Created???

[sock puppet]

“Why is there something rather than nothing?” Space. Matter. Energy. That we exist is a rather simple question compared to the existence of space, matter and energy. We exist as a derivative of the existence of those three basics.

Three options come to mind: 1. There is no matter, 2. Something created matter, or 3. Matter has simply always existed - there is no starting point. At least our consideration of matter exists, even if matter itself and as we define it do not. That's the all-is-an-illusion theory. Maybe so, and it avoids the real question, the battle between #2, creation, and #3, always existed.

No matter what the creation explanation, if we dig deeper we end up with the further question, what created the creator? In Mormon concepts, who created Elohim? Next, who created Elohim's creator? And so on and so forth back as an infinite regression. That does not answer the question, it begs it. How did it all then get started? Creation is a concept that just feeds on itself, it does not answer the question. The questioner who at some point accepts creation despite digging deeper simply tires of the task, and goes on with daily life. Some think it is due to realizing it cannot be answered in the creation approach, others simply due to fatigue. The deeper ones goes, the less and less sense it makes. The inquirer walks away bewildered, but often returns at a later time only to be frustrated again. (Many religions stop with the creation of what we see and observe--and ourselves--by a creator, a God that has always existed. But that just gets us to the next step, as does Mormonism's infinite regression.)

If I recall correctly, Mormonism posits that either our existence as intellects or alternatively ideas that Elohim bundled together into intellects have always existed. Whether ideas, or as bundles--intellects--such were not created but have always existed. Any creation approach ends with the rabbit hole being plugged at some point with an 'it just always has been.'

So what of the third alternative, matter has simply always existed? Looking at mere transformations as if 'beginnings', we find ourselves down the same rabbit hole as those following the creation explanation. "Was there anything before the Big Bang? If yes, then what? A Multiverse? Well, what’s beyond that? An infinite multiverse? That just breaks the brain because everything has to have a beginning, right? It makes zero sense for something to have always existed. So what was in the very beginning of...everything? Was there a singular force at work? What came before that force? This goes way beyond quantum physics even. It just breaks my brain, because it almost sounds too ridiculous to the point where I’ll say to myself that it doesn’t even make sense for existence to exist in the first place." Then we might be back to and find the illusion approach more satisfying, even if it skirts the issue rather than answering the question.

Entropy is no help. Our world and known universe seem very complex. There's nature and what mankind has done to the world. But is the world just at an advanced stage of its decay as compared to 10,000,000,000 years ago?

Rather, we must confront the elephant in the room, head on. Can we grasp mentally the idea that matter/energy have always existed? Why is that so difficult for us to 'get our head around'? Just because it is difficult for us to comprehend does that make it any less possible than if we could readily understand the concept?

Does the always-has-been-approach assure that there is an afterlife? Would not, upon death, our intellects, or more elementally, our ideas merely transform into something else? If there is no beginning, how can there be an end? That supposes ideas alone or in bundles have no beginning but have always been and so will always be, even if in a different shape and form. Or, perhaps the small electrical impulses in our brains that we call thoughts merely transforms into a different form. Perhaps it transforms into being a handful of atoms upon our death.

In any event, it does not follow that there had to be a creator, a God, just because of the existence of the observable universe, our world and ourselves. Apart from option #1 (illusion approach), what we observe including ourselves could simply be the result that space, matter and energy have simply and always existed.

"Just look around you" is often what the creation approachers will say to others, whose curt reply is simply, "so what?" So, I invite those that use existence of the observable as some kind of proof that there is a creator to try to come up with a better answer.

[Rivendale]

This reminds me of Forrest Valchai's approach to the question regarding the origin of the Universe. In many circles the arguments for theism vs atheism coalesce on this unknown. Forrest often claims we don't know yet but theists claim they know who did it and the name of his son, what he wants us to do. As a retort theists will attack the claim ( recently made by David Deutsch) that the many worlds hypothesis best explains the results of quantum mechanics and its counter intuitive ramifications. The idea of infinite copies of a person that encompasses every possible scenario they experience seems less absurd than a redeemer.

[drumdude]

God is really a non answer to the question. That God or the Universe are eternal really means the same thing- “it’s just that way.”

I find the idea of an infinitely repeating universe intuitively satisfying in a reincarnation kind of way.

[Gadianton]

Hi Sock Puppet,

Unlike MG and his A.I., I actually read your post. I'm going to reply in a short post but it's based on what you actually said, rather than derailing the conversation into something you weren't talking about and then complaining it's the same tired argument. I've reported MG's post for being off topic and a derail.

I'd offer Aristotle's Prime Mover as a general model that can take the place of any other origin theory.

The Prime Mover wasn't God, and prior to being a single prime mover was 7 stars. But others will Say Aristotles Prime Mover was God, or could be God. Who is right?

I think a lot of theologians would agree with me that to be God, the thing must be personal. If the unmoved mover is personal, then it's fair to call it God, and if not, it's just nature. You could have a first cause and it isn't God if it isn't personal.

But what does "personal" mean anyway? We could debate that alone for the rest of our lives and people could try to make that fit their theory one way or another. Well, I don't think it will settle much, but it may help sort out the various positions for somebody who doesn't have an intense vested interest in any particular idea being theistic or non-theistic.

As you point out in Mormonism intelligences are co-eternal with God and so God is not the creator of everything. From the standpoint of theism, I'd have to say Mormonism is atheistic or pantheistic. there is no grandpa God that created the rules, therefore the rules as they are represent the will-to-power of the strongest living entities who keep the order as it is but it isn't necessarily so.

[Marcus]

“Why is there something rather than nothing?” Space. Matter. Energy. That we exist is a rather simple question compared to the existence of space, matter and energy. We exist as a derivative of the existence of those three basics.

Three options come to mind: 1. There is no matter, 2. Something created matter, or 3. Matter has simply always existed - there is no starting point. At least our consideration of matter exists, even if matter itself and as we define it do not. That's the all-is-an-illusion theory. Maybe so, and it avoids the real question, the battle between #2, creation, and #3, always existed.

No matter what the creation explanation, if we dig deeper we end up with the further question, what created the creator? In Mormon concepts, who created Elohim? Next, who created Elohim's creator? And so on and so forth back as an infinite regression. That does not answer the question, it begs it. How did it all then get started? Creation is a concept that just feeds on itself, it does not answer the question. The questioner who at some point accepts creation despite digging deeper simply tires of the task, and goes on with daily life. Some think it is due to realizing it cannot be answered in the creation approach, others simply due to fatigue. The deeper ones goes, the less and less sense it makes. The inquirer walks away bewildered, but often returns at a later time only to be frustrated again. (Many religions stop with the creation of what we see and observe--and ourselves--by a creator, a God that has always existed. But that just gets us to the next step, as does Mormonism's infinite regression.)

If I recall correctly, Mormonism posits that either our existence as intellects or alternatively ideas that Elohim bundled together into intellects have always existed. Whether ideas, or as bundles--intellects--such were not created but have always existed. Any creation approach ends with the rabbit hole being plugged at some point with an 'it just always has been.'

So what of the third alternative, matter has simply always existed? Looking at mere transformations as if 'beginnings', we find ourselves down the same rabbit hole as those following the creation explanation. "Was there anything before the Big Bang? If yes, then what? A Multiverse? Well, what’s beyond that? An infinite multiverse? That just breaks the brain because everything has to have a beginning, right? It makes zero sense for something to have always existed. So what was in the very beginning of...everything? Was there a singular force at work? What came before that force? This goes way beyond quantum physics even. It just breaks my brain, because it almost sounds too ridiculous to the point where I’ll say to myself that it doesn’t even make sense for existence to exist in the first place." Then we might be back to and find the illusion approach more satisfying, even if it skirts the issue rather than answering the question.

Entropy is no help. Our world and known universe seem very complex. There's nature and what mankind has done to the world. But is the world just at an advanced stage of its decay as compared to 10,000,000,000 years ago?

Rather, we must confront the elephant in the room, head on. Can we grasp mentally the idea that matter/energy have always existed? Why is that so difficult for us to 'get our head around'? Just because it is difficult for us to comprehend does that make it any less possible than if we could readily understand the concept?

Does the always-has-been-approach assure that there is an afterlife? Would not, upon death, our intellects, or more elementally, our ideas merely transform into something else? If there is no beginning, how can there be an end? That supposes ideas alone or in bundles have no beginning but have always been and so will always be, even if in a different shape and form. Or, perhaps the small electrical impulses in our brains that we call thoughts merely transforms into a different form. Perhaps it transforms into being a handful of atoms upon our death.

In any event, it does not follow that there had to be a creator, a God, just because of the existence of the observable universe, our world and ourselves. Apart from option #1 (illusion approach), what we observe including ourselves could simply be the result that space, matter and energy have simply and always existed.

"Just look around you" is often what the creation approachers will say to others, whose curt reply is simply, "so what?" So, I invite those that use existence of the observable as some kind of proof that there is a creator to try to come up with a better answer.

Or not. As long as it is not pushed on someone else, or used to insult them, I have no problem. For example, telling those who don't believe that they have nothing to offer except "death and dissolution" is insulting. There's no need for it.

[Philo Sofee]

God is really a non answer to the question. That God or the Universe are eternal really means the same thing- “it’s just that way.”

I find the idea of an infinitely repeating universe intuitively satisfying in a reincarnation kind of way.

I lean in that direction as well.

[Chap]

God is really a non answer to the question. That God or the Universe are eternal really means the same thing- “it’s just that way.”

Precisely.

Simplifying somewhat (but not by very much ...), all these not very good 'arguments' for why the favourite deity of certain currently dominant cultures must, really must exist are constructed by people who have been brought up by parents who told them this entity existed when they were kids. Then later they meet people who were not brought up in that way, and find themselves having to think of reasons for why what Mom and Pops told them must have been right.

A friend of mine raised in a family where references to the idea of a deity were not part of the family culture once said "I just don't see to what interesting question the idea of what you call 'God' is a good answer."

[sock puppet]

God is really a non answer to the question. That God or the Universe are eternal really means the same thing- “it’s just that way.”

That's the point of the OP in this thread. That the universe, the world and even we exist is not proof of the existence of God, as many theists would argue. In the final analysis, we have to deal with "it's just that way."

[sock puppet]

God is really a non answer to the question. That God or the Universe are eternal really means the same thing- “it’s just that way.”

Precisely.

Simplifying somewhat (but not by very much ...), all these not very good 'arguments' for why the favourite deity of certain currently dominant cultures must, really must exist are constructed by people who have been brought up by parents who told them this entity existed when they were kids. Then later they meet people who were not brought up in that way, and find themselves having to think of reasons for why what Mom and Pops told them must have been right.

A friend of mine raised in a family where references to the idea of a deity were not part of the family culture once said "I just don't see to what interesting question the idea of what you call 'God' is a good answer."

Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Disclaimer for quoting the Bible: I do not think the Bible is the word of any deity, but does include several astute observations of human nature.

We have a difficult time later in life of shrugging off that to which we were indoctrinated when young, even as we learn facts that make such indefensible.

[canpakes]

God is really a non answer to the question. That God or the Universe are eternal really means the same thing- “it’s just that way.”

It is as much an answer as unicorns, anyway.