I believe in God because...

[The Sum of Awe]

Main Argument
1. All beings are either necessary or contingent.
2. Not all beings can be contingent.
Therefore: there is a necessary being.
3. A god is the most likely necessary being.
Therefore: god exists.

Why can't all beings be contingent? And why is God most likely a necessary being?

Argument for Premise 2
1.'' If every being is contingent, there is no explanation for the series of contingencies.
2.'' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (PSR)
Therefore: not all beings are contingent.

[/QUOTE]

Why can't the explanation be contingent? What do you mean there is no explanation of the series of contingencies? What if we're all one big contingency?

 

[waitasec]

I believe in God because...

When I was exploring myself (and still am) I got to my very core beliefs. I believed we are not alone in this world, and I believed in spirits. I cannot be an Atheist and believe in Ghosts, thats like being a christian but worshipping Thor.

From there I laid out a checklist of what I believe neturally (that is, what I believe without looking at any external sources) and I just kind of waited for something to call me. A few weeks later I was drawn to paganism for no reason what so ever. Now I am looking at Asatru, the religion of my ancestors.

why can't one believe in ghost and be an atheist?

 

[Quintessence]

It's not enough for a definition to include all of the class of thing it purports to define; it also has to exclude everything that is not in the class of thing in question.

*shrug* Then talk about some culture's specific god-concept. Unless you get culturally specific, there is no thing that "god(s)" is/are not and excluding things in any class doesn't represent all of the world's god-concepts. The OP didn't ask for a culturally specific point of view. Not all definitions of things must exclude. The word "everything" excludes nothing, and the word "universe" is usually taken to mean "everything." If "god" is the universe, "god" is "everything" and there is nothing that can be excluded. In no way does one have to agree with this god-concept, but it exists and I see no reason to hedge it off the field (again, because the OP didn't ask for a culturally specific point of view).

 

[Me Myself]

I am my own religious experience

 

[Me Myself]

why can't one believe in ghost and be an atheist?

I know at least one atheist who does believe in ghosts.

the other one believes in fortune telling, given that a fortuneteller that he visited that was from another city, gave him chillingly accurate facts of his past, and then one(not yet confirmed at the time) for his future.

Actually, probably he believe sin ghosts too. Including doggy ghosts

 

[1137]

Why can't all beings be contingent? And why is God most likely a necessary being?

Why can't the explanation be contingent? What do you mean there is no explanation of the series of contingencies? What if we're all one big contingency?

All things cannot be contingent because there are no uncaused events. This means there is a first something that has no beginning. The most likely necessary thing is NOT god, that was my very point.

 

[waitasec]

I know at least one atheist who does believe in ghosts.

the other one believes in fortune telling, given that a fortuneteller that he visited that was from another city, gave him chillingly accurate facts of his past, and then one(not yet confirmed at the time) for his future.

Actually, probably he believe sin ghosts too. Including doggy ghosts

i'm open to it, i suppose, in light that we are energy.

 

[Levite]

In all respect, may I ask why you have faith?

Although I spent a fair amount of time as an agnostic, and even at one point leaned heavily toward atheism, I consistently made a choice to keep my mind open to the possibility that there was a God, and that there could be more to the universe than our current scientific thought can readily explain, or foresee explaining anytime soon.

With that at the background, I had an experience of personal revelation at a certain time when I was younger (early 20s). That ultimately led me back toward religious practice, and I took up various elements of Kabbalistic practice as a spiritual discipline. In the succeeding years, I have been able to sharpen and raise my spiritual awareness to the point of numerous times experiencing the sense of God's presence.

 

[chinu]

...

well?

Can you give me 1 logical, fact-based argument as to why God exists, or you should be religious?

Somebody asked the question, Do you believe in Sun ? and the answer was, why to believe in such a thing which is infront of my eyes.

Thus.. Why to believe in god ?

 

[Thief]

All things cannot be contingent because there are no uncaused events. This means there is a first something that has no beginning. The most likely necessary thing is NOT god, that was my very point.

So you HAVE chosen substance first....spirit as consequence.
And therefore all spirit is beget of substance and dependent upon it.

Yet you have no problem with spiritual life?

 

[PolyHedral]

All things cannot be contingent because there are no uncaused events.

How do you know? Also, how do you know there is no infinite chain of caused events?

 

[Willamena]

All things cannot be contingent because there are no uncaused events. This means there is a first something that has no beginning. The most likely necessary thing is NOT god, that was my very point.

I'm confused--wouldn't there being no uncaused events mean that all things are contingent? Wouldn't a "first something that has no beginning" be an uncaused event?

 

[Willamena]

This is Aquinas' argument:

1. There are at present contingent beings.
2. Whatever can fail to exist, at some time does not exist.
   Therefore,
3. If all beings are contingent, then at one time nothing existed. (2)
4. Whatever begins to exist is caused to begin to exist by something already existing.
   Therefore,
5. If at any time t nothing existed, then nothing would have existed at any later time. (4)
   Therefore,
6. If at one time nothing existed, nothing exists now. (5)
   Therefore,
7. If all beings are contingent nothing exists now. (3) (6) [Something exists now,]
   Therefore,
8. Not all beings are contingent; there is at least one necessary being. (1) (7)
9. Every necessary being either has its necessity caused by another or has its necessity in itself.
10. There cannot be an infinite series of necessary beings each having its necessity caused by another.
    Therefore,
11. There is a necessary being having of itself its own necessity, and this all men speak of as God. (8) (9) (10)

Essentially, it relies on there being something rather than nothing. It's very good.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is Aquinas' argument:

1. There are at present contingent beings.
2. Whatever can fail to exist, at some time does not exist.
   Therefore,
3. If all beings are contingent, then at one time nothing existed. (2)
4. Whatever begins to exist is caused to begin to exist by something already existing.
   Therefore,
5. If at any time t nothing existed, then nothing would have existed at any later time. (4)
   Therefore,
6. If at one time nothing existed, nothing exists now. (5)
   Therefore,
7. If all beings are contingent nothing exists now. (3) (6) [Something exists now,]
   Therefore,
8. Not all beings are contingent; there is at least one necessary being. (1) (7)
9. Every necessary being either has its necessity caused by another or has its necessity in itself.
10. There cannot be an infinite series of necessary beings each having its necessity caused by another.
    Therefore,
11. There is a necessary being having of itself its own necessity, and this all men speak of as God. (8) (9) (10)

Essentially, it relies on there being something rather than nothing. It's very good.

It has some fatal flaws, though:

- I think that quantum physics shows that statement (4) is not universally true, and therefore nothing that flows from it has been conclusively proven.

- he kinda glosses over the thought process by which he gets from "at least one" necessaey being to only one. Really, he hasn't addressed the idea that there might be any number of beings who "have necessity in themselves" (whatever this means - he doesn't really explain). He also doesn't address the idea that a necessary being could cause a finite number of other necessary beings. It's not surprising that he doesn't, since to do so would be arguing against the Trinity, but it still leaves room for some sort of pantheon of necessary beings.

- in the last step, it falls into the same trap that many arguments for God do: it just slaps "... and we call this 'God'" onto the end without any consideration of why God could be the only thing that satisfies the argument. IOW, the whole thing unravels into an elaborate argument from ignorance.

 

[1137]

So you HAVE chosen substance first....spirit as consequence.
And therefore all spirit is beget of substance and dependent upon it.

Yet you have no problem with spiritual life?

No, that's not even close to what I said. I don't get this matter / spirit duality people are always bringing forth, especially people who claim to be spiritual. There is no matter or spirit, there just is. Everything is made up of some vibrating force, what some primitively call spirit. But it's all the sams stuff.

How do you know? Also, how do you know there is no infinite chain of caused events?

Because I use logic to guide what I find true and false. Uncaused events / infinited caused events doesn't even make the slightest sense. It is completely impossible.

I'm confused--wouldn't there being no uncaused events mean that all things are contingent? Wouldn't a "first something that has no beginning" be an uncaused event?

The first something wouldn't be caused.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

All things cannot be contingent because there are no uncaused events. This means there is a first something that has no beginning. The most likely necessary thing is NOT god, that was my very point.

What if the cause of the contingent things is contingent itself?

 

[PolyHedral]

Because I use logic to guide what I find true and false. Uncaused events / infinited caused events doesn't even make the slightest sense. It is completely impossible

I don't see what's impossible about it. Counter-intuitive, yes, but the universe doesn't care about intuition.

 

[1137]

What if the cause of the contingent things is contingent itself?

Then it has something before it, therefore is not the original cause.

I don't see what's impossible about it. Counter-intuitive, yes, but the universe doesn't care about intuition.

Well you are certainly free to believe what you want. You won't convince me to abandon logic and reason though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because I use logic to guide what I find true and false. Uncaused events / infinited caused events doesn't even make the slightest sense. It is completely impossible.



The first something wouldn't be caused.

I thought I should point out sonething here:

- you say that uncaused things are impossible.
- you say that "the first something" is uncaused.

Taken together, these statements imply that "the first something" is impossible.

You may want to re-think your argument.

 

[Willamena]

- I think that quantum physics shows that statement (4) is not universally true, and therefore nothing that flows from it has been conclusively proven.

Can you elaborate? If quantum physics has shown there to be things that begin to exist with "no cause," then I can see that; else if the claim might stand, it does stand.

- he kinda glosses over the thought process by which he gets from "at least one" necessaey being to only one. Really, he hasn't addressed the idea that there might be any number of beings who "have necessity in themselves" (whatever this means - he doesn't really explain).

"Necessary" is used in a natural sense. I see it used here in the same sense as in relation to conditions: a necessary condition is something that must be in place in order for something else to be. Here, he (or the translation) words it that "necessary being" exists in order that something else exist (or, if contingent, begin to exist). B depends on A. A cause and its effect is a simple example. For something "with its necessity in itself," then, there is nothing that is necessary for it to be necessary. For instance, it would be eternal, which means that time isn't necessary for it this thing to be necessary. It would be unshaped or unformed, which means that outline and boundary like definition and characteristic are not necessary for this thing to be necessary. And it's not really "one": being "one" or even "none" would make it dependent upon a numerical for its existence--it's just that our grammar doesn't allow us to address it. Hence we employ that poetry to address it.

He also doesn't address the idea that a necessary being could cause a finite number of other necessary beings.

It could not cause the necessity of beings that have their necessity "in itself," else they would be dependent on it. And as for the other, frankly, how many beings not dependent on numericals do you really need? If you allow for only beings with their necessity dependent on something else, and if you allow for statement (4), then you run into the same problem with the infinite regress, the problem that "no necessity exists now," which is ostensibly incorrect.
Edit: I guess not the same problem, since it was the contingency problem, and this is necessity. But I'm too busy now to look at it.

It's not surprising that he doesn't, since to do so would be arguing against the Trinity, but it still leaves room for some sort of pantheon of necessary beings.

I don't know about that, so I won't address it.