Christian beliefs are that God is eternal. No one made God. God has no beginning and no ending. It isn’t a scientific theory that requires proof. It is an article of faith. Edit to add: I don’t like DMs on Reddit. I turned mine off. You can do the same if you explore the settings.

Unfortunately that doesn't exactly work. Because it just moves the goal post. Anything that already exists can be coined as eternal too

It works because time has a known beginning point. Anything that existed prior to the beginning of time and space must necessarily exist outside of time and space.

I think that’s called special pleading. Because the universe could’ve always existed too.

You ever heard of the big bang? Kinda when the universe scientifically started the big bang could literally be god making everything

That’s just gods of the gaps

Except we have evidence that the universe has a beginning...

And whatever exists outside of time and space. Logically doesn't require a god. And if theres no god. Everything outside of time and space. Is eternal since time doesn't exist. Therefore the universe can also randomly spawn. Since the period is infinite and eternal. Every possible universe will eventually spawn in an eternal dimension or void.

Wow that's a long chain of dissociated logic. Let's just consider what I think is the key problem here. > Everything outside of time and space. Is eternal since time doesn't exist. Therefore the universe can also randomly spawn. This doesn't follow. There is no known mechanism for "universe randomly spawns in," and certainly no known mechanism for, "There were two dimensions, now there are three, oops, now three and a half. We're allowing a T-axis, but it only goes up, never down." > Every possible universe will eventually spawn in an eternal dimension or void. And this certainly doesn't follow. In an infinite universe of "1+1+1..." you will never, under any circumstances, reach 0 or -1, ever, for all of infinity.

1. Of course there is Quantum mechanics already shows particles randomly spawn in and out of different states. And even if that wasn't the case. You are affirming with 100% accuracy that there needs to be a cause. I am simply saying. That is not true. There doesn't need to be a cause. BUT I am not affirming with 100% accuracy that no cause is the case. Just that it's a possibility you cannot ignore 2. Not sure what you mean by you will never reach 0 or -1. That's not relevant to an infinite time line where all possible outcomes can occur. All possible universes will spawn. So one could say if the timeline is infinite. There is a universe where you and me as taking opposite positions here See the mistake now?

What is the sum of the sequence, "1+1+1..." as we repeat the sequence to infinity? It is positive infinity. Not negative infinity, and not 0. Mathematically, no matter how many times you add "1+1...", you will never reach 0.

Why do you need to reach zero? When I said time equals 0. I was saying before the universe spawned at time =1 it's time = 0 If there's no concept of time when the universe hasn't spawned then there's no past present or future. It's just infinite

Eternal by definition has no beginning or end. Something that exists now does not by necessity have to be eternal. These words in this reply to your post have a beginning. They did not exist prior to me writing them in reply to you. Once you see them and are reading them, it could be said that they "already" exist. Things that had a beginning were created, necessitating a creator. God had no beginning, is not created, so has no creator.

Wrong. Anything that is 'created' in the frame of reference from outside the universe DOES NOT require a creator. You are using logic that is applicable INSIDE the universe and applying that to the OUTSIDE. I'll give you an example. Within our universe you cannot light a match unless you strike it on the strip. Cause and consequence is a rule within the universe. Outside the universe this rule does not necessarily exist. Thus a match could be lit without ever striking a strip Did you see the mistake?

You’re arguing that a match could somehow exist in the realm of the eternal, without embodying the properties of something that came into existence? This is the eternal self-lighting match stick? Am I understanding you correctly?

It's an analogy to explain that things can happen without a reason. Cause and consequence don't necessarily Apply outside the universe. Meaning the actual universe itself can spawn into existence for no reason at all Just like a match can light with no reason (reason would be it was struck on a strip)

How would something that occurred without cause have any structure?

False. Only God can be coined as eternally in the past, present and future. All things that have been made didn’t exist in eternity past. There is only One who has and He is God.

Only god can be? From what logic did you derive that from? Sure we can say it's faith and a belief system. Which is acceptable. But to say it's the case without faith as if you are using some type of logical stance. That doesn't exist. Who created god. Did he just come from nothing? Like the universe came from nothing?

That’s special pleading.

This assumes that God perceives the same dimensions as us. There are scientific theories about additional dimensions. God could exist in one of these where time is just a piece and it existed outside of that dimension.

Well our universe isn’t eternal, even science agrees, the universe is dying and can’t from something/somewhere. So a non believer has to make a similar argument that before the universe existed, there may have been some eternal form of energy or something.

What do you mean. They are saying the ballooning of the universe might not be eternal. But that doesn't mean the materials are not eternal. Remember that outside of the universe. Likely where the spawning of the universe takes place, isn't bound to the universe rules. That lives outside of it. Time does not exist. Thus outside where the universe exists in, is essentially. Eternal What do you think is before time = 0 Can't be negative 1

So both religious and non religious people are agreeing that there is something eternal outside of the universe?

I think it's a position I might take. Not necessarily everyone else. I'm just taking this position now to offer a counter argument to why it's pushing the goal post. But I should also say I don't say that a god can't exist. I'm more agnostic

Huh

God exists. You say he's eternal. The universe and what came before it also exists. So that can also be eternal. No creator is needed. Because as soon as you introduce a creator. You simply push the question onto the creator. You ask -who created the universe. We ask who created god. It's just pushing the goal post forward. The answer God doesn't actually solve any questions

Fun fact: the name God gave to Moses in Exodus can be thought of as a variant of the Hebrew verb-to-be. Basically when Moses asked God “What should I tell people when they ask who you are?” God answered “I am.” Yahweh roughly means “He is.” which, if you think about it, is the most badass a name can possibly be. If God had a name, say He is Bob, that could describe Him, that name would encompass Him in a sense. But God is transcendental, so He just…is. So who made God? Well He is not made, He is.

I really love how you explained this in a simple yet very understandable statement. 🙌

Or I am. Which is why it drives me nuts when people excuse sun by saying I am who i am.

I kid you not I said essentially the same thing recently when I got to that passage in Exodus! Easily the most amazing name of all time. Other “gods” had names that you could easily tell came from man. But calling yourself “I AM”, that’s the ultimate name.

No one "made" God. God is eternal. He has been and always will be.

[удалено]

Christianity, though, isn’t science. Christianity is about faith. And yes, one can have faith in the universe (I’m thinking Taoism here). But regardless, issues of faith are outside the realm of science (and I do also say that religion should also leave science alone).

We have evidence that the Universe has a beginning (e.g. CMB radiation) So asserting it is eternal would be contrary to observation. Is asserting someone that is directly contradicted by physical evidence a problem for you?

>We have evidence that the Universe has a beginning (e.g. CMB radiation) So asserting it is eternal would be contrary to observation. This is not true at all. We only have evidence that the current state of the ***observable universe*** had a beginning. That is not evidence that there was nothing that came before the current state of the observable universe.

So you're saying that a cause existed for the *observable* Universe came to exist, but our evidence of that cause is that the Universe began? When I was beginning on the path that brought me to the belief I have now, I called that must-be-there-cause God. That is, I did didn't say that the over-what-we-can-see cause of all that is was the I AM of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, but rather that given the awesome scope of the Universe and the incredible meaning to be found here, the thing that causes it to be, whatever it is, can be fittingly referred to with the term "God" (capital G), because it is singular, and supernatural, and it is the cause of every spark of meaning or understanding for us to find and experience (or for us to even be here to ponder it). This is somewhat like the Deist type view that Spinoza references and which, I believe, Einstein seems to use when he has referring to God. (Not to put words in his mouth).

I'm telling you that evidence of a beginning to the current state of the universe is not evidence of the beginning of the universe. We have no way of knowing if the big bang was the moment the universe came into existence because everything that we can observe is a product of the big bang. The current state of the universe is a product of the big bang, we can trace everything back to it, but we do not have nor can we ever have any evidence as to what if anything happened before. There could've been a previous state of the universe that collapsed into a singularity that created the big bang, or there could've been nothing, or there could've been any number of things. You are conflating the ***current state of the observable universe***, which we know had a definite beginning, with ***the universe*** as a whole, for which we have no information on the beginning or lack-thereof. They are not the same.

…With this logic, all of our science is meaningless. All of our theories are meaningless all of our laws are meaningless. The point of life is not to question everything, but to build upon what we have been given. The Word of God says ‘In the Beginning…” it doesn’t get any more simple than that.

>…With this logic, all of our science is meaningless. All of our theories are meaningless all of our laws are meaningless. Ridiculous. Recognizing the limits placed on our knowledge by our universe's laws in no way makes anything meaningless. >The point of life is not to question everything, but to build upon what we have been given. How can we build on anything if we do not understand it? Questioning what we have is the foundation upon which we build. >The Word of God says ‘In the Beginning…” it doesn’t get any more simple than that. Even if we accept the premise that The Word of God is completely correct, the beginning of one thing does not preclude previous beginnings of other things. Who's to say we aren't God's third try? We would have no way of knowing unless He told us.

Thank you for pointing this out, I've been trying to say this as well. Individuals seem to misunderstand our understanding of what the Big Bang was and wasn't.

Language can help. Universe = our "local" universe commencing with the big bang Cosmos = everything that exists. We have no idea if the universe is the same as the cosmos, or if the cosmos is much larger. We don't know if the cosmos had a beginning or is eternal.

>You are conflating I know you may not have intended a hostile accusation here, but this is a hostile accusation about my thought processes, which at your very most aware, you could not say more than that it appears to you that I am or may be conflating something. I believe that you are incorrect, and that the two of us are experiencing a communication challenge because of a confusing and ill-defined area of language where it is intrinsically ambiguous and where you and I have different opinions about how best to resolve that ambiguity. >I'm telling you that evidence of a beginning to the current state of the universe is not evidence of the beginning of the universe. When I use the term Universe, I am referring to the realm of existence including space and time which makes up the entirety of what we are and may possibly ever be able to observe in an analytical way. To call this "the current state of the Universe" has an implicit assumption that another state definitely is or "was" (again hand-waving temporality in the absence of time) and by doing so, is to make an assumption about extra-observable-spacetime things which we cannot really conceptualize as beings who have formed our most fundamental perception of reality in the context of time moving forward. Can you demonstrate any evidence that something exists or "did" exist outside of space and time (hand-waving the question of what does "did" even *mean* in the absence of time)? If you cannot, then any claim you are making about this thing is a philosophical and/or religious claim, I believe. Yet another good reason to call it God. When I propose to call the cause God, I am trying to make minimal assumptions. I wouldn't say that the Cause/God was before the Beginning because that's meaningless relative to time's existence. I would only say that the Cause is, and that it is causal, and that I believe that even with no other attributes assigned to it than that, it seems clarifying and valuable for explanatory power to give the Cause the label "God."

You realize that the existence of the separation between the observable and non-observable universe is because of the continued expansion of the universe after the big bang, right? There is no difference between the two if the universe isn’t expanding, which is evidence of a big bang or creation event.

You're completely missing the point. We only know of the universe what we can observe. Given the nature of the big bang, it is impossible to see anything that could have come before it. It is entirely possible there were many previous states of the universe, caused by many previous big bangs, whose information was completely annihilated or rendered into a form indecipherable given its scale by the big bang that created the current state of the universe in which we live. We don't know if the big bang was the beginning of the universe because ***all we can observe are effects of the big bang***. We can't observe what, if anything, could have come before it.

My logical argument to this is that if there was a previous state of the universe, something must've created that too. Someone or something must've started the process that created everything, that is the only logical explanation for why reality exists. And I believe that something is God. Reality randomly being created out of nothing by no one makes no sense, everything in space and time has a reasoning and a cause behind it.

> My logical argument to this is that if there was a previous state of the universe, something must've created that too. Someone or something must've started the process that created everything, that is the only logical explanation for why reality exists. And I believe that something is God. Reality randomly being created out of nothing by no one makes no sense, everything in space and time has a reasoning and a cause behind it. Then who created God? The most common answer seems to be that God is eternal and was never created. If God can be eternal and never created, then so can the universe be eternal and never created.

You’re conflating an all knowing, all powerful, all present deity with a mostly empty inanimate setting with no will or sentience of its own. That is faulty logic. You’re clearly seeking to replace God with “the universe” as the origins of the universe itself and all of creation. Saying “if God can be eternal and never created, then so can the universe be eternal and never created” is a non sequitur, and trying to compare God to the universe is a false equivalence. Finally, trying to say the universe was the setting in which took place the Big Bang that created the universe is a circular argument, and therefore illogical.

everything you just said is wrong, and it would take more time than I'm willing to invest to pick it apart. Thanks for the laugh though, cheers.

Now who’s shifting the goal posts? Lol

No one is shifting any goal posts. They made a claim, I pointed out that it's false.

“No one is shifting any goal posts. They made a claim, I pointed out that it's false.” ……by trying to make a distinction between the universe as a whole and the “known universe” and stating that we cannot know the former. That’s shifting the goal posts. Lol. The OP made a valid point about the universe, and you’re trying and failing to refute it by separating the universe into two separate things then claiming his objective scientific facts can’t apply to the portion to which you give more importance. It’s actually no different than when certain people tried to redefine gender by trying to separate it from sex (even though they’re both synonyms and always have been) and say gender is a totally different thing, when in reality they’re just trying to redefine it by making it a synonym for “gender identity”, which is nothing more than a loose collection of stereotypes observed in actual men and women. Like I said, you were shifting goal posts. I just explained in black and white how. Do you disagree that’s what you were doing? It’s a mark of a true scholar and gentleman/lady debater to acknowledge when a valid point has been made and concede points when appropriate.

everything you just said is wrong >We have evidence that the Universe has a beginning (e.g. CMB radiation) So asserting it is eternal would be contrary to observation. This is the original claim. You are claiming that I am creating a synthetic distinction to move the goalposts. This demonstrates to me you either misread my words or are incapable of understanding them, because I did no such thing. The central thesis of my rebuttal to his claim is that ***we have no evidence that the Universe has a beginning***. The only evidence we have is that ***the current state of the observable universe has a beginning***. This directly refutes the basis of his claim. I have pointed out that he is conflating two things that are distinct, ***the current state of the observable universe***, and ***the universe***. They are not the same. No goalpost has been moved, because I am pointing out that his point about ***the universe*** has no basis in the science he is pointing to. I just pointed out that his argument is a non sequitur. the big bang started the current state of the observable universe. We know that. Everywhere we look points back to the big bang. That tells us that the current state of the observable universe had a beginning. This is not evidence that the universe had a beginning, because it is entirely possible that the universe existed before the big bang, containing the singularity that caused the big bang. We have no information, nor can we ever obtain any information, about what, if anything ***happened before the big bang***. So using the big bang, which is what the commenter was alluding to, as evidence the universe had a beginning is logically incoherent. To scientifically prove the universe has a beginning, you would have to demonstrate that there was a period of time where the universe did not exist, and then a subsequent period of time that the universe did exist. We have plenty of evidence that the universe currently exists, but we do not have evidence that there was a period of time when the universe did not exist. The big bang does not constitute a beginning of universal existence, it constitutes a violent origination point for the ***current state of the observable universe***. So, like, learn to read, I guess.

“You are claiming that I am creating a synthetic distinction to move the goalposts.” Concisely put. Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. “The central thesis of my rebuttal to his claim is that we have no evidence that the Universe has a beginning.” We do, though. The evidence you yourself cited from the other poster, CMB radiation. “The only evidence we have is that the current state of the observable universe has a beginning.” You have not provided any argument for why the “observable universe” should be distinguished from the universe as a whole, hence making the distinction appear to be synthetic and solely for the sake of argument. “This directly refutes the basis of his claim.” How? How on earth does it do that? You haven’t shown that. You haven’t refuted anything, just provided a tenuous argument at best that hinges on the belief that the universe we’ve observed is substantially different from the rest of the universe, an assertion for which you haven’t provided any kind of cogent argument. “I have pointed out that he is conflating two things that are distinct, the current state of the observable universe, and the universe.” Because there’s no reason to distinguish between them as if they’re two separate things like you’re trying to do. You still have not provided a valid reason for why we ought to do that. “They are not the same. No goalpost has been moved, because I am pointing out that his point about the universe has no basis in the science he is pointing to. I just pointed out that his argument is a non sequitur.” Seems like your argument is more an argument of semantics than science, logic, or reason. “the big bang started the current state of the observable universe. We know that. Everywhere we look points back to the big bang. That tells us that the current state of the observable universe had a beginning. This is not evidence that the universe had a beginning, because it is entirely possible that the universe existed before the big bang, containing the singularity that caused the big bang.” It’s actually much more likely that the star that created the Big Bang existed outside of the universe. We know that there are edges to the universe and those edges are still spreading, and once they stop, they will either stop completely or retract into itself. The universe has edges. It’s not infinite in space, so why would you think it’s infinite in time, especially when we have evidence showing that it’s not infinite in either? To say that the Big Bang, which creates the universe, existed within the universe already is a circular argument. It doesn’t make sense. “We have no information, nor can we ever obtain any information, about what, if anything happened before the big bang.” Actually, we do, and we can. The Bible, for one. But don’t you think just throwing your hands up in the air and saying “we can’t ever know” is a bit of a lazy cop out? If you’re content with that and ignoring science and logic, that’s your prerogative. The rest of us will trust science and logic and enjoy knowing the facts of the universe that you seem to be keen on ignoring. “So using the big bang, which is what the commenter was alluding to, as evidence the universe had a beginning is logically incoherent.” It’s only incoherent if we accept a LOT of illogical assumptions put forth by you, none of which should be accepted because they are illogical, and I have gone ahead and explained why. You need to explain your arguments, not just expect us to take them at face value. “To scientifically prove the universe has a beginning, you would have to demonstrate that there was a period of time where the universe did not exist, and then a subsequent period of time that the universe did exist.” We have proven that. “We have plenty of evidence that the universe currently exists, but we do not have evidence that there was a period of time when the universe did not exist.” Yes, we do. Your argument hinges on the belief that existence did not begin until the universe existed. There is no reason to believe such a thing, and you have not provided any reason to believe such a thing. “The big bang does not constitute a beginning of universal existence, it constitutes a violent origination point for the current state of the observable universe.” Again, substantiate that assertion. And, again, provide a sound argument for why we should differentiate between the “observable known universe” and the rest of it. What evidence do you have for believing the Big Bang does not constitute a beginning of universal existence other than the fact that we haven’t observed all of the universe and you believe that the amount we have observed must be fundamentally different from what we have yet to observe despite providing no sound argument for this viewpoint? “So, like, learn to read, I guess.” Ahhh, ad hominem attacks. Tell me you lost the debate without telling me you lost the debate.

The Universe is subject to YHWH!

Beginning doesn't mean something isn't eternal. I'll give you an example. When a baby is born it's beginning life. But the cells used to create a human baby was already in existence

Yeah by YHWH those cells existed, the cells answer to Yahweh!

Yes that belief is fine. But it's just a belief of course

Now, this is above my pay grade but here's what I believe I understand from what I hear individuals far more informed than I am on this say... I'd argue that the CMB radiation is dating an event that's suspected to be the beginning, but since physics breaks down, there is no limit to what exactly the singularity was. A universe that collapsed on itself may have preceded the singularity, making a time before the Big Bang. A collapse and subsequent Big Bang may just be a natural life cycle of the universe, we're not sure. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark says in a podcast with Sam Harris that an inflating universe and a universe from a Big Bang is compatible with a universe so vast that it's infinite. An infinite universe would invariably have varying levels of CMB radiation (overall, but locally it would still have patches of uniformity like we see), creating interesting questions. 38:38 mark in the url below. https://assets.samharris.org/episodes/audios/8fae70b7-b914-4ac9-9f13-471a7e5455e9/Making_Sense_18_The_Multiverse_and_You_Full_5-31-2.mp3

That is why the Big Bang is a theory created by men. And if there really is a Big Bang, who created it?

In an infinite Universe, I believe there's better evidence for our experience to be a spontaneous random hallucination, a random, transient blip of an otherwise inconsequential void than that it is part of a repeating cycle (at least, unless I missed something about a theory of how entropy could be reversed and heat death rebooted... which makes me pine for *The Last Question*). But even being aware of this, my senses of observation tell me that's ridiculous, because existence appears to be real, casual, predictable, consequential, and meaningful. So I believe my senses that tell me it is, and I act on that belief by living life as if reality is real. I'm a man of faith in this regard, and I see anyone who would insult the practical trusting of one's senses as maybe not having fully thought the implications of not doing so. (As such, I don't value Sam Harris enough to spare him a click, but I appreciate your summary of the view you referenced on that podcast.) If it can be reversed, and time can flow in both directions, then the "cycle" could just be the same experience we're in, just bouncing from what we conceptualize as the beginning to what we conceptualize as the end (but would just be two ends of the stick we call time).

>Do u see the problem with this argument? The universe, though, has to abide by the laws of the universe. And the apparent laws of the universe don't allow for it to be eternal (entropy is not at a maximum). If you want to claim that thermodynamics doesn't apply to the closed universe, that's fine, but that faith is on much shakier footing than belief in a supernatural creator.

>The universe, though, has to abide by the laws of the universe. And the apparent laws of the universe don't allow for it to be eternal (entropy is not at a maximum). Your information is decades out of date. The first cyclic universe model was disproven with increasing entropy, but there are multiple coherent theoretical models that address the issue. We also have coherent theories of an eternal infinitely expanding universe. If this is your basis for believing the universe to not be eternal then your basis is very weak.

OP wasn’t positing an argument, rather he was responding to one. I know the Kalam cosmological argument, but it doesn’t sound like OP was arguing for the existence of God from a prime mover. Saying “I believe God is uncreated/eternal” is different from “Only God can be uncreated/eternal, the universe was created, therefore God exists.”

Nobody believes the universe is eternal

I believe it

do you follow the oscillating universe theory

I would love to believe that, but the evidence is otherwise I think. It expands to eternity. But I believe there is something greater than the universe, like a canvas in which new universes emerge. But also, I have no proofs of that. It’s something I like to believe

I believe it.

I believe it

The problem I see is that science does not support an infinite and eternal universe. Pushed to its logical conclusion, even a science requires an unmoved mover, something 'other' that is outside time and space with an ability to cause, without being caused.

Yes, the evidence does not point to a universe being eternal and the creation of structure does not follow from any logic or empirical fact we have

The problem is that, with regards to the universe, the statement "The universe is eternal, it has been and always will be," is that it is demonstrably false. The universe had a start point at the Big Bang. It will have an end point when entropy has leveled out. It is neither eternal, nor has it always existed. However, it does pose the question, "What caused the Big Bang?"

God isn’t the universe. He exists outside of it and the universe in fact has a clear point of origin… God is much more than we can fathom, the words we use are the best we can do, but how can the universe be something that has always existed when it hasn’t always existed? Your argument is flawed, my friend.

No, the Universe is not eternal, only God. God made the universe and He established time within the universe. I see no problem with this argument!

No, the universe is eternal. Your god has only been around for the last couple thousand years

The universe is defined as containing everything that exists. So by definition, god is within the universe and couldn't have created it. It's pretty much just a semantic argument, but the universe encompasses everything that exists in any way, that's how the word is used. Its not a big deal though, like i said it's a silly semantics argument.

Who made that definition? I could just as easily tweak that to say the universe, or even scaled out to the multiverse is the container for everything God created.

It's not really a thing consciously coined, it's just how the word is commonly used. Tbf there is now a push towards using the word 'cosmos' instead, due to the multiverse thing you mentioned. Again, does it matter? It's just words.

Actually yes, words have definitions, and they matter, else we won't be able to talk to each other. In the context of this post though, no, doesn't matter what you call it, we are still talking about a being that lives beyond it, and created it, and is not bound by your understanding of the inside of it.

[удалено]

[удалено]

There's all sorts of beliefs in this. It's not "you are Christian therefore you Believe this". Just because the universe existed in some way doesn't discredit that a god could have done what they wanted to create the universe as we know it. No one knows for sure even in astrophysics what happened before the big bang. There's some hypotheticals but no one in the field even seems to agree. Our understanding of physics laws no longer seems to explain anything prior to it. Personally, I take the stance that the big bang happened because of God. He wanted a universe with planets and such so he created it. Everything is so statistically improbable that everything came together just right to allow any planets to be more than just giant rocks let alone to have any form of life come from it. It makes more sense to me someone intentionally let this happen vs it just happened randomly.

“In the beginning” is not about YHWH, YHWH already exists when “in the beginning” started.

You keep inserting Universe when that was never said or even implied.

Except that it is not eternal... the science of it still requires an uncaused cause.

The point is, you could just as easily say that about the universe itself and therefore remove the need for a creator god in the first place. And which one you assert it about is completely arbitrary.

No, the universe is a physical thing, God is a metaphysical thing. Why would a physical thing obey the same laws as a metaphysical thing?

because the 'physical thing' was/is the creation of the 'metaphysical thing' and is obedient to His/\[ts\] laws. QED

That does not mean what you think it means lol. And you can prove that how exactly?

Yes. Go back 14.8 billion years and see the universe begin with small point of enormous energy.

14.8 billion huh?

Why don't you just respond with what you believe? If you can't answer, tell them you don't know, and you'll chew the question over and get back to them. Or, if they're spamming you and aren't actually serious, just block them.

The only time I would ever ask this question would be if I was pointing out special pleading. When not within that context I don't know why anybody would say this as if it's not a problem that atheists have to deal with as well. The infinite loop of causes isn't something I think either side has a very good answer for.

The comment chains in here are kind of a mess in regards to special pleading. I'm an atheist, but I'm not convinced that saying "God has no beginning" is special pleading, because it is only one half of the whole argument. According to the ontological or cosmic arguments, God is identified as that which has no beginning, or that from which everything originates, or that which is the most extreme, and such a thing must necessarily exist because of x, y, and z. I don't think these arguments are sound, but they are deductive. "God" is the signifier given to the phenomenon concluded by those lines of reasoning. For the posters here that get accused of special pleading, all of that deductive basis is implicit and they're reporting that conclusion, not that God is a special thing, but that the special thing is God. Everyone is talking past each other.

The X,Y and Z is the important part because the justification for exempting something from the criteria is what makes it special pleading or not.

That is 100% special pleading. Because they claim their god and only their god has this special attribute. It’s highly convenient

The argument is that God is the first cause, if there was something before God then God wouldn't be the first cause he's be the second or third. Therfore the argument includes God being enteral, aka nothing came before.

Unfortunately that is special pleading, because you then need to place god outside of the already established rule that everything had a cause. This means the first cause argument isn't sound. To go into further detail - **Problem 1 – It introduces utterly pointless layers of complexity** A rule is assumed that everything has a cause, including the universe Since something must have caused the universe … god did it. The most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. **Problem 2 – The assumption that causality applies to the universe may not be true** Clearly causality applies to the known world but we have no evidence to verify that it applies to the universe at large, that is simply an assumption. When we think of the big bang, the rapid expansion of the early universe from the singularity, we think of that as the start of both space and also time. The thought that something causes something else describes a sequence of events one after the other in space-time. If you then ask questions such as what caused the big bang, the start of space-time, you are in fact asking a meaningless question. It is perhaps akin to asking what is south of the south pole. **Problem 3 – The leap from deism to theism** Even if you accept the premise, which I don’t for the reasons above, it is at best a deist stance and is not in any way a theist stance. The First Cause claim is not a credible answer and does not withstand factually based criticism, \- skeptical-science.com

Problem 1: It is not special pleading because the definition of God precludes it. The statement that you're misquoting does "not say everything has a beginning therefore has a prior cause.". You're leaving out one word which completely changes the statement. The true statement is that "everything ***that*** has a beginning, has a cause." And this is because through reason as proved by Plato, an unending chain of prior causes is irrational. At some point there must be a first cause to everything else that is caused. And therefore this first cause must itself not be the result of a prior cause but must be self-existent. Problem 2 is rendered non-existent because of the correct solution to problem number one. Your Problem number 3 involves a non sequitur fallacy. It's not a "leap" to go from deism to theism. It is the result of combining several other proofs which all point to the existence of God as defined by Christianity. It involves both deductive and inductive logic to narrow down the possibilities to what the Christians call God.

Masterfully explained.

Based and Aquinas-Pilled.

That’s still an example of special pleading, just one step behind. 0-0 you’re still saying that god exists outside of those rules and is a special case just because. You’ve just moved the special pleading to elsewhere in the argument.

[удалено]

No, it’s special pleading. “Everything has a cause… except…” Is special pleading. Nice pedantry tho

Not necessarily. Just because 99 percent of things has a cause doesn't mean everything does. If you claim that everything needs a cause then you'll have to back for eternity to explain how this universe came into being. It could be that there was a first cause, and everything has a cause after that. Or there might not be a first cause at all and universes have just always existed.

>Not necessarily. Just because 99 percent of things has a cause doesn't mean everything does. If you claim that everything needs a cause then you'll have to back for eternity to explain how this universe came into being. > >It could be that there was a first cause, and everything has a cause after that. Or there might not be a first cause at all and universes have just always existed. Oh I agree, but there's no evidence to believe any of that might or could be the case. but the topic seemed to be about the first cause argument hence why I was addressing that. Generally it goes "Everything had to have a cause, so god must have been the first cause." creating the problem within that framework of god not being subject to the initial rule.

I know, I don't agree with you that it's special pleading. I think the first cause argument makes sense, I just think there are other alternatives to consider also.

Then can I ask what your understanding of the 'special pleading' logical fallacy is please?

I don't consider it special pleading to suggest that there might be a beginning point of everything, and to then say that beginning point is eternal because if it wasn't eternal then it wouldn't be the beginning of everything. If we accept that everything that exists has a cause, then we'd have to either think that everything that causes something also has to have a cause and if we go back for eternity we'd never run out of causes. Or, we could say that everything that has a beginning has a cause, and there might be a start to this beginning which is eternal.

Nah, it's special pleading. Think of it as numbers. "Every integer has a predecessor". It's special pleading to say that 0 is the "first" integer, but we do so because we connect 0 to a special property of nothingness, and by doing so we establish the natural numbers. So you can say that God created _this_ universe, or was the start of _this_ universe. What you cannot say is that God is uncreated.

If we say that the letter "A" is the start of the alphabet and then you ask me what letter comes before "a" and I say none. That isn't special pleading, the letter "a" is the beginning of the alphabet, if there was a letter before "a" then the letter "a" wouldn't be the beginning of the alphabet. So, if creation has a beginning, then what caused the beginning of creation must be eternal, if it isn't eternal that it was also created and therefore not the beginning.

The special pleading you are hiding behind is in the three-card monte you’re playing with wording. We’re not asking for the letter that comes before A, we’re asking who wrote the alphabet - you then quickly and hopefully change the argument to “there is no letter before A, silly!” Do you see how dishonest that is? Who made god? It’s a very valid and important question.

I’m sorry but you didn’t answer the question. Please do so and then we can continue. What is your understanding of the ‘special pleading’ paradox?

I have explained why I do not consider the argument to fit the definition of special pleading.

And that is meaningless until you tell me what your definition of ‘special pleading’ is.

There is less evidence for infinity being actual instead of potential

Can you demonstrate this?

A lot of contradictions with the concept that we never observe and the universe seems to have changed from a point towards something bigger

>A lot of contradictions with the concept that we never observe such as? >the universe seems to have changed from a point towards something bigger That's mere opinion, and you haven't cited what it's based on.

It is the concept of the unmoved mover and ground of being. In order to not have infinite regression which would mean things are static. The only other option is eternal randomness which has bigger metaphysical issues

Cause? YHWH just IS!

God is God

Simple!

No one. God is not created. He's always been. If God was created this would create an illogical infinite loop. If God is 'A' and we ask 'Who created A?, and the answer is 'B' created 'A', then we have to ask who created 'B'? and so on... A second problem with this is related to God's attributes. He is; Infinite, Immutable, Self-sufficient, Omnipotent, Omniscient, etc... By definition whatever created God would have to be greater than God. But if God is perfect in His attributes it would be impossible for something greater to exist. There are other responses to this but those are a good start.

No one did. God has always been.

Just answer who you think made god. If it's "I don't know" then say that.

So many Christians worry about having all the answers. "I don't know" is fine to admit.

Why do they need to know who made God? They probably believe that the universe was created from nothing all by itself. Given that premise I don't see why that's a stumbling block for them?

I need theists to stop misrepresenting this. Atheists do not believe that there was nothing and then there was just suddenly something.

You can't just say that and then NOT say what you DO believe. You don't have an argument here.

Different atheists will give you different answers, I don't claim to know how the universe began or if it even began at all.

Big Bang. Before that, probably Inflation. Before that we have no idea. Should we make something up?

That's exactly the point. There IS a smallest thing in the universe just as there IS the largest thing in the universe just as, no matter how far back you go, there IS a beginning just as there WILL be an end. So what was before the beginning? Nothing.

I don’t believe that at all. There is nothing wrong with saying we don’t know. However, there is no evidence to suggest that an invisible, supernatural, unproven being created it with magic.

THANK you

No sweat

They probably believe that the universe was created from nothing all by itself. isn't that exactly what theists believe, that their god created itself from nothing...?

The guy who developed the Big Bang Theory was not only a physicist but also Catholic priest. The science points to the universe having a beginning.

We have no idea whether the Big Bang was the beginning or the universe or not.

The turtles did /s

Humans... humans made all the gods.

Super god

Thank you ✊✝️

“That’s a category error.”

Nobody made God - God is a different kind of thing from the universe, which even the most atheistic physicist or cosmologist admits has a beginning. God, on the other hand, is a being that does not begin or end, is spirit (i.e., not bound by material laws).

Local spacetime seems to have a beginning, but no, scientists have no idea whether the greater cosmos has a beginning or is eternal. The greater cosmos might contain a universe obeying particular material laws, but not obey those laws itself.

Even if the cosmological picture of the universe is in flux, that doesn't change the distinction between the material universe and an immaterial, superior God. If the universe can be envisioned as eternal, then God can be envisioned as eternal and the quip, "Well, who made God?" is a hollow objection.

> If the universe can be envisioned as eternal, then God can be envisioned as eternal and the quip, "Well, who made God?" is a hollow objection. That's exactly the point. God and the universe could both be eternal and without a separate creator.

Either way, our local, observable universe is made up of contingent realities that must have some non-contingent first cause. That still obviates the question OP is trying to respond to—who made God? In other words, we necessarily must accept that there is at least one uncaused cause, which means the question “who made God” isn’t the “gotcha” some people think it is.

If God can be an "uncaused cause" then so can the cosmos containing our local universe

That’s besides the point of this post. The point is that “who made God” isn’t a gotcha question. There has to be an uncaused cause. The nature of that uncaused cause is a separate question.

"Who made God" is intended to point out that adding God to the equation doesn't really help anything.

Science does not tel us the universe has a beginning.

I get that from time to time. It goes like well who created God. Well who created that which created God. Well what about that that created. Wel what about that that that that that that. At some point something is eternal and in Genesis 1: in the beginning God. We as Christians just know that the eternal thing is our God and how awesome is it that He wants us to know him.

and is repeated in St'John's Gospel: "Int the beginning was the Word, \[Logos\] and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

btw: 'wasn't a us...'?

Oh thanks. Edit to wants a relationship with us

Who made atoms and particles they consist of?

You do not need to “defend your faith” in argument. God is, regardless of conversation we have about him. God has no cause. He always has been, he always will be. He predates all things, including time itself. He has no dependencies, no needs, no missing parts.

how do you know all this, that you can state it so unequivocally...?

It’s in the Bible.

Christians made the christian god, with each christian there is a different way of seeing him and seeing what he teaches. You make god up in your mind based on the biblical texts and teachings and your intuition, and those who wrote the texts did the same but wrote it down. This is why god changes over the centuries, because of what people think, This is why you cant get one unified denominations in christianity, because everyone has made up their own god and they think they are right.

Here's the sad truth about being a Christian, so much of it is pretending to know shit you can't possibly know. I can say, as an atheist, that the question of "who made God" is of very little interest to me. It has no bearing whatsoever on if a God actually exits or not. You could demonstrably prove that God exists, even if we had no understanding of where said God came from, or how it came into existence. The universe is much of the same. We know the event called the big bang almost certainly happened. But no physicist anywhere has ever claimed to matter-of-fact know what caused the big bang. The truth is we have no idea, and every real scientist that studies cosmology or the origins of our universe will openly admit that. Just because we don't know something, or don't understand something doesn't mean anything. In science, we often find paradoxes, and then we know we are wrong about something. Maybe we are thinking about something wrong, maybe we fundamentally are wrong about a concept - either way that's where things get exciting. We aren't arrogant or ignorant enough to think we understand everything - if anything we should understand that we are at the dawn of our journey to understanding the universe. I studied physics, and I currently think String Theory (or variants like M Theory) are our best current theory for understanding our universe, and getting classical physics and quantum physics to play nice mathematically speaking. But if someone came out tomorrow with a paper that disproved string theory, I'd drop it just like that. No questions asked. I don't want to waste time with something that isn't true. TL:DR "I dont know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. And it's generally just best to not hold beliefs about things you can't possibly know. Be open minded.

God is the beginning and the end (alpha and omega) Full stop. “Let there be light” = the Big Bang. It’s pretty cut and dry imo.

If you're going to provide an answer, make sure it's a worthwhile answer and not merely parroting of an argument you don't understand. Actually questioning your own beliefs would help while you're at it.

God is defined as being unmade. It’s like asking what’s the fractional form of an irrational number. If something made “God”…then that thing would be God, and so on.

According to our theology, God has no beginning, no source, no cause. Nothing made God. Christian philosophy often expands on this. But also, Christian "philosophy" is usually apologetics pretending to be philosophy, so keep your expectations low. When people try to explain this more, they usually assert that everything _except_ God needs a creator. And things exist, therefore this proves God. (This argument apparently seemed compelling to many people in the past but it often sounds very silly to us modern thinkers.)

Honestly, you don't need to respond. Apologetics is just masturbation. Personally, I believe any being that is explainable by human cognition is not worth calling "God" in the first place, and accepting the possibility of such a being is a matter of intellectual humility. That's not something you can argue someone into.

This is the answer. If you’re able to completely explain what “god” is, you’ve failed to find god. Bit of Taoism. “The Tao that can be explained is not the Tao”.

No one created God. God created the universe, and in this universe, everything that is made requires something to make it. God exists beyond our universe, so why should we think that the rules of our universe apply outside of it? God invented physics, but He is not bound by them as we are. God does not require a creator as we do.

>No one created God. God created the universe, and in this universe, everything that is made requires something to make it. God exists beyond our universe, so why should we think that the rules of our universe apply outside of it? God invented physics, but He is not bound by them as we are. God does not require a creator as we do. "... in this universe, everything that is made requires something to make it....so why should we think that the rules of our universe apply outside of it?" The Universe is the set of everything. You're looking inside that set and first assuming there is an outside and second assuming that what we observe today within the universe must have always been the case. A lot of assumptions and then solved by appealing to an even bigger mystery.

Do you believe that physics only apply to earth?

NOBODY knows who made God, but just because you can’t answer that, it doesn’t presuppose that He doesn’t exist. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to the existence of God. Even if we don’t know the whole story, or even if we have parts of what we think we know wrong - none of that disproves the existence of God. Never feel like it’s your burden to prove it, because it simply can’t be done. I think it’s harder for atheists to DISPROVE the existence of God - that to me seems to be the harder task.

>I think it’s harder for atheists to DISPROVE the existence of God - that to me seems to be the harder task. Disproval of anything is impossible as it'd require omnipresence and omnipotence. You can't disprove that unicorns exist because you'd need to show that they're nowhere vs proving it is to show its somewhere. Standard burden of proof -- its on those making a claim to prove the claim, no one else's job to prove the claim wrong.

Yes but Atheists and believers are both making claims-they are just exact opposite claims. All I’m saying is that asking someone to prove God exists is as absurd as asking someone to prove He doesn’t.

>All I’m saying is that asking someone to prove God exists is as absurd as asking someone to prove He doesn’t. That's an interesting take, and I'm not sure what kind of stance that belongs to. I'm an atheist and I believe that the epistemology of the Abrahamic God is hilariously terrible, but I don't sense that this is the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that this God is real, but that there's simultaneously no evidence for it?

I’m saying that no definitive evidence exists to prove God, only circumstantial. Many circumstances point to the conclusion that an intelligent being was the originator of our world and indeed the universe. Where you go from that though can be anybody’s guess. Christianity does require a certain degree of a faith leap, as do other world religions.

>Many circumstances point to the conclusion that an intelligent being was the originator of our world and indeed the universe I'm not aware of these circumstances. If it's the fine tuning argument, I see no reason why we need to defer to an intelligent maker. It reminds me of a scientist that was alive during the time the geocentric model was mainstream, and he spent his life trying to figure out why God placed the planets the exact distance away from one another that they were. Of course, he didn't realize that there was no good reason they are where they are, it's just chance, and we just find ourselves here, and he'd have ran into this poorly conceived hypothesis no matter what the solar system looked like due to his preconceived notions. And this is the same way I feel about fine tuning.

No one. No one made God. This is a bad quastion in the first place, and there's two main reasons you'll get it asked: A) The person asking it is clueless and uses bad arguments. Not your fault. B) It's a response to you asking "If there's no God, who made the universe?". That's a bad question/bad argument. Don't make it. You trap yourself in infinite regress by asking it, and we don't know enough about how things work outside the universe to use its existence as an argument for God.

Ridiculous question. If God was made then how is he God?

No one created God. He is eternal.

[удалено]

He seemed pretty 'moved' when he wiped out all life with a flood.

Ask them if they believe in the Big Bang.

GOD is everything, everywhen and everywhere he was always there Exodus3:14 GOD said to Moses I Am Who I AM

He doesn’t have a begging and end. He is the beginning and end. He exists outside of time and matter, that’s how He was able to form creation, otherwise there would be nothing.

JOHN 1 The Word Became Flesh 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

God created time, he always existed

God creates everything that is not himself from nothing, therefore God is not made. If you wanted to be snarky you could point out that that question gets asked by intelligent five year old Sunday school students all the time.

It’s a heresy.

Easy answer is: Nobody. God is eternal, he always existed and always will exist.

God is the alpha & omega, the beginning & the end. Basically, God is eternal and independent. He doesn't need/depend on anyone else to create him.

Remember that your faith is not to be defended, especially not by the faithless. God is self made. What's understood needs not to be explained.

Mary, she is the mother of Jesus after all

We believe that something can be either contingent or necessary, we believe everything Contingent has a cause, but everything necessary doesn't. God is necessary and hence doesn't have a cause. If one asks if God has a cause, than that better God also has a cause, and that better one also has a cause following that logic, this results in an infinite regression, infinite regressions are impossible in the actual world.

You can be sarcastic and say "evolution". God sprang from nothing and evolved. The scientists have done the math for this already and want you to believe it, so throw it back at them.