What is God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moonstruck888
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
coolduude said:
The difference between you and Jesus (well, there are many differences), is that Jesus could back it up. You, on the other hand, can’t.
Click to expand...
As I have said in the “What is Soul” thread, we all harness the “Jesus’ backups”
 
coolduude said:
The difference between you and Jesus (well, there are many differences), is that Jesus could back it up. You, on the other hand, can’t.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you base that claim on. This world is still as mired in sin as it ever was.
 
Returning to topic:

This is for Moonstruck888. This is my final attempt to show that God is the uncaused causer, the unmoved mover, and the only eternal thing in existence.
  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (God)
Premise 1:

If you deny this, there’s little help for you 😛

Premise 2:

Big Bang theory, which is accepted by most scientists, says the universe came from nothing. One moment there was nothing, the next moment there was something. Let’s go more in depth here:
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
Click to expand...
(map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html)

Notice that this says nothing about the past being infinite or finite. However, the past must be finite. Why?

Here’s some philosophical/logical proofs:
There is…the dilemma that if there was an infinite number of subsequent causes and events in the past, there is no way we could have actually reached the present - we would have had to traverse an infinite number of events to get to today - and you cannot traverse an infinite number of events.
Click to expand...
Another way to put it is that a series of infinite past events would have to come to an end in the present to get to today - but a series of infinite events cannot come to an end - could not have reached the present.
Click to expand...
The universe would have had to start somewhere in order to reach today so we could even be having this discussion about it at all.
Click to expand...
(squidoo.com/unfortunateevents)
…The second mathematical argument for the claim that the universe has a beginning draws on the idea that an actual infinite cannot be created by successive addition. If one begins with a number, and repeatedly adds one to it, one will never arrive at infinity. If one has a heap of sand, and repeatedly adds more sand to it, the heap will never become infinitely large. Taking something finite and repeatedly adding finite quantities to it will never make it infinite. Actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition.
Click to expand...
The past has been created by successive addition. The past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present and then into the past. Every moment that is now past was once in the future, but was added to the past by the passage of time.
Click to expand...
If actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition, and the past was created by successive addition, then the past cannot be an actual infinite. The past must be finite, and the universe must therefore have had a beginning. This is the second mathematical argument for the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument.
Click to expand...
(philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/maths-and-the-finitude-of-the-past/)

So as you can see, the past is indeed finite. Therefore, the universe had a cause (in other words, it didn’t exist one second, then it did a second later)

(continued)
 
(continued)

What caused the universe? God.
Why?
Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn’t, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, “Don’t look to me for the final explanation. I’m just an instrument. Something else caused me.” If that’s all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, “The buck stops here.”
Click to expand...
If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car’s motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.
Click to expand...
(peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm)
In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. 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.
Click to expand...
(peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm)

So let’s review:
  1. Everything that beings to exist has a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (God)
    a) Why is God uncaused? See above.
  4. God exists.
    I hope this helps! 👍
 
coolduude said:
Big Bang theory, which is accepted by most scientists, says the universe came from nothing. One moment there was nothing, the next moment there was something.
Click to expand...
Don’t lie friend, it’s a sin to bear false witness. I detest the disingenuous assertion that the big bang theory makes any claim as to what the Universe came from.

The big bang theory does not say the Universe came from nothing, it makes no claims as to where the Universe came from.

The big bang theory relates to what happened after t=zero, not before. The only people who make this claim for the big bang theory are creationists, and they do so as an argument from ignorance.
 
coolduude said:
So let’s review:
  1. Everything that beings to exist has a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (God)
    a) Why is God uncaused? See above.
  4. God exists.
    I hope this helps! 👍
Click to expand...
It is riddled with assumptions, fallacies and out and out mendacity.

So no, aside from giving me a good laugh, it does not help. 👎
 
See here for St. Thomas Aquinas’ explanation of God.

There are more succinct explanations, but very few (if any) that are better.

FSC
 
To give a logical proof of God’s existence would take FAR too long for a forum. For a good proof of God, or anti-theism for that matter, check what the Church Fathers wrote and what some of the Philosophers had to say (Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, etc.).

If you desire to prove or disprove the existence of God, this is not the place.

FSC
 
coolduude said:
Please cite what you think is an assumption, a fallacy, or an “out and out mendacity”.
Click to expand...
The assertion that the Big Bang theory states that the Universe came from nothing is out and out mendacity.

The whole tome makes so little sense I hardly know where to start, but let’s choose here:

“Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself.”

Verbal flim flammery, nothing more. Based on what? It’s a load of pig swill.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
The whole tome makes so little sense I hardly know where to start, but let’s choose here:

“Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself.”

Verbal flim flammery, nothing more. Based on what? It’s a load of pig swill.
Click to expand...
That quote means simply that something either:

Exists contingently
Exists noncontingently

If a thing exists noncontingently; that is, by its own essence; then it exists nessecarily - for else it would exist contingently – which would be a contradiction.

Now, it is fine to state that noncontingent existence is a contestible point; but the fact is; even a hypothetical noncontingent thing must by nessecity be nessecary and eternal.

The key problem for the position of atheists, if they wish to somehow deny the existece of a non contingent being, is for them to demonstrate how contingent beings are in existence, and how the totality of contingent things is somehow contingent either upon;

a) Nothing
b) Something within the totality of contingent things
c) Something that is outside the totality of contingent things (viz. a non-contingent thing) yet that this thing is not God (although by nessecity it is eternal and uncaused)

To elect a) or b) would be, as you put it “Verbal flim flammery, nothing more.”, leaving only sensibly c) to be defended in a non-theistic light (viz. some phenomane).

👍
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Jesus was born by parthenogenesis of a virgin, impregnated, as I recall, by a non corporeal entity.

That makes him half human.
Click to expand...
So as not to get this thread to mixed up with many different topics I propose you start a thread titled “How is Jesus God?” or something like that. It can help clear up any confused beleifs you may have of what Christians beleive about Jesus.🙂
 
Benedict_777 said:
So as not to get this thread to mixed up with many different topics I propose you start a thread titled “How is Jesus God?” or something like that. It can help clear up any confused beleifs you may have of what Christians beleive about Jesus.🙂
Click to expand...
There is no confusion. I have no beliefs about him…
 
JohnDamian said:
The key problem for the position of atheists, if they wish to somehow deny the existece of a non contingent being, is for them to demonstrate how contingent beings are in existence, and how the totality of contingent things is somehow contingent either upon;
Click to expand...
That’s no problem.

I don’t know how the Universe exists and I don’t pretend to know how it does.

You are the one claiming knowledge, and the attack you’re taking on backing up that claim is not making a believer out of me. In fact, I really don’t get where you’re coming from at all with all this Star Trekesque psychobabble…
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Jesus was born by parthenogenesis of a virgin, impregnated, as I recall, by a non corporeal entity.

That makes him half human.
Click to expand...
Once again you are mistaken. Jesus is 100% “God” and 100% human.

he is not 50/50 :doh2:

by the way, this forum has the best smilies I have ever seen!!
 
Benedict_777 said:
You just stated some of your beleifs about Him earlier in the thread…:confused:
Click to expand...
Nope… I stated some of your beliefs about him.

That he was born of a virgin by parthenogenesis…

That is part of your bible, is it not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top