Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?

[Dan123]

Sure but the point stands you’re on the path you feel, in an eternal sense, gives you the most pleasure and the least pain right?

 

[laylow]

To deny a First Cause would mean that all things – all of reality – are contingent. But if that were so, nothing could exist. But obviously, things do exist.

So to deny a First Cause is as absurd as denying the roundness of the Earth — if not more absurd.

Making a case for an uncaused cause, seems equally absurd, does it not?

 

[Dan123]

Not necessarily. The universe could be eternal. You claim God exists without a First Cause to his existence for example. It’s not something I’ve seen anyone claim to have an answer to scientifically.

 

[laylow]

I’m not sure how every individual of the church would react, but I for one would jump for joy. The thought of all those poor people burning forever being saved is a great thought. If Christianity is right then God is only able to save some, and the rest he sustains a place to torture eternally. If there is no God, then 100% of humans are saved from the eternal flames. Sounds like a good thing to me!

I always thought it was absurd to state that a person could be eternally happy knowing that others are to be tortured eternally. It only seems a certain type of butthole (G-rated) could resolve this. The only way I could make it work was to take away the prior knowledge of those people’s existence, but where’s the free will in that?

 

[snarflemike]

But can you prove that it involves an infinite loop of unprovables? I’d just be careful tossing out such fundamental philosophical assertions as fact. BTW, Vatican Council I stated that it is possible for humans to know of the existence of God by the light of natural reason alone.

 

[Seagull]

I’d have to have GOD himself - tell me that - before I believe such !

 

[catholic1seeks]

The universe could be eternal.

“Eternal” is not the same thing as “not contingent.”

The argument for “First Cause” is not an argument for a cause in time, but an ultimate cause that holds all of reality in existence.

Now, having said that, there are good reasons to think no reality could exist in an eternal (never-ending) succession of time, plus scientific evidence leads us to see a beginning in our Universe or any hypothetical Universe. Regardless, whether or not the Universe had a beginning in time (it probably did) is not relevant to the metaphysical arguments.

 

[laylow]

But can you prove that it involves an infinite loop of unprovables? I’d just be careful tossing out such fundamental philosophical assertions as fact. BTW, Vatican Council I stated that it is possible for humans to know of the existence of God by the light of natural reason alone.

Have it your way. But then, by that logic, the Vatican Council I has to then PROVE their assertion.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Making a case for an uncaused cause, seems equally absurd, does it not?

Not at all.

If no reality were an uncaused cause, then no reality could exist.

If every reality in existence now was caused, then no reality could actually exist, because nothing is ultimately explained.

The question we should be asking: What is the nature of this First Cause?

 

[StephieNorthCo]

I think I would jump on my trusty Unicorn, gallop to the edge of the earth, and jump so I could see first hand how far down the turtles go.

 

[Dan123]

Science has answered this. “All the way down”.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I’m not sure how every individual of the church would react, but I for one would jump for joy. The thought of all those poor people burning forever being saved is a great thought. If Christianity is right then God is only able to save some, and the rest he sustains a place to torture eternally. If there is no God, then 100% of humans are saved from the eternal flames. Sounds like a good thing to me!

Are you serious? God desires all to be saved! The people who end up in hell choose to leave God and his love. They wish to be apart from him. The only place for that is hell. You essentially think its better to just not exist for eternity after you die? Can you even imagine not existing?

 

[wkj_123]

Exactly my thoughts. I mean if your loved one was sitting in never ending flames, and you are in heaven, there is no way to be ok unless God does some alterations on your mind to be okay with it. It’s a trully terrible end result of the us verses them mentality. I will never understand how people hold up the God of the Bible as the moral role model with this system in place. it’s mind boggling. Humans would never choose hell. We are built to our very core to avoid pain as much as possible.

 

[Wesrock]

catholic1seeks:

To deny a First Cause would mean that all things – all of reality – are contingent. But if that were so, nothing could exist. But obviously, things do exist.

So to deny a First Cause is as absurd as denying the roundness of the Earth — if not more absurd.

Making a case for an uncaused cause, seems equally absurd, does it not?

Why? Or do you assume everything must have a cause?

 

[theCardinalbird]

It’s a trully terrible end result of the us verses them mentality. I will never understand how people hold up the God of the Bible as the moral role model with this system in place. it’s mind boggling.

Tell me, what sends one to hell? The question is not why would a loving God send someone to hell, it is rather, why would one choose hell (being apart from God) instead of a loving God?

 

[laylow]

Not at all.

If no reality were an uncaused cause, then no reality could exist.

If every reality in existence now was caused, then no reality could actually exist, because nothing is ultimately explained.

The question we should be asking: What is the nature of this First Cause?

It could just be outside of our understanding, because we only understand beginnings and endings since that is how our lives work. If you want to label that God, that is fine, but I just then argue to not pretend to know anything about him, her, it, etc. This part is sort of what you alluded to in an earlier post.

 

[laylow]

Are you serious? God desires all to be saved! The people who end up in hell choose to leave God and his love. They wish to be apart from him. The only place for that is hell. You essentially think its better to just not exist for eternity after you die? Can you even imagine not existing?

I actually see existing eternally as the worse proposition.

 

[wkj_123]

That’s great that God wants that. Unfortunately he will fail to save every human and he won’t get what he wants. No human would choose hell. Humans are built on pain avoidance. I promise you if when they die God let’s them choose and shows them heaven and hell there wouldn’t be a big line to get burned forever I mean come on. Do you remember what it was like before you were born? That’s what it feels like to not exist. Would I choose that over eternal torture? Umm yeah who wouldn’t?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Well, I think there is good reason (and this is the “neat” metaphysical proof I was referring to earlier) that can tell us a good deal about the nature of the First Cause.

For example, it cannot be a dog, or a chair, or a hydrogen atom, or anything else of our daily experience, since all these realities are contingent: They do not explain themsevles; they require explanations outside of themselves.

These are solid proofs and have their own threads and books, as well as objections, but objections that have been consistently dealt with as well. But the point is that we arrive at God through various means and arguments.

And the very basic definition of God, the first principle that is the ultimate explanation for the existence of all realities, can be arrived at very easily.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I actually see existing eternally as the worse proposition.

Well then we both think differently. I would rather live a life devoted to God (who is love) and his will and then somehow get to heaven.