I believe in God because...

[1137]

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.

I'm tiring of repeating that it is not my argument. That's very touching that you feel I have the ability of going back in time and creating one of the most famous arguments for god's existence, but it's highly irrational.

As for your criticism, the first thing is not an event. If you'd actually pay attention to what I've said, it is that there are no uncaused EVENTS.

 

[PolyHedral]

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

You're assuming without justification that time is linear. If time is non-linear, then infinite chains are fine.

 

[1137]

You're assuming without justification that time is linear. If time is non-linear, then infinite chains are fine.

Hmmm, this is interesting as time is not linear. Could you elaborate on this a little, as I have no problem rejecting an argument that isn't even mine...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm tiring of repeating that it is not my argument. That's very touching that you feel I have the ability of going back in time and creating one of the most famous arguments for god's existence, but it's highly irrational.

By "your argument", I wasn't referring to the argument from contingeny itself; I was referring to the argument that you just gave and that I quoted in which you argued in favour of the argument from contingency. If you'd prefer, I suppose I could say "your meta-argument" from now on to make the distinction.

As for your criticism, the first thing is not an event. If you'd actually pay attention to what I've said, it is that there are no uncaused EVENTS.

Then you knock the legs out from under the argument from contingency. If it only argues that events are caused, then it would be necessary to demonstrate that every thing that isn't God exists because of an event, but the argument doesn't do this.

 

[1137]

By "your argument", I wasn't referring to the argument from contingeny itself; I was referring to the argument that you just gave and that I quoted in which you argued in favour of the argument from contingency. If you'd prefer, I suppose I could say "your meta-argument" from now on to make the distinction.


Then you knock the legs out from under the argument from contingency. If it only argues that events are caused, then it would be necessary to demonstrate that every thing that isn't God exists because of an event, but the argument doesn't do this.

Exactly, because the argument is ridiculous and God does not exist (most likely). The argument makes a huge leap from saying there is something necessary to saying it is God. This is just silly. There is no need for God in any line of though I have seen to date. However, the claim that there are no uncaused events is valid. If you found your car's windsheild smashed, I doubt you would accept it as an uncaused event. But, as pointed out, we experience time as linear when it is not, so perhaps the premise is not sound. I will have to hear PolyHedral's argument.

 

[Falvlun]

Exactly, because the argument is ridiculous and God does not exist (most likely). The argument makes a huge leap from saying there is something necessary to saying it is God. This is just silly. There is no need for God in any line of though I have seen to date.

Agreed. I don't understand how people can be doing fine and dandy with a logical argument, all premises supporting each other, and then all of a sudden, Bam! We get "And we call that God!".

Um. No. We don't have to call that God, and particularly, if by God you are implying a conscious and omnipotent Being that's still around to check in on things, since that is a long way away from the "necessary cause" that the whole argument was hypothesizing.

However, the claim that there are no uncaused events is valid. If you found your car's windsheild smashed, I doubt you would accept it as an uncaused event. But, as pointed out, we experience time as linear when it is not, so perhaps the premise is not sound. I will have to hear PolyHedral's argument.

Let's see if I can clear up the criticism of what you're saying.

You claim that there are no uncaused events, right?

This requires, then, an infinite regress of events causing other events. There cannot be a "first cause".

A "first cause" is an uncaused event. So, therefore, that means there is at least one uncaused event. Which makes the statement "There are no uncaused events" to be untrue.

 

[Dan4reason]

1) God(s) may be defined as:
a. aspects of reality that are greater/grander than a human and/or humanity
b. aspects of reality upon which humans depend for existing
c. aspects of reality that inspire awe, wonder, and reverence
d. aspects of reality that a person believes is worth revering and honoring in some fashion

2) Reality in this context understood as anything which may be perceived in any fashion by humans. This includes both things which exist in a physical sense and which exist in an abstract/ideological/imaginal sense.

The "why" god(s) exist should be pretty self-evident with this kind of outlook.

So what things in the universe are grander than human design?

 

[1137]

Let's see if I can clear up the criticism of what you're saying.

You claim that there are no uncaused events, right?

This requires, then, an infinite regress of events causing other events. There cannot be a "first cause".

A "first cause" is an uncaused event. So, therefore, that means there is at least one uncaused event. Which makes the statement "There are no uncaused events" to be untrue.

No, this simply requires something to cause the first cause event. I see what the error in the argument is, there is not a first cause that is uncaused. There is a first cause that is caused by a 'necessary thing' (explained in terms of itself). However, this still has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God, which remains completely unnecessary.

 

[Spiralz]

I believe in a higher power because all the other solutions for how we are here aren't logical to me. Now being religious follows in the belief in the higher power. Under the assumption that my answer is not logical enough to show anyone that there is a God, I'm not gonna answer that question. In all actuality unless you believe that we were just here all along you believe in an higher power, what ever made our world/us is the higher power.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly, because the argument is ridiculous and God does not exist (most likely). The argument makes a huge leap from saying there is something necessary to saying it is God. This is just silly. There is no need for God in any line of though I have seen to date. However, the claim that there are no uncaused events is valid. If you found your car's windsheild smashed, I doubt you would accept it as an uncaused event. But, as pointed out, we experience time as linear when it is not, so perhaps the premise is not sound. I will have to hear PolyHedral's argument.

Human experience isn't always a good gauge of how the universe works. I'd also be surprised if my car floated off into space, but gravity wells like the one we live in relatively uncommon in the rest of the universe.

More to the point for this discussion, if someone argued to me that something existing outside the universe caused it or that something must have existed before the beginning of time, I would have to get the person to explain how "existing outside the universe" or "before the beginning of time" are even coherent concepts before I could even say "I disagree".

Edit: if you think the argument is ridiculous, why are you arguing for it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe in a higher power because all the other solutions for how we are here aren't logical to me. Now being religious follows in the belief in the higher power. Under the assumption that my answer is not logical enough to show anyone that there is a God, I'm not gonna answer that question. In all actuality unless you believe that we were just here all along you believe in an higher power, what ever made our world/us is the higher power.

You do realize that this is an argument frim ignorance (or, as I've also heard it described, an argument from lack of imagination), right? "I can't imagine what could have done ____ besides my pet answer, so it must be true by default."

It doesn't work that way. We don't have to accept your version until you provide evidence that it's correct.

 

[1137]

Human experience isn't always a good gauge of how the universe works. I'd also be surprised if my car floated off into space, but gravity wells like the one we live in relatively uncommon in the rest of the universe.

Logic and science are outside of human experience. Above it. So, human experience isn't even involved here in any way. I personally have had mystical experiences, but notice I don't use them as evidence as they are only valid to me.

More to the point for this discussion, if someone argued to me that something existing outside the universe caused it or that something must have existed before the beginning of time, I would have to get the person to explain how "existing outside the universe" or "before the beginning of time" are even coherent concepts before I could even say "I disagree".

Outside the universe? Who made such a silly claim? Time and space as we know it came to exist with the birth of the universe. Before is the key, as there had to be something "before". The problem is we can only speak in concepts that we have in this universe, we are bound to silly ideas such as time.

Edit: if you think the argument is ridiculous, why are you arguing for it?

I am only arguing for the first part of the argument, which seems quite valid and possibly sound. The conclusion that God exists is what is ridiculous. You see, I like what PolyHedral said about time not being linear, and I want to see where he is going with that. But, until then, nobody has provided any argument that destroys this one.

 

[Spiralz]

You do realize that this is an argument frim ignorance (or, as I've also heard it described, an argument from lack of imagination), right? "I can't imagine what could have done ____ besides my pet answer, so it must be true by default."

It doesn't work that way. We don't have to accept your version until you provide evidence that it's correct.

No Its an answer of nothing else makes sense. If you can disprove a theory then guess what, It's fiction. I can't prove that there is a God just like you can't prove there isn't. But what i can do is disprove many beliefs outside of the higher power belief. My imagination is flowing constantly which is why I question everything. Also if you read my quote I said I didn't prove anything. How that is Ignorant I'm not sure. Process of elimination is used regularly by many people. The great thing about the idea of God is that the process is limitless. But at the moment God is still winning.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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

Why do you think that? Why isn't the original cause contingent?

 

[Falvlun]

No, this simply requires something to cause the first cause event.

Which would mean it's not the first cause.

I see what the error in the argument is, there is not a first cause that is uncaused. There is a first cause that is caused by a 'necessary thing' (explained in terms of itself).

So, we're still stuck with the fact that there is something which need not be caused. Which makes the statement that everything requires a cause to be false.

However, this still has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God, which remains completely unnecessary.

Right.

 

[PolyHedral]

Logic and science are outside of human experience.

Science is one of the things that define being human.

I am only arguing for the first part of the argument, which seems quite valid and possibly sound. The conclusion that God exists is what is ridiculous. You see, I like what PolyHedral said about time not being linear, and I want to see where he is going with that. But, until then, nobody has provided any argument that destroys this one.

It is, as mentioned, an unfounded assumption that time is a straight line. If it forms loops, then there is no argument to be had, since all events will have causes.

I can't prove that there is a God... [...] But at the moment God is still winning.

Why? You just said that you can't support it, so why believe in it?

 

[1137]

It is, as mentioned, an unfounded assumption that time is a straight line. If it forms loops, then there is no argument to be had, since all events will have causes.

Are you going to support that claim? Either way there still needs to be a first cause, and something to do that in whatever respect it happened.

 

[1137]

So, we're still stuck with the fact that there is something which need not be caused. Which makes the statement that everything requires a cause to be false.

No... again all EVENTS need causes. No uncaused EVENTS.

 

[PolyHedral]

Are you going to support that claim? Either way there still needs to be a first cause, and something to do that in whatever respect it happened.

I don't have anything to say that's definitely what's happened, but it's possible that the high-energy conditions of the Big Bang could result in circular events.

And I don't understand what you mean by first cause in this context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No Its an answer of nothing else makes sense. If you can disprove a theory then guess what, It's fiction. I can't prove that there is a God just like you can't prove there isn't.

That leaves us at "I don't know", not "make up whatever you want".

But what i can do is disprove many beliefs outside of the higher power belief. My imagination is flowing constantly which is why I question everything. Also if you read my quote I said I didn't prove anything. How that is Ignorant I'm not sure.

I wasn't calling you ignorant personally. It's just the name of the fallacy.

Process of elimination is used regularly by many people. The great thing about the idea of God is that the process is limitless. But at the moment God is still winning.

You do realize that you just used another logical fallacy, right? Appeal to popularity. The mere fact that many people believe soething doesn't make it correct.

Regardless, elimination can be used in some situations... but only when you're sure that you have an exhaustive list that includes every possible explanation for the thing you're trying to explain.

If you're willng to provide us with an exhaustive list of every single possible cause for the universe and demonstrate that it really is exhaustive, then it would be valid for you to argue for God by process of elimination.. Not until then, though.