The causal root of God's infinite power

[Universal Mind]

God is supposedly infinitely powerful. What is the source of that very extreme situation? I often come across the argument that he has "always been", but that does not explain why it happens to be the case that there is an infinitely powerful being that has always been. Of all of the things to have always been, why would it be an infinitely powerful mind? What a bizarre reality to happen to have always existed. Why does the eternal being exist in that form? What is the reason or source behind it?

[Keeper]

This is part of the question about existence before existence. Can causality truly apply to a universe besides our own? Indeed, can causality apply in a place that doesn't exist? Who can say what kind of being (if such could be described as a being) could or indeed does exist? If there always must be balance in our universe, why would it apply elsewhere? According to modern physics (or rather most modern physicists), reality is made up of "energy" for want of a better word, and the way that "energy" reacts with itself and others of its kind effects the physical nature of reality. In the absence of this energy, does a comprehensible reality exist?

[Universal Mind]

This is part of the question about existence before existence. Can causality truly apply to a universe besides our own? Indeed, can causality apply in a place that doesn't exist? Who can say what kind of being (if such could be described as a being) could or indeed does exist? If there always must be balance in our universe, why would it apply elsewhere? According to modern physics (or rather most modern physicists), reality is made up of "energy" for want of a better word, and the way that "energy" reacts with itself and others of its kind effects the physical nature of reality. In the absence of this energy, does a comprehensible reality exist? Then God just happens to have always existed in infinitely powerful form, and there is no reason for it?

[Xaqaria]

You can't exactly pin a cause or a reason on infinity, as there is no beginning point to start the casual chain of events. If you operate under the assumption that the hypothetical being 'god' is infinite, it therefore must be causeless by the very definitions of the words involved.

[Universal Mind]

You can't exactly pin a cause or a reason on infinity, as there is no beginning point to start the casual chain of events. If you operate under the assumption that the hypothetical being 'god' is infinite, it therefore must be causeless by the very definitions of the words involved. So that is your reasoning for the lack of need for a cause, but what you are saying is that an infinitely powerful being that has always existed would just be that way for no reason. It would just happen to have been infinitely powerful forever without any reason for it. Is that not the most bizarre happenstance you have ever heard of? Why can't infinity have a cause? A cause does not have to be a prior event in a time sequence. It is just a metaphysical reason that is not necessarily inside time.

[Xaqaria]

So that is your reasoning for the lack of need for a cause, but what you are saying is that an infinitely powerful being that has always existed would just be that way for no reason. It would just happen to have been infinitely powerful forever without any reason for it. Is that not the most bizarre happenstance you have ever heard of? Why can't infinity have a cause? A cause does not have to be a prior event in a time sequence. It is just a metaphysical reason that is not necessarily inside time. The idea of 'outside of time' and a cause of infinity is by far more absurd and illogical to me than that of any infinite being labeled god. Something that has existed since the infinite timeless past isn't in any way 'just because'. It is; persistently so, and thats about as far as finite beings really can describe the circumstance. Its not a matter of coming in to being out of nothing, its a matter of always being there no matter how far back you look. As far as we know about reality, time itself is tied up in the being of everything and is itself dependent on the infinite creator/universe. As a matter of fact, the standard model for the 'beginning' of the universe (big bang) has time coming in to existence as part of a greater force which was the universe as a singularity. This is my god, and there is no need for anything to exist 'outside' of reality at all. If something exists, it is part of reality.

[Universal Mind]

The idea of 'outside of time' and a cause of infinity is by far more absurd and illogical to me than that of any infinite being labeled god. Something that has existed since the infinite timeless past isn't in any way 'just because'. It is; persistently so, and thats about as far as finite beings really can describe the circumstance. Its not a matter of coming in to being out of nothing, its a matter of always being there no matter how far back you look. As far as we know about reality, time itself is tied up in the being of everything and is itself dependent on the infinite creator/universe. As a matter of fact, the standard model for the 'beginning' of the universe (big bang) has time coming in to existence as part of a greater force which was the universe as a singularity. This is my god, and there is no need for anything to exist 'outside' of reality at all. If something exists, it is part of reality. I was not arguing that anything exists outside of time. I was just saying that existing inside of time is not a requirement for the definition of the word "cause". Footnote: However, I do believe that things exist outside of time. Our universe had a beginning, and our time is part of our universe, so the source of our universe exists outside of our time. Is the number 3 limited to our time? The source of time would not be limited to being within time. I am not clear on how "persistently so" removes the "just because" element. Anything without cause is "just because". So you are talking about a being that just happens to be infinitely powerful without any reason for its existence. That is the strangest thing I have ever heard of.

[Xaqaria]

I was not arguing that anything exists outside of time. I was just saying that existing inside of time is not a requirement for the definition of the word "cause". Footnote: However, I do believe that things exist outside of time. Our universe had a beginning, and our time is part of our universe, so the source of our universe exists outside of our time. Is the number 3 limited to our time? The source of time would not be limited to being within time. I am not clear on how "persistently so" removes the "just because" element. Anything without cause is "just because". So you are talking about a being that just happens to be infinitely powerful without any reason for its existence. That is the strangest thing I have ever heard of. Show me evidence that our universe had a beginning.

[cuddleyperson]

I assume he using Big Bang theory as evidence that at the least, there was a time when all matter was in a single point, before that.. our Universe technically did not exist. Just as a baby does exist if we go back ten years, there is just an egg, or 150 years, when it's mother and grandmother do not exist.

[Xaqaria]

I assume he using Big Bang theory as evidence that at the least, there was a time when all matter was in a single point, before that.. our Universe technically did not exist. Just as a baby does exist if we go back ten years, there is just an egg, or 150 years, when it's mother and grandmother do not exist. There is no actual evidence of the singularity that you are talking about. Its an extrapolation because we cannot see back any farther than we have.

[Universal Mind]

Show me evidence that our universe had a beginning. Nice tangent attempt. (I am not convinced that our universe had a beginning. It is just the predominant theory.) Now please admit that you think the God you are talking about would just happen to have always been infinitely powerful for no reason.

[Keeper]

There is a book at the UCT library that I think you guys should read. Its called the Goldilocks Enigma. It says it is about the Anthropic principle, but it also touches on the origin of the universe (or universes), with the author exploring all possibilities, from the multiverse (which ironically lends incredible weight to the designer theorem) to the idea that all things that can exist do. I don't agree with everything he says - indeed, I strongly disagree with many of his points - as he believes that (in a nut shell) the universe is evolving its own sentience, and that sentience - due to realities nature - is the Creator. ... odd, but he makes some good points. Universal: Do you believe that a finite entity - or group of entities - can understand a universe beyond their own? I believe the answer to that question is the heart of this thread.

[LucidFlanders]

Show me evidence that our universe had a beginning. There is none.

[Keeper]

There is none. Evidence or Beginning?

[Universal Mind]

. Universal: Do you believe that a finite entity - or group of entities - can understand a universe beyond their own? I believe the answer to that question is the heart of this thread. We can to the extent that it has characteristics like the ones in this universe. If cause is not part of the universe God has always been in, then it is the case that he is uncaused. Do you think there is a reason behind God's existence or that there is no reason behind it? There is none. There supposedly is evidence for it, and it is a major theory in astronomy. Theists use the theory of the beginning of the universe almost every time an atheist makes the point that the universe has always been when atheists argue the lack of need for a creator of the universe. I would much rather believe that the universe had no beginning because that is one of the most interesting concepts I know of. I don't know whether it did or not. However, whether it did or not is irrelevant to my major point in this thread, which is that if infinitely powerful and eternal God has no cause, then he just happens to have always been infinitely powerful for no reason. I only brought up the notion of outside of time to clarify the definition of cause. I was trying to head off the theist argument that God does not need a cause because he has no beginning. If gravity has forever been pressing down on a planet, hypothetically, there is a reason objects on the planet stay on the ground even though it has always been the case. For that sort of reason and for the outside of time possibility and perhaps other reasons, being eternal does not make something exempt from the requirement of cause. Even if it did, it would still be a very bizarre situation for something to have always been infinitely powerful for no reason.

[Keeper]

I believe that God exists because He must. It is difficult to explain my reasons behind this view, though. Give me some time to get my thoughts in order and I will explain as best I can.

[Ne-yo]

If he has always been then the question of “Why” should be omitted from your topic. You cannot execute an explanation of Why to infinity. The statement “ What a bizarre reality to happen to have always existed” doesn’t correlate with infinity. In short to answer your question, there is no source to an infinite situation. I believe there is no reason behind it, as it should not be a reason. A reason constitutes the properties of a source, as there is not source/begining to God therefore I believe there is no reason behind his infinite nature.

[cuddleyperson]

hmph i still think, especially after watching the theist argument that a design must have a designer( although the banana one was since since bananas we buy, suited for the human hand and all that, don;t exist in the wild period, selective breeding made those), that a *humanoid creature* with infinite power, making it a pretty complex, must have had a designer. * I say humanoid in appearance only because the Bible states God made man in his image, so obviously God looks as a male human does( again because Man was made in Gods image and woman was made from mans).

[Ne-yo]

I say humanoid in appearance only because the Bible states God made man in his image, so obviously God looks as a male human does( again because Man was made in Gods image and woman was made from mans). Perhaps this should help you understand the passage of (Genesis 1:27)"God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" This is just a little food for thought. When God created man in His own image, He gave him a distinctive nature and place in creation (Genesis 5:3; 9:6; I Corinthians 15:39; James 3:9). Man "is the image and glory of God" (I Corinthians 11:7), "made a little lower than the angels, and [God] hast crowned him with glory and honour" (Psalm 8:5; cf. Hebrews 2:9). As sovereign among the creatures, man had dominion over everything on earth (Genesis 1:26, 28). Being in God's image means we can do things God does, such as, talk (2:3; 8:13), rest and sit (2:2; Psalm 47:8), walk (Genesis 2:8), hear and talk (6:12; Exodus 16:12), smell (Genesis 8:21), reason, think, etc., and even have some features as God has, such as, a face and back (Exodus 33:20, 23), a mouth (Isaiah 1:20; Matthew 4:4), hands (Psalm 10:12; Isaiah 41:20), etc. This does not mean God has the same physical features man has, but that man can function, in part, like God does. After God created man out of the elements of the earth, He "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). As a result of this divine action, man has both a material and a spiritual nature. The spiritual nature of man reflects his being created in God's image. This means man has a "spirit and soul and body" (I Thessalonians 5:23). Soul and spirit seem to be two distinctive features: Mary said "My soul doth magnify the Lord; And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour" (Luke 1:46, 47); the writer of Hebrews speaks of the word of God being able to divide the "soul and spirit" (Hebrews 4:12). These scriptures seem to indicate the soul and spirit are two different identities. Jesus comments that "thou shalt love the Love thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul. And with all thy mind" (Matthew 22:37) shows still other aspects (heart, mind) of mans being. Yet these two should not necessarily be thought of as parts of man but perhaps as a way to express his personality. Soul and spirit are in some aspects similar but in other ways different. We see this in Scriptures saying that "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24), but it never speaks of Him having a soul. Soul speaks to an aspect of animate life. It is also used sometimes to refer to people (Genesis 12:5; 46:18; Acts 2:41; I Peter 3:20, etc.), and to one's self (Romans 8:16; I Corinthians 16:18). Spirit is used several ways in Scripture. For instance, about a third of the Old Testament uses refer to "wind." Another usage refer to breath, the breathing out of air. The spirit is the source of man's insight (Matthew 2:8), his intellect ("what man knowth the things of a man, save the spirit of man," I Corinthians 2:11), his will (Matthew 26:41), feelings (Luke 1:47; 10:21; John 11:33; 13:21). It also refers to man's disposition (I Corinthians 4:21; Ephesians 4:23; I Peter 3:4). The most important aspect of spirit is its reference to the immaterial part of man; the Scriptures saying God "formeth the spirit of man within him" (Zechariah 12:1) and is "the Father of spirits" (Hebrews 12:9); that is, the Father of men. "The body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26; cf. Judges 15:19; Luke 8:55; 23:46). At death some spirits return to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Acts 7:59), and the others remain forever separated from God in the place called hell. As we will see the child of God has "the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God" (I Corinthians 2:11, 12). Man's spirit enables him to have fellowship with God. The spirit is what makes man different than animals. Man was given intellect, which means he could think and reason. As a rational being, man was unique in creation and clearly distinct from the animals. The image of God in man means he was "created in righteousness and true holiness" (Ephesians 4:24; cf. Colossians 3:10). Man therefore would have had a natural tendency to do what is just. In his moral thought process, man had free and open communion and fellowship with his Maker.

[Moonbeam]

There's no such thing as god(s). God(s) are unnecessary to explain anything. Everything anybody says about god(s) is something that somebody made up without any evidence, other than they don't understand what's going on and they need an explanation. It is ignorance and superstition combined with politics, and anybody who believes in god(s) is deluded. I invite god(s) to smite me right now if that is not true. OK, glad we got that settled once and for all.

[Ne-yo]

There's no such thing as god(s). God(s) are unnecessary to explain anything. Everything anybody says about god(s) is something that somebody made up without any evidence, other than they don't understand what's going on and they need an explanation. It is ignorance and superstition combined with politics, and anybody who believes in god(s) is deluded. I invite god(s) to smite me right now if that is not true. OK, glad we got that settled once and for all. That's funny that you mentioned that (in bold)"explanation". So why are you people always asking us to explain everything to you through the creation of threads like these?

[LucidFlanders]

Evidence or Beginning? Evidence of Beginning.

[LucidFlanders]

There's no such thing as god(s). God(s) are unnecessary to explain anything. Everything anybody says about god(s) is something that somebody made up without any evidence, other than they don't understand what's going on and they need an explanation. It is ignorance and superstition combined with politics, and anybody who believes in god(s) is deluded. I invite god(s) to smite me right now if that is not true. OK, glad we got that settled once and for all. Your opinion. Anyway, god was created by religion. Religion was created by man. We have no idea if god exists or not, we base things on our opinions. It's also kind of ignorant to say god doesn't exist because we have no truth or evidence or anything to back up what we say. This goes for both sides. Maybe the religion god doesn't exist, maybe there is a different type of god. We will have no understanding of how he exists, or why, but it's possible it could be a science type of god, you don't even have to call it a god, call it whatever you want. We just call it god because we don't understand, but this god thing probably isn't perfect, it could have created the universe for US to understand, but not for us to understand the creator. When we think of god we think of "christianity" kind of god. Most people never reconize it can be a different god, one that created this for us to understand this universe, and give us all we need to know, let us evolve. God doesn't mean you wont evolve, that's just rubish. While this is just a theory, it can also be true. I'm not a god believer, but i refuse to believe with confidence he/she/it doesn't exist. I like to think things can be true, but i wont be 100% confident they are true.

[Scatterbrain]

That's funny that you mentioned that (in bold)"explanation". So why are you people always asking us to explain everything to you through the creation of threads like these? The invention of a god and long mythologies begs for an explanation.

[Taosaur]

Another way to frame this question: is personification a valid approach to the infinite field from which all activity arises? A related question: can a field in which consciousness arises partake of none of the qualities of consciousness?