PDA

View Full Version : Does God Need A Cause?



ApologiaPhoenix
September 2nd 2010, 11:06 AM
So it looks like another atheistic moron has shown up here with the argument of "Who made God?" I think this is a good question to ask.....if you're a six year-old in Sunday School. If you're treating this as a serious inquiry that philosophers have never thought of, you're clueless.

So let's get into some distinctions here. We'll start with human beings.

Human beings have a nature that makes us all human. We all possess certain attributes that are essential to being human. For Aristotle, this meant being a rational animal.

Humans also are composed of matter and are incomplete without having a body. In this case, humans consist of matter and form. However, I could also say Sherlock Holmes or Batman consist of matter and form. For some reason, I see my wife and myself and people on TWeb and people I meet every day in another category. What reason is that?

Existence. Batman and Sherlock Holmes don't exist in the world outside of the mind. They only exist in fantasy. Human beings that are actual consist of matter and form + existence.

If we move a step up, there are angels. Aristotle also believed in angels and thought these were the cause of the movement of the planets. Angels are not material and consist of form and existence. Each angel is essentially its own form. Michael is Michaelness. For humans, matter can differentiate us from one another. Not so with an angel. We could imagine some angels again that don't exist, but they would be just form. Existence again is what makes them real.

Then we get to God. God, being simple, is not composed of form + existence as an angel is for when we have an angel, we can ask "What is the cause of the existing of the angel?" Note I did not say existence, but existing. The existence is just as much a real question, but to have it as existing indicates that there is something keeping it in existence as it does not exist by its own nature.

God's existence is His nature instead. There is no distinction between the two. So when we get to the question of "Who caused God?" it's a nonsense question. God could not be caused because his nature is existence and existence does not need a cause. If it does, what is it caused by? If it is caused by non-existence, we have an absurdity, as non-existence has no properties and cannot bring about anything. If we say existence, then we are saying existence caused existence. One is simply positing another God behind God.

Now the atheist can ask if God can be uncaused, why not the universe? The universe has derived existence. It moves in modes of existence because it is changing. It is getting older for instance. It is losing energy. A changing existence is moving from one kind of existence to another kind of existence. It never ceases to exist, but it changes. This is the way it necessarily is with all matter. My nature, rational animal, is not changing, but the matter that I have is changing.

The question is a basic understanding of theology and there's a reason no serious philosopher would present it as a challenge.

BlacJac06
September 2nd 2010, 04:50 PM
Nick,

Along the vein of your last paragraph, could you respond to the news on Stephen Hawking changing his views on God and religion? If you haven't read it, here it is http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking

I'm personally not all that shocked. I never knew he was a theist to begin with -- I thought he was a multiverse-guy.

ApologiaPhoenix
September 2nd 2010, 06:43 PM
Nick,

Along the vein of your last paragraph, could you respond to the news on Stephen Hawking changing his views on God and religion? If you haven't read it, here it is http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking

I'm personally not all that shocked. I never knew he was a theist to begin with -- I thought he was a multiverse-guy.

Certainly. My response is that Hawking doesn't really address the point raised here. (I don't fault him for that of course. I seriously doubt he knows about my own study. I just say I've raised an argument Hawking hasn't touched.) The problem I see with so many atheists is they think knowledge of science is the same as knowledge of metaphysics. They think knowing some branch of science authoritatively means you can speak on any subject authoritatively.

Atheistic scientists often have a problem with people who are Christians who don't have proper study speaking on science. I agree. I have my opinions on scientific matters, but I do not speak with authority on science. Thus, I will not comment on the physics of what Hawking has said. I have no basis to do such. However, these same atheists turn around and comment on philosophy and theology without proper study. Science is great, for studying material objects. It is not great for non-material objects.

Now I do believe science can give us data that philosophers and theologians can use, but science is not the final arbiter. When I am studying the question of, say, is the gospel of John an accurate account of what happened in the life of Christ, I should use a historical method, not a philosophical or scientific one. If I want to see if the text of Tacitus is accurate, I use textual criticism, not mathematics. If I want to determine the speed of light in a vacuum, I use science and not philosophy or theology.

For Hawking, I still have the same question. How does he explain existence? How can he say something comes from nothing? Nothing is incapable of producing something since nothing is non-existence. It has no properties and thus it has no causal power.

I do have great respect for the sciences, but scientists are not the final arbiters of what is and isn't true in matters of theology and philosophy, and all fields will be benefited when we realize that.