There has to be a first cause, right? Modern astrophysics has this as the central mystery of the universe. Since space and time are just properties of the universe, how can a discussion of what happened ‘before’ or ‘outside’ the universe have any meaning?
The fact is that we don’t know. There are theories. One is the ID theory. Another is the infinite-succession-of-collapsed-universes theory. Many theories are romantic-sounding and pleasing to the mind. No theory is verifiable. This is where the egoistic human need for ‘an answer’ often comes in and makes a decision based on circular logic and/or the ego-driven elevated status of humankind.
I’m an atheist because there is no rational argument for intelligent design (let alone an omnipresent meddler mentioned in the writings of a superstitious, irrational society 2,000 or so years ago). If such an argument makes itself known, I will ‘believe’ in it, in exactly the same way that I would believe the earth was flat if suddenly it was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
As for creation, what with the object of desired knowledge being distinct from the universe I inhabit, along with all its physical laws, I’m happy with not knowing, and with the very likely idea that I and the rest of humanity will never know.
But there are a lot of people who aren’t happy with not knowing and for whom the God of the Gaps is their personal fix.
]]>Please reference my first reply to Tom Allen at the top of the comments on this page. I asked him to take a look at http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/716 It seems that gravity had to have a first cause. Your comments are welcome.
Mick
Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, this paper I presented at the 1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, held at The Lonavla Yoga Institute (India), Lonavla, Pune in 2006. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
The Universe includes everything that exists. In the Universe there are billions and billions of stars. These stars are distributed in the space in huge clusters. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of galaxy, star and planets etc. Gravitation can be considered as the cause of various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms. Withdrawal of gravitational wave from some plane of action is called the death of that form. It can be assumed that gravitation force is ultimate creator. Source of it is ‘God’. Gravitational Field is the supreme soul (consciousness) and its innumerable points of action may be called as individual soul (consciousness). It acts through body and mind. Body is physical entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system. Electromagnetic waves are its agents through which it works. This can be realized through the practice of meditation and yoga under qualified meditation instruction. This can remove misunderstanding between science and religion and amongst various religions. This is the gist of all religious teachings – past, present and future.
AND
‘In Scientific Terminology Source of Gravitational Wave is God’ I have presented this paper at the 2nd World Congress on Vedic Sciences held at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi on February 9-11, 2007. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
For Centuries, antagonism remained between science and religion. Science and spirituality require to be fused. An integrated philisophy is to be developed. It is written in the scriptures that entire creation is being maintained only through love or force of attraction. In Persian it is known as quvat-i-jaziba. It is on account of this force that the entire creation, which come into existence through the combination of small particles and atoms, is being maintained and sustained. The creation or universe includes everything that exists. In the universe there are billions and billions of stars. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of a galaxy, star and planet etc. and various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Gravitation force is the ultimate creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe. These are the three attributes of God. Providence has located within the human body a spiritual faculty. When this faculty is developed like physical and mental faculties we find that Truth-the goal of science and God-the goal of religion are one and the same thing.
]]>What do you think?
M-
Honestly, I’d likely pitch my tent in the pantheist camp. My “god” is the equivalent of the Universe itself. A prime mover is an also infinite regress itself (who created Him, and Him before Him, on so on and so on) unless we say he is BEYOND the universe itself (which he must be if he made something from nothing) . But if he does not exist in THIS universe, does he exist at all? And again, how am I to relate to him?
But say there is a prime mover, and if it his will that constitutes the laws on the universe, can we not say the universe itself is him? Is it not an extension of his being? Is it not fair then to worship the laws of the universe itself? I like Thoreau here: “We are enabled to apprehend at all what is sublime and noble only by the perpetual instilling and drenching of the reality that surrounds us.” What I relate to is the reality I am surrounded in, I rely on myself to “instill and drench” reality to experience the ‘divine’. I’m not waiting to be reborn in paradise. This is what we have. In a sense, I can relate to god’s creation but not to himself. So what do to worship then besides the magnificence of the universe?
I would wager that the majority of atheists are (to be frank) disgusted at mainstream religions, and this may be their prime reason for being atheists. As you said, its not the God concept, but rather the organizations (specifically their rituals and social beliefs) that claim to be in his favor that are extremely unattractive to atheists. And I would also wager that there are very few hardcore atheists. Those I know personally are very open to the idea of a god (the cause of causes type, though) but cite lack of evidence, and perhaps are unwilling to stretch the imagination to accommodate such a theory. Many claim your are misusing the word “God” when you talk of a prime mover. They also seem to express the same thought as me, if such a “god” were to exist, how could we COMPREHEND him, let alone relate to him.
I still hold that the key to eliminating most DRF (destructive religious fundamentalism) lies with the moderates. I think adherents have the power to move religious establishments far more than the authorities too. Moderates have to stand up and reject DRF. Fundamentalist are madly, maniacally clinging to power. Take away their power (their influence) and they are left naked. Let their words fall on deaf ears. Too many moderates let their dissent with religious authority go unvoiced.
]]>How do the followers of these religions maintain such radical cognitive dissonance in their minds regarding each other?
Really? How?!
Sounds like you agree that there is a Supreme Being who designed and moves the Universe but cannot possible throw your support behind those who use religion as a means to power.
I’d be interested in following up with anyone who can help answer that question and Chris’s question as to ending destructive fundamentalism.
M-
]]>So, how do we stop that? In what does the end of (destructive) fundamentalism lie?
]]>I disagreed with Mick’s use of the word “religious”; I had no problem with his claim that everyone has fundamental beliefs.
Though, perhaps I was wrong in interpreting that Mick was claiming atheists are religious fundamentalists. As he says, “If you call something your religion, it probably involves your god.”
On the Craig lecture:
Here are the main cosmological arguments for god. Essentially: the universe has a cause, there must be a first cause in the sequence of incidental causes, the universe exists, every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, and therefore the explanation of the universe is God.
Also, the universe cannot be eternal (infinite regress), nor come from nothing (can’t get something from nothing). And the cause of the universe must be greater than the universe itself.
I’m not particularly swayed by this logic, but regardless, this kind of ‘prime mover’ god I don’t have any fundamental qualms with. I believe that this sort of god is expanded beyond then narrow definitions of a personal god.
It is a personal god I take issue with, particularly one who decides who and who doesn’t get into his paradise based on trivial and inconsequential rules. In fact, isn’t belief in this sort of cause of causes god completely incompatible with the three monotheistic religions?
A personal, separate and father-like god, to me, is a god made is man’s image. And because of this, it is a shallow comfort. A personal god is the characterisation of a watchful parent-figure to give protection and meaning in one’s life. Religion is always an attempt to find meaning, or quality. And because we are conscience of our existence, in our contemplation of our existence we must face a fundamental existentialist crisis. We are asking ourselves, what does it MEAN to be alive? How are we to deal with the constant feel of being completely isolated?
But how exactly do we RELATE to a ‘prime mover’ god without giving him human qualities (such as gender!)?
Phillip, what a fantastic post. I love that you brought up Fromm. Exactly what I was getting at. I agree that religion “… is the attempt to come to one common story that denies progress and evolution and must by default have a teleological component”. Regardless if we are atheist, pantheist, or theist, we must be progressive in our views towards the universe/the self.
]]>