A universe exists therefore G-d exists

[Fran65]

Invoking God, allows people to have it all figured out without really knowing anything

So why are most people who believe in God willing to accept the mystery of His existence, nature and actions?

If we can accept that mystery, surely we are also capable of accepting the mystery of why and how the universe exists? Isn’t this what atheists do too?

I am Catholic, but by no means do I have or even think that I have it all ‘figured out’.

The other weakness in your argument is the fact that belief in God is compatible with ongoing cosmological research and the Church was, until quite recently, the hub of intellectual endeavour and education. They didn’t think they had it all figured out either…

You are surely not going on to argue that if it was left to the ‘theists’ we’d still be in caves saying this is how God designed the world, far be it from us…etc

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warp,

I think that you are under the distinct impression that if you talk about scientific concepts you will appear Knowledgable.

Just so you know, it doesn’t work like that.

do you have an argument that refutes the assertions in my immediately previous post?

if so i would be happy to discuss it.

 

[Sarpedon]

Since the spectator cannot know what the actors will do, the question is invalid.

Now, the director can know the end, but in a real movie, with a real director the actors have no free will, they only play out the instructions of the director - they are merely “puppets”. But that is not the problem I presented. God does not actively involve himself with our decisions (the Catholic stance supports this) and therefore he must “wait” until we make them. Not being constrained by our time makes no difference.

I will respond in depth later, but I was struck by the bolded part. This is obviously untrue. Being able to control what actors do is the dream of every director, but not reality. In real life, directors have to coax and command their actors to do things in accordance with the director’s vision of the movie. The actors often mess up or put their own spin on it, forcing numerous retakes. There is nothing to stop them from doing anything they want on film. Directors can only command and encourage, not control.

As to the second part, God does not have to wait for our decision. He is outside of time, so He knows our free actions timelessly from all time even if within time we have not decided them yet. This does not limit our free will any more than watching a movie impinges upon the free will of the actors.

 

[Dameedna]

So why are most people who believe in God willing to accept the mystery of His existence, nature and actions?

Wasn’t this kind of what I was saying? You will accept something as mysterious rather than challenge it or try and figure it out.

I am Catholic, but by no means do I have or even think that I have it all ‘figured out’.

No, but as a catholic when some-one challenges a part of your doctrine as being rather dreadful(such as concepts of heaven and hell, or punishing gods sending down plagues etc), you will most likely say “we cannot understand why God does what he does, we accept it on faith”.

To me, at least this is rather problematic, because it stops a human from being able to challenge something that they feel is terrible. If everytime we come across a religous view we see as being wrong(Think FDLS), are we simply to accept the actions of religious people because they claim we cannot understand God?

Our inability to know the nature of God, is used too often as an excuse to justify terrible things.

You are surely not going on to argue that if it was left to the ‘theists’ we’d still be in caves saying this is how God designed the world, far be it from us…etc

Oh come-on I said nothing of the sort.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, but as a catholic when some-one challenges a part of your doctrine as being rather dreadful(such as concepts of heaven and hell, or punishing gods sending down plagues etc), you will most likely say “we cannot understand why God does what he does, we accept it on faith”.

do sheep understand the shepherd? no, when he culls the flock, do they understand? when he drives them from rich pasture to water, do they understand that the hunger satisfies the thirst? no, they dont know enough to make that connection, when the flock is vaccinated do they know that the fear and pain of the process, prevents the unpleasant death by disease, no. they only know that they are scared and hurt, they never see the benefit, they only see the suffering.

there is a reason that the Scripture uses the analogy of the sheep and the Divine Shepherd.

To me, at least this is rather problematic, because it stops a human from being able to challenge something that they feel is terrible.

can the sheep challenge the shepherds decisions? does the way the sheep feels have anything to do with the proper maintenance of the flock? no, of course not.

i am sure a sheep would call vaccinations terrible, and avoid it if they could, yet unbeknownst to them, much more horrible things, death by disease, awaits those that would avoid the needle.

If everytime we come across a religous view we see as being wrong(Think FDLS), are we simply to accept the actions of religious people because they claim we cannot understand God?

i am interested to know why you think the FLDS folks are wrong? what about their actions have been wrong, if there is no objective morality, than i might assume that anything not physically harmful to another should be fine. the courts returned their children and reprimanded the state for overreaching. what are they doing wrong then?

Our inability to know the nature of God, is used too often as an excuse to justify terrible things.

someone may misuse G-d to work their own will, that is a far cry from those same actions being sanctioned by G-d.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

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?

God and the Universe are one:

1. God had a son who came down to Earth, died on the cross, was dead for three days, and rose again. This is known as the Resurrection.
2. The Universe had a Sun who came down to Earth (Revolution), died on the cross (Dec. 21 “The Crux”), was dead for three days, and rose again (Dec. 24). This is known as the Winter Solstice.

Just a theory. I love that Zeitgeist movie.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[godfree12]

The universe is expanding infinitely and comes from an infinite beginning. There is no end and no beginning. There is no creator and no destroyer. The Big Bang is relative.

Prove me wrong.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The universe is expanding infinitely and comes from an infinite beginning. There is no end and no beginning. There is no creator and no destroyer. The Big Bang is relative.

Prove me wrong.

sure, check out the thread 'atheism is proved irrational by science and mathematics.

read the arguments if you care to, but check out post #43 where the matter of the assertion in th OP is admitted by the physicist rossum

i dont care to reargue each point, but if you have something original to add be my guest.

that should be the proof you seek denying an infinite regression.

 

[ateista]

I will respond in depth later, but I was struck by the bolded part. This is obviously untrue. Being able to control what actors do is the dream of every director, but not reality. In real life, directors have to coax and command their actors to do things in accordance with the director’s vision of the movie. The actors often mess up or put their own spin on it, forcing numerous retakes. There is nothing to stop them from doing anything they want on film. Directors can only command and encourage, not control.

Completely irrelevant. The director decides what will go into the film, not the actors. Obviously the director does not control the actors’ private lives, but he enforces the playing out of the script. As far as the movie is concerned, the actors have no free will.

As to the second part, God does not have to wait for our decision. He is outside of time, so He knows our free actions timelessly from all time even if within time we have not decided them yet. This does not limit our free will any more than watching a movie impinges upon the free will of the actors.

This is sheer nonsense. There is no such thing as something “already” existing for one spectator (God) but does not exist “yet” for others (us). Existence is an absolute phenomenon, not a relative one, depending upon the observer’s point of observation. The future does not “exist” in any meaningful application of “existence”.

Furthermore, according to your proposition God “knows” the “nonexistent”, for example the contents of a hypothetical book, which was never written because the author’s potential grandfather prematurely died in a childhood accident. The word “knowledge” has a very precise meaning: “to have information about something”. That presupposes that the “something” to have information about should be “existing”. It simply makes no sense to say “God knows something that does not exist”.

The problem is that you play fast and loose with concepts like “existence”, and “to know”. The constructs you use are meaningless - until you properly define what do you mean by “existence” and what do you mean by “to know”.

 

[Fran65]

Dameedna,

We seem to be at cross purposes. I think I have answered you, but that you have still not answered me:

If we can accept that mystery, surely we are also capable of accepting the mystery of why and how the universe exists?

Why would we accept one mystery and not another; if as you suggest it is *to avoid mystery * (and have it all figured out) that we believe in God?

and

The other weakness in your argument is the fact that belief in God is compatible with ongoing cosmological research and the Church was, until quite recently, the hub of intellectual endeavour and education. They didn’t think they had it all figured out either…

BTW I wasn’t suggesting that you were arguing that if it was left to the ‘theists’ we’d still be in caves saying this is how God designed the world; I was suggesting that that is *an implication *of your original statement.

 

[Sarpedon]

Completely irrelevant. The director decides what will go into the film, not the actors. Obviously the director does not control the actors’ private lives, but he enforces the playing out of the script. As far as the movie is concerned, the actors have no free will.

Exactly. The director decides on a script, and tells the actors to align their free actions with it. The actors can choose to listen to him or not. Those who follow the script prepared for them have a good acting career, while those who rebel against the director and his script get kicked out of the movie. The director enforces the script, but he cannot compell his actors to follow it. All he can do is hire and fire actors who have free will.

This is sheer nonsense. There is no such thing as something “already” existing for one spectator (God) but does not exist “yet” for others (us). Existence is an absolute phenomenon, not a relative one, depending upon the observer’s point of observation. The future does not “exist” in any meaningful application of “existence”.

The problem is that you play fast and loose with concepts like “existence”, and “to know”. The constructs you use are meaningless - until you properly define what do you mean by “existence” and what do you mean by “to know”.

You accuse me of not defining my terms, yet you have made an unsupported assertation that existence is “absolute.”

Clearly, we disagree on whether existence can be relative. Since you have accused me of playing “fast and loose” because I am not defining my terms, can you define them yourself first?

 

[Dameedna]

Dameedna,

We seem to be at cross purposes. I think I have answered you, but that you have still not answered me:

Why would we accept one mystery and not another; if as you suggest it is *to avoid mystery * (and have it all figured out) that we believe in God?

You’re probably right in that I changed the focus of what I was saying slightly.

You may accept mystery as I do and in that we are the same. However, there seems to be an acceptance of some rather questionable things in the name of “mystery” because it actually makes a person question their beliefs.

If one looks at a concept like , God sending down plauges to punish man, I will say that is dreadful. A human who shoved a syringe full of HIV into their childs arm and watched them rot away, would probably be considered incompetant to stand trial and therefore legally insane and locked away for life.

But when I question this particular story about God, what I get is the usual "But you are trying to understand God, in a human way and we cannot…* therefore we accept it, and do not try and understand it BECAUSE it is a mystery*

It is this ability to accept that which is quite horrifying in the NAME of mystery that I have a problem with. Accept mystery all you want, but don’t use this concept as a justification for believing horrible things. But you will accept it, in the name of mystery because you think it IS a mystery, rather than question it’s validity(when I say you, It’s not a personal you, you may disagree with this yourself)

I see is mystery being used as a tool for laziness. People really don’t want to challenge some of these elements to their religion.

BTW I wasn’t suggesting that you were arguing that if it was left to the ‘theists’ we’d still be in caves saying this is how God designed the world; I was suggesting that that is *an implication *of your original statement.

Well I hope I’ve cleared what I mean up and above. I am aware of how much time, thought and energy has gone into understanding our natural world and our nature BY religious institutions.

Unfortunately, a lot of ideas in the modern world are negated by religion, some of it because of concerns which even secular ethicists battle with, but othertimes, it just contradicts the faith to much, so they will negate it entirely.

We wouldn’t be in a cave, but I’m not sure we’d be better off either.

 

[Sarpedon]

Sure you can. You may ponder the question of “what exists to the north of the North Pole”, if you want to. Or what existed before time “began”. Or what exists outside the Universe. Or what “caused” the Universe. Or what exists “above” the Sun. Or how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle. Or what is the taste of the color of sound middle-C.

I agree with you that most of these are unanswerable, but you are mixing completely different questions together under the same banner. We can’t know what exists to the north of the north pole because that is not a real question in alignment with its subject. We can ask “what caused the universe” because that is a potentially answerable statement in line with its subject. There is no reason the universe could not have been caused, while there is a reason nothing can be to the north of the north pole. These are different questions.

Sure. All of them.

In that case, why did you say that much of philosophy is “irrelevant?” When I asked you what philosophers you were familiar with, you declined to answer and said that a much of philosophy is “irrelevant” outside of its “Ivory Towers”. I took this to mean you were dismissing it rather than considering it. If such philosophy should be considered, how can it be “irrelevant?”

I know. It was only an example of “stuff” which is considered “evidence” by some people. We must face it: “evidence” is highly subjective. I consider the existing evil a very strong evidence against the existence of a benevolent deity, while you do not consider it evidence at all. Impasse? Of course it is.

Of course. The human mind is so easily swayed that it is next to impossible to discover God purely through logic. A person needs to be open to God’s grace before he or her has any chance of actually understanding God through logic.

There are no “spoilers” in the Universe. The example I gave you is this: Someone made a movie, it is loaded into a playing device, and you are the only spectator. You are not constrained by the time of the movie, and yet, you cannot know what the end will be unless you wait and see it. Up until then, you may make guess, but you cannot know.

I am baffled by this. It seems intuitively obvious that you can know how a movie ends without seeing it. This is why rabid StarWars or LotR fans lock themselves in their houses and retreat from society before seeing the movie. If you want to find out how a movie ends, just log on to Wikipedia and read the synopsis. It’s that simple.

God is omniscient, so He already knows everything in Wikipedia and beyond it. Therefore, He can know how a movie will end without resorting to anything outside of Himself. Of course, knowing how a movie ends (for God or man) does not mean that the actors lacked free will when the made the movie. The actors freely chose to follow the director and act out the scenes, even through we have knowledge of their free actions.

Of course, we can only know the free actions in movies of those in the past, but God knows such knowledge timelessly.

 

[Dameedna]

I am baffled by this. It seems intuitively obvious that you can know how a movie ends without seeing it. This is why rabid StarWars or LotR fans lock themselves in their houses and retreat from society before seeing the movie. If you want to find out how a movie ends, just log on to Wikipedia and read the synopsis. It’s that simple.

I think the timeless argument is an interesting one, but on this point I think your argument falls a little, and atiesta is correct.

You can log onto wikipedia and read about the ending. But, you cannot “know” the ending till you see it yourself. In otherwords, we cannot believe what we read nor claim knowlege for ourselves that which some-one else claims. We can only know something if we experienced it, and/or if the “knowing” comes through a method of observation…ie the scientific method.

Cheers

 

[ateista]

Exactly. The director decides on a script, and tells the actors to align their free actions with it. The actors can choose to listen to him or not. Those who follow the script prepared for them have a good acting career, while those who rebel against the director and his script get kicked out of the movie. The director enforces the script, but he cannot compell his actors to follow it. All he can do is hire and fire actors who have free will.

This has nothing to do with the scenario I posted.

You accuse me of not defining my terms, yet you have made an unsupported assertation that existence is “absolute.”

Clearly, we disagree on whether existence can be relative. Since you have accused me of playing “fast and loose” because I am not defining my terms, can you define them yourself first?

Existence is a primary phenomenon, something either exists or does not. It cannot be reduced to something even more basic, because it is the most essential of all. Existence is not an attribute. Without existence one cannot speak of attributes. I cannot even imagine anyone disputing this.

Physical existence is constrained by space and time. A “building” exists at a specific physical location between specific time coordinates (from being built until it is demolished or falls apart). Conceptual existence is a bit more interesting. Concepts are not physical ontological objects, they are either the reflections of such objects or their properties in our mind (an abstract tree, or the number “2”, for example), or they are completely imaginary (like a geometric line or Hamlet).

Concepts do not exist apart from the minds that hold them. They are loosely constrained spatially and temporally. For example, the “Hamlet” did not exist before Shakespeare came up with the idea, and if the Sun would go nova and obliterate the Earth, it would cease to exist.

We are all familiar with these two types of existence. If you wish to assert that a “building” can both exist and not exist at the same time in the same location for two different observers, then I will be interested what kind of an argument you can bring up for such a claim.

 

[Fran65]

Hi Dameedna,

The idea that the reason for suffering is a mystery is certainly one that many believers hold to. There are however other explanations.

For example much suffering is inflicted on one person by another as a result of sinful behaviour and/or poor judgement. The tragic death of Baby P in the UK is an example of this. He was an 18 month old baby beaten and tortured to death over months by his mother and her two male lodgers. There were many occasions in which others could have and should have intervened but didn’t.

Other suffering such as disease, disability and natural disaster is explained as being the result of either living in a fallen world as a result of the decisions made by Adam and Eve; or as a result of living in a physical universe/world where these things are inevitable.

In either case we are still ‘figuring out’ how to prevent, deal with the causes and help those already suffering. I have a life threatening heart condition despite being a relatively young woman. My faith does not mean however that I simply shrug my shoulders, say “Oh, its God’s will” and wait to die. I and my clincial team work very hard to prevent deterioration and to stay alive. I have the heart condition because of a malfunction at a cardiac cellular level, probably due to faulty combination of genes. The fault probably developed during replication - as they often do. I am a physical body as well as a soul and physical bodies fail. That is how we were made. If God could have made us perfect and immortal as physical human beings He *would *have.

We are not aware of God’s *direct *intervention because it is not time to intervene. We do not know when the second coming will happen and until then we are to endure.

This last statement does bring great strength, comfort and hope to Catholics; as does our faith in the afterlife. I guess this is what you mean by having it ‘all figured out’. So, yes, maybe you are right - but that doesn’t make us wrong in this case.

 

[Sarpedon]

I think the timeless argument is an interesting one, but on this point I think your argument falls a little, and atiesta is correct.

You can log onto wikipedia and read about the ending. But, you cannot “know” the ending till you see it yourself. In otherwords, we cannot believe what we read nor claim knowlege for ourselves that which some-one else claims. We can only know something if we experienced it, and/or if the “knowing” comes through a method of observation…ie the scientific method.

Cheers

God is omniscient, so He can know things without having to worry about the accuracy, like we do. God has a fully-accurate “Wikipedia.”

 

[Sarpedon]

This has nothing to do with the scenario I posted.

What? Details please? Are you really going to argue that if I star in my senior play (or movie or whatever) I will lose control of my body?

Existence is a primary phenomenon, something either exists or does not. It cannot be reduced to something even more basic, because it is the most essential of all. Existence is not an attribute. Without existence one cannot speak of attributes. I cannot even imagine anyone disputing this.

Physical existence is constrained by space and time. A “building” exists at a specific physical location between specific time coordinates (from being built until it is demolished or falls apart). Conceptual existence is a bit more interesting. Concepts are not physical ontological objects, they are either the reflections of such objects or their properties in our mind (an abstract tree, or the number “2”, for example), or they are completely imaginary (like a geometric line or Hamlet).

Concepts do not exist apart from the minds that hold them. They are loosely constrained spatially and temporally. For example, the “Hamlet” did not exist before Shakespeare came up with the idea, and if the Sun would go nova and obliterate the Earth, it would cease to exist.

This is just you telling me facts, without a direct argument to support them. This is not any different from me telling you that existence can be relative when in and out of time. I don’t know that I can provide a direct argument in support of my assertation, but I never claimed to and I did not accuse you of not being able to provide support.

I don’t think it can be resolved either way (mainly because we cannot experience being outside of time), so either is possible and it cannot play a part on the God question, since no conclusion can be reached.

We are all familiar with these two types of existence. If you wish to assert that a “building” can both exist and not exist at the same time in the same location for two different observers, then I will be interested what kind of an argument you can bring up for such a claim.

I’m not saying that that two buildings can both exist and not exist at the same time, but rather they can inside time and outside time. Obviously, such spatial restrictions are different if there is no time for one of the observers. I don’t think I can argue in direct support of timeless existence, but I can argue for its coherency and reasonableness as a legitimate possibility. We cannot resolve such questions completely, because it is so far removed from anything we have experience or can examine.

 

[Dameedna]

Other suffering such as disease, disability and natural disaster is explained as being the result of either living in a fallen world as a result of the decisions made by Adam and Eve; or as a result of living in a physical universe/world where these things are inevitable.

This is exactly my issue. The fall(which is conceptual, and obviously has no evidence) , is an excuse to accept a particular view of the world, that is dreadful. This life, is a result of human error, and our suffering(including natural disasters) is a result of the original fall. IE, we did this to ourselves, and we deserve it as a punishment. These natural disasters are pretty horrific, and it is equated with a loving god.

Wouldn’t a loving God choose not to create such a creature in the first place? Why do it and let it fall through choice?

But…I am putting human emotion to God, and since God is a mystery, we have to accept this story of the Fall, without questioning it.

Or…God “wants” us to love him so much he won’t force it hence free will and sin. So God wants something so much, that he will create a free-will entity that will choose him, knowing that some will not and end up in hell.

Either way you look at it, God…is not loving, and appears for the most part to be narcisistic.

The answer to these dilemas, is “God is a mystery” and this is just the way it is.

I question it…completely.

In either case we are still ‘figuring out’ how to prevent, deal with the causes and help those already suffering. I have a life threatening heart condition despite being a relatively young woman.

I am sorry you are strugging with this condition. It must be very difficult

My faith does not mean however that I simply shrug my shoulders, say “Oh, its God’s will” and wait to die. I and my clincial team work very hard to prevent deterioration and to stay alive. I have the heart condition because of a malfunction at a cardiac cellular level, probably due to faulty combination of genes. The fault probably developed during replication - as they often do. I am a physical body as well as a soul and physical bodies fail. That is how we were made. If God could have made us perfect and immortal as physical human beings He *would *have.

Then why didn’t he make us perfect? He could have, yet he didn’t.

I question, the claim that life is a test.

Cheers

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t think I can argue in direct support of timeless existence

sure you can, the standard cosmological model of the big bang, posits, a moment before the expansion in which no time or physical laws existed, everything said to exist prior to this ‘infinite moment’ i.e. a singularity, monoblocs, branes, strings, and assorted exotic phenomena are only conjecture and assumption.

thereby showing a timeless existence prior to and outside of the observable universe

until someone proves some version of string theory, that is.