If God exists, who created God? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#15140922
Sivad wrote:Well there's something metaphysically prior to everything until you get to a necessary something which has the reason for its existence within itself and couldn't not exist or be anything other than what it is. When you start contemplating what kind of thing might a necessary something be that's prior to all contingent things you wind up at the God of the philosophers.

I think Sivad's point here is about God being self caused (casua sui) takes things a step above the question of First cause in a linear causality. Because causality can only explain things up to a point and is why things end up at a brick wall where the infinite regress meets a point where it seems impossible.
So instead, something must somehow be it's own cause.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/determinism.htm
Hegel showed that causality is extremely limited in its explanatory capacity, because the invocation of causation leads to an infinite regress. Efficient causes are always of interest, but a phenomenon is only understood when it is grasped as a cause of itself (a causa sui), that is, the relevant process is seen to create and recreate the conditions for its own existence. But even then, explanation often takes the form of Reciprocity of cause and effect. Hegel (1831) grants that “to make the manners of the Spartans the cause of their constitution and their constitution conversely the cause of their manners, may no doubt be in a way correct,” but still explains nothing. But Reciprocity is as far as Causality can go. The understanding of a process as a cause sui means grasping it as a concept and usually incorporates an investigation of its origins and development.

To which some of the myths about the origins of the universe adopt a view in which there is no true beginning.
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/05/31/530845375/from-myth-to-science-can-we-make-sense-of-the-origin-of-all-things
I call the "no-beginning" myths those without a single beginning of time. Within those, there are two possibilities: an eternal cosmos, without beginning and end; and a cyclic cosmos, where the cosmos is created and destroyed in cycles that repeat throughout eternity, with no moment of creation more important than any other one. The Jains of India espoused the eternal cosmos, while the Hindus espoused cycles of creation beautifully represented in the dance of Shiva.

Even in the cyclical process there is a kind of active intervention of some kind.
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/88/174178/contingency-and-necessity-in-evald-ilyenkov-s-communist-cosmology/
One could say that this text expresses archaic, premodern contents wrapped in the language of classic philosophy, science, and dialectical materialism. The indicator of this mythic content is, especially, the theme of heroic self-sacrifice and “global fire,” a familiar Promethean motif. When I sent this text to Boris Groys, he offered a much more radical reading of its paganism, calling “Cosmology” “a revival of the Aztec religion” of Quetzalcoatl, who “sets himself on fire to reverse the entropic process.”

It seems that whatever it is, it must be supernatural and beyond the physics and reason of our reality, it is beyond it somehow.
I guess those without a beginning are simply unsatisfying to the causal outlook with a necessary beginning.
#15140925
B0ycey wrote:It is inherently true.

And no it isn't. Colour can be explained by light wave length and consciousness. Do you know Newton and Opticks?

You can't just saying something exists and that is its natural state. Or you can but then you have to explain why that is its natural state. Why? Because it is something. Or a best you have to explain what infinity is. Why? Because you say it has always existed. Either way there are questions you need to explain.

And if you haven't noticed your examples can be explained FYI which isn't helping your cause.


My examples are just for thought experiments. Yes colors can be explained, but you cannot explain what you perceive as Blue. This is the same with infinity, we can explain what it is but understanding can never be complete.
You say that nothing is the natural state, then you have to explain why it is the natural state. If nothing is the natural state then how can something come about, without an outside something. You should begin to see that nothing cannot be the essence. Even the Big Bang proponents agree that there was something before.
#15140927
Wellsy wrote:So instead, something must somehow be it's own cause.


Ultimately this can only be the solution. Whether that is God or something else. We can only speculate on these things but forces are quantifiable and are by definition 'nothing' as they are an action. The unusual thing is they can be classed as energy and the speed of light, whatever that is, is part of the formula for matter. So I can see a path for matter to exist from nothing, have an idea how that is possible but cannot put that into a formula or an explaination that is can be debated.
#15140929
There is more evidence for a definite beginning of the universe (i.e. the Big Bang theory) than there is for a universe that has always existed.

As for god, I am of the belief that she is creating herself and all the universe in an ongoing process.
#15140932
Oxymoron wrote:You say that nothing is the natural state, then you have to explain why it is the natural state. If nothing is the natural state then how can something come about, without an outside something. You should begin to see that nothing cannot be the essence. Even the Big Bang proponents agree that there was something before.


Well I don't believe in the standard model. I think it has been put into a formula to try and explain a beginning that scientists hope is true but they are still like a split second from explaining the start so it is faulty.

But on your point that you think I believe nothing is the natural state, well I don't think it is. It is just that nothing doesn't need to be explained which was Sivads point. Nonetheless when it comes to these types of discussions people try to quantify it to something they can explain within their own reality when the explanation maybe something humans are not capable of perceiving. That is to say time maybe just an illusion for our consciousness. If there was no beginning of the universe there can be no end. Time may well exist in all its manifestations simultaneously. And matter maybe a consequence of whatever time is and the forces that enable it.
#15140938
Pants-of-dog wrote:There is more evidence for a definite beginning of the universe (i.e. the Big Bang theory) than there is for a universe that has always existed.

As for god, I am of the belief that she is creating herself and all the universe in an ongoing process.

I feel like things aren’t so clear cut as time wouldn’t exist outside of the universe if it came from nothing.
So what is eternity meant to mean outside of it? I guess the point is we reach the limit of the big bang but perhaps time doesn’t exist exactly at the big bang as there is no clear limit if things arose from nothing.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
The “no-boundary proposal,” which Hawking and his frequent collaborator, James Hartle, fully formulated in a 1983 paper, envisions the cosmos having the shape of a shuttlecock. Just as a shuttlecock has a diameter of zero at its bottommost point and gradually widens on the way up, the universe, according to the no-boundary proposal, smoothly expanded from a point of zero size. Hartle and Hawking derived a formula describing the whole shuttlecock — the so-called “wave function of the universe” that encompasses the entire past, present and future at once — making moot all contemplation of seeds of creation, a creator, or any transition from a time before.

“Asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless, according to the no-boundary proposal, because there is no notion of time available to refer to,” Hawking said in another lecture at the Pontifical Academy in 2016, a year and a half before his death. “It would be like asking what lies south of the South Pole.”

Hartle and Hawking’s proposal radically reconceptualized time. Each moment in the universe becomes a cross-section of the shuttlecock; while we perceive the universe as expanding and evolving from one moment to the next, time really consists of correlations between the universe’s size in each cross-section and other properties — particularly its entropy, or disorder. Entropy increases from the cork to the feathers, aiming an emergent arrow of time. Near the shuttlecock’s rounded-off bottom, though, the correlations are less reliable; time ceases to exist and is replaced by pure space. As Hartle, now 79 and a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, explained it by phone recently, “We didn’t have birds in the very early universe; we have birds later on. … We didn’t have time in the early universe, but we have time later on.”

There is a kind of sense of existence as always was even while it wasn’t always. Or this is yet another contradiction in which the limits aren’t clear and seem to negate one another like something coming from nothing but that seems to be what happens when try to talk sensibly about that which is simply beyond reality ie metaphysics.
#15140962
Sivad wrote:That wouldn't solve the problem, it doesn't explain why there would be an infinitely looping universe in the first place? And even if it did there would still be the question of why this particular infinitely looping universe and not some other infinitely looping universe?

"Creation" refers to a starting point in time. If we're in an infinite loop of time, there is no starting point.
#15140964
Pants-of-dog wrote:There is more evidence for a definite beginning of the universe (i.e. the Big Bang theory) than there is for a universe that has always existed.

We don't know what happened before the big bang. The universe could be expanding and contracting infinitely in endless cycles, so the big bang could have happened an infinite # of times before and will continue to happen an infinite # of times in the future.

As for god, I am of the belief that she is creating herself and all the universe in an ongoing process.

God is probably genderless and sexless since God probably wouldn't need to breed to survive since God would never die or be born.
#15140971
Unthinking Majority wrote:We don't know what happened before the big bang. The universe could be expanding and contracting infinitely in endless cycles, so the big bang could have happened an infinite # of times before and will continue to happen an infinite # of times in the future.


If it can be shown that time cannot exist without space, there would be no “before” before the big bang.

God is probably genderless and sexless since God probably wouldn't need to breed to survive since God would never die or be born.


I prefer to think of it as god encompassing all genders and sexes and constantly being born.
#15140973
Pants-of-dog wrote:I prefer to think of it as god encompassing all genders and sexes and constantly being born.

Yes, similarly I like to think of it where if male and female are Ying and Yang, then god would be like the complete circle of ying/yang together, and male and female are attracted to each other in order to come together in order to become God, as they do when they create life (babies).

I ask you, is that really what our collective po[…]

although this kind of ideology is mismatch in this[…]

So, a new study out: ASSESSING MANDATORY STAY-A[…]

1) Not that I am a huge fan of communism but the […]