User Tag List

12311 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 158

  1. #1
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default The irrefutable existence of God

    Have you ever seen something moving in the night sky, did you ever wonder, where did the kinetic energy come from? Imagining an infinite chain of collisions still begs the question, from where did this seemingly inexplicable eternal force come from? Since even science has the hunch that the universe commenced from a single point, it seems irrefutable to me that we can conclude that there is a cause of the universe that transcends the grasp of science. Philosophy points to a supernatural cause; just as there was at one point a single and solitary particle, or primordial state, so too therein lies an unseen force that is needed to explain its manifestation. Science can only ever see the most basic state, but philosophy imbued with a realization of cause and effect allows us to see deeper. It calls for a God.

    For how can a universe contain its own cause... to avoid the above conclusions one must abandon causation itself, what a silly thing to deject, better to cut off your own tongue than live in such a world where one is not permitted to form answers. God obviously does not need a maker, he is the answer to the chain, we know this universe cannot be infinite and eternal, but when we evoke God to solve the start of our chain, the point of invoking him implies that he has those qualities (Im sorry God is a guy).

    Any questions?
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  2. #2
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    Why doesn't god need a maker? As soon as you invite the concept of god, you reject causation.

  3. #3
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    Have you ever seen something moving in the night sky, did you ever wonder, where did the kinetic energy come from? Imagining an infinite chain of collisions still begs the question, from where did this seemingly inexplicable eternal force come from? Since even science has the hunch that the universe commenced from a single point, it seems irrefutable to me that we can conclude that there is a cause of the universe that transcends the grasp of science. Philosophy points to a supernatural cause; just as there was at one point a single and solitary particle, or primordial state, so too therein lies an unseen force that is needed to explain its manifestation. Science can only ever see the most basic state, but philosophy imbued with a realization of cause and effect allows us to see deeper. It calls for a God.

    For how can a universe contain its own cause... to avoid the above conclusions one must abandon causation itself, what a silly thing to deject, better to cut off your own tongue than live in such a world where one is not permitted to form answers. God obviously does not need a maker, he is the answer to the chain, we know this universe cannot be infinite and eternal, but when we evoke God to solve the start of our chain, the point of invoking him implies that he has those qualities (Im sorry God is a guy).

    Any questions?
    This is the closest to my own belief as they come, but at the same time, what about more than one God or energy, and I'm also not sure that everything about the history of the world/ universe has to be purely physical. There may be more than we know. You're right though, we can't deny the possibility of a God with what information we have.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  4. #4
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    Have you ever seen something moving in the night sky, did you ever wonder, where did the kinetic energy come from? Imagining an infinite chain of collisions still begs the question, from where did this seemingly inexplicable eternal force come from? Since even science has the hunch that the universe commenced from a single point, it seems irrefutable to me that we can conclude that there is a cause of the universe that transcends the grasp of science. Philosophy points to a supernatural cause; just as there was at one point a single and solitary particle, or primordial state, so too therein lies an unseen force that is needed to explain its manifestation. Science can only ever see the most basic state, but philosophy imbued with a realization of cause and effect allows us to see deeper. It calls for a God.

    For how can a universe contain its own cause... to avoid the above conclusions one must abandon causation itself, what a silly thing to deject, better to cut off your own tongue than live in such a world where one is not permitted to form answers. God obviously does not need a maker, he is the answer to the chain, we know this universe cannot be infinite and eternal, but when we evoke God to solve the start of our chain, the point of invoking him implies that he has those qualities (Im sorry God is a guy).

    Any questions?
    Let's see. All you've said is that, "Something doesn't come from nothing; therefore God exists and he is male." The rest of your text is just fancy elaboration on that argument... which actually isn't an argument, but just a statement of belief.

    I have no questions about statements of belief.
    And those are just statements of belief.
    And you can believe whatever you like, I suppose.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #5
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Why doesn't god need a maker? As soon as you invite the concept of god, you reject causation.
    The difference between objects in this universe and things outside, we know we are all contingent on a prior state of affair occurring and producing us, the only answer to this chain of contingency is to invoke a necessary being. I don't believe its true that God breaks the causation principle, the only reasonable answer to the predicament one finds oneself (the one above) is to implore an eternal and infinite being. God is the answer to lack caused through the contingency issue, if you reduce the same argument to him is forgetting why you invoked him in the first place... lets not forget what consistency truly means...
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  6. #6
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  7. #7
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Let's see. All you've said is that, "Something doesn't come from nothing; therefore God exists and he is male." The rest of your text is just fancy elaboration on that argument... which actually isn't an argument, but just a statement of belief.

    I have no questions about statements of belief.
    And those are just statements of belief.
    And you can believe whatever you like, I suppose.
    If you don't perceive an argument in one of my threads, please feel free to ignore it rather than creating a focal point of wasted attention which could be diverted elsewhere.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  8. #8
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    Yes, this is very lazy, but here is a first quick glance at a few points made about this:


    Objections and counterarguments

    What caused the First Cause?


    One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[13] The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.[14]

    Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori (deductively). However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.[15] Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[13]

    Identity of a First Cause

    An objection against the theist implication of the proposition is that even if one accepts the argument as a proof of a First Cause, it does not identify that First Cause with God. The argument does not go on to ascribe to the First Cause some of the basic attributes commonly associated with, for instance, a theistic God, such as immanence or omnibenevolence.[14] Rather, it simply argues that a First Cause (e.g. the Big Bang, God, or an unarticulated First Cause) must exist.[16]

    Furthermore, even if one chooses to accept God as the First Cause, there is an argument that God's continued interaction with the Universe is not required. This is the foundation for beliefs such as deism that accept that a god created the Universe, but then ceased to have any further interaction with it.[17]

    Existence of causal loops

    A causal loop is a form of predestination paradox arising where travel backwards in time is deemed a possibility. A sufficiently powerful entity in such a world would have the capacity to travel backwards in time to a point before its own existence, and to then create itself, thereby initiating everything which follows from it.

    The usual reason which is given to refute the possibility of a causal loop is it requires that the loop as a whole be its own cause. Richard Hanley argues that causal loops are not logically, physically, or epistemically impossible: "[In timed systems,] the only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidence is required to explain them."[18]

    Existence of infinite causal chains
    See also: Infinite universe theory

    David Hume and later Paul Edwards have invoked a similar principle in their criticisms of the cosmological argument. Rowe has called the principle the Hume-Edwards principle:[19]

    If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained.

    Nevertheless, David E. White argues that the notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious.[20] Furthermore Demea states that even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause.[21] To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it won’t help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent.[22] A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause.

    The IUT claims that the physical world is governed by an infinite universal causality.[23] Severinsen argues that there is an "infinite" and complex causal structure.[24] White tried to introduce an argument “without appeal to the principle of sufficient reason and without denying the possibility of an infinite causal regress”.[25]

    Saint Thomas Aquinas’ argument from contingency applies even if the universe had no beginning, but it would still have to be sustained in being at any particular moment by God. According to Aquinas, the universe cannot, at any particular moment, be causing itself. Even if causes and effects in the universe looped back on themselves, they would still, at any particular moment, be contingent and thus would have to be caused by God. They could not be causing themselves.[26]

    Scientific positions
    See also: Stochastics

    The cosmological argument is mostly dismissed in the scientific field due to its highly speculative nature. The theory is said to assume many aspects of how the universe came to be without scientific analysis, rather a monotheistic religious outlook. Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, considering current acceptable evidence does not verify a deity’s existence.

    It is argued that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time, "One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation"[cite this quote] - Carlo Rovelli. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.[27] Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.[27] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[27] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes to give a cause for the Big Bang.[28]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmolo...unterarguments
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  9. #9
    Senior Member Sanctus Iacobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Why doesn't god need a maker? As soon as you invite the concept of god, you reject causation.
    On the contrary... within the knowledge of the existence of God, we cannot see 'infinite' as endless 'finite', but finite as sub-infinite. Causation is a necessity of the sub-infinite, such as time (before/after, if/then, etc) but the infinite simply is, as in... it never wasn't and never won't.

    And as for proving it one way or another, don't bother. As with the binary nature of what is and isn't infinite, such is belief in God. You either do or you don't, and it's up to each person to decide. Of course, God exists whether anyone believes in Him, but belief is in the hands of each person.

  10. #10
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Why doesn't god need a maker? As soon as you invite the concept of god, you reject causation.
    That's true, and is the reason for the argument. Nature is assumed to be ruled by cause and effect, whereas supernature isn't. Ie. this is the uncaused cause argument. It would be a leap in reason to conclude the uncaused cause is a personal deity, though.

Similar Threads

  1. Arguing the Existence or Non-existence of God--the thread that never ends
    By The Wailing Specter in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: 04-07-2015, 07:37 AM
  2. The Different Names of "God"
    By Thalassa in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-16-2013, 02:34 AM
  3. The central question of religion is not the existence of God?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2012, 04:16 PM
  4. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 08:05 PM
  5. Debate on the existence of god
    By nightning in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 03:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO