Dr. John Polkinghorne

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Dr. John Polkinghorne considers that "the question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality".

He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?" The atheist's "plain assertion of the world's existence" is a "grossly impoverished view of reality," he says, arguing that "theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address."

He "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism."

In John Polkinghorne's book "Questions of Truth" he addresses issues such as "Can God's existence be proved?" and explores if evolution could create a mind such as the human mind. It is essentially the stronger rival of Dawkin's "God Delusion" in terms of science and backing authors.

What's that, you say?

 

[Freodin]

The mind is not able to imagine nothing. The mind has to imagine something. When it comes to the sun, stars, moon, then our eyes and mind trick us or lead us to believe that they are all real. Their reality to us is somewhat limited to our senses and our limited ability to be able to perceive and detect their existence.

I'd agree. I'd even go one step further and say that "nothing" is not even unimaginable... it is unthinkable. You cannot make a concise concept of "nothing".

"Nothing", in my view, does not exist.

So there is "something". And the answer to the question "why is there something instead of nothing?" is not "God", but "because nothing is impossible - there MUST be something".

 

[AV1611VET]

"Nothing", in my view, does not exist.

Because it can't, or because it's your view? or both?

 

[Split Rock]

It's been far too long that atheists or agnostics have been portrayed as the intellectually superior group, either by themselves or media.

This portrayal is reinforced by those Christians who so vocally reject reality because it contradicts their naive religious dogma... I think you may be familar with the type

 

[AV1611VET]

This portrayal is reinforced by those Christians who so vocally reject reality because it contradicts their naive religious dogma... I think you may be familar with the type

What about those who reject [your] reality because of basic doctrine?

 

[Split Rock]

What about those who reject [your] reality because of basic doctrine?

One Christian's "Basic Doctrine" is another Christian's Heresy... agreed?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

This portrayal is reinforced by those Christians who so vocally reject reality because it contradicts their naive religious dogma... I think you may be familar with the type

Actually Christianity can be backed up with proven evidence, First Uncaused Cause, Morality, Fine Tuning, The Bible, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity.

Now, where's your evidence for "atheism" or "agnostics"? there's no evidence for "atheism" or "agnostics".

 

[Freodin]

Actually Christianity can be backed up with proven evidence, First Uncaused Cause, Morality, Fine Tuning, The Bible, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity.

Now, where's your evidence for "atheism" or "agnostics"? there's no evidence for "atheism" or "agnostics".

Somehow, based on your previous behaviour here, I don't think you will listen to any answers to this "proven evidence". But who knows... I might be the one you will listen to.

Let's start with the "evidence for atheism".
Atheism is a position of non-acceptence of certain, special claims. In that, every valid counter to an argument of the one making such a claim is evidence that can be used by atheism.

For example, you claim that "fine tuning" is evidence that God exists. I deny that, and can provide a reasonable conclusion why "fine tuning" is NOT evidence that God exists. That shows that your claim is false, and that, after all, is all that my atheistic position tries to do: show that your's is false.

This works (and has been shown to work) with about every single argument that theists use to "prove" their claims. They all have been shown to be either wrong, or at least to be unconclusive.

 

[ebia]

I'm a big fan of Polkinghorne as what he is - a serious thinker about the interface between theology and science.

But pushing him as a glorified apologist - nah.

 

[Split Rock]

Actually Christianity can be backed up with proven evidence, First Uncaused Cause, Morality, Fine Tuning, The Bible, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity.

First uncaused cause: How about the universe is its own?
Morality: Humans are intelligent social animals that depend on each other, therefore morality is a necessary adaptation.
Fine tuning: If I puddle could talk, would it talk about how perfect the hole it found itself in fit it?
The Bible: Is the Koran proof of Islam?
Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection: Where's the proof of this?
Intelligent design: Show me the theory of intelligent design and I may take it seriously.
Irreducible Complexity: Ignores means of evolution such as scaffolding, loss and change of parts, etc.

Don't see any "proof" there... anything else?

Now, where's your evidence for "atheism" or "agnostics"? there's no evidence for "atheism" or "agnostics".

I don't need "proof" for a lack of conviction in something. You need to provide the "proof."

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Somehow, based on your previous behaviour here, I don't think you will listen to any answers to this "proven evidence". But who knows... I might be the one you will listen to.

No one has provided any evidence for "atheism" or any evidence against the evidence I provided which proves God exist, because there is no evidence against the evidence I provided.

Let's start with the "evidence for atheism".
Atheism is a position of non-acceptence of certain, special claims. In that, every valid counter to an argument of the one making such a claim is evidence that can be used by atheism.

1, No one has countered any of the evidence I provided for that proves God exist. also a counter to an argument wouldn't be evidence for "atheism", it would just be a counter to an argument, doesn't prove "atheism"

2, God exist, and just 1 piece of evidence makes "atheism" null and void. add that to the fact that there is more than 1 piece of evidence that proves God exist.

3, So I ask again, what proof or evidence is there for "atheism"?

For example, you claim that "fine tuning" is evidence that God exists. I deny that, and can provide a reasonable conclusion why "fine tuning" is NOT evidence that God exists. That shows that your claim is false, and that, after all, is all that my atheistic position tries to do: show that your's is false.

No that shows you think your opinion is evidence, that is absurd. your opinion isn't evidence, it has no authenticity. provide evidence if you want to object.

you did not prove how fine tuning could be chance or coincidence. so it still stands, Fine Tuning is on purpose.

This works (and has been shown to work) with about every single argument that theists use to "prove" their claims. They all have been shown to be either wrong, or at least to be unconclusive.

Where's your proof? Your word of mouth has no authenticity. provide evidence.

First uncaused cause: How about the universe is its own?

The universe had a beginning, thus it was caused. the cause must be uncaused, since the cause is uncaused, the cause is eternal. since the cause is eternal, the cause is changeless, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, and of which no greater can be conceived.

that can be one of 2, an abstract object such as numbers, or a mind.

abstract objects do not cause anything, thus the first uncaused cause is a mind, thus the first uncaused cause is God, God exist.

Morality: Humans are intelligent social animals that depend on each other, therefore morality is a necessary adaptation.

1, We are not animals, that is insulting to humanity.

2, morality rules us all, it is our duty, our responsibility. morals are universal law, thus they need a universal law giver. they are our duty, our law, thus the law of morality is obligated. the commander who obligates morality must have authority over all humanity and be above all of humanity.

who is the commander of morality that has the authority over all humanity and is above all humanity?

Only God can be the answer.

Fine tuning: If I puddle could talk, would it talk about how perfect the hole it found itself in fit it?

from whyIbelieve.org:

Essentially, this argument says "it's all a coincidence. Because in fact we are here, that proves that the improbable did happen." This is an appeal to infinite chances, which is an absurd notion. Infinity is a meta-physical notion, not observed anywhere in nature. William Lane Craig has created an analogy that describes the issue well. Suppose a prisoner was to be executed by a firing squad consisting of 100 sharpshooters at 10 paces. If the prisoner survives the firing squad, he would certainly be surprised. He could safely assume that there was intent behind his survival, since the odds of all 100 sharpshooters missing are absurd. Hence, when we consider the odds of our cosmos sustaining our life, we can safely assume intent behind our existence.

The Bible: Is the Koran proof of Islam?

Jesus Christ Resurrection, extra Biblical sources, historical accuracy, free from error and contradiction, approxmately 40 different witnesses of God, early Christian Martyrs confirm The Bible.

Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection: Where's the proof of this?

â€[bless and do not curse] Proof Jesus Christ is A.L.I.V.E. (Free gift included) â€[bless and do not curse] - YouTube

Intelligent design: Show me the theory of intelligent design and I may take it seriously.

Unintelligent Evolution & Intelligent Design. Testable Evidence of God.

Irreducible Complexity: Ignores means of evolution such as scaffolding, loss and change of parts, etc.

Irreducible complexity stands, if you object provide an example of an intelligent irreducible complex design that requires no designer, created itself accidentally, randomly, and from nothing, you will not find any.

Don't see any "proof" there... anything else?

I provided the proof, it's your presupposition, stop closing your eyes and covering your ears.

I don't need "proof" for a lack of conviction in something. You need to provide the "proof."

Yes you do, otherwise your "lack" of belief is unjustified, your arguments, and your "atheism" is null and void.

 

[Freodin]

No one has provided any evidence for "atheism" or any evidence against the evidence I provided which proves God exist, because there is no evidence against the evidence I provided.

Ok, you asked for it. You will get it. And I really really hope that you will then at least to stop making this special claim.

1, No one has countered any of the evidence I provided for that proves God exist. also a counter to an argument wouldn't be evidence for "atheism", it would just be a counter to an argument, doesn't prove "atheism"

2, God exist, and just 1 piece of evidence makes "atheism" null and void. add that to the fact that there is more than 1 piece of evidence that proves God exist.

3, So I ask again, what proof or evidence is there for "atheism"?

The evidence for atheism is the rebuttal of the evidences for theism, because atheism is a denial of the theistic claims. So if you claim that "argument X shows that God exists" and I can show that argument X does NOT show that God exists, it is evidence for my position, which is exactly the claim "your argument does not show that God exists".


So let's go through your "proven evidence for God":

- uncaused cause: is logically invalid. The one thing that you have shown when you follow this logic is that the laws of causality do not apply for the beginning. Thus you cannot use them to show anything specific. Following this logic, it is as valid to state "the cause of the universe is the universe itself."
Thus you could use this reasoning not only to show that it it does not point to God... you could use it to point to No-God.

- fine tuning: does not point to a God as cause for this. If fine-tuning was "on purpose" as you stated, that would imply that there was an outside standard that the creator-god would have to follow in order to build a working universe. But an omnipotent God would not be limited by mere physics.
A fine-tuned universe does not lead to the conclusion of anything other than: "the universe works in the way the universe works".
So quite contrary to a fine-tuned universe, it would be a NOT-fine-tuned univers that would point to a creator god who could set the rules to his whims.

- morality: is logically invalid. The only way to conclude that it points to a creator is the start with the assumption that it needs a creator. But there are alternatives, even if you don't like them. You would need to show that your claim tops the alternatives.

- The Bible: is not free from error or contradiction... the only way to keep to this claim is to start with this assumption and then resolve any existing errors and contradictions with this. Fails for the same reason as "morality": you cannot use your conclusion as a premise.

- Jeses resurrection: regardless of every claim to the contrary, every single "evidence" for the resurrection comes down to "our sources say he rose - we believe our sources". While you could count this as evidence, it is not very compelling and would be discarded (and IS discarded by Christians!) for every other supernatural claim.

- Intelligent design, irreducible complexity: fails for a similar reason as the morality and Bible argument: you need to start from the assumtion that biological structures IS intellegently designed and irreducible complex in order to show that.
And quite contrary to your challenge to show "example of an intelligent irreducible complex design that requires no designer", every single biological structure that was promoted as "irreducible complex" has been shown NOT TO BE.
Get it: IC might be used as evidence for ID... but biology IS NOT IC!

So all of your arguments fail. This is evidence that your promoted God IS NOT the God that you tried to show exists. It can even be used to show that this God DOES NOT exist.
And this is evidence for the atheistic claim: This God is one of the many who does not exist.

 

[Split Rock]

The universe had a beginning, thus it was caused. the cause must be uncaused, since the cause is uncaused, the cause is eternal. since the cause is eternal, the cause is changeless, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, and of which no greater can be conceived.

that can be one of 2, an abstract object such as numbers, or a mind.

abstract objects do not cause anything, thus the first uncaused cause is a mind, thus the first uncaused cause is God, God exist.

We don't know that the universe had a beginning.. it may be cyclic. We also don't know if your god had a beginning or not, since we cannot test anything about him. We only have your assertion that he is eternal.

1, We are not animals, that is insulting to humanity.

Biologically speaking we are animals:

an·i·mal   /ˈænəməl/ Show Spelled[an-uh-muhl] noun
1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
Animal | Define Animal at Dictionary.com

Nothing insulting about it. Your god made his perfect creation an animal. If you don't like that, too bad.

2, morality rules us all, it is our duty, our responsibility. morals are universal law, thus they need a universal law giver. they are our duty, our law, thus the law of morality is obligated. the commander who obligates morality must have authority over all humanity and be above all of humanity.

Morals are not universal. While there are moral values that tend to be common, morals differ between different societies and cultures. How can there be a universal law giver, if there is no universal law?

who is the commander of morality that has the authority over all humanity and is above all humanity?

Only God can be the answer.

Nothing but an assertion on your part. Plus, as I said, there is no "universal" lawgiver anyway.

from whyIbelieve.org:

Essentially, this argument says "it's all a coincidence. Because in fact we are here, that proves that the improbable did happen." This is an appeal to infinite chances, which is an absurd notion. Infinity is a meta-physical notion, not observed anywhere in nature. William Lane Craig has created an analogy that describes the issue well. Suppose a prisoner was to be executed by a firing squad consisting of 100 sharpshooters at 10 paces. If the prisoner survives the firing squad, he would certainly be surprised. He could safely assume that there was intent behind his survival, since the odds of all 100 sharpshooters missing are absurd. Hence, when we consider the odds of our cosmos sustaining our life, we can safely assume intent behind our existence.

There is nothing coincidental about the shape of the puddle I mentioned. Just as we are adapted to our environment, the puddle is "adapted" to its hole. In other words, we are the ones "fine tuned" to our environment, not the other way around.

Jesus Christ Resurrection, extra Biblical sources, historical accuracy, free from error and contradiction, approxmately 40 different witnesses of God, early Christian Martyrs confirm The Bible.

Free from any error or contradiction? Don't make me laugh! If that were true then there would be no need for Christian Apologetics, now would there??

Irreducible complexity stands, if you object provide an example of an intelligent irreducible complex design that requires no designer, created itself accidentally, randomly, and from nothing, you will not find any.

Evolution does not work this way. You have failed to defend I.C., therefore it fails with you.

I provided the proof, it's your presupposition, stop closing your eyes and covering your ears.

You have provided nothing but rhetoric and assertions.

Yes you do, otherwise your "lack" of belief is unjustified, your arguments, and your "atheism" is null and void.

Your lack of belief in evolution is unjustified, your arguments and your "faith" is null and void. See.. I can do it too!

 

[selfinflikted]

SavedByChrist94:

I'm confused when you ask for "proof" of atheism/agnosticism. What do you think those terms mean?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

So let's go through your "proven evidence for God":

- uncaused cause: is logically invalid. The one thing that you have shown when you follow this logic is that the laws of causality do not apply for the beginning. Thus you cannot use them to show anything specific. Following this logic, it is as valid to state "the cause of the universe is the universe itself."
Thus you could use this reasoning not only to show that it it does not point to God... you could use it to point to No-God.

Nope, your argument is null and void because the universe has a beginning thus it has a cause, the universe cannot cause itself, that is illogical and invalid. there is a first uncaused cause, and that is not the universe.

there is a first uncaused cause, and as explained the first uncaused cause can either be an abstract object, or a mind, and abstract objects do not cause anything, thus the first uncaused cause is a mind, thus the first uncaused cause is God. if you object, provide evidence.

- fine tuning: does not point to a God as cause for this. If fine-tuning was "on purpose" as you stated, that would imply that there was an outside standard that the creator-god would have to follow in order to build a working universe. But an omnipotent God would not be limited by mere physics.

No since, it is on purpose, there is a creator, God. you have provided no evidence on how it would be by accident or coincidence or chance.

A fine-tuned universe does not lead to the conclusion of anything other than: "the universe works in the way the universe works".
So quite contrary to a fine-tuned universe, it would be a NOT-fine-tuned univers that would point to a creator god who could set the rules to his whims.

You haven't shown how it could have happened by luck, chance, or coincidence. it is so fine tuned that it cannot be a coincidence.

- morality: is logically invalid. The only way to conclude that it points to a creator is the start with the assumption that it needs a creator. But there are alternatives, even if you don't like them. You would need to show that your claim tops the alternatives.

you need to provide evidence. I showed without even assuming that morals are commanded. thus have a commander that is above and has authority over all humanity. thus the commander is God.

also, which alternatives? morals are objective so they couldn't have evolved, so "evolution" is null and void. morals have authority over all humanity so they come from a higher being who has authority over all humanity, and morals are objective. so saying we make our own morals is null and void.

the only explanation is that God is the commander of morality.

- The Bible: is not free from error or contradiction... the only way to keep to this claim is to start with this assumption and then resolve any existing errors and contradictions with this. Fails for the same reason as "morality": you cannot use your conclusion as a premise.

Provide evidence, you haven't countered anything thus far.

- Jeses resurrection: regardless of every claim to the contrary, every single "evidence" for the resurrection comes down to "our sources say he rose - we believe our sources". While you could count this as evidence, it is not very compelling and would be discarded (and IS discarded by Christians!) for every other supernatural claim.

Every other explanation or theory is wrong. the only truth is that Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead, thus God exist. your presupposition doesn't change the fact that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ happened. if you object, provide evidence.

- Intelligent design, irreducible complexity: fails for a similar reason as the morality and Bible argument: you need to start from the assumtion that biological structures IS intellegently designed and irreducible complex in order to show that.

Not an assumption, but observation from the evidence. we are intelligently designed, thus we have an intelligent designer. if you object provide evidence.

And quite contrary to your challenge to show "example of an intelligent irreducible complex design that requires no designer every single biological structure that was promoted as "irreducible complex" has been shown NOT TO BE.
Get it: IC might be used as evidence for ID... but biology IS NOT IC!

your proof?, you still haven't provided an example or evidence of an intelligent irreducibly complex design that requires no designer, created itself accidentally, randomly and from nothing, because you don't have any.

The evidence for atheism is the rebuttal of the evidences for theism, because atheism is a denial of the theistic claims. So if you claim that "argument X shows that God exists" and I can show that argument X does NOT show that God exists, it is evidence for my position, which is exactly the claim "your argument does not show that God exists".

you haven't refuted any of the evidence I provided.

Ok, you asked for it. You will get it. And I really really hope that you will then at least to stop making this special claim.

And you didn't give anything, so I ask again, what proof and evidence is there for "atheism"?

you can either admit that there is no evidence for "atheism" because "atheism" doesn't exist, or delusionally ignore the question. there is no evidence for "atheism", if there was, you would have answered already. "atheism" doesn't exist. your "atheism" is null and void.

We don't know that the universe had a beginning.. it may be cyclic.

Yes we do. Infinite regression is impossible, the evidence shows universe had a beginning

We also don't know if your god had a beginning or not, since we cannot test anything about him. We only have your assertion that he is eternal.

God is uncaused, thus eternal, thus will always exist. you cannot apply laws created by the creator to the creator of that law.

Biologically speaking we are animals:

an·i·mal   /ˈænəməl/ Show Spelled[an-uh-muhl] noun
1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
Animal | Define Animal at Dictionary.com

Nothing insulting about it. Your god made his perfect creation an animal. If you don't like that, too bad.

Nope, we might all be living, be we aren't animals. "macro-evolution" didn't happen. animals do not have the intelligence that humans have, you comparing us to something below us is nonsensical.

God says we are above the animals, thus, we aren't animals.

Genesis 1:28 - God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”

Morals are not universal. While there are moral values that tend to be common, morals differ between different societies and cultures. How can there be a universal law giver, if there is no universal law?

answer this question, can rape ever be justified? hopefully you are sane and answer no.

that shows morals are objective.

Nothing but an assertion on your part. Plus, as I said, there is no "universal" lawgiver anyway.

Exactly, as you said. your say so is not evidence, because your word of mouth has no authenticity, it isn't evidence. as I proved, morals are commanded by an authority who is above humanity. the commander of morality is God.

There is nothing coincidental about the shape of the puddle I mentioned. Just as we are adapted to our environment, the puddle is "adapted" to its hole. In other words, we are the ones "fine tuned" to our environment, not the other way around.

1, We did not evolve. 2, The universe is so fine tuned that one hair away, and life is over. it is not our perception, but that really is how it is, it's so specific that it cannot be coincidence. a clock for example, is so fine tuned to work, that isn't a coincidence, that is because it was made like that on purpose.

Free from any error or contradiction? Don't make me laugh! If that were true then there would be no need for Christian Apologetics, now would there??

Provide proof. insults, assumptions, jokes, presupposition, and opinions is not proof.

Evolution does not work this way. You have failed to defend I.C., therefore it fails with you.

When did I fail to defend IC? you have failed to defend "macro-evolution" and "atheism".

if you object, provide an example, or evidence of an intelligent irreducibly complex design that requires no designer, created itself accidentally, randomly and from nothing. you will not find any.

You have provided nothing but rhetoric and assertions.

You have it backwards, I provide proof, and all you say is that it isn't proof, when that doesn't refute anything. you have to provide counter evidence, but you cannot because there is no counter evidence. the evidence I provided is proven, if you could counter it, you would have already.

Your lack of belief in evolution is unjustified, your arguments and your "faith" is null and void. See.. I can do it too!

Nope, because I provided evidence why "macro-evolution" didn't happen and proved with evidence that Christianity is the truth.

whereas you provided no proof and evidence for "atheism". "atheism" is nonexistent.

SavedByChrist94:

I'm confused when you ask for "proof" of atheism/agnosticism. What do you think those terms mean?

Proof and evidence for a "lack" of belief, or against God's existence, which no one has given because there is no evidence for it. there is evidence that proves God exist which I have provided. no one has provided any evidence for "atheism".

"atheism" is null and void, there are no "atheist", it is unjustified and false. "atheism" doesn't exist.

 

[keith99]

Actually Christianity can be backed up with proven evidence, First Uncaused Cause, Morality, Fine Tuning, The Bible, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity.

Now, where's your evidence for "atheism" or "agnostics"? there's no evidence for "atheism" or "agnostics".

Yes! The eye is a great example of irreducable complexity.

Oh wait, I'm sorry it is a great example of Christians not doing any homework.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Yes! The eye is a great example of irreducable complexity.

Oh wait, I'm sorry it is a great example of Christians not doing any homework.

Insults, jokes, assumptions, presupposition, and opinions are not evidence for "atheism"/"agnostics".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Atheism needs no proof. It is simply the state of being unconvinced by god-claims.

 

[Elendur]

Nope, your argument is null and void because the universe has a beginning thus it has a cause, the universe cannot cause itself, that is illogical and invalid. there is a first uncaused cause, and that is not the universe.

How do you know that the universe has a beginning?
If it had a beginning, why must it have a cause?
Why can't the universe cause itself?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Atheism needs no proof. It is simply the state of being unconvinced by god-claims.

you need proof and evidence to back up your "lack" of belief. since you cannot provide any, it is unjustified, and "atheism" doesn't exist.

How do you know that the universe has a beginning?
If it had a beginning, why must it have a cause?
Why can't the universe cause itself?

Infinite regression is impossible. evidence suggest the universe had a beginning.

Since the universe had a beginning, it was brought into existence, thus there is a cause that brought it into existence.

since infinite regression is impossible, there is a first uncaused cause. since the uncaused cause is uncaused, the uncaused cause is eternal. since the uncaused cause is eternal. the uncaused cause is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immaterial. since the first uncaused cause is the cause of everything, the first uncaused cause which no greater can be conceived.

that can be 1 of 2, an abstract object such as numbers, or a mind. since abstract objects do not cause anything, the first uncaused cause is a mind, therefore the first uncaused cause is God, God exist.