>That feel when you accept First Cause but all religions

Just be a deist, it's easy

>>1692949
Then you're a Deist?

It's fine if some want to accept the first cause as logically consistent. But the actual existence of a Deistic god remains nothing more than a philosophical argument.

>>1692964
>>1692967

I just can't wrap my head around why a God would create the Universe and then do nothing to interact with it.

>>1692973
Why? Because you have a preconceived notion of what such a god "should" or "would" do? Then pick whatever religion is closest to that notion. Don't make it hard for yourself.

File: 1467827347168.png (564KB, 884x713px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 884x713px

>>1692949
Why would you have to worship a God or accept a religion if you think something caused the universe to start expanding? You don't make any sense at all.

>>1692982
>Don't make it hard for yourself.
Yes anon, just commit philosophical suicide and be done with it. No point in thinking.

>>1692988

I'm not into the worshipping. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how anything makes sense. I don't know how anything could exist without a God, and don't know why a God would cause anything to exist.

File: spinoza[1].jpg (26KB, 590x349px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 590x349px

>>1692949
You called?

>>1692973
More and more the multiverse theory is gaining traction, albeit at a young stage. Could be this deistic god created it out of bordem, then went back to other universe.

Or maybe the Universe is just an accident of God. Knocked over some cosmic shelf of cosmic things. Perhaps he just ripped one satisfying fart.

>>1692989
All I am saying is that if your reason for rejecting deism is because you can't "wrap your head around" it, then finding a religion you can wrap your head around would save everyone here the trouble of having to do it for you.

File: 1428221218859.jpg (10KB, 143x180px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 143x180px

>>1692996
There is no requirement for God to exist for things to exist. Why would it even be God and not some random force of nature we do not know about? What if the universe expands and collapses in cycles?
We currently do not know how the universe itself began, or if it ever did and claiming absolutes for its beginning is an intellectual failure.

>>1692973
Turn it around. Why would a god want to interact with the universe?

>>1693020
For shits and giggles of course.

>>1692973
You are assuming that the God in question is intelligent or even sentient, none of which is a requirement for the first cause argument to work

>>1693042
Then why call it God?

>>1693045
Because that's what it's called in the first cause argument.

File: 1415803644093.jpg (35KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x462px

>>1693053
Which is made by a Christian theologian with the express purpose of proving the Christian God's existence. Why would you call it God, if you do not subscribe to a religion?

>>1692996
>I don't know how anything could exist without a God,
Look, if there is some original cause at the beginning of everything, you can go about calling it "God", but that's just going to confound the issue, because in the common usage of the word, there's a lot of assumptions that come with it
1. The creator is intelligent and sentient
2. The creator intentionally brought the universe into being
The idea that there has to be something at the beginning of all indicates none of that, in fact, based on what we know of intelligence on Earth and how it came to be, it would seem strange that the originator of the universe would have it. Intelligence has very clear causes for it to develop, perpetuate, and be necessary to self-perpetuating beings.

>>1693060
It's not really a question for me, I just wanted to point out to OP that the definition of "God" used in the first cause argument need not coincide with more common usages of this term