A while back I did a post on God being Infinite and the many contradictory problems with calling God infinite. And when doing that post, in the comments section the post turned to issue of God being Eternal. So I decided to revisit that topic. But let’s first start with defining it:
Eternal
- existing through all time: lasting for all time without beginning or end
- unchanging: unaffected by the passage of time
- seemingly everlasting: seeming to go on forever or recur incessantly
Transcendent
- beyond limits of experience: in Kant’s philosophical system, exceeding the limits of experience and therefore unknowable except hypothetically
- beyond categories: above or outside all known categories
I decided to do this both on God being both Eternal (being Timeless, Non-Temporal, Everlasting) and Transcendent (Outside Space and Time and Unknowable). Because they overlap so much when comes to describing an eternal timeless infinite God. I like the way Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne so elegantly put it.
God is eternal. But this has been understood in two different senses: either as the claim that God is timeless (he does not exist in time, or at any rate in our time) or as the claim that God is everlasting (he existed at every moment of past time, exists now, and will exist at every moment of future time). In my opinion the timeless view is incompatible with everything else that religious believers have wanted to say about God. For example, it does seem strongly that God being omniscient entails that he hears the prayers of humans at the same time as they utter them; yet on the timeless view God does not exist at the same time as (simultaneously with) any moment in our timescale. For this and other reasons I shall in future understand God being eternal as God being everlasting…. (Richard Swinburne and God’s Timelessness, p. 12)
Is an Eternal Transcendent God the Cause of Everything?
The traditional argument for an eternal transcendent god is the argument for Causation as follows:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
i. And that cause must be eternal existing before the universe and transcendent existing outside the universe.
And of course the theist says this cause is God.
And the second part of that argument is the transcendental argument for the existence of God.
- If there is no god (most often the entity God, defined as the god of the Christian Bible, Yahweh), knowledge is not possible.
- Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
- Therefore a god exists.
The traditional counter apologetic response to this, “If God cause and created everything, What caused God?” But I want to add one more tidbit to that argument.
What came first: The God or the Egg?
If God is the creator or the cause of everything, then it is safe to say that nothing existed before God. But then that causes another problem –knowledge, intuition, and reasoning. If nothing existed before God, then this presents the theist with a huge logical fallacy for the existence of knowledge, intuition and reasoning.
- · If logic did not exist, what logical steps did God use to create the universe?
- · If knowledge did not exist, then what knowledge did God use to make it exist and create it?
- · If reasoning did not exist, what reason did God have to create anything?
- · If critical thinking did not exist, what critical thinking skills did god use determine that he needed to create a universe?
- · If perfection did not exist before, what made him perfect?
There is a huge logical fallacy that exist when we say nothing existed before God; if all the things God needed to use to create the world (knowledge, logic, and reasoning) did not exist either? What did God use?
Can Freewill exist if God already knows what you are doing?
With God being Eternal Omniscient and Immutable how could the ideology of freewill survive if God already knows what your decision is, and have influenced everything for you to make that decision the way he so wills and desires….
God is commonly portrayed as being eternal; —-however, there is more than one way to understand the concept of “eternal.” On the one hand, God may be thought of as “everlasting,” which means that God has existed through all of time. On the other hand, God may be thought of as “timeless,” which means that God exists outside of time, unconstrained by the process of cause and effect.
The idea that God should be eternal in the sense of timeless is partially derived from the characteristic of God being omniscient even though we retain free will. If God exists outside of time, then God can observe all events throughout the course of our history as if they were simultaneous. Thus, God knows what our future holds without also affecting our present — or our free will.
An analogy of how this might be so was offered by Thomas Aquinas, who wrote that “He who goes along the road does not see those who come after him; whereas he who sees the whole road from a height sees at once all those traveling it.” A timeless god is, then, thought to observe the entire course of history at once, just as a person might observe the events along the entire course of a road at once.
A more important basis for defining “eternal” as “timeless” is the ancient Greek idea that a perfect god must also be an immutable god. Perfection does not allow for change, but change is a necessary consequence of any person who experiences the changing circumstances of the historical process. (Timeless Vs. Everlasting, By Austin Cline)
The secondary problem of this is if God is Omniscient knowing everything outside space and time, then there is no such thing as free-will. Because the state of freewill requires a state of uncertainty were the being has a choice to choose not knowing the outcome of the choice. That neither the person nor God could know. This God could exist, but it would not be a God of freewill.
Transcendent God vs. Immanent God
One of the other characteristics of God that gets thrown around is God being described as Immanent, (meaning: Within or dwelling within the limits of time, space and knowledge), which means the exact opposite of transcendent. These two attributes are really odd ways to describe God, not just cause they are so contradictory to each. But because they describe God so vaguely and unnaturally.
A God that is Everlasting and transcendent has no cause to do anything. Because God is a non-tangible non-temporal being, all actions by God are completely irrelevant. God would have no need nor purpose. But once the characteristic of immanent is attached to God, God becomes no longer majestic.
A transcendent omniscience eternal God would not need to answer prayers or even listen to them cause he already knows the prayer, knows what led up to prayer. And knows if he will or will not answer the prayer. This type of God makes no common sense because the Supreme Being would have no cause nor reason for care, to get involved, change his mind, or to do anything.
Unknown and Unknowable God
One of the final arguments I usually hear from theistic proponents of God is that God is unknowable. That in order for someone to say that God does not exist, they would have to know everything, because God is Unknown and Unknowable. For no one can’t know the mind of God.
I find this to be a very obtuse description of a Transcendent-Eternal God, because this argument only makes sense if a theist openly admits in the beginning of an argument, that they themselves could absolutely be wrong about all concepts of God, because God is unknowable.
This is really the most inconsistent argument I have ever heard. It is really odd that a theist or a Christian will say that God is unknown/unknowable and claim that nobody can know the mind of God; But still make religious claims about the character and will of God. It’s just really out-of-place that a religion or a church will say that god is incomprehensible to man but believe with certainty and knowledge that they know and worship the one true God, but all others not have no knowledge of God and worship the wrong god. Is it not contradictory that a person can say they know God and have a personal relationship with God, but in the same breath say God is Unknown and Unknowable?
God Vs. Reality: A Conceptual Existence
When describing God as being Transcendence and Eternal, we are also describe God as being intangible, nontemporal, timeless, invisible and spiritual. When reading this description of god I can’t help but conclude: What’s the difference between that and non-existing? Wouldn’t it just be easier to call God, a concept or a feeling?
As on blogger on Ex-Christian.net put it: If God’s attributes are such that we understand them to be non-spatial and non-temporal, then how do we distinguish that from merely not existing?
I will present another argument in this format: 1) Anything that exists occupies space and time. 2) God does not occupy space and time. 3) Therefore God does not exist.
When we describe God as such, we reduce the existence of a transcendent eternal God to an inconsistent and incoherent concept. That God is really an incoherent explanation of nothing.
Related Articles:
- Re-Thinking God: Is God immanent or Transcendent
- The Attributes of God Chart
- Transcendental Argument as Presented by C.A.R.M.
- What does it mean that God is Transcendent?
- Cosmological Kalamity By Dan Barker
- Attributes of God
- Even if the Universe is Eternal it still needs a cause
- God is Eternal, and Infinity is a Paradox
- Essential Properties of God: Omnipotent, Omniscience, and Eternal
- Omniscience Paradox and Controversies
- Is God Immutable?
- Kalam Cosmological Argument
The BitterSweet End 
I guess you read my article that is why you linked it. I think your arguments against God are very weak.
· If logic did not exist, what logical steps did God use to create the universe?
· If knowledge did not exist, then what knowledge did God use to make it exist and create it?
· If reasoning did not exist, what reason did God have to create anything?
· If critical thinking did not exist, what critical thinking skills did god use determine that he needed to create a universe?
· If perfection did not exist before, what made him perfect?
This is what you came up with? Uh ok then.
God’s nature is logic, knowledge, reasoning, critical thinking, and perfection. That is who He is. He consists of all of those things. He is also moral. God eternally existed in His nature and did not have to create His own nature. This is obvious.
Also where did logic come from? Where did reasoning come from? Oh you think it evolved I bet…
“I will present another argument in this format: 1) Anything that exists occupies space and time. 2) God does not occupy space and time. 3) Therefore God does not exist.”
Are you serious with that one? Your thoughts do not occupy space and time, therefore your thoughts do not exist. Logic does not occupy space and time, therefore logic does not exist, mathematics do not occupy space and time, therefore mathematics do not exist. Philosophy does not occupy space and time, therefore philosophy does not exist. See how absurd your reasoning is?
What about people who died? Did they ever really exist? By this logic anything that does not (which could apply to no longer) take up space and time does not exist. George Washington did not exist therefore he is just in our imagination. All that exists is right now, there is no past or future just now. This would be very absurd but that is how your logic ends up.
God is spirit and invisible and is everywhere present. He does not have to be a physical thing to exist. He exists outside of the physical realm, the realm he created. This is why God is not a material created physical being, but a supernatural (beyond nature and the universe) being that is ETERNAL.
You are an atheist that believes nothing created everything. The cause for the universe was nothing…yeah that makes sense. Not.
Your are a theist that believes in a deity found within the covers of an ancient, largely mythological book, without which you would have not an inkling of the god you worship, which just happens to be different from the thousands of other god humans worship. Yet you claim yours is the right one as it manifested as a human then sacrificed itself to itself to save humans from himself.
And you think atheists struggle with reality? lol…..
Wrong. It is not mythological, but right that my God is different from the false gods that do not exist. And God sacrificed His Son to save humans from themselves, not himself. Get it right. And yes I still think atheists struggle with reality and cannot accept the universe does not actually revolve around them and their illogical beliefs. You really have nothing to say but a mocking tone and no substance. Have a nice day.
But your God is the Judeo/Christian deity, Yahweh, and this is a fictitious god.
And you were mocking atheism and I thought the religious were supposed to have humility?
Seems this is not the case.
Sidetracking the issue still.
But there is no issue. What are you not understanding?
I cannot make a case out your nonsensical objection.
You believe in a fictitious deity.
If you wish to offer evidence to refute this then please do.
Meantime you mare just making yourself look silly.
The issue is you are ignoring my article that refuted an obviously illogical argument. You are being a typical moronic atheist who has no sense of discussion and are using the words of an ignoramus. I cannot waste time arguing with such a person. My article stands. If you don’t address points made you are just wasting time.
No, sir. You are the one who worships a fictional deity so how much more illogical can one get without being considered delusional at best and mentally ill at worst?
Put forward the evidence of your god first and then we can have a thoroughly grown up adult discussion.
I mean, you do have evidence to substantiate all your claims, surely?
Until then you are simply behaving like a child.
You are just an atheist troll and a waste of time. My article still stands and is a very well done refuation of the claims about what God is, and what something has to be in order to exist. You are ignoring it.
Smile….me a troll?
And how much humility do you think you have?
And if god made us in his image why would you think you are capable or in any position to comment on what your god is or is not?
Have you noticed how there isn’t hardly a post you have written that is under 1500 words and you are pretty much writing to yourself?
This says something about someone who has to express so much to the ether, don’t you think?
Furthermore, you seem so insecure that you have now ‘banned’ me from commenting on your blog.
Why is that, do you wonder?
May I suggest you pop over and read these two posts I have linked?
Then you may understand why I have a few issues with your god.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/religious-exemptions-from-childrens-healthcare-part-1/
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/religious-exemptions-from-childrens-healthcare-part-2-medical-care-during-illness-and-one-childs-story/#comment-607619
I blocked you because you are a troll with no substance. I dont have to link sites to you to explain my view. I explain it myself. The original argument I refuited still stands. The belief that something has to occupy space and occupy time in order to exist is false.
I don’t have to prove to you God exists as much as you don’t have to prove to me that God does not exist (because you cannot). But which belief would be more plausible given the evidence of the origin of the universe? I say God fits everything necessary for all things to exist. Why am I wrong? And how do you know for a fact that God does not exist?
The onus is on the one making the claim….er….you.
Again this proves you are a troll. You cannot answer a basic question or even stay on the topic at hand about existence. All you do is insult right away. You are a joke. I will not waste time on you.
All you have to do is offer evidence of your god and I will be more than happy to indulge you.
It is this simple.
This proves you are a coward. You think that is the ultimate weapon against Christians. I can just say the same thing. You cannot prove God does not exist, you cannot prove atheism. Prove to me nothing caused the universe. Now we come to a stale matter but I am sure your lack of logical does not understand this.
I do not say “god does not exist”. Such ultimate statements are the preserve of religious fundamentalists like yourself.
To state that a god does exist presents the claimant with so many problems, not least of which is the establishment of which god you refer to.
As you are a Christian your claims lies with Yeshua (Jesus) and this then leads us back to the only known source of information for this character, the bible, and the problem becomes circular once again.
Based on this evidence and every ontological, philosophical or any other argument it is impossible to conclude there is a creator god let alone a solely christian man-god.
The truly honest thing to state from your perspective is that what you believe is based solely on faith as no evidence presented far indicates a deity – yours or any other religion.
Do you believe atheism needs proof? What proof do you have? You are simply also believing atheism by faith. You are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of. You just admitted you cannot make an ultimate statement that “god does not exist.” You are simply choosing not to accept it by faith for there is no proof that God does not exist.
If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.
It is illogical to claim there is no proof for God. You cannot know all things by which you could state such a claim buddy. You can only say you are not convinced because you have not seen proof that would convince you. There could be after all another proof for God you have not seen. It is simply your opinion, also your faith that there is no God for you just admitted atheism is not an ultimate position.
How did you come to that faith? Faith is not a nonsensical belief or irrational belief. That is a lie. Faith gathers evidence and uses reason to come to a conclusion that it is plausible that something is true. So saying “Ohh its faith!” is not a problem.
Now let’s get back on topic. What caused the universe according to your faith and opinion in atheism? What do you think it was?
Please pay attention to what I write.
The evidence presented so far does not lead one to believe in a creator god.
If you have evidence that does, then first identify which god you are talking about and why it could not possibly be any other god and then I will consider your argument.
Any other consideration before this has been established is merely obfuscating the central issue.
So, knuckle down and focus and we may be able to have an intelligent discussion.
I hope this is succinct enough?
The ball, as always, is in your court.
Tell me about your god.
See you are extremely illogical. No matter what evidence I provide or an argument that suggests the idea of God is given you will ALWAYS say its not good enough. You are unwilling to engage in an intelligent discussion and think you are winning the argument simply by avoiding answering hard questions. Where I freely answer them.
First off the kalam cosmological argument is a good start. Everything that exists has a cause. The universe exists, therefore it has a cause. Please explain what you personally believe is that cause. You already admitted you cannot prove God does not exist and cannot make ultimate statements. You cannot know for a fact God does not exist, so therefore you cannot “lack a belief in God’ you either believe it or you dont. You either accept the evidence or you reject it. Why do you reject the Cause of the universe to be God? What would fit in place of God?
You are accusing me of avoiding a discussion when you are really the one avoiding everything. Then you flip it and say :”no YOU are avoiding it.” Its not an adult way to actually discuss something. Please show some maturity. And it is not ALWAYS in my court when you make a claim “There is no God.” You have to also give actual reasons for this discussion to even make sense. You are coming off like an incredible jackass.
I believe God exists because the universe has a cause. I believe God fits the idea of that Cause. Why cant it be God? What would fit in the universes cause’s place?
1. Give me the name of one acknowledged astrophysicist / physicist that acknowledges the scientific relevance of the kalam cosmological argument.
2. When you refer to ‘god’ you do not specify which god you are referring to.
Please name this god.
3.Please identify how you know this god is the creator god you believe in.
4. Please identify the source of the evidence where you derive this information and how can you trust its veracity?
Which God does not matter all I am claiming is you are an irrational atheist with absolutely no ability to argue for his point because what you do is ignore valid discussion and say the same bullcrap over and over. You are ridiculous. And I already proved you are an atheist by faith, not by absolute evidence and you even admitted it.
That is an opinion and you are entitled to it.
If the god does not matter then I choose Zeus.
There is no evidence for Zeus other than him being mythological and thus i can dismiss any and all claims of him being the creator of the universe.
Thus, likewise, I can dismiss any claim you make.
You can dismiss zues yeah. that does not mean you can dismiss God. Thats like me saying ohh I can dismiss santa clause, an obvious unlikely character we already know without a doubt does not exist. This is a weak argument. Its the same like the “flying spaghetti monster” nonsense. Weak argument does not hold weight. You can choose not to believe it but your reason for doing so is not based on absolute fact but your own opinion.
Which god are you talking about?
The God that created the universe obviously.
Which god was that ?
The God that created the entire universe.
The name of this god?
He has many names such as The God of Creation, The Eternal God, etc.
And where do you know about this god from, which text?
I will repeat to you what I said to Haowie:
I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence because your presuppositions don’t allow it.
There is no verifiable evidence.
In other words, your worldview pertaining to this god you worship is based on faith. Period.
What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
The bible is a collection of largely fallacious documents that offers no evidence of a verifiable creator deity at all. If you have evidence please present it.
So you are ignoring my question I see. You cannot answer it. You made the claim God does not exist and there is no evidence. On what basis did you make that claim and why are you avoiding answering the actual issues? Simply stating “This is false that is false” does not prove anything. I think the fact everything exists is proof enough for God. You say no. Why not?
Which god?
God. Answer the question. Stop avoiding it.
I am unable to answer the question until I know where you are coming from.
Which god are you talking about?
You are unable to answer the question because you are a in denial.
Ni, I am unable to cogently answer the question until we establish the ground rules I have outlined.
Until you are prepared to do as I ask then you are merely pissing in the wind and I can and will dismiss with impunity every statement you make as erroneous, fallacious and without substance.
Are we clear?
Yes I am clear that you are an illogical coward. I already realized that.
So are you going to tell me the name of your god or what?
Hey WD:
You are familiar with the “turtles all the way down” problem, right?
What caused the Universe? I believe God fist the description of what could cause the universe to exist. Something eternal, supernatural, intelligent, and alive. What would fit the place of God?
And the original refutation I made no one has every even once tried to defend. The idea that for something to exist it HAS to occupy time and space simply is not true.
I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence because your presuppositions don’t allow it.
Hey WD:
All I asked was whether you were familiar with the turtles all the way down problem and I get this and other similar things in response? When did I demand anything here? Ark’s right, maybe you are the one who is a bit over the top here.
Hey man sorry. I had a lot of messages and got things mixed up. Anyway no I am not familiar with the turtles all the way down problem. What is it?
That’s cool WD, no problem. The turtles all the way down problem demonstrates the problem of infinite regress in trying to describe the cause of everything. The details of it are on wikipedia, but more importantly here’s how it applies to what you are saying here:
– You say that the fact that everything exists is evidence that God exists.
– But then if we agree that God exists we are still left with the problem of what is it that caused God to exist. Because if we are bothered that everything exists without cause then we should also justifiable and consistently be bothered that a more complex entity like God would exist without cause.
– So the theist then replies that God is an “uncaused” entity.
– But the problem here is that one could simply state that some elementary particles and laws of logic and physics are “uncaused” entities which ended up causing our universe to exist.
– You would be right to state that neither the assumption of a God being “uncaused” nor an assumption of elementary particles and laws of logic/physics being “uncaused” have been demonstrated. My own opinion on this one is that just like I have a very difficult time envisioning how our very complex universe could have existed forever, I also have an even more difficult time envisioning how a God who knows absolutely everything about our very complex universe has existed forever. Because if there is a God that does know absolutely everything about our very complex universe then it makes sense to me to claim that a God like that is even more complex then the universe itself.
I hope you know that this is not a refutation of the existence of God, but for me this is a refutation of the statement that the existence of the universe is proof for the existence of God. I just think there are more likely explanations.
And as far as nobody trying to refute your statement that “for something to exist it HAS to occupy time and space simply is not true”, I wouldn’t try to refute it because I agree with you.
Well buddy you seem a lot more intelligent that that Egyptian pharaoh guy, and are not at all afraid to explain something and directly address things. I appreciate that.
Well then, I actually AM familiar with the turtles all the way down problem. I just did not know it had a name. I simply called it the problem of infinite regress, or I say infinity is a pradox and cannot actually exist, unless you mean one direction going forward from one point and not backwards, which would say it has a beginning.
Yes I suppose it could be some energy or particles etc. but I think that a God being is more plausible. It had to be intelligent and alive to create everything especially life with conscience and minds. So if the energyw ould be alive then possibly, but then wouldnt that just be God? Also I do not think it would be “particles” because that sounds like it is a physical thing. I believe whatever caused the universe has to be supernatural outside the universal order and also completely “other” than anything in our universe. So this force/energy/god’s essence is nothing at all like the energy or force or particles in our universe. That is why it is supernatural, ABOVE and BEYOND nature.
I do not accept the idea that nothing created everything which some atheists believe. We dont have any examples of nothing because it would mean nothing.
You said: “I hope you know that this is not a refutation of the existence of God, but for me this is a refutation of the statement that the existence of the universe is proof for the existence of God. I just think there are more likely explanations.”
Any likely explanation would simply be an opinion and not proof that God would not exist. Not that you are refuting that, but Arkenaten was making such a claim and avoided anything I said. The existence of everything proves that something caused it and it had to be super/beyond/completely other than natural.
The concept of God fits this idea well.
Now infinite regress would not make any sense, since no one can pass an infinite amount of time to get to where we are now. It is impossible that the universe has infinite regression. We also understand that the universe is weakening in energy over time, and if there was infinite regression we would have lost all of our energy by now.
And yes my original issue was this very article claiming that something has to occupy space and time in order to actually exist so I thought this article was not well thought out and I refuted it.
Ark definitely has a different style and personality than me, but seeing what he posts elsewhere I definitely don’t believe I am more intelligent than him.
We may be at an impasse on this one WD and that’s ok with me if we leave it at that. At this point I’ll be repeating myself, but you said:
However, you do accept the idea that nothing created a being that is even more complex than the universe itself. So if the statement above that you believe atheists make is so problematic to you then I’m not understanding why what you believe isn’t problematic also. As I said, the fact that the God you believe in has to be even more complex than the universe makes it look even more problematic.
We have found very reasonable explanations from science for how everything we see developed naturally from a big bang. These explanations come from lots of observations of many different causes and effects (where both the effect as well as the cause are clearly identified). So I believe it is more plausible to suggest that things progressed from simpler to more complex naturally. We could certainly come up with theories about stuff that exists outside of the universe but these aren’t causes that are clearly identified they are just guesses about entities that exist. It could be one thing it could be many, and as far as the attributes of these things there could be many different scenarios that could be dreamed up (which is demonstrated by the wide variance of religious explanations as well as even more natural explanations like multiverses and string theories). But to posit an uncaused entity that is even more complex unfortunately only makes the problem that much worse.
Sorry I took you off the tangent from your original point, but I just thought I might have some interesting points to add to some things you had mentioned.
There is no problem. I do not believe or claim God had to be created. God was not created. He always existed eternally.
There is no problem with the idea of God being complex. Of course whatever caused the universe, is an Uncaused Cause. And it only would make sense that this Uncaused Cause would be eternally complex so complex that you will never come to the end of it’s complexity. It would not make much sense if the universe was created or “caused” by something less complex than itself. The big bang is not simple, it is a very complex thing. What caused it? Yes heat, friction whatever….what caused it? You don’t know.
And this only shows that “faith” is not the enemy of the world. Faith applies to atheism as well as Christianity. We direct it towards different ideas, yet both look at evidence and use reasoning to form beliefs.
A few things I can add that may help:
You are bothered when someone says that the universe exists without cause, so then to solve this problem you posit an even more complex thing that exists without cause and you say that this somehow solves the problem. To me this just creates an even bigger problem.
The faith discussion could result a long tangent. People have so many different definitions of the word faith that it’s too difficult to discuss clearly. In my previous comment I gave you an option of a plausible explanation for how things came about. I don’t state that I know these things to be true by faith at all. The whole endeavor of finding truth is a process of continual refinement and finding faults with previously held conclusions. This is how we have made progress in making predictions about our world that the ancients didn’t even come close to doing. Like I said there are tons of possibilities about actual origins of the universe. I am actually a possibilian. This is quite different than the statement of faith given by many who are religious. The faith that says “I know that books written by imperfect humans many years ago are entirely true and inspired by a deity” is an entirely different kind of faith that I definitely do not practice. Perhaps you don’t either – there are actually some theists who don’t and I won’t second guess your stance on this.
The field of abiogenesis is an extremely complex field that you could spend years studying up and learning about and progress is continually being made in that field, especially recently. It wasn’t too long ago that we had absolutely no natural explanations for how diseases were caused, but today medical sciences have found clear evidence that viruses and bacteria cause them. Saying that God is the only explanation for things we aren’t sure of yet could end up causing us to make a mistake in our pursuit of truth much like the ancients were unable to find proper solutions to the diseases they were plagued with. Look WD, I never say there cannot be supernatural transcendent stuff – I’m quite open to the idea of these kind of things, but thinking about those kind of things is just guesswork for humans – that’s kind of the idea of the word “transcendent” anyways. And again, saying we know for sure about these ideas can impede progress in actually finding out truth in a more objective and productive way.
And as far as stuff progressing from simple to complex naturally, this has clearly been shown to be true in many fields of scientific study.
Sure some things can be simple and progress to more complex things, but I dont think life can. I also dont think that things work withou all of their parts present. A watch cannot work unless everything is put together for it to work. What is half of a wing? How can a body work without a heart etc. That type of thing. I think the universe could not work unless all of its parts were in place.
Also most of the famous scientists who discovered a lot of the things we all believe now were believers in a God, many were Christian and their Christian faith motivated them. Keplar, Galileo, Kelvin, etc. So Christian faith or even a person who believes in a god or a biblical God whether or not they are christians does not suggest that religion impedes the finding out of true scientific things.
It is great that you are quite open to possibilities and I hope you will find the truth, what you are looking for. And I hope that of course you will find God, but yes it is up to you. And like you said earlier we will just have to disagree.
Great discussion though.
I also want to state thate I do not believe simple things turn into complex things in the way you are claiming about the origin of the universe. I believe that everything has Irreducible Complexity and in no way could function at all without everything together at once working. Also, I do not believe dead things can create living things. Where did life come from? Something not alive has never been found to create a coded or intelligent thing. Lightening striking a pond has never produced a living being. And it is very unlikely dead things will ever create living. So whatever caused the universe had to be alive eternally existing.
So me and your god have something in common! Hey, that’s so cool.
Please come and read I urge you.
http://atheistenquiry.org/2013/11/13/and-the-band-played-on-and-god-did-nothing/
Pingback: Atheist Blogger’s Illogical Argument About God’s Eternality | Ehud's 18 Inch Dagger
I am continually amazed that so many people are compelled by these philosophical arguments in favor of the existence of a supreme being. I suppose I shouldn’t be, as I was similarly compelled for all those years I was an evangelical Christian. But I need something more than an argument. Let me see evidence. You’ve covered the evidence issue nicely in previous posts.
Rodriguez,
God is Eternal?
When describing this issue, we must understand few evidence that are rigid and fixed, i.e:
1) We existed
2) Atom/Energy existed
3) Based on current scientific law: Atom/ Energy can not be created or destroy, unless this law being revoked
Above evidence is fixed, rigid, and understandable.
Now, we extracted few idea from the evidence above:
1) As the the energy can not be created, the world itself is eternal.
2) Or energy can be created and fixed by Creator.
Both idea have valid foundation and eternal itself is logic. The idea of no limit, eternal, infinite is actually existed.
The question of “What cause God” or “Duck or egg, who came first” is commonly use to confuse public. This view will eliminate the question of “What cause God”…
The truth of the triune God’s existence is not probable; it is assured. God’s existence is the absolute precondition for all our questions and even our doubts. We must rationally operate within the bounds and through the use of immaterial immutable universals as we ask all our questions and raise all our doubts, thereby affirming that the triune God lives. Christianity is the only worldview that provides human reason a foundation for its apposite function. Non-Christian systems of thought cannot furnish a foundation for the Law of Non-contradiction (and all other incessant ever-enduring changeless universals); thus, those systems of thought can only offer self-contradictory worldviews. Unless one believes in the triune God, one cannot account for human knowledge, understanding, predication, and practice. God is the precondition for all assertion, argument, proof, evidence, and reason. All human thought requires the employment and assumption of universal and invariant laws and universal interminable truths. Only the transcendent and unchanging triune God provides the necessary preconditions for the use of transcendent and unchanging truths. To argue at all, one must presuppose that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exists.
So God is a timeless, factually necessary being. As the British theologian Keith Ward writes in his book God, Chance and Necessity: “If one asks what caused God, the answer is that nothing could bring into being a reality wholly transcendent of space-time and which is self-existent. To fail to grasp such an idea is to fail to grasp what God is.” So it seems to me that the argument does conclude to a coherent concept of God.
Pingback: God, the Meaningless Topic | The BitterSweet End