If everything has a cause, why should God not have a cause?

Answer Podcast:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
If God is the cause of everything then there must be logically a cause of that cause. Without ground building cannot exist.
But below the ground there is some support or force due to which the ground exists. Yes. The ground is just a rough example to illustrate the point.
At the material level there is no ultimate reality. But if we say that there has to be a cause to God then the cause of God is God. That means that wherever this causal chain ends that is the definition of God.
So, there is no reality independent from God. So, we have two choices. One choice is that this causal chain ends somewhere.
And second choice is that causal chain doesn’t end anywhere. So, if we say the causal chain doesn’t end anywhere then we are basically saying that the material universe itself is eternal. And that is something which runs contrary to the temporal nature of everything material that we see around us.
And that runs contrary to even the scientific inferences about the nature of the universe. So, if the causal chain doesn’t run infinitely, doesn’t run interminably the causal chain has some termination point. And wherever the termination point is that point is God.
So, we have to understand we take conception of God there is a God of religion and there is a God of philosophy. God of religion is the conception that we acquire from religious culture or God is some image in the temple and this is God. So, now the God of religion is a reality.
But, often if we consider that alone to be God. Like say there are people who belong to fanatical religions and they say, we will come and destroy it and then your God will be destroyed. But, they don’t understand that God is a much higher reality.
That higher reality is manifesting through the deity. So, similarly, if we think of God as just one image present in some temple, then we start thinking he must also be having a cause. But, when we are discussing philosophy, you put aside the God of religion and focus on understanding the definition of God.
And the definition of God is that he is the cause of all causes. Then wherever this causal chain stops that is God. Now then the question may come up okay, why should this causal chain stop in a particular person who looks a particular way? That is a different question.
That is something by our logic, logic can take us up to a particular distance. Logic cannot take us the full distance. By logic, we can infer that something, that everything has to come from something.
Everything cannot come from nothing. We don’t see that nothing producing everything. So, everything has to come from something.
And that something, which is the source of everything, is the absolute truth. And that absolute truth is defined as God. Now, so here, I am observing the world.
From everything, I move by a chain of causal, backward tracing. And to come to a place where everything has come from some source. Now, is that source something or is that nothing? Nothing is not possible.
That something is there. Now, what is that something? Science may tell us it is just it is just some quantum mechanical vacuum. Some singularity of infinite mass, infinite temperature, infinite intensity, or beyond mathematical realization, without physical description.
This is actually nothing but something, which signifies the breakdown of science. Science is constituting something that is transcendental to science. Something beyond physical realization.
Something beyond mathematical description. Something with infinite temperature, infinite density, infinite mass. This is something beyond science.
So, Godel was a famous mathematician. And he proposed a theorem, which has serious philosophical implications. And his theorem is called the Godel’s incompleteness theorem.
And what is Godel’s incompleteness theorem? There is no system of thought that will describe the complete reality including its own frame of reference. It’s a complex theory. But suffice it to say that science will never be an inclusive scientific theory.
It will be an inclusive description. It will give an inclusive description of everything that exists. It’s a scientific ground of reality.
It has to constitute a singularity which is actually beyond the scope of science. So, we ultimately have to make a choice. So, now I talk about three choices.
Everything comes from nothing, which is illogical. We don’t see that happening anywhere. Everything comes from something.
Now, is that something material or is that something conscious? So, if that something is material, then that material has to have such attributes, which are actually beyond the scope of science. So, then science itself is proposing something which is beyond science. Which is itself indicating the inadequacy of science.
Whereas religion, or more specifically philosophy, religious philosophy you could say, it proposes one entity called God. And that God is complex. That God is complex in the sense that yes, he has extraordinary attributes, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.
But he is one causal explanation that explains everything. So, in science there is something which they use, called Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor means it’s a scientific principle which says that you should always prefer the simplest explanation.
If you have to choose between two explanations, then the simpler explanation is to choose that. So, now science at PC goes to the ultimate causes. Where did that singularity come from? From that singularity how did everything come about? To explain this, it has to propose multiverse theory.
Now into the whole details of it. But it has to propose multiverse theory. So, there are unlimited universes.
So, right now according to this multiverse theory, there is one Chaitanya Charan in one universe who moves his hand like this. There is another Chaitanya Charan who moves his hand like this. There is another Chaitanya Charan who closes the talk and walks away.
And there is another Chaitanya Charan who closes the talk and starts taking question answers. So, at every moment, each Chaitanya Charan is splitting into a million Chaitanya Charans. And that happens at every moment throughout all the history.
And this happens not just to you, it happens to everything. It happens to you, it happens to me, it happens to everyone. And among all these millions of splittings, there is one that works out to be right.
So, now this is definitely not a simple explanation. We talk about millions of universes, millions of options working out in each of those parallel universes. That is a far more complex explanation than the explanation that there is one being who has certain extraordinary attributes.
So, to summarize the answer, if God has a particular cause, the cause of God is actually God. Rather than looking at God as an image or a conception we have derived from religion or religious culture, we focus on philosophically understanding the conception of God. And for that, we have three options.
Everything has come from nothing, which is not logical, everything has come from matter, which also requires science to go beyond the scope of science by prostituting the trans-scientific singularity. Or, we say everything has come, or to propose parallel universes, which is infinitely complex. Instead of that, we consider everything has come from something.
So, that something is by definition God. And then, by reason, we can understand that there is that everything has to have a starting point, and that starting point has to be conscious. So, it can be God.
As far as the nature of God is concerned, reason will not tell us about the identity of God. For that, we will have to go to revelation. Reason can take us so far.
Reason or logic cannot take us further. What reason can tell us is that everything has to come from something. And to say that something is a conscious being is far more reasonable than to say that something is just unconscious matter.
But, what the nature of that something is, for that, we need revelation. And when we talk about revelation, then we can understand that, okay, God has a particular nature, he has a particular complexion, he has a particular particular dress and ornament that he wears. That is up to that second point.
So, by logic, we can infer that it is that the point where our causal tracing backstops, that is actually God.