Why does there have to be a god/gods?

[FauxBox]

Basically, as I understand it from what I think I remember from church, God created everything. So God has always been.

Now, just simply switch up god with everything.

Can't the planets, matter, basically anything in the history of everything, have always been in one state or another?

I just don't understand why there has to be a deity to make everything first?

[PsychoticEpisode]

I just don't understand why there has to be a deity to make everything first?

Not worth worrying about, just be glad that you think the way you do. You're part of a small but increasingly larger minority. Consider yourself fortunate. If this is the first time you've questioned theism in an open forum then I say congrats. However, depending on which part of the world you're from then it might be prudent to keep any atheistic thought you may have to yourself when in public, just for your own safety or for fair treatment.

There are plenty of threads about deities creating universes already in the archives. It has pretty much been beaten to death.

[S.A.M.]

It depends on what kind of paradigm makes more sense to you. If you believe in an absolute eternal universe, then you don't need a God. If you don't, then you probably assume a causality that is absolute and eternal but outside the paradigm of a non-absolute, non-eternal universe.

Both paradigms have their drawbacks. Assuming causality is more useful than assuming none, for me. It makes it easier to be more consistent in dealing with similar models in other forms as well as in leaving the window open to other paradigms and other models that are not similar.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Paradigm.... nice word when not overused. Where's your thesaurus?

[S.A.M.]

Paradigm.... nice word when not overused. Where's your thesaurus?

I learned to dumb down my vocabulary in the US. Apparently using multiple synonyms can be confusing for those who cannot tell the difference between there and their.

see this:

Can't the planets, matter, basically anything in the history of everything, have always been in one state or another?

comprenez?

[PsychoticEpisode]

comprenez?

Is that a correct spelling? I'll asked California.

Good thing I'm Canadian.

Anyway I see your point. Redundancy, like saying the same thing over and over, such as words that have the same meaning trying to deliver the same point, you know how people use words that convey the same, synonyms and words that you might get from a thesaurus.

[S.A.M.]

Is that a correct spelling? I'll asked California.

Good thing I'm Canadian.

Anyway I see your point. Redundancy, like saying the same thing over and over, such as words that have the same meaning trying to deliver the same point, you know how people use words that convey the same, synonyms and words that you might get from a thesaurus.

One could, of course go into details of the limitations of assigning a state of eternal being to matter as an analogy to understanding the supernatural, but that would require an expertise in disseminating information about the perception of the reality of what constitutes "state" and "matter" when discussed in a non-empirical paradigm. I fear my abilities do not transcend to those levels (and I have great regard for my powers of persuasion, otherwise) .

[iceaura]

If you don't, then you probably assume a causality that is absolute and eternal but outside the paradigm of a non-absolute, non-eternal universe.

The OP is asking why anyone would assume something like that - a lot of people seem to, but it's kind of strange, no?

Is it a built in tendency of the human mind, useful in its original context but out of its element in a more modern intellectual milieu?

[S.A.M.]

Probably because everything our reality is based on necessitates a causal relationship and a sequential paradigm. Eliminate causality from our reality and what are you left with?

[iceaura]

Probably because everything our reality is based on necessitates a causal relationship and a sequential paradigm.

? That appears to be false, as far as I can tell - invalidated in various ways by everything from chaos theory to statistical mechanics to quantum physics.

False in the technical sense that it does not reflect the physical reality independent of our following awareness, that is.

[S.A.M.]

? That appears to be false, as far as I can tell - invalidated in various ways by everything from chaos theory to statistical mechanics to quantum physics.

False in the technical sense that it does not reflect the physical reality independent of our following awareness, that is.

Indeed. And yet, you will not debate that I responded to this post as a sequence to yours.

What aspect of your reality do you define by quantum physics or chaos theory? How do you square that with the inherent assumptions of the scientific model?

[Lori_7]

For me its about the recognition of law and the beauty in it and the meaning of it, coupled with the realization of a power that I am part of and that is much greater than me. Its reflected and manifested in the concept and experience of communion, and the knowledge of an existence beyond the constraints of this realm or age of materialsm that we live in now. That power has changed me and my life so significantly that my eyes have been opened to something much greater. Something perfect.

[Hapsburg]

It depends on if one views reality as a causal relationship. Causality is, like it or not, the basis of logical thought. As Aristotle put it, there had to have been an unmoved mover, a Prime Mover, that initiated causality and is somewhat itself outside of, or unbound by, causality.

Now, whether you see this Prime Mover as a god or not is totally up to you. Even Aristotle didn't make the assumption that a Prime Mover is necessarily a supreme god.

[iceaura]

What aspect of your reality do you define by quantum physics or chaos theory? How do you square that with the inherent assumptions of the scientific model?

Irrelevant.

Eliminate causality from our reality and what are you left with?

Buddhists say: enlightenment.

Physicists and biologists say: accurate predictions and better analysis of some phenomena.

But of course no one was talking about "eliminating causality" - just recognizing it for the means, the intellectual tool, that it is. Like all tools, it has its proper uses and scope of application. The be-all and end-all of the universe not included.