Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.
Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?
Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.
This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.
Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.
Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]
Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?
I prefer to think of a prior universe where "God" came from and possibly was a wizard who won the battle of the universe.
No. I have no proof for this thought.
I prefer to think of a prior universe where "God" came from and possibly was a wizard who won the battle of the universe.
No. I have no proof for this thought.
The thought may be potentially analogous. Specific to what we currently know of this our universe, why would the wizard (upon winning) create this particular type of universe?
The Ghazali thing really doesn't explain anything. Either something can come from nothing, in which case we don't need god, or something cannot come from nothing, in which case god needs a cause. Why would a being be exempt?
I'm not saying there's no god, just that the first cause (aka prime mover) argument doesn't show it
It's what's being mocked in the apocryphal story about the woman who thinks earth stands on the back of a turtle, and when asked what the turtle stands on, says "it's turtles all the way down"
If God caused the universe, then what caused God? It's causes all the way down.
There is a fundamental mystery/miracle at the heart of the universe: why is there something and not nothing?
Saying "it was god" doesn't resolve the mystery, it's just giving the mystery a different name
There is nothing absurd or contradictory in denying the first of Al Ghazali's premises. The sorry truth is that we do not know just HOW a universe comes into being or even WHETHER it does. One is left with assuming that n as now, so in the beginning. That is, that everyday causality is found even at the level of creation. This is quite a leap, given the holes enfants terrible like Hume poke into everyday causation. Or, one can try to meditate deeply and introspect what must have occurred. As for this latter, I am not aware there is any strong consensus among the sages.
The Ghazali thing really doesn't explain anything. Either something can come from nothing, in which case we don't need god, or something cannot come from nothing, in which case god needs a cause. Why would a being be exempt?
I'm not saying there's no god, just that the first cause (aka prime mover) argument doesn't show it
It's what's being mocked in the apocryphal story about the woman who thinks earth stands on the back of a turtle, and when asked what the turtle stands on, says "it's turtles all the way down"
If God caused the universe, then what caused God? It's causes all the way down.
There is a fundamental mystery/miracle at the heart of the universe: why is there something and not nothing?
Saying "it was god" doesn't resolve the mystery, it's just giving the mystery a different name
Thomas Aquinas was a genius, no denying. Still watching him slide from "First Cause" to "God" always reminded me of watching a Three Card Monte dealer.
The Ghazali thing really doesn't explain anything. Either something can come from nothing, in which case we don't need god, or something cannot come from nothing, in which case god needs a cause. Why would a being be exempt?
I'm not saying there's no god, just that the first cause (aka prime mover) argument doesn't show it
It's what's being mocked in the apocryphal story about the woman who thinks earth stands on the back of a turtle, and when asked what the turtle stands on, says "it's turtles all the way down"
If God caused the universe, then what caused God? It's causes all the way down.
There is a fundamental mystery/miracle at the heart of the universe: why is there something and not nothing?
Saying "it was god" doesn't resolve the mystery, it's just giving the mystery a different name
Thomas Aquinas was a genius, no denying. Still watching him slide from "First Cause" to "God" always reminded me of watching a Three Card Monte dealer.
The Ghazali thing really doesn't explain anything. Either something can come from nothing, in which case we don't need god, or something cannot come from nothing, in which case god needs a cause. Why would a being be exempt?
I'm not saying there's no god, just that the first cause (aka prime mover) argument doesn't show it
It's what's being mocked in the apocryphal story about the woman who thinks earth stands on the back of a turtle, and when asked what the turtle stands on, says "it's turtles all the way down"
If God caused the universe, then what caused God? It's causes all the way down.
There is a fundamental mystery/miracle at the heart of the universe: why is there something and not nothing?
Saying "it was god" doesn't resolve the mystery, it's just giving the mystery a different name
This is from another mirror-thread on another forum and is offered as an answer to to critique pixel_fortune. (The question is about the existence of this Universe and whether that necessitates a supernatural mind.)
More from another Message Board mirror-thread.
You are at the surface rather than acknowledging the undercurrent.
We cannot (with human senses) see air, yet we know it is made matter.
We can see a limited range of light, and also know that light is made of matter.
Maybe.
What do you think the answer to your question is...
WHY are 'you' UNDER some sort of ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that 'we' CAN IMAGINE, which has NO 'physical properties'?
I am not assuming or believing such at all. I am simply saying that my understanding of "non-physical" is that anything labelled as such, is telling me that such does not exist.
This is to do with my OP question re "Supernatural" as to "why" we have to include the concept (what we can imagine) of supernatural as "necessary".
My question is asking for a reasonable answer to be tabled re discussion. It is based in wanting logical answers about something which appears to be unnecessary re a Natural Universe and is asked from that perspective rather than from a perspective of belief or assumption.
The 'supernatural', by definition, does NOT and can NOT exist.
Well I can name a "unicorn" as "not being natural to Earth"...even that it is imagined to "look like" a horse with a horn coming out from its forehead. It is easy enough to imagine such a being.
I cannot say that such an entity does not exist somewhere in this natural universe.
I can name a "god" who "looks like" a human being but has wings which it can fly around "as not being natural to Earth"... It is easy enough to imagine such a being.
I cannot say that such an entity does not exist somewhere in this Natural Universe.
Indeed, even using the word "Natural" with the word "Universe" seems illogical if indeed, everything which does exist, is only this Universe.
(Even if said Universe was Mindful...The God which has always existed.)
I can imagine both a "Supernatural God" and a "Natural God" and therein "see" no difference.
The OP question is essentially asking for any reason as to why I should "see" a "Supernatural God" ("First Cause Mind et all" re the cosmology being examined) rather than simply "see" a Natural God in the evidence of The (Almighty) Universe Itself?
As to your question on my use of the word "vibrations", it is apparent that not only is every individual object in the Universe Unique, but every object also has its own "signature" frequency.
Thus, IF the universe is Mindful, it may be the case that the evidence for this is the Existence of the Universe itself and how it behaves and why "forms" form (it has something to do with the frequency of the vibrations).
We see evidence of this happening in observing the form Galaxies can be seen have take on.
The questions are - is this because of a mindful thing happening and if so, is it necessary to refer to that mindful thing as "supernatural"?
IF the universe does end eventually, then will the mindfulness which accompanied its passage, still remain, and if so would it create another Universe and how different would that next Universe be to this one, and should the whole process even be "explained" as a "supernatural" process, and if so, why?
The thought may be potentially analogous. Specific to what we currently know of this our universe, why would the wizard (upon winning) create this particular type of universe?
Well, how did the Mesopotamian 9r Greek gods / titans come into being? Perhaps there was a prehistoric big bang of the gods .. and they were all dueling wizards .. until one won, spawning the other gods.
Well, I caught a glimpse once of a Babylonian Bible, which reading through the first book was remarkably similar to Genesis from the Torah, and shared a city .. Ur. However, there were several gods of the Babylonians. So how does one produce many or many dwindle down to one? This assumes of course the first cause was a God with several powers especially Jehovah.
The word Elohim is a female word Eloha with the male -im ending. Thus Elohim is a plural word covering both genders
(The E is actually Aleph and the O is not written thus Eloha (goddess?) could be written as Alha - no god but Allah?)
Eloha seems to derive from the Sumerian Ilu. The Il denotes both god and tall and the U denotes a person/individual/being
Thus Anu means heavenly being - coming into the Kabbalah as Ain.
It seems that the Sumerian aliens, while capable of taking the daughters of men for breeding, were different in that they did not stop growing taller as they aged.
Thus the tallest god was the oldest and thus the most senior.
Before Anu staged the palace revolt, the senior god was Alalu which translates as Tall-Tall being/god
This comes into the Hebrew tradition as El Elyon and is translated as The Most High.
Even today tall humans are looked up to and statistically they get higher pay.
This thread hit my "maybe" and "could've" quota about a dozen posts back. Counterfactuality is deadlier than ever Covid was: once you launch yourself on the sea of speculation in a coracle called "Maybe" you're adrift without a compass.
The word Elohim is a female word Eloha with the male -im ending. Thus Elohim is a plural word covering both genders
(The E is actually Aleph and the O is not written thus Eloha (goddess?) could be written as Alha - no god but Allah?)
Eloha seems to derive from the Sumerian Ilu. The Il denotes both god and tall and the U denotes a person/individual/being
Thus Anu means heavenly being - coming into the Kabbalah as Ain.
It seems that the Sumerian aliens, while capable of taking the daughters of men for breeding, were different in that they did not stop growing taller as they aged.
Thus the tallest god was the oldest and thus the most senior.
Before Anu staged the palace revolt, the senior god was Alalu which translates as Tall-Tall being/god
This comes into the Hebrew tradition as El Elyon and is translated as The Most High.
Even today tall humans are looked up to and statistically they get higher pay.
The "e" is not Aleph. Aleph is written with vowel points giving it an "eh" sound. By itself Aleph simply holds a place or takes vowel pointing.
You are technically correct that the "o" in "Elohim" is not written. No Hebrew vowel was originally written. Tradition taught the youth which vowels to insert in speaking. (It's not hard---try writing English sans vowels.) This does not mean it "could be written" as Alha---ask any Orthodox rabbi. Tradition is pretty clear about how to say things. You ARE right in hinting, though, that the Arabic "Allah" is related to the Hebrews' "Elohim" (as to "El' generally.)
Because my pet web site said so, mebbe. Or because the world as I imagine it is so much more interesting than the one I'm a failure in. That's a possibility, too.
This appears to be the more natural way in which to approach the claims of supernaturalism.
The premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning." does not (as some claim) infer that "therefore, whatever mind created said universe is supernatural". One does not automatically infer the other.
