God exists: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » God exists » God exists

God exists
Two arguments

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

God exists

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 10/26/09 - 03:03 PM:	#41
Actually, it turns out a lot can come from nothing. So long as nothing is made up of a positive something and a negative something. Simply, .5 - .5 = 0. We only assume that a nothing fits our abstract description. In fact the true state of existence that we think of as 'nothing' is a balance between positive and negative. So, nothing can ideally come from nothing, but a lot can literally come from nothing or empty space. Do not ask me to prove it, but we may have taken for granted this concept of "nothing from nothing".
Or not.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/28/09 - 11:04 AM:	#42
Incision wrote: I haven't heard about Advocatus Diaboli this year; maybe that's why I missed it. But it's never too late to get into the holiday spirit. First I'll offer a "C-inductive" argument: this is evidence that God exists, even if it isn't conclusive. To do this I just need to show that something is more likely with God than without. It's surprising that our universe exists. That's because there are so many apparently possible universes, and so few that sustain life. If we could determine that one universe was more likely than another, this might not be a problem, but we could only do that by experiencing multiple universes. That's impossible, so we should regard all universes as equally likely. And it's more understandable that the universe exists if God does too. In fact, there isn't any reason for God to create the universe, or any for him not to. If God is that than which no greater can be conceived, then God plus the universe is no greater than God alone, so why would he have any reason to bother? But that's not a problem: an arbitrary decision from God is still more likely than the universe's existing through chance. So things look brighter: life isn't the hand we were dealt; it's the way the coin landed. Second, everything has a cause, so surely the universe does. What could cause the universe? Well, it needs to be outside the universe and intelligent, so it must be something like God. The standard response is to ask, "What caused God?" But I'll be a little bit Mormon and bite the bullet: yes, God has a cause. I'm not sure what it is, but so what? Atheism is still false. Well, everything needs a cause as long as there is still time the can govern cause and effect. Not everything has a cause. Only everything material or finite must have a cause and the universe falls into that category. We know that there was a 'starting point' of time, time does not extend back infinitely. So (and I believe this is the point the cosmological argument makes), the "first cause" had to be immaterial and infinite. God satisfies every condition.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 10/28/09 - 12:47 PM:	#43
I'm not sure that "everything material or finite must have a cause": some quantum events are often thought to be uncaused. Also, even if there is an infinite (timeless?) immaterial cause of the universe, that doesn't fully amount to JCI god.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/28/09 - 01:39 PM:	#44
Perhaps, but logically that is not possible. I suspect we'll discover later that the 'random' quantum events actually did have a cause, just something we couldn't see or didn't understand. Scientists should be searching for the cause of those events. What do you mean by "JCI" God?

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 166

Posted 10/28/09 - 04:20 PM:	#45
Cheshire wrote: Actually, it turns out a lot can come from nothing. So long as nothing is made up of a positive something and a negative something. Simply, .5 - .5 = 0. We only assume that a nothing fits our abstract description. In fact the true state of existence that we think of as 'nothing' is a balance between positive and negative. So, nothing can ideally come from nothing, but a lot can literally come from nothing or empty space. Do not ask me to prove it, but we may have taken for granted this concept of "nothing from nothing". A value of 0 isn't nothingness, it simply doesn't exist as we view it. The uncertainty principle disallows any system to have a value of 0, you can't state the rate of change of a system at the same time as the state of the system. If a system really had a value of 0, then you would be measuring the rate of change 0 and state 0, which is impossible. That's why both absolute zero (temperature) and zero-point energy are both used as ground states, but can not be achieved.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 10/28/09 - 07:45 PM:	#46
Odin wrote: Perhaps, but logically that is not possible. I suspect we'll discover later that the 'random' quantum events actually did have a cause, just something we couldn't see or didn't understand. Scientists should be searching for the cause of those events. What do you mean by "JCI" God? Do you have a proof from logic that it's impossible for uncaused events to exist? I'd be interested to see it. "JCI" means "Judeo-Christian-Islamic." The JCI god is God -- the god of the three major monotheistic religions, the Abrahamic god.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/29/09 - 09:44 PM:	#47
Incision wrote: Odin wrote: Perhaps, but logically that is not possible. I suspect we'll discover later that the 'random' quantum events actually did have a cause, just something we couldn't see or didn't understand. Scientists should be searching for the cause of those events. What do you mean by "JCI" God? Do you have a proof from logic that it's impossible for uncaused events to exist? I'd be interested to see it. "JCI" means "Judeo-Christian-Islamic." The JCI god is God -- the god of the three major monotheistic religions, the Abrahamic god. I could probably put an argument together if I had time to. Maybe tomorrow. To me saying that something can be uncaused is like saying that something can spontaneously pop out of nothing. What says what it becomes/does? Can an uncaused event do anything it wants? Can it summon up the energy to destroy the galaxy or universe if it wanted to? If it really had no cause, what material limits should it have? If the event itself is governed by the mechanical laws of the universe, what's to make us think that the origin of the event doesn't have to be? What can make something abruptly change motion, or just shoot off somewhere? Nothing? If it is indeed nothing then why do all these events have a relative similarity between them, even if we can't explain why they do different things in a seemingly identical environment? And science has always thought the same of many other events, only to find out later that they did have a mechanical cause and effect. The same will be discovered with the "random" events we have today.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 10/30/09 - 07:04 PM:	#48
Odin wrote: I could probably put an argument together if I had time to. Maybe tomorrow. I can't tell from this if the following string of rhetorical questions was seriously intended to suggest an argument; I'll assume it was. Most of the questions seem to me to suggest this: If one event occurs uncaused, then any other event can occur. But some events just can't occur. So no event is uncaused. Now I certainly agree that some events can't occur: there are impossible events like my drawing a square circle. But I don't see any reason for the other premise. Maybe you're thinking that at some level, the same rules apply to every event, but if so, then your argument begs the question. I'm saying there could be events for which there are no determining rules. In fact, I think I can prove there's no conceptual proof against uncaused events. The argument is Hume's: we can conceive of uncaused events, so if they can't occur, it must be an empirical fact rather than a conceptual one.

exel+two
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 23

Posted 11/03/09 - 05:57 PM:	#49
I would tend to agree with poster numero duo; you're argument is full of holes. I am not going to pull apart your argument like it seems everyone else on this thread is doing. Instead I simply want to ask a (series of) question(s), I suppose it is directed to all people with faith; atheists and creationists alike. Why does it matter how the universe was made? Can not we simply live our lives to the fullest and happiest without needing a reason to do so? Call me selfish, but I think the most important thing to do with one's life is to have a good time; does it matter why, do we need a reason to enjoy ourselves? As philosophers, we enjoy asking the difficult questions. But will we truly be happier if we get the answers? Just something to think about

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 11/04/09 - 01:45 PM:	#50
exel+two wrote: But will we truly be happier if we get the answers? I was going to answer. . .but does it really matter?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.