Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Let me clarify for the less enlightened. "First" in this sense is not first in terms of sequence, but "first" as in "primary."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Looking for arguments for the existence of God
- Thread starter Rorschach
- Start date
That doesn't work, either.
If every effect is a cause, then what effected the first cause? And if causes are not effective, why is the first cause called a cause?Excellent question. You see, this rule is simply a human observation. We only observe within our realm of existence. We'll call that our universe. So, very simply, the first cause was effected by something outside of our realm of perception in which our observation must not hold true.
Just so! Cause and effect is a rule that we made, "simply a human observation." We see an effect and assign it a cause, and put those causes and effects in a sequence according to what we perceive as "time." And it is a human observation, too, that "there must be a first cause."
If this "first cause" is outside our universe, as you say, then it is outside our ability to understand and comprehend. Understanding and comprehension are part of our universe. We could not even think of it, as thinking and all the thoughts we make are part of our universe. By thinking "first cause," you bring it into our universe.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Please point me to just one accepted cosmological theory that says the Big Bang was preceded by "nothing".If the universe wasn't created, then what initiated the Big Bang?
And yet you will claim that whatever created this universe doesn't require a creator despite it's complexity.DarkSun said:
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
God might be one way of conceiving something that wasn't created.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
So could the universe.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
So the universe is the caused itself? If that's what you're saying, the universe would have had to exist before it existed in order to cause its existence. If instead you're saying the universe is an endless chain of causes without any one cause being primal, you wind up with something like the Cheshire Cat's grin suspended in space with no cat. You need something that is not derived from something else just because it is Being. That is not the universe or anything in it.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
And how is the hypothesis of God any different? What did God do before it created the universe? What did it do before that? And so on, and so on, and so on...
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
It's only been answered about a thousand times in RF. Don't you think the question is getting a little redundant?
DarkSun
:eltiT
Please point me to just one accepted cosmological theory that says the Big Bang was preceded by "nothing".
I have nothing but what any normal human mind will think of as the next step:
If the Big Bang was preceded by something, then when did it begin?
It could very well be that space-time and all the matter in it is beyond our comprehension. It could be that our universe is timeless, and that there have been several "Big Bangs" in it's history.
On another note, there may also be some force beyond our understanding driving the matter.
I know what you've decided is the case. To me, both outcomes seem equally mind blowing, and I've picked mine too.
By the way, please lighten up. It was a joke.
=P
And yet you will claim that whatever created this universe doesn't require a creator despite it's complexity.
Your point? How should I know.
There's a point where everything comes down to faith. All beliefs revolve around it. Even yours.
Personally, there's nothing in Scripture to back what you've said, so I'm not going to agree. You can disagree, though.
DarkSun
:eltiT
camanintx said:
I just thought that I'd say that I'm finding this very amusing.
Try not to do your heads in.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Like many questions regarding the nature of God and the universe, they've been asked thousands of times but never adequately answered, otherwise we wouldn't still be here discussing them.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
And all answered in a way that does not exclude the universe from creating itself.
I am not sure about the never adequately answered cause al generations past have arrived to an answer that was perfectly adequate for it time, but it is not final, the next generation challenge it and studies it and discusses till they find an adequate answer, adequate to me means one that am happy with, if at a later time the answer is proven wrong, we most probably be in the presence of God and have the ultimate answer, pure a undeniable truth.:shout
But it's not suspended in space (or not-space) anyway, is it, but in imagination. (Space is one of the things that is "it, suspended.") That's the point of the grin.
This could be an argument to show that bronze age a men were capable of writing high philosophical treatise, and that chances are that they wrote under divine inspiration, the Alpha and the Omega, that God has always existed and that will never cease to exist, anyways what makes people believe in God is the intelligent design and the purpose-ness of the creation, God reveals to us by the things made (created)
athanasius
Well-Known Member
Here is mine:
Blaise Pascal, wrote a argument for the existence of God known as "The Wager".
The wager is a critical bet. Is one going to believe in God or is one going to deny Gods existence? On one hand, if you believe in God and die and come to find out he doesn't exist then you stand to loose nothing and no harm done. However, if you refuse to believe in God and die and find out that he does exist you loose(Or at least seriously risk loosing) everything eternal. Since neither the believer nor the unbeliever are infallible and can know for sure, wouldn't it be far more reasonable and logical to wager the safer bet and believe in God?
Pascals argument is not a direct or strong proof for God's existence, But it can show us logical reasons to believe in God in the absence of any proofs. It could also motivate some to say the prayer of Skeptics "God I do not know weather you exist or not but if you do please show me and help me understand"
Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is a philosopher who subscribes to Darwins Atheistic evolutionary theory. In his work entitled "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins sets out to disprove the theory of Intelligent design which is utilized by theist to explain the creation of the universe. To understand what Dawkins is trying to disprove one must understand the theory of Intelligent design. The theory of intelligent design is the belief that God(a intelligent higher life form) created the universe and everything in it. A typical argument used to explain intelligent design
might be stated as follows. A). If you found a watch in the middle of a desert you would see the complexity of the watch and not just assume that it formed their from natural chance or by some scientific law alone, rather you would assume that it had a intelligent maker such as Swatch or Gucci. B) Human beings are far more complex than watches. C) Therefore human beings most likely would have a intelligent designer
Dawkins, saw a practical problem with intelligent design . Utilizing Darwins evolutionary theory of natural selection, Dawkins began to realize that intelligent design theory is not necessary to explain the complexity of the human Body or the order in the universe. Science itself can explain these things without bringing in the Superstitious concept of a God. A good example that Dawkins used is the Pebbly Beach. If you looked at a pebbly beach for example you will notice that the larger pebbles seem to be sorted, arranged and selected in different areas than the smaller pebbles. Some primitive religions might believe that Gods or a God arranged these there. They may even make up a myth to explain them, but in reality nothing supernatural has happened at all. No hand of God ever caused theses pebbles to be arranged that way. Rather, what has happened is a purely natural and scientific thing that was caused by the forces of physics. Each pebble of each different size and weight will react to the force of the waves of water in a different way. The bigger pebbles will react differently than the smaller pebbles to the waves and therefore will end up in different places on the beach. This is a simple concept scientifically proven without ever having to rely on the suppressive trappings of religious folklore about a higher being.
I will argue in favor of the existence of God.
Aquinas used five arguments for the existence of God through reason. I will use only one of his arguments which I believe is the strongest in refuting atheistic theory. This is the "Need for a first cause" . Everything we know of in the entire material universe is understood or explained by a previous cause. In other words everything made up of matter in our known existence came from a prior cause. I did not cause myself to be or come into existence, my parents caused that. My parents did not come into existence by themselves, their parents(my grandparents) caused them to be and so on and so forth. Every Material object in the universe is a product of a long chain of causes. Nothing causes itself to be. Some might argue that the world was caused by the Big bang theory so the theory of God is not needed. There is no problem for a theist to admit that the Big bang theory is possible. However, this does not destroy the probability that God created the universe.
After all what caused the big bang? Some may argue that the big bang was caused by a explosion of gasses and rock. But, if Matter itself, such as rock and gasses cannot cause themselves to be then who caused them. Why does matter(Rock and gasses) exist at all? Where did they come from? A thiest can believe that God created the universe by the big bang. But who created the matter to make the big bang anyway. It would logically follow that some power outside the material universe created matter. That power must be of a spiritual nature because it is outside of the material universe. And that power must be infinite to be able to create something out of absolutely nothing. We are finite creatures, we can create things such as foods and medicines using other things, but we cannot create something out of nothing. No one starts with absolutely nothing and creates a car. You have to have prior material such as metal, plastic etc. Logically to able to make matter out of nothing and to be able to create a extremely complex system like the material universe also shows a sign of intelligence, far more than we have. What do you call something that is Spiritual, intelligent, infinite and causes things to be? We Call it God.
Some may ask "who created God"? The answer is no one created God. God always existed. He is the First cause of everything. Think of it in two ways. You cannot have a series of causes without arriving at a first cause. For example you cannot have a infinitely tall building without a bottom floor. Also remember that everything we know in the "material" universe has a prior cause. God is spiritual not material so he does not need a prior cause. Dawkins tried to disprove intelligent design by saying that creation could be explained by natural selection. Dawkins is right in saying that creation can be explained by natural selection. However, Dawkins is seriously mistaken if he thinks that natural blind selection in any way disproves God's existence.
Why couldn't God create the universe using natural blind selection? This the fatal flaw in Dawkins argument. Dawkins assumes blindly that just because something can be shown to evolve naturally or scientifically that it disproves the theory of God. But how could science or evolution disprove the theory of God if we know it is only scientifically reasonable and logical to believe in a First cause that is Spiritual, intelligent, and infinite? The answer is simple, the two do not contradict each other at all. If something forms scientfically naturally like patterns of pebbles how can we assume that God didn't just form them using natural means. God would be the primary cause and natural selection and evolution would be the secondary cause. God would create things using Natural selection and evolution. It would be like Michealangelo creating a statue. Michaelangeloo is the primary cause of that statue but he uses a chisel to carve it. The chisel would be a secondary cause. The chisel created the statue but it was untimatly created and formed by Michealangelo, the primary cause. Dawkins fallacy is that he only looks to the chisel to explain the statue, he doesn't even consider the artist behind the chisel. What is more logical to look at simple beautiful statue and say a mere chisel created that, or to look at it and say a great artist made that. IN the same way what is more logical and reasonable, looking at the complexity of the universe and its creation(Which is far more beautiful and profound than a statue) and believing that a infinite, intelligent being created it using natural selection, or looking at it and only explaining it in a mere scientific way? Dawkins cannot disprove that God is not behind natural blind selection. Dawkins mere scientific answer does not answer the bigger question of a need for a First cause. Therefore Dawkins theory is a copout. It is not a "either or" question? Either God or nature laws created the unverse. Rather, it is a "both and" situation. God created the unverse using natural laws and evolution.
Finally to prove the existnece of God one can look to extraordinary miracles that have been examined by science. For example, cases such as a Man Named Padre Pio, who was a 20th century mystic priest began having stigmata(the wounds of Christ) on his body. When Padre Pio prayed to "God" to heal a blind women, she began to see 20/20 vision. To this day the women when examined by doctors is told that she is blind, and yet she sees perfectly. Pio also could stifle his congregation by reading minds and knowing there sins. There have been many testimonies of people who would go to confession to him. Yet if they held back any sin in the confessional , he would tell them exactly what there sin was in detail(unlike the psychics),details so explicit he could not have known other wise besides having a God given gift . While some may argue that these miracles do not 100% prove God exist, They do show a logical and extremely strong fingerprint-like evidence for reasons to believe in God. People cannot ignore them especially since science does not and many cases were signed off by scientist and doctors. To ignore them would be a cop out.
Belief in a First cause who is a Spiritual, infinite, Intelligent designer who uses secondary means to create is a very strong and logical argument.
Blaise Pascal, wrote a argument for the existence of God known as "The Wager".
The wager is a critical bet. Is one going to believe in God or is one going to deny Gods existence? On one hand, if you believe in God and die and come to find out he doesn't exist then you stand to loose nothing and no harm done. However, if you refuse to believe in God and die and find out that he does exist you loose(Or at least seriously risk loosing) everything eternal. Since neither the believer nor the unbeliever are infallible and can know for sure, wouldn't it be far more reasonable and logical to wager the safer bet and believe in God?
Pascals argument is not a direct or strong proof for God's existence, But it can show us logical reasons to believe in God in the absence of any proofs. It could also motivate some to say the prayer of Skeptics "God I do not know weather you exist or not but if you do please show me and help me understand"
Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is a philosopher who subscribes to Darwins Atheistic evolutionary theory. In his work entitled "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins sets out to disprove the theory of Intelligent design which is utilized by theist to explain the creation of the universe. To understand what Dawkins is trying to disprove one must understand the theory of Intelligent design. The theory of intelligent design is the belief that God(a intelligent higher life form) created the universe and everything in it. A typical argument used to explain intelligent design
might be stated as follows. A). If you found a watch in the middle of a desert you would see the complexity of the watch and not just assume that it formed their from natural chance or by some scientific law alone, rather you would assume that it had a intelligent maker such as Swatch or Gucci. B) Human beings are far more complex than watches. C) Therefore human beings most likely would have a intelligent designer
Dawkins, saw a practical problem with intelligent design . Utilizing Darwins evolutionary theory of natural selection, Dawkins began to realize that intelligent design theory is not necessary to explain the complexity of the human Body or the order in the universe. Science itself can explain these things without bringing in the Superstitious concept of a God. A good example that Dawkins used is the Pebbly Beach. If you looked at a pebbly beach for example you will notice that the larger pebbles seem to be sorted, arranged and selected in different areas than the smaller pebbles. Some primitive religions might believe that Gods or a God arranged these there. They may even make up a myth to explain them, but in reality nothing supernatural has happened at all. No hand of God ever caused theses pebbles to be arranged that way. Rather, what has happened is a purely natural and scientific thing that was caused by the forces of physics. Each pebble of each different size and weight will react to the force of the waves of water in a different way. The bigger pebbles will react differently than the smaller pebbles to the waves and therefore will end up in different places on the beach. This is a simple concept scientifically proven without ever having to rely on the suppressive trappings of religious folklore about a higher being.
I will argue in favor of the existence of God.
Aquinas used five arguments for the existence of God through reason. I will use only one of his arguments which I believe is the strongest in refuting atheistic theory. This is the "Need for a first cause" . Everything we know of in the entire material universe is understood or explained by a previous cause. In other words everything made up of matter in our known existence came from a prior cause. I did not cause myself to be or come into existence, my parents caused that. My parents did not come into existence by themselves, their parents(my grandparents) caused them to be and so on and so forth. Every Material object in the universe is a product of a long chain of causes. Nothing causes itself to be. Some might argue that the world was caused by the Big bang theory so the theory of God is not needed. There is no problem for a theist to admit that the Big bang theory is possible. However, this does not destroy the probability that God created the universe.
After all what caused the big bang? Some may argue that the big bang was caused by a explosion of gasses and rock. But, if Matter itself, such as rock and gasses cannot cause themselves to be then who caused them. Why does matter(Rock and gasses) exist at all? Where did they come from? A thiest can believe that God created the universe by the big bang. But who created the matter to make the big bang anyway. It would logically follow that some power outside the material universe created matter. That power must be of a spiritual nature because it is outside of the material universe. And that power must be infinite to be able to create something out of absolutely nothing. We are finite creatures, we can create things such as foods and medicines using other things, but we cannot create something out of nothing. No one starts with absolutely nothing and creates a car. You have to have prior material such as metal, plastic etc. Logically to able to make matter out of nothing and to be able to create a extremely complex system like the material universe also shows a sign of intelligence, far more than we have. What do you call something that is Spiritual, intelligent, infinite and causes things to be? We Call it God.
Some may ask "who created God"? The answer is no one created God. God always existed. He is the First cause of everything. Think of it in two ways. You cannot have a series of causes without arriving at a first cause. For example you cannot have a infinitely tall building without a bottom floor. Also remember that everything we know in the "material" universe has a prior cause. God is spiritual not material so he does not need a prior cause. Dawkins tried to disprove intelligent design by saying that creation could be explained by natural selection. Dawkins is right in saying that creation can be explained by natural selection. However, Dawkins is seriously mistaken if he thinks that natural blind selection in any way disproves God's existence.
Why couldn't God create the universe using natural blind selection? This the fatal flaw in Dawkins argument. Dawkins assumes blindly that just because something can be shown to evolve naturally or scientifically that it disproves the theory of God. But how could science or evolution disprove the theory of God if we know it is only scientifically reasonable and logical to believe in a First cause that is Spiritual, intelligent, and infinite? The answer is simple, the two do not contradict each other at all. If something forms scientfically naturally like patterns of pebbles how can we assume that God didn't just form them using natural means. God would be the primary cause and natural selection and evolution would be the secondary cause. God would create things using Natural selection and evolution. It would be like Michealangelo creating a statue. Michaelangeloo is the primary cause of that statue but he uses a chisel to carve it. The chisel would be a secondary cause. The chisel created the statue but it was untimatly created and formed by Michealangelo, the primary cause. Dawkins fallacy is that he only looks to the chisel to explain the statue, he doesn't even consider the artist behind the chisel. What is more logical to look at simple beautiful statue and say a mere chisel created that, or to look at it and say a great artist made that. IN the same way what is more logical and reasonable, looking at the complexity of the universe and its creation(Which is far more beautiful and profound than a statue) and believing that a infinite, intelligent being created it using natural selection, or looking at it and only explaining it in a mere scientific way? Dawkins cannot disprove that God is not behind natural blind selection. Dawkins mere scientific answer does not answer the bigger question of a need for a First cause. Therefore Dawkins theory is a copout. It is not a "either or" question? Either God or nature laws created the unverse. Rather, it is a "both and" situation. God created the unverse using natural laws and evolution.
Finally to prove the existnece of God one can look to extraordinary miracles that have been examined by science. For example, cases such as a Man Named Padre Pio, who was a 20th century mystic priest began having stigmata(the wounds of Christ) on his body. When Padre Pio prayed to "God" to heal a blind women, she began to see 20/20 vision. To this day the women when examined by doctors is told that she is blind, and yet she sees perfectly. Pio also could stifle his congregation by reading minds and knowing there sins. There have been many testimonies of people who would go to confession to him. Yet if they held back any sin in the confessional , he would tell them exactly what there sin was in detail(unlike the psychics),details so explicit he could not have known other wise besides having a God given gift . While some may argue that these miracles do not 100% prove God exist, They do show a logical and extremely strong fingerprint-like evidence for reasons to believe in God. People cannot ignore them especially since science does not and many cases were signed off by scientist and doctors. To ignore them would be a cop out.
Belief in a First cause who is a Spiritual, infinite, Intelligent designer who uses secondary means to create is a very strong and logical argument.
McBell
Unbound
I never understood why someone would think that an all knowing deity would be fooled by someone believing in Him merely because it is the "safer" choice.
Or perhaps they believe that God will be ok with them believing in him for no other reason than because it is the safer choice.
Funny all the things that God will send a person to hell over, but the dishonesty in believing him for the sole purpose of saving your arse, just in case, is fine with him.
Yet these same people will also claim that there is so much meaning to the Bible that one can study it for a life time and still find new truths.
seems a bit contradictory to me.
Or perhaps they believe that God will be ok with them believing in him for no other reason than because it is the safer choice.
Funny all the things that God will send a person to hell over, but the dishonesty in believing him for the sole purpose of saving your arse, just in case, is fine with him.
Yet these same people will also claim that there is so much meaning to the Bible that one can study it for a life time and still find new truths.
seems a bit contradictory to me.