How can God simple exist?

[Domen123]

If it could be demonstrated how timelessness could exist that might give credence to the god/gods hypothesis

Before the Big Bang there was no time & matter (and the Big Bang itself supposedly had no cause - which contradicts the "every result must have a cause" rule), so we already have a demonstration that timelessness did exist and still exists (beyond the boundaries of our universe there is - supposedly - no time).

You talk about God being "timeless and immaterial" but for all we know the universe is, whatever that means.

The whole universe is not material - much of the universe consists of so called "dark matter" according to recent calculations.

And this dark matter is... well, we don't really know what it is. We just know that it must be there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

[Himster]

Before the Big Bang there was no time & matter (and the Big Bang itself supposedly had no cause - which contradicts the "every result must have a cause" rule), so we already have a demonstration that timelessness did exist and still exists (beyond the boundaries of our universe there is - supposedly - no time).

Who said the big-bang had no cause? If something caused the big-bang that means timelessness didn't exist, because within timelessnes nothing can happen, it is a static realm and unchanging: only nothing can come from timelessness.

[Hakkapeliitta]

I think Valden's case fall apart at the seams since nothing was created at the "Big Bang". All the matter that exists now existed then as a single point, and what we call "Big Bang" is just the rapid expansion of that matter. What happened prior to that has no meaning, because all that happened, happened simultaneuosly. From our point of view it makes no difference.

[Valden]

Yes I hold these basic beliefs, but what you forget to mention is that unlike anything you've been trying to argue we have countless indications and evidence and are constantly making new observations that thus far have all supported these beliefs to be true.

You present a properly basic belief like a scientific prediction that will one day be validated. A properly basic belief is the foundation of all your other beliefs, and one that cannot be proven. For instance, you cannot leave your sensory intuition to test its validity from the outside, all you have to validate your senses are your senses, which is arguing in a circle. So we take the reports of our senses on faith. This isn't something that is constantly being validated as you assert, for no matter how many observations you make there is no real indication that you are not a brain in a vat, but it would be counter-intuitive to assume you were. We operate on intuition.

You want to use reason and deduction, your logic, to find information about what potentially lies beyond this universe. There is nothing about your logic that stems from beyond this universe and therefore it cannot be assumed to be a valid tool to find information beyond this universe.

This is just a self contradictory position, as to know your logic is not applicable to something entails a position beyond logic which can validate/disprove logic. It is just as impossible as proving/disproving a properly basic belief. Your intuition leads you to hold your properly basic beliefs, and so your position is counter-intuitive.

By all means deny your own intuition if you please, but with the utmost respect I don't think you have any right to tell me what I can and cannot do with mine. Really this is more of a personal issue to you, namely why you are denying and masking your intuitions when they may lead you to theism.

[irelandeb]

You present a properly basic belief like a scientific prediction that will one day be validated. A properly basic belief is the foundation of all your other beliefs, and one that cannot be proven. For instance, you cannot leave your sensory intuition to test its validity from the outside, all you have to validate your senses are your senses, which is arguing in a circle. So we take the reports of our senses on faith. This isn't something that is constantly being validated as you assert, for no matter how many observations you make there is no real indication that you are not a brain in a vat, but it would be counter-intuitive to assume you were. We operate on intuition.

But I don't "assume" that my perceptions are reality. I don't take my sensory qualia on faith. I don't even think about them. I don't care what they are. I could be a brain in a vat being fed a simulation, and I wouldn't care. I don't assume I am not. I could be, I have no knowledge to the contary.

By all means deny your own intuition if you please, but with the utmost respect I don't think you have any right to tell me what I can and cannot do with mine. Really this is more of a personal issue to you, namely why you are denying and masking your intuitions when they may lead you to theism.

Imagining facts about things you have no knowledge of is not called reason. And intuition only leads you to God if you are not a rationalist.

[Valden]

I think Valden's case fall apart at the seams since nothing was created at the "Big Bang". All the matter that exists now existed then as a single point, and what we call "Big Bang" is just the rapid expansion of that matter.

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. An infinite regress of events is an actual infinite.
3. therefore, an infinite regress of events cannot exist.

This subset of the cosmological argument deduces that there must be an ultimate beginning to the universe, as an infinite past is impossible. All your statement does is attempt to push that beginning back a stage to before the Big Bang, it does not undo anything I have argued.

What happened prior to that has no meaning, because all that happened, happened simultaneuosly. From our point of view it makes no difference.

This is your ideology talking. It may make no difference from your perspective, but do not presume to represent my perspective. Personally I find the possibility of omniscient design and a a First cause the deepest and most searching questions I can ask.

[irelandeb]

There is no good reason to think that causation does not apply to everything that begins to exist, as this simply defies all human experience on the matter.

Going back a few posts, there is a very good reason. That reason is that there is no evidence for it. We must be skeptical of something until there is evidence for it. Maybe causation does apply to the universe. But until we have evidence of that, we must not believe it.

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. An infinite regress of events is an actual infinite.
3. therefore, an infinite regress of events cannot exist.

This subset of the cosmological argument deduces that there must be an ultimate beginning to the universe, as an infinite past is impossible. All your statement does is attempt to push that beginning back a stage to before the Big Bang, it does not undo anything I have argued.

Do you have any evidence for any of this? For all we know the universe could be infinite in size and last infinitely long.

[Valden]

You're misunderstanding what he is saying. Our reason is applicable everywhere. What isn't applicable is the scientific laws we reason with.

You seem to be confused between reason and science. Scientific laws explain things that happen in the world around us. Reason uses these scientific laws to establish and verify facts. We know that causation is a scientific law that goes back to the big bang. We don't know what happened beyond that, but we have no reason to believe causation applies there. If we ever do discover any scientific laws bayond the big bang, rest assured our reason will be compatible with them.

We do not know that causation is a scientific law, as we have no good reason to assume that causation only applies objects within the universe. As I have said numerous times before, there is no good reason to think that causation is not an intuitive metaphysical truth. the fact material objects demonstrate this truth only supports it.
I put a counter argument to you regarding causation a few posts ago, but you did not respond to it, and have now reworked the same argument, so here is my original post:

"This erroneous objection to "3. Therefore the universe has a cause" seems to stem partly from how the causal principle is analysed. There is no good reason to think that causation does not apply to everything that begins to exist, as this simply defies all human experience on the matter. It is an intuitive metaphysical truth that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence, there is no good reason to doubt causation as an empirical generalisation.

The fact you are willing to deny your own intuition when it may lead you to theism shows your position is not truly grounded in reason.

The only philosopher I can think of who argued that the universe had a spontaneous beginning rather than a first cause is Wes Morriston. Morriston argued that creation out of nothing is equally counter-intuitive to beginning to exist without a cause. However there is a decisive reason for preferring creation ex nihilo over uncaused origination ex nihilo, and that is that although both cases are counter-intuitive in that they deny a material cause, creation ex nihilo still allows an efficient cause whereas a spontaneous beginning allows no cause. In other words, no cause is twice as improbable as a first cause."

[Valden]

Do you have any evidence for any of this? For all we know the universe could be infinite in size and last infinitely long.

Ok I gave evidence that has no been successfully refuted paaaggggeeeessss ago. But in short, you are arguing against the science you seem determined to associate yourself with, the Universe is accepted to be around 13.7 billion years old.

[Valden]

But I don't "assume" that my perceptions are reality. I don't take my sensory qualia on faith. I don't even think about them. I don't care what they are. I could be a brain in a vat being fed a simulation, and I wouldn't care. I don't assume I am not. I could be, I have no knowledge to the contary.

Well all you have done here is admit you have properly basic beliefs, which is what i said in the first place. The fact 'you don't care' is irrelevant.

Imagining facts about things you have no knowledge of is not called reason.

-strawman

And intuition only leads you to God if you are not a rationalist.

I am not interested in your ideology.

[Epicurean]

A properly basic belief is the foundation of all your other beliefs, and one that cannot be proven. For instance, you cannot leave your sensory intuition to test its validity from the outside, all you have to validate your senses are your senses, which is arguing in a circle. So we take the reports of our senses on faith. This isn't something that is constantly being validated as you assert, for no matter how many observations you make there is no real indication that you are not a brain in a vat, but it would be counter-intuitive to assume you were. We operate on intuition.

Yes I agree completely with all of this, and I am glad you do too because...

This is just a self contradictory position, as to know your logic is not applicable to something entails a position beyond logic which can validate/disprove logic. It is just as impossible as proving/disproving a properly basic belief. Your intuition leads you to hold your properly basic beliefs, and so your position is counter-intuitive.

I don't claim to know that logic is not applicable, I am just trying to challenge your claim that you that know it is. But with what you just said you will agree that your trust in your logic to tell you something about reality is taken completely on faith. And like I've said before I don't care much about your personal faith or beliefs, as long as you don't go around claiming it to be the absolute truth.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

God will start existing once you all learn to discern a single argument correctly. For starters, let's get to the basic, bland form of Greek "Classical Theism" (which is by no means universal or indeed the summary of all theistic tradition of the Three Big Theisms, let alone of the whole world): the core of the argument excludes infinite regression because the theologians who formulated it, Augustine and Aquinas, said that it was about God's sustenance of his Creation in an act of eternal, repeated creation on a metaphysical, a-temporal plane (this is also the meaning of "eternity").

As such, any refutation of this argument which resorts to infinite regress is a lie and pathetically uninformed. There is no statement by any theologian of the West of any degree or gravity that states the world cannot be eternal or cannot have a determined origin in time, only that it cannot be self-caused and random. As such, scientific theories about steady state or Big Bang have nothing to do with the issue at hand and are at best totally irrelevant.

[LestaT]

All the scholar did was utilize sophistry and word tricks. Hardly convincing. Indeed, the atheist is wrong. Just because you can not see something does not mean that it is not there, and the universe is more likely to have come from somewhere. But that does literally nothing to prove God exists.

No it doesn't. However if it's not there to be seen doesn't prove that it didn't exist either.