Existence of God

[Blau&Gruen]

Read "Youth without God" by Odon Horvat that answers your question.

[Himster]

If there was no god would all things be lawful?.

Laws are formulated and enforced by societies. If there are gods who interfere: they cover their tracks well.

[johnnyringo15]

Society's Statutes are all based on religion. Basic question how are you going to get men to be good without a god. Look at all those Socialistic Atheist regimes of the 20th century.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Some laws may have been inspired by religion centuries ago. Some of them weren't that great laws so we got rid of them.

How to get people to be good? I don't, same as me, I guess. I've never been religious, yet I turned out alright. If you were brought up to be a good man by loving parent(s), then usually that's what you end up as. And, there's always the police. Based on the amount of church goers, the priests aren't doing squat for public safety.

[Himster]

Society's Statutes are all based on religion. Basic question how are you going to get men to be good without a god. Look at all those Socialistic Atheist regimes of the 20th century.

Really?
How many of the 10 commandments are in statutes of western countries? 3. Wow, 30% is a fail on any test.

Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, for good people to do bad things: that takes religion.

[SufianBabri]

Ok, sure, to figure out how all that leftover gas and dust led from the big bang and later dead stars to planets, astronomers have largely studied the structure of our own solar system for clues. They've also looked to distant, younger solar systems still in varying stages of development.
With the formation of the sun, the remaining gas and dust flattened into a rotating protoplanetary disk. Within this swirling debris, rocky particles began to collide, forming larger masses that soon attracted even more particles via gravity. These particles contracted under gravity to create planetesimals, which collided with one another to become the solid inner planets. Meanwhile, gases farther from the parent star would freeze into giant balls that would build the outer gas giants, like jupiter.

Humans evolved from simpler primates who evolved from simpler mammals who evolved from a kind of reptilian creature which evolved from tetrapods (amphibians), which evolved from synapsids, it goes back simpler and simpler, but ultimately we can't objectively assert how life arose in the first place. We know much of the required components for life are relatively common and that early earth conditions were ideal for fusing many of these components. Most people think there's a supernatural element involved, but I think because eveerything else in the universe is natural, why should life be separate?

You said that life and other things came into being from accidents and/or events. Logically speaking, things are required for events/accidents to happen.
And if we humans evolved from reptilian creatures, then why aren't we changing into some other creatures at present?

[Tankbuster]

And if we humans evolved from reptilian creatures, then why aren't we changing into some other creatures at present?

And you've demonstrated that we aren't, how exactly?

That mammals evolved from earlier ancestors isn't a subjective interpretation. It's a biological fact clearly recognizable from the genetic and fossil record.

[Himster]

You said that life and other things came into being from accidents and/or events. Logically speaking, things are required for events/accidents to happen.

We can track the cause of literally any event in the universe, except one. All of these known events have perfectly reasonable natural causes, if there is a god he plays with dominoes, that being said to assume we know the unknown cause would be an exercise in intellectual :wub:.

What makes this first cause unknowable: before the big-bang there was no time, with no time there can be no before, there can be no sequence of events.
What caused the cause? The question of god always falls into the fallacy of argument ad infinatum, where god is neccessarily either infinite himself or has an infinite string of causes.

I could blather on another few thousand words, but to cut a long story short: Nobody knows.

And if we humans evolved from reptilian creatures, then why aren't we changing into some other creatures at present?

We are always changing, we're getting taller, living longer. Change only happens quickly when the enviroment changes quickly. We control our enviroment for the most part, we are in effect slowing down evolution.

[johnnyringo15]

Wait your a pretty good guy. Everyone has stolen lied cheated, but they are all good guys right. Men have good aspirations but we are all slaves to ourselves. We are all greedy animals.

[Himster]

Wait your a pretty good guy. Everyone has stolen lied cheated, but they are all good guys right. Men have good aspirations but we are all slaves to ourselves. We are all greedy animals.

We are greedy animals with or without god/gods, but we still have to live together in societies, an activity we have been refining over thousands of years, we call it civilisation. We are slaves to ourselves as much as we are slaves to those we love and share our lives with.

[Valden]

[QUOTE=Himster;11451918]What makes this first cause unknowable: before the big-bang there was no time, with no time there can be no before, there can be no sequence of events.
What caused the cause? [QUOTE=Himster;11451918]

Firstly I would like to point out that even if your argument is true, it does not undermine the possible existence of God at all, but only renders Him unknowable to us.

Secondly, rather than arguing from an objective perspective, you are arguing from the perspective of atheism, but masquerading as an objective seeker of truth.

In short you claim that the explanation of the universe must be impossible to deduce, because before the universe there was nothingness, and since nothingness has no potentiality the universe cannot have a knowable cause, because a prior event at which p did not exist is required for p to begin to exist, and nothingness is not an event. I hope I have represented your argument fairly.

This argument appears to be obviously false, because essentially you assert that the universe is all there is, and if there was no universe there would be nothing. You are therefore arguing from the perspective that atheism is true, and therefore arguing in a circle (an argument composed of naturalist presuppositions whose purpose is to validate naturalism).

I therefore contend that this argument is inadequate, for once the assertion that atheism is true is removed then the premise that the first cause is unknowable becomes false: the argument relies on asserting/assuming that God does not exist.

If this assertion is removed, then God exists as a valid explanation of the universe. The atheistic perspective is therefore obsolete and not useful, because it assumes its own truth and denies anything contrary. A scientific theory should encompass as much knowledge as is possible, not presuppose certain points and twist everything to fit.

[QUOTE=Himster;11451918]The question of god always falls into the fallacy of argument ad infinatum, where god is neccessarily either infinite himself or has an infinite string of causes.[QUOTE=Himster;11451918]

There is no problem here.

Firstly, only things that begin to exist require a cause of their existence, if God is eternal he did not begin to exist and therefore does not require a cause.

Secondly, it is true that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. God therefore exists necessarily, this means that the definition of God means that he has to exist in order for the universe to exist. Abstract objects such as numbers also exist necessarily rather than contingently.

It is therefore possible for God to exist timelessly without an infinite string of causes as you say. Causes are bound to events, and God is timeless.

The bias of your argument is clear considering you afford an extraordinary level of mystery to the beginning of the universe and assert that it must be unknowable, yet you hold the concept of God to a high level of scrutiny. Clearly, this should be the other way round.

This argument is therefore motivated by a personal rejection of God rather than a quest for truth.

I hope you manage to open your mind, it can change your life.

Peace be with you

[Himster]

Firstly I would like to point out that even if your argument is true, it does not undermine the possible existence of God at all, but only renders Him unknowable to us.

So we agree?

Secondly, rather than arguing from an objective perspective, you are arguing from the perspective of atheism, but masquerading as an objective seeker of truth.

That's like your opinion, man.

In short you claim that the explanation of the universe must be impossible to deduce, because before the universe there was nothingness, and since nothingness has no potentiality the universe cannot have a knowable cause, because a prior event at which p did not exist is required for p to begin to exist, and nothingness is not an event. I hope I have represented your argument fairly.

Pretty close.
But we may find a way to deduce the source of the universe in the future at some point: right now we can't.

This argument appears to be obviously false, because essentially you assert that the universe is all there is, and if there was no universe there would be nothing. You are therefore arguing from the perspective that atheism is true, and therefore arguing in a circle (an argument composed of naturalist presuppositions whose purpose is to validate naturalism).

I'm not saying that's all there is, I'm saying that's all we can know right now, anything else is just guessing.

I therefore contend that this argument is inadequate, for once the assertion that atheism is true is removed then the premise that the first cause is unknowable becomes false: the argument relies on asserting/assuming that God does not exist.

Atheism isn't neccessarily an assertion.

If this assertion is removed, then God exists as a valid explanation of the universe.

That's a bit of a massive leap, don't you think.

There is no problem here.

Firstly, only things that begin to exist require a cause of their existence, if God is eternal he did not begin to exist and therefore does not require a cause.

That's still the fallacy of argument ad infinatum, unsupportable and unneccessary.

Secondly, it is true that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence,

Except for god huh?
That's another fallacy, special pleading.
Everything that exists has a cause, if it doesn't have a cause then it can't exist. What does that make god? God has always existed? Why bother adding that extra step, why not say the universe has always existed in one form or another, infinitely cycling itself. It's an absurd idea, but no more absurd than an infinite being.

either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. God therefore exists necessarily, this means that the definition of God means that he has to exist in order for the universe to exist. Abstract objects such as numbers also exist necessarily rather than contingently.

Now you're just making things up.

It is therefore possible for God to exist timelessly without an infinite string of causes as you say. Causes are bound to events, and God is timeless.

Possiblity does not equate to certainty. There is an infinite amount of possibilities in and outside our universe, they could all be true for all we know.

The bias of your argument is clear considering you afford an extraordinary level of mystery to the beginning of the universe and assert that it must be unknowable, yet you hold the concept of God to a high level of scrutiny. Clearly, this should be the other way round.

I know one happened, the other has no apparent evidence supporting it, that's the difference. Both are mysteries, I reject faith for both, I am convinced that faith is rooted in our cowardice to face our ignorance when confronted with a mystery.

This argument is therefore motivated by a personal rejection of God rather than a quest for truth.

That's like your opinion, man.

I hope you manage to open your mind, it can change your life.

Peace be with you

Right back at ya.

[Valden]

Himster, since you failed to offer any counter arguments I have little more to add, except to point out that you have deliberately misrepresented something I argued.

I originally wrote "everything that exists has an explanation of its existence" Your response was:

Everything that exists has a cause, if it doesn't have a cause then it can't exist. What does that make god? God has always existed?

Crucially you manipulate my argument that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence to everything that exists has a cause. Only things that begin to exist have to have a cause, as I originally said. By definition God did not begin to exist and therefore has no cause. God exists necessarily

Possiblity does not equate to certainty. There is an infinite amount of possibilities in and outside our universe, they could all be true for all we know.

What an assertion!

That's strange, you were saying it was nothingness beyond the universe in the last post (nothingness has no potentiality). If you truly believe there is an infinite amount of possibilities then it is logically impossible for you to hold anything to be true.

I know one happened, the other has no apparent evidence supporting it, that's the difference. Both are mysteries, I reject faith for both, I am convinced that faith is rooted in our cowardice to face our ignorance when confronted with a mystery.

So actually your opinion here shows I was right when I said you were motivated by a rejection of God, you have validated my 'opinion.'

[Himster]

Himster, since you failed to offer any counter arguments I have little more to add, except to point out that you have deliberately misrepresented something I argued.

I will repeat myself until you understand my position, or until I get bored. Whichever comes first. Most of my previous post was an attempt to correct your misrepresentation of my position, but whatever.

I originally wrote "everything that exists has an explanation of its existence" Your response was:

Crucially you manipulate my argument that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence to everything that exists has a cause. Only things that begin to exist have to have a cause, as I originally said. By definition God did not begin to exist and therefore has no cause.

That's my point, you flip flop between two fallacies: special pleading (god doesn't need a cause) and argument ad infinatum (god is infinite and has always existed), I was just calling you out on it.

God exists necessarily

How is that an argument?

What an assertion!

So there are no possibilities? You just "know" there is a god?
How incredibly closed minded. When dealing with such a massively unknown and currently inherently unknowable occurance as the source of the universe for all intents and purposes the possibilities are infinite by definition: The unknown possibilities out-weigh the "known" possibilities.

That's strange, you were saying it was nothingness beyond the universe in the last post (nothingness has no potentiality). If you truly believe there is an infinite amount of possibilities then it is logically impossible for you to hold anything to be true.

I didn't state there was nothingness (as there was no was in any meaningful sense), I said from our knowledge of space time our understanding of cause and effect has no basis prior to the big-bang or anything outside our current universe.

Do you understand what possibility means?
It means ignorance. Do you categorize your ignorance any lower than infinite?

So actually your opinion here shows I was right when I said you were motivated by a rejection of God, you have validated my 'opinion.'

So you choose to not face your ignorance. A shame. I was only trying to help.

[Blau&Gruen]

I originally wrote "everything that exists has an explanation of its existence".

Some things have been explained, some will be and others might never.

[saneel]

The goal of the new atheists is the infantilization of humanity through reducing its knowledge sources to be exclusively the 5 senses. Doubting the existence of the metaphysical realm, not just the being, is the product of having transformed our knowledge to be solely empirically based, which is an irrational restriction. It is not humbling to make the claim that knowledge can only be empirically based. It's hubris that has no emphasis on reason. The many different forms of god we've seen over the history of man are not the result of fear but the result of attempting to comprehend the essence of God. The feebleness of these forms are simply the result of the feebleness and limitation of the human mind that is too arrogant to realize that a limited entity can never comprehend a limitless one.

[Himster]

The goal of the new atheists is the infantilization of humanity through reducing its knowledge sources to be exclusively the 5 senses.

Humans have between 9 and 19 senses, if you were empirical you would know that rather than taking everything you hear on faith.

Knowledge is knowledge. Faith is faith.

Doubting the existence of the metaphysical realm, not just the being, is the product of having transformed our knowledge to be solely empirically based,

Anything that isn't empirical is essentially guessing which by defintion is not knowledge.

which is an irrational restriction.

You don't know what rational means.

It is not humbling to make the claim that knowledge can only be empirically based.

Of course it is humbling. Hubris is thinking you can "know" everything, hubris is faith.

It's hubris that has no emphasis on reason. The many different forms of god we've seen over the history of man are not the result of fear but the result of attempting to comprehend the essence of God. The feebleness of these forms are simply the result of the feebleness and limitation of the human mind that is too arrogant to realize that a limited entity can never comprehend a limitless one.

Of course we can't comprehend a limitless being, only atheists can admit this. The arrogance of theists is they think they can comprehend through faith, it's an oxymoron.

[saneel]

After your first sentence, I just cant reply you. I just wont reply to you, because I guess I will get banned again. Lol.

[Himster]

After your first sentence, I just cant reply you. I just wont reply to you, because I guess I will get banned again. Lol.

So you admit you can't give a reasoned rebuttal without resorting to ad hominem.
I guess I win then.

[saneel]

Arguing on the internet,... the fact is that you atheist only belive in 5 senses, but there are many more. You say that if you cannot see, touch, smell, taste or hear, than it doesnt excist. Do you .......... understand it now? Gooooooooooooooooooooooooood!