Evidence for god or gods?

[Wesrock]

1. You are assuming everything had to have a cause. Please demonstrate that the universe had a cause.

First, it’s not that “everything has a cause,” but “everything that comes into being has a cause,” or “everything that is contingent has a cause,” or “all things must have sufficient reason for being, either intrinsically or from another.”

Second, let’s suppose not everything has a cause. This creates a rather irrational universe. If events don’t need causes, then investigative science is at risk, given that we presume the results are caused by the data. Deaths don’t need causes. Catastrophes don’t need causes. Seeing Y doesn’t have to imply that X occurred. This post your reading might very well not have been typed by anyone or anything. The PSR book I recommended goes into this in much more detail and in a better way than I have.

Thirdly, unless you’re willing to admit a universe in which any and all events need not have a cause, I accuse you of special pleading. And how many people truly apply this objection to anything but a religious discussion, too?

2.Let me grant you that the universe had a cause. That still doesn’t get you to God. You jumped from the universe had a cause, to the cause of the universe is a deity.

The universe may very well be floating around in a multiverse. There may be more steps between. But ultimately there is a first cause which is not itself caused. We don’t propose that this is a deity. How arbitrary. We argue that the first cause is the only thing that can be referred to as the deity.

 

[Wesrock]

I sorry, but playing with words isn’t an argument. Lets assume for a moment that virtual particles is what caused the universe to exist. By your own definition the virtual particles are considered to be God. Not only are you rejecting the actual definition of God, but your rejecting how the vast majority define god. Just a quick google of the definition of God will show you that God is defined as a supreme being or deity.

No, because if you follow the classical theist arguments further, the first cause must be metaphysically simple. Not composite, not extended in space, not made of matter/energy, not multiple. To be anything but metaphysically simple is demonstrated to itself require a cause, and so cannot be the first cause. We’re missing the foundational points behind this, as it’s much too lengthy to present fully in a post on a forum here and requires a fuller treatment, but it’s also demonstrated that the intellectual faculty is ultimately immaterial*, and indeed an intellectual substance (Aristotlean sense of the word, not contemporary definition) is the only thing immaterial, so this simple first cause is therefore an intellect of some sort. But this is also established through the teleological argument, though you’d need more background on the subject before tackling that.

Keep in mind I have not made the demonstrations in this post. You can’t really enter into all of them well without first establishing other points prior, but I’ve recommended some reading earlier in the topic.The point, though, is that whether or not you end up agreeing or if its ultimately correct, your objections are all addressed in a systematic manner if you’re willing to put in the study.

If it was something simple enough that I could give it a full treatment on an Internet forum while posting from my phone, if it was so easily presented, I doubt anyone would be atheist.

*When a Thomist says the intellect is immaterial, they aren’t refering to simple consciousness or the role of the brain as a biological computing device, but to a certain rational understanding of universals in a way that materilist philosophy can’t explain without seeming to abolish the idea of a self, thoughts, or rationality altogether (the problem of intentionality). But that’s a different topic, and we’d need to go over the various types of realist philosophy and why we consider it advantageous over nominalism and conceptualism.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I find it interesting you capitalise “Evidence” but not “god”

 

[tony12356]

First, it’s not that “everything has a cause,” but “everything that comes into being has a cause,” or “everything that is contingent has a cause,” or “all things must have sufficient reason for being, either intrinsically or from another.”

Second, let’s suppose not everything has a cause. This creates a rather irrational universe. If events don’t need causes, then investigative science is at risk, given that we presume the results are caused by the data. Deaths don’t need causes.

Thirdly, unless you’re willing to admit a universe in which any and all events need not have a cause, I accuse you of special pleading. And how many people truly apply this objection to anything but a religious discussion, too?

The universe may very well be floating around in a multiverse. There may be more steps between. But ultimately there is a first cause which is not itself caused. We don’t propose that this is a deity. How arbitrary. We argue that the first cause is the only thing that can be referred to as the deity.

Ok. first we understand that everything within the universe works on cause and effect, except for maybe quantum mechanics. However, why would you assume that this logic applies to the creation of the universe. Note that the physics within the universe may not be the same as the physics before the universe existed. So you need to demonstrate that the law of causality applies to something outside of our universe. Since you can only show examples within the universe, I don’t see how you can possible demonstrate this.

 

[Thom18]

I sorry, but playing with words isn’t an argument. Lets assume for a moment that virtual particles is what caused the universe to exist. By your own definition the virtual particles are considered to be God. Not only are you rejecting the actual definition of God, but your rejecting how the vast majority define god. Just a quick google of the definition of God will show you that God is defined as a supreme being or deity.

There’s no wordplay. Your definition of “God” isn’t the same as a Buddhist’s or a Hindu’s or a whole lot of other people’s definitions. I’m using “God” in this argument simply to describe the first cause. This “God”, I will say it again, needn’t be a personal being that is actively involved in the world. Again (and I guess I can’t say this enough), this could be a loving God, an immaterial force holding everything together: it doesn’t matter for this argument. I’m providing proof for a first cause; to prove that the Christian God is the true God (first cause) would require a different thread (and one would have to assume that the original poster is at least somewhat versed in philosophy).

1. “Virtual particles”? I don’t know what to make of that. It sounds to me that, being particles and all, they would need to have been caused by something, meaning that they can’t be the first cause. But you say “digital”, and that’s why I’m cocking my head.

 

[Viki63]

If anyone really wants to know the answer, instead of debating over and over, I encourage you to read New Proofs for the Existence of God. It’s an amazing book and totally supports belief in a supreme being.
“This fascinating and stunning collection of evidence provides solid grounding for reasonable and responsible belief in a super-intelligent, transcendent, creative power standing at the origins of our universe.”

.

.

 

[rossum]

No, because if you follow the classical theist arguments further, the first cause must be metaphysically simple. Not composite, not extended in space, not made of matter/energy, not multiple. To be anything but metaphysically simple is demonstrated to itself require a cause, and so cannot be the first cause.

Any cause, whether the first cause or any other cause must be contingent on some effect. A cause is that which causes some effect, so in order to be a cause there must also be an effect. The two are mutually contingent.

I cannot be “rossum the magnificent, creator of the planet Zargon” unless the planet Zargon actually exists. In the absence of the effect – the planet Zargon – then I cannot be “creator of the planet Zargon”.

Similarly “creator of the universe” is contingent on the existence of the universe. There was no “creator of the universe” 200 billion years ago because there was no universe 200 billion years ago.

An effect is contingent on its cause, but the cause, qua cause, is contingent on the effect. God may not be contingent (which is a separate discussion), but ‘creator’ is definitely contingent on the existence of whatever was created.

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

Any cause, whether the first cause or any other cause must be contingent on some effect. A cause is that which causes some effect, so in order to be a cause there must also be an effect. The two are mutually contingent.

I cannot be “rossum the magnificent, creator of the planet Zargon” unless the planet Zargon actually exists. In the absence of the effect – the planet Zargon – then I cannot be “creator of the planet Zargon”.

Similarly “creator of the universe” is contingent on the existence of the universe. There was no “creator of the universe” 200 billion years ago because there was no universe 200 billion years ago.

An effect is contingent on its cause, but the cause, qua cause, is contingent on the effect. God may not be contingent (which is a separate discussion), but ‘creator’ is definitely contingent on the existence of whatever was created.

rossum

God’s existence, God’s power to create, and God’s nature are uncaused. God as pure act is not affected. He, in Himself, is unmoved or unchanged whether He creates or not. That a particular word we use to describe a relationship of His to us doesn’t make Him in Himself contingent on us.

Creator, in the sense of being the only one able to create from nothing, that is, the only one possessing the power to do so, can be applied whether He creates or not. Creator, in the sense of having created as opposed to not, is not something I’m concern with. I’m concerned with His being. Having created is not the cause of Himself, His nature, His power, His manner of existence.

And assuming that nothing had been created 200 billion years ago means that there was no 200 billion years ago.

 

[tony12356]

There’s no wordplay. Your definition of “God” isn’t the same as a Buddhist’s or a Hindu’s or a whole lot of other people’s definitions. I’m using “God” in this argument simply to describe the first cause. This “God”, I will say it again, needn’t be a personal being that is actively involved in the world. Again (and I guess I can’t say this enough), this could be a loving God, an immaterial force holding everything together: it doesn’t matter for this argument. I’m providing proof for a first cause; to prove that the Christian God is the true God (first cause) would require a different thread (and one would have to assume that the original poster is at least somewhat versed in philosophy).

1. “Virtual particles”? I don’t know what to make of that. It sounds to me that, being particles and all, they would need to have been caused by something, meaning that they can’t be the first cause. But you say “digital”, and that’s why I’m cocking my head.

First off my definition of God is the definition for Hindu’s. Hindu’s believe in multiple deities, one of which is known as Vishnu. Buddhists on the other hand are manly atheists. Some do hold the idea of deism. So my definition still works and is the current definition in the dictionary. Remember that Christians and Muslims make up more then half of the entire world population. So the definition I’m using works for the vast majority of the world.
hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/vishnu.asp
buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

Second, Virtual particles are not digital. Virtual particles are particles that appear to be popping in and out of existence.
scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

 

[Wesrock]

Ok. first we understand that everything within the universe works on cause and effect, except for maybe quantum mechanics. However, why would you assume that this logic applies to the creation of the universe. Note that the physics within the universe may not be the same as the physics before the universe existed. So you need to demonstrate that the law of causality applies to something outside of our universe. Since you can only show examples within the universe, I don’t see how you can possible demonstrate this.

The law of causality seems to be prior to physics, no? Physics is a mathematical modeling of events, of cause and effect, of making predictions. Different physics would therefore still presuppose the law of causality. You need to have causality prior to models of motion, thermodynamics, etc… We would need to abandon physics altogether, it would seem, if there was no law of causality.

If the law of causality does not apply to all things, you aren’t able to close that door again, nor do I think you can conclusively argue that the door should only be open “only so” much without begging the question or special pleading.

I did mention the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) earlier. It seems that any argument against it being true relies on the PSR being true, for if it wasn’t true, then one can’t guarantee that any of the steps in the logic follow from prior steps or entail the proceeding steps. Any logical demonstration by default assumes the PSR holds in order to be logical. And saying it needs to be demonstrated to be true before you believe it is… well, that’s just non-sensical. “I don’t believe in the PSR because I don’t have sufficient reason to believe it is true.” But if you don’t believe in the PSR, why do you need sufficient reason for it to be true? Or anything else for that matter?

I think you’d need better grounding for other points before I make them, existence being an intrinsic property (the first property of anything that is) or extrinsic, how the property derives, that it’s irrational for a property (not just existence) to be in the system if it’s not possessed intrinsically by anything in the system, that if it has something but doesn’t have it intrinsically it must be given by another (“given” and “another” not necessarily implying intelligence or conscious intention here), how we end up making existence identical to nonexistence if we don’t, etc… And of course the aim isn’t to somehow prove that already presumed being “God” has this intrinsically, but to demonstrate that there must be *something *that does have it intrinsically for anything else to be rational, and it’s this that I refer to when I use the word “God”, and what properties are logically ruled out… But now I’m rambling and bordering (or over the line of?) incoherence for those not already familiar with what I’m talking about.

But to give you the skinny of it, from my reading, is that it’s far more irrational to assume that the PSR and LoC does not hold for all than it is to assume it does hold for all, and that means it’s more rational to assume the implications of them being true (the existence of God) than not. It’s not just about 100% proof and demonstration, but about what’s more rational for us to believe is true.

But I would definitely recommend doing some studious reading if you’re interested and not just asking for a proof from a message board. What arguments there are, and you’ll find them on the Internet, are typically based on more foundational material that sets them up in the first place.

 

[Gorgias]

First off my definition of God is the definition for Hindu’s. Hindu’s believe in multiple deities, one of which is known as Vishnu. Buddhists on the other hand are manly atheists. Some do hold the idea of deism. So my definition still works and is the current definition in the dictionary. Remember that Christians and Muslims make up more then half of the entire world population. So the definition I’m using works for the vast majority of the world.

Tony,

You’re still putting the cart before the horse. What kind of evidence are you willing to accept? Or, is this merely a philosophical discussion, and your goal isn’t ‘evidence’ so much as ‘debate’? Finally, why is it reasonable to impose a definition on your interlocutor, and thus impose a framework upon him in which he cannot answer? After all, a Christian would never attempt to prove the existence of multiple deities, so how does this approach help you reach an answer to the question you’ve posed here?

Second, Virtual particles are not digital. Virtual particles are particles that appear to be popping in and out of existence.
scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

Please read the article you’ve cited. Right at the beginning, it asserts that these aren’t particles that “pop in and out of existence”; rather, they already exist (and continue to exist) but they variously combine and disassociate with other particles (which make them more or less observable). In other words, you cannot use this phenomenon to posit anything about the need for a creator – these particles were created, even though they might not often be observable!

 

[Thom18]

First off my definition of God is the definition for Hindu’s. Hindu’s believe in multiple deities, one of which is known as Vishnu. Buddhists on the other hand are manly atheists. Some do hold the idea of deism. So my definition still works and is the current definition in the dictionary. Remember that Christians and Muslims make up more then half of the entire world population. So the definition I’m using works for the vast majority of the world.
hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/vishnu.asp
buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

Second, Virtual particles are not digital. Virtual particles are particles that appear to be popping in and out of existence.
scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

I think I went over your head. What I was saying is that everyone has a different idea of what “God” is. Generally, it implies someone or something that brought everything into existence. Or, for someone who believes in gods plural, one of the higher powers responsible for a certain function. Poseidon, Vishnu, w/e.

And now that you explained what virtual particles are, I can answer more clearly: anything that “pops into existence” needs to have a cause for doing so. They don’t just come to exist “because they can”. And the very fact that (I assume, feel free to correct me) they are matter, rules out the possibility that they are the first cause. If it requires matter, a created thing, to exist, then its own existence is dependent on the existence of that matter. In other words, it itself is caused.

 

[Thom18]

Please read the article you’ve cited. Right at the beginning, it asserts that these aren’t particles that “pop in and out of existence”; rather, they already exist (and continue to exist) but they variously combine and disassociate with other particles (which make them more or less observable). In other words, you cannot use this phenomenon to posit anything about the need for a creator – these particles were created, even though they might not often be observable!

Nice catch. I didn’t actually read it, so I almost asked, “do they combine with or detach from other particles?”

 

[tony12356]

The law of causality seems to be prior to physics, no? Physics is a mathematical modeling of events, of cause and effect, of making predictions. Different physics would therefore still presuppose the law of causality.

The answer is no. The laws of physics are descriptions of phenomena, that is based on what we observe within our universe. The law of causality is something we observe within this universe. In order to claim that the law of causality applies to things prior to the universe, you would have to demonstrate this. Since you can only give examples within our universe, then you can’t claim that it applies outside or before our universe.

I did mention the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) earlier. It seems that any argument against it being true relies on the PSR being true, for if it wasn’t true, then one can’t guarantee that any of the steps in the logic follow from prior steps or entail the proceeding steps. Any logical demonstration by default assumes the PSR holds in order to be logical. And saying it needs to be demonstrated to be true before you believe it is… well, that’s just non-sensical. “I don’t believe in the PSR because I don’t have sufficient reason to believe it is true.” But if you don’t believe in the PSR, why do you need sufficient reason for it to be true? Or anything else for that matter?

I think you’d need better grounding for other points before I make them, existence being an intrinsic property (the first property of anything that is) or extrinsic, how the property derives, that it’s irrational for a property (not just existence) to be in the system if it’s not possessed intrinsically by anything in the system, that if it has something but doesn’t have it intrinsically it must be given by another (“given” and “another” not necessarily implying intelligence or conscious intention here), how we end up making existence identical to nonexistence if we don’t, etc… And of course the aim isn’t to somehow prove that already presumed being “God” has this intrinsically, but to demonstrate that there must be *something *that does have it intrinsically for anything else to be rational, and it’s this that I refer to when I use the word “God”, and what properties are logically ruled out… But now I’m rambling and bordering (or over the line of?) incoherence for those not already familiar with what I’m talking about.

Once again, you are using your definition of God, which isn’t the definition that is used in everyday use. Also, I already gave you my definition of God, but you are still refusing to answer my question by using my definition of God. If you wish to talk through me by rejecting the way I’m defining my terms, then go ahead. However, we aren’t getting anywhere by doing this.

 

[ANV]

None.

 

[tony12356]

Tony,

You’re still putting the cart before the horse. What kind of evidence are you willing to accept? Or, is this merely a philosophical discussion, and your goal isn’t ‘evidence’ so much as ‘debate’? Finally, why is it reasonable to impose a definition on your interlocutor, and thus impose a framework upon him in which he cannot answer? After all, a Christian would never attempt to prove the existence of multiple deities, so how does this approach help you reach an answer to the question you’ve posed here?

OK. First the definition of God that comes from the dictionary and the one I’m using doesn’t lock you into a framework. The definition I gave states that a God is a supreme being or a deity. The definition that he gave was anything that created the universe. Which, I find far to vague and doesn’t appear to match everyday language. The definition works for both Christians and Hindu’s and it is the dictionary definition. Also, I’m willing to except logically sound arguments.

Please read the article you’ve cited. Right at the beginning, it asserts that these aren’t particles that “pop in and out of existence”; rather, they already exist (and continue to exist) but they variously combine and disassociate with other particles (which make them more or less observable). In other words, you cannot use this phenomenon to posit anything about the need for a creator – these particles were created, even though they might not often be observable!

Thanks you for correcting me.

 

[ANV]

If there was any evidence for any god, everyone would be of the same religion.

 

[Brassring]

Can anyone provide clear evidence for the existence of a god or gods?

How about you provide evidence for a lack of existence? We believe. You don’t. Both of those are expressions of faith. We can’t prove to you that God exists, you can’t prove He doesn’t.

The difference is, we’re not pathetic enough to spend time trying to start arguments on non-believer websites.

Get a different hobby.

 

[Vonsalza]

If there was any evidence for any god, everyone would be of the same religion.

You’re assuming that everyone will accept the evidence by default. Respectfully, this is naive.

There is evidence that human activity has altered the global climate. We currently have a denier of this evidence as the head of the American EPA (which is one of the greatest examples of irony that I’m currently aware of).

 

[Thom18]

If there was any evidence for any god, everyone would be of the same religion.

If there was any evidence that the Ford Taurus was the best small car, everyone would buy the Ford Taurus…