Again, the cause could just be the way the universe works. In no way have you provided the flimsiest evidence that it’s a thinking entity, much less the Bible’s God.
If the constants hadn’t been set for us to form, we wouldn’t be here to marvel at them. The water in a pothole may marvel at how its universe fits it exactly, but it’s missing the point.
God has never been. It’s a myth that ignorant men made up because they didn’t have the tools to explain their world. In any case, if God had always been, you’re saying he didn’t need a cause, which wrecks your premise.
Yes. You’re aware, I hope, that Futurama isn’t a science documentary, right?
Good, so the laws of nature don’t need intelligence behind them.
Nope. What was the prime mover that caused the Creator to move?
The very argument is so worthless, it’s a shame that so many intelligent people have worked themselves into knots trying to justify it so that they can bulwark their faith.
The Abrahamic God is a story that grew in the telling. Not an explanation for the universe.
It’s even a little worse than that: if one of two things has “no cause,” is it easier to accept a big cloud of hot gas, or a highly organized intelligent, omniscient, perfect moral entity?
One does not require “design,” but the other is so highly organized – a pocket watch in a desert, so to speak – that it would seem to require intelligent design. So…who designed God?
It’s almost as if you maybe can’t see the other responses. Like, you’re going to leave this thread thinking folks didn’t even address your points. As in, you’re not disregarding the questions they keep asking you; you’re not even aware of them.
It’s jarring.
Let me try again: you believe an uncaused cause can exist; does exist. You believe an uncreated creator exists. You believe an unmoved mover exists. So if I tell you I saw a thing that (a) exists, and (b) followed from a cause – itself an effect that followed from a cause, which followed from a cause, and so on – well, you can believe that, too.
But if I tell you some things exist with no cause, why wouldn’t you say oh, yes; I have heard of, and write about, such; did they then cause effects? For I believe in an entity which exists with no cause, but causes effects; how, then, could I be troubled by the idea that other stuff-with-no-cause exists? Is not my very religion predicated on it? Indeed, can there not be many uncaused causes and uncreated creators?
Hey, I got a lot of responses, a’ight? I can only reply to so many at one time. I’m still figuring out how the multi-quote tool works. Can you at least give me a pass on that?
That looks like the very opposite of an answer - practically “God is God”. Aquinas goes on at length about defining God by what he is not, but proceeds to list a whole lot of things that he is, like “good” and “unity”. None of which answers my question - I’m not asking for a list of God’s predicates, I’m asking for a definition of God.
He approaches it with his “something than which nothing greater can be thought”, I think, but that’s pants as far as a definition goes, IMO. And is going to lead us to Anselm and madness
This is exactly what Aquinas is saying. Sure it is wrapped up in flowery theological language and obscurantist verbiage and it may have been daring and cutting edge thinking in the 13th century but it fails on it’s face through a simple argument from parsimony.
If you can claim that a god needs no cause then you can also claim that the universe (which has a far simpler starting point than a god) can also need no cause.
How is…
Nothing > god > Universe
Simpler than
Nothing > Universe
god complicates matters unnecessarily. Why even introduce it unless you already believed in it and needed to find a point at which to invoke it?
As for the numbers of the universe? I find that argument entirely unconvincing. We have no idea how many universes have come into being. There could have been trillions of universes prior to this one, all with subtly different “settings”. We wouldn’t have knowledge or experience of those, only this one, with dials all set so that our conscience and existence can exist. (The puddle example has already be mentioned). That is a far simpler explanation than a god twiddling with universal settings.
But you were replying to later responses instead of earlier ones – and when quoting a single post and replying to it, you’d reply to its later question (a) while ignoring its earlier question, and (b) by ignoring its earlier question.
You responded to Lobohan – who, sensibly, asked why the ‘uncreated creator’ logic leads to one god instead of multiple gods; and who then asked other stuff. You quoted him asking “Why is there only one God?” – and then quoted him asking other stuff.
And you replied to the later stuff with a conclusive “there had to be a Creator”.
There had to be A creator? That’s the part he’d already asked you about!
I’d have been satisfied with a quick sentence to the effect of “as for how this doesn’t rule out multiple uncreated creators – well, I’m gonna have to think about that; but for now, let me say this…” You do that, and a pass comes easy: just a brisk note that multiple posters in multiple posts – including the one you’re replying to! – ask why you grant one uncreated creator/unmoved mover/uncaused cause, but not others.
(Not an answer to that question, you understand; just an acknowledgment of it.)
Which is like saying, “for every integer there is an integer that is one smaller, therefore there must be a smallest integer”.
It’s not just that there is a step in the argument that is logically dubious. All of the steps are logically dubious.
[ul]
[li]Everything has a cause – dubious[/li][li]An infinite sequence of causes is impossible – dubious[/li][li]Therefore there must be an uncaused cause – dubious and an explicit contradiction of the first premise.[/li][li]That uncaused cause must be unique – dubious[/li][li]That uncaused cause must be a conscious and powerful entity that still exists and takes great interest into which orifices humans insert their penises – dubious[/li][/ul]
Thomas Aquinas was in the business of making up reasons to believe in God that sound good enough to people who already believe to prevent doubts from taking hold. The arguments were never meant to hold up to actual logical scrutiny.
Additionally, there is no reason at assume that whatever came before* this universe was casual. It is possible that shit just happened with no reason as there is no reason to assume that, before the big bang, there were any physics as we know it.
Slee
Before the big bang may not make much sense as time started at the big bang, but you have to phrase it somehow.
I’m 95% sure you meant ‘causal’, but I’m now picturing the previous universe wearing an expensive dinner jacket and an Oxford tie while ordering top-shelf sherry.
Did you have any great doubts before you read the Summa Theologica? Did this work change your mind or erase your doubts…or did it just reconfirm beliefs your already had? If you didn’t already believe in the god you believe in, and subscribe to the religious beliefs in the nature of man and the universe that you do, do you honestly think this work would convert you?
I actually was something of an agnostic, but this book changed my mind. It really did. I just kept thinking, “There’s no way the universe just popped into existence. It doesn’t happen that way.” Reading the Summa basically confirmed what I had already figured out for the most part.
I’m sorry, but if this book confirmed what you already believed you weren’t much of an agnostic, in my opinion.
edited to add: And you had never come across any of the other ways scientists had speculated the universe had come into existence that didn’t involve just “popping into existence” before reading this book?
