• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The irrefutable existence of God

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
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?
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
Why doesn't god need a maker? As soon as you invite the concept of god, you reject causation.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
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...
 

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

Red Herring

Superwoman
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,488
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments
 

Sanctus Iacobus

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
286
MBTI Type
STP
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.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
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.
 

tinker683

Whackus Bonkus
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,882
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.

Erm...what exactly does "sub-infinite" mean?

A lot of spooky language in this thread, bordering on being bombastic :dry:
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
The proofs for God which interest me at the minute include, principally, this one:-

That we live in a lawful existence, that is to say that existence is governed by discoverable laws, whether they are physical, chemical, biological, there are laws and these are independent of the human mind, they will happen whether we humans observe them or not, understand them or not, believe in them or not, investigation and research results or has resulted in the discovery of these laws, they are not inventions of the human mind.

This lawful reality being a discovered by man, being no invention of man, it is no less irrational to suppose that God is a comforting invention of the human mind than that gravity is a comforting invention.

It is possible to object that gravity is evident, empirically proven from direct observation and a theory based upon a testable, falsifiable thesis however it is not gravity per se that is in question but whether there are objective laws outside of the human mind and gravity or other principles similarly verified prove this also.

This lawful ordered existence is an allusion and what it alludes to is a God, of this I'm absolutely sure, it is in this sense that the worlds religions have affirmed that we are created in Gods image and that "creation" honours God, however this leaves open A LOT of questions, is God conscious of us, is God sentient in any way relating to mankind or reality, is God good or evil or neutral and even indifferent to the world, existence or mankind, does mankind have an afterlife and does that have anything to do with God?

I dont have all the answers yet, I'm still looking but to be honest presently most of my ideas correspond to those of the RCC and Pascal's reasoning.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
And so he said unto them, "The argumentation is ordained and shall come in a wave of locusts and AIDS".
 

Sanctus Iacobus

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
286
MBTI Type
STP
Erm...what exactly does "sub-infinite" mean?

A lot of spooky language in this thread, bordering on being bombastic :dry:

Sorry for my poor explanation, there are inherent issues with putting the infinite into a finite sense like words!

In every sense, God has no beginning or end. God simply is. God's qualities are infinite (infinite love, infinite power, infinite wisdom, etc). However, because we live in a finite world with boundaries and limitations, we tend to mentally quantify 'infinite' as endless-finiteness rather than a state of being where the concept of finite-ness is not found.
 

Sanctus Iacobus

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
286
MBTI Type
STP
This lawful ordered existence is an allusion and what it alludes to is a God, of this I'm absolutely sure, it is in this sense that the worlds religions have affirmed that we are created in Gods image and that "creation" honours God, however this leaves open A LOT of questions, is God conscious of us, is God sentient in any way relating to mankind or reality, is God good or evil or neutral and even indifferent to the world, existence or mankind, does mankind have an afterlife and does that have anything to do with God?

I dont have all the answers yet, I'm still looking but to be honest presently most of my ideas correspond to those of the RCC and Pascal's reasoning.

I believe you are on the right path, my friend! Continue seeking truth and you will most certainly find it.

Just as with natural laws existing independent of our discovery of them, such is the same of God. For God loved the people of the world so much that God sent His son into the world, that whoever trusts His son, Jesus, will discover the meaning of life as well as life beyond death.

Jesus is God entered into His own creation, and as well as being the answer we're all looking for, provided a human-sized view of the attributes of God. So, if you want to know what God is like, look to Jesus Christ.
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
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.

I won't follow you into that briar parch of metaphysics. Just tell me who god's granny is.
 

Sanctus Iacobus

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
286
MBTI Type
STP
I won't follow you into that briar parch of metaphysics. Just tell me who god's granny is.

:rofl1:

It is said that the 'fear' (reverence) of God is the beginning of wisdom. I'd like to personally add that the beginning of the reverence of God is realizing that beyond God there is no greater being. It can be a challenge to wrap one's head and heart around, I think because God is the only one this applies to, and everything else we're used to functions in some kind of hierarchy where there is something above as well as below. With God there is nothing 'above', and all things are below.

At first, this can be a terrifying thing to accept, but the truth is God is a Creator, not a destroyer, and at that, a Creator that loves His creation with such a love that He gave His begotten son. Know any fathers who would allow their children to die for you? ;) So on one hand, God is the only one in which we ought to fear, and yet if we believe on His Son we can come before God without fear of destruction.
 

tinker683

Whackus Bonkus
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,882
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Sorry for my poor explanation, there are inherent issues with putting the infinite into a finite sense like words!

Indeedy there is, since more often than not the words themselves don't have any meaning or comprehension. The three infinite you gave are wonderful examples.

In every sense, God has no beginning or end. God simply is. God's qualities are infinite (infinite love, infinite power, infinite wisdom, etc). However, because we live in a finite world with boundaries and limitations, we tend to mentally quantify 'infinite' as endless-finiteness rather than a state of being where the concept of finite-ness is not found.

How do you know all of this? What is your criteria for making this determination?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I believe you are on the right path, my friend! Continue seeking truth and you will most certainly find it.

Just as with natural laws existing independent of our discovery of them, such is the same of God. For God loved the people of the world so much that God sent His son into the world, that whoever trusts His son, Jesus, will discover the meaning of life as well as life beyond death.

Jesus is God entered into His own creation, and as well as being the answer we're all looking for, provided a human-sized view of the attributes of God. So, if you want to know what God is like, look to Jesus Christ.

I disagree with some of your language and I suspect its more than semantics and that if we were to go into more detail I'd only feel more strongly about it but if you mean that Jesus' incarnation is an example of God's search for man then yes I would agree.

The important thing about natural laws existing independent of our discovery of them (really good summary of what I was trying to state more simply) is that this is the perfect response to the mistaken track philosophy took from Descartes' day onwards, putting man at the centre of things with "I think therefore I am".

To think that was all because Descartes was worried about refracted images and things not being how they seemed and being fooled by your own eyes.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
:rofl1:

I'd like to personally add that the beginning of the reverence of God is realizing that beyond God there is no greater being. It can be a challenge to wrap one's head and heart around, I think because God is the only one this applies to, and everything else we're used to functions in some kind of hierarchy where there is something above as well as below. With God there is nothing 'above', and all things are below.

You're good at recycling vacant rhetoric.
 
Top