The irrefutable existence of God

[DiscoBiscuit]

Not going to involve myself in this one other than to say isn't looking for irrefutable proof of God about as difficult as asking for irrefutable proof of a lack thereof?

 

[Nicodemus]

Arguing against the first cause being referred to as "god" is more semantics than anything else.

Semantics is a lot. A god is a certain kind of thing (there are also many gods to choose from), whereas a first cause is nothing but a first cause. You assume the first cause is god because your reasoning does not arrive at god, it starts with god.

 

[Sniffles]

Semantics is a lot. A god is a certain kind of thing (there are also many gods to choose from), whereas a first cause is nothing but a first cause. You assume the first cause is god because your reasoning does not arrive at god, it starts with god.

A first cause for all intents and purposes is god, since god is a necessary being and the underpinning of all reality. The properties of god(Yaweh, Zeus, Mr X) is another, secondary, discussion. Aquinas would contend that to refer to the first cause as anything but god would be to digress from the commonly accepted(at least in his day) term for the first cause, but would admit no fundamental dispute existed on the matter - not at this point in the discussion at least. So if you want to push the issue, fine, but in the end it's still a rather trival one.

 

[Nicodemus]

A first cause for all intents and purposes is god, since god is a necessary being and the underpinning of all reality. The properties of god(Yaweh, Zeus, Mr X) is another, secondary, discussion. Aquinas would contend that to refer to the first cause as anything but god would be to digress from the commonly accepted(at least in his day) term for the first cause, but would admit no fundamental dispute existed on the matter - not at this point in the discussion at least.

Okay. I rest my case.

 

[Lark]

I think how people answer the question of the existence of God or whether they will be able to relates closely to the question of if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make any noise.

 

[Beorn]

Just as language depends on agreed phonemic premises of meaning to ensure mutual understanding, so too does philosophic conversation depend on mutually agreed premises to prevent parties from discussing entirely different topics while couched in seemingly comprehensible words.

Is this always the case?
What if I like discussing entirely different topics while couched in seemingly comprehensible words?

It is disrespectful because at that point, one is ascribing beliefs or conclusions to a person that the person does not have. One assumes to know more about the other's beliefs than the other person does, which is both extremely arrogant and disrespectful of that person's ability to come to reasonable conclusions.

You are assuming I think arrogance and disrespect should be avoided. What if I prefer them?

I find it interesting that you think incorrect judgements should be avoided because they are disrespectful.

 

[onemoretime]

Is this always the case?
What if I like discussing entirely different topics while couched in seemingly comprehensible words?

That's your prerogative, but you're not discussing in good faith at that point. So, I would be inclined to dismiss your credibility as a honest proponent of your viewpoint.

You are assuming I think arrogance and disrespect should be avoided. What if I prefer them?

In that case, it would be my prerogative to think of you as a prick, and dismiss your credibility as an advocate, even if I agree with you.

I find it interesting that you think incorrect judgements should be avoided because they are disrespectful.

Of course. It is my belief that one should assume a place of respect for everyone until a person gives you a reason to do otherwise. I accept that this is my belief, and I don't posit any sort of logical rationale for it (though I could if someone asked).

 

[Lark]

Basically as a human you either imagine that you are the cause of all other things or you accept that things happen because of external others, from there its easy to accept if there are others that God is one of the others.

 

[Mole]

Print taught us to think in linear, sequential ways. And so print taught us to think in terms of cause and effect. And just as a book has a begining, the universe has a First Cause. And hey, just as a watch has a watch maker, the universe has a universe maker, called the First Cause.

But print is being subsumed in the electronic world, where everything happens all at once, time and space have been abolished, and things emerge spontaneously.

So the God of print has been relegated, while the God of the electronic world is bursting through our computer screens, right now.

And this is where we worship. Yes, we worship everyday at our computer screens. Our piety seems to know no bounds. And as piety is the last taboo, no one here dare break it. You know, and I know, you can't look away from the Eye of God whether it is Mac or PC. The only caveat I am obliged to give you is that Mac is used in heaven and PC is used in the other place.

 

[Thisica]

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.

To be frank, Nature isn't even run by "cause and effect". Those are labels we use in an attempt to understand how the world works. Nature is beyond human language.

 

[A window to the soul]

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse," (Romans 1:20).

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands," (Psalm 19:1).

"He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding," (Jeremiah 51:15).

 

[Ginkgo]

To be frank, Nature isn't even run by "cause and effect". Those are labels we use in an attempt to understand how the world works. Nature is beyond human language.

You're dealing with a paradox there. In one hand, you're saying what nature isn't, yet with the other, you say it's beyond language.

I'm more than open to the idea of nature being beyond language, as well as the noumenal.

 

[Nicodemus]

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse," (Romans 1:20).

Hehe.

 

[JocktheMotie]

And to think, the human hand isn't the only thing that can perfectly wrap around it. Truly a testament to His divine existence.

 

[Polaris]

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Answer: both of them did. There was first a sort of egg with a sort of chicken inside it, and the two of them were so mixed up in each other that there was scarcely any distinction between them. And just before that moment, the chicken and the egg were completely one. And before that moment, the chicken-and-egg were simply not.

Cause is the egg; effect is the chicken. Before cause and effect--no, not before cause and effect, for that would be a tautology of the sort that spawned the ontological argument. One doesn't get beyond before by repeating the word "before." That only keeps one exactly where one is (which is something that no one is fooled about: people who repeat the ontological argument are lying to themselves as well as others). Naming one arbitrarily-chosen before "God" and feeling satisfied with that has all the explanatory power of going to the pet shop, picking out a puppy, and naming him Fred. It reveals your preferences, and that's about it.

Your "intellect," as they call it, is what posits cause and effect. Your intellect, therefore, is at least one possible answer to your question. "God" is another possible answer to your question, but if that's the answer you choose to provide, you would do well to keep in mind that an answer is an egg waiting to hatch. Faith would be a bit more stable; naivety would be the most stable thing of all.

 

[Thisica]

You're dealing with a paradox there. In one hand, you're saying what nature isn't, yet with the other, you say it's beyond language.

I'm more than open to the idea of nature being beyond language, as well as the noumenal.

I know What I should have said is that people think that nature is "run by cause and effect".

 

[Tamske]

God is not part of reality,

So he is imaginary? I can live with that!

or he would need a cause, including him in reality and giving him but one exemption is not an elegant portrait of the scenario.

No, it isn't. That's why I discard the god.

I don't understand why you think matter would be an adequate first cause, matter isn't supernatural therefore it is not immune to the question, what 'caused the matter'?

Again, why would everything in existence be natural except for one thing?

God is invoked because he is a very special sort of entity, necessarily a being of infinite real qualities that we're able to postulate. I do not accept that God is infinitely complex, I believe he could be quite 'logically simple'...

To me, calling something a "god" means you suppose he is alive, conscious, more powerful than a human... that's not a "simple" being. You're calling him special, infinite, not to be judged by our poor human standards.

I confess I'm not able to find a cause for the first bunch of energy. Maybe there is one. Maybe there are causes stretching infinitely into the past, just as there are effects stretching infinitely into the future. I don't know. But the difference is this. I guess this will sound hard or condescending, that's not my purpose, but I'll phrase it like that for the sake of clarity.

Theist: "The first cause is God, and you mustn't ask questions about God or else God would be angry. (Or: because God is better than you are, pathetic human)"
Atheist:" The first cause is a bunch of unconscious, unstructured energy, and you are allowed to ask questions about that, only I don't know the answer."

Absolute virtue; love(virtues and the intent to nourish) incarnate. I think you catch the point...

Yes, I can imagine a god like that. What does that prove? That I've got a good imagination?

Not going to involve myself in this one other than to say isn't looking for irrefutable proof of God about as difficult as asking for irrefutable proof of a lack thereof?

True, and I'm going for the cheapest route. You can't prove either. At least, as an atheist, I don't have to spend time at a church/mosque/..., refrain from sex, or do all sorts of things humans think the god wants us to do.
If the god just wants us to be nice to each other, I'm good. I do the best I can, not for the sake of the god, but for the sake of my fellow human beings.
If the god wants us to build him a temple, I'd like to know what sort of temple he wants. Countless people are making war just because they don't agree on the sort of temple (and rituals, ...). I don't want to get into that.
If the god wants us to kill other people (who says the god has to be a nice one? we'd prefer a nice god, but a real god doesn't have to follow our preferences), I'll refuse. I will stand up against god if he doesn't meet my ethical standards.

 

[Mole]

We create our God then our God creates us.

So God is both imaginary and real.

Our imaginary God has real effects.

 

[Mole]

And God is our greatest work of art, for God enables us to see with a God's Eye View. And as we move further into the electronic world, God will enable us to listen with the Ear of God.

And smell with the nose of God.

 

[redacted]

A "cause" for the universe doesn't solve anything, because then the universe is just defined as the cause+whatever you previously thought.

Infinite regress.

God doesn't solve this problem, because then what caused God causing the universe?

Edit: in other words, nothing can be "outside" the universe, even God, because the universe is defined as everything.