God exists: Philosophy Forums

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

God exists

norman
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2008

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 70

Posted 06/23/09 - 09:47 AM:	#31
mayor of simpleton wrote: Stormin' Norman, you don't sound like an ass. The presupposition for the existence or non-existence of god(s) is the reason for the question in the first place. It serves as more "self-justification" for one's personal opinion. The "cornerstones of proof" for one are the "stumbling blocks of ignorance" for the other. God is far too intelligent to bother with such participation in the debate. For the most part, we are just "daytime Television" for god. God exists. Yes! Your god. Your creation who created you. Your method of coping. Your method of excuse. Your method for moral justification. Your extension of moral limited opinion based in connotation into a world of universal ethics, unlimited in nature based in dennotation, void of connotation and personal experience. God is a guide. God is a crutch. God is a weapon. God is the stuff to fill in the gaps of knowledge. God is the foundation of knowledge. God is what the others god is not. God is whatever you need. God is whatever you want. God is you. God is everything opposite of you. God is Paradox. God is Metaphor. God is ... You fill in the dots and you know what? You are right, for you. Meow! GREG Hahaha! Excellent!

Angra Mainyu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 126

Posted 06/23/09 - 02:21 PM:	#32
Okay, with regard to the second argument - I see some of the following points were already made, but just to put some of the main objections together: Incision wrote: 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. 1) As pointed out by coalclear and nevoriot , why would the cause have to be intelligent? If we assume there was a phenomenon "the universe is formed", then it would appear to me that there was some time in the past where there was no "universe"; so the word "universe" is being used in a restrictive manner...perhaps, to refer to "whatever resulted from the Big Bang". But then, there if there is or was a place and time where universes can form, again why assume that the universe was caused by an intelligent entity? 2) Let's consider the following argument - one that a person could make before anything was known about the formation of planetary systems. Everything has a cause. So, surely, the Solar System has a cause. What could have caused the Solar System? Well, it needs to be outside the Solar System and be intelligent, so it must be something like God. Would a person be justified, based on that argument, to conclude that the Solar System was caused by God - he just put it there, the Sun, planets, etc.? Looks like the mighty God of The Gaps to me. 3) It seems there is serious speculation about the possibility of creating a universe in a lab. Suppose in the future, a team of human scientists in our world, make other universes, and intelligence arise in some of them. Would that mean that those scientists would qualify as "gods" as well? So, at this point, a question is: What do you mean by "God"? Suppose that some alien team of scientists, technologically more advanced than we are, found a way to create a universe, and created many, including our own. In that scenario, the universe would indeed have been created by an intelligent being that is outside the universe. Would atheism be falsified? Would it be appropriate to call the members of the alien team of scientists "gods"? If not, then it seems that the argument would fail to prove atheism wrong, even accepting some of the premises for the sake of the argument. 4) As nevoriot pointed out, if we assume that the universe needs an intelligent cause, what about the creator of the universe? I'll consider two possibilities: a) The creator was created by another intelligent being. In this case, would the creator of the universe (or should I say "universe") be called "god"? (and again, what's a god?). Here, the word "universe" is being used in a restrictive sense (see above), but there is some "megaverse" (or whatever you call it), where some person (say, g1) created our universe - g1 was created by g2. Would that mean atheism is false? Or would it mean that some alien made this universe, and was made by some other alien? b) The creator, say g2, was the result of causes not involving intelligent beings. In that case, how's the creator relevantly different from the aliens who, say, evolve (by non-intentional processes) in a parallel universe and create ours? Or even from aliens who evolve on another planet in our universe and seed the Earth in a distant past? The point is that here we're again using "universe" restrictively, the point is that some person resulted from some non-intentional processes, and then made other people...would that person qualify as "God"? Why? What's a god? (or a capitalized "God", if you like) Edited by Angra Mainyu on 06/23/09 - 02:32 PM

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 06/23/09 - 03:36 PM:	#33
Mark Twain, in the book "The Mysterious Stranger", wrote: A God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell — mouths mercy, and invented hell — mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!

Incision
Professor

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

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 06/24/09 - 09:00 PM:	#34
Angra Mainyu wrote: As pointed out by coalclear and nevoriot , why would the cause have to be intelligent? Here's an argument from Craig. Presumably time either goes back infinitely before the universe existed, as on a Platonistic view, or began when the universe did, as on a reductionistic view. But if God doesn't exist, then if time went back infinitely, the universe could never have existed, since there would be no relevant distinction between times. However, God could (arbitrarily) choose to create at one moment rather than another. Likewise, Craig, in The Kalam Cosmological Argument, 151, wrote: On a relational view of time, he could will timelessly to create and that creation would mark the inception of time. * * * Well, I had meant to respond with something like that. But now that I'm here, this argument seems to have an obvious flaw: on the second option, there's no need to assume that the cause is personal. Since I can't find any better ways to show that the cause must be personal, I guess the argument fails. Oh well, I couldn't prove that God exists after all.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 06/25/09 - 01:08 AM:	#35
Hey Incision! This is real heady stuff. My approach is a bit more relaxed, but I need to expand. I cannot offer much insite, I fear, but maybe I can post a few "stupid" observations. Please endulge me a bit, my logical language is more than rusty. OP: "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. (How do we know this, or is this just a theoretical assumption?) 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. (Maybe I don't get this one, but it sounds as if due to a lack of knowledge we are going to bet on probability? I do not really see why this "impossible to know situation" results in a "should". OK, obvious and nit-picky, but this could possibly be it. There is only one universe. Just as likely or unlikely. Please correct me here, I need it.) And it's more understandable that the universe exists if God does too. (OK??? Why?) In fact, there isn't any reason for God to create the universe, or any for him not to. (I guess this is like, there is no real reason for me to make another espresso, except for the fact I can and my cup is empty?) 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? (Sounds a bit like "goatism", greeting to Banno! Long story short, everything that is is god, including what god has "created", but as god is everything and must be in all time as well, omnipresent, then nothing has been in terms of a "timeline" created as it was already there as god is everything and everything that is is and that,.... I need an espresso, not just because it can. I really need it now!) But that's not a problem: an arbitrary decision from God is still more likely than the universe's existing through chance. (OK, I have my espresso. Problem solved! Why is an arbitrary decision more likely than chance? What if the universe is outside of time, or apriori to time? Greg, don't go there! Bad place! Head will explode!) So things look brighter: life isn't the hand we were dealt; it's the way the coin landed. (I personally believe the coin is either still in the air or it landed on it's side, this opens "pandora's paradox box".) Second, everything has a cause, so surely the universe does. (Hard determinism, fine..., but why must the cause be god or goats for that matter?) What could cause the universe? (A big bang could be the coin being tossed in the air, or perhaps the impact of the landing. We are talking about one big assed coin here!) Well, it needs to be outside the universe and intelligent, so it must be something like God. (Are you asking, "who tossed the big assed coin"?) The standard response is to ask, "What caused God?" (I have an answer to this one, BUT... it will offend both atheists and theists alike.) 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. Incision's argument: (1') The probability of a life-sustaining universe is low. (2') The probability of a life-sustaining universe given God is even. (3') Therefore, there's evidence that God exists. A logical equation based upon mere probability, no matter how compelling, will unfortunately carry no credit ot merit. A few question: By god, do you mean a literal being? By creation of the universe, do you mean a literal process? I do not wish to just barge into the debate, nor do I claim to have any more enlightment, or any less for that matter, than anyone else here. I tend to confuse people with my intentions, not as a game, but I do have a theory, but it is not finished and it is a hell of a lot bigger than I am. Every now and then I crack open the lid to "pandora's paradox box", but I cannot open it. Believe it or not, I really respect religions and non-religions alike. I find that they are simply arguning the same propositions, but allow trivial moral costume and masks throw them off the track. Enough... Where do you wish to take this? If anywhere? Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

Angra Mainyu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 126

Posted 06/25/09 - 02:12 AM:	#36
Incision wrote: Here's an argument from Craig. Presumably time either goes back infinitely before the universe existed, as on a Platonistic view, or began when the universe did, as on a reductionistic view. But if God doesn't exist, then if time went back infinitely, the universe could never have existed, since there would be no relevant distinction between times. However, God could (arbitrarily) choose to create at one moment rather than another. What does "no relevant distinction between times" mean? The universe could have formed at any moment; furthermore, in this case, "universe" seems to used in a very restrictive manner. I see no reason for not calling the world before the Big Bang "universe", but in any case, let's call it "multiverse", and there is no particular reason to think the Big Bang would not have occurred in that multiverse without an intelligent being, just as there is no reason to think that a supernova wouldn't happen, a black hole wouldn't form, or our own planet wouldn't have formed without an intelligence behind it. Craig, in The Kalam Cosmological Argument, 151 wrote: On a relational view of time, he could will timelessly to create and that creation would mark the inception of time. "Timeless person", or "person outside time", etc., seems to be a "get out of logic/language" free card, as far as I can tell. I argued that in an earlier post, but I don't yet know how to link to single posts on this forum, so here it is: Theists [different theists say different things, but I'm using some statements many theists could make, as examples] say things like "God created the world", "God listens to prayers", "God will punish non-believers", "God hates sin", "God hates homosexuality", "God does not want people to fornicate","God helped the Hebrews cross the Red Sea", "God killed everyone who wasn't on Noah's Ark with a global flood", "God punished everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah by destroying both cities, killing everyone in them", etc. If "God" is used to refer to some superpowerful person that did stuff, does stuff, will do stuff, and so on, that is coherent (false, but coherent). Now, that is the picture of God that Christians seem to have in mind most of the time (when not arguing for theism philosophically, anyway), and there is no reference to "timelessness", or "outside time". But then, now let's try to think of a "timeless" person doing those actions...and there is nothing to think about. It's gibberish. It seems that the use of "God if timeless", or "outside time" is used to somehow declare religion immune against a number of arguments. They would say, "even if he's outside time, he can interact with time", or something - but again, "a person outside time", does not seem to mean anything. Craig's use of "big words" might impress his audience, but "On a relational view of time, he could will timelessly to create and that creation would mark the inception of time" seems to be meaningless. If God decides to create something, and then creates it, we're talking in terms of time: whatever God did, we can't say "out of time" in a meaningful way. I wish that were pointed out more often, since Christians usually get immunity for their beliefs by playing the "outside time/timeless" card.

voyaging
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 27, 2008
Location: United States

Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 165

Posted 10/25/09 - 07:33 PM:	#37
Incision wrote: But that's not a problem: an arbitrary decision from God is still more likely than the universe's existing through chance. The universe did not come into existence by chance whatsoever. It was guaranteed to exist without a doubt. Incision wrote: 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 universe does not need a cause other than itself because the total energy in the universe is zero. Zero energy can obviously create zero energy. Quantum fluctuations gave rise to what we call our universe. You are basking in the past. This argument was decent once-upon-a-time but with modern physics and cosmology, the theory I described above is nearing the same irrefutability that Darwin's theory of evolution has reached.
A witty saying proves nothing.

Theseus925
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2009
Location: Myrtle Beach SC

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 44

Posted 10/26/09 - 10:42 AM:	#38
Our senses tell us that the universe exists. We see it; we can measure some of its properties. It is a tangible entity. This in no way implies that there is an intangible something that we can neither see or measure responsible for it . Being a little Mormon is like being a little pregnant. Timid Gods What's hard to understand about the gods, Is why they're so timid with mortal clods. Why are they hiding, where pray, can they be. Why won't they show themselves for all to see? Not a single one has been on TV. Copyright 2008 by Theseus Edited by Theseus925 on 11/01/09 - 06:34 PM
We are in a war with time. While we are looking for ways to kill time, time is looking for ways to kill us--Theseus

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 560

Posted 10/26/09 - 11:05 AM:	#39
123savethewhales wrote: How does causality law even work without time? If you are to go beyond the universe and space-time itself, you might as well not bring causality law into the equation. Well, if God can possibly not require a cause, then why posit him at all? Why not just say that the universe possibly does not require a cause?
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

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

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 164

Posted 10/26/09 - 12:59 PM:	#40
mayor of simpleton wrote: Hey Incision! It's surprising that our universe exists. That's because there are so many apparently possible universes, and so few that sustain life. (How do we know this, or is this just a theoretical assumption?) 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. (Maybe I don't get this one, but it sounds as if due to a lack of knowledge we are going to bet on probability? I do not really see why this "impossible to know situation" results in a "should". OK, obvious and nit-picky, but this could possibly be it. There is only one universe. Just as likely or unlikely. Please correct me here, I need it.) The stability of structures essential for life, from atomic nuclei to the whole universe, depends on delicate balances between different fundamental forces. These balances are believed to occur only in a tiny fraction (calculated to be less than 10^-24 chance) of possible universes — so that this universe appears fine-tuned for life. You are asking why should we concern the fine tuning of the universe in terms of probaility, for even if it's extremely unlikely, there may still be only one universe that happens to have the laws that allow life to exist. "I dont think there are flying saucers. So my antagonist said, 'Is it impossible for there to be flying saucers, can you prove that it is impossible?' And I said no, 'No I can not prove that it is impossible. It's just very unlikely.' That they say is very unscientific, if you can't prove it impossible how can you say it is unlikely. For that is the way it is scientific. To say it is more likely or less likely and not to be proving all the time all the possibilities." Richard Feynman (1964 Caltech Lectures) This is my reply, to some other things you said below. And it's more understandable that the universe exists if God does too. (OK??? Why?) We are not proposing a God to solve all possible solutions and eliminate questions to make it more understandable, but to take a philosophical position to make a model for the world. Time and time again in both philosophy and science, when we try to answer one question, a huge multitude of questions appear that confuses us even more. There is nothing odd about that. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves and an answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects. In fact, there isn't any reason for God to create the universe, or any for him not to. (I guess this is like, there is no real reason for me to make another espresso, except for the fact I can and my cup is empty?)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? Maybe so and maybe there is a reason for God to create the universe. I just see it as a question under consideration. It may be that the universe is the original acte gratuit. God may be like an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end. The world needs not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause and effect. Like a Modernist work of art, there is no necessity about it at all. (I am not saying that this is what I believe, I am just offering a possibilty.) Second, everything has a cause, so surely the universe does. (Hard determinism, fine..., but why must the cause be god or goats for that matter?) Simply because phenomenon are known not to be able create ex nihilo (out of nothing) so its simply a conclusion people use that existence is rather a product of desire or a thinking thing. If matter, or some entity similar to our universe were to be a cause, it couldn't be the first cause cause it wouldn't be able to create information out of nothing. A few question: By god, do you mean a literal being? By creation of the universe, do you mean a literal process? Ludwig Wittgenstein would say that asking for the meaning of the word "God" is to go beyond its use, and that asking questions is as nonsense as the proposition it forms in people's minds. Questions such as asking for the essence of something is playing tricks on yourself. The premise of your words presupposes the non existance and existance of affairs or the way things are. Our usage of the meaning "God" describes as such an intention to answer questions we do not know of. I can see that there may be flaws in my post, but I could only see a purpose of posting a very small fraction of my understanding of God without being irrelevant to the topic so you can point things out if you need clarifications.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

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.