Thursday, January 18, 2007

Who Created The Universe? - Then Who Created God?

7. First cause. For those who want it all to be natural, they ultimately must deal with how the first thing came into existence. For God proponents, they must deal with who created God. Science has absolutely no answer, and it is beyond credibility that they ever will.

Those who believe in God propose that the spiritual realm has no space/time continuum, and that God is the first cause. We can't prove it, but at least we have a conceptual framework.

Bernardo's response to #7. I understand that physicists say that empty space, at a small enough level, is made of a "quantum foam". There are levels of energy that fluctuate enough so that particles can come into existence (especially when at the same time as their anti-particle) and then vanish again (if they collide with an anti-particle). So it is conceivable that the "stuff" in the universe came from this, or from something like this. or it could have simply always existed. Yes, I know this does not explain where the universe itself comes from. But I still don't see why you can say "God has always existed" but can't accept that maybe the universe has always existed. And "the spiritual realm has no space/time continuum" is hardly what I would call "a conceptual framework". I actually have a little more to say on this issue, but I'll leave that until what I write after number 10.

Randy's response: For once in this life, I'm speechless. Not because Bernardo's response is so compelling (although it is useful and wise as always), but because I'm not sure where one goes with this.


Cordin said...

"Those who believe in God propose that the spiritual realm has no space/time continuum, and that God is the first cause."

But what exists outside of the universe? If space and time are qualities/quantities that exist as part of the universe, what's to stop the universe itself from existing in an eternal 'conceptual framework'?

Additionally, wouldn't the Creator of the universe have to be more complex then the organization he created? He supposedly 'knows every sparrow that falls'. If God must be greater in complexity to create and maintain the universe, why not stop looking for a first cause at the less complex level of the universe?

Russet Shadows said...

The response is not compelling. "There are levels of energy that fluctuate enough so that particles can come into existence..." Fluctuation in energy levels creates nothing. Even if simply altering the amount of energy (say, sunshine) did create things, then you'd still face the the problem of building up complex structures out of simpler objects and somehow doing so while maintaining the complex web of interdependencies that complex organisms have. In other words, "irreducible complexity".

Randy Kirk said...


Why would science want to stop looking for anything? We are spending billions of dollars to try and find water or life on other planets. More billions to try and hear intelligent radio from anywhere in the universe.

We have scientists who believe that there are 10 dimensions or that everything can be explained by strings.

An eternal God is simpler than an entire parallel universe maniuplating ours.

bernardo said...

"An eternal God is simpler than an entire parallel universe maniuplating ours."

No, it's not. Besides, an eternal God basically IS a parallel universe manipulating ours...

"'d still face the the problem of building up complex structures out of simpler objects ... In other words, 'irreducible complexity'."

That may not be a problem. Out of all the structures that arise randomly, some of the simpler ones may have reproductive and/or self-sustaining properties. Sure, those are somewhat improbable, but over billions of years the improbable becomes almost certain. So when these structures do arise, they are naturally selected by those properties, and eventually we can end up with lots of them.

Do you believe every snowflake must have been individually and deliberately carved by God since it is so much more complex and organized than the cloud it came from?

Duck said...

An eternal God is simpler than an entire parallel universe maniuplating ours.

Only because you offer no qualitative or quantitative description of God.

The causality question is moot, because causality is a property of a temporal universe. Causality itself is an effect. Time, space and causality came into being with the Bib Bang. From whatever our universe emanated from, that whatever has to exist outside of time, space and causality.

You can call that whatever 'God' if you like, but doing so you aren't giving an answer but asking a question. You want to know something about that whatever, what properties does it posess, etc.

Now if we're talking about the Christian conception of God, then the answer is that God is a personal being. To me nothing is more ridiculous than to equate a realm that stands outside of time, space and causality wiht the humann personality. A person is a contingent artifact of time, space and causality. The human design process is a process that occurs in time, space and causality. We cannot even imagine the concept of existence outside of time, space and causality. So how is it that a being that exists outside of our reality would posess the same qualities as we temporal beings that live inside of it?

Randy Kirk said...

Why indeed? A great mystery. But we share many qualities with our pets and lower animals. We try to communicate with them, and they with us. We commonly love our furry friends, and want them to love us. We will sacrifice for them, and amazingly, some of them seem willing to sacrfice for us.

bernardo said...

Wait, you're saying that because other mammals are similar to us, then we must be similar to whatever created the whole universe? Yes, I know you mean it as an analogy, but the analogy just helps to illustrate your proposition - it does not help to make your proposition any more believable.

Naturalists think that intelligence is a consequence of there being stuff in the universe. Theists think that the fact that there is stuff in the universe is a consequence of intelligence. Is this a gap we could bridge? I'm guessing "no", but I'm willing to try and see what happens.

Duck said...

I know that there is no way to prove either way that a being that lived beyond time and space could or couldn't have a humanlike personality, but if you want to understand where unbeilevers are coming from, this is a good place to start. I personally think it highly improbable that this could be the case. I even wonder whether concepts like being and personality can have any meaning in such a realm. Even our conceptual framework is a contingent entity, shaped by the universe that we inhabit.

I hold to the saying that is attributed to the Chinese mystic Lao Tse, who said "The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao". Substitute "God" for "Tao" and you have my view.

Anonymous said...

Found some bibles codes that DO seem to be original.

Anonymous said...

First, I would like to say that this site is really well done and insightful. While reading this blog, I came about an interesting insight. To answer the God vs. No God debate, one has to first define God. For the sake of this post, let's say God is the creator and regulator of the universe. I think this definition is broad enough to satisfy everybody. Now, we have to look at some non-religious answers to the existence of the universe. There's the Big Bang theory, alternate dimensions, strings, the foam thing Bernardo was talking about, and whatever else scientists say created the universe. (I obviously don't know all the theories.) Basically, all of these theories are "natural" explanations for the universe, and don't involve a supernatural God. So, these theories point to the natural order of things, or nature, to explain the creation of the universe. But wait. Isn't the definition of God, in it's broadest sense, the force that created the universe? So if both nature and God share the same definition, then are they not the same? God is nature, and nature is God. Now I just have to figure out what created nature/God.

Feel free to tear apart my theory.

- Louis Yang-

Anonymous said...

Short respone to Louis Yang:
You most accurately described the God defined by Spinoza and Einstein :-)


Anonymous said...

God is "0" and "infinity".....
he does and dosent exist...
but i believe our intelligence is limited and not to the extent of understanding the creator, So we can only understand his creation and not the creator himself....

Randy Kirk said...

Well, due to many and varied circumstances, I haven't been doing much with this blog in a while. However Anon's argument is pretty compelling and I wanted to give him an attaboy. Anyone know hor original it is or not. New to me.

Certainly it is clear that our intelligence is limited, and I think we can add that our perception is limited. Maybe we can go a step further and say that our ability to think outside of our unique lens is further limiting. So the limitations are pretty huge. And in fact, that would cause me to amend the last statement, we can potentially understand the creation in part, and even that which we think we understand may be partially or wholly wrong. (Global warming seems more preposterous every day.)

A real believer NK said...

Overall there is no proof that there is no god. also people may say 1 object was created was created by another object. but the real question is who created the the first organism,species,cell or any other objectified start to the world. because you cant have anything from absolutely nothing.

although there are many oppositional facts against the almighty god they are not truly facts, rather unproved statements and immature mimicry. I cannot make god appear or show a picture but it is of the true and ripe beliefe that he is alive.

the word deja vu is a very weird word. also known as paramenesia is a french word coined by a french scientist named
"Emile Boirac" he and many other scientists have said that it is exteremely difficult to evoke or depict the reasoning of why we have deja vu. i am not saying it is a sign of god but what i am saying is that even the smartest scientists cant figure out some things.

Atheist is a religion because it is a belief that after you die "your dead". some atheists say " if god loves us so much why doesnt he just send all of us to heaven right away". The reason so is that he can see how people interact with one another in a sophisticated environment. I also believe he wants to see what separates one persons train of thought versus anothers. could it be how a certain person was raised, who that person asscosiates with, or simply how that person thought things out.

In the end we are all a child of gods children just having different ideas about how the world started. He will accept you as you are. Peace

Anders said...

I think the blog post in the page (in the left menu), which proves the existence of a Creator and His purpose of humankind, will be of interest to you. It also contains a link answering common counter arguments like the one in your post.

All the best,
Anders Branderud

Internal Journey said...

We have only questions for question? And answer is just silence.
I mean that we can not see the air blowing arround us but can sense it only when it strikes on the face or saw something blowing with it towards one direction.
God and spirtuality is something beyond to the range of Mind and conceptualization. Human body has not any senser which can judge the creater existance.
Today any of our defination for 'Red' can not make understand a born blind man understood what is red color.
So, understanding God is a later question first we have to believe in our existance. The Biggest question, who I am? where from I came? Am I only a biological phenomena? Can I be created again by this phenomena? But I can not have same body again, that I understand, right? Shall I be born again in a different sheath? What will be the comman thing in these two sheath?