0

Suppose the concept of God wasn’t eternal. There was some mechanism, perhaps even simpler than God, that gave rise to His existence. Is this more or less plausible than Him eternally existing?

What about God springing out of nothing? If God had a beginning but with no cause, would this be more or less plausible than Him eternally existing?

How should eternity affect how plausible the existence of an agent is? Is this a philosophical question or an empirical question for physicists?

  • You forgot to ask how many gods would be able to dance on the tip of a needle in each case. – tkruse Jun 28 '23 at 05:47
  • See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain Am I dreaming of being a brain sponteneously appearing in the void, or a brain in the void dreaming of being me? to paraphrase Huangzhi.. – CriglCragl Jul 28 '23 at 11:38

2 Answers2

0

There was (and still there are) some things that did happen without an evident cause. So it's more plausible to put God as the first cause and hence as eternal. Otherwise, you would need to explain:

  • How is it possible that something begins without a cause.
  • Why there is only 'one first cause' (God) instead of 'multiple first causes'.
  • Conversely, if there are 'multiple first causes' how can you say something is a 'first cause'. Is there some criteria to recognize these 'first causes' or the aetiology would be Popper-styled—the 'first cause' status would be corroborated until someone could falsify and discover the cause of the previously supposed 'first cause'?
tac
  • 217
  • 7
0

It is not a questions for philosophers or physicists. It is a question for which there are no rational tests to determine what might be the objectively correct answer. You might as well ask whether the Giant Pink Rabbit of Thoth is more plausible than the Great Embolog.

Marco Ocram
  • 20,914
  • 1
  • 12
  • 64