Argument for God's existence.

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Many people try to prove God's existence with irreducible complexity. But you don't even need to do that. All that is needed is this.... If you have a painting how do you prove there was a painter? It's inherent. If you see something made how do you prove there was a maker that made it? It's inherent. We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism. I am simply talking about cause and effect. If you see something made, it had a maker, if you see something painted it had a painter. The universe is here. So it boils down to the fact that it made itself from nothing, or something made it. Period. The maker on the other hand would be supernatural, and prexisted time and space. So there was no beginning to the maker. Time is a physical property that requires mass to operate according to Einsteins theory of relativity. If a maker was supernatural (beyond the physical universe), then it would naturally follow that He was beyond time as well. Because of the fact He superseded the physical universe.

When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation.

(here is an article showing a survey done in 2009 that 51% of scientists believe in a higher power: Scientists and Belief)

update:

(disclaimer: I don't believe we can prove most things. Most facts cannot be proven, most science cannot be proven etc. However I believe that some things can be proven. The universe had a maker. We all accept this, or the alternative is that the universe made itself, spontaneous generation was disproven 100 years ago, thus there is only one option. The universe was created. Now the thing that created the universe, must according to cause and affect have intelligence, and be rational. It must also contain any positive character traits, self sacrificial love etc. Things that are not explained by herd instinct. Herd instinct accounts for some morality, but not self sacrificial love. A wolf may gather food for the rest of the pack, but not at it's own demise, it will most likely eat first, then get it. Humans on the other hand have been known to sacrifice for others. This type of love has no natural origins. Thus the one who created the universe must have that type of love, in order to create it in it's creation. The only thing that resembles a loving creator that is intelligent and rational. Is the Christian God. This to me is proof.

Updated on some misconceptions:
Right now I wish to dispelled the most popular viewpoint among athiests, a multiverse created the universe:
How could a collection of rocks floating in a multiverse gain the ability to create an entire universe from absolutely nothing? I await your reply. Secondly, say a miracle happened and a multiverse allowed asteroids floating in a multiverse ability to wave a magic wand and create an entirely separate universe from nothing (ex nihilo). Why would a multiverse create another completely separate universe that it had no working relationship with? Just to be nice? So we not only have miraculous meteors, but we have benevolent meteors. Not only that but these meteors are timeless and have no beginning, even though they have mass, and are susceptible to time via general relitivity. This is sounding more and more like mythology. It takes more faith to believe that. Than It Does to believe, God who n is self existent and self defining (per the definition of God), creating the universe in order to ultimately save, love, and glorify his creation, and to spend eternity, exploring how he in fact created, and to spend time with His creation, in loving fellowship.
 
Last edited:

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
Many people try to prove God's existence with irreducible complexity. But you don't even need to do that. All that is needed is this.... If you have a painting how do you prove there was a painter? It's inherent. If you see something made how do you prove there was a maker that made it? It's inherent. We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism. I am simply talking about cause and effect. If you see something made, it had a maker, if you see something painted it had a painter. The universe is here. So it boils down to the fact that it made itself from nothing, or something made it. Period. The maker on the other hand would be supernatural, and prexisted time and space. So there was no beginning to the maker. Time is a physical property that requires mass to operate according to Einsteins theory of relativity. If a maker was supernatural (beyond the physical universe), then it would naturally follow that He was beyond time as well. Because of the fact He superseded the physical universe.
Invalid argument. The maker of the painting did not exist uncaused, he had parents, and they had theirs, and so on.

You also suppose that an imagined "maker" of the universe had no beginning; there is no reason to not apply that same argument to the universe itself. You're merely pushing the "uncaused cause" one step back.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Invalid argument. The maker of the painting did not exist uncaused, he had parents, and they had theirs, and so on.

You also suppose that an imagined "maker" of the universe had no beginning; there is no reason to not apply that same argument to the universe itself. You're merely pushing the "uncaused cause" one step back.
the reason we don't apply the same argument for the universe itself, is that it's absurd to think the universe never had a beginning according to most science. It however is not absurd to believe there is no beginning to a being that supercedes time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gregory95
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
the reason we don't apply the same argument for the universe itself, is that it's absurd to think the universe never had a beginning according to most science. It however is not absurd to believe there is no beginning to a being that supercedes time.
It is certainly irrational. How did the being that "supercedes time" come into being? If we posit that such an uncreated being exists, there's no reason why other universal phenomena should not also exist without being created.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1) Irreducible complexity would demonstrate design, not God. You have to do more work to show that only God could be the designer.
2) You have to demonstrate that “made itself” and “was made by something that already existed” are the only two real options. For example, is it not possible for it to have formed naturally out of something else that already existed in some unknown way?
3) Science has not dismissed the possibility of infinite regress. Infinite regress vs. absolute beginning is an ongoing debate in philosophy.
4) If you’re willing to imbue a creator with characteristics exempting it from needing a cause, there’s no reason you can’t just do that for the universe.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is certainly irrational. How did the being that "supercedes time" come into being? If we posit that such an uncreated being exists, there's no reason why other universal phenomena should not also exist without being created.
The being that supercedes time, never had a beginning. Because He is outside of time. The universe which operates in time had a beginning.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
The being that supercedes time, never had a beginning. Because He is outside of time. The universe which operates in time had a beginning.
Or, we can also say "The universe that supercedes time, never had a beginning, because it is outside of time." Just like the human body as a whole functions differently than its constituent parts, or a solid physical object is composed of quantum states which are definitely not solid, perhaps the universe itself is outside of time, even though "internally" it operates with time.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
1) Irreducible complexity would demonstrate design, not God. You have to do more work to show that only God could be the designer.
2) You have to demonstrate that “made itself” and “was made by something that already existed” are the only two real options. For example, is it not possible for it to have formed naturally out of something else that already existed in some unknown way?
3) Science has not dismissed the possibility of infinite regress. Infinite regress vs. absolute beginning is an ongoing debate in philosophy.
4) If you’re willing to imbue a creator with characteristics exempting it from needing a cause, there’s no reason you can’t just do that for the universe.

you have a serious dilemma with origins. Either is was made by something, or it wasn't. Those are the only two options. If it wasn't then it made itself (which only applies to things and beings that have a beginning). I never mentioned design at all. This bypasses design and irreducible complexity. When you see something, it was either made, or it wasn't. And lastly the universe is in time and has time applied to it at least in the parts that we live in. So there was a beginning to that time. You can't pull yourself up by your own bootstrap. Unless you can provide an example of something creating itself. Which you can't.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
you have a serious dilemma with origins. Either is was made by something, or it wasn't. Those are the only two options. If it wasn't then it made itself (which only applies to things and beings that have a beginning). I never mentioned design at all. This bypasses design and irreducible complexity. When you see something, it was either made, or it wasn't. And lastly the universe is in time and has time applied to it at least in the parts that we live in. So there was a beginning to that time. You can't pull yourself up by your own bootstrap. Unless you can provide an example of something creating itself. Which you can't.

I have a logical question for you, an honest one; in regards to an apparent 'dilemma'....

If you assert that there MUST exist a timeless agency, which created everything we know today, how is this ANY MORE probable than another person's assertion of infinite regress?
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
you have a serious dilemma with origins. Either is was made by something, or it wasn't. Those are the only two options. If it wasn't then it made itself (which only applies to things and beings that have a beginning). I never mentioned design at all. This bypasses design and irreducible complexity. When you see something, it was either made, or it wasn't. And lastly the universe is in time and has time applied to it at least in the parts that we live in. So there was a beginning to that time. You can't pull yourself up by your own bootstrap. Unless you can provide an example of something creating itself. Which you can't.
What does it mean to be made by itself? That seems incoherent since a thing would have to exist already in order to do any creating. It sounds like you’re saying all things must have been made. But then that should apply to your god as well, and it runs us into an infinite regress. If you want to say your god is the exception to this rule, then there’s no reason the universe itself can’t be that exception too.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Or it's eternal, or it's the nature of the multi-verse to generate universes, or it's part of an endless chain of universes dying and being born, or ...
the universe contains mass and space. The mass part is in the time domain, which means it had a beginning.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MrAnderson9
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What does it mean to be made by itself? That seems incoherent since a thing would have to exist already in order to do any creating. It sounds like you’re saying all things must have been made. But then that should apply to your god as well, and it runs us into an infinite regress. If you want to say your god is the exception to this rule, then there’s no reason the universe itself can’t be that exception too.
It does not apply to God because God is outside of time and does not have a beginning. That is a requirement of God by definition to be everywhere at once (omnipresent), means that God would be in all dimensions, all 20 something of them. Even the theoretical dimensions. He would have to be God over all of that. The only four dimensions that had a beginning are the first four. The universe contains mass and therefore that mass is subject to time according to Einsteins theory of relativity, which means it had a beginning, and can be destroyed. But my question to you is, where in the known universe has something created itself? Do you have a source for this?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nope. Arguendo, time always exists therefore matter/space always exists.
time is affected by mass, the larger the mass, the slower the time. Famous Atheist Stephen Hawking agrees with most scientists that the universe had a beginning, and that time had a beginning: The Beginning of TIme
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Agreed @gradyll , if God made the Universe, then who made God?
God did not have a beginning, in order to have a beginning you must be subject to time. God is outside of time (time is only the fourth dimension).
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
God did not have a beginning, in order to have a beginning you must be subject to time. God is outside of time (time is only the fourth dimension).
Ah. Had a lot of experience of beings "who exist outside of time," have you?
Do you have any evidence that such creatures are possible?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,214
5,606
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,468.00
Faith
Atheist
time is affected by mass, the larger the mass, the slower the time. Famous Atheist Stephen Hawking agrees with most scientists that the universe had a beginning, and that time had a beginning: The Beginning of TIme
Nope. Scientists agree that the universe as we know it began to be the way it is about 13.8 billion years ago. A multiverse generating universes solves the 'what-happened-before' problem.
 
Upvote 0