Whats your favorite argument for the existence of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johngh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Say i grant you that, again how do you get his to there is a god?
God can only be known through his responses to you, whatever those miracles might be.

Without these interventions there is no one who knows anything about God.

There are those who are close to his sovereignty without knowing through experience, but it really is worth the effort to move God to move you…

The highest power and principle in life is love. Those who love can become children of God, it really is not possible for those who do not love.

Forget about all knowledge, this should be easy if you are a true skeptic, enter into a long contemplation about what love is. Think about love as meaning, and love as the creator of your life and world. Love will bring into being what you can desire. We can not all desire the same things, and I hope that you may desire the best…

He who is born of God has overcome the world, and entered his kingdom…
 
God can only be known through his responses to you, whatever those miracles might be.

Without these interventions there is no one who knows anything about God.

There are those who are close to his sovereignty without knowing through experience, but it really is worth the effort to move God to move you…

The highest power and principle in life is love. Those who love can become children of God, it really is not possible for those who do not love.

Forget about all knowledge, this should be easy if you are a true skeptic, enter into a long contemplation about what love is. Think about love as meaning, and love as the creator of your life and world. Love will bring into being what you can desire. We can not all desire the same things, and I hope that you may desire the best…

He who is born of God has overcome the world, and entered his kingdom…
Doesn’t really answer the question…:confused:
 
That doesn’t answer the question. Even it was true, why should this initial uncaused cause be a god and in particular your God? Why not Ptah, why not the Big Bang itself, why not just an initial uncaused cause?
I would like to address this question in what limited knowledge I have.

Science tells us the Universe, with very high probably, began as a single point in space and time. In fact before this moment all matter either did not existed or was compact into this very tiny point in space. Since space and time is interrelated based on Einstein’s general relativity and the concept of worldlines, time was still in this compact point as well. All of the universe is contained in here. There is no scientific reason for the universe to suddenly expand unless there is an external source. Any internal source would have implied that before this moment, the universe was not a point. This is because this whole system which is only one point is a closed system if the cause of it’s expansion is an internal source. And because of that, the compactness would have to be a singular instance of irrational stability. However there there is no evidence of such pre-big bang system. (Examples of evidence that there is a physical cause for the big bang would be findings that there are parallel universe colliding with each other, gravitons escaping our universe, etc.)

Well if there is no physical cause (i.e. no natural causes within our own universe) for the expansion of the universe from a single point, then there has to be a supernatural cause. If this is such, then what is this supernatural cause.

First, if there is such a supernatural cause then physical science cannot deal with this since the underlining assumptions of physical science includes the existence of matter, reality, and patterned interaction within reality of matter and energy. This would be enough evidence against a disbelief in supernatural phenomena.

Secondly, if we named this supernatural phenomena as an act of God, then there is nothing wrong with this. So the issue then becomes is this God the God that Catholics know. Well, now it would go beyond the topic of the discussion which is “argument for the existence of God”.

As an off topic. If we wanted to know about this supernatural cause, then we can start with readings from the already existing religions or try to make up one of our own. I would suggest reading about Catholicism =). It may save you a bit of work. A neutral Christian book that many, particular agnostics or atheists have found to be useful is Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. If you have already read this, I would suggest the New American Bible translation of the Bible and a book or two about the Early Church Fathers.
 
Well if there is no physical cause (i.e. no natural causes within our own universe) for the expansion of the universe from a single point, then there has to be a supernatural cause. If this is such, then what is this supernatural cause.
We have no knowledge regarding this subject. That however does not mean there as to be a supernatural cause. Any speculation regarding a supernatural cause is completely unfounded.
 
Partially. The term “God” means much more than just “initial uncaused cause”. I suppose every Christian agrees to that. It takes as much faith to step from this cause to the Christian God as to believe in Him in the first place. So the initial-cause argument is, if at all, a very weak argument for a specific god.
Yet it remains an irrefutable argument for a “god.”
 
We have no knowledge regarding this subject. That however does not mean there as to be a supernatural cause. Any speculation regarding a supernatural cause is completely unfounded.
How is this unfounded? Mathematics, a source of objective understanding of reality, points to the singularity of the universe as a point and does not suggest of a pre-existent state. By this logic, this is not unfounded. By glossing over this topic and stating “we have no knowledge regarding this subject” is ignoring the scientific and mathematical facts, evidence, and equations that is the foundation of the big bang theory.
 
How is this unfounded? Mathematics, a source of objective understanding of reality, points to the singularity of the universe as a point and does not suggest of a pre-existent state. By this logic, this is not unfounded. By glossing over this topic and stating “we have no knowledge regarding this subject” is ignoring the scientific and mathematical facts, evidence, and equations that is the foundation of the big bang theory.
Well, first off, the big bang theory is more well known than it is supported or understood because it’s basic idea is so easy to imagine in your head even if it’s not accurate. Currently, it has only 2 real sources of evidence going for it: Red shifts and background radiation. One problem is that a lot of religious people jump on the concept because it looks like one source of creation… but if it was 10, or a million sources would that change your mind? Creation is creation. The real point is that you’re looking at all matter being created, and seeing the work of God, but you insert God there as a bias because it’s what you expect to see. At most you can say it could be God. And even with that, we might be wrong about the nature of the universe - it gets stranger and stranger as we examine it, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t change our minds again about it’s creation. If this happened, I doubt it would change your mind about God would it?
 
How is this unfounded? Mathematics, a source of objective understanding of reality, points to the singularity of the universe as a point and does not suggest of a pre-existent state. By this logic, this is not unfounded. By glossing over this topic and stating “we have no knowledge regarding this subject” is ignoring the scientific and mathematical facts, evidence, and equations that is the foundation of the big bang theory.
I was referring to the origin of the singularity. Say i grant you there was a singularity (which i do), say i grant you it needed a cause (of this i am not sure). How do you go from that i.e. we have a singularity which needed a cause, to… there is a god?
 
God can only be known through his responses to you, whatever those miracles might be.

Without these interventions there is no one who knows anything about God.

There are those who are close to his sovereignty without knowing through experience, but it really is worth the effort to move God to move you…

The highest power and principle in life is love. Those who love can become children of God, it really is not possible for those who do not love.

Forget about all knowledge, this should be easy if you are a true skeptic, enter into a long contemplation about what love is. Think about love as meaning, and love as the creator of your life and world. Love will bring into being what you can desire. We can not all desire the same things, and I hope that you may desire the best…

He who is born of God has overcome the world, and entered his kingdom…
This makes God a concept, a personal state of mind. That’s fine, it’s so much more logical than a real entity that made the world and knows everybody’s thoughts before they have them and knows what everyone’s going to do before they do it and has some sort of mysterious purpose for everyone despite being omnipotent so not actually needing anybody to do anything to achieve this purpose…
 
“Out of nothing comes nothing.”… except god 🤷
I would agree that God could not exist if God was a product of change and potentiality. Buts thats not what people say about God. They say there must be a being as such, because something cannot come out of nothing, or change from a state of nothing. That which is not real is not real. Thus there must be that which timelessly exists without change, inorder for there to be that which becomes or changes. It would have to be pure reality; which is the very definition of an existence that is absolutely apposed to none existence in regards to its absolute necessity. In fact, in its very necessity, the purest nature is pure existence as apposed to that which merely participates in existence, because existence is the only thing that cannot fail to exist; it is the only true nature that can account for its own existence. Such a being would be a perfect being lacking in nothing accept imperfection, and would also be pure actuality by its very nature of being, and would have to be inorder to give cause to the universe. Also, in order to make the universes existence intelligible in all its particularity and nature, one would have to understand that the cause of all things has to be a transcendent personal and creative act, since an impersonal being that exists outside of all time or change cannot give cause or actuality to other entities or potential natures.

I thought you would have understood that by now, but i do understand how important your atheism is to you, and why you would want to continue in failing to understand a very clear point. So i forgive you for creating straw-men arguments, since the straw-man is so vital to your position as to be your main arguement in any debate.
 
This makes God a concept, a personal state of mind. That’s fine, it’s so much more logical than a real entity that made the world and knows everybody’s thoughts before they have them and knows what everyone’s going to do before they do it and has some sort of mysterious purpose for everyone despite being omnipotent so not actually needing anybody to do anything to achieve this purpose…
What precisely is illogical about the omniscient Creator Who creates beings to share His creativity, capacity for love and freedom to choose their own destiny?
It would be more illogical if the Creator did not know anything about the beings He created and created them for no purpose whatsoever!
It is more illogical to claim we are beings who know an unknowing universe and create our own purposes in an uncreated, purposeless existence… 🙂
 
The prime mover, uncaused cause, atemporal, simple…

The essence of God is existence.
Well yes, this “god” may exist. Although it’s likely not the prime mover, and it’s almost definitely not atemporal.

But I have to say, your definition does not sound like any of the gods I have heard of.
 
I would agree that God could not exist if God was a product of change and potentiality. Buts thats not what people say about God. They say there must be a being as such, because something cannot come out of nothing, or change from a state of nothing. That which is not real is not real. Thus there must be that which timelessly exists without change, inorder for there to be that which becomes or changes. It would have to be pure reality; which is the very definition of an existence that is absolutely apposed to none existence in regards to its absolute necessity. In fact, in its very necessity, the purest nature is pure existence as apposed to that which merely participates in existence, because existence is the only thing that cannot fail to exist; it is the only true nature that can account for its own existence. Such a being would be a perfect being lacking in nothing accept imperfection, and would also be pure actuality by its very nature of being, and would have to be inorder to give cause to the universe. Also, in order to make the universes existence intelligible in all its particularity and nature, one would have to understand that the cause of all things has to be a transcendent personal and creative act, since an impersonal being that exists outside of all time or change cannot give cause or actuality to other entities or potential natures.

I thought you would have understood that by now, but i do understand how important your atheism is to you, and why you would want to continue in failing to understand a very clear point. So i forgive you for creating straw-men arguments, since the straw-man is so vital to your position as to be your main arguement in any debate.
LOL dear me.

Ok lets cut through all your nonsense and get to the meat of your argument.

Nothing can come from nothing, unless it is timeless and without change? Aside from the fact you don’t have a single shred of evidence to support your hypothesis. The statement does not make sense.

You should rephrase it and say, only that which is timeless and without change can come from nothing.

Oh and how on earth is it a strawman to point out the blatant contradiction in the phrase “nothing and come from nothing except…” Also you don’t know one single thing about what i believe, so if you want to see a REAL strawman you need look no fuhter than your own post. “but i do understand how important your atheism is to you, and why you would want to continue in failing to understand a very clear point.”.

The reason i don’t accept your argument is because it is simply absurd. If NOTHING comes from NOTHING that means NOTHING, it does not mean nothing except your god. Unless of course we actually do agree with each other and your god is nothing. 😉

I’m not even going to get on to the fact that you posit a starting point of ultimate complexity, which again totally contradicts EVERYTHING we know about the cosmos.
 
Well yes, this “god” may exist. Although it’s likely not the prime mover, and it’s almost definitely not atemporal.

But I have to say, your definition does not sound like any of the gods I have heard of.
The prime mover and the first efficient cause are inseparable.

The prime mover is fully actual and cannot have potential. Since the prime mover cannot have potentiality it is impossible for it to exist temporally.
 
I’m not even going to get on to the fact that you posit a starting point of ultimate complexity, which again totally contradicts EVERYTHING we know about the cosmos.
You assume that the cosmos, i.e. physical reality existed before spiritual reality. How can you prove that or even show that it is more probable?

You also favour atomism at the expense of holism. The human brain is one of the most complex systems in the solar system, if not the most complex, yet its activity is integrated, coherent and more powerful than any other known object. It is an excellent example of how “**ultimate **complexity” -(the most appropriate term you could have chosen) - co-exists with “**ultimate **simplicity”.

When you think of it, the absurdity of deriving the immense richness and variety of the universe from atomic particles is overwhelming. The Greek philosophers were baffled by the problem of the Many and the One. Monism is certainly the simplest explanation of reality but it has to do justice to the fact of multiplicity. Supreme unity is discovered in one integrated Mind. Everything finite emerges “within” one infinite Creator:
“In God we live, move and have our being”.
 
You assume that the cosmos, i.e. physical reality existed before spiritual reality. How can you prove that or even show that it is more probable?
I don’t make any assumptions. It’s really quite simple, if you want to make any claims regarding “spiritual reality” you must demonstrate there is such a think as “spiritual reality”.
You also favour atomism at the expense of holism. The human brain is one of the most complex systems in the solar system, if not the most complex, yet its activity is integrated, coherent and more powerful than any other known object. It is an excellent example of how “**ultimate **complexity” -(the most appropriate term you could have chosen) - co-exists with “**ultimate **simplicity”.
I favour evidence and the expense of unfounded speculation. The human brain like EVERY other complex thing in the cosmos has simple origins.
When you think of it, the absurdity of deriving the immense richness and variety of the universe from atomic particles is overwhelming. The Greek philosophers were baffled by the problem of the Many and the One. Monism is certainly the simplest explanation of reality but it has to do justice to the fact of multiplicity. Supreme unity is discovered in one integrated Mind. Everything finite emerges “within” one infinite Creator:
“In God we live, move and have our being”.
Actually when you look at the evidence, which is far more productive than “thinking about it”, the explanation that the complexity of the universe has been gained incrementally over vast amounts of time from simple origin makes perfect sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top