Kid: Mommy who created the world?
Mom: God created it honey.
Kid: Who created God?
Mom: No one did
The simple dialog that happens between many children and their parents all over the world holds a question that some people discuss everyday and other people never think of since the time they had the dialog with their mothers. The Question is "who created the world?"
Now to examine this question we have to outline 2 contradicting assumptions, each on its own and see where this takes us.
1) The world has no start or end (something precedes the big bang)
2) The world has a start (the big bang is the start)
!!world here refers to material existence of any form!!
====================================================
The principle of causality is our focal tool by which we will build all our conclusions under both assumptions, each at a time ofcourse. In its simplest form, the principle of causality would state that everything causes something and is an effect of another thing.
Any object in the world, is an effect of another object and a cause to another object too. This makes every cause also an effect and this chain is a natural unbreakable law. For example, If A causes B, and B causes C, and C causes D.
This would make it seem like A==>B==>C==>D
Thus following the principle of causality, "B" is an effect of "A' and causes "C". similarly, "C" is an effect of "B" and causes "D". "A" would necessarily be an effect of something and "D" would necessarily cause something, but the example is focused on "B" and "C" just to show the chain.
Keep this in mind while you are reading.
====================================================
(1)
I'll begin by trusting the 1st assumption which states that:
The world has no start or end.
I will take this as a fact and i will draw out the possible conclusions that may jump to your head by the simple abstract practicing of the principle of causality.
Every object is an effect and cause as i showed earlier under the principle of causality. If we try to look back in time following this principle we would arrive at two possibilities:
a) We fall in an infinite regress of causes and effects.
b) There is one cause that is NOT an effect of anything. (God)
The conclusion #a is absurd, according to Aristotle, because this would mean that the world exists without starting to exist and thus a cause yet not an effect and this, according to the causal principle, is impossible.
The conclusion #b is equally absurd, according to midgets worldwide, because it by definition breaks the causal principle by which we arrived at the suggested conclusion. There absolutely cannot be something that is a cause without being an effect, This is the principle and breaking it is impossible.
In a word the question: "where did the world come from?" would destroy conclusion #a as the world wouldn't exist if it never started.
on the other hand the question "where did god come from?" would destroy conclusion #b as God wouldn't exist if he never started.
If you were an atheist and willing to accept the breaking of the causal principle(even though practice shows its impossible) and thus take a leap of faith to believe that the world can exist without being an effect why wouldnt you take a leap of faith to believe God can exist without being an effect? Vice versa to theists. Can you really claim to KNOW and deny that you are taking a leap of Faith? Is any of you theists and atheists more objective than the other? Assuming the world had neither beginning nor end is equally absurd as assuming God has neither beginning nor end. so NO you are alike except for having contradicting faiths.
====================================================
(2)
Now I'll deny the first assumption and I'll assume the world did have a start.
This would seem at first sight to escape the conflict but would soon be the exact same problem as we always tend to look for a starting point. Under the other assumption we begun by claiming there was no start to the world and ended up looking for the start. The notion that if something exists then it came from somewhere and thus had a start always draws us back to the problem. (For ex: Can a Ref whistle half time without the match ever starting?) and then we think about that starting point and ask the same question where did the starting point start? who created the starting point?
This made theists eventually surrender to the idea that God is the starting point while atheists surrendered to the idea that the big bang is the starting point.
Now following the causal principle, both conclusions again would be equally absurd:
a) The big bang is a cause that is not an effect.
b) God is a cause that is not an effect.
some people may even mention that maybe god is the big bang lol.
Following the causal principles, God cannot NOT be an effect (i.e. if he exists then he is an effect). The Big bang too cannot NOT be an effect (i.e if it existed then it was an effect).
again both conclusions break our natural law and so we cant escape the fact that OUR NATURAL LAW MUST BE BROKEN FOR US TO BEGIN TO EXIST
,regardless of what you assume.
====================================================
Usually, Atheists suggest no solution to this problem while theists suggest one.
This was clear between Martin and Juve Revolution. Juve Rev said God can break the NATURAL LAW of causality because God is SUPER-NATURAL. Why would he make such a claim? how would he claim to know that God is super natural. I think its fairly obvious now with relation to the problem i discussed above.
We tried to search for the starting point of existence and we stopped first at the big bang which is a natural even. If you recall, our conclusion was that under assumption (1) scientists would have to accept the breaking of the Natural causal law to justify the world's existence. But if this where the case it would not be a Natural Law after-all because this would represent a clear breach of it.
Under assumption (2) too scientists would have to accept too the breaking of the natural law of causality. And If you recall, that was why i said there is no escape from breaking this Natural Law for both theists and atheists. But people wouldn't accept regarding the causal law as NOT a Law or a Breakable unreliable law and SO people like Juve Rev suggest that the only way to escape the breaking of this natural law was to claim that the start was a supernatural entity and thus the causal law is sustained and no breach had occurred. The Big bang however, is a natural event and this would make it a MUST that it abides by the law of causality unlike God that is supernatural.
In a word theists, "we exhausted every natural way we could think of, to explain how we exist without breaking the causal law, but we failed and so we created an empty concept that we know nothing of and called it supernatural so that it solves the problem while maintaining our laws."
===================================================
Here is the great difference i highlighted between natural and supernatural. If the distinction is vague then the entire foundation of the theistic faith would collapse. Because If God too had to abide by the natural laws then he would be nothing more than the big bang. However, there is a metaphysical need for existence of such deity to escape the destruction of the causal principle that we rely on everyday. This doesnt prove he exists, it is one of many cases where our minds where unable to find an explanation and the easiest answer was to blame it on something we call divine to serve our understanding purposes. So don't worry the leap of faith is still needed lol.
What do they mean by super-natural?
Something outside this universe is rather a lame way of putting it but it generally means something that does not exist under our concept and our understanding of the universe. Meaning, anything we can even image is natural.. unicorns, devils and any other image we create in our minds of these are natural.
Parmenides said that you cannot think What is NOT, you can only think what IS.
So God is unthinkable, god is what is NOT. anything that is NOT would be supernatural. Anything that IS is natural. What IS applies to our thoughts, our dreams, our imaginations and even a mere idea, it exists in anyform and we can experience its existence in one way or another and IS in our minds. What IS is what is intelligible. What is not is unintelligible.
So based on this, God is unintelligible by the human mind. We cannot even come close to him in any way nor can we describe him let alone think of him.
The highest knowledge we can attain of a deity like that would be the felt need that i emphasized before which demands an explanation to the problem with the causal law and this makes us believe in his existence.
There is no Direct proof of God's existence there are only metaphysical holes that are filled once we add him to the equation and are void without him. This metaphysical hole-filler, we can absolutely have no knowledge of him beyond this usage (using him as a supernatural) because he is What is NOT. He represents the breaches we need to explain things without destroying our natural physical laws. He is super-natural, unknowable, if he exists at all. That is why you cannot prove he doesn't exist, because in our terms he is nothing. he is unthinkable and thats why you cant directly prove he exists too.
Mom: God created it honey.
Kid: Who created God?
Mom: No one did
The simple dialog that happens between many children and their parents all over the world holds a question that some people discuss everyday and other people never think of since the time they had the dialog with their mothers. The Question is "who created the world?"
Now to examine this question we have to outline 2 contradicting assumptions, each on its own and see where this takes us.
1) The world has no start or end (something precedes the big bang)
2) The world has a start (the big bang is the start)
!!world here refers to material existence of any form!!
====================================================
The principle of causality is our focal tool by which we will build all our conclusions under both assumptions, each at a time ofcourse. In its simplest form, the principle of causality would state that everything causes something and is an effect of another thing.
Any object in the world, is an effect of another object and a cause to another object too. This makes every cause also an effect and this chain is a natural unbreakable law. For example, If A causes B, and B causes C, and C causes D.
This would make it seem like A==>B==>C==>D
Thus following the principle of causality, "B" is an effect of "A' and causes "C". similarly, "C" is an effect of "B" and causes "D". "A" would necessarily be an effect of something and "D" would necessarily cause something, but the example is focused on "B" and "C" just to show the chain.
Keep this in mind while you are reading.
====================================================
(1)
I'll begin by trusting the 1st assumption which states that:
The world has no start or end.
I will take this as a fact and i will draw out the possible conclusions that may jump to your head by the simple abstract practicing of the principle of causality.
Every object is an effect and cause as i showed earlier under the principle of causality. If we try to look back in time following this principle we would arrive at two possibilities:
a) We fall in an infinite regress of causes and effects.
b) There is one cause that is NOT an effect of anything. (God)
The conclusion #a is absurd, according to Aristotle, because this would mean that the world exists without starting to exist and thus a cause yet not an effect and this, according to the causal principle, is impossible.
The conclusion #b is equally absurd, according to midgets worldwide, because it by definition breaks the causal principle by which we arrived at the suggested conclusion. There absolutely cannot be something that is a cause without being an effect, This is the principle and breaking it is impossible.
In a word the question: "where did the world come from?" would destroy conclusion #a as the world wouldn't exist if it never started.
on the other hand the question "where did god come from?" would destroy conclusion #b as God wouldn't exist if he never started.
If you were an atheist and willing to accept the breaking of the causal principle(even though practice shows its impossible) and thus take a leap of faith to believe that the world can exist without being an effect why wouldnt you take a leap of faith to believe God can exist without being an effect? Vice versa to theists. Can you really claim to KNOW and deny that you are taking a leap of Faith? Is any of you theists and atheists more objective than the other? Assuming the world had neither beginning nor end is equally absurd as assuming God has neither beginning nor end. so NO you are alike except for having contradicting faiths.
====================================================
(2)
Now I'll deny the first assumption and I'll assume the world did have a start.
This would seem at first sight to escape the conflict but would soon be the exact same problem as we always tend to look for a starting point. Under the other assumption we begun by claiming there was no start to the world and ended up looking for the start. The notion that if something exists then it came from somewhere and thus had a start always draws us back to the problem. (For ex: Can a Ref whistle half time without the match ever starting?) and then we think about that starting point and ask the same question where did the starting point start? who created the starting point?
This made theists eventually surrender to the idea that God is the starting point while atheists surrendered to the idea that the big bang is the starting point.
Now following the causal principle, both conclusions again would be equally absurd:
a) The big bang is a cause that is not an effect.
b) God is a cause that is not an effect.
some people may even mention that maybe god is the big bang lol.
Following the causal principles, God cannot NOT be an effect (i.e. if he exists then he is an effect). The Big bang too cannot NOT be an effect (i.e if it existed then it was an effect).
again both conclusions break our natural law and so we cant escape the fact that OUR NATURAL LAW MUST BE BROKEN FOR US TO BEGIN TO EXIST
,regardless of what you assume.
====================================================
Usually, Atheists suggest no solution to this problem while theists suggest one.
This was clear between Martin and Juve Revolution. Juve Rev said God can break the NATURAL LAW of causality because God is SUPER-NATURAL. Why would he make such a claim? how would he claim to know that God is super natural. I think its fairly obvious now with relation to the problem i discussed above.
We tried to search for the starting point of existence and we stopped first at the big bang which is a natural even. If you recall, our conclusion was that under assumption (1) scientists would have to accept the breaking of the Natural causal law to justify the world's existence. But if this where the case it would not be a Natural Law after-all because this would represent a clear breach of it.
Under assumption (2) too scientists would have to accept too the breaking of the natural law of causality. And If you recall, that was why i said there is no escape from breaking this Natural Law for both theists and atheists. But people wouldn't accept regarding the causal law as NOT a Law or a Breakable unreliable law and SO people like Juve Rev suggest that the only way to escape the breaking of this natural law was to claim that the start was a supernatural entity and thus the causal law is sustained and no breach had occurred. The Big bang however, is a natural event and this would make it a MUST that it abides by the law of causality unlike God that is supernatural.
In a word theists, "we exhausted every natural way we could think of, to explain how we exist without breaking the causal law, but we failed and so we created an empty concept that we know nothing of and called it supernatural so that it solves the problem while maintaining our laws."
===================================================
Here is the great difference i highlighted between natural and supernatural. If the distinction is vague then the entire foundation of the theistic faith would collapse. Because If God too had to abide by the natural laws then he would be nothing more than the big bang. However, there is a metaphysical need for existence of such deity to escape the destruction of the causal principle that we rely on everyday. This doesnt prove he exists, it is one of many cases where our minds where unable to find an explanation and the easiest answer was to blame it on something we call divine to serve our understanding purposes. So don't worry the leap of faith is still needed lol.
What do they mean by super-natural?
Something outside this universe is rather a lame way of putting it but it generally means something that does not exist under our concept and our understanding of the universe. Meaning, anything we can even image is natural.. unicorns, devils and any other image we create in our minds of these are natural.
Parmenides said that you cannot think What is NOT, you can only think what IS.
So God is unthinkable, god is what is NOT. anything that is NOT would be supernatural. Anything that IS is natural. What IS applies to our thoughts, our dreams, our imaginations and even a mere idea, it exists in anyform and we can experience its existence in one way or another and IS in our minds. What IS is what is intelligible. What is not is unintelligible.
So based on this, God is unintelligible by the human mind. We cannot even come close to him in any way nor can we describe him let alone think of him.
The highest knowledge we can attain of a deity like that would be the felt need that i emphasized before which demands an explanation to the problem with the causal law and this makes us believe in his existence.
There is no Direct proof of God's existence there are only metaphysical holes that are filled once we add him to the equation and are void without him. This metaphysical hole-filler, we can absolutely have no knowledge of him beyond this usage (using him as a supernatural) because he is What is NOT. He represents the breaches we need to explain things without destroying our natural physical laws. He is super-natural, unknowable, if he exists at all. That is why you cannot prove he doesn't exist, because in our terms he is nothing. he is unthinkable and thats why you cant directly prove he exists too.
Buy on AliExpress.com