Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

[Immanuel Can]

BUT! God does NOT mean first cause.

Then it's not the Christian-Jewish God you're talking about.

No, its simply you misunderstanding the concept.

Not I. I know full well what that conception of God entails. I'm certain from you comments that you do not. In fact, you can't get past the first verse of Torah without being proved wrong conclusively about that.

Exactly where are you getting this idea that God created the universe from?

The very first verse in the Torah / Old Testament. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." That's "where."

That is NOT stating that God created the UNIVERSE.

Actually, it is. "Heavens and the earth" include everything. No Jew or Christian would understand it any other way.

[attofishpi]

Then it's not the Christian-Jewish God you're talking about.

No, its simply you misunderstanding the concept.

Not I. I know full well what that conception of God entails. I'm certain from you comments that you do not. In fact, you can't get past the first verse of Torah without being proved wrong conclusively about that.

...and yet you are too meek to explain how I am wrong.

The very first verse in the Torah / Old Testament. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." That's "where."

That is NOT stating that God created the UNIVERSE.

Actually, it is. "Heavens and the earth" include everything. No Jew or Christian would understand it any other way.

That's because they are rather inept at the concept of thinking, that they believe there is a man floating in space that willed everything into existence.
...and again, Heavens and Earth fall far short of the the concept of the universe.
As I said, such things as the heavens and Earth relate to the creation of our REALITY - and what we perceive as REALITY.
There is nothing in:- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." that denotes the creation of the UNIVERSE.

[Immanuel Can]

No Jew or Christian would understand it any other way.

That's because they are rather inept at the concept of thinking,...

Okay. Have a nice day.

[thedoc]

Creation of the universe is inherent in the word God. if God did not create the universe then it is not God.

[Logik]

There is nothing in:- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." that denotes the creation of the UNIVERSE.

Because they didn't have neither a concept nor a word for "universe".

Suffice to interpret it as "God created existence" and the "First Cause" argument is back on track.

[osgart]

Implying God is chained to the universe, and is making the best of that by creating other life forms???

[Logik]

Creation of the universe is inherent in the word God. if God did not create the universe then it is not God.

So if some phenomenon created the Multiverse, but another phenomenon created the Universe then:

1. The phenomenon which created the Universe is God.
2. The phenomenon which created the Multiverse is not God.

[thedoc]

Creation of the universe is inherent in the word God. if God did not create the universe then it is not God.

So if some phenomenon created the Multiverse, but another phenomenon created the Universe then:

1. The phenomenon which created the Universe is God.
2. The phenomenon which created the Multiverse is not God.

You are splitting hairs in order to exclude God. It is my understanding that "universe" includes all that is, which would include all additional universes that exist.

[Logik]

You are splitting hairs in order to exclude God. It is my understanding that "universe" includes all that is, which would include all additional universes that exist.

I am not splitting any hairs. Take 10 steps back and look at what you've just said.

If your understanding of the universe "includes all that is" then it necessarily includes God also.

You've said one sentence and tripped over yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

Creation of the universe is inherent in the word God. if God did not create the universe then it is not God.

So if some phenomenon created the Multiverse, but another phenomenon created the Universe then:

1. The phenomenon which created the Universe is God.
2. The phenomenon which created the Multiverse is not God.

This isn't what "First Cause" means.

"First Cause" refers to all things that exist, all contingent entities.

Now, you can call that "universe," or, (if it exists, which we have no reason to think it does, because it's a mere postulate and empirically untestable by definition) you can call that "multiverse". It changes nothing about the designation "First Cause". It merely postulates a new stage, and raises the secondary question, "Did the First Cause cause the universe directly, or did the First Cause first cause a multiverse generator to exist, which then caused the universe to exist?" Either way, the First Cause was, by definition, the first of all causes in the causal chain.

It's a null objection.

[Logik]

This isn't what "First Cause" means.

That's an incomplete sentence. It's not what it means.... TO YOU.

"First Cause" refers to all things that exist, all contingent entities.

Before we get suck into details could we agree what ALL means?

Because one time it means ALL entities in the universe (except God).
Another time it means ALL things that exist.

Can we just agree that ALL means ALL. It's an upper bound. ALL includes first cause, last cause, uncaused cause. universe, multiverse.

ALL is ALL. An Upper bound. There is nothing beyond ALL.

Now, you can call that "universe," or, (if it exists, which we have no reason to think it does, because it's a mere postulate and empirically untestable by definition) you can call that "multiverse". It changes nothing about the designation "First Cause".

It changes everything.

You individuate ALL from its cause. So when you turn your ego 6 notches down and stop thinking you have special insight into the universe, or its first cause and recognize that you are actually talking about your conception of reality, NOT reality itself you might recognize that we are having a discussion about each other's maps of reality, not reality itself.

Then I can also point out to you that "The Universe" is a collective noun. It means the same thing as ALL.

If The universe had a first cause, then ALL had a first cause.

And the moment you claim that ALL has a cause, then you have inadvertently invented a new set: ALL + Cause-of-ALL

EVEN THOUGH WE AGREED: ALL is ALL. An Upper bound. There is nothing beyond ALL.

It merely postulates a new stage, and raises the secondary question, "Did the First Cause cause the universe directly, or did the First Cause first cause a multiverse generator to exist, which then caused the universe to exist?" Either way, the First Cause was, by definition, the first of all causes in the causal chain.

Doesn't matter. By saying "Cause of ALL" you violate the axiom: ALL is ALL. An Upper bound. There is nothing beyond ALL.

From a contradiction anything follows.

If the Universe exists in a set of other universes, then it's entirely possible that God caused this universe, but not the next.

It's a null objection.

It's not a null objection. It's a recursive objection.

Recursion is thought. Cogito ergo sum.

[Immanuel Can]

This isn't what "First Cause" means.

That's an incomplete sentence. It's not what it means.... TO YOU.

No, it's what it means analytically -- that is, it's what it means to anybody who understands the two-word phrase.

Before we get suck into details could we agree what ALL means?

All contingent beings and entities. It does not include necessary beings and entities, because being necessary, they would be "uncaused." So, for example, it does not need to include mathematical entities...they might exist necessarily. But it would include every empirically-available entity, because they're all contingent.

Because one time it means ALL entities in the universe (except God).

Well, we know that there has to have been a First Cause, because we can observe causal chains. Logically, a causal chain has to have a start, and it cannot be infinitely regressive. QED

What is at the start of the causal chain of contingent (or "caused") beings? An uncaused Causer. It can be nothing else, or infinite regress is posited again, and that's not logically sustainable.

So if God exists, He is defined as a necessary being, meaning not caused or contingent, and as the First Cause in all causal chains.

Can we just agree that ALL means ALL.

That would fail to realize any different between the terms "necessary" and "contingent" beings. So if we said, "All are caused," we would be including any necessary beings and entities, and that would be a self-contradiction. Essentially, we'd be saying "necessary beings are contingent beings."

So rationally, we shouldn't agree to that.

[attofishpi]

There is nothing in:- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." that denotes the creation of the UNIVERSE.

Because they didn't have neither a concept nor a word for "universe".

Suffice to interpret it as "God created existence" and the "First Cause" argument is back on track.

Sure, but as I stated by the thread title - in this current time theists and even atheists when considering God are asserting that the universe was created by 'God'. There is nothing in the statement, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" that relates to a creation of the entire universe.

Creating existence is a far cry from the concept of creating the universe.

[attofishpi]

Well, we know that there has to have been a First Cause, because we can observe causal chains. Logically, a causal chain has to have a start, and it cannot be infinitely regressive.

First cause is poppycock. Irrational unless one considers that anything since such a thing as 'first cause' then has some form of logic - in that yes there is now a causal chain.

Prior to this logic causal chain, must be a form where there is no logic, or indeed, a logic beyond anything that mere humans have the capacity to comprehend, something resembling what we (still using logic) consider chaos.

I don't believe one can infinitely regress through chaos - a situation where there is NO logical causality.

[Logik]

No, it's what it means analytically -- that is, it's what it means to anybody who understands the two-word phrase.

You are welcome to underline it as much as you want but it doesn't make your error in reasoning go away.

You are assuming that the Universe is the immediate consequence of the First Cause where it could be the 100th.

All contingent beings and entities. It does not include necessary beings and entities, because being necessary, they would be "uncaused." So, for example, it does not need to include mathematical entities...they might exist necessarily. But it would include every empirically-available entity, because they're all contingent.

OK.But I am telling you THAT it includes them. ALL means ALL.

When you qualify a set you are necessarily talking about a sub-set of its members.

You seem to have some deep misunderstanding of probability theory.

Given the set of ALL red things:
The probability that the next thing you observe being a red is P(red) = 1.
The probability that the next thing you observe being a red rose is P(red, rose).

P(red) > P(red,rose)

And so the probability of a Universe = P(U) = 1
The probability of a caused universe = P(C,U)
The probability of an uncaused universe = P(~C, U)

P(U) > P(C,U)
P(U) > P(~C, U)

Does this make sense to you? If not - why not?

Well, we know that there has to have been a First Cause, because we can observe causal chains. Logically, a causal chain has to have a start, and it cannot be infinitely regressive. QED

Logically, how did you determine that the "First Cause" immediately precedes the universe?
Let the universe exist at C(N), then the universe's cause is at C(N-1).

How did you determine that C(N-1) is the "first cause". Maybe the "first cause" is C(N-75)?

It's not infinite regress, but it's not regress-of-1 either.

That would fail to realize any different between the terms "necessary" and "contingent" beings.

I am not at all failing to realize that.

The set of ALL being contains both contingent and necessary being.

Do I really have to draw you venn diagrams for these things?