• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Argument for God's existence.

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by gradyll, Apr 4, 2019.

  1. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    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 Because of the fact He superseded the physical universe.

    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: May 18, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. ananda

    ananda Early Buddhist

    +1,789
    Private
    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.
     
  3. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    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.
     
  4. ananda

    ananda Early Buddhist

    +1,789
    Private
    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.
     
  5. Tinker Grey

    Tinker Grey Wanderer Supporter

    +1,795
    Atheist
    If God is outside time, when did he create the universe? How does a being outside time do anything? How would it sequence it actions? Can it do one thing before another?

    Frankly, an infinite regress is much easier to believe.
     
  6. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,368
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  7. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    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.
     
  8. ananda

    ananda Early Buddhist

    +1,789
    Private
    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.
     
  9. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    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.
     
  10. Tinker Grey

    Tinker Grey Wanderer Supporter

    +1,795
    Atheist
    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 ...
     
  11. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    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?
     
  12. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,368
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  13. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    the universe contains mass and space. The mass part is in the time domain, which means it had a beginning.
     
  14. Tinker Grey

    Tinker Grey Wanderer Supporter

    +1,795
    Atheist
    Nope. Arguendo, time always exists therefore matter/space always exists.
     
  15. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    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?
     
  16. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +340
    Atheist
    Agreed. @gradyll , if God made the Universe, then who made God?
    Also, you say
     
  17. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    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
     
  18. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    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).
     
  19. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +340
    Atheist
    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?
     
  20. Tinker Grey

    Tinker Grey Wanderer Supporter

    +1,795
    Atheist
    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.
     
Loading...