A question for atheists and agnostics

[Nathan45]

Why does everything need a cause?

Apparently everything doesn't, but If everything does not need a cause, then "It just does" is a valid answer to unknown questions, which seems difficult to accept.

 

[MaxP]

Although i'm still waiting for lesson two.

/thread

alright, I was reluctant to move on because not everyone acknowledges the uncaused cause, which would form a basis for establishing the nature of God.
Again, although there is much evidence for God, there is nothing empirical, because that would eliminate the free will involved in believing. There is also nothing empirically against God, so God is not an unreasonable conclusion.

So as to the nature of God, we can know(assuming He is the first Mover):

He is immovable
If He were to be moved, He would have to be moved by Himself or another. Since being moved by another would imply being moved by another prior to Him, it is against His nature as the first Mover. It is also impossible for Him to move Himself(if you want, I will explain, but I doubt this will be a major bone of contention).
All motion is observed to proceed form something immobile, from something that us not moved by the motion in question. Thus we see alterations, corruptions, etc., are not effective on the mover in question.

He is eternal
Everything that begins or ceases to be is effected by motion or change. But He is immobile, hence He is eternal.

He necessarily exists
Everything that has the possibility of being and of not being is mutable. But God is immutable(above). Therefore it is impossible for God to be an not be. Anything that exists in such a way that it is impossible for it not to exist, is Being itself. Necessary existence and the impossibility of non-existence are the same. Also, anything that has the possibility of being and not being needs something else to make it be, for, as far as the thing is concerned, it is indifferent to either option. But that which causes another thing to be is prior to that thing. Hence something exists prior to that which has the possibility of being and not being. Therefore it is impossible for Him to be or not be. He must be of necessity.

He is everlasting
Whatever has no possibility of not being, can never not be. If anything always existed begins to be, it needs some cause for its existence. Nothing brings itself forth from potency to act from non-being to being.

Absence of sucession
No succession occurs in God, His entire existence is simultaneous. Succession is not found except in things that are in some way able to be moved, motion causes the succession of time. God is not subject to motion. His existence is, therefore, simultaneously whole. (there is more to this)

God is not a genus
God cannot be a genus. What a thing is, but not that it is, comes from its genus; the thing is established in its proper existence by differences. But God is very existence itself. He cannot be a genus. Also, every genus is divided by some differences. But there can be no differences in existence Itself. (so no, God is not technically male or female. He is just a word)


There is more, but I'm sure thats plenty to argue about.

 

[MaxP]

Apparently everything doesn't, but If everything does not need a cause, then "It just does" is a valid answer to unknown questions, which seems difficult to accept.

Everything that has beginning or end needs cause, because it is moved, or changed.

 

[TheBear]

Empirical proof that something can come from absolutely nothing.
The whole reason God exists(or is theorized to exist, if you will) is because it makes no logical sense that something can spring from nothing, and the fact that there is no evidence things in this world last forever.
Given that this is pretty much impossible to prove or disprove(but can be reasonably argued against), I don't think the evidence will be forthcoming.
Like I stated, I believe origin discussion is more in the realm of philiosophy then science.

Well, like I said, there is no objective evidence for, (or against) a god. All we're left with are philosophical semantics and weak theoretical arguments. And since the concept of a god is immune to any evidence, anything regarding the existence of a god is pure speculation. Epistemologically speaking, neither one of us knows with absolute certainty that there is or isn't a god. In that respect, both of us are agnostic. Where we differ is in the fact that you are a theist, believing there is a god, and I am an atheist, lacking that belief. And just for good measure, with regard to all the thousands of other gods, you are just as atheistic as I.

My purpose in this thread is not to prove you all wrong, as you might think, but to prove that God is not a completely unreasonable conclusion as some might be led to believe.

I could create all kinds of imaginary concepts, and support them with all kids of logical constructs.

I like the Occam's Razor approach - what's the simplest and most likely conclusion. My answer is that the existence of a god is very unlikely, and more than likely there is no god. I'm also of the school who asserts that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[MaxP]

"something cannot come from nothing" is the premise, not the conclusion. The premise is falsified by the conclusion unless you believe in infinite regress.

The whole point of the cosmological argument is to show that something did come from nothing, but nobody knows how or why.

No, the point is to conclude there never was nothing. And what is eternal, etc.

 

[MaxP]

So,

A) You conclude there is a God from all your looking even if there is no empirical evidence.
B) You conclude that this is as reasonable a non-theists "I don't know."

I'm afraid I cannot agree.

A) I conclude God is a reasonable line of thinking, even though there is not empirical evidence either way.

B) Yes. If there is nothing to the contrary, evidence and reason for it, then I conclude it is a reasonable belief. I recognize you do not have to believe in God; Atheist are not irrational. But my belief in God, Heaven and Hell, does not mean I am an irrational person.

 

[threedog]

Bad advice if you're asking people take it literally, but of course I have no idea if thats what you're suggesting.

*

Yes, you are correct. This was an accidental post intended for the main question. My point is the Bible could create many doubts about the existence of God. Sorry for the confusion.

threedog

 

[TeddyKGB]

Would that not still be one particle coming from another particle, then fading back out of existence? Would there, assuming this theory is true, not still be base from which the other particle originated, and then faded back into?

Sort of. Consider a W boson, which mediates the weak nuclear force. A quark can emit a W boson, but that does not mean there was a W boson contained in that quark prior to its emission. The boson's emission causes the quark to change "flavor" but not mass; its interaction is simply a property of the Standard Model, and horrible mathematics - of which I have virtually (pun intended?) no grasp - is required to explain any further.

 

[MaxP]

Well, like I said, there is no objective evidence for, (or against) a god. All we're left with are philosophical semantics and weak theoretical arguments. And since the concept of a god is immune to any evidence, anything regarding the existence of a god is pure speculation. Epistemologically speaking, neither one of us knows with absolute certainty that there is or isn't a god. In that respect, both of us are agnostic. Where we differ is in the fact that you are a theist, believing there is a god, and I am an atheist, lacking that belief. And just for good measure, with regard to all the thousands of other gods, you are just as atheistic as I.

I suppose it comes down to our difference of opinion.
Arguments you see as weak I do not, and arguments you see as strong I see as weak.
Not the end of the world.
I also do not deny there is a measure of faith involved in believing in God; that is how it should be, even though we can reasonably argue for God.
I suppose it comes down to a large degree on how one views the universe, ones openness to God, and personal guidance from the Spirit.

I could create all kinds of imaginary concepts, and support them with all kids of logical constructs.

I like the Occam's Razor approach - what's the simplest and most likely conclusion. My answer is that the existence of a god is very unlikely, and more than likely there is no god. I'm also of the school who asserts that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Well, again I see it differently.
Occam's razor would tell me the simplest explanation for the existence of existence would be it always has existed, and always will. it would also tell me that since nothing natural last for eternity, there must be supernatural that does. From there, it is the argument I have stated previously.

 

[MaxP]

Sort of. Consider a W boson, which mediates the weak nuclear force. A quark can emit a W boson, but that does not mean there was a W boson contained in that quark prior to its emission. The boson's emission causes the quark to change "flavor" but not mass; its interaction is simply a property of the Standard Model, and horrible mathematics - of which I have virtually (pun intended?) no grasp - is required to explain any further.

But that would mean if there was no quark, or no energy particle, the things that seemingly pop out of nothing would not pop out.
Thus, they're not popping out of nothing?

 

[Nathan45]

He is immovable
If He were to be moved, He would have to be moved by Himself or another. Since being moved by another would imply being moved by another prior to Him, it is against His nature as the first Mover. It is also impossible for Him to move Himself(if you want, I will explain, but I doubt this will be a major bone of contention).
All motion is observed to proceed form something immobile, from something that us not moved by the motion in question. Thus we see alterations, corruptions, etc., are not effective on the mover in question.

He is eternal
Everything that begins or ceases to be is effected by motion or change. But He is immobile, hence He is eternal.

He necessarily exists
Everything that has the possibility of being and of not being is mutable. But God is immutable(above). Therefore it is impossible for God to be an not be. Anything that exists in such a way that it is impossible for it not to exist, is Being itself. Necessary existence and the impossibility of non-existence are the same. Also, anything that has the possibility of being and not being needs something else to make it be, for, as far as the thing is concerned, it is indifferent to either option. But that which causes another thing to be is prior to that thing. Hence something exists prior to that which has the possibility of being and not being. Therefore it is impossible for Him to be or not be. He must be of necessity.

He is everlasting
Whatever has no possibility of not being, can never not be. If anything always existed begins to be, it needs some cause for its existence. Nothing brings itself forth from potency to act from non-being to being.

Absence of sucession
No succession occurs in God, His entire existence is simultaneous. Succession is not found except in things that are in some way able to be moved, motion causes the succession of time. God is not subject to motion. His existence is, therefore, simultaneously whole. (there is more to this)

God is not a genus
God cannot be a genus. What a thing is, but not that it is, comes from its genus; the thing is established in its proper existence by differences. But God is very existence itself. He cannot be a genus. Also, every genus is divided by some differences. But there can be no differences in existence Itself. (so no, God is not technically male or female. He is just a word)


There is more, but I'm sure thats plenty to argue about.

I think any argument i'd have with any of this would be semantic nonsense, Since you arn't positing anything about God having intelligence or anything about the christian religion, i don't feel the need to contest any of this.

Feel free to move on to lesson 3.

 

[Nathan45]

No, the point is to conclude there never was nothing. And what is eternal, etc.

God is outside time, according to you. So i think it's all semantic nonsense.

The basic question is "Why does god exist" and the answer is "He just does". Am i with you that far?

 

[Nathan45]

I think any argument i'd have with any of this would be semantic nonsense, Since you arn't positing anything about God having intelligence or anything about the christian religion, i don't feel the need to contest any of this.

Feel free to move on to lesson 3.

please don't take this as an indication that i agree with everything you posted. I'd honestly like to skip all of the metaphysical philosophy or whatever this is, and get into actual theology.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Occam's razor would tell me the simplest explanation for the existence of existence would be it always has existed, and always will.

There, perfect, no need for a God to explain anything no matter how much people wish it was so.

it would also tell me that since nothing natural last for eternity, there must be supernatural that does.

I thought matter could not be created or destroyed (I may well be wrong about this...), so maybe everything has been as it is now. Maybe a cyclical universe, expanding and contracting without begining or end?

I'm not saying this is my belief, but wouldn't even this be a simpler explanation (ala Occam razor), than a supernatural one?

*

 

[TheBear]

I suppose it comes down to our difference of opinion.
Arguments you see as weak I do not, and arguments you see as strong I see as weak.
Not the end of the world.
I also do not deny there is a measure of faith involved in believing in God; that is how it should be, even though we can reasonably argue for God.
I suppose it comes down to a large degree on how one views the universe, ones openness to God, and personal guidance from the Spirit.


Well, again I see it differently.
Occam's razor would tell me the simplest explanation for the existence of existence would be it always has existed. it would also tell me that since nothing natural last for eternity, there must be supernatural that does. From there, it is the argument I have stated previously.

Well, you asked how I arrived at my conclusion about god. Accept it or not, see it differently or not, I gave you a logical and reasoned answer to the OP question. And thus far, in all your semantics and logic exercises, you haven't given me reason to conclude otherwise.

And when you go from the general concept of a god, to the specifics of the anthropomorphic god of the bible, you are changing the subject of the OP. I am reminded of an old saying - Atheism is to Christianity, as baldness is to hair color.

 

[MaxP]

I think any argument i'd have with any of this would be semantic nonsense, Since you arn't positing anything about God having intelligence or anything about the christian religion, i don't feel the need to contest any of this.

Feel free to move on to lesson 3.

All right, you want an argument for God's intelligence.
Here goes.


First, the perfect logically precedes the imperfect. Although the same being evolves from perfect to imperfect (as in a boy prior to a man), everything imperfect must come from a perfect original. The child is not conceive except by a man, and the seed is not existence if not for the plant it came from. Further, any perfections found in anything must be superabundantly present in God. In God exists all perfections in creatures. Whoever moves something toward its perfection, first must possess in itself the perfection it gives to others. A teacher has the knowledge he passes on to students. God possesses the perfection he gives to existence. All perfections found in things must exist in God super-abundantly. Also whatever contains some perfection but not others is contained under a genus. God is not. If the divine essence is infinite, it must possess all perfections in the genera.
Now, we must demonstrate that God is an intelligent Being. All perfections pre-exist in Him. Among all the perfections in creatures, intelligence is a special importance, because intellectual beings are more powerful than others. Also, God is the first mover. This is, apparently, a property of intellect. The intellect uses all other things as an instrument, animals and plants and inantimate objects, of a sort, to cause motion. God, the first mover, must be intelligent.

 

[MaxP]

Well, you asked how I arrived at my conclusion about god. Accept it or not, see it differently or not, I gave you a logical and reasoned answer to the OP question. And thus far, in all your semantics and logic exercises, you haven't given me reason to conclude otherwise.

I am not trying to convince you otherwise. I am saying you can logically conclude otherwise.
Also, "semantics" seems to have become a buzzword of this thread. Where am I using semantics arguments?

And when you go from the general concept of a god, to the specifics of the anthropomorphic god of the bible, you are changing the subject of the OP. I am reminded of an old saying - Atheism is to Christianity, as baldness is to hair color.

I have not shifted from the general concept of God.
BTW, God is not anthropomorphic.
Any traits He possesses that we possess would be a result of us getting them due to his creation, or movement, of us.

 

[stekaya]

My primary argument against Christianity is the old one that no one can prove God exists. No one can prove God doesn't exist, either, and unless Jesus steps down right now and shows himself to us than no one will ever be able to know.

I have faith in science more than I do religion. Science is why I'm sitting here, in my polyester shorts, sending messages instantaneously across an entire planet. Science is the reason I just drove home from my friend's house. Science is the reason I'm healthy.

Christianity has two things to go on, here; a book written by people I've never known and claims by people I've never met. Now, this is what science has going for it as well, but the thing is if I really wanted to I could mix sodium and chlorine right now and get salt, every single time. I can disassemble my computer and rip out the LED that's flashing right now to indicate my hard drive is being accessed. Science can be proven and explained by anyone, provided they have the materials and expertise; religion can't.

If I witnessed something completely, irrefutably miraculous, I would be a practicing Christian. But the thing is, I haven't, and until I do I very much doubt I'll be able to place my belief in the option that can't be proved.

 

[MaxP]

^Um, why are you listed as Catholic then?

 

[MaxP]

God is outside time, according to you. So i think it's all semantic nonsense.

The basic question is "Why does god exist" and the answer is "He just does". Am i with you that far?

No, the basic question is "Why does God exist?"
And the answer is "Because nothing natural lasts for eternity; and existence must be eternal, because if there was nothing at one point there still would be."