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: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 11/04/09 - 06:09 PM:	#51
exel+two wrote: Why does it matter how the universe was made? Just something to think about It has massive logical implications to arguments that seek to show that god could and does exist. Common experience tells us that things don't happen on their own. Or more commonly "something can not come from nothing". It is for this reason many people are willing to maintain a theistic presupposition. It seems intuitively correct to many people. The funny thing is science has already addressed the issue. There is real and compelling evidence to support the conclusion that the universe can in fact emerge from empty space. I think some one ought to send out a memo.
Or not.

Applelong
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 07, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 11/07/09 - 09:36 PM:	#52
Just a few quick points. On cause and effect. Not everything neccesarily has a prior cause. There has been certain scientific reserch into the movement of protons, recent research has shown that there the movement of certain protons has no prior cause but is totally random. Just a little point. Also, on the essentially cosmological argument. It is totally self contradictory. Scientists have hit the block and cannot yet trace back the first few moments of creation ie, why the big bang started. However, the argument of God creating the universe is not only less logical, but it comes with the same and even more problems. As you said, who made God. It isnt logical to say that everything has a prior cause and yet God doesnt, just by adding the qualification that God does not need a prior cause as he is God. Thats totally self contradictory. All through religious arguments these sort of qualifications are added, the problem of eveil being the most potent argument against God. God "dies the death of a thousand qualifications" We have come to a point where there is no need for God. Science is explaining away all the questions that religion attempted to answer through God. Now religion is simply clouding the minds of people that ask the questions. Qualifing God more and more and science explains him away. There is no need for God any more, forgive the cliche, but "God is dead".

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 11/07/09 - 09:48 PM:	#53
Applelong wrote: We have come to a point where there is no need for God. Science is explaining away all the questions that religion attempted to answer through God. Now religion is simply clouding the minds of people that ask the questions. Qualifing God more and more and science explains him away. I keep telling them the same thing. For some reason they don't believe me. I think it has something to do with their thinking.
Or not.

d_martin
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 21, 2009
Location: Quartzsite Arizona

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39

Posted 11/09/09 - 03:56 PM:	#54
Applelong wrote: Just a few quick points. On cause and effect. Not everything neccesarily has a prior cause. There has been certain scientific reserch into the movement of protons, recent research has shown that there the movement of certain protons has no prior cause but is totally random. Just a little point. Also, on the essentially cosmological argument. It is totally self contradictory. Scientists have hit the block and cannot yet trace back the first few moments of creation ie, why the big bang started. However, the argument of God creating the universe is not only less logical, but it comes with the same and even more problems. As you said, who made God. It isnt logical to say that everything has a prior cause and yet God doesnt, just by adding the qualification that God does not need a prior cause as he is God. Thats totally self contradictory. All through religious arguments these sort of qualifications are added, the problem of eveil being the most potent argument against God. God "dies the death of a thousand qualifications" We have come to a point where there is no need for God. Science is explaining away all the questions that religion attempted to answer through God. Now religion is simply clouding the minds of people that ask the questions. Qualifing God more and more and science explains him away. There is no need for God any more, forgive the cliche, but "God is dead". Does knowledge need a prior cause to be knowledge?
You don’t have to believe something you don’t know is true, whether it be fact or fiction. But if you know it’s true?

mtboger
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

Posted 11/09/09 - 06:54 PM:	#55
"There has been certain scientific reserch into the movement of protons, recent research has shown that there the movement of certain protons has no prior cause but is totally random. Just a little point." -So you're comparing a proton to the whole entire universe? "However, the argument of God creating the universe is not only less logical, but it comes with the same and even more problems." -I think its pretty unreasonable to think that our logic is on the same level as God's logic.

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 718

Posted 11/10/09 - 03:49 PM:	#56
mtboger (#55) wrote: "However, the argument of God creating the universe is not only less logical, but it comes with the same and even more problems." -I think its pretty unreasonable to think that our logic is on the same level as God's logic. But the problem is that this "God's logic" is just as much a bare assertion as "God" is in the first place.
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 11/10/09 - 04:07 PM:	#57
Cheshire wrote: It has massive logical implications to arguments that seek to show that god could and does exist. Common experience tells us that things don't happen on their own. Or more commonly "something can not come from nothing". It is for this reason many people are willing to maintain a theistic presupposition. It seems intuitively correct to many people. The funny thing is science has already addressed the issue. There is real and compelling evidence to support the conclusion that the universe can in fact emerge from empty space. I think some one ought to send out a memo. Hey, no taking this argument to other unsuspecting posters without addressing my objections to its 'conclusivity' in your own thread. Note two things. 1) Empty space is not the same as nothingness. 2) Something must still preclude that which does come from nothing; i.e. that which is particularly formed vis a vis the potential of nothingness. Also note that there are logically possible accounts outside of this 'one sided issue'. One, for instance, is that natural law exists precisely because agency exists (but see your thread for more on that).
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.

Applelong
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 07, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 11/13/09 - 01:15 AM:	#58
"There has been certain scientific reserch into the movement of protons, recent research has shown that there the movement of certain protons has no prior cause but is totally random. Just a little point." -So you're comparing a proton to the whole entire universe?” +Well, seeing as protons make up atoms, which as far as we know, make up everything in the universe, the comparison doesn’t seem that obscure. Also, it only takes one example to cut the thread of an argument with no exceptions. The claim that everything has a prior cause is refuted by a single example of proton movement. If there is one exception to the rule, then the rule is invalid. Unless you want to make yet another qualification saying that everything has a prior cause, apart from god and apart from proton movement. "However, the argument of God creating the universe is not only less logical, but it comes with the same and even more problems." -I think its pretty unreasonable to think that our logic is on the same level as God's logic.” +Surely if our knowledge was “god given” then it would allow us as god’s creation to logically (without making exceptions and qualifications) identify a creator. However, there are so many other flaws to the idea of a creator god, more-so to the notion of an immanent, omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient god. The problem of evil for instance.

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 237

Posted 11/13/09 - 01:41 AM:	#59
Cheshire wrote: I think some one ought to send out a memo. Memo received! God is space!
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 718

Posted 11/15/09 - 08:36 AM:	#60
bert1 (#59) wrote: Memo received! God is space! Hey does that mean God is growing..? I mean, as per observation plus current cosmological models..
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

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.