N
Nathan45
Guest
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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why does everything need a cause?
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.Although i'm still waiting for lesson two.
/thread
Everything that has beginning or end needs cause, because it is moved, or changed.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.
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.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.
I could create all kinds of imaginary concepts, and support them with all kids of logical constructs.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.
No, the point is to conclude there never was nothing. And what is eternal, etc."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.
A) I conclude God is a reasonable line of thinking, even though there is not empirical evidence either way.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.
Bad advice if you're asking people take it literally, but of course I have no idea if thats what you're suggesting.
*
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.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?
I suppose it comes down to our difference of opinion.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.
Well, again I see it differently.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.
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.
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.
No, the point is to conclude there never was nothing. And what is eternal, etc.
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.
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.
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 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.
All right, you want an argument for God's intelligence.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.
I am not trying to convince you otherwise. I am saying you can logically conclude otherwise.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 have not shifted from the general concept of God.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.
No, the basic question is "Why does God exist?"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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?