Could it be that you're bringing up the same tired arguments that have been regurgitated now for a LONG time?sock puppet wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 7:37 pm“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, matters 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.
I plugged your complete post into Perplexity A.I. and then gave the following prompt:
This is what came back:Shrink wrap the following arguments against God into a short summary of the weaknesses in the arguments and then then state the corollary arguments that supersede them for belief in a Creator God.
Food for thought. In another thread on Summertime Reading I brought up the title of a book I just finished called, "The Language of God". Collins makes some of the same arguments for God and points out some of the counterarguments to the arguments some folks make to try and disprove a Creator.Weaknesses in Common Arguments Against God:
Problem of Evil: Assumes suffering is incompatible with a benevolent, omnipotent God. Weakness: Fails to account for free will’s necessity for moral growth or the possibility of transcendent purposes beyond human understanding.
Lack of Empirical Evidence: Claims absence of scientific proof negates God. Weakness: Presupposes God must be physical/material, but many theistic traditions define God as transcendent (beyond empirical measurement).
Divine Hiddenness: Argues a loving God would make His existence obvious. Weakness: Overlooks the role of faith as voluntary trust and the possibility that overt coercion would undermine moral agency.
Inconsistent Revelations: Points to conflicting religious claims. Weakness: Does not disprove a Creator but highlights human limitations in interpreting divine truth.
Natural Explanations: Science explains the universe without God. Weakness: Confuses mechanism (how things work) with ultimate causation (why there is something rather than nothing).
Corollary Arguments for a Creator God.
Cosmological Argument: The universe’s contingency (its existence isn’t self-explanatory) implies a necessary, uncaused Cause (God).
Fine-Tuning Argument: The precision of universal constants (e.g., gravitational force) for life suggests intentional design.
Moral Argument: Objective moral values (e.g., “murder is wrong”) imply a transcendent Moral Lawgiver.
Religious Experience: Persistent, cross-cultural encounters with the divine (e.g., prayer, awe) point to a reality beyond materialism.
Existential Purpose: Human longing for meaning and justice aligns with a Creator who imbues life with purpose.
Synthesis
While objections often focus on perceived gaps in theism, arguments for God address foundational questions about existence, morality, and meaning-positing a Creator as the most coherent explanation for reality’s origin.
It sort of comes down to a matter of faith/choice. Francis Collins agrees...but he thinks there are some pretty good arguments. Some of them stated above.
Regards,
MG
