My proof for God. Critiques please

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zatzat said:
I don’t know. Now let me ask you, how do you suppose your God came into existence?
Click to expand...
Honest answer, and good question.

God is uncaused. Logic would dictate that something causeless would have to preexist (in other words, there would need to be a beginning) for to cause everything else to exist. Modern science tells us the universe is finite. So the conclusion reached is that God is the preexistent creator.
 
Zatzat said:
I don’t know. Now let me ask you, how do you suppose your God came into existence?
Click to expand...
God always was.

all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause…To take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause." (ST Q2, A3)
 
buffalo said:
God always was.

all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause…To take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause." (ST Q2, A3)
Click to expand...
No way, your God was created by the God, that was created by the God, that was created by the God that was the real uncaused cause.

Right?

I love how the religious arbitrarily decide that there God must have been the uncaused cause.
 
Zatzat said:
It’s not a conclusion. At best, it’s a wild guess.
Click to expand...
Not really; it’s an educated guess. Of course, translating this creator into the Abrahamic God is something else entirely, but that’s not what we’re proving here. We’re just proving there was some sort of first cause, which we call God.
 
Zatzat said:
No way, your God was created by the God, that was created by the God, that was created by the God that was the real uncaused cause.

Right?

I love how the religious arbitrarily decide that there God must have been the uncaused cause.
Click to expand...
Well I can tell from reading your posts that you didn’t read my post on the neccesity of a neccesary being.

Let me add that if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin. Think about that. It’s true. 🤷
 
Zatzat said:
No way, your God was created by the God, that was created by the God, that was created by the God that was the real uncaused cause.

Right?

I love how the religious arbitrarily decide that there God must have been the uncaused cause.
Click to expand...
Arbitrarily? Hardly. After we get through this then we can move on to how we know the God of Abraham is the uncaused cause.
 
You seem to think we’re trying to prove the God of Abraham. We’re not. We’re merely trying to prove the existence of the ultimate Creator we call God. Once that’s established, then we get into which religion’s God it is.
 
buffalo said:
Arbitrarily? Hardly. After we get through this then we can move on to how we know the God of Abraham is the uncaused cause.
Click to expand...
You know it’s the God of Abraham because you’re not a Hindu.
 
coolduude said:
Well I can tell from reading your posts that you didn’t read my post on the neccesity of a neccesary being.

Let me add that if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin. Think about that. It’s true. 🤷
Click to expand...
  1. Why is the first cause exempt from causation?
  2. Why do you attribute the first cause with God?
 
Zatzat said:
  1. Why is the first cause exempt from causation?
  2. Why do you attribute the first cause with God?
Click to expand...
Good honest questions. I like it 👍
  1. The first cause is exempt because it is the only neccesary being. I’ll repost what I said earlier from Peter Kreeft: “Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.”
As you can see, an independent being is neccesary for the chain of causes to begin. Try re-reading my post on the other page for a clearer picture.
  1. I attribute it to God because really, God is the name Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the neccesary being. However we can just call Him NB (short for ‘necessary being’) if you want. God is just his ‘nickname’ if you will. Make sense?
To the other (theistic) posters- please correct me if I’m wrong on any of this :o
 
Zatzat said:
You missed my point entirely. Ask a Hindu, do you think they’ll attribute the creation of the universe to the God Abraham?
Click to expand...
No. What’s your point? We’re not trying to prove the existence of the God of Abraham, we’re trying to prove the existence of God. We’ll get into the specific religion later.
 
coolduude said:
Good honest questions. I like it 👍
  1. The first cause is exempt because it is the only neccesary being. I’ll repost what I said earlier from Peter Kreeft: “Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.”
As you can see, an independent being is neccesary for the chain of causes to begin. Try re-reading my post on the other page for a clearer picture.
  1. I attribute it to God because really, God is the name Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the neccesary being. However we can just call Him NB (short for ‘necessary being’) if you want. God is just his ‘nickname’ if you will. Make sense?
To the other (theistic) posters- please correct me if I’m wrong on any of this :o
Click to expand...
I can’t say it any better than these quotes, but basically;

There is evidence that not everything needs a first mover in order to move. How you arrive at a conclusion that it must have been God that is the first mover, is not only presumptuous, but completely unnecessary.

“gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving.”[24] According to Kaku, these molecules could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion…

Then, the question “What was there before the Universe?” makes no sense; the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.[25] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[25]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
 
Marc_Anthony said:
No. What’s your point? We’re not trying to prove the existence of the God of Abraham, we’re trying to prove the existence of God. We’ll get into the specific religion later.
Click to expand...
God isn’t necessary, that’s my point. You don’t know what, if anything, was the first mover, so what-ever it is, if anything, you call God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top