Why God Certainly Exists...
Offline ...But before I get to that, a few words directed to, and about, an OVERWHELMING majority of Atheists and Christians...
First, I find it quite troubling that you all consistently and with no hesitation conflate the following terms: "God", "Religion", "Bible", "Christianity".
God is NOT religion - in truth, religion has nothing to do with God. Rather it is a set of rituals, practices, and beliefs held by a common population. I assumed this was common knowledge, but after reading Dawkins latest book (and many posts on this forum) I was appalled at how many times the conflation occurred – and at how it is rarely if ever corrected.
God is NOT the Bible (or any "holy book"
- the Bible is simply a book. Look, I understand that when confronting a Christian it is perhaps best to do so on their 'home-turf' – however, not even deep in the recesses of the archives of the volumes of Christian Doctrine does it say anywhere that the Bible is God. Please, let both sides stop using this book to make claims about God (but by all means feel free to do so when constructing claims about Christianity).
God is NOT Christianity – despite the strong wishes on both sides, God is not Christianity. Unfortunately, it seems that while fully aware of the distinction, Atheists refuse to make it. Maybe this is because 98% of you so-called Atheists are in actuality only really anti-Christianity. Maybe you get a kick out of pointing out obvious contradiction, and refuse to step out of your Christianity/God comfort zone where truth is less ‘obvious’, and the logic a little more complex. Maybe you’ve had a bad experience with a supposedly Christian person or a non-denominational church…shit – we’ve all been there. Whatever your reason for doing so, enough is enough. And if your one of those who was just plain ignorant (most likely a Christian) – well now you know. Regardless of what you heard or think you know, God is not owned by, was not created/invented by, God is NOT Christianity.
Quickly though, do any of you know what “God” denotes? What is God? Anyone?
God is quite simply, in the lowest common denominator, if he exists, The Creator of the Universe.
Ok? Good…
So let me just get straight to it – God certainly exists.
There is a certain argument that when Atheists encounter, they either ignore it (a la Dawkins), or unknowingly conclude that a known and verified scientific principle (which they themselves use to defend evolution and attack creationism) is wrong. I am of course talking about the Cosmological Argument. It has many forms but the gist is, 1. There is a cause for every effect. 2. It is in theory possible to trace this cause/effect chain back infinitely. 3. However, because causes/effects occur in time there is no regressive infinite chain. 4. Thus, there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect. 5. This first cause is God.
The standard Atheistic replies are directed at 3 and 5. They’ll say, “An infinite chain is possible and perhaps actual, and besides even if its not, all you have is a first cause…not the God of the Bible, not the God of Christianity, blah, blah, blah…”
So lets talk about infinite chains - either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t.
Which is it going to be Atheist? For, if you say to the infinite chain, “yes”, you are directly countering the scientific fact that the Universe has an age! This is indisputable fact. We now know that the universe is expanding. Confirmation of this happens daily with the observation of redshifts of stars increasing over time and in proportion to distance. To quote Stephen Hawking, “The beginning of the universe is the beginning of time.” Further, you Atheists use this claim to bolster arguments against literal Creationism and the view that the earth was formed in seven days! You can’t have it both ways – remember either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t, there is no third choice.
What about 5? “Ok, so we have a first cause. An uncaused causer, the Unmoved Mover, Uncreated Creator… what we do not have the God of the Bible, not the God of Christianity, blah, blah, blah…”
Were you paying attention? God is not Christianity, the Bible, religion, etc. So why does the truth about God have to reflect Christianity, the Bible, religion, etc.? The answer is - it doesn’t.
God stands alone, without need for “holy books”, churches, ceremony, war, violence, hate, praise, worship, religion, Islam, Christianity, terrorism, patriotism, and yes even your belief…or mine for that matter.
Regardless, God most certainly exists - accept it and respect it – or don’t.
Just be sure to toe your own lines.
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
@Chukwu
Hint: You haven't felt the urge to ask what "Arglebargle" is yet?
I think there is substantial evidence to support the big bang theory, but postulating what happened prior to that event does not support the god/first cause/creator arguement. We simply do not know. You may plug in any theory you want, but it is certainly not "evidence" for a creator. There are many scientific hypotheses also of events prior to the big bang, cyclical universe, multiverse. Those are just as "true" as your hypothesis. What it boils down to is we simply do not know if there was a "first" cause, many "first" causes or whatever you would like to call it. Simply plugging god into the equation does not make it so.
Sir, there is no ignorance on my part. No where in my construction (or in any vaild) construction of the argument is there the statement everything needs a cause. What IS stated is that there is a Cause for every Effect. Read Carefully.
If there is any ignorance, it is on your part for making an assumption that any construction of a universe w/ God is mutually exclusive with naturalism. In this construction a form of naturalism is IMPLICIT - that is, from that which proceeds it, its essence comes. This in neither detrimental nor unwanted in the Cos.Arg. There is no pre-concieved notion about what attributes God has, rather they follow from the argument. Did you miss the part about pantheistic notions of God being compatible? You must have...
Further, since you seem bent on bring fundamentally Christian divine attributes into an argument that makes no mention of them (where in the argument does it say anything about a trancendental or supernatural God - perhaps you don't understand what panthiesm is?) you must be waiting for some kind of explanation as to what God is made up of. Can you not see your mistake? THERE IS NO MENTION OF SUBSTANCE!
So thus back to the issue, either you believe in a creator of the universe (GOD) or you accept infinite regression. Answer plainly sir, which is it?
Very nice points.
All we need to do to defeat the first cause argument once and for all is demonstrate that it's first premise commits a false dichotomy error. Cosmologists have shown that there are more than just two options (eternal universe/first cause)
From my brief essay on common cosmological errors:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions
2) Either the universe was created, or it has always existed.
False dichotomy. There is no reason to hold that there MUST have been a creation point.
A singularity ("something timeless" prior to planck time) does not necessarily speak to ex nihilo creation - and again, big bang theory on its own, at the present, cannot tell us anything about the 'origin' of the singularity or if it has an origin at all.
I think people naturally hold that if the universe 'began' in a singularity, then it follows that it was 'created' or that it was 'caused'. But I think that cosmologists hold that it is an error to conflate the idea of a singularity with all existence being created ex nihlo.
According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one:
* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.
* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.
* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html
One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point" http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Hint: Have I asked it?
You confuse yourself sir...
I dont think time goes back ad infinitum - THUS THE COSMOARG...whoa - cant be more clear
I ask him if HE subscribes to infinte regression since he claims "no one knows" first cause.
No, you haven't. In fact, you conceded that: if Arglebargle is not the creator of the universe, then you would remain silent, a la Wittgentein, on the subject. Apparently, "creator of the universe" is the only topic in which you are interested...
You're arguing from ignorance. This means that you are saying "You can't come up with any answer, ergo 'god did it'
Actually, you only make one exception: 'god'
Ergo this is entirely ad hoc.
1) I first read this argument before you were born.
2) The only exception is 'god' ergo otherwise, you do hold that everything else requires a cause, so please, read your own argument carefully.
Sigh. I didn't call you ignorant. I said your argument committed the fallacy of arguing to ignorance.
As for your 'god', if your 'god' is natural, then your first cause argument falls to pieces... as everything natural needs a cause as per your OWN argument.
So your argument requires a 'god' that is outside the causal chain.
Again, please read your own argument more carefully.
You're a pantheist making a first cause argument?!!?
How odd.
If you are making a pantheistic argument, then you believe that 'god' IS the universe.... so you think the universe caused itself?
This is NOT pantheism!
Wrong. False dichotomy error. Please look above, read slowly, and then correct your error.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No, you're clearly confusing yourself.
You just wrote this:
" If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite."
Hence you hold that without a first cause, there is a dilemma.... time 'extends back to the infinite'
And again, for a second time, you are contradicting yourself. To say that there is an infinite regress is to [b] say that there is no starting point at all, not that there was a starting point an infinite amount of time ago
So your 'dilemma' position, the one in contrast to your own position is in error, it contradicts itself.
See the error now?
No, right?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Your point is going over his head...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
There is no theory here, and nothing to plug in. There is no appeal to before the big bang, just as in guesses to what is "pre-big bang" make absolutely NO SENSE mathematically. I must not be speaking clearly - if you accept as truth that there was a prior causal chain to the big-bang, then you dont accept the Standard Model....PERIOD. You dont accept universal expansion, redshift, particle generation, etc. because this model works based on the assumption that at the singularity from which the big-bang proceeded, is also from whence time proceeded. There is no fuzzyness about this. Singualrity = t = 0.
If you believe in an infinite regression than good for you, BUT toe your own rope. You now have no weapon in which to fight the literal Creationist who believes in a 7 day theory. Science is no longer your bedfellow. Its as simple as that.
You are on a roll todangst.
We have valid theories of physics regarding this universe, big bang, expansion, etc. Physicists do not know what the physics enviroment was prior to plank time. Fundamentel mathmatical physics models break down at the singularity.
God is not the automatic answer though.
The answer is we do not know!
Unfortunately, that seems to be the case, yes.
1) I first read this argument before you were born.
Perhaps - you look old if that is your picture.
2) The only exception is 'god' ergo otherwise, you do hold that everything else requires a cause, so please, read your own argument carefully.
Wrong - if your read this argument that long ago you shouldve taken the time to understand it. God is no exception in this construction of the argument for simply it is not necessary that EVERY Cause EXIST AS 'simultaneously' an Effect (surely i didnt need to point this out - keep up) - I didnt write otherwise so dont put words into my mouth (or keyboard)
3)...As for your 'god', if your 'god' is natural, then your first cause argument falls to pieces... as everything natural needs a cause as per your OWN argument.
Wrong again, i.e. the FIRST cause is "natural" and uncaused
I "" natural because your bring the term in - if by natural you mean not trancendent or supernatural than nothing falls to pieces. There are several Pan-theistic constructions that appeal to this.
4)You're a pantheist making a first cause argument?!!?How odd.
Why is this odd? If it seems odd to you, you dont understand the cosmological argument as well as you think you do.
5)This is NOT pantheism!
WOW - patently FALSE. It is indeed Pantheism, all that is needed is a recursive reformulation of the first premise whereby The universe by its own nature is responsiblefor the universe as an effect.
6) You claim it a false dichotomy, but there is absolutely no basis for such a claim. THis arguments validity has been checked and re-checked with various logics, and I have yet to see or hear of a refudation of its VALIDITY. When you have facts (come with some logic, im talking arguments, not the opinions of a book you read in passing at borders) as to the dichotomy being false ll be GLAD to read and digest.
His point isnt going anywhere sir, it is just frankly irrelevant. He says it best, Creator of the Universe is what the Atheist denies and all I am interested in establishing.
"If time is 'infinite' then that means there [b]is no starting point.... but your argument depends on there being a starting point an infinite amount of time ago...."
Wow - your all over the place...and wrong to boot.
My argument doesnt depend on starting points "an infinite amount of time ago" - frankly starting points and infinite regressions are mutually exclusive - THAT is what the argument rests on. If you think they're not mutually exclusive, than you misunderstand infinity.
I think you just screwed up. If 'god' is no exception' then 'god' requires a cause. Then you're argument commits an internal contradiction: 'god' is natural and part of the causal chain, ergo you still have an infinite regress problem.
If the first cause is 'natural', then as a natural entity, it requires a cause. If natural entities don't require a cause, then your entire argument falls to pieces.
You're contradicting yourself all over the place.
Because to a pantheist, there is no creator per se... the universe is 'god' ... yet you speak in terms of a creator.
I just gave you one above. Your claim commits a false dichotomy error. You are patently wrong to say that either there is a creation or an infinite universe. I've shown that there are more than two options, ergo your argument dies here.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
1.Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.
$100 bucks to the first to prove this a false dichotomy....
Please say this again, but this time, look in a mirror.
Yes, it does.
You just wrote this:
" If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite."
No, it does not.
One more time:
You just wrote this:
" If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite."
This implies that time extends BACK IN THE INFINITE... I.E. IT CROSSES AN INFINITE TIME PERIOD, WHICH REQUIRES A STARTING POINT.
How many times will I need to repeat this for you? You're argunment contradicts its own premise.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Again, you're CONTRADICTING YOURSELF! If your hold that 'time stretches back INFINITELY', AS A DILEMMA then this requires you to hold that there is a starting point, and infinite amount of time ago, that has been traversed.
Otherwise, there is no dilemma. None. Zero.
Pay your money to Stephen Hawkings:
According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one:
* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.
* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.
* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html
One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point" http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html
"In his best selling book, A Brief History of Time, Professor Hawking suggests that in order for the "Big Bang" to work, the mathematics requires that the condition of the Universe at the beginning must have been finite and boundless. There must have been no edges, or points of discontinuity. Without this assumption, the laws of physics could not be used to explain the activity and state of affairs in the first moments of the creation of the Universe. By assuming that the Universe was and is finite, yet boundless, physicists are able to avoid the problems created by discontinuities."
In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell.
I've already posted this once.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
except over your head... he's pointing out that assigning a role to "X" does not provide an ontology for "X"
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
To add to this:
There's a great book called "Time Travel In Einstein's Universe" by J. Richard Gott, out of Princeton. Chapter 5 is what I'm referring to here.
He wrote a paper with Li Xin Li called "Can the Universe Create Itself?" The central premise of the paper was to prove that the Universe has a geometry which makes it possible to have the Universe be its own mother - before the Big Bang.
I'm little more than a layman on the topic, but the way I understand it is this: before the Big Bang, there was a time loop. Each time the Universe went through this loop, it stood a finite chance of quantum tunneling out and inflating. The result of this tunneling/inflation was the Big Bang.
Feel free to Google it up. I need a couple more years of physics before I'll tackle this one.
"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."
-BHG
1.""If the first cause is 'natural', then as a natural entity, it requires a cause. If natural entities don't require a cause, then your entire argument falls to pieces.""
You're contradicting yourself all over the place.""
todangst,
You conflate "natural" and "material" - I use "natural" (and "naturalism"
with no hesitation because in any cosmological argument wherein a cause -> effect chain is established, it makes no sense to diffrentiate ANY element in the chain based on substance. Why? because there is no known mechanism from creation from the "trancendental", "etheral", "supernatual" , to the "material". (THere are appeals to creation from "nothing", but "nothing" in my estimation is unncessary - though random quantum particle generation from "nothing" is a noted phenomenon) The ONLY diffrentiation between first cause and second cause is that first cause is uncaused. Is the first cause's causal independance necessary - yes. But this follows from the fact that we KNOW that time does not extend backwards in the infinite (WE KNOW THERE IS A TIME ZERO - ATHEISTS USE IT IN ARUGUMENTS AGAINST RELIGION ALL THE TIME WHY DENY IT NOW?). So the first cause's necessary causal independance is reliant SOLELY on the appeal to a FINITE TIME. So, the double dichotomy is: FINITE TIME <->FIRST CAUSE ;;; INFINITE TIME <-> NO FIRST CAUSE/NO STARTING POINT;;;
So again what is it going to be Atheist?
Do you accept an infinite regression?(absurd)
or
Do you accept that there is a first cause?(God)
Common atheists, anyone with a trivial understanding of logic can see this is just plain wrong... Well, Im not letting you get away with this...
#1 - A contradiction is of the form A & -A
#2 - My statement is thus: Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.
#3 - Any old dick can see this is of the form A ∨ -A
So... there is no contradiction in form...
Let's see if there is a contradiction in terms...
#1 - Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.
Time streches back infinitely (A)
∨
TIme does NOT strech back infintely (-A)
#2 A ∨ -A is a tautology; always true...
"...then this requires you to hold that there is a starting point, and infinite amount of time ago, that has been traversed. "
No - it doesnt require me to do shit but accept A or -A
Making up fantastic bullshit and sticking to it may work sometimes...
To you, the connotation of the word God is a simple denotation of the creator of the universe, but the connotation is much different for me. You can call the first cause anything you wish, including God, but I will choose not to refer to it with that word. It is misleading and dishonest in my opinion, and is a semantical ploy.
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]
Could time not stretch back infinitely, but there still be an infinite casual chain? Isn't this a possibility if time is finite but has no boundary?
Chukwu, this thread can be about two things--it can be an argument for God, or it can be a discussion about the origins of the universe. it can't be both.
the reason that it can't be both is because God is a charged word-historically, emotionally, anthropologically, etc. Even in your own language use, you showed how the word God can affect something. It's not just a word that means 'first cause' even if you accept this cosmololgical argument.
the origin of the universe is a 'he' who can answer? see this is where the anthropomorphic connotations of a God leak in to your argument. You were not able to "strip from your own mind any historical connotation from the word God because all such connotation is superflous" as you advised me to. That's ok that you weren't able to do that; I wouldn't expect anyone, including myself, to really be able to use the word God in a discussion about cosmological origins without lots of other issues getting tangled-God is a loaded term; it's an old word.
you just need to answer for yourself if you are really trying to have a evenhanded discussion about the origin of the universe or if you are in actuality trying to provide a charged theological argument.
also, the word 'creator' has many of the same problems that will confuse issues in this dialogue that the word God does, if you are not able to strip your mind from its historical connotations.
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
I agree.
Chukwu, if we conceded the point to you my question would be, "So, what?" It would change very little about my world view. It would change nothing about how I live my daily life. It's an interesting question worth discussing, but in the end what does it really get us?
So is it possible for:
A: time strech back infinitely
&
B: Infinite causal Chain
&
-A:Time is finite (boundless refers to its space-time geometrical representation) ?
No - While THe statement (A&B) exists with no contradiction clearly (A & B & -A ) doesnt