[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Pat, why does it follow from, “we don’t really know or can’t really explain why there’s something versus nothing,” to “there must be a god,” or, more specifically, “there must be a christian god.” We still have the same questions: Where did god come from? Who made god? Was god always here, or did he or she materialize out of nothing? What is the nature of god?
[/quote]
The commentary I was engage with smh is actually expounded from the philosophical argument called the ‘Cosmological argument from contingency’. There is a shit load of material on it so google away. I will provide a link that provides a basic understanding of the argument as a whole, but you have to spend time with it to understand it in detail and that alone will answer all your questions. You are free to look at the counter arguments on athiest websites, but I can tell you right here and now, they are all wrong. The reason they are all wrong is they deal with aspects of existence rather than existence itself. It’s a classic strawman with one exception, they are arguing against things the argument itself doesn’t make, so they are literally countering phantoms. Do take my word for it…
Now for your questions:
-
“we don’t really know or can’t really explain why there’s something versus nothing,” to “there must be a god,” ← That’s not whats being argued first. Second, there is a difference between not being able to explain or understand something and for that thing to be logically impossible. ‘Something from nothing’ is logically impossible. Nothing literally does not exist, so nothing is incapable of anything.
-
“there must be a christian god.” ← First of all, there is no such thing as a Christian God. A Christian understanding of God, yes, but not a Christian God. Second, before you can ever delve into the nature of God, or man’s understanding or misunderstanding of the nature of God, you have to establish existence. Nothing is more pointless than to have a discussion about something that does not exist. If God does not exist, religion and all that goes along with it is completely useless, meaningless and an utter waste of time.
-“Who made god?” ← By definition God can’t be made. Hence, ‘Uncaused-cause’ or
‘Necessary Being’. If something could make God, then then what made God would be God and not God. God cannot be ‘made’ because then he would be “caused” and therefore not an ‘Uncaused-cause’.
-“Was god always here, or did he or she materialize out of nothing?” - “Always here” implies time. Time is a function of physical existence and does not exist metaphysically. Metaphysics is critical to understand because it’s in control. Even if you don’t believe in God, metaphysics are in control. For instance, can an atom break the laws that bind it? Those laws aren’t physical, cannot be physically constricting in anyway, yet the atom is subject to it. Same with all physical objects, they are bound by the laws that control them. Energy cannot ‘break’ the laws of thermodynamics, but the law isn’t physical even if the energy is.
This long winded approach was to make a simple point metaphysics> physics. ← And when you understand that, a lot of the supposedly magical, or mystical quality of it all goes away.
Time is a function of all that as well. All time is, is a measurement of the movement of an object relative to another or space. So God always existing isn’t really that big a deal. Anything metaphysical, like for instance the ‘laws of physics’ are all eternal. There is no time in metaphysics. And technically speaking, before there was physical existence, there was no time anyway. So God being eternal is not really that astounding a concept.
-“What is the nature of god?” ← Well that alone is a HUGE topic. I can say with confidence, no one has it totally right if at all.
[quote]
Its seems, to me anyway, that what you are saying is that all we can say is that we are too limited in our perception or experience to understand why there is something rather than nothing. But, at least to me, that doesn’t provide any support for the concept of god, or, more specifically, a christian god, unless you are just using the term “god” generically to describe a condition of being that we currently can’t explain or currently don’t fully understand. Do you contend that your reasoning supports the conclusion that there is an all-powerful, moral agent that created everything, ala the christian conception of god? If so, I’d respectfully like to hear why you think so. [/quote]
All the rest I already answered, but I will answer this:
-Do you contend that your reasoning supports the conclusion that there is an all-powerful, moral agent that created everything, ala the christian conception of god? ← It’s not “my reasoning”, I wish I were that smart, but I simply studied what was out there. I did not invent it.
However, like I said to even begin the discussion of God’s nature or our ability or inability to understand it you have to establish existence first. Then, once you have done that, you can start discussing His nature. Now, you’re jumping way ahead to religion, you first have to deal with the argument and logic and what it says. You can derive certain aspects of God’s nature simply through the logic alone. Then, you can overlay religions and see if they are contrary to what must be the case or are they in line, then you can move forward in that direction.
Logic and reason will not have all the answers, it’s not designed to. It shows us a limited, but absolutely critical pieces to establishing God’s existence and something about the nature…
