A universe exists therefore G-d exists

  • Thread starter Thread starter warpspeedpetey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

warpspeedpetey

Guest
i am looking for original arguments against first cause, either i haven’t heard a convincing argument, or i haven’t heard a convincing arguer, so to speak. please post ‘your’ work first. then any common arguments you find persuasive from another source after.

with that in mind

i assert that an observable universe exists, therefore G-d exists. i further assert that no argument exists which can deny first cause. i throw down the the metaphorical gauntlet. i challenge any one to offer and defend such an argument. any takers? 🙂
 
wsp,

You might want to define what you mean by “God”. Do you mean “first cause, that which we call God”? Or do you mean “God, as is commonly known with all His attributes”?

VC
 
warpspeedpetey said:
i am looking for original arguments against first cause, either i haven’t heard a convincing argument, or i haven’t heard a convincing arguer, so to speak. please post ‘your’ work first. then any common arguments you find persuasive from another source after.

with that in mind

i assert that an observable universe exists, therefore G-d exists. i further assert that no argument exists which can deny first cause. i throw down the the metaphorical gauntlet. i challenge any one to offer and defend such an argument. any takers? 🙂
Click to expand...
Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that some deity (god) created the universe. It is a huge leap from their to the assumption that such deity is the Judeo/Christian God.

The Deists (some famous ones include: Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin) believe that there is a god based upon their observation of the universe. However, they categorically deny that this god is the J/C god, or any other “personal” god.
 
Verbum_Caro said:
wsp,

You might want to define what you mean by “God”. Do you mean “first cause, that which we call God”? Or do you mean “God, as is commonly known with all His attributes”?

VC
Click to expand...
with attributes, though i don’t want to complicate the issue i was planning on attacking the idea that it is the Judeo/Christian in another thread after this, as to keep the arguments as simple as possible. 🙂
 
Swan said:
Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that some deity (god) created the universe. It is a huge leap from their to the assumption that such deity is the Judeo/Christian God.

The Deists (some famous ones include: Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin) believe that there is a god based upon their observation of the universe. However, they categorically deny that this god is the J/C god, or any other “personal” god.
Click to expand...
please refer to my plans in post #7
 
warpspeedpetey said:
in the same way that the ‘big bang’ was self existent
Click to expand...
Perhaps I misunderstand the term as you use it, but my understanding is that “self-existent” means the same as “self-caused” in the sense that it is it’s own cause. If this is not your definition, please define the term as you would prefer.
do you have any examples of existent, infinities in the observable universe?
Click to expand...
I’m ignoring this part until I figure out what you mean by “existent infinities.”
 
MerryAtheist said:
Perhaps I misunderstand the term as you use it, but my understanding is that “self-existent” means the same as “self-caused” in the sense that it is it’s own cause. If this is not your definition, please define the term as you would prefer.

I’m ignoring this part until I figure out what you mean by “existent infinities.”
Click to expand...
here is what my dictionary says, for simplicities sake lets use.

Self
Self Self, n.; pl. Selves.
  1. The individual as the object of his own reflective
    consciousness; the man viewed by his own cognition as the
    subject of all his mental phenomena, the agent in his own
    activities, the subject of his own feelings, and the
    possessor of capacities and character; a person as a
    distinct individual; a being regarded as having
    personality. “Those who liked their real selves.”
    –Addison.
    [1913 Webster]
Existent
Existent Ex*ist"ent, a. [L. existens, -entis, p. pr. of
existere. See Exist.]
Having being or existence; existing; being; occurring now;
taking place.
[1913 Webster]

Infinities
Infinity Infin"ity, n.; pl. Infinities. [L. infinitas;
pref. in- not + finis boundary, limit, end: cf. F.
infinit['e]. See Finite.]
[1913 Webster]
  1. Unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity; eternity;
    boundlessness; immensity. --Sir T. More.
    [1913 Webster]
is this ok?
 
warpspeedpetey said:
i am looking for original arguments against first cause, either i haven’t heard a convincing argument, or i haven’t heard a convincing arguer, so to speak. please post ‘your’ work first. then any common arguments you find persuasive from another source after.

with that in mind

i assert that an observable universe exists, therefore G-d exists. i further assert that no argument exists which can deny first cause. i throw down the the metaphorical gauntlet. i challenge any one to offer and defend such an argument. any takers? 🙂
Click to expand...
The term “first cause” is a conceptual creation required to stop an infinite reduction. It makes sense at the level of “common sense” but is ultimately absurd given that you have to again posit “a cause of that cause” etc. Infinities cannot be resolved in any “common” manner. “First cause” is at the same level of absurdity as “ex nihilo” or “self-created”.

Ultimately, these arguments are pointless and cannot be resolved at any level other than faith in whatever set of axioms you want to believe. We must ultimately evaluate our “religion” at some level other than the metaphysical; “common sense” requires that both God and the big bang themselves have causes. The other alternative is to resign ourselves to the fact that we are incapable of understanding/evaluating these things with reason.
 
We clearly are not communicating. I still don’t know what you mean by “self-existent”. Please explain … in particular, I am interested in how your definition can apply to both the universe and God, as you indicated in posts 4 and 8.
 
MerryAtheist said:
We clearly are not communicating. I still don’t know what you mean by “self-existent”. Please explain … in particular, I am interested in how your definition can apply to both the universe and God, as you indicated in posts 4 and 8.
Click to expand...
post #11 provides detailed, commonly accepted definitions of, of those words.

i am asking for arguments against first cause, so far none have been offered, we are only talking about what words mean. thats why i use the common definiton.

don’t be offended, but this does go to my post in that we are already devolving into word games, next come names calling 🙂

first cause is a thousand year old idea, rather well defined, lets use these definitions to have a common ground of understanding.

but i cant elaborate on them with out biasing the meaning in one direction or the other.

if you care to use definitions from another dictionary, one commonly accepted, that would be fine by me.

or you could just choose defintions that fit your line of attack, but then the results could be skewed in one way or another. not lending itself to credible discussion.

yet i am interested in moving forward into arguments against first cause. not word games 🙂
 
MerryAtheist said:
What caused the First Cause?
Click to expand...
Hello Merry:

What, precisely, in the two words, “First Cause”, would lead one to believe that there is (or might be) another first cause? Or, rather, what DON’T you understand about those two words?

If that’s too simplistic, then what, in the order of efficient causality, would lead one to believe that there could be an infinite regress of causality?

I submit that your question is at the most, suspect, and, at the least, specious.

JD
 
Peregrino said:
The term “first cause” is a conceptual creation required to stop an infinite reduction. It makes sense at the level of “common sense” but is ultimately absurd given that you have to again posit “a cause of that cause” etc. Infinities cannot be resolved in any “common” manner. “First cause” is at the same level of absurdity as “ex nihilo” or “self-created”.

Ultimately, these arguments are pointless and cannot be resolved at any level other than faith in whatever set of axioms you want to believe. We must ultimately evaluate our “religion” at some level other than the metaphysical; “common sense” requires that both God and the big bang themselves have causes. The other alternative is to resign ourselves to the fact that we are incapable of understanding/evaluating these things with reason.
Click to expand...
Hello Peregrino:

What I like best about uncategorical assertions is, how easy it is to refute them, thus: YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE WRONG. You are now refuted.

JD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top