"proofs" and "disproofs" of God's existence

[JGL53]

This all seems a big waste of time. I just assume that a god, like a leprechaun, is imaginary - each is apparently just a construction of the human mind.

Proof or disproof of either seems rather impossible - unless one shows up one day. That seems no more likely than the possibility that one day three-headed orange monkeys will fly out of George Bush's butt.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

1. Everything that has a biginning has a cause.

2. The universe had a biginning.

3. The universe had a cause.

It's very simple.

Care for a bit of challenge?

1) "Everything has a cause" - "but this can not be proven, only accepted by evidence" - yes, it can be proven.

2) "The universe had a beginning because it would take an infinite amount of time to get to any one point on an infinite time line." -

This is lacking in a complete description of the situation. There are 2 concerns that you have left out both of which void that argument.

a) Look to your left for an infinite distance, Look to your right for an infinite distance. If you are standing on an infinitely long line, then the probability that you exist at any one point on that line (such as the one you are standing on) is zero, thus you must not exist on the line at all??

In your proposed infinite time line, realize that you are only here to ask the question when you are the domino next in line to fall. The infinite amount of time before you was already provided for else you wouldn't be here to ask the question.

b) Suppose that the universe as we know it is cyclic in nature and through its infinite cyclicing, it created all that we see and destroyed all that we see in a repeating fashion. This would mean that within any one cycle, a finite amount of time occurred. But it also means that there would be an infinite number of these occurrences. This means that it does not take an infinite amount of time to get up to the point where you can ask the question. It means that you have asked that same question an infinite number of times before and will ask it an infinite number of times again. Infinity divided by infinity = finite = where you are at the moment.

3) "The universe had a cause" -
The universe most certainly did NOT have a cause. This is why you can never find it. Think about what a cause is.

A cause is that which was before (in time) the effect, but what is time? Time is a measurement of relative motion. For time to exist, there must be something to provide motion. Without the universe time cannot exist. Without time, there are no causes.

Thus there can be no "before the universe began". This would imply (only imply) that the universe did not begin, but must have always been.

In fact, our universe DID have a beginning, but not for the reasons you have provided.

More importantly

You have stated that it was God that began the universe. Without a clear discrete definition of "God", how can you discuss anything about God, included God's existence? You claim that whatever caused the universe must have been "God". So if they find that something very simple minded actually caused the universe, then the God of the Bible necessarily is that simple minded thing?

Ask yourself this;
Is science discovering that there is no God, or discovering God bit by bit that has always been and simply has trouble seeing the forest for the trees because everyone refuses to define what a forest is?

 

[mae300]

I have a question on the first argument was given that there cannot be a God because evil exists....Does that mean there cannot be a devil? Because no God therefore no devil can exist because without the devil... no evil can exist right?....Just a thought

 

[ReluctantProphet]

This all seems a big waste of time. I just assume that a god, like a leprechaun, is imaginary - each is apparently just a construction of the human mind.

Proof or disproof of either seems rather impossible -

I must agree, to discuss the possible existence of something without knowing what it is, is rather ridiculus and a waste.

First agree on what your are talking about (what "God" is) THEN argue about its nature.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I have a question on the first argument was given that there cannot be a God because evil exists....Does that mean there cannot be a devil? Because no God therefore no devil can exist because without the devil... no evil can exist right?....Just a thought

This becomes an issue only because of the confusion concerning God versus the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is totally benvolent and refuses all evil intent.

God is entirely another matter.

 

[OObi]

Care for a bit of challenge?

1) "Everything has a cause" - "but this can not be proven, only accepted by evidence" - yes, it can be proven.

Then do so...

2) "The universe had a beginning because it would take an infinite amount of time to get to any one point on an infinite time line." -

This is lacking in a complete description of the situation. There are 2 concerns that you have left out both of which void that argument.

a) Look to your left for an infinite distance, Look to your right for an infinite distance. If you are standing on an infinitely long line, then the probability that you exist at any one point on that line (such as the one you are standing on) is zero, thus you must not exist on the line at all??

In your proposed infinite time line, realize that you are only here to ask the question when you are the domino next in line to fall. The infinite amount of time before you was already provided for else you wouldn't be here to ask the question.

Ummm... excuse my sarcasam, but isn't this my argument???

Notice the word you used in your last paragraph. "The infinite amount of time before you was already provided." Is that your way of escaping "the infinite amount of time before you is already past"???

Please explain what the difference between provided and past mean here. If they are the same, then an infinte amount can not be passed, so therefore a biginning.

b) Suppose that the universe as we know it is cyclic in nature and through its infinite cyclicing, it created all that we see and destroyed all that we see in a repeating fashion. This would mean that within any one cycle, a finite amount of time occurred. But it also means that there would be an infinite number of these occurrences. This means that it does not take an infinite amount of time to get up to the point where you can ask the question. It means that you have asked that same question an infinite number of times before and will ask it an infinite number of times again. Infinity divided by infinity = finite = where you are at the moment.

First of all, to have a biginning, you don't need a line. Whether it be a circle or line, there is always a biginning point. You say there is finite time in there? Well, there can not be a infinte amount of regressions into the past. You say that it doesn't take an infinte amount of time to get to the point where you ask the question, but then you continue and say that you have asked the question infinte times before? That doesn't add up to me.

Second of all, you started this one off well when you said suppose. There is no evidence at all for this, this is all pure speculation. No facts or evidence support this claim.

A cause is that which was before (in time) the effect, but what is time? Time is a measurement of relative motion. For time to exist, there must be something to provide motion. Without the universe time cannot exist. Without time, there are no causes.

Nuh uh uh... (waves finger). Without time, there can be no dependent causes. There can be no causes that require time, there can only be causes that are eternal in nature. That is why we dub them "super-natural".

More importantly

You have stated that it was God that began the universe. Without a clear discrete definition of "God", how can you discuss anything about God, included God's existence? You claim that whatever caused the universe must have been "God". So if they find that something very simple minded actually caused the universe, then the God of the Bible necessarily is that simple minded thing?

Ask yourself this;
Is science discovering that there is no God, or discovering God bit by bit that has always been and simply has trouble seeing the forest for the trees because everyone refuses to define what a forest is?

I made the statement at the end of my last post for a reason (this being that reason). This argument doesn't necessarily prove the YHWH of the bible, but it does prove a supernatural. And just for you, my defenition of supernatural is existing outside of time, eternally.

Hope this helps, OObi

 

[lawtonfogle]

P1. Asimov does not believe in God.
P2. Asimov is reeeeeallly freakin smart.
P3. I mean really freakin smart.

C. God does not exist.

P1. Asimov does not believe in God.
P2. Asimov is being egotistic without evidence to his claim.
P3. I mean really freakin egosistic.

C. Asimov needs to provide proof of him being smart.

 

[michabo]

No offence, but in your entire post, I see nothing but the lack of any real understanding of reasoning and logic. Interesting that you insist on it, yet have so much trouble with it.

Are you just going to ever substantiate any of your claims, or are you content to develop your theme of ad hominem?

 

[michabo]

1. Everything that has a biginning has a cause.
[...]
Everything ever that we have witnessed has had a biginning. Nothing has ever just come into existance.

How do you know?

What is "everything"?

What is a "beginning"?

What is a "cause"?

 

[OObi]

How do you know?

What is "everything"?

What is a "beginning"?

What is a "cause"?

Everything is what our observations have covered. Objects, people, things, places all fall under everything because we have all observed those things. (This is what I mean be everything, I'm not using the conventional defenition of everything here)

A biginning is when something starts existing.

A cause is something that provided the, for lack of a better word, 'energy' for that beginning to happen.

 

[michabo]

A biginning is when something starts existing.

Can you tell me something, anything, which begins to exist?

What is its cause?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Can you tell me something, anything, which begins to exist?

What is its cause?

A building.

The building isn't a building until its completion. The effort that provided the gathering of all of the materials and such along with those materials being available, was the cause of it coming into existence.

 

[michabo]

A building.

The building isn't a building until its completion. The effort that provided the gathering of all of the materials and such along with those materials being available, was the cause of it coming into existence.

Yes, the shape of the materials have changed, but nothing has really begun to exist, has it? I mean, the concrete, wood, metal and everything else which went to make the building was already in existence and just needed some manipulation.

This doesn't seem to have much bearing on the universe or matter in general (I assume that's what we're really talking about, here). Unless you think that all of this matter was already present and God just moulded it into shape like carpenters will shape wood to make a roof.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Yes, the shape of the materials have changed, but nothing has really begun to exist, has it?

You are confusing what defines a "thing". A thing must have its own set of properties independent of any other thing. The elements which brought the thing into being are not the same as the thing itself. If you believe otherwise, then you should be quite happy and healthy eating dirt, water, and basking in the sun.

The nutrients in plants that keep you alive are created from the non-nutrients (to you) in the soil.

If you are only talking about something coming from nothing, then you are not saying or asking any more than "how did the universe come into being". But you asked to name "one thing". This is very different than asking where ALL things began.

Unless you think that all of this matter was already present and God just moulded it into shape like carpenters will shape wood to make a roof.

Actually, yes that is exactly the case. And interesting that you should chose a "carpenter" in your example.

 

[michabo]

If you are only talking about something coming from nothing, then you are not saying or asking any more than "how did the universe come into being".

Well, if these are your definitions and examples, you have a major problem.

Your "come into being" or "has a beginning" is just a re-arrangement of existing material. In the sylogism presented, it asserts that he universe has a beginning, but it is not true that the universe has a begining in this sense. Unlike a building which needs builders to prop it into position, the matter in the universe did not previously exist.

If you think it did, then there is nothing for God to do but arrange it. It is a trivial matter to show that the only arrangement necessary comes from chemistry and physics.


So, can you think of anything which has a begining comparable enough to the begining of the universe to allow this argument to proceed? If you want to stick to your building example, then fine. But the rest of your argument is trivially false as the conclusions don't follow from the premises.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Unlike a building which needs builders to prop it into position, the matter in the universe did not previously exist.

Did I say that the universe had a beginning?

If you think it did, then there is nothing for God to do but arrange it. It is a trivial matter to show that the only arrangement necessary comes from chemistry and physics.

neither chemistry nor physics answers the question of where energy came from. They are desperately attempting that now, but do not see that there can be no cause before existence simply because there can be no "before existence" because to have a "before" you must have time and to have time, you must have relative motion such as to produce it.

So, can you think of anything which has a beginning comparable enough to the beginning of the universe to allow this argument to proceed?

No, because the confusion between understanding that "a thing" (including the entire universe as a thing) and what constitutes "cause" is the mental problem.

If you want to stick to your building example, then fine. But the rest of your argument is trivially false as the conclusions don't follow from the premises.

State what you thought my "premises "were, because I don't see any conflict.

 

[michabo]

Did I say that the universe had a beginning?

I see you had one post about this old sylogism, but reading back in the thread, I can't tell if you agree with it or disagree. It was Obbi's post, and I was replying to him. When you jumped in to answer questions clearly directed to him, I can only asume that you are willing to champion his cause.

He had said clearly:

1. Everything that has a biginning has a cause.

2. The universe had a biginning.

3. The universe had a cause.
​

When you replied, I had quoted this, so you should have been aware of the context, and what was meant my "begining". Notice that point 2 states clearly the observation that the universe has a begining.

I am questioning what "begining" can mean in this context, and what evidence we have of anything begining.

Before I go on, I want to ask: just what is your point in replying to me? I don't care to get into some semantic discussion about beginings as it really doesn't matter to me how you want to define "begining" unless it is in the context of a larger argument. And right now, I've no idea what your point is.

neither chemistry nor physics answers the question of where energy came from. They are desperately attempting that now, but do not see that there can be no cause before existence simply because there can be no "before existence" because to have a "before" you must have time and to have time, you must have relative motion such as to produce it.

Again, what's your point? Are you trying to argue for something? You are mistaken about physics and cosmology, but without knowing just what you're talking about, I don't want to go further.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

..I am questioning what "begining" can mean in this context, and what evidence we have of anything begining... Before I go on, I want to ask: just what is your point in replying to me?

My point was that the evidence of how "one thing" or "any one thing" might have come to be has nothing to do with how the entire universe came to be.

I don't care to get into some semantic discussion about beginings as it really doesn't matter to me how you want to define "begining" unless it is in the context of a larger argument.

semantics is the only reason the argument is continuing and until you bother to get your semantics right, then argument will pointlessly continue.

SEMANTICS has EVERYTHING to do with it.

You are mistaken about physics and cosmology,

I seriously doubt that one and can't see how you could argue, but we can take that up in a different thread sometime.

 

[michabo]

ReluctantProphet,

Since you don't seem to have a point to make, and you seem to be interested only in starting fights, I would appreciate if you would allow Obbi to speak for himself and not interrupt.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I might add (speaking of semantics) that the God of Moses is about the creation or beginning of EACH and every thing, not the beginning of the entire universe. The Bible never said that God created the initial void.

You might as well be asking where that void came from. The subject has nothing to do with the God of the Bible.

The entire discussion is a misunderstanding of SEMANTICS.

The simple statement that "God created Himself" should clue you into exactly who God must be.