M
Maranatha
Guest
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming in to being
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore the universe has a cause for its coming in to being
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Maranatha said:
Atheists try to relieve themselves of the burden of proof. They propose God does not exist. Let them prove it.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Or as Chesterton put it, proving that God does not exist is like trying to prove there are no insects on any other planet throughout the universe.
D
D_Quintero
Guest
Good 
there are even more uses of logic to prove that a God could exist
Now for a rebuttal from an atheist “what created GOD”
there are even more uses of logic to prove that a God could existNow for a rebuttal from an atheist “what created GOD”
D
Drew98
Guest
Maranatha said:
Well, theism and atheism are primarily concerned with the existence of God and your proof doesn’t mention God at all. So it’s hard to see how this proof is relevant to theism.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
It does when you think about it more deeply.
Everything needs a first cause, including every motion in the universe, even the motion of atoms. Motion especially requires a first cause.
Motion requires a cause which comes outside of the system. The system of the universe had to have a cause outside of it.
This is the key. The first cause of everything had to be some force which was outside of the universe to get things going. Only a creator can fulfill this requirement.
Everything needs a first cause, including every motion in the universe, even the motion of atoms. Motion especially requires a first cause.
Motion requires a cause which comes outside of the system. The system of the universe had to have a cause outside of it.
This is the key. The first cause of everything had to be some force which was outside of the universe to get things going. Only a creator can fulfill this requirement.
D
Della
Guest
S/he means that if there has to be a cause, then it naturally follows that the cause of something as grand as the universe would necessitate a Cause or God.
D
Drew98
Guest
Then God needs a cause. Or if you want to say that God is the one exception then explain why God gets the exception but the Universe does not.
D
Drew98
Guest
Seems like a huge leap from this abstract attributeless first cause to something with all the attributes of God like omnipotence, omniscience, and a deep affection for human beings. How can you say this first cause is even conscious or self-aware?
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Maranatha
What your argument asserts is that the universe had a start. Something started it. So far as I can tell, you don’t argue for anything else but a first cause. This is consistent with the Big Bang theory as to the origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory, however, cannot use the concept God because God is not a natural explanation, and science can only deal with natural laws. We therefore become philosophers and theologians if we want to go any further down that road.
A theologian would argue mainly from revelation.
A philosopher would argue mainly from rational inference.
Both would likely conclude with the concept of God, but each would attach to God possibly rather different and even contradictory traits. Most likely the philosopher would allow God traits most agreeable to the philosopher. The theologian would allow God traits that he claims have been revealed by God to him or to the prophets/founders of the religion.
The atheist may be a philosopher who finds nothing rational (credible) in the idea of a God. If so, he has to explain rationally how the universe got started without a God.
I’ve never heard such a rational explanation offered by an atheist. There certainly isn’t any proof that the universe created itself.
What your argument asserts is that the universe had a start. Something started it. So far as I can tell, you don’t argue for anything else but a first cause. This is consistent with the Big Bang theory as to the origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory, however, cannot use the concept God because God is not a natural explanation, and science can only deal with natural laws. We therefore become philosophers and theologians if we want to go any further down that road.
A theologian would argue mainly from revelation.
A philosopher would argue mainly from rational inference.
Both would likely conclude with the concept of God, but each would attach to God possibly rather different and even contradictory traits. Most likely the philosopher would allow God traits most agreeable to the philosopher. The theologian would allow God traits that he claims have been revealed by God to him or to the prophets/founders of the religion.
The atheist may be a philosopher who finds nothing rational (credible) in the idea of a God. If so, he has to explain rationally how the universe got started without a God.
I’ve never heard such a rational explanation offered by an atheist. There certainly isn’t any proof that the universe created itself.
M
Maranatha
Guest
I would not say that God is the one exception… The argument goes that everything in our universe needs a cause and thus the universe itself needs an external cause. Since God is not of our universe (external), he does not fall under that restriction. In fact, by our universe’s very nature, it needs an external necessity.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
DREW
Then God needs a cause. Or if you want to say that God is the one exception then explain why God gets the exception but the Universe does not.
The universe doesn’t get the exception because, so far as I know, science can’t give it the exception. The Big Bang theory says the universe began … did not always exist. At least there is no scientific evidence it existed before the Bang.
Then God needs a cause. Or if you want to say that God is the one exception then explain why God gets the exception but the Universe does not.
The universe doesn’t get the exception because, so far as I know, science can’t give it the exception. The Big Bang theory says the universe began … did not always exist. At least there is no scientific evidence it existed before the Bang.
M
Maranatha
Guest
If you accept the basic tenants of logic, then an affect can never be greater then the cause. God must be greater then the sum total of the universe.
This proof does not try to fully explain the revelations given to Christianity. What it does is use logic and reason to prove Theism and disprove Atheism.
M
Maranatha
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
I agree with you completely. What the proof does is use logic and reason not science. Logic and reason are complements of faith and do not contradict each other.
E
El_Catolico
Guest
Everything has a cause which in turn has its own cause. Things which are caused are caused because they had a contingency which passed into actuality. The first cause can not have had any contingency because that would imply that there was a prior cause. The first cause is God.
This is quite basic logic. I imagine that if our culture did not spring from a religious background, the idea of God would be quite popular today. The reason why it has become fashionable to be an atheist is because belief in God smacks of old religion, which the “enlightenment” sought to abandon.
This is quite basic logic. I imagine that if our culture did not spring from a religious background, the idea of God would be quite popular today. The reason why it has become fashionable to be an atheist is because belief in God smacks of old religion, which the “enlightenment” sought to abandon.
D
Drew98
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
Gilbert Keith:
Then also, the theist has to explain how God got started without a SuperGod.
Gilbert Keith:
And there certainly isn’t any proof that God created Himself.
M
Maranatha
Guest
That is excactly why a Thiest argues that God is outside this universe. Since God is utside this universe, he does not need a cause.
Since everything of this universe needs a cause,
and since the first cause can’t, by reason of logic, be caused,
then there must be a first cause that is outside our universe.
There is no proof in the scientific observable definition of proof. Science is limited to this universe. There a many proofs (this thread is discussing just one) using reason and logic that God exists.
D
David_Brown
Guest
Maranatha said:
This is William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument, right? I noticed several people seem to take (1) stronger than Craig does. It does not claim that “everything has a cause” but only those things that “begin to exist.” Since, according to Craig, modern science recognizes the universe began to exist the argument works for it. Craig makes no claim that everything began to exist, only that we know by modern science that the universe did begin. Also, since we don’t know if God began to exist or not we don’t know that the argument works for him. The Kalam argument doesn’t make or require any such claims about the nature of God. This actually makes the argument stronger and avoids many of the problems posted above.
David
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
DREW
*Then also, the theist has to explain how God got started without a SuperGod.
*
Not at all. The theist doesn’t have to explain anything because he takes God as a mystery beyond his understanding.
It is the atheist who refuses to believe anything without an explanation. So how does he rationally explain an uncreated universe?
He can’t. This is the dilemma of atheism.
*Then also, the theist has to explain how God got started without a SuperGod.
*
Not at all. The theist doesn’t have to explain anything because he takes God as a mystery beyond his understanding.
It is the atheist who refuses to believe anything without an explanation. So how does he rationally explain an uncreated universe?
He can’t. This is the dilemma of atheism.
- Status