Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Sy123]

Who cares.

People of intellectual integrity

 

[Sy123]

what do you guys think happened at ?

 

[seventhroot]

but wouldn't there have to be like a 'time' where god had to make something? or was that exactly at ?

 

[emilios]

What an ignorant human being, you know there is a reason why I don't invoke modern cosmology in order to try and show that the Universe began to exist, its because I respect it as a discipline. I wonder why Tyson thinks he can paint a brush all over natural theology when in reality his comment is as ignorant as a YEC trying to refute evolution.



No theist who actually knows how to engage in dialectics ever claims that because we don't know something, therefore God did it

Tyson has completely demolished and burnt down an incredibly smelly and obnoxious scarecrow of a strawman






lmao

No, but in foundation, claiming that there is a God that created the Universe is kind of saying "idk therefore God did it". Is the idea that something can come out of nothing absurd? Yes. Do scientists claim to understand they know how the universe began? Not at all. Does that naturally lead to the conclusion that a higher power played a role in forming the universe? Absolutely not.

 

[astroman]

from http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Does evil exist?

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name — Albert Einstein.

 

[Sy123]

but wouldn't there have to be like a 'time' where god had to make something? or was that exactly at ?

You are delving into the realm of advanced theological topics, namely the relationship God has with the world and its nature (not relationship in the 'love' sense, but in the existence sense)
Although it is difficult to imagine, it does not seem apparent why a timeless being cannot create time. By timeless it is meant 'permanent', and from a permanent being comes a temporal cause.

But if you mean that 'doesn't God need time to create', in that 'the cause always precedes the effect', then this is really not true.

For example, I will give Kant's example, imagine a heavy ball on a cushion, it has existed like this from pre-eternity

The heavy ball is the cause of the indentation of the cushion, but the heavy ball does not precede its effect, its actually simultaneous.

So, in relation to God, it is said:

- God's creating the Universe and the Universe coming into being, is simultaenous.

You should think about that for a second, because in actuality that makes perfect sense, for why on earth would it take an all-Powerful being, say '5 minutes' to create the Universe, no, rather it is instant

No, but in foundation, claiming that there is a God that created the Universe is kind of saying "idk therefore God did it".

No its not, there are very good rational reasons to believe that God is the creator of the Universe

Is the idea that something can come out of nothing absurd? Yes.

Very good, so you accept that things that begin to exist have a cause

Do scientists claim to understand they know how the universe began? Not at all.

No, but they know that the Universe did begin

Does that naturally lead to the conclusion that a higher power played a role in forming the universe? Absolutely not.

It actually establishes that the Universe had a cause, and if you refer to further argumentation, then it is clear that it is rationally necessary for that cause to be God, just refer to my recent posts about the Argument from causation.

 

[iBibah]

No, but in foundation, claiming that there is a God that created the Universe is kind of saying "idk therefore God did it". Is the idea that something can come out of nothing absurd? Yes. Do scientists claim to understand they know how the universe began? Not at all. Does that naturally lead to the conclusion that a higher power played a role in forming the universe? Absolutely not.

People who believe in God are not searching for a 'how'. But rather a 'why'.

Science will never explain 'why'. And in terms of the validity of asking 'why', that's the difference between theists and atheists.

 

[Sy123]

but wouldn't there have to be like a 'time' where god had to make something? or was that exactly at ?

You are delving into the realm of advanced theological topics, namely the relationship God has with the world and its nature (not relationship in the 'love' sense, but in the existence sense)
Although it is difficult to imagine, it does not seem apparent why a timeless being cannot create time. By timeless it is meant 'permanent', and from a permanent being comes a temporal cause.

But if you mean that 'doesn't God need time to create', in that 'the cause always precedes the effect', then this is really not true.

For example, I will give Kant's example, imagine a heavy ball on a cushion, it has existed like this from pre-eternity

The heavy ball is the cause of the indentation of the cushion, but the heavy ball does not precede its effect, its actually simultaneous.

So, in relation to God, it is said:

- God's creating the Universe and the Universe coming into being, is simultaenous.

You should think about that for a second, because in actuality that makes perfect sense, for why on earth would it take an all-Powerful being, say '5 minutes' to create the Universe, no, rather it is instant

No, but in foundation, claiming that there is a God that created the Universe is kind of saying "idk therefore God did it".

No its not, there are very good rational reasons to believe that God is the creator of the Universe

Is the idea that something can come out of nothing absurd? Yes.

Very good, so you accept that things that begin to exist have a cause

Do scientists claim to understand they know how the universe began? Not at all.

No, but they know that the Universe did begin

Does that naturally lead to the conclusion that a higher power played a role in forming the universe? Absolutely not.

It actually establishes that the Universe had a cause, and if you refer to further argumentation, then it is clear that it is rationally necessary for that cause to be God, just refer to my recent posts about the Argument from causation.

 

[emilios]

You are delving into the realm of advanced theological topics, namely the relationship God has with the world and its nature (not relationship in the 'love' sense, but in the existence sense)
Although it is difficult to imagine, it does not seem apparent why a timeless being cannot create time. By timeless it is meant 'permanent', and from a permanent being comes a temporal cause.

But if you mean that 'doesn't God need time to create', in that 'the cause always precedes the effect', then this is really not true.

For example, I will give Kant's example, imagine a heavy ball on a cushion, it has existed like this from pre-eternity

The heavy ball is the cause of the indentation of the cushion, but the heavy ball does not precede its effect, its actually simultaneous.

So, in relation to God, it is said:

- God's creating the Universe and the Universe coming into being, is simultaenous.

You should think about that for a second, because in actuality that makes perfect sense, for why on earth would it take an all-Powerful being, say '5 minutes' to create the Universe, no, rather it is instant



No its not, there are very good rational reasons to believe that God is the creator of the Universe



Very good, so you accept that things that begin to exist have a cause

No, but they know that the Universe did begin



It actually establishes that the Universe had a cause, and if you refer to further argumentation, then it is clear that it is rationally necessary for that cause to be God, just refer to my recent posts about the Argument from causation.

Not really. Don't put words in my mouth. There's lots of physical realities that are in fact, quite absurd. But the point isn't that I'm claiming something came out of nothing. I'm claiming that as of now, we simply don't know. However it is demeaning to the core of our pursuit of knowledge to claim that because everything needs a cause, then that cause is God. How many other things can we apply that to? The season changes? Hmm. We couldn't possibly explain that in 53BC. Must be God. Every action needs a cause right? The weather doesn't simply change on its own accord, something has to change it.

Equally, there could be some explanation for the beginning of the universe that is beyond our comprehension. Saying 'God did it', while a possibility, is not a provable or tentative statement that can be tested. The burden of proof is on you. To 'rationally' conclude that God exists because 'everything needs a cause' is a debasement of the very word 'rational'. Oh and your previous 'proof' is beyond fallacious. "If the Universe has a cause, that cause is God". That's elementary reasoning. For now, the only possible rationalization is that we simply do not know how the Universe began.

 

[Sy123]

Not really. Don't put words in my mouth. There's lots of physical realities that are in fact, quite absurd. But the point isn't that I'm claiming something came out of nothing. I'm claiming that as of now, we simply don't know. However it is demeaning to the core of our pursuit of knowledge to claim that because everything needs a cause, then that cause is God. How many other things can we apply that to? The season changes? Hmm. We couldn't possibly explain that in 53BC. Must be God. Every action needs a cause right? The weather doesn't simply change on its own accord, something has to change it.

Ok you don't know, how in the world is that relevant?

I am proposing a very simple syllogism

1) The Universe began to exist
2) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
3) The Unvierse has a cause

If you want to refute this argument, then point out a faulty premise and argue against it.
Going off on various tangents about how we 'don't know' is frankly irrelevant

Here lets do something non-contraversial

1) emilos is human
2) All humans are mortal
3) Thus emilos is mortal

Do you deny the absolute truth of the structure of the argument?

Equally, there could be some explanation for the beginning of the universe that is beyond our comprehension. Saying 'God did it', while a possibility, is not a provable or tentative statement that can be tested. The burden of proof is on you. To 'rationally' conclude that God exists because 'everything needs a cause' is a debasement of the very word 'rational'. Oh and your previous 'proof' is beyond fallacious. "If the Universe has a cause, that cause is God". That's elementary reasoning. For now, the only possible rationalization is that we simply do not know how the Universe began.

Read my post, if you continue posting in ignorance, you are only proving your own foolishness

I gave reasons to affirm why the cause of the Universe cannot be a necessary eternal cause

Simply using the law of excluded middle, we say:

- Either it is true that, the cause of the Universe has Will, or the cause of the Universe does not have Will

I had eliminated the second possibility if you actually read my post, it is up to you now to refute it

Therefore the cause of the universe has Will, I also detailed in my posts that the cause of the Universe was transcendent, perfectly knowledgeable and powerful

We are simply proving all the necessary attributes of God, and thus proving that God exists by rational necessity

 

[seventhroot]

You are delving into the realm of advanced theological topics, namely the relationship God has with the world and its nature (not relationship in the 'love' sense, but in the existence sense)
Although it is difficult to imagine, it does not seem apparent why a timeless being cannot create time. By timeless it is meant 'permanent', and from a permanent being comes a temporal cause.

But if you mean that 'doesn't God need time to create', in that 'the cause always precedes the effect', then this is really not true.

For example, I will give Kant's example, imagine a heavy ball on a cushion, it has existed like this from pre-eternity

The heavy ball is the cause of the indentation of the cushion, but the heavy ball does not precede its effect, its actually simultaneous.

So, in relation to God, it is said:

- God's creating the Universe and the Universe coming into being, is simultaenous.

You should think about that for a second, because in actuality that makes perfect sense, for why on earth would it take an all-Powerful being, say '5 minutes' to create the Universe, no, rather it is instant

i sort of get it

 

[Sy123]

Assumptions:

1) The truth of a syllogism
2) The reality of time



Defense of Premise 1

- Take the situation that something comes into existence uncaused, that thing must be contingent, for if it were impossible, it would never come into existence, and if it were necessary, then the thing would always exist. Since that thing is contingent, then its existence and non-existence are equally possible. If the thing then comes into existence without any reason, i.e. out of nothing, then preponderance is given to the existence of that thing over its non-existence. Since there is no cause, it then results in what is called, "Preponderance without a preferrer". This is of utmost inconceivability, and thus something cannot come into existence uncaused.

- If something can come into existence uncaused, then given absolutely nothing, something can come into existence. Since 'nothing' cannot give preponderance to certain things over others (since 'nothing' has no properties), then anything and everything can come into nothing. This is of utmost inconceviability and thus something cannot come into existence uncaused.

- The premise is self-evident, those who deny this premise should give evidence as to why such a self-evident premise is wrong

Defense of Premise 2

- If the Universe has existed since pre-eternity, then this entails an infinite regress of contingent events. However every contingent causal chain has a first term, since the first term is the actual 'true cause' of the entire chain of causes. In an infinite regress there is no 'true cause' and therefore no causation can happen.

- If the Universe has existence since pre-eternity, then this entails an actual infinite number of past events. The concept of the actual infinite does not exist in the real world. For it leads to contradictions to the law of non-contradiction. Say I had an actually infinite number of marbles, and you took an infinite amount, if all that remained for me were 1 marble, you took an infinite amount of marbles. But if there were 2, or 3 or 5 or 26 marbles left for me, you still took an infinite amount of marbles. Thus, the same situation has led to many different possibilites, this of course contradicts the law of non-contradiction, meaning that A and not-A cannot both be true. Since an actual infinite cannot exist in the real world, there can not exist an actually infinite number of past events. Thus the universe cannot be pre-eternal.

Defense of Premise 4
- If the Universe has a cause, then this cause is immaterial, and outside space and time since the Universe is all of space and time, thus the cause of the universe is transcendent

- If the Universe has a cause, then this cause has a Will, since if the Universe was caused by a non-conscious cause, then the cause cannot give preponderance to the existence of the Universe over its non-existence. Since they are of equal possibility. Therefore the cause of the Universe must have a Will, and thus be conscious.

- If the cause has a Will, then a Will entails Life, and Life entails Power and Knowledge

- If this cause has Life, Power, Knowledge and is transcendent, then all these properties must be perfect. If the cause's Power and Knowledge were finite in ability, then it requires a preponderator to give preponderance to a certain measure of Power and Knowledge over others, i.e. if the cause can only effect vegetarian pizzas, it must be asked why vegetarian pizzas only, and not vegetarian and meat pizzas as well. These are of equal possibility, and thus entails an accidental property in the eternal Cause of the universe. But of course any accidental property requires a preponderator to give importance to that specific accident over others. This is entirely avoided if the attributes are perfect. Therefore, the cause has perfect Knowledge, and Power and Will.

- If this cause has Life, perfect Power, perfect Knowledge, has Will and is transcendent, then this is what all people of intelligence calls God

- Thus if the Universe has a cause, then this cause is God

I want you to debunk just one of these points, there is way more from where this came from, but the post is quite a succinct defense

If you want to gain good knowledge in regards to this argument, get the book

'Kalam Cosmological Argument' by Dr. William Lane Craig, he goes into detail in showing that the Universe began to exist, and in showing why we ought to believe that things that come into existence must be caused.

 

[seventhroot]

hey just a random question; you mentioned the concept of free will. Why can't people be homo then cos they have free will? Or am I completely missing the point? (the latter is probably likely lol ._.)

 

[Sy123]

hey just a random question; you mentioned the concept of free will. Why can't people be homo then cos they have free will? Or am I completely missing the point? (the latter is probably likely lol ._.)

If you want an Islamic answer, then we must look at the issue through an Islamic lens

The primary purpose of our life is not to enjoy, it is not to build a family, its not to make money, its not even to advance the world in technology and health and so on
In fact our primary purpose of life is to get to know and worship God. Part of knowing and worshiping God is to follow His commands, and of course His commands relate to the world around us, His commands include telling people to advance society, to build a civilization.

One of the commandments of God is to abstain from illict sexual acts, including extra-marital sex, and indeed homosexual sex.

If someone has inclinations to the same gender, then this is their trial that they must endure, their purpose is not to fulfill their desire, their purpose (and ours) is to come to know and worship God.

 

[seventhroot]

If you want an Islamic answer, then we must look at the issue through an Islamic lens

The primary purpose of our life is not to enjoy, it is not to build a family, its not to make money, its not even to advance the world in technology and health and so on
In fact our primary purpose of life is to get to know and worship God. Part of knowing and worshiping God is to follow His commands, and of course His commands relate to the world around us, His commands include telling people to advance society, to build a civilization.

but not everyone wants to do this and then you have some people that are catholic/christian/whatever that are homosexual and still associate themselves with that religion. Are they like "breaking the rules"?

One of the commandments of God is to abstain from illict sexual acts, including extra-marital sex, and indeed homosexual sex.

If someone has inclinations to the same gender, then this is their trial that they must endure, their purpose is not to fulfill their desire, their purpose (and ours) is to come to know and worship God.

but again not everyone may have this view; does this make it wrong?

 

[Stygian]

People of intellectual integrity

What difference does it make?

 

[Sy123]

but not everyone wants to do this and then you have some people that are catholic/christian/whatever that are homosexual and still associate themselves with that religion. Are they like "breaking the rules"?


but again not everyone may have this view; does this make it wrong?

Well from a Muslim perspective, yes its still wrong even if people don't think its wrong, see, ethics in Islam is derived from God alone.

You're right that some people don't think their purpose is to worship God but that's not the point, there are some people who do realise their purpose and fulfill their covenant, and those who do not fulfill their covenant.

What difference does it make?

You can't be serious right?

 

[seventhroot]

Well from a Muslim perspective, yes its still wrong even if people don't think its wrong, see, ethics in Islam is derived from God alone.

You're right that some people don't think their purpose is to worship God but that's not the point, there are some people who do realise their purpose and fulfill their covenant, and those who do not fulfill their covenant.

ooOohh okay; that clears it up for me; thanks Sy123

 

[Stygian]

Well from a Muslim perspective, yes its still wrong even if people don't think its wrong, see, ethics in Islam is derived from God alone.

You're right that some people don't think their purpose is to worship God but that's not the point, there are some people who do realise their purpose and fulfill their covenant, and those who do not fulfill their covenant.



You can't be serious right?

Tell me what difference it makes.

 

[Sy123]

Tell me what difference it makes.

Could mean the difference between a stay in Hellfire or in Heaven