Philosophical Proofs For the Existence of God

[Nebogipfel]

As soon as you ask the question “why is chemistry as such that man is the end product”, naturalism loses its explanatory power; since nature has to have a quality of being or form before it can behave or become what it is in order that it can be an explanation for anything.

You are implicitly assuming that the purpose of chemistry is to produce human beings. You might just as well ask why chemistry is such that dogs, cats, red giant stars or lego bricks are its end product.

 

[Nebogipfel]

im curious, can anyone tell me why no one walking down the beach has found a watch that formed in the ocean?

Because watches are made by human beings in watch factories. They do not form in the oceans.

But you are quite right - IF natural selection was nothing more than banging molecules together at random, then why couldn’t you get a watch spontaneously generated by the ocean?

if the probability pool of primordial oceans was so large as to create life, why couldn’t it make a decent pair of nikes?

Because there is no evolutionary advantage to a primordial life form in being a pair of nikes. There *is *evolutionary advantage in just being slightly faster, slightly stronger, slight more difficult to see, than your competitors.

You have, in fact, asked the question that demolishes “creation science”.

one would think you could find a whole dollar store scattered about if it is merely a matter of probability.

Indeed, if it were just a matter of probability then yes, you probably would find a whole dollar store. Perhaps it’s not just a matter of probability.

im not protestant creationist myself, but my conversation with neb, has led me to that question.

Please, please, *do *examine the claims made by creationists, and compare them with the claims made by evolutionary biologists.

Please do examine a question like, what use is half an eye?, and consider why there are no animals (at least, not healthy ones) which have half-eyes.

Google for the talk-origins archive - it’s a good place to get started.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Here’s the wiki definition:

Any entities which are composed of matter and/or energy, as well as the physical properties of those entities; and not merely items of thought or belief

Please show me something that is composed of neither matter nor energy (and is not a vacuum, which is just the absence of matter and energy), and which actually has existence.

Then you can roll around on the floor and laugh

he is laughing because you are insisting that unless you can see something that is, by its nature, not seeable. it doesn’t exist.

in other words you doubt the existence of the non-physical, because it doesn’t have physical properties.

no matter its logical necessity.

p.s. an ideal vacuum is a dimensioned area lacking physical entities, its not just an abscence of them alone.

however there is no such thing as an ideal vacuum, even in deep space.

either way it is still something with physical qualities.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It was a joke, petey, you know, a humourous, tongue-in-cheek remark. Hence the little smiley thing at the end of the paragraph

I give up.

hard to tell, you seem consumed with the protestant argument for creationism. im still waithing for a refutattion of my argument not theirs.

Petey, you have restated your argument a dozen times, and with the best will in the world, I cannot see any interpretation other than:

you keep misstating what i have said, once again, we are not protestant creationists.

• It is astronomically improbable that this universe or any other came into existance by means of blind, random processes.
• Therefore, it must have come into existence by means of a deliberate act from an “independent actor”, something with intent or purpose.

If this is not your argument, then I just have no clue what your argument actually is.

are you reading these posts or what?
i have repeated the argument many times

once again.

a random act is mathematically as close to impossible as an event can be. literally 1 in infinity.

that does not mean that it MUST be caused by an independent actor.

please understand, that i am not saying it must be an independent actor, there is after all 1 chance in infinity that it was a random act.

if you still dont understand let me know

If it is in fact your argument, then I think it is flawed, for the reasons I’ve tried (perhaps not very well) to explain, and I have not heard anything which refutes that flaw.

its like your not reading our posts. that is not my argumment, even in your examples you use a finite set to aproximate an infinite set. just as one would argue against protestant creationism.

I will agree to disagree.

ok…do you even know what your disagreeing with?

 

[1holycatholic]

The knife cuts butter because the molecules of the knife push the molecules of the butter out of the way. This requires force and accelleration, neither of which can happen instantaneously, both of which require time.

So it is just not true to say that the cut occurs instantaneously, and why I do not accept that causality means anything without the passage of time.

Are you saying the Big Bang is an event?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I do not accept that causality means anything without the passage of time.

as time is simply the way humans measure cause and effect, i have no clue how you come to that conclusion. why would you think causality is time dependent?

do you have any evidence that causality is time dependent?

one shred of evidence at all?

no

is there a reputable scientific basis for your belief?

no

so why would you believe that?

because you you know that first cause exposes atheisms irrationality.

so instead of acknowledging the logic of the situation, you begin making up unfounded arguments to avoid the evident truth.

there is a G-d.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Because watches are made by human beings in watch factories. They do not form in the oceans.

But you are quite right - IF natural selection was nothing more than banging molecules together at random, then why couldn’t you get a watch spontaneously generated by the ocean?

Because there is no evolutionary advantage to a primordial life form in being a pair of nikes. There *is *evolutionary advantage in just being slightly faster, slightly stronger, slight more difficult to see, than your competitors.

You have, in fact, asked the question that demolishes “creation science”.

Indeed, if it were just a matter of probability then yes, you probably would find a whole dollar store. Perhaps it’s not just a matter of probability.

Please, please, *do *examine the claims made by creationists, and compare them with the claims made by evolutionary biologists.

Please do examine a question like, what use is half an eye?, and consider why there are no animals (at least, not healthy ones) which have half-eyes.

Google for the talk-origins archive - it’s a good place to get started.

yes i already know the arguments, i just dont find them particularly satisfying. but thats for protestants to debate

like i said evolution doesn’t matter to me.

existence alone is a far larger issue.

 

[jkiernan56]

I do not for one moment accept that cause-effect necessitates change or time. Cause-effect can be simultaneous as is understood in Catholic Theology with regards to the Holy Trinity.

For instance, we say that Christ is “eternally begotten of the Father”.

The Father begets
The Son is begotten
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son

There is a simultaneous reality of Cause/Effect in the Persons of the Trinity. One does not preceed the other as a progression in change or time. It is a reality of relationships that are co-eternal.

The Father always existed with the Son. The Father did not come first BEFORE the Son. The Father is a Father because He has a Son. The Son is a Son because He has a Father.

I may be wrong to think this (and I would welcome any correction) - there is a CAUSE/EFFECT relationship in the Persons of the Trinity that is a simultaneous reality.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You are implicitly assuming that the purpose of chemistry is to produce human beings. You might just as well ask why chemistry is such that dogs, cats, red giant stars or lego bricks are its end product.

I didn’t assume anything. I asked a question. And its a question that science is incapable of answering.

And yes. The same question would apply to cats and red giant stars. We have an explanation for the Lego bricks, and in so far as its purpose, we know that human beings (an intelligence) willed them to exist.

 

[MindOverMatter]

**
The possibility of things**
Just because it might be possible to explain nature by a chain of natural events, this does not in itself justify a naturalistic explanation.

The events in question are so improbable, that its simply not reasonable to accept that everything came to exist by chance; even if it is true. We know, from an analysis of our own inventions that some actualities are more probable, more reasonable, and are better explained, if they are seen in the creative light of a guiding ** will **, intellect, and intention. Some things just don’t make sense in respect of chance. Psychologically speaking; it is interesting that people would accept such unfavorable odds when it comes to the question of a Moral God. One would not accept those odds concerning other aspects of are social existence. Therefore if a reasonable person accepts such a concept, it is not because it is reasonable, but because it fulfills a certain belief or Promethean principle. In nearly every TV show about evolution, they always seem to emphasize this idea that evolutions greatest achievement is its ability to explain away design.

I have never understood what justification they have for thinking that? And its quite sad that they would be so happy about it. It just rings alarm bells.

IF you are a naturalist, then you have to accept that everything arose by chance, and thus it will be in your best interest to pursue naturalistic explanations no matter how ridiculous they seem; because its not a matter of reason, but rather a matter of principle. The naturalist is simply ignoring the deeper aspects of reality in order to promote an ideology.

Our experiences show us that things work toward meaningful ends. The way things behave, in so far as their quality is concerned, looks as if they have been designed for a purpose. The mere fact that such qualities emerge or unravel through a medium of natural events, is really irrelevant; it does not change the fact that reality looks designed for a purpose. Therefore it is reasonable for somebody to infer God based on their experiences of the natural order. Its easy to believe in some kind of God when one looks at reality with an unbiased mind. It should take more faith to believe that there world exists for no reason, meaning, or purpose; and arose purely by chance.

The odds are immensely against naturalism.

Naturalism does not gain recruits through reason.
It gains recruits through brainwashing.

 

[Nebogipfel]

as time is simply the way humans measure cause and effect, i have no clue how you come to that conclusion. why would you think causality is time dependent?

do you have any evidence that causality is time dependent?

one shred of evidence at all?

no

Well, not apart from the whole fields of emprical science and technology, which, you know, kind of rely on the fact that cause preceeds effect, and not the other way round.

is there a reputable scientific basis for your belief?

no

Well, not apart from the scientific method itself which has discovered more about the universe in 200 years than metaphysical rumination did in 2500.

so why would you believe that?

Because it’s the only explanation that makes sense

because you you know that first cause exposes atheisms irrationality.

Since you cannot read my mind, this statement is a result of base prejudice, not logic.

so instead of acknowledging the logic of the situation, you begin making up unfounded arguments to avoid the evident truth.

Oh, do grow up, there’s a good chap. Guys, it’s been fun, but I am really not interested in talking to people who, on the basis of no evidence, call me a liar.

there is a G-d.

No there isn’t. Cheerio.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, not apart from the whole fields of emprical science and technology, which, you know, kind of rely on the fact that cause preceeds effect, and not the other way round.

all of which deal with physical things, not the necessarily non-physical first cause.

unless you have a reason to apply physical laws to something that must be non-physical.

i dont see how you can hold that position, other than it hjust being your personal opinion.

Well, not apart from the scientific method itself which has discovered more about the universe in 200 years than metaphysical rumination did in 2500.

are you making a rational arguement here? if so what is it?

Because it’s the only explanation that makes sense

really? how does it make sense to apply physical laws to the non-physical?

i need a rational explanation, not just opinion.

Since you cannot read my mind, this statement is a result of base prejudice, not logic.

whats the alternative? you havent presented a rational reason to apply the physical laws to the non-physical yet, much less given an argument as to causality being dependent on time, the semantics of the way we order events notwithstanding.

word games arent rational arguments.

Oh, do grow up, there’s a good chap. Guys, it’s been fun, but I am really not interested in talking to people who, on the basis of no evidence, call me a liar.

nobody is calling you a liar, we are sayinng that you are making up insupportable arguements, to bolster your position. im not accusing you of lying, im saying that you arent offering rational mechanisms for your arguments.

yoou just offer opinions

No there isn’t. Cheerio.

and yet you cant offer a rational counter arguement. just another opinion.

though this is an awfully convenient way in which to avoid being exposed as an atheist by desire and not rational reason.

if you just want to be an atheist for kicks, that is fine. but here we will want to know why, and opinion wont cut it.

 

[jkiernan56]

all of which deal with physical things, not the necessarily non-physical first cause.

unless you have a reason to apply physical laws to something that must be non-physical.

i dont see how you can hold that position, other than it hjust being your personal opinion.

are you making a rational arguement here? if so what is it?

really? how does it make sense to apply physical laws to the non-physical?

i need a rational explanation, not just opinion.

whats the alternative? you havent presented a rational reason to apply the physical laws to the non-physical yet, much less given an argument as to causality being dependent on time, the semantics of the way we order events notwithstanding.

word games arent rational arguments.

nobody is calling you a liar, we are sayinng that you are making up insupportable arguements, to bolster your position. im not accusing you of lying, im saying that you arent offering rational mechanisms for your arguments.

yoou just offer opinions

and yet you cant offer a rational counter arguement. just another opinion.

though this is an awfully convenient way in which to avoid being exposed as an atheist by desire and not rational reason.

if you just want to be an atheist for kicks, that is fine. but here we will want to know why, and opinion wont cut it.

Can someone please give me a clue about what the exact issue is in question? non-spiritual laws … physical laws … I’m not sure the point that is trying to be made here … thank you in advance

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Can someone please give me a clue about what the exact issue is in question? non-spiritual laws … physical laws … I’m not sure the point that is trying to be made here … thank you in advance

neb wants to say that causality cant exist without time.

specifically because without time we cant establish precedence.

i am saying that our ability to establish precedence is immaterial to whether or not causality is dependent on time

at least that seems to be the gist of it.

 

[jkiernan56]

neb wants to say that causality cant exist without time.

specifically because without time we cant establish precedence.

i am saying that our ability to establish precedence is immaterial to whether or not causality is dependent on time

at least that seems to be the gist of it.

Thank you for explaining that to me. Does neb accept that God is NOT caused and it is God’s nature to exist without cause?

If yes, then what specific type of Causuality is the focus of your discussion? Created non-physical reality?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thank you for explaining that to me. Does neb accept that God is NOT caused and it is God’s nature to exist without cause?

nope,

If yes, then what specific type of Causuality is the focus of your discussion? Created non-physical reality?

i dont know. he wont providee arguments that support his case, other than to make our perception of cauality the standard.

if he comes back ask him, im not sure what he might mean other than that

 

[jkiernan56]

i dont know. he wont providee arguments that support his case, other than to make our perception of cauality the standard.

if he comes back ask him, im not sure what he might mean other than that

Thank you again. Now I have a context to understand what it was you and he were discussing.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Hi all,

I do apologise unreservedly for my rudeness in flouncing out in a hissy fit in my last post.

Nonetheless, I have only been posting here for, what, 3-4 weeks?, and this is the umpteenth time I have been informed that I am just making stuff up to avoid the allegedly inescapable conclusion that God exists. This isan accusation of intellecutal dishonesty, and I’m sure you take such accusations as seriously as I do.

I am interested in understanding the arguments on which religious belief is built, but I am not interested in being bashed over the head with them.

It is curious that I have seen the mirror-image attitude on atheist sites (and, mea culpa, I have in the past taken such an attitude myself), where theist posters are similarly lambasted for their unwillingness to accept the “inescapable” conclusion that God does not exist. It’s not pretty there, so it is rather ironic to see it duplicated here.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Thank you for explaining that to me. Does neb accept that God is NOT caused and it is God’s nature to exist without cause?

If yes, then what specific type of Causuality is the focus of your discussion? Created non-physical reality?

I can accept as a hypothesis that God requires no cause.

What I miss is a good reason to believe that such a thing actually exists

I believe most physicists would say that space and time (or rather, spacetime, since they are really both the same thing) came into existance with the Big Bang.

So when considering what caused the Big Bang, we’re considering conditions utterly unlike anything that human beings have ever encountered - the complete absence of the spacetime in which we (as someone once put it) live and move and have our being, always have done, and always will do.

Under these circumstances, I am not sure that our common notions of causality have any real meaning; perhaps it is as meaningless to ask what caused the Big Bang as it is to ask what happened before the Big Bang. I am not saying that this proves anything one way or the other, simply that I am skeptical that, without any empirical data to guide one’s speculation, pure cogitation about can tell you anything useful.

I am not making this up to explain away an awkard question to which I don’t like the answer. It’s an honestly held belief.

But, for the sake of argument, say I accept that something caused the universe, and that this cause, needs no cause, and is something outside the universe.

Again, I think it’s more likely that this cause, whatever it might be, would be more analagous to a natural process, than to a personality with a will.

And we do know, that in the physical universe, blind unguided processes can produce very complicated things indeed. So applying the rule of thumb that one should not multiply entities unnecessarily, I conclude that it is more probable that the cause of the universe is “just” an unguided, natural process, and not natural process plus a guiding entity with a will and a personhood (or three personhoods).

Hope that helps.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi all,

I do apologise unreservedly for my rudeness in flouncing out in a hissy fit in my last post.

Nonetheless, I have only been posting here for, what, 3-4 weeks?, and this is the umpteenth time I have been informed that I am just making stuff up to avoid the allegedly inescapable conclusion that God exists. This isan accusation of intellecutal dishonesty, and I’m sure you take such accusations as seriously as I do.

I am interested in understanding the arguments on which religious belief is built, but I am not interested in being bashed over the head with them.

It is curious that I have seen the mirror-image attitude on atheist sites (and, mea culpa, I have in the past taken such an attitude myself), where theist posters are similarly lambasted for their unwillingness to accept the “inescapable” conclusion that God does not exist. It’s not pretty there, so it is rather ironic to see it duplicated here.

making up arguments as in creating them from insupportable premises, not lying, as in saying something untrue.

sorry if you felt i was calling you an outright liar, which i assure you i am not.