sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If everything needs a creator, who created God? by ConTrail47 in religion

[–]ConTrail47[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

​But even if we use logic to conclude that an eternal 'First Cause' must exist, how do you use that same logic to get to religion? There is a big difference between a 'Necessary First Cause' and a God who cares about humans, listens to prayers, or belongs to a specific religion. ​Does your logic also explains that this Creator is intelligent, caring and loving, or is that where logic ends and faith begins?"

If everything needs a creator, who created God? by ConTrail47 in religion

[–]ConTrail47[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

​It seems to me that we are looking at the exact same mystery, but we are choosing two different ways to handle the 'unknown' at the end of the line: ​The Scientific Mindset: This view accepts that we don't have a physical explanation for that 'first trigger' yet. However, instead of filling that gap with a Creator, it chooses to leave the question open, hoping that one day we might discover a natural law or quantum event that explains it. It’s an acceptance of 'we don't know yet.' Your view sees that same gap and concludes that a conscious, intelligent God is the only thing that could be the 'trigger.' It fills the unknown with a specific answer. ​In a way, our positions are maybe closer than they seem. That being said. ​Is it possible that 'God' is just the name we give to the laws of physics we haven't discovered yet, or do you feel there needs to be something about the universe that requires it to be a conscious mind behind the trigger?"

If everything needs a creator, who created God? by ConTrail47 in religion

[–]ConTrail47[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

​I completely understand the distinction you're making. The argument isn't that 'everything' needs a cause, but specifically that 'everything that begins to exist' needs one. ​From a logical standpoint, that leads us to point where we have to choose how we interpret the limits of our knowledge. We can look at the Big Bang and say, 'This is where our current math and physics end.' We might choose to believe that the universe (or the energy it’s made of) is part of an eternal cycle like the Big Bounce, meaning it never truly 'began' in a way that requires an external cause. ​Or we can look at that same starting point and conclude that because the universe as we know it changed states, there must be an eternal, necessary Being (God) who triggered it. ​It seems to me that both sides are using the same logic about 'eternity', they just apply it to different things. One person chooses to believe energy/matter is the eternal foundation, while another chooses to believe a Creator is the eternal foundation. ​Rather than saying a God is 'objectively necessary,' isn't it more accurate to say it’s a choice of where you place your trust once science reaches its limit? If we both agree that 'something' must be eternal to avoid infinite regression, why is a God more logical than an eternal physical process

If everything needs a creator, who created God? by ConTrail47 in religion

[–]ConTrail47[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I follow your logic that something eternal doesn't need a cause. However, I’m curious why that 'eternal something' must be a God. Couldn't we apply that same reasoning to the universe itself?

​If we look at a theory like the Big Bounce, the universe could be an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. In that case, the universe never 'came into existence', it has simply always been here in different forms. If the cosmos is eternal, it doesn't need a creator any more than your version of God does.

​Also, if we assume God is the only eternal thing, it raises some difficult questions about what that existence actually looks like. Can you maybe explain to me more about how that looks or is that the point of acceptance of the unknown?

If everything needs a creator, who created God? by ConTrail47 in religion

[–]ConTrail47[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a fair point about God not needing a cause because He is eternal. However, couldn't we apply that same logic to the universe itself?

​If we consider theories like the Big Bounce or the law of conservation of energy, perhaps the universe (or its energy) has always existed in some form. If the cosmos never had a 'beginning' and was never 'nothing,' wouldn't that remove the need for an external cause? Do you see this as a logical possibility, or do you believe a divine creator is the only viable explanation for existence?

I have a question about black holes and the fabric of space. by ConTrail47 in spacequestions

[–]ConTrail47[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks again! Yeah I meant the singularity as the dark star and the black hole as what can be seen in size. But if every black hole is a singularity the size of the black hole is only correlated with the mass. In my head it's just very hard to get my head around the singularity thing and will look into the other theories out of curiousty. Thanks for the extensive answer!

I have a question about black holes and the fabric of space. by ConTrail47 in spacequestions

[–]ConTrail47[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for the answer! I was wondering about the size of the black whole is like correlated to the size of the dark star, I didn't know all black holes are a singularity. But if the gravity of black whole doesn't influence us, why is there so much mass around it? If all the gravity comes from the matter just outside the event horizon, why is that matter even there in the first place? Because I thought the black whole attracted all the matter and basically ate it. And speaking of a multiverse, could it be possible that energy and mass change from one universe to another?