The idea of God always existing

[toro]

I want to keep this succinct, so I'll try.

Time doesn't "begin" or "end". Time is a field of the universe (which is composed of fields) and changes relative to other fields. "Before" these fields affected each other is a nonsensical description. The universe doesn't need to exist within an atemporal multiverse, it is described by a closed system.

Subjective experience is described by self-consistent physical theories that do not add anything (unobservable) to the universe. Souls and Gods do. Usually the problem is the conceptualization - it doesn't make sense because we are conceptualizing it in a contradictory manner.

So, no, God didn't "always exist".

Also, please stop introducing morality as an agreed-upon characteristic. It isn't by any reasonable means and I'm just going to start ignoring posts that include it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Subjective experience is described by self-consistent physical theories that do not add anything (unobservable) to the universe.

The laws of physics are generally self-consistent. Once the theory of everything has been work out that will be even more true. Still there isn't any place within the laws of physics that can even begin to account for mental phenomena like qualia. The claim that someday "science" will explain it strains the definition of science beyond how we currently define it. So far we have four fundamental forces and numerous constants. None of these require, predict, or account for the feeling of feeling or consciousness. My position is that we must use all the tools of inquiry to expand our understanding of the total reality, a reality that is both objective and subjective.

[toro]

Subjective experience is described by self-consistent physical theories that do not add anything (unobservable) to the universe.

The laws of physics are generally self-consistent. Once the theory of everything has been work out that will be even more true. Still there isn't any place within the laws of physics that can even begin to account for mental phenomena like qualia. The claim that someday "science" will explain it strains the definition of science beyond how we currently define it. So far we have four fundamental forces and numerous constants. None of these require, predict, or account for the feeling of feeling or consciousness. My position is that we must use all the tools of inquiry to expand our understanding of the total reality, a reality that is both objective and subjective.

As stated above, the problem is conceptualization. You assume a feeling is different than any other value because you experience it. This assumes subjective existence in an objective world. Get rid of the later, keep the former, and you have quantum mechanics and arguably relativity.

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/)

So, again, as happened with relativity if you accept the problem is conceptualization, not theory, you have a self-consistent physical theory with no magic required.

Also, speaking from experience I can tell you qualia are not objective as I have lived through some of mine changing (not disappearing).

[The Grand Nudger]

The laws of physics are generally self-consistent. Once the theory of everything has been work out that will be even more true. Still there isn't any place within the laws of physics that can even begin to account for mental phenomena like qualia. The claim that someday "science" will explain it strains the definition of science beyond how we currently define it. So far we have four fundamental forces and numerous constants. None of these require, predict, or account for the feeling of feeling or consciousness. My position is that we must use all the tools of inquiry to expand our understanding of the total reality, a reality that is both objective and subjective.

You're absolutely certain that this is the case, and not just something you wish to be the case Chad? That nothing we know can account for consciousness?
(guess I'll have to make the call and shut down an entire field of study.....which is a shame, they've done so well accounting for what apparently cannot be accounted for)

[Werewolff]

The eternal first cause is a case of special pleading.

IE,EVERYTHING must have a cause! (except God who is the one special exception) The argument is nonsense.

I don't see a problem with that at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's only a problem if one is trying to "prove" the existence of god by brute force of fallacy. If everything has a cause, then so does god, if god does not have a cause, everything cannot be said to have a cause. It's a self defeating argument.

This is why a slight rework in wording is made for the Kalam variant "everything that began to exist...has a cause". In this case, the proponent is unable to identify anything other than god which did not "begin to exist", IOW, they may as well just save themselves the time and say "God", but they can't, because then they assume what they wish to prove.

[Werewolff]

The same can be applied to the universe itself. Did the universe have a cause? If so, then what caused that cause (and so on)? And if it didn't have a cause, how so? I've struggled with that a lot and I must say I'm stumped.

[The Grand Nudger]

"We don't know" ™ Here's the trouble, all of the ways that we might observe any cause are bound by the mechanics that arose out of this event. If those mechanics were not the same prior to "the big bang" how would we go about looking for them? As of yet, we have no idea, but human curiosity compels us to search for ways to figure it out. We may never know, or we might have ourselves a little breakthrough, but at present, we can only look "back" so far.

[black36]

"In the debate of whether or not God exists God is stated, according to the Cosmological Argument, as the first uncaused cause. Part of the reason for this argument is the idea that infinite regression is impossible in many people's minds.

However if God has always existed then you are arguing at a point in infinite God simply decided he was finally bored enough to create reality. The beginning of existence period apparently has always been here because God has always been here. The problem with making this argument is it actually makes the idea of matter always existing seem even more valid. If God always existed without beginning, always had his qualities inherent to his nature, etc then why is he the only thing that could do that?"

If reality was not caused, then it has either always existed (which is not possible because we should then be in a state of heat death already), or it came from nothing (which assumes that nothing is something, which it's not). And why pass over this and jump to the question of who the Causer is without acknowledging that reality was, at the very least, caused. Who or what the Causer is, is another discussion. In other words, why not simply acknowledge that a Causer exists, because it's obvious that we were caused? The essence of what the Causer may or may not be is another topic all together.

Now, for us to know who or what the Causer may be, the Causer would have to reveal itself to us. The question then is: Has the Causer done so? You can probably guess my view here.

[Werewolff]

So the argument, since it applies to both, isn't a problem in itself then. Theists don't know how a god could just exist, and we don't know how a universe (or multiverse) can just exist. I would propose that if there's a god, that this god is uncreated.