Proving God Exists

[Ziggamafu]

So here’s the deal. The Church teaches dogmatically that the existence of God may be known with certainty by the light of human reason alone. Ironically, as a Catholic, I have to take this dogma on faith because I have never seen an argument for God that is incapable of logical refutation. I have searched and studied for this super-proof to no avail. I completely understand and know that it is up to the individual to make a choice for or against God, and that some atheists may refuse God no matter what argument is presented. But according to the dogma of the Church, there should be an argument that is 100% reasonable, which makes no logical errors and cannot be refuted but only disagreed with. There should be an argument which leaves the atheist silent or angry, incapable of pointing out flaws in its logic and incapable of logically refuting it.

I’ve yet to find such an argument - one that atheists can disagree with or run from but cannot be logically *refuted *- and am curious if someone else has. I’ve opened this thread for presentations of contending arguments and hopeful debate / dialogue between the theists and the atheists who frequent this board.

Thanks in advance to all who participate. :coffeeread: :knight2:

…let the intellectual workout begin…

 

[Valentin]

interesting issue, but may be wrong…
God exists - that is faith ! that is not a science ! can’t be proven.
read the 5 books of Moses. in the desert, that is our life on the road to the sacred land. how many times many of them say - we better go back to egypt, that is our previous life , in the sin. of course, if you were at the very beginning of your life with God, you are blessed ! you do not have " previous life ", you never been in egypt. i was in egypt and now fight in the desert, to stand my road and the will of God ! do you know, whom i am fighting with ? with me, the sinner. every hour i repeat - God is my shepherd…

 

[Rainier22]

As the OP explained, there are no rational arguments for God (where God is defined as the god of the Abraham religions). As the post below that explains, that is no problem for many people. I think the viewpoint is somewhat like “Yes - we know there is no reason to believe this. But we do! It is our test. The simple fact that we’re willing to spend our life believing something without evidence says something for it.” That could be incorrect.

The problem is - and yes I believe there is an enormous problem - faith. Faith is a problem. Faith is a bane. Faith is an extremely dangerous thing. That is my viewpoint, and I’m going to attempt substantiating it a bit.

I believe that there is a can of soda beside me in spite of the lack of evidence. There is no reason for me to believe there is a soda beside me. I can’t see it, touch it, smell it, or anything else. Now - I realize that God can’t be observed, but I don’t think it matters. When I reach for my soda, or God, it isn’t there. But my soda is not an important thing.

Instead of soda, let’s use medicine in a hospital or weaponry in war. God will give us medicine - and of course there is none. The magic flying donkey will give us weaponry to fight the evil ones! And no weaponry arrives. We would die in a split second if we used faith for important things (not our philosophy). I have faith that X will beat my heart, so I won’t die. I have faith that Y will feed me when there is no food. God will keep me alive. Yahweh will save me. Allah will help us along. It simply doesn’t happen but for very, very few times with coincidences. When a coincidence happens, it is God. When a coincidence doesn’t happen, it’s because God doesn’t want it to happen. It’s very convenient, and it’s called rationalizing observations. Try that in a science book…

I should explain that when I say “faith,” I mean belief without evidence or even in spite of evidence. One could say “but you have faith in science,” and I would simply state that I have seen the evidence. Evidence really is a big, big word for most atheists, and even more so for scientists.

Alright, so we have no evidence for God. We have no logical arguments that work out for God. In fact, we have an argument from Descartes that says we can’t know anything about God[sup]1[/sup].

If it’s bad to believe in things in spite of evidence or without evidence, then why do you do it? You don’t. To spurt of some Dawkins, you don’t believe in Zeus, Allah, Brahman, or any of the thousands upon thousands of other gods out there, many of which closely resemble Jesus. Is that because the Bible says not to or because there simply is no evidence for it? If Zeus popped up, said “Yo, I’m here,” and tossed a lightning bolt, you would believe wouldn’t you? If suddenly the constellation of Orion came out of the sky and said “I’ve been up here for a long time. I’m in charge of the underworld, and my name is Osiris,” then wouldn’t you believe Osiris existed?

Let’s use the Russel Teapot. I’m telling you with firm conviction that there is a teapot floating around the Andromeda galaxy a couple million light years away. Nevermind how it got there! It’s there! It just is! Don’t you believe me? Of course you don’t. You would be believing me in spite of the evidence that we can’t get a teapot that far away, and with lack of evidence of any teapot being there. The true Teapot analogy is only around the sun, or is it Earth?. There is a teapot orbiting the sun. Do you believe me? Probably not. You can’t know for sure if I’m wrong, but without evidence, there really is no reason to believe it. That is my position. I believe that the teapot analogy for God is more like saying that there are 70,000,000,000 moons orbiting the Earth, all big enough to see, but you just can’t see them because they don’t want you to. Oh, and they watch you, and judge you. And you can have a personal relationship with them too! Yay!

I don’t believe that people will believe things without evidence or a good logical argument for them unless they just want to. And then it comes down to why they want to. Is it even safe for them to want to? As I stated above, I don’t believe faith is a safe thing for any society.

 

[Rainier22]

I couldn’t post the whole thing, so here is the footnote on Descartes.

1. Descartes, well, it’s not actually his argument, but he did use it; alright sorry - Descartes’* ontological argument says that we only know of things that we have perceived of or have learned of. For example, try to think of something that has absolutely no relationship to anything else you’ve ever experienced. It’s simply impossible. Our brains work by using stimuli in the environment. Therefore, God must have put the idea in our head. How else would we have gotten this concept of a magical being with a definition so high up as God’s?

Imagine a bicycle. Now, put that bicycle on the moon. Now, imagine that bicycle is jumping over George Bush. Now imagine that behind all that is Paul Simon playing a concert. I just imagined all of that, but it does not exist - or does it? I’ll be looking at the moon closely tonight. That’s how the ontological argument fails. God is simply other ideas we’ve experienced put together. For example, we like love. God is all-loving! Things that are really big amaze us. Things like the ocean go on forever (pretty well true for Descartes’ time). You get your concept of infinity fairly easy. We know of good things. Imagine something that is made entirely of good things! It would be perfect. Put that together, stir lightly, and you have God - 4 servings worth.

However, what if we thought of an attribute of God that we hadn’t seen before? That would prove that we really had experienced God, or at least that attribute right? I think so. If someone comes in with a radical idea claiming that God is XY, and no one has ever even thought to imagine to think about he possibility of that, then we can safely say this guy saw something.

However, God’s definition is such that we can never perceive him. He is on a higher level, or plane, or whatever. We can’t perceive anything he does much like we can’t see other dimensions. So, if the guy sees something that we’ve never imagined, he may have seen it, but it definitely didn’t come from God. I hope that makes sense.

I hope this forum doesn’t mind, but I wrote a bit about this on my other forum here

 

[Cure_of_Ars]

For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator. (Wis 13:5)

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; (Rom 1:20)

I would suggest that the problem is not Catholic dogma but the lens that your are looking at the world with.

 

[john_doran]

So here’s the deal. The Church teaches dogmatically that the existence of God may be known with certainty by the light of human reason alone. Ironically, as a Catholic, I have to take this dogma on faith because I have never seen an argument for God that is incapable of logical refutation.

“knowing with certainty by the light of human reason alone” does not mean “supportable by means of irrefutabe logical proof”.

we know all sorts of things for which there are no irrefutable proofs: the existence of an extramental reality; that our senses are reliable; that there are other minds; that the past exists; and so on.

there are no logically irrefutable proofs for anything; for any proof, it is possible at least to reject any of its premises or underlying assumptions.

 

[Rainier22]

“knowing with certainty by the light of human reason alone” does not mean “supportable by means of irrefutabe logical proof”.

we know all sorts of things for which there are no irrefutable proofs: the existence of an extramental reality; that our senses are reliable; that there are other minds; that the past exists; and so on.

there are no logically irrefutable proofs for anything; for any proof, it is possible at least to reject any of its premises or underlying assumptions.

Good point. Science is never proven but supported. This is why I used the big E word: evidence. I can’t disprove that I’m not dreaming, but it sure is strange how many new concepts I encounter with my dreams in my daily life. And if this is in my head, then I must have encountered something real somewhere along the way to get these ideas.

In a sense, everything is in your head because your senses are hugely flawed. We can’t even see other dimensions. Interesting concept. This world really is exactly what we make it. My world is lacking greens and reds because I’m red/green colorblind.

Summing up - there is not a single shred of evidence for God. Proof is impossible, and so is disproof. I haven’t encountered a single reason to believe. I hope to encounter some great new ideas on that here.

 

[VociMike]

Summing up - there is not a single shred of evidence for God. Proof is impossible, and so is disproof. I haven’t encountered a single reason to believe. I hope to encounter some great new ideas on that here.

But where is your evidence for a non-God First Explanation? If some form of God is not the First Explanation, then some form of non-God must be the First Explanation. So where is your evidence that this is the case?

Proof of atheism is also impossible, as is disproof. So your belief in a non-God First Explanation is based solely and entirely on faith, just as that of a theist.

 

[Rainier22]

But where is your evidence for a non-God First Explanation? If some form of God is not the First Explanation, then some form of non-God must be the First Explanation. So where is your evidence that this is the case?

Proof of atheism is also impossible, as is disproof. So your belief in a non-God First Explanation is based solely and entirely on faith, just as that of a theist.

I don’t know what a non-God First explanation is. I’ll take it to mean where is my evidence for there not being a god. If that’s correct, then I answered it in my first post in this thread. I don’t need evidence to not believe. There is no evidence that Zeus does not exist. Why don’t you believe in Zeus? Does that make sense?

However, I think the presence, of murder, adultery, and you know - objects billions upon billions of miles wide running around chaotically often slamming into each other at millions of miles per hour is pretty good evidence against a creator. At least it’s evidence against the popular definition of what the creator is like at least. I’d love to see the plan on the blueprints of the universe that said “kill 50 million Russians.” What a terrible, terrible creator.

If that’s not what you meant by non-God First, then please explain, and I’ll try to answer better.

 

[VociMike]

I don’t know what a non-God First explanation is. I’ll take it to mean where is my evidence for there not being a god. If that’s correct, then I answered it in my first post in this thread. I don’t need evidence to not believe. There is no evidence that Zeus does not exist. Why don’t you believe in Zeus? Does that make sense?

But you don’t “not believe”. Rather, you do believe. You believe, on faith (something not proven) that the First Explanation does not involve God. Or, if you like, that the First Explanation is natural rather than supernatural. Of all the possible First Explanations, you have ruled out one category while accepting the opposing category, and you have offered no justification for doing so.

However, I think the presence, of murder, adultery, and you know - objects billions upon billions of miles wide running around chaotically often slamming into each other at millions of miles per hour is pretty good evidence against a creator. At least it’s evidence against the popular definition of what the creator is like at least. I’d love to see the plan on the blueprints of the universe that said “kill 50 million Russians.” What a terrible, terrible creator.

But by those standards, the presence of goodness and kindness and faithfulness and sacrifice for others is equally evidence for God, since the natural world doesn’t give two figs about “goodness”. And by those standards, the very fact that evil bothers you, and evil happening to others bothers you, is equally evidence for God.

As soon as you use evil as evidence against God, I will use good as evidence for God. Remember, the natural world isn’t “good” any more than it is “evil”. Creatures in the natural world do all sorts of things to each other that, if done by humans to humans we would call evil. So even Darwinism doesn’t differentiate between “good” and “evil”. One very effective way to help the spread of one’s own genes is to kill the offspring of others. Is the cuckoo evil because it thows the “legitimate” babies out of the nest?

 

[joeybaggz]

As I stated above, I don’t believe faith is a safe thing for any society.

Ah, another atheist who has come to ‘enlighten’ us poor theists. Aren’t we lucky?

Please Ranier, we’ve all heard it before. You believe that the equation 0 + 0 = 0 is wrong. That a perfectly ordered cosmos came inito existence by adding an eternal vacuum to an infinite void, and voila, a perfectly ordered universe.

Faith, a belief in the things we hope for. Hate to tell you, but the things man has done on faith alone have given you the opportunity to sit at your computer and spit on it.

 

[Rainier22]

But you don’t “not believe”. Rather, you do believe. You believe, on faith (something not proven) that the First Explanation does not involve God. Or, if you like, that the First Explanation is natural rather than supernatural. Of all the possible First Explanations, you have ruled out one category while accepting the opposing category, and you have offered no justification for doing so.

But by those standards, the presence of goodness and kindness and faithfulness and sacrifice for others is equally evidence for God, since the natural world doesn’t give two figs about “goodness”. And by those standards, the very fact that evil bothers you, and evil happening to others bothers you, is equally evidence for God.

As soon as you use evil as evidence against God, I will use good as evidence for God. Remember, the natural world isn’t “good” any more than it is “evil”. Creatures in the natural world do all sorts of things to each other that, if done by humans to humans we would call evil. So even Darwinism doesn’t differentiate between “good” and “evil”. One very effective way to help the spread of one’s own genes is to kill the offspring of others. Is the life cycle of the cukoo evil when it thows the “legitimate” babies out of the nest?

Mike, I really don’t want to have to explain the whole morality thing much less that Darwinism doesn’t exist.

It’s really, really, really, really simple. There is no such thing as good or evil. Why do you even believe there is such a thing? It’s completely subjective to culture and species. Catholics with the exact same convictions as you have different ideas on morality. There is simply no objective morality out there. Take one step out of civilization, and try to find morality. Animals don’t follow it. The weather doesn’t follow it. Geology doesn’t follow it. Galaxies eat each other! Even nicer is how nicely this morality concept fits into the theory of evolution.

Think about it. If you try to kill someone, then you will be putting your life at risk. By protecting the young (people just love babies), you offer them better protection. I don’t even believe in consciousness like you do. I believe that consciousness is the expression of development of DNA in response to stimuli in the environment. Even cells have morality if you search for it, but it turns out that the good in morality comes down to what helps you and your genes survive.

So, I can use evil to argue against this God hypothesis because this hypothesis declares that it exists. It relies on it. The simple idea of it just being a part of human survival instinct completely destroys any idea that good needs to come from anything else much less an omniscient, omni-benevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinite, and perfect in every way deity that is of course invisible and beyond natural.

 

[joeybaggz]

Might not man himself is the key to a proof for God/

Science daily is showing to us the vastness of the universe. And in all the universe there is not intelligent, sentient life equal to man anywhere. From the big bang to the evolution of Homo Sapiens, no creature anywhere in the universe has the capabilities of man.

No other creature anywhere is capable of love, compassion, joy…emotions. NO other creature is capable of rational thought. No other creature is capable of abstract thought. How does an atheist explain that only one creature, anywhere in all of creation, somehow accidentally developed characteristics no other creature has, unless there is an intelligence behind that evolutionary “blip”?

 

[VociMike]

Mike, I really don’t want to have to explain the whole morality thing much less that Darwinism doesn’t exist.

It’s really, really, really, really simple. There is no such thing as good or evil. Why do you even believe there is such a thing? It’s completely subjective to culture and species. Catholics with the exact same convictions as you have different ideas on morality. There is simply no objective morality out there. Take one step out of civilization, and try to find morality. Animals don’t follow it. The weather doesn’t follow it. Geology doesn’t follow it. Galaxies eat each other! Even nicer is how nicely this morality concept fits into the theory of evolution.

I didn’t bring up the “morality thing”, you did. You brought it up as evidence against God. And I replied that it is just as much evidence for God.

Think about it. If you try to kill someone, then you will be putting your life at risk. By protecting the young (people just love babies), you offer them better protection. I don’t even believe in consciousness like you do. I believe that consciousness is the expression of development of DNA in response to stimuli in the environment. Even cells have morality if you search for it, but it turns out that the good in morality comes down to what helps you and your genes survive.

There are plenty of things we regard as evil that would be quite beneficial to the propagation of genes, and we see evidence of that everywhere in nature. So you can’t claim that our concept of good and evil is simply a biological phenomenon. Why would you tell me that I can’t do anything I choose in order to propagate my genes?

So, I can use evil to argue against this God hypothesis because this hypothesis declares that it exists. It relies on it. The simple idea of it just being a part of human survival instinct completely destroys any idea that good needs to come from anything else much less an omniscient, omni-benevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinite, and perfect in every way deity that is of course invisible and beyond natural.

You can’t use the problem of evil to argue against God because the same hypothesis that declares it exists, also explains it. You can’t just take half the argument of the other side and use that to make a case against the other side, while ignoring the rest of the argument from the other side. Catholicism has a perfectly coherent answer for the question of evil.

I’m still waiting to hear why you believe on faith in a natural First Explanation, and at the same time you find fault with others who believe on faith in a supernatural First Explanation.

 

[Rainier22]

Might not man himself is the key to a proof for God/

Science daily is showing to us the vastness of the universe. And in all the universe there is not intelligent, sentient life equal to man anywhere. From the big bang to the evolution of Homo Sapiens, no creature anywhere in the universe has the capabilities of man.

No other creature anywhere is capable of love, compassion, joy…emotions. NO other creature is capable of rational thought. No other creature is capable of abstract thought. How does an atheist explain that only one creature, anywhere in all of creation, somehow accidentally developed characteristics no other creature has, unless there is an intelligence behind that evolutionary “blip”?

Science has not even touched the cells on the very tip of the finger of the universe. The universe is about 78 billion light years across. We can only see 13.8 billion light years into it because that’s how old it is and how far light has been able to travel. To say there is no intelligent life because you haven’t see any yet is like looking at Mars from your backyard and saying it doesn’t have polar ice caps. It’s a huge - massively huge - argument from ignorance. Just in case you don’t know what that is, I’m not calling you ignorant.

As for mankind being the only animal on this Earth, that’s a big mystery to me. Most animals grow physical enhancements like claws, muscles or huge teeth. We grew a descent brain. Which one is better is entirely dependent on whether or not you have a gun when you encounter a bear.

I’ve to got be completely honest with you here. To me it looks like a coincidence. However, others will say aliens came and edited our DNA. The biology of it looks completely natural to me though. We’re just well evolved.

What you’re using is called the God of the Gaps argument. Wherever there is a gap in understanding, someone inserts God. God used to be the maker of the weather, the earthquakes, the animals… Now God is left to the questions we still have. Luckily we will always have questions. But, it would be an argument from ignorance to say that because we don’t know something, it must be a certain way. Just because we don’t know why man evolved like we did doesn’t mean it was a supernatural creator. It means that we don’t know. We can trace down our evolution quite a ways, and we haven’t seen any magical, supernatural fingerprints yet. There’s something a bit comical in saying that perhaps the fingerprints are invisible just like God.

If you’re really curious about human evolution, then I would be happy to do some research on it.

 

[Ziggamafu]

For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator. (Wis 13:5)

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; (Rom 1:20)

I would suggest that the problem is not Catholic dogma but the lens that your are looking at the world with.

I don’t know if you’re referring to my OP or Rainer’s, but the Church teaches that reason and logic flow from the God who is Truth itself. That being the case, coupled with a dogmatic statement that His existence can be determined with certainty through logic alone, there should be an argument that cannot be logically refuted.

 

[Ziggamafu]

I’ve had atheists present brane cosmology as a non-God First / Necessary Cause.

 

[Rainier22]

I didn’t bring up the “morality thing”, you did. You brought it up as evidence against God. And I replied that it is just as much evidence for God.

There are plenty of things we regard as evil that would be quite beneficial to the propagation of genes, and we see evidence of that everywhere in nature. So you can’t claim that our concept of good and evil is simply a biological phenomenon. Why would you tell me that I can’t do anything I choose in order to propagate my genes?

You can’t use the problem of evil to argue against God because the same hypothesis that declares it exists, also explains it. You can’t just take half the argument of the other side and use that to make a case against the other side, while ignoring the rest of the argument from the other side. Catholicism has a perfectly coherent answer for the question of evil.

I’m still waiting to hear why you believe on faith in a natural First Explanation, and at the same time you find fault with others who believe on faith in a supernatural First Explanation.

What is "first explanation?"
Are you talking about the first cause, the unmoved mover? Google the term and nothing shows up remotely related to metaphysics.

No, Catholicism does not have a coherent answer for the problem of evil. I’m completely confident that I can show whatever you say it is to be flawed. I’m also growing increasingly confident that you will take it a different way to keep your faith alive instead of just questioning. It just leaves me frustrated. For example, I don’t want to explain this morality thing again… but here goes - yay…

We live in a world with absolutely no morals. Life is life, and you feel what you feel. You have emotions. People feel them differently. That’s fine and dandy. Why do you have these feelings though? That is exactly what the god hypothesis tries to answer.

The god hypothesis (not the first) came in and said that there is a good and a bad, and it exists because God made it exist. There is only one good, and one bad. It is not subjective to cultures. Everyone else is wrong. Alrighty…

So, the explanation says that God created everything, and God is good. But God created everything including immorality. God also made the bad. That doesn’t make sense because God is an all loving deity.

I’m very interested in hearing things that you think are good that don’t benefit your species or your genes.

 

[VociMike]

What is "first explanation?"
Are you talking about the first cause, the unmoved mover? Google the term and nothing shows up remotely related to metaphysics.

Yes, but people like to claim there doesn’t have to be a first cause. But thinking in terms of a First Explanation avoids that claim, while dealing with the same starting point.

No, Catholicism does not have a coherent answer for the problem of evil. I’m completely confident that I can show whatever you say it is to be flawed. I’m also growing increasingly confident that you will take it a different way to keep your faith alive instead of just questioning. It just leaves me frustrated.

You’re just frustrated because I’m holding you to the same standards you want to hold theists to, and you’re not used to it and you don’t have a good answer as to why you believe, on faith, what you believe about why there is something rather than nothing.

For example, I don’t want to explain this morality thing again… but here goes - yay…

We live in a world with absolutely no morals. Life is life, and you feel what you feel. You have emotions. People feel them differently. That’s fine and dandy. Why do you have these feelings though? That is exactly what the god hypothesis tries to answer.

The god hypothesis (not the first) came in and said that there is a good and a bad, and it exists because God made it exist. There is only one good, and one bad. It is not subjective to cultures. Everyone else is wrong. Alrighty…

So, the explanation says that God created everything, and God is good. But God created everything including immorality. God also made the bad. That doesn’t make sense because God is an all loving deity.

I’m very interested in hearing things that you think are good that don’t benefit your species or your genes.

You keep bringing up morality and saying you don’t want to discuss morality. I’m trying to take you at your word. I don’t want to discuss morality either. But when you say that “evil” is evidence against God I will continue to reply that “good” is equally evidence for God.

 

[Rainier22]

Yes, but people like to claim there doesn’t have to be a first cause. But thinking in terms of a First Explanation avoids that claim, while dealing with the same starting point.

You’re just frustrated because I’m holding you to the same standards you want to hold theists to, and you’re not used to it and you don’t have a good answer as to why you believe, on faith, what you believe about why there is something rather than nothing.

You keep bringing up morality and saying you don’t want to discuss morality. I’m trying to take you at your word. I don’t want to discuss morality either. But when you say that “evil” is evidence against God I will continue to reply that “good” is equally evidence for God.

Well… I hate to say this but you either aren’t getting the information I’m giving you, or you can’t get it - or… I don’t know. But for some reason you’re not behaving as though you understand what I’m saying. The fact that you are repeating the same assertions shows me that, and it makes me think that I have no further reason to discuss this with you.

Saying “first explanation” may help some, but making up a term without defining what you’re saying is pretty confusing. I don’t even know what you mean by the first explanation. The first cause is terribly easy to dismiss. I’m going to go ahead and avoid the whole quantum mechanics of the situation for a moment to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say there was a first cause. This thing caused something. It just existed, and caused something. That’s all that needs to be. Where on Earth do you get the idea that the first cause is omnipotent? Where do you get that it loves you or wrote a book? And the book is completely true! I mean that’s just hilarious! Where do you get that it knows everything? Where do you get that it is infinite or even perfect?

The universe started off as a singularity. Things that size actually do pop into existence randomly. I think they are doing some research with a hypothesis thinking that perhaps two of these things collided in their popping into existence. I’m not good in quantum physics. Ha - no one is good in quantum physics. “If quantum mechanics doesn’t scare you, then you don’t understand it.”

Now, it has been demonstrated that space and time are more or less the same thing. They are deeply connected at the very least. To ask what happened before space is to ask what happened before time. I have no understanding of how things work at that level, without time. But cause and effect are things that we know of in our universe with time. There may be a first cause, and it may have been by a completely different universe that existed inside of an atom completely void of the dimension of time. There is seriously some confusing work being done in that field. Either way, cause and effect isn’t going to work here.

As for the first explanation… I have no idea what you’re wanting here. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say astrology. I think that was one of the first explanations.