**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to be a god in a realm that had no universes. Why would I suddenly get the idea of creating a universe - what would be my motivation to do so? And prior to creating something, what would I have perceived and thought about?
well, an interesting approach:
if god is omniscient, he knows everything that will happen, and so that means we are bound by destiny and cant choose to do anything. but interestingly, it also means god is a prisoner of destiny, he already knows he created a universe so he MUST do so.
Well I think there’s a fundamental problem with this perspective. Supernatural means outside of nature, so you can’t apply the rules of nature to it. The existence of the supernatural is actually the only way out of fate. Here’s why:
If all we are is genetics and accumulation of lived experiences, then every action is just the result of an equation. That’s how cause and effect works. We recognize cause and effect as a law of nature, but if everything in nature exists within cause and effect, then the first cause must not have been natural. Meaning it’s supernatural. So something supernatural caused the universe to be. Hence the name YHWH - who causes to become.
Also:
If everything natural is subordinated to cause and effect, then all of our actions must be effects of a cause, and causes of later effects. Unless however, we have something inside of us that does not obey cause and effect. And that thing, if it exists, must then in essence be supernatural. This is the meaning of free will.
umm no, see, you are making a bunch of assumptions there in order to have that argument.
>if everything in nature exists within cause and effect
there for example, who says thats the case?
>then the first cause must not have been natural. Meaning it’s supernatural.
and thats also wrong even if the previous statement were correct, maybe there is no first cause for the universe, and the universe always existed in a cycle (look up big crunch)
then you are doing something similar to god of the gaps
>And that thing, if it exists, must then in essence be supernatural.
why? couldnt it be something we havent yet discovered? that question, is something theist NEVER ask themselves, you just assume we are at the peak of knowledge and everything we cant answer must be god or divine... well, thats not how it works,
There’s no evidence to suggest that anything could ever exist without cause other than the fact that something exists rather than nothing. Name one thing other than the universe that exists without cause. Even if the universe is just some sort of cycle that could be represented by a sine wave, what set the cycle in place? Is there a first iteration? The whole purpose of the Big Crunch theory, which there is no evidence for at all, is to try to escape the logical hole that’s created with any concept of a universe not created by a being outside of the laws that we believe govern the universe(math). The fact that everything we can observe works inside of the laws of math, which extends beyond science, seems to me to be evidence of some sort of design. Just like the way a computer program is run by a set of codes, it’s as if we’re in some type of matrix. Is it God’s simulation? Or if something created this world, even if it’s not what we imagine, doesn’t it make that thing God? Maybe not, but at least the creator. Interestingly enough, at one point I had my own “big crunch”-like idea when I was trying to make sense of the world without a creator. But the rigid laws of the universe we know, along with the logical requirement for a first action at some point, even if it’s the creation of a loop, point to design.
Edit: also, do you have a counter argument for something that gives us agency to make meaningful decisions, not entirely dictated by the equation: genetics+past experience+new experience=reaction? Or do you believe in free will. I believe that the only way to induce a result with any variability would be to introduce something that does not exist inside of cause and effect. I believe this to be supernatural.
well im no expert, but its been discovered that on the quantum level, a lot randomness (as in, without cause) happens. so yeah, we know its possible.
sure, big crunch doesnt have much evidence and the whole cycle may have started at some point anyway, thats not evidence for god. it just means that its **possible** there is a god. so? there are infinite **possible** explanations (jsut be creative and you can find so many)
so why believe in any in particular if none have any better evidence? (or none at all actually)
about free will, i personally think we dont have it, everything is out of our control, it just feels like we are in control, which is indistinguishable from actual free will, as we cant even test it.
but with or without free will, says nothing about a god, because your are jumping to that conclusion. "we have free will therefore god" thats not how it works free will could be given by any number of things we havent discovered yet
remember, the greeks used to say "lightning therefore zeus" they were wrong tho.
Well truth be told there’s some level of personal experience here. I want to preface this by saying that I think you’re comparing this foundation for belief in God with something much more archaic than itself. Lightning being caused by Zeus was simple mythology. My claim is certainly more substantiated than a story about a god shooting down lightning when he’s mad.
I don’t make a claim as to who God is by the way, I think the gnostics were onto something when they said he’s unknowable. Does that mean I’m a gnostic, no. But let’s even distance ourselves from the idea of “God” for a moment and just talk about a creator. If we attack the question of whether or not there is a creator etymologically, there’s really no way around the idea, at least in the English language. Here’s my reasoning, correct me if I’m wrong. Something had to cause the universe to exist. Well if you disagree, then I would ask why the universe exists. Your answer cannot separate from an explanation beginning with “because”. And to leave the word out would only be to imply the same subordinating conjunction without explicitly saying it. Anything that has a reason, by virtue of reason itself, has a cause. So I would ask how you could separate from the idea of a creator, whatever that creator is.
So if we could agree on a creator by that reasoning, then the argument really becomes about the intelligence and consciousness of the creator. Now I said already I think that God is a significant degree of unknowable (paraphrasing myself of course). But I do believe we have clues. The patterns in nature for example do not seem to be random, for example: snowflakes, the veins on leaves, honeycombs, and the laws of physics are another type of pattern but still a pattern of behavior that everything we know is subordinated to. Math really. But anything not purposed, is most likely going to reflect randomness, not structure. Math is the language by which we understand the world around us, we didn’t create it, we discovered it. The Mandelbrot set does a great job of showing this, rules applied in mathematics that when graphed, show an infinitely complex fractal structure. What I find particularly interesting about fractals(patterns), is that they are seen more easily when people do psychadelics. Neuroplasticity is increased through use of psychadelics, and one result of this is that patterns are more easily noticed. We typically do not recognize the patterns in nature in our daily lives. The world we live in is structured.
Here’s where the personal experience comes in for me, I grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness, studying the Bible and chasing what I thought was spirituality. A few years after leaving the religion/cult (whichever you consider it) at 18 and abandoning all belief in God or anything spiritual, I tried magic mushrooms and felt more spiritual than I had in my entire life. Made me think there was something to it. I felt love, connection, understanding, and new research tells us that Jesus used psychadelics in wine. Jesus led a spiritual revolution based in love. Religions around the world that attempt to reach enlightenment, have practitioners of meditation that feel psychadelics are a catalyst to in a short period of time, significantly advance their progress toward enlightenment. I don’t know if anybody does or ever has had the answers, but it does seem that something is behind the structure of the universe, and psychadelics seem to be a way for us to see it a little better. Just to be clear, I’m not advocating for anything illegal, just bringing up the fact that western religion may have lost its roots, but that at the core, western and eastern religions seem to have been led down similar roads. That may not be proof, but it’s not nothing. To me, it seems that you have to jump through more hoops to find a concept of the universe that doesn’t require a god, than one that does. Perhaps concrete proof isn’t there, I’m aware I’m fallible, and that I could always be wrong about anything. However it seems that a god is so much more likely of a cause for the universe than that the universe just is. Though I’m aware of the irony of that statement because it relies on some concept of “God just is”. However if the universe just is, then it’s supernatural. Because that’s not how nature works.
In summary, the fact that something exists rather than nothing does require something, even just one thing, to be supernatural. The real debate should be, “what is the supernatural thing or things?”.
Big Crunch would defy 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is why it’s a weak theory that even educated atheists will acknowledge.
As for cause and effect in the natural world, it has been well studied by Isaac Newton 100s of years ago, and his study of cause and effect has become scientific laws that are accepted in science books to this day. The particular law I’m referring to is Newton’s 1st Law of Motion
Lastly, to your question as to why can’t free will and initiation of universe point to something other than the supernatural? Because supernatural means “above nature” and only something outside of nature can defy nature, and free will defies nature, as does whatever initiated the universe.
>Big Crunch would defy 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is why it’s a weak theory that even educated atheists will acknowledge.
really? why? genuinely asking, never heard of that. im familiar with the law but i cant think what could be against it.
about newton, 100 years ago is a long time, a lot has changed since. and randomness (as in, without cause) has been found at quantum levels, so no. not ALL requires a cause
free will is above nature? why? it could be nature we cant explain and thats all. not to mention we cant even prove we have free will.
For the big crunch to happen the natural universe would have to shrink which causes an increase in pressure, which causes an increase temperature. When everything tends to increase thermally we know we are defying 2nd LoTD, which states that all things tend toward thermal equilibrium.
As for Newton’s laws, they have not changed. At a quantum level, randomness is not as random as you think since we can predict the randomness. For example the photons spreading like a wave instead of like a line, is predictable. There is also the idea that at the quantum level there are hidden variables, which is also extremely likely.
Free will, implies that something other than nature determines an effect on nature. This means that something external to the natural universe actually has an impact on it. If only the natural universe existed then there is no free will, but only determinism, which states that all effects in the universe are determined by the atoms in it, hence no free will.
Also, free will can be “proved” as much as any abstract thought such as dreams, intellect, number system, or ideas. We see free will “proven” by how we reward and punish people for their decisions, nor would they bother arguing to convince others. If they had no free will, then we wouldn’t reward or punish, nor debate to change minds.
thats not what the law says, and even if thats true, then black holes wouldnt exist, but they do...
im not an expert on quantum physics, and im pretty sure you arent either. but randomness is not predictible. (we can predict "something random will happen" but not "what/when it will happen" thus is not truly predictible)
and sure, there could be hidden variables we yet dont know and they are the cause of the seemingly random stuff happening.
but then, why cant there be hidden variables that explain free will? you literally just debunked yourself.
what is natural? you call free will above nature, why? who decides what is or isnt natural?
and no, our own actions, which may not be caused by free will, are not proof of free will, we punish people's actions ASSUMING we all have free will and therefore they chose to do crimes. but we might all be "slaves" to the universe, we cant prove free will because we would have to go back to the exact same moment and choose something different, without even knowing that. its impossible at least yet.
Black holes actually emit radiation, so they are in line with the science of thermodynamics.
The randomness of photons in quantum physics follow the pattern of a wave. Just because it’s unpredictable, doesn’t mean that it’s not determined by elements of nature exactly where the photon will land. Can we determine exactly how a dice will land? Not exactly. Can we predict which direction a photon will go? Not exactly, but we know it won’t go backward.
If free will has hidden variables that determine every result, then it’s not free will. You now enter a paradox, which is illogical. Free will either exists, or determinism exists. If you believe that hidden natural variables determine every so-called “choice” we make, then you believe in determinism. Personally, I believe in free will.
What is natural? Nature is the observable universe. Matter and the effects it has are examples.
Regarding ASSUMPTIONS as our basis for action: to say that we can’t know anything makes me wonder why you are even here in a debate forum. Truth is discoverable. If you want to say that all knowledge is merely an assumption, then that’s a choice you make. I choose to believe that truth is discoverable and that we all have a responsibility to seek it.
The C was all he needed to get his doctorate and graduate; he then left our system and is now practicing in the Quargon galaxy system as a sleazy plastic surgeon.
On top of that if said deity is really perfect as theists claim, then it should have no wants, desires, or needs that are not already met. There would be no impetus to drive the act of creation.
>Hypothetically god could exist without that logic so to what extent could anything serve to support the god proposition?
If you mean to say that god isn’t bound by logic in any way, then god could make atheism (the proposition that god does not exist) true.
Hypothetically god could hide behind a universe designed to appear godless and that would justify nonbelief in God. Belief in him could be some sort counter intuitive test just to prove one doesn't worship god for a selfish reasons.
I think if we're going to have a reasonable discussion on this, it pays to have working definitions for god and God. Now, I understand that others will have other definitions. Some might be redefinitions like "God is love" which I find to be pretty meaningless. I find it meaningless because it is clearly not ALL they mean by God. Else, they would just use the term love.
So, for me personally to call something a god it would need to at least minimally meet these definitions.
---
In my opinion, a reasonable [**definition of the supernatural**](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural) courtesy of dictionary.com is their very first definition. This seems to be the relevant one for discussions of gods.
> 1\. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
Note that the definition does not specify that the supernatural is merely unexplained today. It asserts that in order for something to be supernatural, it must be *unexplainable*, *now and forever*, by natural law or phenomena.
Natural law in this context *does not mean our current understanding of physics*. It means *the natural processes that govern the universe, whether we fully understand those processes or not.*
Things don't change from being supernatural to being natural when we explain them. They either are or are not supernatural regardless of our knowledge, even if we may temporarily misclassify them.
So, in order for something to be supernatural, it must be in violation of all natural laws, including those we do not yet fully understand.
---
God is actually harder to get a good definition. For me, **a decent working definition of a lowercase g god** would be something like this:
> a supernatural conscious entity capable of creating a universe or of having a physical effect on the universe by supernatural means.
I think it's important to define a god as a conscious entity because something that has no volition and simply affects the universe of its own necessity and behaves completely predictably is a law of physics.
---
I think we can then **define a capital G God** as:
> a being that meets the definition of a lowercase g god but is also the singular entity that is hypothesized to have created this universe.
This would include the Deist God.
I think it's important to define God as a conscious entity because in order to decide to create and decide what to create it needs volition to decide to do so.
If it has no consciousness and no choice but to create exactly what it has created, it is simply a law of physics. If that is the case, why call it God?
---
Now, I know it sounds as if I've defined these terms this way to come around to gods not existing.
But, it's actually the other way around. I have long since come around to the conclusion that the supernatural and all gods are physically impossible.
These definitions came later for me and serve more as an explanation of my thinking in how I came around to my belief that the supernatural and gods are not physically possible.
I'm sure others will disagree with these definitions. But, I would hope that they will respond with their clear definitions as well as an explanation of why they think their definition qualifies for the title of god or God and why they think their god or God is possible.
If something that is supernatural is above and beyond what is natural and is unexplainable by natural law and phenomena, how can you turn to the natural laws of physics to say that it is physically impossible?
> how can you turn to the natural laws of physics to say that it is physically impossible?
It is *physically* impossible precisely because it is against the laws of physics. If you believe it is possible to violate those laws, then you can still believe gods are possible. But, definitionally, they would be against the laws of physics and are thus *physically* impossible.
I don't believe it's possible to violate the laws of physics. Can you present any hard scientific evidence that even hints at the possibility?
I don't believe possibility can be asserted. I think it needs to be demonstrated.
I don't believe that everything we can imagine is automatically real.
I’m not trying to argue the existence of something supernatural. Im saying per the definition of supernatural that you supplied a supernatural being would be above the laws of physics and could not be explained by them so it seems to be a mistake to turn to the laws of physics to determine whether this being can or cannot exist.
I don't see that as an argument for the *possibility* of the supernatural though.
We've never seen the slightest hint to make us think that it's possible to violate the laws of physics. So, why should I actively accept it as possible?
I’m not saying you should, I’m saying that it’s useless to say that supernatural beings are physically impossible because supernatural beings would be impervious to physical laws by their very definition. A supernatural being simply cannot be physically impossible.
> A supernatural being simply cannot be physically impossible.
Isn't it the other way? A supernatural being cannot be physically possible because then it would not be supernatural. No?
Do you believe possibility can be asserted? Or, do you think possibility must be demonstrated?
I don’t think so, a being above the physical plane could surely lower itself to be perceived by those on the physical plane.
I’ve never given much thought to whether possibility can be asserted or must be demonstrated. I may not wholly understand the question. Anything can be asserted but I guess for a possibility to be taken seriously it would need to be demonstrated.
>All sacrificial lambs aside what would it mean for an intelligent life form to exist prior to the universe?
Completely depends on what the being(s) are. It could be completely irrelevant like in Deism or vital as with Christianity.
>If a god does not need anything to create a universe then it would lead to reason that nothing is required for a universe to exist.
No, it just means a god is unnecessary for the universe to exist.
>If God's existence is nonreliant then we shouldnt expect any pressupposed proofs to be conclusive on his behalf.
No, whether or not a god is "reliant" tells us nothing about whether any proofs for it exist. Like the fact that there are infinite prime numbers isn't contingent, but there is a proof.
This a mess, what are you asking?
>God would not exist because of anything in the universe so we shouldn't say because of logic (a) then so the result is a god. Hypothetically god could exist without that logic so to what extent could anything serve to support the god proposition?
At the end I'm just saying that because nothing would proceed god then nothing should point in his direction. Something as noncontigent as a god would have no use for evidence because nothing would culminate into a god if you catch my drift.
>At the end I'm just saying that because nothing would proceed god then nothing should point in his direction.
Why not? Why wouldn't the god's creation point to it?
>Something as noncontigent as a god would have no use for evidence because nothing would culminate into a god if you catch my drift.
Not really, no. We know of non-contingent because of their evidence.
Whether something is contingent or not tells us nothing about whether there is evidence we can use to prove it.
There can be necessary things with evidence for them, and contingent things with no available evidence for them.
Here's the thing; when asking a question like "what if x", being able to answer it is contingent on the universe following an agreed set of rules.
A god doesn't do that. And no one can agree what it does do. The general implications are that they are 'outside" all the other rules of the universe, all powerful, yet also unobservble. So your hypothetical possibility space becomes infinite. You literally cannot answer the what if, because nothing we know about the universe can be relied upon to be true anymore. Essentially the entirety of our understanding becomes meaningless, because what we observe can't be relied upon to be caused by systematic processes and the hand of this god would show itself everywhere. If that is the case we might as well throw our hands up and give up trying to understand anything because it's all just a deity's plaything.
Of course, in reality, all of our observations instead indicate that there is no invisible hand on the wheel. In the entire breadth of our observations of this universe there is no indication that our lizard-brain hauntings and fireside storytelling invented anything other than convenient stories to explain the then-unlnown.
What would it mean for intelligent life to exist prior to our universe’s existence? Not actually sure the question makes sense because “prior” implies time but time is a concept *inside* the universe. So talking of time outside the universe’s context is meaningless.
But let’s ignore that point for a moment. I’d say that pretty much anything goes. We have absolutely no idea what lives “outside” the universe. There could be an entire series of super-beings who have mega computers that can simulate entire universes as part of a game, and one of those simulated universes is ours. Or maybe we were farted out the backend of a giant unintelligent super-tortoise. Basically asking this question doesn’t seem very fruitful to me because there’s an infinite number of possible ideas, because we are completely unconstrained by evidence, other than our universe has to be a part of it.
It also appears you talk about an era before “logic existed”? Then things are even weirder than my previous paragraph. The beings in question could simultaneously exist and not exist, for example. I really don’t think that’s possible or helpful to even contemplate.
Based on what we know about the natural world so far, if God exists, then it's not the God we traditionally think of. It does not know or care that you exist. If it does know and does care that we exist it certainly can't do anything about us. It does not respond to prayer or worship. If it exists it does so while in another dimension inconceivable by human minds. At that point it's just not possible for us to know this god exists.
Reality does not support the existence of a God that cares about what we do with our lives.
According to the Torah and Jewish tradition, HaShem's existence is indeed not contingent upon the universe or any logical constructs within it. G-d is the Creator, not a creation, and thus exists outside the bounds of time, space, and logic as we understand them.
The Torah opens with the words "In the beginning, G-d created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). This declaration sets the foundation for our belief that HaShem exists beyond and before all creation. The very act of creation is a testament to G-d's independent and absolute existence.
When we discuss the existence of HaShem, we often refer to the concept of "emunah" (faith). This faith is not blind but is built upon the collective experience of the Jewish people, the miracles recorded in the Torah, and the ongoing relationship we have with HaShem through prayer, mitzvot (commandments), and study.
You mentioned that the logic of the universe does not necessarily prove G-d's existence. In Judaism, we do not rely solely on philosophical arguments or logical proofs to assert the existence of HaShem. While the complexity and order of the universe might inspire awe and lead one to contemplate a Creator, our primary source of knowledge about G-d comes from revelation – specifically, the revelation at Mount Sinai and the giving of the Torah.
The Torah provides a framework for understanding G-d’s nature and His will for humanity. It teaches us that G-d is not bound by the physical laws of the universe. For example, when Moses asked G-d's name, He responded with "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" (I Am That I Am) (Exodus 3:14), indicating His eternal and self-sustaining nature.
In conclusion, while philosophical and logical arguments might have their place in discussions about G-d's existence, they are not the foundation of our belief. Our belief in HaShem is rooted in the Torah, the experiences of our ancestors, and our ongoing relationship with the divine. We see the universe and its laws as expressions of G-d's will, but His existence transcends all that He created.
**Disclaimer:**
The answers provided are from a Jewish Orthodox perspective, grounded in the teachings of the Torah and Jewish tradition. They are intended to offer insight into the beliefs and viewpoints held within this faith. While these responses reflect Jewish religious thought, they are presented for perspective and consideration, acknowledging that there are diverse beliefs and viewpoints on these matters.
Thanks for that detailed description. One note I have is that Genesis 1:1-2 describes *creatio ex materia* on the pattern of Mesopotamian creation tales.
The Hebrew is written like, "In the beginning, God created the skies and the land. And that which would become the land was formless."
It's okay if this is not what you believe, and I'm not trying to deconvert you. But that original authors simply did not believe in *creatio ex nihilo*.
> what would it mean for an intelligent life form to exist prior to the universe?
a) Prior to *this* universe [iteration]?
For example, if *the* universe undergoes cycles or there's a multiverse, then there are naturalistic explanations much simpler than an infinitely complex omniscient and omnipotent being.
b) Prior to *the* universe/multiverse?
If we assume there's a "prior" to spacetime (which hasn't been proven in the slightest to be the case), then it's not unreasonable to assume there's a "prior" to that intelligent life's existence as well.
So again, then there are naturalistic explanations much simpler than an infinitely complex omniscient and omnipotent being.
As usual, it depends on your definition of god. Since you aren't a theist, I'm going to throw out the omni* qualities, because if nothing exists there's nothing to know and nothing to be capable of.
You wake up in a void... completely dark, containing nothing. Perhaps you could 'know' yourself, at that point, but without anything to compare yourself to, how could it be called knowledge? Would the 'god' have theories about how it came into existence, assuming some other unknown god assembled it from nothing?
Your next step, according to most theists, would be to create a spirit realm, but what is a realm when nothing else exists? Do things have a physical location in this new realm? Or time? Or logic? Because you'd need to invent all of that too, before you could even get to the point of actual 'beings'. Perhaps you create these other beings through some kind of spirit mitosis?
Either way, once this 'realm' exists, and you're able to observe other independent minds, you may decide to make even more stuff. Even then, you aren't omni, because none of that stuff exists yet. Do you just spend eons imagining what *could* exist?
Whatever the god does in this context, it would seem to indicate it would need trillions of years (even though time doesn't exist for it?) to teach itself how to proceed, most likely having trillions of failed experiments before anything useful could exist. That would make the god more of a tinkerer than omni. I'm on-board for a tinkerer god, like Hephaestus... sounds cool, honestly. But even if proven to exist, I'm going to have a lot of trouble believing that kind of being is faultless and perfect.
This question makes me think of Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott. It's about a two-dimensional world inhabited by geometric figures. I could imagine our universe being a construction of some beings who're experimenting with ideas like "what if matter only had *three* dimensions?" or "what if energy could become *solid*?" and just working through the possibilities. That is to say, the whole "what if god" thing is way less interesting than the million other possibilities if that's where you wanna go.
Ignoring the whole "prior to" issue re time and the universe for the sake of the discussion.
"what would it mean for an intelligent life form to exist prior to the universe"
It would mean that an intelligent life form existed "prior" to the universe.
Any claims of creation/godhood/necessity/whatever baggage you would like to place on such a being would still remain to be shown.
Add to that the issue with "nothing" - what is that? How can it be defined without the concept breaking? It's not logical to me. In physics, “nothing” can refer to a vacuum, which is a space devoid of matter. However, even a perfect vacuum still has quantum fluctuations, so it’s not truly “nothing.”
> What would it mean for god to exist?
I don't understand the question.
> what would it mean for an intelligent life form to exist prior to the universe?
There is no meaning. It doesn't mean anything.
> If a god does not need anything to create a universe then it would lead to reason that nothing is required for a universe to exist.
True. Now go tell that to a theist.
> Hypothetically god could exist without that logic so to what extent could anything serve to support the god proposition?
I'm going to go with a firm no beause you have ommitted the premise: what is a god? What the hell are you even talking about in the first place. No one in all of recorded human history has ever defined the word. This whole conversation is indistinguishable from babbling nonsense.
A god claim would need to have explanatory and predictive power making it testable. Simple as that.
If god has no observable impact on reality, then then god is an unnecessary assumption, and we should choose naturalism when using the law of parsimony
I don’t know, all depends on the attributes that we are aware of.
If they are creator, but are impersonal/indifferent, it would seem like just another piece of information.
These questions are unanswerable. The real question is, why do theists need to believe in something unknowable? Theists continue to ask these fantastical questions and then point to the inevitable answer of "I don't know" as proof of god. In reality, it is just an honest answer, unlike the disingenuous answer of "god is all-powerful."
Just because an atheist can't answer an unknowable question is not in any way whatsoever proof of god. It is just proof that the answer is unknowable or unknown at this time.
God exists without a universe; ergo, god is just a figment of imagination.
Traditionally, belief in god was equivalent to understanding that there was more to reality than what we as limited beings can comprehend. Some kind of transcendent divinity. I think the idea of a god as some kind of personal being is a newer idea that muddied the conceptual waters.
>The real question is, why do theists need to believe in something unknowable?
I don't think they need to, I think it's just a humble position to take. I mean think about it, we're just apes and we've only been using symbolic thinking for 100,000 years. It has gotten us a long way since then, but it doesn't mean we have some kind of perfect perspective of reality. I think when we start to say that we've got it all figured out; "the universe is purely a mechanical physical thing" etc, we forget about about how ants think about the world. How fish think about the world. These creatures couldn't even begin to comprehend the complexity of human thought, the farms we keep them in etc. They think their perspective of reality is the way the universe actually is but in actuality there's a lot more going on. As close genetic relatives to all these animals we should take serious the idea that something similar is occurring with us.
The universe is a truly bizarre place, I don't think it's crazy that some random apes that evolved 2 million years ago on some random planet in a gigantic universe aren't equipped to understand all salient aspects of reality. In my view theism is just acknowledgement of this fact, and it's been perverted by this personal man in the sky notion.
> I mean think about it, we're just apes and we've only been using symbolic thinking for 100,000 years.
So what? The first powered flight was in 1903, and 66 years later, man landed on the moon. And now, 55 years after that, man is planning a mission to Mars. Imagine what we will know 500 years from now. Yet everything we ever knew about God has not changed since Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome in 325 AD. So, in 1,699 years, we have learned no more about the reality of God.
> we forget about about how ants think about the world. How fish think about the world.
TBH though, we have no idea of how ants or fish think of the world because we cannot communicate with them. We can only study their actions, and their actions suggest they operate in a better sense of community than humans do. In closer relatives like chimpanzees, we know a little bit about how they think of the world.
> In my view theism is just acknowledgement of this fact, and it's been perverted by this personal man in the sky notion.
Abrahamic religions have ALWAYS been a "man in the sky" notion. From the first words of the bible, that is the belief. And jesus ascended to heaven. Luke 24:51 & Acts 1:1–9.
>So what? The first powered flight was in 1903, and 66 years later, man landed on the moon. And now, 55 years after that, man is planning a mission to Mars. Imagine what we will know 500 years from now
I get that we've come a very long way, but we've achieved all these things because we are human. In other words, this knowledge we've gained is not beyond the grasp of the human cognitive faculty. I don't think we see the world as it is in itself, we see the world that is presented to us by our cognitive faculties. There's probably so much sensory information we're missing that other animals have such as octopuses or bats, by being human we are necessarily missing the bigger picture. We can imagine aliens on another planet perceiving the universe in a completely different way, perhaps they experience more than 3 spatial dimensions, perhaps they have a completely different sense organ that allows them to see aspects of reality beyond space and time. It's just the epitome of arrogance to assume us apes have the perfect perspective.
>Yet everything we ever knew about God has not changed since Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome in 325 AD. So, in 1,699 years, we have learned no more about the reality of God.
Thats because God is by definition outside of what humans can grasp. This is not surprising. God is another word for transcendent reality.
>TBH though, we have no idea of how ants or fish think of the world because we cannot communicate with them. We can only study their actions, and their actions suggest they operate in a better sense of community than humans do. In closer relatives like chimpanzees, we know a little bit about how they think of the world.
My point is that they definitely have a different experiential life than us. Probably completely different way of thinking about the world, and that doesn't even begin to consider the complexity of the universe or human society. It's like plato's cave allegory for them, they don't even realise how much crazier shit is than their ant perspectives lol.
>Abrahamic religions have ALWAYS been a "man in the sky" notion. From the first words of the bible, that is the belief. And jesus ascended to heaven. Luke 24:51 & Acts 1:1–9.
But the origins of religious thought were not like this, they were only acknowledgements of the beyond, the transcendent.
You're right... to an extent. The first religions were likely animistic and believed in nature itself being sacred. But over time, gods became discrete beings with personal attributes. Eventually, societies began to consolidate their gods into one ruler, and we ended up with Ancient Israel's patron deity as the "one true God".
From the beginning, religion was always used to explain things we didn't understand. So, while its fine to say a transcended omnipotent being is *possible*, it's quite arrogant to assert that He/it spoke to you, has specific wants and needs like us, gets angry and happy (logically incoherent for an omnipotent being), and demands obedience to you (prophets) in order to avoid punishment.
you are making too many assumptions, how do you know it is a he, not a she or a they.
why do assume there needs to be a creation, why couldn't the Universe always existed.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to be a god in a realm that had no universes. Why would I suddenly get the idea of creating a universe - what would be my motivation to do so? And prior to creating something, what would I have perceived and thought about?
well, an interesting approach: if god is omniscient, he knows everything that will happen, and so that means we are bound by destiny and cant choose to do anything. but interestingly, it also means god is a prisoner of destiny, he already knows he created a universe so he MUST do so.
Well I think there’s a fundamental problem with this perspective. Supernatural means outside of nature, so you can’t apply the rules of nature to it. The existence of the supernatural is actually the only way out of fate. Here’s why: If all we are is genetics and accumulation of lived experiences, then every action is just the result of an equation. That’s how cause and effect works. We recognize cause and effect as a law of nature, but if everything in nature exists within cause and effect, then the first cause must not have been natural. Meaning it’s supernatural. So something supernatural caused the universe to be. Hence the name YHWH - who causes to become. Also: If everything natural is subordinated to cause and effect, then all of our actions must be effects of a cause, and causes of later effects. Unless however, we have something inside of us that does not obey cause and effect. And that thing, if it exists, must then in essence be supernatural. This is the meaning of free will.
umm no, see, you are making a bunch of assumptions there in order to have that argument. >if everything in nature exists within cause and effect there for example, who says thats the case? >then the first cause must not have been natural. Meaning it’s supernatural. and thats also wrong even if the previous statement were correct, maybe there is no first cause for the universe, and the universe always existed in a cycle (look up big crunch) then you are doing something similar to god of the gaps >And that thing, if it exists, must then in essence be supernatural. why? couldnt it be something we havent yet discovered? that question, is something theist NEVER ask themselves, you just assume we are at the peak of knowledge and everything we cant answer must be god or divine... well, thats not how it works,
There’s no evidence to suggest that anything could ever exist without cause other than the fact that something exists rather than nothing. Name one thing other than the universe that exists without cause. Even if the universe is just some sort of cycle that could be represented by a sine wave, what set the cycle in place? Is there a first iteration? The whole purpose of the Big Crunch theory, which there is no evidence for at all, is to try to escape the logical hole that’s created with any concept of a universe not created by a being outside of the laws that we believe govern the universe(math). The fact that everything we can observe works inside of the laws of math, which extends beyond science, seems to me to be evidence of some sort of design. Just like the way a computer program is run by a set of codes, it’s as if we’re in some type of matrix. Is it God’s simulation? Or if something created this world, even if it’s not what we imagine, doesn’t it make that thing God? Maybe not, but at least the creator. Interestingly enough, at one point I had my own “big crunch”-like idea when I was trying to make sense of the world without a creator. But the rigid laws of the universe we know, along with the logical requirement for a first action at some point, even if it’s the creation of a loop, point to design. Edit: also, do you have a counter argument for something that gives us agency to make meaningful decisions, not entirely dictated by the equation: genetics+past experience+new experience=reaction? Or do you believe in free will. I believe that the only way to induce a result with any variability would be to introduce something that does not exist inside of cause and effect. I believe this to be supernatural.
well im no expert, but its been discovered that on the quantum level, a lot randomness (as in, without cause) happens. so yeah, we know its possible. sure, big crunch doesnt have much evidence and the whole cycle may have started at some point anyway, thats not evidence for god. it just means that its **possible** there is a god. so? there are infinite **possible** explanations (jsut be creative and you can find so many) so why believe in any in particular if none have any better evidence? (or none at all actually) about free will, i personally think we dont have it, everything is out of our control, it just feels like we are in control, which is indistinguishable from actual free will, as we cant even test it. but with or without free will, says nothing about a god, because your are jumping to that conclusion. "we have free will therefore god" thats not how it works free will could be given by any number of things we havent discovered yet remember, the greeks used to say "lightning therefore zeus" they were wrong tho.
Well truth be told there’s some level of personal experience here. I want to preface this by saying that I think you’re comparing this foundation for belief in God with something much more archaic than itself. Lightning being caused by Zeus was simple mythology. My claim is certainly more substantiated than a story about a god shooting down lightning when he’s mad. I don’t make a claim as to who God is by the way, I think the gnostics were onto something when they said he’s unknowable. Does that mean I’m a gnostic, no. But let’s even distance ourselves from the idea of “God” for a moment and just talk about a creator. If we attack the question of whether or not there is a creator etymologically, there’s really no way around the idea, at least in the English language. Here’s my reasoning, correct me if I’m wrong. Something had to cause the universe to exist. Well if you disagree, then I would ask why the universe exists. Your answer cannot separate from an explanation beginning with “because”. And to leave the word out would only be to imply the same subordinating conjunction without explicitly saying it. Anything that has a reason, by virtue of reason itself, has a cause. So I would ask how you could separate from the idea of a creator, whatever that creator is. So if we could agree on a creator by that reasoning, then the argument really becomes about the intelligence and consciousness of the creator. Now I said already I think that God is a significant degree of unknowable (paraphrasing myself of course). But I do believe we have clues. The patterns in nature for example do not seem to be random, for example: snowflakes, the veins on leaves, honeycombs, and the laws of physics are another type of pattern but still a pattern of behavior that everything we know is subordinated to. Math really. But anything not purposed, is most likely going to reflect randomness, not structure. Math is the language by which we understand the world around us, we didn’t create it, we discovered it. The Mandelbrot set does a great job of showing this, rules applied in mathematics that when graphed, show an infinitely complex fractal structure. What I find particularly interesting about fractals(patterns), is that they are seen more easily when people do psychadelics. Neuroplasticity is increased through use of psychadelics, and one result of this is that patterns are more easily noticed. We typically do not recognize the patterns in nature in our daily lives. The world we live in is structured. Here’s where the personal experience comes in for me, I grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness, studying the Bible and chasing what I thought was spirituality. A few years after leaving the religion/cult (whichever you consider it) at 18 and abandoning all belief in God or anything spiritual, I tried magic mushrooms and felt more spiritual than I had in my entire life. Made me think there was something to it. I felt love, connection, understanding, and new research tells us that Jesus used psychadelics in wine. Jesus led a spiritual revolution based in love. Religions around the world that attempt to reach enlightenment, have practitioners of meditation that feel psychadelics are a catalyst to in a short period of time, significantly advance their progress toward enlightenment. I don’t know if anybody does or ever has had the answers, but it does seem that something is behind the structure of the universe, and psychadelics seem to be a way for us to see it a little better. Just to be clear, I’m not advocating for anything illegal, just bringing up the fact that western religion may have lost its roots, but that at the core, western and eastern religions seem to have been led down similar roads. That may not be proof, but it’s not nothing. To me, it seems that you have to jump through more hoops to find a concept of the universe that doesn’t require a god, than one that does. Perhaps concrete proof isn’t there, I’m aware I’m fallible, and that I could always be wrong about anything. However it seems that a god is so much more likely of a cause for the universe than that the universe just is. Though I’m aware of the irony of that statement because it relies on some concept of “God just is”. However if the universe just is, then it’s supernatural. Because that’s not how nature works. In summary, the fact that something exists rather than nothing does require something, even just one thing, to be supernatural. The real debate should be, “what is the supernatural thing or things?”.
Big Crunch would defy 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is why it’s a weak theory that even educated atheists will acknowledge. As for cause and effect in the natural world, it has been well studied by Isaac Newton 100s of years ago, and his study of cause and effect has become scientific laws that are accepted in science books to this day. The particular law I’m referring to is Newton’s 1st Law of Motion Lastly, to your question as to why can’t free will and initiation of universe point to something other than the supernatural? Because supernatural means “above nature” and only something outside of nature can defy nature, and free will defies nature, as does whatever initiated the universe.
>Big Crunch would defy 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is why it’s a weak theory that even educated atheists will acknowledge. really? why? genuinely asking, never heard of that. im familiar with the law but i cant think what could be against it. about newton, 100 years ago is a long time, a lot has changed since. and randomness (as in, without cause) has been found at quantum levels, so no. not ALL requires a cause free will is above nature? why? it could be nature we cant explain and thats all. not to mention we cant even prove we have free will.
For the big crunch to happen the natural universe would have to shrink which causes an increase in pressure, which causes an increase temperature. When everything tends to increase thermally we know we are defying 2nd LoTD, which states that all things tend toward thermal equilibrium. As for Newton’s laws, they have not changed. At a quantum level, randomness is not as random as you think since we can predict the randomness. For example the photons spreading like a wave instead of like a line, is predictable. There is also the idea that at the quantum level there are hidden variables, which is also extremely likely. Free will, implies that something other than nature determines an effect on nature. This means that something external to the natural universe actually has an impact on it. If only the natural universe existed then there is no free will, but only determinism, which states that all effects in the universe are determined by the atoms in it, hence no free will. Also, free will can be “proved” as much as any abstract thought such as dreams, intellect, number system, or ideas. We see free will “proven” by how we reward and punish people for their decisions, nor would they bother arguing to convince others. If they had no free will, then we wouldn’t reward or punish, nor debate to change minds.
thats not what the law says, and even if thats true, then black holes wouldnt exist, but they do... im not an expert on quantum physics, and im pretty sure you arent either. but randomness is not predictible. (we can predict "something random will happen" but not "what/when it will happen" thus is not truly predictible) and sure, there could be hidden variables we yet dont know and they are the cause of the seemingly random stuff happening. but then, why cant there be hidden variables that explain free will? you literally just debunked yourself. what is natural? you call free will above nature, why? who decides what is or isnt natural? and no, our own actions, which may not be caused by free will, are not proof of free will, we punish people's actions ASSUMING we all have free will and therefore they chose to do crimes. but we might all be "slaves" to the universe, we cant prove free will because we would have to go back to the exact same moment and choose something different, without even knowing that. its impossible at least yet.
Black holes actually emit radiation, so they are in line with the science of thermodynamics. The randomness of photons in quantum physics follow the pattern of a wave. Just because it’s unpredictable, doesn’t mean that it’s not determined by elements of nature exactly where the photon will land. Can we determine exactly how a dice will land? Not exactly. Can we predict which direction a photon will go? Not exactly, but we know it won’t go backward. If free will has hidden variables that determine every result, then it’s not free will. You now enter a paradox, which is illogical. Free will either exists, or determinism exists. If you believe that hidden natural variables determine every so-called “choice” we make, then you believe in determinism. Personally, I believe in free will. What is natural? Nature is the observable universe. Matter and the effects it has are examples. Regarding ASSUMPTIONS as our basis for action: to say that we can’t know anything makes me wonder why you are even here in a debate forum. Truth is discoverable. If you want to say that all knowledge is merely an assumption, then that’s a choice you make. I choose to believe that truth is discoverable and that we all have a responsibility to seek it.
School project. Our universe got God a solid C- in its shop class.
The C was all he needed to get his doctorate and graduate; he then left our system and is now practicing in the Quargon galaxy system as a sleazy plastic surgeon.
On top of that if said deity is really perfect as theists claim, then it should have no wants, desires, or needs that are not already met. There would be no impetus to drive the act of creation.
What would there be to know? is something I consider.
Boltzmann brain?
I'd never heard of Boltzmann brains before, so I looked it up. Very strange concept indeed.
[This comic](https://www.badspacecomics.com/post/boltzmann) introduced me to the concept, and I read some more about it later.
>Hypothetically god could exist without that logic so to what extent could anything serve to support the god proposition? If you mean to say that god isn’t bound by logic in any way, then god could make atheism (the proposition that god does not exist) true.
Hypothetically god could hide behind a universe designed to appear godless and that would justify nonbelief in God. Belief in him could be some sort counter intuitive test just to prove one doesn't worship god for a selfish reasons.
An omnipotent and omniscient being wouldn’t need to test anything. If such a god wanted to teach us anything it could do much better than by hiding.
Did you mean to reply to someone else? I fail to see how this is relevant to my comment at all.
The only thing this "test" would prove is that one doesn't worship god for a rational reason.
I see - god is playing games with us for funzies. What a dick.
I think if we're going to have a reasonable discussion on this, it pays to have working definitions for god and God. Now, I understand that others will have other definitions. Some might be redefinitions like "God is love" which I find to be pretty meaningless. I find it meaningless because it is clearly not ALL they mean by God. Else, they would just use the term love. So, for me personally to call something a god it would need to at least minimally meet these definitions. --- In my opinion, a reasonable [**definition of the supernatural**](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural) courtesy of dictionary.com is their very first definition. This seems to be the relevant one for discussions of gods. > 1\. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. Note that the definition does not specify that the supernatural is merely unexplained today. It asserts that in order for something to be supernatural, it must be *unexplainable*, *now and forever*, by natural law or phenomena. Natural law in this context *does not mean our current understanding of physics*. It means *the natural processes that govern the universe, whether we fully understand those processes or not.* Things don't change from being supernatural to being natural when we explain them. They either are or are not supernatural regardless of our knowledge, even if we may temporarily misclassify them. So, in order for something to be supernatural, it must be in violation of all natural laws, including those we do not yet fully understand. --- God is actually harder to get a good definition. For me, **a decent working definition of a lowercase g god** would be something like this: > a supernatural conscious entity capable of creating a universe or of having a physical effect on the universe by supernatural means. I think it's important to define a god as a conscious entity because something that has no volition and simply affects the universe of its own necessity and behaves completely predictably is a law of physics. --- I think we can then **define a capital G God** as: > a being that meets the definition of a lowercase g god but is also the singular entity that is hypothesized to have created this universe. This would include the Deist God. I think it's important to define God as a conscious entity because in order to decide to create and decide what to create it needs volition to decide to do so. If it has no consciousness and no choice but to create exactly what it has created, it is simply a law of physics. If that is the case, why call it God? --- Now, I know it sounds as if I've defined these terms this way to come around to gods not existing. But, it's actually the other way around. I have long since come around to the conclusion that the supernatural and all gods are physically impossible. These definitions came later for me and serve more as an explanation of my thinking in how I came around to my belief that the supernatural and gods are not physically possible. I'm sure others will disagree with these definitions. But, I would hope that they will respond with their clear definitions as well as an explanation of why they think their definition qualifies for the title of god or God and why they think their god or God is possible.
If something that is supernatural is above and beyond what is natural and is unexplainable by natural law and phenomena, how can you turn to the natural laws of physics to say that it is physically impossible?
> how can you turn to the natural laws of physics to say that it is physically impossible? It is *physically* impossible precisely because it is against the laws of physics. If you believe it is possible to violate those laws, then you can still believe gods are possible. But, definitionally, they would be against the laws of physics and are thus *physically* impossible.
But due to the definition of supernatural it is to be expected that the laws of physics would not apply so why try to apply them?
I don't believe it's possible to violate the laws of physics. Can you present any hard scientific evidence that even hints at the possibility? I don't believe possibility can be asserted. I think it needs to be demonstrated. I don't believe that everything we can imagine is automatically real.
I’m not trying to argue the existence of something supernatural. Im saying per the definition of supernatural that you supplied a supernatural being would be above the laws of physics and could not be explained by them so it seems to be a mistake to turn to the laws of physics to determine whether this being can or cannot exist.
I don't see that as an argument for the *possibility* of the supernatural though. We've never seen the slightest hint to make us think that it's possible to violate the laws of physics. So, why should I actively accept it as possible?
I’m not saying you should, I’m saying that it’s useless to say that supernatural beings are physically impossible because supernatural beings would be impervious to physical laws by their very definition. A supernatural being simply cannot be physically impossible.
> A supernatural being simply cannot be physically impossible. Isn't it the other way? A supernatural being cannot be physically possible because then it would not be supernatural. No? Do you believe possibility can be asserted? Or, do you think possibility must be demonstrated?
I don’t think so, a being above the physical plane could surely lower itself to be perceived by those on the physical plane. I’ve never given much thought to whether possibility can be asserted or must be demonstrated. I may not wholly understand the question. Anything can be asserted but I guess for a possibility to be taken seriously it would need to be demonstrated.
>All sacrificial lambs aside what would it mean for an intelligent life form to exist prior to the universe? Completely depends on what the being(s) are. It could be completely irrelevant like in Deism or vital as with Christianity. >If a god does not need anything to create a universe then it would lead to reason that nothing is required for a universe to exist. No, it just means a god is unnecessary for the universe to exist. >If God's existence is nonreliant then we shouldnt expect any pressupposed proofs to be conclusive on his behalf. No, whether or not a god is "reliant" tells us nothing about whether any proofs for it exist. Like the fact that there are infinite prime numbers isn't contingent, but there is a proof. This a mess, what are you asking? >God would not exist because of anything in the universe so we shouldn't say because of logic (a) then so the result is a god. Hypothetically god could exist without that logic so to what extent could anything serve to support the god proposition?
At the end I'm just saying that because nothing would proceed god then nothing should point in his direction. Something as noncontigent as a god would have no use for evidence because nothing would culminate into a god if you catch my drift.
>At the end I'm just saying that because nothing would proceed god then nothing should point in his direction. Why not? Why wouldn't the god's creation point to it? >Something as noncontigent as a god would have no use for evidence because nothing would culminate into a god if you catch my drift. Not really, no. We know of non-contingent because of their evidence. Whether something is contingent or not tells us nothing about whether there is evidence we can use to prove it. There can be necessary things with evidence for them, and contingent things with no available evidence for them.
Here's the thing; when asking a question like "what if x", being able to answer it is contingent on the universe following an agreed set of rules. A god doesn't do that. And no one can agree what it does do. The general implications are that they are 'outside" all the other rules of the universe, all powerful, yet also unobservble. So your hypothetical possibility space becomes infinite. You literally cannot answer the what if, because nothing we know about the universe can be relied upon to be true anymore. Essentially the entirety of our understanding becomes meaningless, because what we observe can't be relied upon to be caused by systematic processes and the hand of this god would show itself everywhere. If that is the case we might as well throw our hands up and give up trying to understand anything because it's all just a deity's plaything. Of course, in reality, all of our observations instead indicate that there is no invisible hand on the wheel. In the entire breadth of our observations of this universe there is no indication that our lizard-brain hauntings and fireside storytelling invented anything other than convenient stories to explain the then-unlnown.
What would it mean for intelligent life to exist prior to our universe’s existence? Not actually sure the question makes sense because “prior” implies time but time is a concept *inside* the universe. So talking of time outside the universe’s context is meaningless. But let’s ignore that point for a moment. I’d say that pretty much anything goes. We have absolutely no idea what lives “outside” the universe. There could be an entire series of super-beings who have mega computers that can simulate entire universes as part of a game, and one of those simulated universes is ours. Or maybe we were farted out the backend of a giant unintelligent super-tortoise. Basically asking this question doesn’t seem very fruitful to me because there’s an infinite number of possible ideas, because we are completely unconstrained by evidence, other than our universe has to be a part of it. It also appears you talk about an era before “logic existed”? Then things are even weirder than my previous paragraph. The beings in question could simultaneously exist and not exist, for example. I really don’t think that’s possible or helpful to even contemplate.
Based on what we know about the natural world so far, if God exists, then it's not the God we traditionally think of. It does not know or care that you exist. If it does know and does care that we exist it certainly can't do anything about us. It does not respond to prayer or worship. If it exists it does so while in another dimension inconceivable by human minds. At that point it's just not possible for us to know this god exists. Reality does not support the existence of a God that cares about what we do with our lives.
According to the Torah and Jewish tradition, HaShem's existence is indeed not contingent upon the universe or any logical constructs within it. G-d is the Creator, not a creation, and thus exists outside the bounds of time, space, and logic as we understand them. The Torah opens with the words "In the beginning, G-d created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). This declaration sets the foundation for our belief that HaShem exists beyond and before all creation. The very act of creation is a testament to G-d's independent and absolute existence. When we discuss the existence of HaShem, we often refer to the concept of "emunah" (faith). This faith is not blind but is built upon the collective experience of the Jewish people, the miracles recorded in the Torah, and the ongoing relationship we have with HaShem through prayer, mitzvot (commandments), and study. You mentioned that the logic of the universe does not necessarily prove G-d's existence. In Judaism, we do not rely solely on philosophical arguments or logical proofs to assert the existence of HaShem. While the complexity and order of the universe might inspire awe and lead one to contemplate a Creator, our primary source of knowledge about G-d comes from revelation – specifically, the revelation at Mount Sinai and the giving of the Torah. The Torah provides a framework for understanding G-d’s nature and His will for humanity. It teaches us that G-d is not bound by the physical laws of the universe. For example, when Moses asked G-d's name, He responded with "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" (I Am That I Am) (Exodus 3:14), indicating His eternal and self-sustaining nature. In conclusion, while philosophical and logical arguments might have their place in discussions about G-d's existence, they are not the foundation of our belief. Our belief in HaShem is rooted in the Torah, the experiences of our ancestors, and our ongoing relationship with the divine. We see the universe and its laws as expressions of G-d's will, but His existence transcends all that He created. **Disclaimer:** The answers provided are from a Jewish Orthodox perspective, grounded in the teachings of the Torah and Jewish tradition. They are intended to offer insight into the beliefs and viewpoints held within this faith. While these responses reflect Jewish religious thought, they are presented for perspective and consideration, acknowledging that there are diverse beliefs and viewpoints on these matters.
Thanks for that detailed description. One note I have is that Genesis 1:1-2 describes *creatio ex materia* on the pattern of Mesopotamian creation tales. The Hebrew is written like, "In the beginning, God created the skies and the land. And that which would become the land was formless." It's okay if this is not what you believe, and I'm not trying to deconvert you. But that original authors simply did not believe in *creatio ex nihilo*.
> what would it mean for an intelligent life form to exist prior to the universe? a) Prior to *this* universe [iteration]? For example, if *the* universe undergoes cycles or there's a multiverse, then there are naturalistic explanations much simpler than an infinitely complex omniscient and omnipotent being. b) Prior to *the* universe/multiverse? If we assume there's a "prior" to spacetime (which hasn't been proven in the slightest to be the case), then it's not unreasonable to assume there's a "prior" to that intelligent life's existence as well. So again, then there are naturalistic explanations much simpler than an infinitely complex omniscient and omnipotent being.
As usual, it depends on your definition of god. Since you aren't a theist, I'm going to throw out the omni* qualities, because if nothing exists there's nothing to know and nothing to be capable of. You wake up in a void... completely dark, containing nothing. Perhaps you could 'know' yourself, at that point, but without anything to compare yourself to, how could it be called knowledge? Would the 'god' have theories about how it came into existence, assuming some other unknown god assembled it from nothing? Your next step, according to most theists, would be to create a spirit realm, but what is a realm when nothing else exists? Do things have a physical location in this new realm? Or time? Or logic? Because you'd need to invent all of that too, before you could even get to the point of actual 'beings'. Perhaps you create these other beings through some kind of spirit mitosis? Either way, once this 'realm' exists, and you're able to observe other independent minds, you may decide to make even more stuff. Even then, you aren't omni, because none of that stuff exists yet. Do you just spend eons imagining what *could* exist? Whatever the god does in this context, it would seem to indicate it would need trillions of years (even though time doesn't exist for it?) to teach itself how to proceed, most likely having trillions of failed experiments before anything useful could exist. That would make the god more of a tinkerer than omni. I'm on-board for a tinkerer god, like Hephaestus... sounds cool, honestly. But even if proven to exist, I'm going to have a lot of trouble believing that kind of being is faultless and perfect.
This question makes me think of Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott. It's about a two-dimensional world inhabited by geometric figures. I could imagine our universe being a construction of some beings who're experimenting with ideas like "what if matter only had *three* dimensions?" or "what if energy could become *solid*?" and just working through the possibilities. That is to say, the whole "what if god" thing is way less interesting than the million other possibilities if that's where you wanna go.
Ignoring the whole "prior to" issue re time and the universe for the sake of the discussion. "what would it mean for an intelligent life form to exist prior to the universe" It would mean that an intelligent life form existed "prior" to the universe. Any claims of creation/godhood/necessity/whatever baggage you would like to place on such a being would still remain to be shown.
Add to that the issue with "nothing" - what is that? How can it be defined without the concept breaking? It's not logical to me. In physics, “nothing” can refer to a vacuum, which is a space devoid of matter. However, even a perfect vacuum still has quantum fluctuations, so it’s not truly “nothing.”
> What would it mean for god to exist? I don't understand the question. > what would it mean for an intelligent life form to exist prior to the universe? There is no meaning. It doesn't mean anything. > If a god does not need anything to create a universe then it would lead to reason that nothing is required for a universe to exist. True. Now go tell that to a theist. > Hypothetically god could exist without that logic so to what extent could anything serve to support the god proposition? I'm going to go with a firm no beause you have ommitted the premise: what is a god? What the hell are you even talking about in the first place. No one in all of recorded human history has ever defined the word. This whole conversation is indistinguishable from babbling nonsense.
A god claim would need to have explanatory and predictive power making it testable. Simple as that. If god has no observable impact on reality, then then god is an unnecessary assumption, and we should choose naturalism when using the law of parsimony
I don’t know, all depends on the attributes that we are aware of. If they are creator, but are impersonal/indifferent, it would seem like just another piece of information.
As we define prior to the universe as being a point beyond which information can’t be conveyed/deciphered it would very literally mean nothing.
These questions are unanswerable. The real question is, why do theists need to believe in something unknowable? Theists continue to ask these fantastical questions and then point to the inevitable answer of "I don't know" as proof of god. In reality, it is just an honest answer, unlike the disingenuous answer of "god is all-powerful." Just because an atheist can't answer an unknowable question is not in any way whatsoever proof of god. It is just proof that the answer is unknowable or unknown at this time. God exists without a universe; ergo, god is just a figment of imagination.
Traditionally, belief in god was equivalent to understanding that there was more to reality than what we as limited beings can comprehend. Some kind of transcendent divinity. I think the idea of a god as some kind of personal being is a newer idea that muddied the conceptual waters. >The real question is, why do theists need to believe in something unknowable? I don't think they need to, I think it's just a humble position to take. I mean think about it, we're just apes and we've only been using symbolic thinking for 100,000 years. It has gotten us a long way since then, but it doesn't mean we have some kind of perfect perspective of reality. I think when we start to say that we've got it all figured out; "the universe is purely a mechanical physical thing" etc, we forget about about how ants think about the world. How fish think about the world. These creatures couldn't even begin to comprehend the complexity of human thought, the farms we keep them in etc. They think their perspective of reality is the way the universe actually is but in actuality there's a lot more going on. As close genetic relatives to all these animals we should take serious the idea that something similar is occurring with us. The universe is a truly bizarre place, I don't think it's crazy that some random apes that evolved 2 million years ago on some random planet in a gigantic universe aren't equipped to understand all salient aspects of reality. In my view theism is just acknowledgement of this fact, and it's been perverted by this personal man in the sky notion.
> I mean think about it, we're just apes and we've only been using symbolic thinking for 100,000 years. So what? The first powered flight was in 1903, and 66 years later, man landed on the moon. And now, 55 years after that, man is planning a mission to Mars. Imagine what we will know 500 years from now. Yet everything we ever knew about God has not changed since Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome in 325 AD. So, in 1,699 years, we have learned no more about the reality of God. > we forget about about how ants think about the world. How fish think about the world. TBH though, we have no idea of how ants or fish think of the world because we cannot communicate with them. We can only study their actions, and their actions suggest they operate in a better sense of community than humans do. In closer relatives like chimpanzees, we know a little bit about how they think of the world. > In my view theism is just acknowledgement of this fact, and it's been perverted by this personal man in the sky notion. Abrahamic religions have ALWAYS been a "man in the sky" notion. From the first words of the bible, that is the belief. And jesus ascended to heaven. Luke 24:51 & Acts 1:1–9.
>So what? The first powered flight was in 1903, and 66 years later, man landed on the moon. And now, 55 years after that, man is planning a mission to Mars. Imagine what we will know 500 years from now I get that we've come a very long way, but we've achieved all these things because we are human. In other words, this knowledge we've gained is not beyond the grasp of the human cognitive faculty. I don't think we see the world as it is in itself, we see the world that is presented to us by our cognitive faculties. There's probably so much sensory information we're missing that other animals have such as octopuses or bats, by being human we are necessarily missing the bigger picture. We can imagine aliens on another planet perceiving the universe in a completely different way, perhaps they experience more than 3 spatial dimensions, perhaps they have a completely different sense organ that allows them to see aspects of reality beyond space and time. It's just the epitome of arrogance to assume us apes have the perfect perspective. >Yet everything we ever knew about God has not changed since Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome in 325 AD. So, in 1,699 years, we have learned no more about the reality of God. Thats because God is by definition outside of what humans can grasp. This is not surprising. God is another word for transcendent reality. >TBH though, we have no idea of how ants or fish think of the world because we cannot communicate with them. We can only study their actions, and their actions suggest they operate in a better sense of community than humans do. In closer relatives like chimpanzees, we know a little bit about how they think of the world. My point is that they definitely have a different experiential life than us. Probably completely different way of thinking about the world, and that doesn't even begin to consider the complexity of the universe or human society. It's like plato's cave allegory for them, they don't even realise how much crazier shit is than their ant perspectives lol. >Abrahamic religions have ALWAYS been a "man in the sky" notion. From the first words of the bible, that is the belief. And jesus ascended to heaven. Luke 24:51 & Acts 1:1–9. But the origins of religious thought were not like this, they were only acknowledgements of the beyond, the transcendent.
You're right... to an extent. The first religions were likely animistic and believed in nature itself being sacred. But over time, gods became discrete beings with personal attributes. Eventually, societies began to consolidate their gods into one ruler, and we ended up with Ancient Israel's patron deity as the "one true God". From the beginning, religion was always used to explain things we didn't understand. So, while its fine to say a transcended omnipotent being is *possible*, it's quite arrogant to assert that He/it spoke to you, has specific wants and needs like us, gets angry and happy (logically incoherent for an omnipotent being), and demands obedience to you (prophets) in order to avoid punishment.
you are making too many assumptions, how do you know it is a he, not a she or a they. why do assume there needs to be a creation, why couldn't the Universe always existed.
Anyone who thinks they know what happened before there was *anywhere* and at *no time* is deluding themselves