What Convinced you God Exists?

cvanwey · May 1, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
In a sense, I suppose, it could be said that since First Cause is complete, to which nothing can be added, that matter existed 'within' him. Problem with that is that First Cause cannot be depleted. Yes, I know that is assertion, but it is drawn on good philosophy, I think. I like to think that the most basic component of matter/force is actually something about God --the very physical thing he calls love.

This explanation just sounds like a form of pantheism???

Mark Quayle said:
Also, some philosophers like to speculate that this existence we enjoy is not 'real' in the same sense as God is real, and we are in essence and maintenance only figments of God's imagination; and while I agree there is something to that, it is only stated from our limited human viewpoint, and not altogether accurate. I bring that up because it seems possible that this whole reality of existence is only as God sees it.

Though anything is 'possible', and I have not explored this claimed concept, it however looks to contradict the Bible? If we are not real, and only a figment of God's imagination, than we, as individuals, are not accountable for what we do?

Mark Quayle said:
Anyhow, I have no real problem with any of the three notions --that 1. God can make something out of nothing, or 2. make it 'of himself', or that this all 3. only in God's mind, though from a Christian viewpoint, the last one is a bit difficult, since the death of Christ, who is God, the son of God, was real death. But I do not think this reality is on a par with the economy from which God operates.

1. If 'God can make something out of nothing', then my prior given claim is irrelevant, and also not actually the case.
2. Pantheism???
3. I'm glad we seem to agree that this claim looks to contradict Biblical assertion.

Mark Quayle said:
The statement, 'matter cannot be created or destroyed', is essentially (to me at least) the same as saying, "matter exists, and cannot not exist."

I disagree. Your given response looks to only deal with "matter cannot be destroyed." It says nothing about the existence of matter. IF matter always existed, then you look to be invoking pantheism??? And if so, then looks to move you further away from Christianity vs. instead towards it..?

Mark Quayle said:
The heavy lifting indeed I have not shown you, though to my mind it is obvious that there must be first cause. If one can claim that matter had no beginning, then how can one claim that the chain of cause and effect had does not prevail? As we discussed before, the only out for that is a substitute for first cause --i.e. infinite regression of causes. (Which answers nothing, but has a sweet feel of poetic balance with matter having no beginning. ("Nothing to see here, folks, move on").) As a more capable friend of mine says, infinite regression is infinite question begging.

Something which always existed, would have no 'first cause' Thus, your proposal does not look to apply here?

Please remember, you are claiming that 'God' had to cause. In part, because the claim is that He always was, and always will be. Well, if matter falls under the same category, then why are you creating special rules for (God), and not (matter)?

Mark Quayle said:
But "theory of relativity" and "gravity" aren't thoroughly explained. We only see relationships and behavior, not the why behind them. The more we have learned the more questions have shown up. We are not the grown-ups; we are still the children asking, "But, why?". The scientists still scratch their heads too.

Sure, but isn't it kind of like a 'child' to then invoke a God? Remember where the assertion of Thor came from? ---> "The cause of the lightening is Thor!" Thor is the 'the cause' of lightening.

Mark Quayle said:
The lack of satisfying conclusions is not the reason to accept the God claim. The 'conclusions', both satisfying and un-satisfying, seem to me to still call for First Cause. As I have told others, the farther back science and philosophy goes into cause and nature of existence/ reality the more I see the necessity of First Cause, and the more of what I deem to be his character is to be seen throughout. Yeah, I know --assertion... lol, sorry.

If matter has always existed, then to claim a "first cause" seems like a nonsensical notion to even entertain.

Mark Quayle said:
I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are asking who else agrees with me, that is an 'expert' in the field of cosmology? Einstein is one who is said to have believed in God, Deistically. At the least, he was agnostic. William Lane Craig is probably the best known, currently, at least as an apologist; though his field is Philosophy, the interconnections between philosophy and cosmology are becoming more obvious as study continues. Anyhow, I don't know of many who are simply cosmologists, and I don't refer to any to make my arguments, mostly because I haven't read many.

Here's a list of supposed Christians in the fields of physics and astronomy.

You stated you may not be able to explain the concept of "matter can neither be created nor destroyed", and how this assertion can (also) be compatible with 'first cause'. Rather than give me a book list, have you ever researched this topic yourself? If so, what specific sources seem to stand out for you? We could both be assigned to read the same material, and come to differing conclusions. Or, you might find some information to be compelling, where I might gloss right over it?

Mark Quayle said:
1/Don't mind at all. I live in America, which seems predominantly lazy agnostic to me.
2/(Very short version of the story) I'm an 'MK' (missionary kid), parents evangelical Christians, devout, somewhat fundamentalist, mother somewhat Wesleyan, Father somewhat Calvinist, though he never said so, and never taught us Calvinism as such. Father a New Testament Greek expert, mother and father both fluent bilingual Spanish /English speaking. My parents being teachers at a Bible 'Institute' in Spanish, I grew up among Christians, went to school at a missionary kids school, etc.

My parents always had us kids, every night before bed, do family devotions with them, including a lot of Bible memorization and a reading from the Bible. I was a believer before I can remember. Later, when is saw my life didn't fit the theory others (not just my parents) taught, I began sincere study on my own, trying to make sense of what I was told by others. Slowly I began to conclude on what I later came to find out was mostly called Reformed theology. I.e. I was never taught Calvinism as such.

3/The Bible is a lot more than a book of claims. I can easily see a philosopher compile a reason for everything I myself consider logically extrapolating from Omnipotence and First Cause, to come to a more or less equivalent description of God that I hold to, without going far enough to admit the divinity of Christ. I cannot see such a book as entirely logical that disagrees with the Bible, but only failing to address certain aspects. There are several that I have looked at, that are philosophical in nature, but to me do not quite address, or even reject, what I consider logically necessary attributes of Omnipotence. All books that I have encountered opposing the Bible fall short logically, in my opinion, in addressing omnipotence, so I don't know how to answer your question. Any book that seems to me fully logical supports the bible, so far.

My suspicions for 1 and 2 seem to, at least in part, confirm my hypothesis. Remember when I told you prior, that we may be more alike than we both want to admit? Here, we both look to be the product of indoctrination

3. Have you read all opposing books? I doubt you have, But even if you have, I remember hearing in debate, a while back... Something to the tune of...

"When religious students of all kinds take comparative religions course(s), you hardly ever see anyone coming out of there changing their current religion."

Mark Quayle said:
I meant your question included what seemed to me a redundancy, mentioning 'God' and YHWH when to me they are necessarily one and the same.

No it is not a redundancy. Even in your own case... "God' could be a differing 'God' than the one for which you ascribe. "First cause" is not YHWH, by mere default.

Mark Quayle said:
Of course, I have to admit I can fool myself as to the source, and no doubt have even done so at times, but what I am talking about is not a 'leading' so much as what actually ends up happening. I am not the driver in my life. Lol, I almost hope that is as disappointing to hear as it is unsatisfactory, because to be honest I would rather you experienced it than to merely hear it from me.

Honesty is never unsatisfying to me

I asked a few posts prior, but don't recall getting an answer? Can you name for me the strongest singular interactive event, for which you attributed to God communicating with you? And further, how did you know it was the God for which you believe?

And to respond to what you stated above, yes! If I do not experience it myself, firsthand, your anecdotal claims will likely not persuade me to believe like you But I want to know your BEST experience, and how you were able to conclude YHWH, verses an infinite number of alternatives???

Mark Quayle said:
The other claimed sources, so far, don't add up to what I see as necessary attributes of First Cause. YHWH fits precisely, other than the Bible makes statements about him that I have not found in my extrapolations. But my extrapolations don't at all deny any of those claims. Confirmation bias? Maybe.

Maybe it's a little more than maybe?

Mark Quayle · May 1, 2021

cvanwey said:
This explanation just sounds like a form of pantheism???

I've been accused of that before. No, this is not God himself, but something from him. We by no means thus comprise God.

cvanwey said:
Though anything is 'possible', and I have not explored this claimed concept, it however looks to contradict the Bible? If we are not real, and only a figment of God's imagination, than we, as individuals, are not accountable for what we do?

Who's to say what reality is, then? To say we are merely figments of God's imagination is only an attempt to get an idea across. But I don't say that, anyway.

Your remark, and mine, for some reason bring back this question of chance and possibility. I can't help but smile at the thought, that anything can really be possible, but whatever is actual. "Possible" is a result of the mind's guessing.

cvanwey said:
1. If 'God can make something out of nothing', then my prior given claim is irrelevant, and also not actually the case.
2. Pantheism???
3. I'm glad we seem to agree that this claim looks to contradict Biblical assertion.

1. Yes, I think the claim of Christianity, that God made it all out of nothing, is, in part, done to show that there was no pre-existing matter, and to counter the notion of pantheism.
2. No, definitely not pantheism. Of him, but not depleting him in the least, nor can it add to him. 'From' his nature; this is not him spreading himself around. Yet upheld by him. "In him we live and move and have our being."
3. Understand with any of these three, when I say I have no real problem with them, I only mean that there is something to them, in their simplest form, that makes sense. The implications people draw from them, I do have problems with.

cvanwey said:
I disagree. Your given response looks to only deal with "matter cannot be destroyed." It says nothing about the existence of matter. IF matter always existed, then you look to be invoking pantheism??? And if so, then looks to move you further away from Christianity vs. instead towards it..?

Not pantheism. I was just trying to show the only way I can think of that one can say truly, that matter always existed. It is sketchy to me too. Beyond my brain.

cvanwey said:
Something which always existed, would have no 'first cause' Thus, your proposal does not look to apply here?

Please remember, you are claiming that 'God' had to cause. In part, because the claim is that He always was, and always will be. Well, if matter falls under the same category, then why are you creating special rules for (God), and not (matter)?

Good point. Worth keeping in mind when I try to put concepts into words. If there is validity to the notion (which I don't hold to, as you seem to be taking it) of matter always existing because of being from God, it still must mean FROM God. Not it being God himself. But then, I'll sound like I'm contradicting myself to say it always was... Oh well, it was fun to talk about, but I can happily abandon it anyway, since I can't make good sense of it.

cvanwey said:
Sure, but isn't it kind of like a 'child' to then invoke a God? Remember where the assertion of Thor came from? ---> "The cause of the lightening is Thor!" Thor is the 'the cause' of lightening.

Nothing wrong with a child realizing the necessity of God. But this God is uncaused First Cause. Not merely 'cause'.

cvanwey said:
If matter has always existed, then to claim a "first cause" seems like a nonsensical notion to even entertain.

Lolol, yes, as you have been saying. I don't say matter has always existed. Nor, as I have said, does the principle that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, have any authority beyond what we have observed and concluded. If First Cause, then the existence of matter is caused, unless matter is first cause, which to me is ludicrous --it would make more sense to say Existence is first cause, but even that doesn't make sense, unless Existence is more than mere principle --because logically First Cause is With Intent.

cvanwey said:
You stated you may not be able to explain the concept of "matter can neither be created nor destroyed", and how this assertion can (also) be compatible with 'first cause'. Rather than give me a book list, have you ever researched this topic yourself? If so, what specific sources seem to stand out for you? We could both be assigned to read the same material, and come to differing conclusions. Or, you might find some information to be compelling, where I might gloss right over it?

I'm guessing you mean by "You stated you may not be able to explain the concept of "matter can neither be created nor destroyed", and how this assertion can (also) be compatible with 'first cause'." something different from what I said, that the statement concerns the nature of what exists, not how it came to exist. If God had some reason to spread out an new universe to add to this one, he would not ask permission or explain himself. And if we were somehow aware he had done that, we would have to adjust our child's prattle.

cvanwey said:
My suspicions for 1 and 2 seem to, at least in part, confirm my hypothesis. Remember when I told you prior, that we may be more alike than we both want to admit? Here, we both look to be the product of indoctrination

3. Have you read all opposing books? I doubt you have, But even if you have, I remember hearing in debate, a while back... Something to the tune of...

"When religious students of all kinds take comparative religions course(s), you hardly ever see anyone coming out of there changing their current religion."

Everyone is a product of their indoctrination, to some degree. With me, what indoctrination sticks that I believed, was the raw notions of the nature of God in predestination, sovereignty, omnipotence, goodness, personhood, and a few other things, and the Biblical teachings of the substitution of Christ for the payment of my sin, and quite a few other related things. What I was not well taught is the absolute inability of man to do anything to merit grace.

cvanwey said:
No it is not a redundancy. Even in your own case... "God' could be a differing 'God' than the one for which you ascribe. "First cause" is not YHWH, by mere default.

I disagree. How could God be a differing God from the one who is by Definition Omnipotent First Cause? That IS the description of YHWH. Put any other names you wish to those, and it is still the same being. If the other descriptions accompanying those are different from the Bible's descriptions of YHWH, then I will draw them out to show they are not after all Omnipotent (and, actually, I spend more time doing that with Christians who draw a different God, only 'sort of' omnipotent, only 'sort of' first cause, than with those of other religions or atheists/agnostics. I used to tell a Black-Muslim friend of mine that his concept of God was easier for me to talk with him about, than the concept many Christians had, for me to talk with them about.)<--- awkward sentence, brain's tired, tonight.

cvanwey said:
Honesty is never unsatisfying to me

I asked a few posts prior, but don't recall getting an answer? Can you name for me the strongest singular interactive event, for which you attributed to God communicating with you? And further, how did you know it was the God for which you believe?

And to respond to what you stated above, yes! If I do not experience it myself, firsthand, your anecdotal claims will likely not persuade me to believe like you But I want to know your BEST experience, and how you were able to conclude YHWH, verses an infinite number of alternatives???

The most flashy and spectacular would be the dream/vision I had. But it could have been my brain playing with me, but the impression was so powerful that I don't think I'll ever forget it, or do anything in this life without the influence that it puts on me. In a way, it has become part of me.

The strongest would be the continual 'conversation' with God, thoughts coming to mind of all sorts --conscience, assurances, comfort, companionship, listening and asking, corrections, guidance, and "following in his wake", so to speak. And that too could be my brain playing with me, but I WAY don't think so. To me it is simply undeniable.

Both of those move me to do according to his Word (sorry, but yeah), and continual submission to and enjoyment of his person. They both leave me feeling a bit removed from the dependence on mundane things, and to realize that HE is what I want (sorry, again, but yeah).

There have been many things that I consider 'miracle' or extraordinary acts of God, in my life, none of which I can prove. The biggest, of course, is my changed heart, but you probably would prefer to hear about my encounters with demons or my truck being pushed out of a ditch by no observable cause, or so many other events. Sorry. Those are not the biggest. They are also undeniable, as many other things are, to my mind, but yeah, my mind could be playing with me on those too.

cvanwey said:
Maybe it's a little more than maybe?

Maybe. Confirmation bias has a lot of friends. Funny thing is, in a sense, even scientific inquiry operates that way. Think of all the experiments done under supposed "isolation" that nobody considered the possibility that gravity could have unknown effects. The ones that did, tried to counter it by doing things in satellites and such but that only counters the gravity, it doesn't undo it.

I have more than an inkling that there is something right in front of our faces that we ALL fail to see.

cvanwey · May 3, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
Not pantheism. I was just trying to show the only way I can think of that one can say truly, that matter always existed. It is sketchy to me too. Beyond my brain.

But if you truly do not understand the concept of "matter always existing" as a possibility, why not just say, "I don't know", versus, "matter must still come from a God anyways"? Isn't this exposing fallacious reasoning?

Mark Quayle said:
Good point. Worth keeping in mind when I try to put concepts into words. If there is validity to the notion (which I don't hold to, as you seem to be taking it) of matter always existing because of being from God, it still must mean FROM God. Not it being God himself. But then, I'll sound like I'm contradicting myself to say it always was... Oh well, it was fun to talk about, but I can happily abandon it anyway, since I can't make good sense of it.

I think we are still not connecting here You seem to be trying to smuggle in a bit of special pleading here. Why?

[God] = causeless, always was, and always will be ---> eternal. Can neither be created nor destroyed.

Now just replace the word [God] with [matter].

If matter always was, it had no 'first cause'. Sure, it can change form, but to also say matter was initially 'caused', is illogical.

If matter is eternal, like some cosmologists seem to suggest, why can't the same rules apply for matter? And if the same rules apply to matter, for which we are both pretty sure actually exists, then maybe to try and also smuggle in the "concept of God", seems then quite redundant and unnecessary?

Mark Quayle said:
Nothing wrong with a child realizing the necessity of God. But this God is uncaused First Cause. Not merely 'cause'.

To merely assert/conclude a "first cause", when still not even knowing if matter is eternal, seems rash How about, we do not know yet, or, may never truly know?

Mark Quayle said:
Lolol, yes, as you have been saying. I don't say matter has always existed. Nor, as I have said, does the principle that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, have any authority beyond what we have observed and concluded. If First Cause, then the existence of matter is caused, unless matter is first cause, which to me is ludicrous --it would make more sense to say Existence is first cause, but even that doesn't make sense, unless Existence is more than mere principle --because logically First Cause is With Intent.

Please see my response above, about replacing the word [God] with [matter].

Mark Quayle said:
Everyone is a product of their indoctrination, to some degree. With me, what indoctrination sticks that I believed, was the raw notions of the nature of God in predestination, sovereignty, omnipotence, goodness, personhood, and a few other things, and the Biblical teachings of the substitution of Christ for the payment of my sin, and quite a few other related things. What I was not well taught is the absolute inability of man to do anything to merit grace.

This is likely because you were predominantly exposed to Christianity. Just like me. If we were both raised in India, you might now be attempting to justify a form of Hinduism? Where-as I, may or may not any longer ascribe to these opposing religious assertions.

And yes, Christianity seems to tell it's readers that humans are not worthy of salvation on their own, no matter what. And hence, God had to provide a loophole. Which begs the question, why impose a giant list of morals to follow, via the Commandments, if following them cannot earn you salvation regardless? But I digress here... Why? If this God does exist, He can institute any playbook He chooses

Mark Quayle said:
I disagree. How could God be a differing God from the one who is by Definition Omnipotent First Cause?

Simple. E.W.S.

Mark Quayle said:
The most flashy and spectacular would be the dream/vision I had. But it could have been my brain playing with me, but the impression was so powerful that I don't think I'll ever forget it, or do anything in this life without the influence that it puts on me. In a way, it has become part of me.

The strongest would be the continual 'conversation' with God, thoughts coming to mind of all sorts --conscience, assurances, comfort, companionship, listening and asking, corrections, guidance, and "following in his wake", so to speak. And that too could be my brain playing with me, but I WAY don't think so. To me it is simply undeniable.

Both of those move me to do according to his Word (sorry, but yeah), and continual submission to and enjoyment of his person. They both leave me feeling a bit removed from the dependence on mundane things, and to realize that HE is what I want (sorry, again, but yeah).

There have been many things that I consider 'miracle' or extraordinary acts of God, in my life, none of which I can prove. The biggest, of course, is my changed heart, but you probably would prefer to hear about my encounters with demons or my truck being pushed out of a ditch by no observable cause, or so many other events. Sorry. Those are not the biggest. They are also undeniable, as many other things are, to my mind, but yeah, my mind could be playing with me on those too.

Even if all this stuff did happen, how do you know it is from 'the cause' you think exists?

And yes, please tell me more about your truck being pushed, with no observable cause?

Mark Quayle said:
Maybe. Confirmation bias has a lot of friends. Funny thing is, in a sense, even scientific inquiry operates that way. Think of all the experiments done under supposed "isolation" that nobody considered the possibility that gravity could have unknown effects. The ones that did, tried to counter it by doing things in satellites and such but that only counters the gravity, it doesn't undo it.

I have more than an inkling that there is something right in front of our faces that we ALL fail to see.

It's also quite possible you are a part of the evolutionary process, as we all are to one degree or another?

Most of us have a regular habit of invoking type 1 errors.

Mark Quayle · May 3, 2021

cvanwey said:
But if you truly do not understand the concept of "matter always existing" as a possibility, why not just say, "I don't know", versus, "matter must still come from a God anyways"? Isn't this exposing fallacious reasoning?

I think I understand the concept of 'matter always existing' as well as pretty much anyone. I'm not sure why you thought different. What I did say, presumes First Cause, which cannot logically be matter itself, as it is mere mechanical fact.

cvanwey said:
I think we are still not connecting here You seem to be trying to smuggle in a bit of special pleading here. Why?

[God] = causeless, always was, and always will be ---> eternal. Can neither be created nor destroyed.

Now just replace the word [God] with [matter].

If matter always was, it had no 'first cause'. Sure, it can change form, but to also say matter was initially 'caused', is illogical.

If matter is eternal, like some cosmologists seem to suggest, why can't the same rules apply for matter? And if the same rules apply to matter, for which we are both pretty sure actually exists, then maybe to try and also smuggle in the "concept of God", seems then quite redundant and unnecessary?

To merely assert/conclude a "first cause", when still not even knowing if matter is eternal, seems rash How about, we do not know yet, or, may never truly know?

You say, "...You seem to be trying to smuggle in a bit of special pleading here. Why?" In our argument you seem to want to assume, either as fact, or as hypothetical, the eternal existence of matter as superior to the self-existence of First Cause. You seem to take what is visible as indicative of some default that is not self-evident. The fact matter exists does not presuppose it always existed. But the fact that there is existence does presuppose cause, and rationally, first cause.

Matter cannot be first cause --it is mere mechanical fact. Mechanical fact depends on principles from outside itself. First Cause, Omnipotence, cannot depend on anything from outside itself.

cvanwey said:
Please see my response above, about replacing the word [God] with [matter].

Still doesn't work, for the same reason: Matter cannot be self-existent, as it is mere mechanical fact, depending on principles from outside itself. It, and those principles, came from something besides matter.

cvanwey said:
This is likely because you were predominantly exposed to Christianity. Just like me. If we were both raised in India, you might now be attempting to justify a form of Hinduism? Where-as I, may or may not any longer ascribe to these opposing religious assertions.

And yes, Christianity seems to tell it's readers that humans are not worthy of salvation on their own, no matter what. And hence, God had to provide a loophole. Which begs the question, why impose a giant list of morals to follow, via the Commandments, if following them cannot earn you salvation regardless? But I digress here... Why? If this God does exist, He can institute any playbook He chooses

If I was raised in India, I would not be me, lol, but ok, I'll play: Yes, I would likely, or I would have discarded the whole mess, sort of how I considered discarding Christianity at one point. I expect, then, you mean to assert that opinions are equal in validity just because they are opinions/beliefs? Or, if not, you mean that your position has more validity than mine in that it remains the same now as it would have if you were raised in India, while mine would have been pegged onto a different belief system? Doesn't change the facts, nor the reliability of logic. Belief systems don't determine fact, nor does logic admit to eternity of matter.

Maybe it would help if I add: The notion of eternity of matter is begging the question, being a twin sister to infinite regression. It cannot then, be default fact.

cvanwey said:
Simple. E.W.S.

But your mind cannot be self-existent. It is caused. It is simple skepticism to say otherwise, and if you can forgive me, irrational skepticism.

cvanwey said:
Even if all this stuff did happen, how do you know it is from 'the cause' you think exists?

And yes, please tell me more about your truck being pushed, with no observable cause?

"'This stuff', meaning, 'miracle' or such? I'm convinced, but do not claim proof anyone else can agree is proof. I just find myself unable to deny it.

Short story concerning the truck, I was turning around on a narrow dike, on a farm in South Carolina, which boasts the slickest wet clay in the world, in a torrential rainstorm at night. I was tired out and not in the best of humors, when I backed up a little further than I should have and sure enough dropped a rear wheel into the ditch on one side of the road. It did stop on a sort of ledge, so I wasn't completely bottomed out, but there was very little weight o the tire, and I was like, "Oh, great! Just when I was expecting home and supper!" Not wanting to get any wetter and colder than I already was, and knowing getting out and finding my flashlight would only verify what I already knew --that I wasn't going anywhere, I decided to try to see what would happen: when I tried to go, and it didn't go, but it also didn't spin the wheel, I gave it more gas, and it still didn't spin, so I gave it more, and the truck still didn't climb out by itself, until suddenly --I can swear this is what it felt like-- an angel simply pushed it out. The next day I went back when it was light and looked where I had been, and it still makes no sense that I got out in the 'natural' manner. But like I said, no proof. One thing that makes me grin about it is that this wasn't some 'God help me or I die' sort of situation --it was simply, "I don't want this". I think he simply showed me kindness.

cvanwey said:
It's also quite possible you are a part of the evolutionary process, as we all are to one degree or another?

Most of us have a regular habit of invoking type 1 errors.

Actually, lol, as history has shown, only one thing is possible. More than one thing 'Possible' is the mind's guessing. Not actuality.

cvanwey · May 3, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
I think I understand the concept of 'matter always existing' as well as pretty much anyone. I'm not sure why you thought different. What I did say, presumes First Cause, which cannot logically be matter itself, as it is mere mechanical fact.

Something, which always existed, would have no 'First Cause', by logical definition. This goes for God(s) and/or matter Simply making a statement of 'mechanical fact', does not appear to change anything about this cited logical axiom.

Mark Quayle said:
You say, "...You seem to be trying to smuggle in a bit of special pleading here. Why?" In our argument you seem to want to assume, either as fact, or as hypothetical, the eternal existence of matter as superior to the self-existence of First Cause.

First and foremost, I am not <asserting> matter always was. I do not know. I'm stating that IF matter always was, then matter would logically not have any causation IF matter always was, to speak about it's 'cause' seems logically incoherent.

Mark Quayle said:
You seem to take what is visible as indicative of some default that is not self-evident. The fact matter exists does not presuppose it always existed.

Agreed. This is why I keep stressing [if]. You state it is not possible for an [if]. And yet, I have yet to see sound reasoning to rule this out as an option

Please remember what I informed you, from the beginning of our exchange... If matter always was, you can still argue for a 'change agent', but not necessarily a 'causal agent.' If matter cannot be created, then all we are left to argue is WHY matter changes?

Mark Quayle said:
But the fact that there is existence does presuppose cause, and rationally, first cause.

Matter cannot be first cause --it is mere mechanical fact. Mechanical fact depends on principles from outside itself. First Cause, Omnipotence, cannot depend on anything from outside itself.

This looks to be nothing more than mere assertion. You are making a claim, please back it up. Maybe you can start by explaining the 'laws of mechanical fact'?

And like I keep stating, if matter [always was], then logically, there would be no [first cause] of matter.

Just like logically, by definition, infinity has no end.

Mark Quayle said:
Still doesn't work, for the same reason: Matter cannot be self-existent, as it is mere mechanical fact, depending on principles from outside itself. It, and those principles, came from something besides matter.

If matter never did not exist, then this statement is irrelevant to discuss, by mere logic.

Mark Quayle said:
Yes, I would likely, or I would have discarded the whole mess, sort of how I considered discarding Christianity at one point. I expect, then, you mean to assert that opinions are equal in validity just because they are opinions/beliefs? Or, if not, you mean that your position has more validity than mine in that it remains the same now as it would have if you were raised in India, while mine would have been pegged onto a different belief system? Doesn't change the facts, nor the reliability of logic. Belief systems don't determine fact, nor does logic admit to eternity of matter.

My ultimate point is that you would likely find 'sound reasoning' to justify whatever religion you were indoctrinated upon. Or, reject/doubt it. I would assume you are a Christian. Many aren't. But many adhere to a differing God(s), via being exposed to others growing up. I've debated all types of believers. I see no shortage of justifications for why their proclaimed God is THE God.

Mark Quayle said:
Maybe it would help if I add: The notion of eternity of matter is begging the question, being a twin sister to infinite regression. It cannot then, be default fact.

Maybe it would help if I define terms? "Always was" means it had no "first cause". This would be the case for God, as well as matter, or anything else which always was.

Please remember what I keep bringing up... Scientists state 'matter can neither be created nor destroyed.' IF this is true, then matter 'always was.' 1) Do you agree that we have yet to demonstrate the 'creation' nor the "destruction" of matter? 2) Do you also agree the laws of physics do not change? Assuming you answered 'yes' to both of these questions, then why can't matter have always existed?

I feel it would be special pleading to state, that at one point, matter was 'created'. Saying so, simply defies the statement in red

Mark Quayle said:
But your mind cannot be self-existent. It is caused. It is simple skepticism to say otherwise, and if you can forgive me, irrational skepticism.

Matter changes. Existing matter changed, to ultimately formulate my brain. Now, maybe you can ask what 'drove this change' in existing matter?

Mark Quayle said:
"'This stuff', meaning, 'miracle' or such? I'm convinced, but do not claim proof anyone else can agree is proof. I just find myself unable to deny it.

I mean, how do you go about attributing any event to God, verses an infinite number of alternative sources?

Mark Quayle said:
Short story concerning the truck, I was turning around on a narrow dike, on a farm in South Carolina, which boasts the slickest wet clay in the world, in a torrential rainstorm at night. I was tired out and not in the best of humors, when I backed up a little further than I should have and sure enough dropped a rear wheel into the ditch on one side of the road. It did stop on a sort of ledge, so I wasn't completely bottomed out, but there was very little weight o the tire, and I was like, "Oh, great! Just when I was expecting home and supper!" Not wanting to get any wetter and colder than I already was, and knowing getting out and finding my flashlight would only verify what I already knew --that I wasn't going anywhere, I decided to try to see what would happen: when I tried to go, and it didn't go, but it also didn't spin the wheel, I gave it more gas, and it still didn't spin, so I gave it more, and the truck still didn't climb out by itself, until suddenly --I can swear this is what it felt like-- an angel simply pushed it out. The next day I went back when it was light and looked where I had been, and it still makes no sense that I got out in the 'natural' manner. But like I said, no proof. One thing that makes me grin about it is that this wasn't some 'God help me or I die' sort of situation --it was simply, "I don't want this". I think he simply showed me kindness.

Is this the most convincing event for you, for which you attribute to God? Furthermore, how do you know it was God, verses an infinite number of alternatives?

Mark Quayle said:
Actually, lol, as history has shown, only one thing is possible. More than one thing 'Possible' is the mind's guessing. Not actuality.

People make type 1 errors all the time. It's quite possible many also infer what you stated prior: (i.e.) "I have more than an inkling that there is something right in front of our faces that we ALL fail to see"

Mark Quayle · May 3, 2021

cvanwey said:
Something, which always existed, would have no 'First Cause', by logical definition. This goes for God(s) and/or matter Simply making a statement of 'mechanical fact', does not appear to change anything about this cited logical axiom.

Of course! --in fact, something that always existed would be first cause. Further, it would be self-existent. And so it cannot be mechanical fact!

My point about mechanical fact is that it is not principle, nor is it possessing of intent. It is something that works by principles, in the case of the universe, as far as we know, it works according to what we call physical laws. It could work also by the intent of a causer.

cvanwey said:
First and foremost, I am not <asserting> matter always was. I do not know. I'm stating that IF matter always was, then matter would logically not have any causation IF matter always was, to speak about it's 'cause' seems logically incoherent.

Yes, of course. But your hypothetical is self-defeating. It presupposes a logical impossibility.

cvanwey said:
Agreed. This is why I keep stressing [if]. You state it is not possible for an [if]. And yet, I have yet to see sound reasoning to rule this out as an option

Please remember what I informed you, from the beginning of our exchange... If matter always was, you can still argue for a 'change agent', but not necessarily a 'causal agent.' If matter cannot be created, then all we are left to argue is WHY matter changes?

You haven't answered my explanations as to why, other than to say I'm merely asserting (lol, that is, if I remember right).

cvanwey said:
This looks to be nothing more than mere assertion. You are making a claim, please back it up. Maybe you can start by explaining the 'laws of mechanical fact'?

Laws of physics. Mechanical fact (such as the universe, and any inanimate portion of it), behaves according to laws, no? I guess that is what you are asking me --I don't recall mentioning 'laws of mechanical fact', but principles by which mechanical fact operates. You do, I expect, accept the laws of physics, without me having to explain them.

cvanwey said:
And like I keep stating, if matter [always was], then logically, there would be no [first cause] of matter.

Just like logically, by definition, infinity has no end.

The question of matter always existing has already been dealt with.

Eternal can have no end, but may have a beginning. Infinity may have no beginning or it may have no end, depending on which direction is infinite. I am glad to see, however, that you reject the notion that 'always was' can be caused. There are Christians, maybe even the majority, who want to claim that God can give them the ability to choose, uncaused. To me that is nonsense. Even the very words they use to say that, show he caused the situation they propose.

cvanwey said:
If matter never did not exist, then this statement is irrelevant to discuss, by mere logic.

Still the same logical impossibility, proposed as a valid hypothetical.

cvanwey said:
My ultimate point is that you would likely find 'sound reasoning' to justify whatever religion you were indoctrinated upon. Or, reject/doubt it. I would assume you are a Christian. Many aren't. But many adhere to a differing God(s), via being exposed to others growing up. I've debated all types of believers. I see no shortage of justifications for why their proclaimed God is THE God.

Have they claimed their God is Omnipotent, Sovereign, Infallible, First Cause? ALL the other supposed Gods I have heard about fall short in some way of that.

cvanwey said:
Maybe it would help if I define terms? "Always was" means it had no "first cause". This would be the case for God, as well as matter, or anything else which always was.

Please remember what I keep bringing up... Scientists state 'matter can neither be created nor destroyed.' IF this is true, then matter 'always was.' 1) Do you agree that we have yet to demonstrate the 'creation' nor the "destruction" of matter? 2) Do you also agree the laws of physics do not change? Assuming you answered 'yes' to both of these questions, then why can't matter have always existed?

I feel it would be special pleading to state, that at one point, matter was 'created'. Saying so, simply defies the statement in red

Yes, if that was the whole question. Assertion doesn't do the job. But it isn't all there is to it. You say, "Scientists state 'matter can neither be created nor destroyed.' I am saying, so what? Scientists didn't even make that law, but discovered it, and reported on what they found. Scientists have no tools for examining the supernatural. They cannot see beyond physics. They have no way to say, 'matter always existed', so they don't say that. They are talking only about their observations concerning already-existing matter.

cvanwey said:
Matter changes. Existing matter changed, to ultimately formulate my brain. Now, maybe you can ask what 'drove this change' in existing matter?

Why? I mean how does that further this discussion?

cvanwey said:
I mean, how do you go about attributing any event to God, verses an infinite number of alternative sources?

Because he is First Cause. The only possible First Cause. There may be zillions of other causes of (or impinging on) an event but they all descend from First Cause. Your alternative sources can only be effects of other causes, or of First Cause. Almost all effects are also causes, but ALL causes are effects, except first cause.

cvanwey said:
Is this the most convincing event for you, for which you attribute to God? Furthermore, how do you know it was God, verses an infinite number of alternatives?

No, not by a long shot. I easily admit I could have been fooling myself, but I couldn't find any reason why I came out of that ditch. But there's more to this than you understand. I hope to be able to explain 'providence' to you sometime, or at least, my take on it.

cvanwey said:
People make type 1 errors all the time. It's quite possible many also infer what you stated prior: (i.e.) "I have more than an inkling that there is something right in front of our faces that we ALL fail to see"

Type 2 errors happen all the time too.

cvanwey · May 5, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
Of course! --in fact, something that always existed would be first cause. Further, it would be self-existent. And so it cannot be mechanical fact!

My point about mechanical fact is that it is not principle, nor is it possessing of intent. It is something that works by principles, in the case of the universe, as far as we know, it works according to what we call physical laws. It could work also by the intent of a causer.

Pushing forth the 'cosmological argument', as the only viable option, seems intellectually lazy -- (please take no offense here). I think you are quite intelligent BTW I'm not a cosmologist, or a theoretical physicist, or any other relative scientist. In the past, I have heard a few speak about the topic of 'quantum mechanics.' In relation to an 'eternal universe', some public scientists seem to suggest, that asking for a 'beginner' here is almost as irrelevant as asking 'what is north of the north pole?" Or, "what is colder than absolute zero?"

Assuming there MUST be a 'driving force' to set everything into motion seems a bit premature, doesn't it? Sure, it could be one conclusion? But even if it were, how would that really get you any closer to YHWH? I don't necessarily see that it would? You then assert that this 'uncaused cause' also must be omni-whatever'?

Mark Quayle said:
Yes, of course. But your hypothetical is self-defeating. It presupposes a logical impossibility.

Not to scientists in the field, who go on public record, and risk embarrassment Again, we may not be asking the right questions, because we do not yet understand in full?

Furthermore, let's even concede an 'uncaused cause' set all 'laws' into motion. Does this 'law giver' still have a guiding hand in any/all subsequent outcomes? (i.e.) human reproduction? Or, did He created all laws, and now sets back and watches; without further intervention?

Mark Quayle said:
The question of matter always existing has already been dealt with.

Eternal can have no end, but may have a beginning. Infinity may have no beginning or it may have no end, depending on which direction is infinite. I am glad to see, however, that you reject the notion that 'always was' can be caused. There are Christians, maybe even the majority, who want to claim that God can give them the ability to choose, uncaused. To me that is nonsense. Even the very words they use to say that, show he caused the situation they propose.

"Eternal" can also be "always was and always will be" -> (for lack of a better phrase). Just because you or I do not fulling understand something, does not make the entire subject nonsense

I'm not saying or asserting I know. Just that I do not understand, and am not making a rash conclusion yet.

Mark Quayle said:
Have they claimed their God is Omnipotent, Sovereign, Infallible, First Cause? ALL the other supposed Gods I have heard about fall short in some way of that.

Claims are claims. Assertions are assertions. Evidence is what leads one to truth, no? Do we have sufficient evidence to suggest an uncaused cause, which is also omni-anything, which is also the God of the Bible? If so, please do tell?

Mark Quayle said:
Yes, if that was the whole question. Assertion doesn't do the job. But it isn't all there is to it. You say, "Scientists state 'matter can neither be created nor destroyed.' I am saying, so what? Scientists didn't even make that law, but discovered it, and reported on what they found. Scientists have no tools for examining the supernatural. They cannot see beyond physics. They have no way to say, 'matter always existed', so they don't say that. They are talking only about their observations concerning already-existing matter.

LOL. Does anyone have "tools for examining the supernatural?" Does the supernatural even exist?

My prior point was straight forward. Seems as though the scientific community could be right. In that if matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then to speak about creationism is as illogical as asking "what is north of the north pole" or "what is colder than absolute zero"....

Mark Quayle said:
Because he is First Cause. The only possible First Cause. There may be zillions of other causes of (or impinging on) an event but they all descend from First Cause. Your alternative sources can only be effects of other causes, or of First Cause. Almost all effects are also causes, but ALL causes are effects, except first cause.

Great, the "cosmological argument" can then be effectively used to solve one of science's continued mysteries; because you say so

Mark Quayle said:
No, not by a long shot. I easily admit I could have been fooling myself, but I couldn't find any reason why I came out of that ditch. But there's more to this than you understand. I hope to be able to explain 'providence' to you sometime, or at least, my take on it.

Type 2 errors happen all the time too.

How do you determine if you are making a type 1 verses a type 2 error? Do we need to wait until after we die to determine if your error was either/or? This is my point.... Type 1 errors can be made, without any real harm. If I was to experience your situation, but instead chalk it up to something other than YHWH's intervention, (when if fact it actually was), I would not know it was a type 2 error until after I died, right?

Type 1 errors are made all the time; and are without true consequence. (i.e.) Someone you know and respect makes an anecdotal one-time claim you do not believe (i.e.) ghost sighting, God's guiding hand, other. You either internally roll your eyes, probe their claim further, or maybe just ignore it.... But the one making the claim does not have to prove it.

Seems odd that God's method for proof/truth hinges upon anecdotal claims, and that others must believe them, through faith????

Mark Quayle · May 5, 2021

cvanwey said:
Pushing forth the 'cosmological argument', as the only viable option, seems intellectually lazy -- (please take no offense here).

No offense. I don't even know what you are saying here. The only viable option for what?

cvanwey said:
I think you are quite intelligent BTW I'm not a cosmologist, or a theoretical physicist, or any other relative scientist. In the past, I have heard a few speak about the topic of 'quantum mechanics.' In relation to an 'eternal universe', some public scientists seem to suggest, that asking for a 'beginner' here is almost as irrelevant as asking 'what is north of the north pole?" Or, "what is colder than absolute zero?

Yes, I have heard that too, yet they don't propose a cause for the operative principles --I'm guessing they're hoping to just happen upon it! I think I might have once suggested a book for you to read, by RC Sproul, Not a Chance. He more or less 'spanks' those who would like to pretend anything can happen by chance. It's a very logical book, which he says 'is not about God', but about logic.

Anyhow, that discussion to me is a bit like the one we had about 'matter always existing'. Quantum mechanics, best I understand it, is only a different way of describing how things work --a different worldview-- but still a subset of reality. It still answers to cause.

cvanwey said:
Assuming there MUST be a 'driving force' to set everything into motion seems a bit premature, doesn't it? Sure, it could be one conclusion? But even if it were, how would that really get you any closer to YHWH? I don't necessarily see that it would? You then assert that this 'uncaused cause' also must be omni-whatever'?

I assume you mean by 'driving force': first cause? I don't know why assuming first cause is any more premature than assuming any other explanation for existence. But if you mean, it seems premature to go looking for an explanation for existence, I think that is what Cosmology is doing. Of all the hard sciences, Cosmology seeks to find it by exploring the nature of what exists, hoping to find the common nature of existence itself. If you don't agree with me there, listen to what they come up with: "Nothingness is unstable", "...popping in and out of existence", "basic building block of matter/energy"!

You're jumping the gun a bit to demand why assuming 'driving force' gets me to YHWH. But, regardless, I've explained very simply before, that YHWH fits exactly every detail that can be known logically about First Cause. And, I would say that what can be known about First Cause fits YHWH exactly, but there are a few things said about YHWH in the Bible that I have not been able to attribute logically from extrapolation of Omnipotence and First Cause.

cvanwey said:
Not to scientists in the field, who go on public record, and risk embarrassment Again, we may not be asking the right questions, because we do not yet understand in full?

Furthermore, let's even concede an 'uncaused cause' set all 'laws' into motion. Does this 'law giver' still have a guiding hand in any/all subsequent outcomes? (i.e.) human reproduction? Or, did He created all laws, and now sets back and watches; without further intervention?

The 'scientists in the field....' are in good company, most of them do not want to invoke first cause, and are rarely called on it, particularly by atheist or agnostic scientists. (I have heard of one agnostic cosmologist who is vehement that First Cause must exist, but I don't know his name. He does not admit it must have personhood, though. I have not studied his thinking ---only seen him on a philosophical panel. He is rather critical of what he considers a lack of intellectual integrity of scientists in general on the matter.)

You have a point about asking questions! I think this is particularly true of humanity wanting answers from a God they think they understand. One of my favorite authors, CS Lewis talks about this in Till We Have Faces, 'a fable retold': "I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean?" But there are things we CAN know are true, or 'can be described like this', though understanding the things we are talking about is another matter.

What you describe is known as Deism, and it has its logical flaws, though most Christians don't seem to understand that Deism's flaws, and their own flaws, concerning the nature of God are of the same kind.

Deists would like to think they have satisfied the law of Causality, having admitted to First Cause, but it doesn't work that way.

First Cause, by definition is not subject to anything from outside itself. This means that there is no other first cause, and that everything proceeds from it --to include principle and reality itself --that is, apart from it, there is no reality. Therefore, reality is maintained by it, and is not 'real' without first cause. (That doesn't mean that first cause must continue to uphold it, though perhaps time-dependent creatures as ourselves must see it that way, but that the very fact of existence is by (dependent on) the fact of First Cause.)

Time has no constraints on First Cause; he 'invented' it, so to speak. From his timeless perspective, to 'speak a thing into existence' is to speak the whole thing into existence. He needn't wait to see the finished product, the beginning from the end. (Forgive my premature use of 'he' here, without having shown that First Cause and God are one and the same; even though I do believe First Cause MUST have personhood, to refer to First Cause here, as 'it' complicates or confuses, the sentences. I do that pretty often, I notice.)

cvanwey said:
"Eternal" can also be "always was and always will be" -> (for lack of a better phrase). Just because you or I do not fulling understand something, does not make the entire subject nonsense

I'm not saying or asserting I know. Just that I do not understand, and am not making a rash conclusion yet.

Agreed

cvanwey said:
Claims are claims. Assertions are assertions. Evidence is what leads one to truth, no? Do we have sufficient evidence to suggest an uncaused cause, which is also omni-anything, which is also the God of the Bible? If so, please do tell?

I say we do. Others insist we don't. To me existence itself begs explanation. Studying the nature and 'components' of what exists, to help understand existence itself, keeps pointing at cause.

Evidence does not convince, in and of itself. Evidence can lead to truth, but often goes unused. To me, the law of Causality, and the fact of existence, is enough to suggest cause. Of the only possible causes I have even heard of, only First Cause makes any sense to me. While I may be accused (and it may be valid) of confirmation bias, to me it makes sense to accuse all others of confirmation bias, too. While Atheists like to say their "I don't know" is all the answer they need, I think they don't realize how tightly they hold onto that. Thus, atheists have their own form of confirmation bias, I think.

I'm not sure why you want to go to "God of the Bible" so soon. But Omni- potent, yes, by definition, causes all things.

cvanwey said:
LOL. Does anyone have "tools for examining the supernatural?" Does the supernatural even exist?

My prior point was straight forward. Seems as though the scientific community could be right. In that if matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then to speak about creationism is as illogical as asking "what is north of the north pole" or "what is colder than absolute zero"....

Propositional logic: IF First Cause exists, then all other things are natural, and / or supernatural. I don't personally like the term because it means different things to different people. If by definition things that are not understood are supernatural (like the things that are mundane now would look to a time traveler from the distant past) then, I think, it is reasonable to suppose that many things we consider supernatural (eg, ESP) may one day be understandably natural. Anyhow, if God made it, I don't care if it is or not 'natural'. Probably a better word than 'miracle' for example, would be 'unusual'. By the fact of God's timelessness, I don't see a need to determine 'original causation' as opposed to 'intervention'. I suspect that to him, it is all one and the same.

Anyhow: some things that can well be considered supernatural are what science and philosophy call 'unfalsifiable'. (This doesn't reference whether they are true or not, but that they cannot be subject to being disproven). Besides the usual use of the term, concerning 'unfalsifiable statements' and so on, these also include things that are basic to our thinking and reasoning, such as math, art, morality, love --there is a whole list.

The scientific community cannot explain math. They need it, they use it, but they can't explain it. They don't have the tools to investigate math, like they might investigate gravity.

cvanwey said:
Great, the "cosmological argument" can then be effectively used to solve one of science's continued mysteries; because you say so

You lost me there, again. What are you calling the 'cosmological argument' and how does what I believe, think or say solve the mystery? If, again, you are referring to first cause, it answers questions, but the HOW is still there to investigate. (Like I said, all supernatural, and/ or all natural. IF God exists, then cause-and-effect still applies, just like science thought all along.)

cvanwey said:
How do you determine if you are making a type 1 verses a type 2 error? Do we need to wait until after we die to determine if your error was either/or? This is my point.... Type 1 errors can be made, without any real harm. If I was to experience your situation, but instead chalk it up to something other than YHWH's intervention, (when if fact it actually was), I would not know it was a type 2 error until after I died, right?

Type 1 errors are made all the time; and are without true consequence. (i.e.) Someone you know and respect makes an anecdotal one-time claim you do not believe (i.e.) ghost sighting, God's guiding hand, other. You either internally roll your eyes, probe their claim further, or maybe just ignore it.... But the one making the claim does not have to prove it.

Seems odd that God's method for proof/truth hinges upon anecdotal claims, and that others must believe them, through faith????

But then, why assume God must (or cares to) prove anything? Not only is 'convincing' much more efficient, but (according to the Bible --not so much according to 'first cause' theory) he only has plans to convince some, not all. There are also others who are convinced on the basis of evidence, who still have no faith (again, Bible example, the devil believes, but trembles --the devil needs no faith).

For what it's worth, anecdotal claims by others of 'miracle', I am generally very skeptical of. My own experiences, I am either skeptical of, or usually relegate them to God's 'providence' --not particularly 'miracle.' Whether an angel pushed me, or the tire somehow caught some gravel I couldn't see the next day, it makes no difference to me --either way, God did it.

Finally, faith (again, Bible) that God uses is a different thing from faith that your bus driver is sober, or that your floor will still be there when you wake up tomorrow. It is also different from a decision to join a team --to leap onto.
It is EVIDENCE of a spiritual nature. (Lol, this is hard enough to explain to a believer, who all along thought faith came from his own decision and effort.) This kind of faith is the result of God himself 'taking up residence within' the person. It is God's thought, so to speak. (This is just me talking --I don't expect you to take my word for it. I just wanted to explain the difference.)

cvanwey · May 6, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
No offense. I don't even know what you are saying here. The only viable option for what?

Would you agree to this 'google' definition of the 'cosmological argument'? If not, please tell me how your argument differs?

"An argument for the existence of God which claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e. are contingent), and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being which exists independently or necessarily."

Spoiler alert. I have yet to meet anyone who became a 'mere god believer' because of this argument preemptively. My hypothesis is that you already believed in a God prior to ever coming across this particular thought experiment. And now, this argument feeds your a priori belief, via conformation bias?

Mark Quayle said:
Yes, I have heard that too, yet they don't propose a cause for the operative principles --I'm guessing they're hoping to just happen upon it!

I still feel we have not quite connected here? Is it possible you are not asking the right question(s)? More than one specific area of 'science' touches on this [topic] in general. It's possible an eternal universe has no cause. And to keep suggesting or demanding for there to be one, is possibly like asking those other questions you have also heard of... Meaning, once we understand more, we may then know to stop asking such questions of irrelevance to the situation.

Furthermore, it's almost as if you are insinuating that the majority of the scientific community has an agenda, to perpetually and purposefully exclude the plausibility of a God?

Mark Quayle said:
I assume you mean by 'driving force': first cause? I don't know why assuming first cause is any more premature than assuming any other explanation for existence. But if you mean, it seems premature to go looking for an explanation for existence, I think that is what Cosmology is doing. Of all the hard sciences, Cosmology seeks to find it by exploring the nature of what exists, hoping to find the common nature of existence itself. If you don't agree with me there, listen to what they come up with: "Nothingness is unstable", "...popping in and out of existence", "basic building block of matter/energy"!

Do we agree the term 'nothingness' does not mean 'absolutely nothing'? If so, then they are talking about existent matter changing form. To my limited understanding, scientists seems to agree there never was a time where there was 'complete nothingness'?

Mark Quayle said:
You're jumping the gun a bit to demand why assuming 'driving force' gets me to YHWH. But, regardless, I've explained very simply before, that YHWH fits exactly every detail that can be known logically about First Cause. And, I would say that what can be known about First Cause fits YHWH exactly, but there are a few things said about YHWH in the Bible that I have not been able to attribute logically from extrapolation of Omnipotence and First Cause.

You've also admitted to your own conformation bias, and also to indoctrination. This was me for decades as well. I do not feel I am jumping the gun here. IMHO, the Bible can be interpreted in numerous and/or also opposing ways. Heck, you do not need to get very far into Genesis before demonstrating this reality. Is Genesis literal, figurative, other? This proposed "all powerful" God, for which you assert, does not appear to convey a very clear message to His projected audience?

Mark Quayle said:
The 'scientists in the field....' are in good company, most of them do not want to invoke first cause, and are rarely called on it, particularly by atheist or agnostic scientists. (I have heard of one agnostic cosmologist who is vehement that First Cause must exist, but I don't know his name. He does not admit it must have personhood, though. I have not studied his thinking ---only seen him on a philosophical panel. He is rather critical of what he considers a lack of intellectual integrity of scientists in general on the matter.)

This response again suggests you believe scientists have an agenda?

Mark Quayle said:
You have a point about asking questions! I think this is particularly true of humanity wanting answers from a God they think they understand. One of my favorite authors, CS Lewis talks about this in Till We Have Faces, 'a fable retold': "I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean?" But there are things we CAN know are true, or 'can be described like this', though understanding the things we are talking about is another matter.

What you describe is known as Deism, and it has its logical flaws, though most Christians don't seem to understand that Deism's flaws, and their own flaws, concerning the nature of God are of the same kind.

Deists would like to think they have satisfied the law of Causality, having admitted to First Cause, but it doesn't work that way.

First Cause, by definition is not subject to anything from outside itself. This means that there is no other first cause, and that everything proceeds from it --to include principle and reality itself --that is, apart from it, there is no reality. Therefore, reality is maintained by it, and is not 'real' without first cause. (That doesn't mean that first cause must continue to uphold it, though perhaps time-dependent creatures as ourselves must see it that way, but that the very fact of existence is by (dependent on) the fact of First Cause.)

Time has no constraints on First Cause; he 'invented' it, so to speak. From his timeless perspective, to 'speak a thing into existence' is to speak the whole thing into existence. He needn't wait to see the finished product, the beginning from the end. (Forgive my premature use of 'he' here, without having shown that First Cause and God are one and the same; even though I do believe First Cause MUST have personhood, to refer to First Cause here, as 'it' complicates or confuses, the sentences. I do that pretty often, I notice.)

You look to again be invoking the "cosmological argument", as defined above.

I asked a specific question (unanswered). Did God set all laws into motion, and is now watching from a distance, or, does He continue to intervene?

Mark Quayle said:
Agreed

Great, then you agree that it's possible that the 'universe' has no [cause], because it always was? Which would then render the assertion of 'creationism' nonsensical?

Just like I agree that even if the 'universe' has a true 'first cause', then it's still highly unlikely this 'first cause' leads to YHWH - (the God of the Bible)?

Mark Quayle said:
I say we do. Others insist we don't. To me existence itself begs explanation. Studying the nature and 'components' of what exists, to help understand existence itself, keeps pointing at cause.

Evidence does not convince, in and of itself. Evidence can lead to truth, but often goes unused. To me, the law of Causality, and the fact of existence, is enough to suggest cause. Of the only possible causes I have even heard of, only First Cause makes any sense to me. While I may be accused (and it may be valid) of confirmation bias, to me it makes sense to accuse all others of confirmation bias, too. While Atheists like to say their "I don't know" is all the answer they need, I think they don't realize how tightly they hold onto that. Thus, atheists have their own form of confirmation bias, I think.

I'm not sure why you want to go to "God of the Bible" so soon. But Omni- potent, yes, by definition, causes all things.

Please look closer into the "cosmological argument", and it's presented objections. You have the 'pro' argument nailed. Now please look at all the counter arguments as objectively as possible

And like I stated prior, our limited understanding of the 'universe' may be what is propelling us not to ask the right questions?

Mark Quayle said:
Propositional logic: IF First Cause exists, then all other things are natural, and / or supernatural. I don't personally like the term because it means different things to different people. If by definition things that are not understood are supernatural (like the things that are mundane now would look to a time traveler from the distant past) then, I think, it is reasonable to suppose that many things we consider supernatural (eg, ESP) may one day be understandably natural. Anyhow, if God made it, I don't care if it is or not 'natural'. Probably a better word than 'miracle' for example, would be 'unusual'. By the fact of God's timelessness, I don't see a need to determine 'original causation' as opposed to 'intervention'. I suspect that to him, it is all one and the same.

Anyhow: some things that can well be considered supernatural are what science and philosophy call 'unfalsifiable'. (This doesn't reference whether they are true or not, but that they cannot be subject to being disproven). Besides the usual use of the term, concerning 'unfalsifiable statements' and so on, these also include things that are basic to our thinking and reasoning, such as math, art, morality, love --there is a whole list.

The scientific community cannot explain math. They need it, they use it, but they can't explain it. They don't have the tools to investigate math, like they might investigate gravity.

Can we both agree that a definition of "supernatural" would be - something which defies [the laws of physics]? (i.e.) walking on top of room temperature water, or the ability to create new matter out of "complete nothingness"? God is said to be able to defy His own created "laws".

I ask you anew...

1. Does the 'supernatural' exist?
2. Does anyone have the tools to investigate the supernatural?
3. Or, are we left with unproven anecdotal testimonials to these 'supernatural' events alone?

Mark Quayle said:
But then, why assume God must (or cares to) prove anything? Not only is 'convincing' much more efficient, but (according to the Bible --not so much according to 'first cause' theory) he only has plans to convince some, not all. There are also others who are convinced on the basis of evidence, who still have no faith (again, Bible example, the devil believes, but trembles --the devil needs no faith).

For what it's worth, anecdotal claims by others of 'miracle', I am generally very skeptical of. My own experiences, I am either skeptical of, or usually relegate them to God's 'providence' --not particularly 'miracle.' Whether an angel pushed me, or the tire somehow caught some gravel I couldn't see the next day, it makes no difference to me --either way, God did it.

Finally, faith (again, Bible) that God uses is a different thing from faith that your bus driver is sober, or that your floor will still be there when you wake up tomorrow. It is also different from a decision to join a team --to leap onto.
It is EVIDENCE of a spiritual nature. (Lol, this is hard enough to explain to a believer, who all along thought faith came from his own decision and effort.) This kind of faith is the result of God himself 'taking up residence within' the person. It is God's thought, so to speak. (This is just me talking --I don't expect you to take my word for it. I just wanted to explain the difference.)

I do not want to sound repetitive here, but much of this looks to surface the possibility of the type 1 error. We do it all the time (i.e) you hear a strange noise while home alone in the dark. We often times (first) infer intentional agency, when in fact, often times there might be none. You first rule out an intruder, before you then ponder other reasons for the noise.

Your 'faith', that an [all knowing, all loving, first cause agent] is out there and looking after you, could be nothing more that the product of evolutionary processes. The fact that you can never rule out intentional agency, is what drives your belief. Where-as, in the case for the noise in the house, if you were to later discover the noise was not intentional, you would then no longer speculate intentional cause.

Please read your response given above, and tell me why this is not possible?

FutureAndAHope · May 6, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Was it a philosophical argument such as the cosmological argument or was it some type of personal experience? or something other than one of these?

I think I always knew God existed, for me it was I was afraid of what He may ask me to do, so I initially did not become a Christain. But then I had a dream about hell, and it drove me back to church, where I committed my life to God. Since then I have had some ups and downs, but God has revealed Himself through many personal experiences. Some of them can be seen here Everybody Matters Ministry | Online Church

Clizby WampusCat · May 7, 2021

FutureAndAHope said:
I think I always knew God existed, for me it was I was afraid of what He may ask me to do, so I initially did not become a Christain. But then I had a dream about hell, and it drove me back to church, where I committed my life to God. Since then I have had some ups and downs, but God has revealed Himself through many personal experiences. Some of them can be seen here Everybody Matters Ministry | Online Church

How do you know your experiences are the result of a god acting? Why do you think a dream is a good indicator of truth?

Mark Quayle · May 7, 2021

cvanwey said:
Would you agree to this 'google' definition of the 'cosmological argument'? If not, please tell me how your argument differs?

"An argument for the existence of God which claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e. are contingent), and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being which exists independently or necessarily."

Spoiler alert. I have yet to meet anyone who became a 'mere god believer' because of this argument preemptively. My hypothesis is that you already believed in a God prior to ever coming across this particular thought experiment. And now, this argument feeds your a priori belief, via conformation bias?

What 'thought experiment'?

The 'cosmological argument' you define there, seems to be a description --not a means of arrival at a conclusion. I came to what I believe (which is pretty well described there) through studying the necessary attributes of First Cause, and through the simple logic of Causation.

The whole of the cosmos is no different from any one particle --it is all caused, except for first cause. I don't go to the bother of proposing, "particle is dependent, therefore cosmos is dependent."

cvanwey said:
I still feel we have not quite connected here? Is it possible you are not asking the right question(s)? More than one specific area of 'science' touches on this [topic] in general. It's possible an eternal universe has no cause. And to keep suggesting or demanding for there to be one, is possibly like asking those other questions you have also heard of... Meaning, once we understand more, we may then know to stop asking such questions of irrelevance to the situation.

Furthermore, it's almost as if you are insinuating that the majority of the scientific community has an agenda, to perpetually and purposefully exclude the plausibility of a God?

Lol, you keep on with this "It's possible". You really don't know that. You only speculate it is possible.

cvanwey said:
Do we agree the term 'nothingness' does not mean 'absolutely nothing'? If so, then they are talking about existent matter changing form. To my limited understanding, scientists seems to agree there never was a time where there was 'complete nothingness'?

True. Our minds can't go there. To my thinking, even nothingness had to be 'invented' by God, just as reality did. All the things concerning which we tend to say "it just is", were so only as something God made appear so --things of some 'permanent' status.

cvanwey said:
You've also admitted to your own conformation bias, and also to indoctrination. This was me for decades as well. I do not feel I am jumping the gun here. IMHO, the Bible can be interpreted in numerous and/or also opposing ways. Heck, you do not need to get very far into Genesis before demonstrating this reality. Is Genesis literal, figurative, other? This proposed "all powerful" God, for which you assert, does not appear to convey a very clear message to His projected audience?

If you ask for First Cause, I try to show you first cause. I had hoped that we could at least reach a reasonable description of it, before launching into the similarities between First Cause, and YHWH.

Why should Omnipotence convey a clear message to anyone?

cvanwey said:
You look to again be invoking the "cosmological argument", as defined above.

I asked a specific question (unanswered). Did God set all laws into motion, and is now watching from a distance, or, does He continue to intervene?

I thought I had answered that in talking about deism. From the perspective of First Cause, it makes no difference.

cvanwey said:
Great, then you agree that it's possible that the 'universe' has no [cause], because it always was? Which would then render the assertion of 'creationism' nonsensical?

Just like I agree that even if the 'universe' has a true 'first cause', then it's still highly unlikely this 'first cause' leads to YHWH - (the God of the Bible)?

Haha, clever. No, I don't agree it is possible that the universe has no cause, even if in some sense (such as being in the mind of God) it 'always was'.

cvanwey said: ↑
" "Eternal" can also be "always was and always will be" -> (for lack of a better phrase). Just because you or I do not fulling understand something, does not make the entire subject nonsense

"I'm not saying or asserting I know. Just that I do not understand, and am not making a rash conclusion yet."

--to which I answered "Agreed"

So how does that result in:
"Great, then you agree that it's possible that the 'universe' has no [cause], because it always was? Which would then render the assertion of 'creationism' nonsensical?

"Just like I agree that even if the 'universe' has a true 'first cause', then it's still highly unlikely this 'first cause' leads to YHWH - (the God of the Bible)?"

You agree with whom, that even if the universe has a true first cause, then it's still highly unlikely this first cause leads to YHWH? Not me! And how does this follow the paragraph starting with "Great, ..."

cvanwey said:
Please look closer into the "cosmological argument", and it's presented objections. You have the 'pro' argument nailed. Now please look at all the counter arguments as objectively as possible

And like I stated prior, our limited understanding of the 'universe' may be what is propelling us not to ask the right questions?

That last statement (?) may be more relevant than you realize. But one of the objections to the cosmological argument is that understanding of the effects ('universe') of first cause cannot show us the nature of first cause. Yet here you are supposing that if we understood the universe well enough we would know what questions to ask.

cvanwey said:
Can we both agree that a definition of "supernatural" would be - something which defies [the laws of physics]? (i.e.) walking on top of room temperature water, or the ability to create new matter out of "complete nothingness"? God is said to be able to defy His own created "laws".

I ask you anew...

1. Does the 'supernatural' exist?
2. Does anyone have the tools to investigate the supernatural?
3. Or, are we left with unproven anecdotal testimonials to these 'supernatural' events alone?

No. Supernatural need not defy the laws of physics. It could defy, or it could displace the laws of physics, or it could be by use of the laws of physics. You want it to mean 'unnatural', not even 'unusual'.
1. You certainly cannot prove otherwise, and if 'unfalsifiable' is any indication, then the supernatural is all around us.
2. Not to my knowledge. What little empirical nature there seems to be to it is almost always subject to skepticism or worse. There is one guy from India I knew who wanted to return there to study demons and write his own thesis on their nature and weaknesses etc, to help people learn how to more readily expel them or defend against them. I never heard anything more from him.
3. 'We' who? You mean science? The general public? You? I am convinced, by logic as much as experience: Given first cause, all is supernatural. Some is physical, certainly we have all experienced joy, love, seen art and beauty, studied math and other unfalsifiables, so not all we can be sure about is physical. But the ethereal nature of some events, at least from the POV of the general public, doesn't look so ethereal from the ones who experience them. Who's to say what the truth is about the anecdotal experiences? The point of the whole matter is not to convince the general public, nor even the scientific community. Science is not in charge of fact, nor for that matter, is philosophy. Haha, nor is the church.

cvanwey said:
I do not want to sound repetitive here, but much of this looks to surface the possibility of the type 1 error. We do it all the time (i.e) you hear a strange noise while home alone in the dark. We often times (first) infer intentional agency, when in fact, often times there might be none. You first rule out an intruder, before you then ponder other reasons for the noise.

Your 'faith', that an [all knowing, all loving, first cause agent] is out there and looking after you, could be nothing more that the product of evolutionary processes. The fact that you can never rule out intentional agency, is what drives your belief. Where-as, in the case for the noise in the house, if you were to later discover the noise was not intentional, you would then no longer speculate intentional cause.

Please read your response given above, and tell me why this is not possible?

All things, (universe, or Omni) are intentional, or accidental. Accidental makes no sense to me. IF first cause, then, logically, it is all intentional.

Mark Quayle · May 7, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
How do you know your experiences are the result of a god acting? Why do you think a dream is a good indicator of truth?

I thought I said outright that the dream could be a product of my brain and circumstances. I'm not saying it is a good indicator of truth. I AM saying that it overwhelmed me, and gave me a new perspective of the nature and the horror of sin. So far as I have seen and studied, that perspective is not wrong except by still being small, by lack of understanding of the greatness of God.

As for the experiences, it is simple. If First Cause exists, then all things are intentional. Whether natural or 'miracle', mundane or spectacular, it really makes little difference. It is all Providence.

FutureAndAHope · May 7, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
How do you know your experiences are the result of a god acting? Why do you think a dream is a good indicator of truth?

I did not have a dream? I was awake when those things occurred. I say:

Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Mark Quayle · May 7, 2021

FutureAndAHope said:
I did not have a dream? I was awake when those things occurred. I say:

Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Haha! I thought he was asking ME !

cvanwey · May 8, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
What 'thought experiment'?

The 'cosmological argument' you define there, seems to be a description --not a means of arrival at a conclusion. I came to what I believe (which is pretty well described there) through studying the necessary attributes of First Cause, and through the simple logic of Causation.

The whole of the cosmos is no different from any one particle --it is all caused, except for first cause. I don't go to the bother of proposing, "particle is dependent, therefore cosmos is dependent."

Noted. However, regardless of whether you are speaking about a 'first cause', or any cause quite frankly, we are speaking about "material". A claim is out there, that matter always was. IF material always was, whether it be "nothing", the "universe", or "other", then something was always there. Hence, to speak of creating something, (i.e.) which always was, would be illogical. Just like it would be illogical to ask about what is colder than absolute zero.

This is why I stated a few times already, that maybe we can argue if there exists a 'change agent', verses a "first cause."

Mark Quayle said:
Lol, you keep on with this "It's possible". You really don't know that. You only speculate it is possible.

I'm honestly 50/50, that either a 'first cause' exists, verses no 'first cause'. But if a true 'first cause' does exist, the follow up evidence does not look to lead anywhere specific to your conclusion about the origin of this first cause

Mark Quayle said:
True. Our minds can't go there. To my thinking, even nothingness had to be 'invented' by God, just as reality did. All the things concerning which we tend to say "it just is", were so only as something God made appear so --things of some 'permanent' status.

Does lack of knowledge, or limited knowledge about a proposition, then reasonably only mean "God"?

Seems as though I have to keep stressing the importance of the term "always was". "God" is not the only probable concept for which could always have existed, right?

Mark Quayle said:
If you ask for First Cause, I try to show you first cause. I had hoped that we could at least reach a reasonable description of it, before launching into the similarities between First Cause, and YHWH.

You stated the Bible is the only Book which correctly describes this "first cause". And yet, when we open the pages of Genesis, and beyond, what do the words actually say? Is it supposed to be literal, figurative, other? If it's a mix, how do you distinguish which parts are which?

Mark Quayle said:
Why should Omnipotence convey a clear message to anyone?

If you are reading any book, and the message is not clear,, wouldn't you blame the one whom wrote the book? Please see directly above for more detail.

Mark Quayle said:
I thought I had answered that in talking about deism. From the perspective of First Cause, it makes no difference.

Please enlighten me Either you did answer, and we never agreed, or other...

1. Did "God" create all "laws", and is now only an observer?
2. Or, does He continue to intervene and maybe sometimes disrupts these set laws for which He apparently created?

Mark Quayle said:
Haha, clever. No, I don't agree it is possible that the universe has no cause, even if in some sense (such as being in the mind of God) it 'always was'.

cvanwey said: ↑
" "Eternal" can also be "always was and always will be" -> (for lack of a better phrase). Just because you or I do not fulling understand something, does not make the entire subject nonsense

"I'm not saying or asserting I know. Just that I do not understand, and am not making a rash conclusion yet."

--to which I answered "Agreed"

So how does that result in:
"Great, then you agree that it's possible that the 'universe' has no [cause], because it always was? Which would then render the assertion of 'creationism' nonsensical?

"Just like I agree that even if the 'universe' has a true 'first cause', then it's still highly unlikely this 'first cause' leads to YHWH - (the God of the Bible)?"

You agree with whom, that even if the universe has a true first cause, then it's still highly unlikely this first cause leads to YHWH? Not me! And how does this follow the paragraph starting with "Great, ..."

You don't agree to anything I've said. Please re-look at what you just stated "No, I don't agree it is possible that the universe has no cause, even if in some sense (such as being in the mind of God) it 'always was'."

If you did agree, then you would at least entertain the idea that "matter" was not caused.

How did you conclude the only thing which can be uncaused, is "God"? And if this God caused everything, then at one point, God would also of had to create something/anything besides His own self. How would that work? At one point, God ruled over [absolute nothingness], outside Himself. At one point, God also dwelled upon, within, or other, "complete/absolute nothingness"? And by "complete/absolute nothingness", I mean "absence of anything at all". Whether you speak of some transcendent arena, or other, according to your philosophy, God would have had to create it. Which would mean that before He crated it, it did not exist. And if true nothing existed, at one point, then you can see the logical problems there, right?

This is why I stated above, that I am 50/50. You can see that just as many unanswered questions exist, for the assertion of an "uncaused cause", verses that of the claim "matter' (in some form or another) always was"

Mark Quayle said:
That last statement (?) may be more relevant than you realize. But one of the objections to the cosmological argument is that understanding of the effects ('universe') of first cause cannot show us the nature of first cause. Yet here you are supposing that if we understood the universe well enough we would know what questions to ask.

Some scientists suggest an eternal universe. And by eternal, this would mean 'no first cause'. I'd imagine they do not pose this idea, merely because they do not want to admit to a God, right? Or, are they all just in denial? Is it likely they are coming to these conclusions/ideas, due to sound reasoning, based upon their findings? Or, do they all have an agenda to suppress "God"? The reason I ask again here, is because I noticed you did not answer this question from post #369.

Mark Quayle said:
No. Supernatural need not defy the laws of physics. It could defy, or it could displace the laws of physics, or it could be by use of the laws of physics. You want it to mean 'unnatural', not even 'unusual'.
1. You certainly cannot prove otherwise, and if 'unfalsifiable' is any indication, then the supernatural is all around us.
2. Not to my knowledge. What little empirical nature there seems to be to it is almost always subject to skepticism or worse. There is one guy from India I knew who wanted to return there to study demons and write his own thesis on their nature and weaknesses etc, to help people learn how to more readily expel them or defend against them. I never heard anything more from him.
3. 'We' who? You mean science? The general public? You? I am convinced, by logic as much as experience: Given first cause, all is supernatural. Some is physical, certainly we have all experienced joy, love, seen art and beauty, studied math and other unfalsifiables, so not all we can be sure about is physical. But the ethereal nature of some events, at least from the POV of the general public, doesn't look so ethereal from the ones who experience them. Who's to say what the truth is about the anecdotal experiences? The point of the whole matter is not to convince the general public, nor even the scientific community. Science is not in charge of fact, nor for that matter, is philosophy. Haha, nor is the church.

1. Many claims are unfalsifiable. How do we go about proving them then? How do we decide which claims to invoke some level of credulity, and accept?
2. Then how do you know that this God has revealed Himself to us at all? Is it possible ALL books are merely man made alone?
3. There exists a plethora of anecdotal claims to God's revelation. Heck, this is one of the key foundations of the Bible, for which you believe. See question number 1. directly above.

Mark Quayle said:
All things, (universe, or Omni) are intentional, or accidental. Accidental makes no sense to me. IF first cause, then, logically, it is all intentional.

Going back to the noise you hear, while home alone at night....

You hear one of your windows break. Your pulse begins to race. You immediately brace yourself to go on the defense. Meaning, you either hightail it out of the house, or, you cautiously head towards the noise; maybe even grabbing a weapon - (fight or flight). You later come to find out the wind caused a tree branch to hit your window in the other room.

1. Congratuations, you've committed a type 1 error.
2. Was this cause intentional?

I still hypothesize you infer 'intentional agency' because there is really no way to rule it out - (unlike the broken window). Agreed? I doubt this 'first cause' argument lends to the reason you are a God believer. I still hypothesize that you were already a God believer before you came across this 'uncaused cause' argument?

Clizby WampusCat · May 9, 2021

FutureAndAHope said:
I did not have a dream? I was awake when those things occurred. I say:

Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Why do you think it was from a god?

FutureAndAHope · May 9, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Why do you think it was from a god?

I accept it was from God based upon faith. But also there are cues, or clues, that suggest it was from God.

Take the following story, one of many:

One morning I got up and walked into the hall and I heard a voice that I believed was God say "How would you like to be stabbed in the Valley". The Valley was known as the rough end of town, and the voice scared me a little, I wondered if I had done something to offend God. I had planned to go down to the Valley to ask people out to church as was my habit at the time. In the end I went anyway regardless of the fear. I walked up to the first person I met and asked him if he would like to go out to church. He said to me "I am an atheist, I don't believe in God". I just said "fine", but hoped to change his mind. He then proceeded to unbutton his shirt and showed me scar marks up and down his chest and stomach. He said to me, "I was attacked by a knife wielding man in the Valley some time ago and spent months recovering in hospital, How could God allow that to happen to me". Then I knew why God had said in the morning "How would I like to be stabbed?". God understood this man, but had a good plan for him. Some weeks latter this man came out to church and became a Christian.

The following things point to it being God.

It foretold the future, God holds the future in His hands.
It proved to be a true prediction, not a false one.
It ended in a person walking toward Christ, not away.

Mark Quayle · May 9, 2021

cvanwey said:
Noted. However, regardless of whether you are speaking about a 'first cause', or any cause quite frankly, we are speaking about "material". A claim is out there, that matter always was. IF material always was, whether it be "nothing", the "universe", or "other", then something was always there. Hence, to speak of creating something, (i.e.) which always was, would be illogical. Just like it would be illogical to ask about what is colder than absolute zero.

I'm having a bit of trouble following your thinking here. You go from 'first cause' and/or 'any cause' to say we are talking about 'material'. Then suddenly you are back to saying there is a claim about 'material always was'. Then from there you draw the conclusion that it would be illogical to speak of creating something which always was. I agree with your conclusion, but I don't see how the things you said first are relevant to its arrival.

cvanwey said:
This is why I stated a few times already, that maybe we can argue if there exists a 'change agent', verses a "first cause."

A (singular) "change agent" just sounds like a weird attempt to make sense of what doesn't make sense. We can argue whether there's such a thing, but it has no impact on whether first cause exists or not. Side issue.

cvanwey said:
I'm honestly 50/50, that either a 'first cause' exists, verses no 'first cause'. But if a true 'first cause' does exist, the follow up evidence does not look to lead anywhere specific to your conclusion about the origin of this first cause

What origin? First Cause has no origin, by definition.

cvanwey said:
Does lack of knowledge, or limited knowledge about a proposition, then reasonably only mean "God"?

Seems as though I have to keep stressing the importance of the term "always was". "God" is not the only probable concept for which could always have existed, right?

First Cause is not just the only 'probable', but the only possible concept for something always existing. The question of matter (material --to include nothingness etc.) always existing is the same in the end as infinite regression of causes.

cvanwey said:
You stated the Bible is the only Book which correctly describes this "first cause". And yet, when we open the pages of Genesis, and beyond, what do the words actually say? Is it supposed to be literal, figurative, other? If it's a mix, how do you distinguish which parts are which?

Lol, you just can't drop this, can you? Ok, I'm willing to get into it, but understand, when I'm talking about God of the Bible, YHWH, I'm talking about First Cause.

The Bible is a lot more than just Genesis. If I had to get something about God from Genesis, I would get God created, God is in charge, God is good, It is not wise to oppose God. You have to have all the answers about what you don't understand before realizing there is a lot you do understand?

cvanwey said:
If you are reading any book, and the message is not clear,, wouldn't you blame the one whom wrote the book? Please see directly above for more detail.

No, not if the message was not intended for me to understand.

cvanwey said:
Please enlighten me Either you did answer, and we never agreed, or other...

1. Did "God" create all "laws", and is now only an observer?
2. Or, does He continue to intervene and maybe sometimes disrupts these set laws for which He apparently created?

I said, "From the perspective of First Cause, it makes no difference."

To say it another way, "From God's timeless POV, speaking something into existence as a completed construction is no different from intervening within time and even continuously upholding it."

cvanwey said:
You don't agree to anything I've said. Please re-look at what you just stated "No, I don't agree it is possible that the universe has no cause, even if in some sense (such as being in the mind of God) it 'always was'."

If you did agree, then you would at least entertain the idea that "matter" was not caused.

Correct, I do not agree that it is possible that the universe has no cause.

cvanwey said:
How did you conclude the only thing which can be uncaused, is "God"? And if this God caused everything, then at one point, God would also of had to create something/anything besides His own self. How would that work? At one point, God ruled over [absolute nothingness], outside Himself. At one point, God also dwelled upon, within, or other, "complete/absolute nothingness"? And by "complete/absolute nothingness", I mean "absence of anything at all". Whether you speak of some transcendent arena, or other, according to your philosophy, God would have had to create it. Which would mean that before He crated it, it did not exist. And if true nothing existed, at one point, then you can see the logical problems there, right?

Remember here, now, I am talking about First Cause when I say God. It would be just as accurate to say that before God created anything, he was all there was. Needing no arena, not subject to any fact. We may make up things to say, like we always do: eg, 'God owes his creatures to be faithful and consistent and true'. But that is worse than saying 'the ocean owes it to us to be wet'. We make up God 'existed within reality' or, 'existence applies to God', when actually, reality and existence is God's 'invention', (and even that word I use for lack of a better one). Reality and existence are, only because God is.

So, no, I see no logical problems there, if I understand what you are asking.

cvanwey said:
This is why I stated above, that I am 50/50. You can see that just as many unanswered questions exist, for the assertion of an "uncaused cause", verses that of the claim "matter' (in some form or another) always was"

I really don't see what questions remain unanswered with the assertion of First Cause. Obviously there are plenty questions, but I don't see any logical contradictions.

cvanwey said:
Some scientists suggest an eternal universe. And by eternal, this would mean 'no first cause'. I'd imagine they do not pose this idea, merely because they do not want to admit to a God, right? Or, are they all just in denial? Is it likely they are coming to these conclusions/ideas, due to sound reasoning, based upon their findings? Or, do they all have an agenda to suppress "God"? The reason I ask again here, is because I noticed you did not answer this question from post #369.

The only scientists I've heard of suggesting an eternal universe are talking about the cycle of expansion => contraction => expansion. That might seem more substantive than infinite regression, but it really doesn't tell us anything in the end. And, again, infinite regression of cause is infinite begging the question.

Whether it's an agenda? --I can't speak for them, but yes, I believe they (whether they are aware of doing so or not) suppress the notion of God, for at least one reason: they think including God in the mix cancels naturalism which is the only mode they know how to pursue study. I think some of them don't want to see that is not logical.

cvanwey said:
1. Many claims are unfalsifiable. How do we go about proving them then? How do we decide which claims to invoke some level of credulity, and accept?
2. Then how do you know that this God has revealed Himself to us at all? Is it possible ALL books are merely man made alone?
3. There exists a plethora of anecdotal claims to God's revelation. Heck, this is one of the key foundations of the Bible, for which you believe. See question number 1. directly above.

1. What I want to know is WHY go about proving them? What's the point?
2. We see the results of his cause all around us, with no other good explanation for its existence. You don't need a Bible to see there must be a first cause.
3. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this sentence: "this is one of the key foundations of the Bible, for which you believe." 'For' which I believe? I don't know what you are saying. Anyhow, 'anecdotal claims to God's revelation' would mean, like when it says that scripture is 'God-breathed' or when it says that God said this or that to Moses, etc etc, right?

Are you just asking if I believe the Bible makes claims about God communicating?

cvanwey said:
Going back to the noise you hear, while home alone at night....

You hear one of your windows break. Your pulse begins to race. You immediately brace yourself to go on the defense. Meaning, you either hightail it out of the house, or, you cautiously head towards the noise; maybe even grabbing a weapon - (fight or flight). You later come to find out the wind caused a tree branch to hit your window in the other room.

1. Congratuations, you've committed a type 1 error.
2. Was this cause intentional?

I still hypothesize you infer 'intentional agency' because there is really no way to rule it out - (unlike the broken window). Agreed? I doubt this 'first cause' argument lends to the reason you are a God believer. I still hypothesize that you were already a God believer before you came across this 'uncaused cause' argument?

Yes, the cause was intentional, if First Cause exists. To me that is plain logic; I don't infer it because I can't rule it out.

Yes, of course I believed in God before I had thought much about First Cause. That doesn't mean that the First Cause argument is irrelevant to what I believe.

Clizby WampusCat · May 10, 2021

FutureAndAHope said:
I accept it was from God based upon faith. But also there are cues, or clues, that suggest it was from God.

So was it faith or "clues"?

Take the following story, one of many:

One morning I got up and walked into the hall and I heard a voice that I believed was God say "How would you like to be stabbed in the Valley". The Valley was known as the rough end of town, and the voice scared me a little, I wondered if I had done something to offend God. I had planned to go down to the Valley to ask people out to church as was my habit at the time. In the end I went anyway regardless of the fear. I walked up to the first person I met and asked him if he would like to go out to church. He said to me "I am an atheist, I don't believe in God". I just said "fine", but hoped to change his mind. He then proceeded to unbutton his shirt and showed me scar marks up and down his chest and stomach. He said to me, "I was attacked by a knife wielding man in the Valley some time ago and spent months recovering in hospital, How could God allow that to happen to me". Then I knew why God had said in the morning "How would I like to be stabbed?". God understood this man, but had a good plan for him. Some weeks latter this man came out to church and became a Christian.

The following things point to it being God.

It foretold the future, God holds the future in His hands.

It proved to be a true prediction, not a false one.

It ended in a person walking toward Christ, not away.

How do you tie this to a Christian god? I hear a lot of stories like this by other faiths that connect it to their god. So how can you use this as evidence for your god and they cannot use the same type of evidence for their god? If I can use the same type of evidence for different gods then it cannot be good evidence for belief of a particular god. Atheists have stories like this as well, so how can we determine this was the Christian god working?

What Convinced you God Exists?

What Convinced you God Exists?

Philosophical Argument

Personal Experience

Other

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Just me

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Just me

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Just me

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency