To illustrate the silliness of such comparisons, it is important at some point that I take a moment to define what I mean by “God”. Ascribing a definition to a supernatural, incomprehensible being is always a fun exercise so I hope you enjoy.
As an atheist or an agnostic, it is easy to view world religions as being the same. Most religious followers believe in a supernatural being or beings. Most speak to an afterlife. Most believe in a sacred text. And so on, and so on…. When you study anthropology, you realize that every culture throughout history has had a story pertaining to a supernatural god or gods. It all begins to run together. I’ve been to college. I’ve been agnostic. I get it. There are, however, a few qualities that we can ascribe to God based on some reasonable assumptions that are not related to any specific religion. I’ll list the assumptions and reasoning for those assumptions first:
1. The universe began at some point in the distant past.
I devoted an entire post to this idea and the idea itself is based on physical principles and observations that have been validated again and again. Static universe theory at this point is all but forgotten.
2. If God is of the universe, He is a natural, material being and cannot have been responsible for the creation of the universe; conversely, if God is not of the universe, His abilities and qualities can be neither described nor confined by natural, physical principles.
Basically, if matter (and antimatter), energy, time, and space are all that exist, God would be susceptible to the physical principles that govern these four elements and would therefore simply be an extraterrestrial being.
So, what does this mean as we define God?
1. If the universe began and time is of the universe, any being(s) existing ontologically before the universe, existed / exist outside of the confines of time. If there is a God, He would fit into this category; as such, God must be eternal (i.e. not of or subject to time).
2. Furthermore, cause and effect are products of time. Within the confines of the universe, effects must have a cause. Outside of time, cause and effect are meaningless. So, God need not be caused. Accordingly, the question “What caused God?” is not a meaningful one.
3. Conversely, if God is not eternal (i.e. if He never existed outside of the universe), He must be susceptible to the rules of the universe. Therefore, He is not God; rather, He is a natural being. Because we do not define natural beings as God, God must either be eternal and supernatural or He must be nonexistent.
4. If God exists, He is eternal and cannot be subject to universal laws. Further, because the universe is not eternal, pantheism (the idea that God is the universe) must not be true.
5. Since God is not subject to universal laws, He cannot be limited as a physical being. “Physical” is a concept that only makes sense when applied to things that are of the universe.
6. Because God is physically limitless and is not subject to time or physical law, we cannot comprehend His presence, His perception, or His power. Accordingly, the ideas of God’s omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are meaningful relative to the universe.
7. There can be only one omnipotent God. If there exist multiple gods, each god would have a role and would be limited, thus implying that each god was lacking something another possessed. If a being is limited, it is not God.
So, in comparing God to a spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn, we’re make the comparison between a being who is eternal and who may be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent to physical beings who must be naturalistic because they are defined as physical beings. The properties of God follow logically from the idea that God is not of the universe. If we ascribe these properties to any physical entity, we come back to God. In short, God is or God isn’t.
As an atheist or an agnostic, it is easy to view world religions as being the same. Most religious followers believe in a supernatural being or beings. Most speak to an afterlife. Most believe in a sacred text. And so on, and so on…. When you study anthropology, you realize that every culture throughout history has had a story pertaining to a supernatural god or gods. It all begins to run together. I’ve been to college. I’ve been agnostic. I get it. There are, however, a few qualities that we can ascribe to God based on some reasonable assumptions that are not related to any specific religion. I’ll list the assumptions and reasoning for those assumptions first:
1. The universe began at some point in the distant past.
I devoted an entire post to this idea and the idea itself is based on physical principles and observations that have been validated again and again. Static universe theory at this point is all but forgotten.
2. If God is of the universe, He is a natural, material being and cannot have been responsible for the creation of the universe; conversely, if God is not of the universe, His abilities and qualities can be neither described nor confined by natural, physical principles.
Basically, if matter (and antimatter), energy, time, and space are all that exist, God would be susceptible to the physical principles that govern these four elements and would therefore simply be an extraterrestrial being.
So, what does this mean as we define God?
1. If the universe began and time is of the universe, any being(s) existing ontologically before the universe, existed / exist outside of the confines of time. If there is a God, He would fit into this category; as such, God must be eternal (i.e. not of or subject to time).
2. Furthermore, cause and effect are products of time. Within the confines of the universe, effects must have a cause. Outside of time, cause and effect are meaningless. So, God need not be caused. Accordingly, the question “What caused God?” is not a meaningful one.
3. Conversely, if God is not eternal (i.e. if He never existed outside of the universe), He must be susceptible to the rules of the universe. Therefore, He is not God; rather, He is a natural being. Because we do not define natural beings as God, God must either be eternal and supernatural or He must be nonexistent.
4. If God exists, He is eternal and cannot be subject to universal laws. Further, because the universe is not eternal, pantheism (the idea that God is the universe) must not be true.
5. Since God is not subject to universal laws, He cannot be limited as a physical being. “Physical” is a concept that only makes sense when applied to things that are of the universe.
6. Because God is physically limitless and is not subject to time or physical law, we cannot comprehend His presence, His perception, or His power. Accordingly, the ideas of God’s omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are meaningful relative to the universe.
7. There can be only one omnipotent God. If there exist multiple gods, each god would have a role and would be limited, thus implying that each god was lacking something another possessed. If a being is limited, it is not God.
So, in comparing God to a spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn, we’re make the comparison between a being who is eternal and who may be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent to physical beings who must be naturalistic because they are defined as physical beings. The properties of God follow logically from the idea that God is not of the universe. If we ascribe these properties to any physical entity, we come back to God. In short, God is or God isn’t.
When I speak of God, I am not speaking of some being. I am speaking instead of a being who must possess certain properties or who cannot be labeled as God. To be clear, these are not Biblical descriptions of God but descriptions pertaining to a God who is supernatural (or outside of nature).
14 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם
14. God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
Posts
39 comments:
So...a few things are bugging me about this suject:
You say that "I refuse to believe in the supernatural" is an "unreasonable argument", yet you intend to prove the existence of God through "physics, logic, and reason". If you can prove something exists with physics and reason, doesn't that have to imply that is it not supernatural? You also say that the question "Who caused God?" has no meaning since God exists outside the universe. Yet you do not allow others to apply causality to God (since causality exists in-universe only), but have no problem applying logic or reason (also a in-universe concept) to God?
"7. There can be only one omnipotent God. If there exist multiple gods, each god would have a role and would be limited, thus implying that each god was lacking something another possessed. If a being is limited, it is not God."
OR there isn't one at all. The greeks/romans believed in silly multiple gods.
"2. Furthermore, cause and effect are products of time. Within the confines of the universe, effects must have a cause. Outside of time, cause and effect are meaningless. So, God need not be caused. Accordingly, the question “What caused God?” is not a meaningful one."
While I like the point made in that part, I just can't sit back as let someone invalidate a question simply because the answer is not known. It is NOT a meaningless question, and as a scientist, you should not throw it away as such.
"3. Conversely, if God is not eternal (i.e. if He never existed outside of the universe), He must be susceptible to the rules of the universe. Therefore, He is not God; rather, He is a natural being. Because we do not define natural beings as God, God must either be eternal and supernatural or He must be nonexistent."
But if God is everything and omnipotent, he is both etherial and natural...so..you're saying he has limited ability in the omnipotent arena?
"4. If God exists, He is eternal and cannot be subject to universal laws. Further, because the universe is not eternal, pantheism (the idea that God is the universe) must not be true."
Unless he's both...like I said earlier. ;) I mean...unless you believe that the whole "God is everywhere" thing was to stop us all from touching ourselves...and that still didn't really work, now, did it?
"So, in comparing God to a spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn, we’re make the comparison between a being who is eternal and who may be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent to physical beings who must be naturalistic because they are defined as physical beings. "
Umm...but the spaghetti monster is not a physical being. It's a monster...made of spaghetti.
...and that's infinately more scary than regular old physical spaghetti.
:)
--Kyle
Kyle,
A few key points:
1. We can use reason to find God without attributing a specific reasoning to God. If God is the only reasonable choice, choose God.
2. My point with the "multiple gods" item was that IF you had multiple "gods" and those "gods" were limited in some way by universal law, the "gods" would not really be gods after all. They would be natural beings. Aliens. Natural, universal creatures.
3. To cause and effect as a meaningless question. I have a few more examples:
What color is 3?
What is the circumference of a square?
Cause and effect makes sense within the universe because of time. An effect cannot occur before its cause. Since we know of no time outside of the universe, it is nonsensical to ask what created a being that existed ontologically before the universe.
4. "But if God is everything and omnipotent, he is both etherial and natural...so..you're saying he has limited ability in the omnipotent arena?"
No. What I said was that if you have a God who is limited neither by space nor by physical law, we cannot fathom the power of God.
Basically, you're trying to compare an entity that is defined by universal physical properties to an entity whose limits are undefined. What fraction of infinity is one?
“2. Furthermore, cause and effect are products of time. Within the confines of the universe, effects must have a cause. Outside of time, cause and effect are meaningless. So, God need not be caused. Accordingly, the question “What caused God?” is not a meaningful one.”
Did the beginning of the universe take place within the confines of the universe?
If the answer to this is yes, then we need to revisit your understanding of beginning. If the answer to this is no, then by the logic of this quote, the beginning occurred outside of time; therefore the universe need not be caused. And accordingly, the question of “What caused the universe?” is not a meaningful one.
There's before, there's after, and then there's the oh-so-often forgotten simultaneous.
What does that mean?
It means that a cause and it's effect can be simultaneous. Therefore, the act of God creating the universe (cause) and the universe coming into being (effect) could have happened at the same time, within the confines of time. But God himself could not have been caused since cause/effect had no meaning "before" that event.
So I agree that the question "who caused God" is meaningless. It's not that we don't know the answer. It's that there can be no answer. It's a nonsensical question. By the way, does anyone know the square root of the letter W?
Edit: typo
Randy,
Is Kristin's comment what you are putting forth as the most reasonable position?
I'm sorry...but I just can't deal with the dismissal of the question. I just go back to this:
"Who caused God?" has no meaning since God exists outside the universe. Yet you do not allow others to apply causality to God (since causality exists in-universe only), but have no problem applying logic or reason (also a in-universe concept) to God?
So...while you are able to apply the concept of causality to the universe and blame God for that, and you're able to apply it to man, and nature, and the sky and all of that, all the time pointing to God as the reason and the creator, using facts, logic, and reasoning (again, all in-universe and in-time concepts) but you are okay with not applying the question to God...just the reults?
Pretty sure the cold fusion guys may have had a similar thought..
...just saying.
"2. My point with the "multiple gods" item was that IF you had multiple "gods" and those "gods" were limited in some way by universal law, the "gods" would not really be gods after all. They would be natural beings. Aliens. Natural, universal creatures."
Zeus wasn't natural. None of his head sprung offspring were either.
"4. "But if God is everything and omnipotent, he is both etherial and natural...so..you're saying he has limited ability in the omnipotent arena?"
No. What I said was that if you have a God who is limited neither by space nor by physical law, we cannot fathom the power of God. "
No...you didn't. The problem with a blog, is that the stuff you DID say, is right there...easy to find. You said that God cannot be governed by natural law. More verbatim, you said
"4. If God exists, He is eternal and cannot be subject to universal laws. Further, because the universe is not eternal, pantheism (the idea that God is the universe) must not be true."
So again, you are saying that God CAN NOT be subject to something...and I'm sure that God doesn't like to be told what he can and can not do. ;)
And just to add to the smug polution here:
"Basically, you're trying to compare an entity that is defined by universal physical properties to an entity whose limits are undefined. What fraction of infinity is one?"
"What color is 3?
What is the circumference of a square?
Cause and effect makes sense within the universe because of time. An effect cannot occur before its cause. Since we know of no time outside of the universe, it is nonsensical to ask what created a being that existed ontologically before the universe."
These questions are okay, but "who caused God" is absurd, in your eyes?
So we are going to use cause and effect to prove God. We are going to use logic and reason to support your theories, and we are going to allow the in-universe concepts to attempt to prove the supernatural...but we can't use those same concepts to ask a simple, harmless, question. A question that is ONLY absurd if you answer it, I might add. You can say that "If God is omnipotent, can he make a stone so big that he cannot pick it up?" is an "absurd question", but do not understand the power of this question is in the asking and not the answering. To answer that question with "yes" or "no"—that is the absurdity. However, to pose it as a koan has great benefit.
Hey...you asked me to be here. ;) don't hate the playa.
--Kyle
Kyle-
As far as cause/effect goes, all Randy is saying is that cause/effect can only be defined in time. Outside of time these concepts have no meaning. Therefore, asking “what caused God” is the equivalent of the nonsensical questions, “what is the circumfrence of this square,” etc. It is not that we don’t know the answer; it is that there cannot be an answer. The question is absurd.
As to logic/reason, the reason we can apply logic and reason to God (but not cause/effect) is because logic and reason have not been proven to exist only in this universe. Something being eternal does not contradict its being rational. Time, on the other hand, is contradictory to eternal. And science has clearly shown us that time began with the universe and cannot exist outside of it.
“Zeus wasn't natural. None of his head sprung offspring were either.”
The point is not what the Greeks/Romans BELIEVED about their gods. The point is whether those beliefs were reasonable. Randy simply pointed out that IF there really were more than one god, then each god must have been limited, therefore these gods by definition weren’t really…God.
“These questions are okay, but "who caused God" is absurd, in your eyes?”
You have greatly misunderstood here. Obviously, we do not think these questions are okay. That’s the entire point. They were meant to serve as examples of questions that are just as nonsensical as “what caused God?”
“A question that is ONLY absurd if you answer it, I might add.”
Again, this question is absurd BECAUSE there can be no answer. It is just like asking, “what is the square root of the letter W?” Any answer here would of course be absurd. But that is because the question itself is absurd and unanswerable.
“Hey...you asked me to be here. ;) don't hate the playa.”
Still glad you’re here! Just wish you would read a little closer to avoid some misunderstandings! Seems like you may have just be skimming…
"As to logic/reason, the reason we can apply logic and reason to God (but not cause/effect) is because logic and reason have not been proven to exist only in this universe. Something being eternal does not contradict its being rational. Time, on the other hand, is contradictory to eternal. And science has clearly shown us that time began with the universe and cannot exist outside of it."
So...time HAS been proven to NOT exist outside of this universe? I missed that one...and cause and effect HAVE been proven to exist oustide the universe?
"Still glad you’re here! Just wish you would read a little closer to avoid some misunderstandings! Seems like you may have just be skimming…"
Orr...just stop alltogether.
--Kyle
"“These questions are okay, but "who caused God" is absurd, in your eyes?”
You have greatly misunderstood here. Obviously, we do not think these questions are okay. That’s the entire point. They were meant to serve as examples of questions that are just as nonsensical as “what caused God?”"
I'm not retarded. I was very much aware that the absurd questions were posted to be...well, absurd.
I was talking about the questions posed on a regular basis.
“Randy,
Is Kristin's comment what you are putting forth as the most reasonable position?”
It’s funny that you should ask. With respect to the physical nature of God, my position is one of no absolutes… almost agnostic. Basically, my assertion is as follows:
If you believe that God is of the universe, I would say that God is not truly God; rather, He is some supremely powerful extraterrestrial who developed via the same natural processes that created you and me… perhaps He just got a few billion year head start. Basically, believing that God is of the universe is tantamount to believing that there is no God.
If, on the other hand, you believe that God is not of the universe (i.e. that God exists), then you must believe that God could exist without the universe. If you believe that He could exist without the universe, you cannot attribute to Him any limits that are of the universe.
Science tells us that time is of the universe. So, if we label God “eternal”, what we are really saying is that He can exist without time. We don’t know what such an existence would be like, but that doesn’t make Him any less eternal. What does it mean, then, to exist without time? Are cause and effect meaningful? We don’t know. When we speak of cause and effect now, we speak relative to time.
As to your question, I'm not sure we can say that God can't have been caused (at least not yet) since we don't know what the pre-universe would be like, but we can say that there is no answer to the question "What caused God?" nor does there necessarily need to be an answer. We have no concept of "eternity".
Kyle,
Time began. We don't know what existed before time, but we do know that what we define as "time" began. So, any "time" that existed before time is beyond our comprehension.
I like all these ideas about God. I think they can be really meaningful. But since God lies outside of the natural world, doesn't this render "God" useless as a scientific concept?
Randy's view (I think) - All things in the universe require a cause, so the beginning of the universe itself required a cause.
I don't think this works (but what could when considering these things?). We end up with "cause and effect" needing a cause because of itself. This is a paradox. Which is actually OK with me. Any speculation about the beginning of our universe will probably be fraught with paradox if there is no time/matter/space. The problem is viewing such ideas as anything more than speculation.
We agree that the beginning of the universe is inherently supernatural because it occurred before natural laws formed. Why then can we speculate on the necessity for causes in a supernatural setting? If God doesn't require a cause, because he lies outside of time and space, then why does the beginning of the universe? Doesn't it also lie outside of time and space?
This is the point about the spaghetti monster. When we go outside of time/space/matter then everything is 100% speculation. You say that we inherently cannot understand God in his eternal realm. I completely agree. But isn't any speculation about the beginning of time/space/matter also about the same as looking for the "square root of W"? (by the way, I think the answer to this is "U/2" ;)
The points being made here seem less proofs for God than attempts to create logical plausibility for a pre-existing concept of God. So my question is - What is the source of the God hypothesis?
I love all these ideas. I am down with them. I congratulate Randy on leading me to think about these things about as hard as I've thought about anything. But I don't feel that an attitude of certainty or near-certainty is warranted in considering these matters.
BTW, I think that God as "I AM" is one of the greatest concepts ever. Often, in an attempt to bypass the trappings of religion, I simply think that I seek what IS. God is what IS.
The question dividing theists and atheists is not "god or no god?". The question is "do you believe that God is in any way a being like us?"
I agree with Steven on the speculation points. I may part with calling ‘what is’ God and prefer to call ‘what is’ -> ‘what is’, but getting hung up on labels is not at all where Steven is going. If I understand Steven correctly, calling ‘what is’ this or that does not make a difference. I see merit to this, but I caution against the baggage that labels carry (and I make the assumption that he is aware of all this).
This problem of induction coupled with an untestable hypothesis (or one that can accommodate any observation) will not be resolved easily. Within this framework, it will always seem reasonable to the practitioner. It is only when the practitioner takes a step back and evaluates this framework will there be a chance at resolution.
That said, I am ready to move on.
Hook,
Yeah, we're on the same page. What is IS!
Some will want to lose the label "god" because of negative baggage. Fair enough. Others may feel that there is positive "baggage" as well, and will try to reclaim the term as a useful one. But as you said, all names are ultimately just labels.
Randy, I really liked your post. I have a question. How do we know the universe is not eternal? I know that it is constantly expanding, etc., based on our knowledge today, and I realize that the universe could go into a path that would destroy everything we see today in our universe, but wasn't the universe around even before the big bang, but it was just really small? and, in the future won't it be around as well, but just really empty? I find there being "proof" that one day there will be no universe as something hard to prove. Am I wrong? i don't know much on this subject.
Also, in regards to the statement "I AM" I have a tangent to go off of in regards to pronouns for God, etc. -- When Christ was on earth, according to scripture, he said that he and the father are one. He also said that no one gets to God except through Christ. So, if Christ and God are One, then, is it not possible that you could be following God, without necessarily THINKING that you believed in Christ, yet you actually DO believe in Christ becuase the God you believe in is indeed Christ, and vice versa? This is a concept we could really elaborate on I imagine. I think you get my point. If they are truly truly ONE, then isn't the rest really just pronouns, etc., i.e. "how you word it"?
Assuming God and Christ are one, could a person believe in the one true God, without knowing Christ, and still know Christ, since they believe in the one true God, which is Christ? Is the rest pronouns? I know the typical answer would be that you have to understand who Christ is, etc., and His purpose on earth, but I do think there is definitely something true to what I am suggesting. That if they are one, then as long as you are following the Holy Spirit (i.e. the spirit that God and Christ share), then perhaps you believe in Christ without even knowing it, etc. -- Anyway, you all feel free to elaborate on this one. Thanks! (this was a ponder I was talking about with my Mom while driving to texas last week)
Last post, and I'm out of here.
"Time began. We don't know what existed before time, but we do know that what we define as "time" began. So, any "time" that existed before time is beyond our comprehension."
You are confident in that statement? Time began? No chance it's been going forever? Not a possibility that time has ALWAYS been? No theories about time being a constant that existed even before the universe began? None whatsoever?
Just checking. And you know what? Don't answer. I don't CARE.
I came into this blog with the full disclosure that I was not as smart as you guys. As best as I can follow this stuff is considered "skimming" at best, but the reality is that I am just completely confused by the constant doublespeak, the points made by both sides and ignored by the other with a simple "that doesn't apply" or "I can't accept that."
A friend told me not to get involved with this blog. Told me it would get very frustrating. He was right.
In the interest of keeping what I have always thought of as a rock solid friendship in tact, I'm just going to have to sever this line of discussion. Because my honest opinion WILL offend you. And your honest opinion WILL upset me. So, please PLEASE keep in touch. I still love you guys, and wish you the best in life. I just don't want to play anymore.
Koan: a paradoxical anecdote or a riddle that has no solution; used in Zen Buddhism to show the inadequacy of logical reasoning.
So maybe...just maybe you can see that the question is NOT absurd because it cannot be answered. But maybe the Zen Buddhism thing is silly.
Play nice with the others. Keep me posted on the baby status! Hope to see you around someday! :)
--Kyle
Russell's Teapot
“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” (Bertrand Russell, 1952)
John- In week 3, Randy talked about the big bang theory, which implies that the universe had a beginning and therefore cannot be eternal. Check it out if you missed it. (By the way, even atheist/agnostic scientists, in light of the evidence of the universe's beginning, have admitted that there are definite theistic implications here. Even Hawking admitted that if the universe had a beginning then it is reasonable to assume that it had a Creator).
Steven- “Randy's view (I think) - All things in the universe require a cause, so the beginning of the universe itself required a cause. I don't think this works.”
Why not? I think it seems completely unreasonable to abandon one of the most basic scientific principles here (whatever comes into being has a cause). Why ditch science at this point?
Also, I don’t think that this causes a paradox at all. It simply means that whatever caused the universe has to be eternal. It could not have had a beginning itself. At this point we can still speculate on whether this cause is God or something else, but I don’t find it reasonable to assert that the universe was not caused.
“If God doesn't require a cause, because he lies outside of time and space, then why does the beginning of the universe? Doesn't it also lie outside of time and space?”
The beginning of the universe would most definitely have to lie within time and space. In the split second that the universe (time/space) began, the universe (time/space) existed. I feel like you are referring to the conditions BEFORE the universe began, not the actual beginning. At the actual beginning of time and space, time and space have to have existed.
John- “Assuming God and Christ are one, could a person believe in the one true God, without knowing Christ, and still know Christ, since they believe in the one true God, which is Christ?”
I think that’s a good question (and confusing ). But in my opinion, (assuming that the Bible is true) it seems clear that you have to know Christ personally in order to even be able to know God the Father. And it also seems true Biblically that this doesn’t necessarily work the other way around (i.e. knowing that there is a god doesn’t lead you to the one, true Christ, but knowing Christ leads you to the one, true God). So although they are one, they are still three in one, with Christ being the WAY to God the father. Plus, how can you know God without knowing that He is Christ? Since He IS Christ, it seems that if you knew Him you would know that.
Kyle- “You are confident in that statement? Time began?”
While we can’t be 100% sure of anything, it seems that most scientists agree to this statement, including theistic and atheistic scientists.
I’m sorry you are so frustrated! I think we all get aggravated when we feel that our points aren’t heard or validated. So, I understand if you need to leave the discussion. You’re welcome back anytime if you change your mind!
"I think it seems completely unreasonable to abandon one of the most basic scientific principles here (whatever comes into being has a cause). Why ditch science at this point?"
I think that speculations of anything outside time/space/matter is what abandons science. That's cool with me! But it's not science. It's speculation. And I enjoy speculating with you all!
"I feel like you are referring to the conditions BEFORE the universe began"
"before the universe began" is equal to "before time" which is a paradox. Changing the vocab to "outside of time" does not change this.
Did time/space/matter begin with the Big Bang? I have no idea. Perhaps it was just all really dense at that point. This is what most Big Bang materials state that I have read. Randy has pointed out that some catalyst must have been required to make the universe expand so quickly. Fair enough, but that would still be a catalyst inside the universe if time/matter/space existed in a dense form.
If time/matter/space did not exist, then there is no way to reference logic or scientific thought in this manner. I think human myth tries to speak to such things without being too literal - since "literal" is impossible to describe it with any meaning. Myth is a powerful tool to describe our existence. Trying to turn it into science isn't beneficial to myth or science.
Enjoyable conversation!
I pulled this off the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang:
"Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant"
I know that this line is a little off topic, but I feel that Jesus states that we will know those who know him by how we love one another. He does say "in my name" in Scripture but how literally should we take that? "Jesus" is not Jesus' real name, but rather a translation. Obviously no one would take it that literally, but what do we take literally in considering how we know Jesus? A concept in our mind? A painting of white Jesus with blue eyes? Thinking of the Bible? I think that Jesus says that those who love him keep his commandments and his commandment is to love one another.
Consider John 14:6 "I am the way and truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
One Christian might look at the Dalai Lama and think - he is not a Christian, therefore he does not know the Father.
Another Christian might look at the Dalai Lama and his life of teaching loving-kindness and non-violence. They might think - this man clearly knows the Father. Therefore he must know Christ - perhaps by a different name.
Is God primarily spirit or name?
Just throwing some thoughts out there. I don't wanna stray too far off topic (too late!), so I'll refrain from any more comments on this subject. It's an interesting one though! Good night, everyone.
Quick question, and I'll visit again this evening:
If there exists a God, could God exist without the universe?
“If there exists a God, could God exist without the universe?”
If there exists an X, could X exist without the universe?
X= God, yes.
X= Flying Spaghetti Monster, yes.
X= Invisible Pink Unicorn, yes.
X= Another universe, yes.
X= Anything that is not precluded by definition, yes.
I have thought that before too Randy. It's a paradox, but one that seems similar to quantum reality. Are we created by God to observe God, so that God can exist?
In certain ways, perhaps quantum mechanics is sort of an "eternal, out of time" scenario as the rules of our reality don't seem to apply. We might ask what time even is, except an interplay on the quantum level that manifests itself in changing patterns on our "larger" level. Does anything really decay and disappear? or does it just change in some way? Is quantum mechanics supernatural in the it resists acting in a predictable manner?
I feel that in large part, this is being made much more difficult than it needs to be. I want to address universal causality first, because it has been a hot topic even though I don’t feel that it is necessarily relevant to this conversation whether the universe was caused or came to be (relevant to Christian ideas of creation, yes, but not to the attributes of “some God”).
If we give the label of “nothingness” to the pre-universe, we are talking about a literal nothing. No matter, no energy, no beings, and - most importantly - no potential. Something cannot come from nothing, because there is no potential for something within nothing. So, if we agree that the universe began, we must agree that there was some catalyst. In the very least, there was a potential… something from which the universe could emerge. To this catalyst, we can ascribe no physical attributes. The only thing that we really know about this catalyst is that it existed without the universe. Even if you want to call it some proto-universe or some universal zygote or a “dense form”, it cannot have had the same physical properties as the universe, making it a different thing that we do not have the capacity to describe. A few properties stem from this:
1. It existed outside of time (because we define time as a universal component).
2. It has no definable shape, color, size, or any other physical attribute (because all such measurements depend upon space and energy which are defined as universal things).
3. It has no definable quotient of power/might/will (because power is defined via universal physics).
4. It was not necessarily caused (because we simply don’t know the meaning of cause without the universe or without time).
So, IF, the catalyst was/is an intelligent God, we can necessarily ascribe the above qualities to God. As such, your spaghetti monsters, teacups, and unicorns necessarily must have the aforementioned attributes of God if they are indeed extra-universe beings and thus cease to be constrained as spaghetti monsters, teacups, and unicorns.
Conversely, if a being resides within the universe and has a definable corporeal shape/size/color (such as a spaghetti monster, teacup, unicorn, etc), such a being would not have the defined qualities associated with a universal catalyst. We would be foolish to assume that a being limited by physical law existed in a place where physical law did not necessarily exist.
Steven,
You asked, “…doesn’t this render “God” useless as a scientific concept?”
In essence, yes. The supernatural is and always will be “in the gaps”. Whether we speak of multiple universes, eternal catalysts, or God, we’re speaking of things that cannot be known via science. So, to your other question, “What is the source of the God hypothesis?”
We discussed at length already the odds against universal formation and the beginnings of life. In essence, I believe the reason theories such as Multiple Universe Theory exist is that scientists realize that there is a need to explain the odds of universe formation. Materialism just seems to be an unlikely reality. As we delve into the Bible, we’ll begin to discuss evidence for God.
Kyle,
In hopes of abating your frustration somewhat, I want to clarify what I mean when I say “time began”. It’s simply that we define time to be interrelated with space and energy and that all of these components are “of the universe” by definition. The idea that time began is one that results from physical laws and accepted theories (thermodynamics and relativity) and one that has been substantiated by observation, so we simply have no way of knowing whether there was some sort of “time” without the universe. That being said, we can’t necessarily assume that anything able to exist without the universe must be caused. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t.
We’ve developed a culture here where we tend to speak our minds and most have been arguing for weeks. Still, there has rarely been a break in civility. If you give your honest opinion, I can’t imagine that it will upset me terribly unless it is accompanied by vulgarity or rudeness. I don’t think that attacking one’s ideas is the same as attacking one’s person. If you think the idea of God is a crutch, toss it out there. Skyhook tells me daily that my interpretation is wrong. Since I am equally certain he is missing the boat, no harm done. You’ll get aggravated. Them’s the breaks. Break out your thesaurus for the occasional Skyhook comment and come on back.
Randy,
Why would Kyle need a thesaurus for the occasional Skyhook comment? I think that went over my head, but I wanted to get it.
“Unknowingness” is a better descriptor than “nothingness” for pre-universe. Nothingness describes what we can say about it with certainty, not ‘what is’ (or ‘is not’ in this case).
What is “dark” matter and “dark” energy’s role in the origin of the universe?
Is there anything unreasonable about induction coupled with a hypothesis that can accommodate any universal observation?
Randy said:
"So, IF, the catalyst was/is an intelligent God, we can necessarily ascribe the above qualities to God. As such, your spaghetti monsters, teacups, and unicorns necessarily must have the aforementioned attributes of God if they are indeed extra-universe beings and thus cease to be constrained as spaghetti monsters, teacups, and unicorns.
Conversely, if a being resides within the universe and has a definable corporeal shape/size/color (such as a spaghetti monster, teacup, unicorn, etc), such a being would not have the defined qualities associated with a universal catalyst. We would be foolish to assume that a being limited by physical law existed in a place where physical law did not necessarily exist."
What about Jesus? Does he not fit this characterization?
The great thing about a parody is that it can be malleable. For example, what if God so loved the world that he gave his only plate of spaghetti, so that everyone that believes in Him may have eternal life, and be touched by the FSM's noodly appendage. The trinity is actually the Father, the Spaghetti, and the Holy Spirit. Further, at some point, the FSM may be brutally eaten (probably by a Jew), and then will ascend to Heaven. Since it will be the physical plate of spaghetti ascending, rather than the spiritual spaghetti, he will presumably only be able to ascend out of this universe and into heaven at a speed that is less than the speed of light, which means that it will take him on average 78 billion years if we assume that the earth could be at the center, and the universe is 156 billion light years wide (and will be that size for 78 billion years). In the same regard, Jesus is now about (2000)/(78 billion) x 100, or 0.00000256 percent of the way out of the universe.
I guess we have all covered a lot of this stuff before, but I thought I would write something quick (ha!)
If the catalyst sparking the Big Bang was inside the universe, science will continue to explore it. If the source was outside the universe but still within a naturalistic framework involving some sort of time/space/matter, then a naturalistic description may include the multiverse, which is a theory implied by inflation. Inflation "solves" many problems between the Big Bang theory and the observation of the current state of the universe. So inflation deals with "inside the universe" issues. The multiverse is a byproduct of that, rather than a theory purely created to deal with the causes of the Big Bang.
If the source of our universe was from outside the universe and all semblance of natural law including time/matter/space/ anything - then it is fundamentally outside our realm of knowledge, and reasonable speculation is impossible.
I might also add - what is reality? Is it not something pertaining to time/matter/space? Perhaps atheists and theists can both agree that God is "not real" then. But theists might be open to things that are "not real" existing? I know this sounds funny, but I'm serious. I think that "not real" things might exist in some way - imagination, etc. - but obviously we are firmly outside of science at this point!
As Skyhook has pointed out, the "super-deism" described on this blog, where God is outside the universe, is not really of concern to religion. Religion is about how God manifests himself within physical reality. I know that Randy is laying the groundwork for the possibility of the supernatural, because that's the only way that events in the Bible can be explained literally.
However, I fear that (only from a logos perspective!) we will find ourselves in a big logical loop, like this:
The sources of the theistic God hypothesis are ancient Scriptures describing supernatural events. However, these sources are only reasonable as literal truth if we start with a supernatural, theistic God in our premise.
The source of the God hypothesis is ancient man's explanations for the universe. Things like rain. Skyhook is correct in that there is no difference in using "god" to explain rain or using god to explain cosmology. Randy is right that cosmology takes us up to the limits of our ability to understand, so perhaps it's different than rain (from our point of view). However, if we are at the limits of what we can possibly understand, then reasonable speculation becomes impossible.
Of course, a Daoist might question anyone who claims that they really understand rain.
Skyhook,
I just meant that you have a refined vocabulary. Certainly not meant to be insulting.
Skyhook said (in response to Randy's explanation of the nature of the catalyst)- “What about Jesus? Does he not fit this characterization?”
So you agree to all of Randy’s points about the nature of the eternal catalyst as long as Jesus isn’t involved?
No Kristin. Please read my comments.
Skyhook- I read all your comments. The most recent two did not address Randy's points. They avoided them and instead diverted attention toward a dysfunctional parody. Hence my question...
Kristin,
I hesitate to engage with you because I do not feel like you take my efforts to explain seriously. A few weeks ago I did my best to explain fitness, monogamy, and rape to you, only to be completely ignored. I try my best to be clear and directly address Randy’s posts and comments, and I think I do a pretty good job. Randy has not expressed any complaints in this department.
Addressing a parody that is named in the title of this week’s blogpost is hardly a diversion. And I call into question your desire to keep this conversation productive by calling it such. Through the blogposts and comments, Randy and I seem to understand each other’s position with respect to “before” or “outside” the universe, and they are not too terribly far from each other, but differences remain.
I have been clear that I do not agree to all of Randy’s points – anybody who has been reading the comments knows this. When I call what lies “outside” of our universe “unknowingness” (rather than “nothingness”) and indicate that we do not know what is or even if there is an “outside” of our universe, I think I have clearly shown that I do not agree with Randy’s speculations about conditions “outside” of the universe.
My point is that if God can be God and man and spirit (and whatever else), the Flying Spaghetti Monster can also be FSM, and pasta, and spirit, etc… If the FSM is ruled out by the natural nature of pasta, then I ask Randy what are the implications of this argument for Jesus and his flesh and blood. As if it has not been clear enough, I do not find believing in the divinity of FSM or Jesus as the most reasonable position. It is not just about Jesus being involved.
Sorry if this is a bit direct. I tend to read some pointedness in your comments to me. Maybe I am misinterpreting. But I was honestly disappointed to not hear back from you after you asked those questions a few weeks ago.
I’ve been laughing a bit at how much our arguments stem from agreements.
From Week 3:
“Since we do not have data to describe the universe prior to its “embryonic” stage, I find it unreasonable to call it a definite beginning. However, I think we can find common ground in that the big bang event marks a definite change of state.”
I feel like we’ve been arguing with semantics here. A “definite change of state” with regards to the universe is exactly what I mean by a “universal beginning”. If it existed in some realm where time, space, energy, etc were completely physically different than they are today, referring to such a state as “eternity” is tantamount to referring to it as “the unknown”, the “great beyond” or whatever else we decide to call it. It is that which existed ontologically before the universe. It may be a great void of potential, but with a non-eternal universe, it is most certainly something.
A “definite change of state” from what? Nothingness? Unknowingness? I was really discrete with my description of the catalyst. What’s to argue? There was a “definite change of state” 15 billion years ago. Since the universe exists, there was potential for universal existence in the “great beyond”. I go on to say that we can know nothing about this existence except that we can’t incorporate physical constraints when discussing this existence. I feel like we’re talking about the same thing here: an indescribable great beyond that cannot be constrained by universal, physical conditions.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that I’m giving an operating definition of “God”, not a mathematical proof for God. If God exists, we can’t constrain Him with physical attributes because physical constraints make Him a non-God. The only criterion for this definition is that God cannot be of the universe. Since we accept that our non-dense, non-eternal universe hasn’t been around forever (as is), this definition shouldn’t really be met with a ton of resistance.
I won’t argue with you on the spaghetti trinity, because if you truly believe that is possible, you’ll be blown away when I tell you that Jesus was a real historical figure and is perhaps even more plausible than the FSM. There will be entire posts dedicated to the nature of Jesus, but for now I am speaking to the inability to CONSTRAIN God. At this point in the blog, Jesus has still not really entered the picture.
Steven,
You’ve broken down my explanations and labeled them justifications for a pre-existing belief. As I’ve explained before, this is not the case. Also, I am not a Bible literalist. Too much of the Bible contains obvious metaphor to be taken literally. I’ll discuss this further before we work our way into the Bible.
Also, you keep speaking to logical loops then you evoke the greatest logical loop thus far: the cause for the universe was the universe. You’ve set up your argument in such a way that any explanation for the universe is a “logical loop”. How is that logical?
Randy: "I feel like we’re talking about the same thing here: an indescribable great beyond that cannot be constrained by universal, physical conditions. "
Sounds great! I think this sounds like a good description of something fairly indescribable at this point.
Randy : "You’ve set up your argument in such a way that any explanation for the universe is a “logical loop”. How is that logical?"
Any speculations about existence outside of time/space/matter are not logical, because we're speculating about things outside the purview of time/space/matter which are required for logic.
Can we reasonably speculate about things which don't exist in our universe ? That said, I love the idea that all existence had to spring from a cause that doesn't exist. Seriously. But it's more imagination/philosophy/religion than science.
Randy: "Also, you keep speaking to logical loops then you evoke the greatest logical loop thus far: the cause for the universe was the universe."
I feel that we all agree that any cause for the universe existing "outside" of the universe (time/space/matter - whether one or all) is beyond reasonable speculation. With that understanding, possibilities I bring up are pure speculation. My loop does not invoke logic on one end, therefore it is not a logical loop. It's more of a logical rhombus, the square root of z, or a Hogwarts staircase - as this happens when venturing outside of time/matter/space.
Aren't your assertions trying to claim "God" as outside the universe and yet trying to hold him accountable to logical proof invented inside this universe?
(BTW, all this is leaving aside any "naturalistic" explanation of the beginning such as the multiverse implied by inflation, pocket universes, etc.)
Once again, the idea that the beginning of this universe is an actual beginning with no cause, like a boundary in time (or space), or that time exists like a loop, or anything like that, are not anything more than pure speculation. But they are just as valid as the assertion that a being existing outside the universe created this universe from nothing. Creatio ex nihilo. Something from nothing. It’s also just as possible that an extra-terrestrial wrote a holographic computer program based on its own universe. The stipulations about eternity outside of time are arbitrary as we know nothing of anything outside of time. And outside of time is a notion soooo beyond logic, existence or reality as we know it, that it's impossible to comprehend.
If the chain of causation exists within this universe, then why does the universe as a whole need an outward cause? Isn't it a paradox that God, who exists apart from causation, acts as a cause? The difference in my logical loops is that I don't claim them to be wholly logical. How can they be when conceptualizing about ideas like “before time” or “outside of time”?
Whatever happens outside of space/time/matter is surely beyond even our wildest leaps at logical speculation. As a Fermilab phsyicist said on TV the other day, “Whatever happens in the event horizon, stays in the event horizon.”
Randy, I don't think you're wrong in a specific way. I just think it's impossible for anyone to be right when thinking of these things. My only criticism of your thinking is that you claim to be right - or at least more right. I actually really like your ideas and consider them quite seriously. I consider you a partner in pursuing a deeper understanding on these issues!
I've been sitting here trying to think of a closing joke for several minutes now...........I guess the joke's on me.
How about a Mitch Hedberg quote?
"My friend asked me if I wanted a frozen banana. I said no........but....I do want a regular banana later, so.......yeah."
Skyhook-
I’m sorry you do not feel that I take your explanations seriously. The truth is that sometimes I just disagree with so many points in one of your very long posts that it would take hours to respond. Sometimes I have the time to do this and sometimes I do not and/or Randy posts a new topic so I just let it go.
As for the parody, the new version you created was not the one addressed in the original post and did not function well (there is no evidence for FSM, there is a lot of evidence for Jesus…) which is why I called it a diversion. I believe Randy mentioned something about this as well.
“I have been clear that I do not agree to all of Randy’s points – anybody who has been reading the comments knows this.”
Of course we do. But I guess I was under the impression that in order for a conversation to be productive, one must at least have the possibility of being swayed by one point or another so it did not occur to me that I should regard your comments from week 1 as an answer to a question I have in week 9. If that is the case, why engage in the conversation at all?
“My point is that if God can be God and man and spirit (and whatever else), the Flying Spaghetti Monster can also be FSM, and pasta, and spirit, etc… If the FSM is ruled out by the natural nature of pasta, then I ask Randy what are the implications of this argument for Jesus and his flesh and blood.”
Yes, I know. But my point was that this question is irrelevant unless you agree with Randy’s points about the nature of that which is beyond the universe. If you disagree with Randy’s view on God or whatever else caused the universe, Jesus really can’t make or break Randy’s case.
No need to apologize for being direct. I certainly don’t take any of this personally. We obviously disagree on quite a bit. I just try to clarify once in awhile that your view (which you have certainly made clear) has not been affected by any of Randy’s points. But because you have now insinuated that your view will not change, I will stop bugging you with those types of questions.
Kristin,
The very foundation of my position is that it is subject to revision. I can be swayed by evidence or explanations requiring fewer assumptions, but I resist being swayed by intuitive speculation.
Post a Comment