• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2611 months ago

    The argument I’ve heard is “It must stop somewhere, and whatever it stops at, we’ll call that god”. It’s not a good argument, because it then hopes that you conflate the Judeo-Christian deity with that label and make a whole bunch of assumptions.

    It’s often paired with woo that falls down to simply asking “Why?”, such as “Nothing could possibly be simpler than my deity”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1811 months ago

      What is this stop business? I have it on good authority that it’s turtles all the way down.

    • JackGreenEarth
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1211 months ago

      So if it stops at the universe, the universe itself is called ‘God’?

      • Nougat
        link
        fedilink
        911 months ago

        To which I would ask, “Why are you using the word ‘god’?”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1411 months ago

          Everybody asks what is god, why is god… Nobody asks how is god.

          …and it’s pronounced “jod” BTW.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        511 months ago

        Yeah exactly, though then you’d generally get arguments pushing you towards “But it’s actually totes Jesus”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      It’s also a bad argument, because the concept of things being ‘created’ is an entirely human one. It’s us who decided that if a pile of pre-existing atoms are moved into the shape of a chair, we’ll say that chair was ‘created’.

      Aside from this conceptual creation, nothing is ever created in the universe, as far as we know. Atoms don’t ever just pop into existence out of thin air.

      I have heard the argument that the universe was just as well ‘created’ in the conceptual sense, so everything existed beforehand, it was just moved into a shape that we recognize as ‘universe’ today.
      But that would still mean there’s no argument for a creator and of course, this is simply not what most people mean when they talk about the creation of the universe.

    • @Kyyrypyy
      link
      English
      311 months ago

      If I remember correctly from my hazy years of school philosophy classes, it was Thomas Aquinas who suggested it. Who was a friar, so that’s why the assumption of the religion.

      Also, I understood the core idea being that God isn’t what IS the beginning, but that the point where human mind can’t comprehend beyond is God. Which, back then, and even now, I considered to be a lazy copout for a philosopher, as the point of a philosopher is to test the limits of our understanding.

      Then again, for friar to state that the end solution is not god for their thinkings, at that time and place, would’ve probably result in being positioned as a centerpiece of a bonfire.