must be an immovable first mover. Logically [b] something with the qualities of God must exist: uncreatable, uncausable, and immovable, therefore eternal. [/B]

what are you basing all this on, do you have any context for any of this? logically, eternity and infinity are unsolvable concepts. logically, there is no reason t beleive that there was a first cause, because it poses the logical riddle, "what caused the first cause" and if you attempt to answer"nothing" than it becomes illogical as logic depends on deductive reason whic depends on the evidence seen in the world and its extrapolations which doesnt show anything which came about without a cause. what you have written is an illogical copout to try and force an answer out of the logically unsolvable mysteries proposed by eternity etc.

just saying that it isnt an argument. also, if god can exist without a cause, then so can the fundamental content which creates universe/s.

Originally posted by Mindship
Kindly elaborate as to why this means God had to have a beginning.

I don't as i don't believe in the different holy books description of God

Either God follows the restrictions and logical fallacies placed upon it in the books or obviously the books are lying and works of fiction.

and it doesn't and has no restrictions thus where's the need to make different restrictions in different books.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
what are you basing all this on, do you have any context for any of this? logically, eternity and infinity are unsolvable concepts. logically, there is no reason t beleive that there was a first cause, because it poses the logical riddle, "what caused the first cause" and if you attempt to answer"nothing" than it becomes illogical as logic depends on deductive reason whic depends on the evidence seen in the world and its extrapolations which doesnt show anything which came about without a cause. what you have written is an illogical copout to try and force an answer out of the logically unsolvable mysteries proposed by eternity etc.

just saying that it isnt an argument. also, if god can exist without a cause, then so can the fundamental content which creates universe/s.

>> What you seem not to have here is a basic sense of logic. You cannot pose the question "what caused the first cause" because logically the first cause MUST BE UNCAUSABLE . If the first cause was able to be caused, the it was not the first cause. Logically, there cannot be effects or other signs of causation without, once again, a first uncausable cause. And on your point of having no evidence you are simply ignoring the vast amount of evidence at your feet. All caused things are evidence of an uncausable first cause, all created things are evidence of an uncreatable creator, and all motion is evidence of a unmovable first mover, so there is plenty of evidence; you just choose to ignore it. On your point of universes, I am curious to know exactly what you are referring to with "the fundamental content which creates universe/s"

THE OLD DID THE EGG OR THE CHICKEN COME FIRST QUESTION UNSOLVABLE SINCE THE 'START' OF TIME.

LOL

😂

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>> What you seem not to have here is a basic sense of logic. You cannot pose the question "what caused the first cause" because logically the first cause [b] MUST BE UNCAUSABLE . If the first cause was able to be caused, the it was not the first cause. Logically, there cannot be effects or other signs of causation without, once again, a first uncausable cause. And on your point of having no evidence you are simply ignoring the vast amount of evidence at your feet. All caused things are evidence of an uncausable first cause, all created things are evidence of an uncreatable creator, and all motion is evidence of a unmovable first mover, so there is plenty of evidence; you just choose to ignore it. On your point of universes, I am curious to know exactly what you are referring to with "the fundamental content which creates universe/s" [/B]

lmao, not really my friend. im not the one lacking logic here, YOU are.
simply creating a semantically correct word does not mean anything in itself as long as the concept that word or phrase is trying to convey has no coeherent/consistant meaning. so simply because you say "FIRST CAUSE" doesnt mean first cause EXISTS. its like saying a "square circle exists".

ALL we see in observable reality is already CAUSED things causing other things. we NEVER see an UNCAUSED thing becoming a cause for other things. such a phenomenon doesnt exist and has never been observed. hence you cant use the argument, "everything is caused therefore there must a an uncaused cause" simply because an UNCAUSED "CAUSE" is a self contradictory concept which is logically impossible and never seen in the world. it is a sensless semantically correct statement which is a copout. the real reason we come up with such concepts is because eternity is a concept{as well as infinity} which is about impossible to be worked with in a logic. the chain of cause and effect reaches back into eternity and as a result becomes OBSCURED. that is why we try to impose a {supposedly} comprehendable rationale which is an uncaused cause{which infact is worse since an UNCAUSED cause is an ultimate contradiction in itself}. in reality, there is no such thing and the universe/reality has existed in one form or another forever and there are an infinite number of CAUSED causes in this eternal past, which becomes incomprehendable to us.

what you have mentioned is actually evidence AGAINST your argument. all CAUSED thing are eidence AGAINST an UNcaused cause, all CREATED things are evidence AGAINST an UNcreated creator, and all moved things are evidence AGAINST an UNmoved mover.

what i mean by the fundamental contents of the universe is the STUFF{although not matter or energy or necessarily any physical phenomenon we recognise in our universe} which was transition before the universe{or in a higher dimensional contect if time didnt exist } and turned into the universe and continues to transition as the universe dies and turns into sumthing new. basically, how we say that all forces are actually just aspect of one force{grand unification} and matter may be just curved cpase etc, we are referring to more anf more fundamental building blocks, in context of the universe itself, there are fundamental building blocks{which we havent recognised yet but obviously consist of all around us} which would have been the CAUSE of the big bang etc, but wudnt be exempt from the chain of causation itself.

basically, my point is that all we see in real life are not things so much as being CREATED or destroyed. but merely TRANSITIONING and changing from one form to another. the entire universe is like this. things dont merely come into existance from nothing and dont disappear into nothing. matter changes into energy, energy changes into matter, form changes into other form, etc etc.

Originally posted by GGS
I don't as i don't believe in the different holy books description of God

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lmao, not really my friend. im not the one lacking logic here, YOU are.
simply creating a semantically correct word does not mean anything in itself as long as the concept that word or phrase is trying to convey has no coeherent/consistant meaning. so simply because you say "FIRST CAUSE" doesnt mean first cause EXISTS. its like saying a "square circle exists".

ALL we see in observable reality is already CAUSED things causing other things. we NEVER see an UNCAUSED thing becoming a cause for other things. such a phenomenon doesnt exist and has never been observed. hence you cant use the argument, "everything is caused therefore there must a an uncaused cause" simply because an UNCAUSED "CAUSE" is a self contradictory concept which is logically impossible and never seen in the world. it is a sensless semantically correct statement which is a copout. the real reason we come up with such concepts is because eternity is a concept{as well as infinity} which is about impossible to be worked with in a logic. the chain of cause and effect reaches back into eternity and as a result becomes OBSCURED. that is why we try to impose a {supposedly} comprehendable rationale which is an uncaused cause{which infact is worse since an UNCAUSED cause is an ultimate contradiction in itself}. in reality, there is no such thing and the universe/reality has existed in one form or another forever and there are an infinite number of CAUSED causes in this eternal past, which becomes incomprehendable to us.

Ok, now explain this to me... you are saying that everything has to have a cause... so where does it all start?

what you have mentioned is actually evidence AGAINST your argument. all CAUSED thing are eidence AGAINST an UNcaused cause, all CREATED things are evidence AGAINST an UNcreated creator, and all moved things are evidence AGAINST an UNmoved mover.

How? If something is caused something had to cause it, eventually you have to follow this back to something that wasn't caused... it just was there already... If something is created then something had to create it, once again, you follow this to something that WASN'T created... it was just there already...

Originally posted by King Kandy
It doesn't make anything. You took the universe and called it God. This changes nothing. You have merely taken a very real, tangible thing, and given it the name of superstition. Your "God" is the universe, nothing more, nothing less. Why you would choose to apply the name God to it is beyond me.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
...it just was there already...

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
Ok, now explain this to me... you are saying that everything has to have a cause... so where does it all start?

How? If something is caused something had to cause it, eventually you have to follow this back to something that wasn't caused... it just was there already... If something is created then something had to create it, once again, you follow this to something that WASN'T created... it was just there already...

nowhere, the chain of cause and affect goes back eternally where i becomes obscure.

no you dont, there is no reason to do so because to introduce an UNCAUSED cause is a contradiction and a paradox. if EVERYTHING has to be caused then how can there EXIST sumthing which ISNT caused{your conception of UNcaused cause}. read my argument, its all there. and lastly, recognise the contradiction in your own stance, if you say that everuthing had to be created by sumthing then who created the first thing???? {your answer wud be that it always existed}. but then cudnt i just as easily say that the universe or this reality always existed?
why does this eternal existance have to be GOD, or your SPECIFIC conceptiion of god?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nowhere, the chain of cause and affect goes back eternally where i becomes obscure.

no you dont, there is no reason to do so because to introduce an UNCAUSED cause is a contradiction and a paradox. if EVERYTHING has to be caused then how can there EXIST sumthing which ISNT caused{your conception of UNcaused cause}. read my argument, its all there. and lastly, recognise the contradiction in your own stance, if you say that everuthing had to be created by sumthing then who created the first thing???? {your answer wud be that it always existed}. but then cudnt i just as easily say that the universe or this reality always existed?
why does this eternal existance have to be GOD, or your SPECIFIC conceptiion of god?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Is the universe immovable?
Is it uncausable?
Is it uncreatable?
(Hint: it is not)
And therefore the universe cannot be that something with the qualities of God; as much as you wish it to be.

How the **** did that prove anything?

I just feel like I got dumber reading this topic.

Trans' definition of God is self-actualizing. It doesn't prove anything, but simply uses circular logic to presume the existence of such a god.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The logical definition of God is something that fulfills the requirement of being the first point of causation, creation, and motion. Logically for effect to exist, there must be a first; uncausable, cause. For all things created there must be an uncreateable Creator, and for all things to be in motion, there must be an immovable first mover. Logically [b] something with the qualities of God must exist: uncreatable, uncausable, and immovable, therefore eternal. [/B]

...statements like these A. assume God's characteristics, rather than allowing for alternative definitions to be possibilities, B. assumes that something exists outside causality, which is logically impossible. The statement that it is logical for something like god to exist (after it assumes god's characteristics, no less) is laughable, because it defies all logic. At that point, saying that God transcends our rational faculties is fine for those of faith, but it does little for those who won't blindly accept something so preposterous.

Matter can be thought of as eternal on a macroscopic level, and time as we understand it breaks down into meaninglessness at the singularity point of the Big Bang. Perhaps the eternal substance is not a mythical god thought up in the ancient Middle East, but the universe itself. And if one really must believe in a preceding cause, we have the creation of energy from nothing at the quantum level, and similarly a disappearance of energy into nothingness. Not only does it give us a means by which the universe could have been created from nothing, but it remains within the confines of our logical faculties and has been directly observed.

Apply Occam's Razor to those two hypotheses. It still remains a possibility that some causality-defying deity exists and created the universe, but it remains exceedingly unlikely and a matter of blind faith, not reason.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
Ok, now explain this to me... you are saying that everything has to have a cause... so where does it all start?

An excellent question. God ends the discussion for those of faith, yet does nothing to address the central problem of a being with no preceding cause. One either gets into an infinite loop of regressive causality since each "god" would need an even more transcendant god to create it....or you set aside logic and assume that your God is eternal and without prior cause. Again, comforting from an existential perspective since it "settles" the matter, but it really makes little sense.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Is the universe immovable?
Is it uncausable?
Is it uncreatable?
(Hint: it is not)
And therefore the universe cannot be that something with the qualities of God; as much as you wish it to be.

no to all the above. the universe does not have the qualities of YOUR definition of god. now, since you agree that nuthing in the universe has these properties, then you will also agree with me that neither you not any1 ense has hence SEEN or observed anything with the said properties{since everything we can observe is inside the universe}, seeing as you havent, then what makes you think that such properties exist to begin with?????? what can be taken as evidence{and all evidence is inside this universe} for the existance of such properties????

simple answer is, nothing can.all you are doing is speculating without reason or evidence about what MAY be present outside this universe{for which nuthing that you can observe can be used as evidence, and evrything that CAN be observed denies the existance of the outlandish properties for god you are coming up with}, that is a fools errand and completely illogical.

Use your logic arguments against Quantum Mechanics.

^what about quantum mechanics?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Is the universe immovable?
Is it uncausable?
Is it uncreatable?
(Hint: it is not)
And therefore the universe cannot be that something with the qualities of God; as much as you wish it to be.

The "qualities of God" are man made. There is no god outside of the universe. In other words, we humans invented god to explain the parts of reality that we cannot understand. This is still a valid way of looking at reality, but we must not loose sight of the fact that we created the idea.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The "qualities of God" are man made. There is no god outside of the universe. In other words, we humans invented god to explain the parts of reality that we cannot understand.

There's actually a fair amount of both philosophy and science to back these claims. Dan Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" talks about your points as much of its central thesis.

It focuses not so much on "Is there a god?" but upon how the concept of God arose in our species and culture, and what purposes it serves from an evolutionary and cultural perspective.

DigiMark007-

Let me ask you a question: does the Einstein's theory of relativity predict and/or postulate causality "outside" length, width, space, and time? Before you answer, keep in mind, that Einstein's theory of relativity, has been tested exhaustively and remains the most proven theory in ALL scientific inquiry--so strong in fact, that many scientists have contested that the theory of "relativity" be dubbed, "law!" What is your response?