• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

[MEGA] God

Status
Not open for further replies.
goatyoghurt

goatyoghurt

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
1,632
Location
Sydney
I couldn't find a thread dedicated to this and after learning it in Philosophy class on friday it absolutely blew me away, considering I was raised a strict Christian but have recently doubted the existence of God, this rocked my fucking world, just wanted to share it, get opinions and thought :)

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Ergo, the universe had a cause.


Now anyone who has done any logic can see that what I mentioned above is a syllogism, that being said, I will prove using reason, premises 1 and 2, therefore making the conclusion valid and the argument as a whole a valid deductive argument.

Explanation for 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is the most successful postulation in the history of science, that being the law of universal causality. This assumption has never been falsified and is seen as unavoidable, everything that begins to exist had to have a cause.

explanation for 2. The universe began to exist.

Scientific explanation: It has been discovered that all matter/energy is expanding, therefore it had to start at a point of singularity (referred to as the Big Bang). Before the Big Bang there was no universe, afterwards, the universe existed, in other words, the universe began to exist.

Metaphysical explanation: To say that the universe didn't have a beginning would be to say that the universe is infinite. It must be said that the concept of an infinite is paradoxical and contradictory, I will explain how. If the universe was infinite then there would be an infinite number of moments leading up to this exact moment in time, if this were the case, then an infinite amount of time would have passed before this moment, therefore, this moment would never have existed. The same can be said for causes.

Like I said before the concept of an infinite doesn't make sense, it creates a paradox, and we all know that something paradoxical cannot be true. imagnie a library with an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of black books, if you took out all of the red books, how many would you have left? The answer is a paradox. Furthermore if all the books in the library had an infinite number of pages and you read one book and your friend read all of the books in the library, who has read more? The answer is once again a paradox, you cannot count to infinity, infinity is impossible, it doesn't exist.

Therefore 3. The universe had a cause.

The universe defined by science and philosophy is everything material, we can define and understand it using the laws of physics. When the universe didn't exist, no matter existed, that means that the cause of the universe can't be something material. The cause of the universe must be immaterial and TIMELESS, as there cannot be an infinite amount of time.

I CALL THIS IMMATERIAL AND TIMELESS CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE "GOD".




This has actually given me a logical reason to believe in God, what do you all think? :)
 
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. God would need a cause to exist.

3. What caused god?
 
Cause/purpose and intention are two different things.

Unless you are speaking of the intentions of an omnipotent being. In which case, this conversation was part of their intention.

But how is that any different to "it is because it is"?
 
Stasis, the arument says that God didn't begin to exist, so therefore God doesn't fall under the first premise of the argument :)


The cause of the universe must be immaterial and TIMELESS
Click to expand...

If God is timeless then it didn't begin to exist :)
 
Re: Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

goatyoghurt said:
I CALL THIS IMMATERIAL AND TIMELESS CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE "GOD".
Click to expand...

Why do you call it "God"? Why not call it something else? A singularity maybe. You need to ask that if this "God" wasn't around, would it have all happened anyways....


1. Everything that begins has an end, so everything that ends has a beginning.

2. The universe ended (crunched).

3. The universe began (expanded).

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" - Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
 
Before I say anything, I do believe in god in some way. However my view of god is not a common theistic view of an omni-potent, omni-benevolent, omni-scient god and I do not like using the word 'god' to describe my beliefs any longer. That being said, I'm not an atheist, i'm not an agnostic, and i'm not a theist. There is no term which I'm familiar with that corresponds to what I am.

To move on to the thread...

The cosmological argument for gods existance is an extremely popular and powerfull argument for gods existance. I can see how it can lead a person to believe that they have found a logical argument for gods existance.

The cosmological argument presents a couple of problems. Lets take a look at the points that were presented in this thread.


1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. If the universe never began to exist then time is infinite, and if time is infinite we would have never gotten to this moment.


Problem #1

As allready addressed by stasis. If everything has a cause, what caused god?

Problem #2

This problem addresses the 'if time was infinite we would have never gotten to now' argument.

Think of it this way. If time can't be infinite that would mean that god is finite too and eventually he's going to die or maybe allready dead. The argument states that god didn't begin to exist and that he was always there. This presents a contradiction. If god was immortal and was always there he would have never gotten around to creating our universe according to this very same argument.

Problem #3

We only witness things within our universe. Because of this we think it might seem like its all well and good to say since everything within the universe has a beginning and an end, and a cause and effect, that this applies to the universe as a whole as well. This presents a problem because the universe is not an object within the universe. We cannot observe the universe from the outside, we can only observe it from within, therefore it is illogical to claim that the same rules that apply to what its inside the universe apply to the universe itself.

Think of it this way. The universe is a box with stuff inside of it. Just because the stuff inside of it is a certain way, doesn't mean that the box which the stuff is inside of is that same way too. Make any sense?

So even if everything within the universe has a cause and effect. Think about it what effect does the universe as a whole have on the things within it? The only things that have an effect on things within it, are other things which are also within it. The universe as a whole does not need to have an effect on things within it, although it could. Also, just because things inside of the universe have a cause doesn't mean that the universe itself must have a cause.

Same thing applies to finite objects within the universe. Just because everything within the universe is finite and has boundries doesn't mean the universe which contains all these finite things is finite or that it has boundries.
 
To play Devil's advocate- The big bang was an explosion of space and time. It doesn't make sense to talk about 'before' outside of time. (Concepts like causality tend to break down here, too.)

If you think of time as the '4th dimension'...a 1d line, 2d square, 3d cube, 4d hypercube...each extra dimension allows change in the previous, each is also a shadow of the previous- line is shadow of sqaure as a cube is a shadow of a 4d 'hypercube.' The 4d universe would have change, an ordered expansion, but is ultimately frozen. The concept was coined the Block-universe by William James and known to Einstein.

How fast does time pass anyway? 1 second per second? Time is experienced differently by different people(brains). The ordered expansion is experienced by people as an ordered series of 'nows,' none more special than another.

If this block universe exists in a multi-verse wherein all possible universes are realized -- and life has even the *most remote possibility of occuring regardless of how small that probability is non-zero. In this timeless universe of universes all non-zero probabilities would be observed... the one with life selects itself for observation.

And here you find yourself. Mirrors can be a trip sober, or on psychedelics. When you look in the mirror you see the universe observing itself.


I've offered proof of nothing, only metaphysical blather...but maybe a different way of looking at things.
 
Last edited:
The existence of God cannot be proven by an argument or a syllogism. Secondly, inorder for a syllogism to be true and correct logic all the propositions must be proven unequivocably. Which you have not done here. E.G., I posted a thread some time back inquiring what the odds were that there are nine planets in our solar system and the odds that the planets formed randomly versus causally. Obviously, the query has no definitive scientific or logical explanation.

Look at it this way. If the existence of God could be proven logically or with scientific certainty, there would be no choice but for everyone to acknowledge the existence of God. However, the belief in the existence of God is not mandatory it is of your own free will. For, what would be the purpose of the concept of faith and free will if we had no choice but to believe in or acknowledge the existence of God?
 
God was created in the ancient times used as control over the people... if u fuck up u go to hell, if u do well u go 2 heaven... These were based upon laws..
They say when u go to heaven, all u do second after second is praide God.. thats all u do... and if u do not believe in God, though u live a good life, never break a commandment etc u go to hell...
I find this very unfair,, and a priest told me this :\
 
and we also have catholic priests fucking little boyz... And they r supposed 2 be brothers of God..
I am not being too technical about this topic, although i am giving factual descriptions :)
 
and we also have catholic priests fucking little boyz... And they r supposed 2 be brothers of God..
I am not being too technical about this topic, although i am discussing factual situations :P
 
Modify = This would be a good example of not believing everything you hear, and questioning on what authority people base their assertions.

Catholic priests (whether they are deviants or not) do not speak for the whole of Christianity, let alone all the other monotheistic or polytheistic religions out there.

The Cosmological Argument was proved false by David Hume, I'll dig out my Philo. of Religion book later and post the way he did it. That guy pisses me off, but you can't say he isn't a genius.
 
Stasis, the arument says that God didn't begin to exist, so therefore God doesn't fall under the first premise of the argument
Click to expand...

I define Pluto Juice to be the first cause, even the cause of Gods existence; it is immune to all logical arguments that we can possibly comprehend.

--

The human mind evolved to have a broad potential in understanding. This was to help aid us in understanding unexpected situations, thus increasing our chances of survival. There are many things that we can understand.

However, natural selection wasnt too picky on individuals who didnt have any knowledge concerning quantum physics, the nature of the galaxy or the first cause. Thus we did not evolve to understand certain concepts. Our small understanding of some of these issues is just a bonus... stemming from our broad potential. There are however, some concepts that maybe we just wont ever be able to understand, because our brains are just not wired for it. Personally i think that the first cause is one of these issues, it could be too complex for an organic mind to comprehend.

But humans tend to dislike unexplored areas of knowledge, our curious nature pushes us to understand the unknown. A concept of a god conveniently solves many problems in unknowable things, and i think that's why god is such a popular bloke. But one must remember that god doesnt solve the problem of first cause, it just adds another step. Surely you must admit that by saying "God was the cause of himself", is just as much a paradox as any other?
 
Re: Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

goatyoghurt said:
Like I said before the concept of an infinite doesn't make sense, it creates a paradox, and we all know that something paradoxical cannot be true. imagnie a library with an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of black books, if you took out all of the red books, how many would you have left? The answer is a paradox. Furthermore if all the books in the library had an infinite number of pages and you read one book and your friend read all of the books in the library, who has read more? The answer is once again a paradox, you cannot count to infinity, infinity is impossible, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

you should read some of Cantor's set theory before you believe this...
 
I'd ask you to consider the distinction between (1) proving God exists (using your pre-existing notion of what "God" is) and (2) defining the term "God" as something that does exist.

I mean, what you said is no different than:

1. Toast is caused by a toaster.
2. Toast exists.
3. Therefore toasters exist.

I choose to call toasters "God." Therefore God exists. In fact many gods exist, though they do not all hold the same number of slices of bread and they do not all toast with even consistency. I think the God that toast the most bread the most even is probably the "supreme" god.

You are abdicating ALL CONCERN over exactly WHAT god is, merely so that you can feel secure that a thing labelled "god" exists. Even if I agree that SOMETHING preceded and caused the universe, maybe it was the former universe? Maybe each universe, at its death, explodes to create the next universe. So congratulations, you are praying to a dead universe that has no sentience, no immortality, no present existence, no love, no goodness, etc., etc. Is a dead universe really "god" just because it spawned our universe?

Or what if the big bang was an explosion that started the unvierse? Now by your reasoning, you are now calling this explosion "god" even though it has no sentience, no morality, no goodness, no love, it does not watch over us, or care about us, or tell us how to be good, it provides no afterlife for us, etc., etc.

See, it is so obviously vacuous for you to try to prove god exists WITHOUT CONCERN for what god IS, what god's characteristics are. God could be anything. For all we know, our universe WAS created by a toaster. Maybe there was another universe with a race of galaxy-size beings who loved toast so much they made a super-toaster, to make the toastiest toast ever. But they didn't realize how much power this would take, and the toaster drew this power from the stars, all the stars in their whole universe, causing their universe to collapse and die. And just at the moment all power was gone, and that universe died, the super toaster exploded with a shower of the most perfectly toasted particles that had ever existed. An explosion so toasty it created a new universe, our universe.

You see how retarded it is to "pray" to something that you ONLY define as "whatever the hell caused our universe?

Here's another illustration of the problem with your proof:

Let's assume an omnipotent, benevolent, immortal, sentient Being exists and watches over us and loves us and guides our souls to another plane of existence to join him/her upon our death. Now, let's further assume that this Being decided, one day, that there should be a universe full of sentient beings interacting, so that it could have companionship and diversity, etc. And let's further assume that this Being wanted to be "surprised" by this universe, so this Being decided to remove itself one step from the creation process. The Being created a servant, the "universe-maker," whose sole mission was to create the universe, and it was given the power to create matter and energy from thought, and it was given creativity, and it was given a level of randomness so that the Being would not know in advance exactly how the servant would make the Universe. And so this dedicated servant created the universe, then it evaporated into nothingness, it's purpose fulfilled.

So the causal chain goes: Supreme Being -> Universe-making Servant -> Universe.

By your syllogism, you have proved "God" exists, but YOUR GOD IS THE SERVANT, NOT THE SUPREME BEING!!! Hell, the supreme being could have created a giant cockroach-like bug to spew forth our universe from its rectum, and you are calling the bug "God" rather than the bug's creator!! So, your definition is SO FLAWED that even if there IS a being that we would all readily agree is God, your proof could have you worshipping ANOTHER THING ENTIRELY!!

See, it is utterly arbitrary to stop JUST ONE causal step back from the universe and call THAT cause "god." Why not call god the thing that caused that cause? Or the thing that caused the cause before that? How do you know WHICH causal step involves a benevolent, sentient, omnipotent being and WHICH causal step involves exploding toasters, giant bugs or other things that, in fact, there is no point in worshipping? (And you might consider why you are so desperate to find something to worship. You can worship me, if you like. I exist. I cause stuff.)

In conclusion, this "proof" is so obviously flawed, it makes my teeth hurt.

Now, in order to avoid these problems, some past philosophers have revised your syllogism to say that God is the FIRST cause, rather than merely the cause that preceded the universe. This seems to resolve the issue of whether this cause is "supreme" enough to be "god." However, presuming the existence of a first cause violates the first premise that everything has a cause, so that proof does not work either. And if you start with a premise "everything but the first cause has a cause" in order to salvage the "first cause" proof of god, then you are bootstrapping with circular and meaningless reasoning.

Did you really think it would be so easy to MEANINGFULLY prove god exists? Anyone can MEANINGLESSLY prove god exists. I can say, "I define god as my toaster. See this toast? This toast proves I have a toaster. See this picture? It shows my toaster. See this object in my arms? It is my toaster. I have now proved -- with hard, irrefutable evidence -- that my toaster exists. Therefore, since god (by my definition) is my toaster, and my toaster exists, then god exists." See, you and I can prove god exists all day long if we don't miind that god's existence is meaningless because we have -- necessarily -- used a meaningless or trivial definition of god. The definition "my toaster" is trivial. The definition "whatever the hell caused the universe" is meaningless.

Anyway, if you figure out a way to prove that a meaningful definition of god exists...well, I'm sure you won't, so why bother finishing my thought?

~psychoblast~

p.s. Is anyone else concerned with the concept of something outside the universe? Isn't the universe properly defined as "everything"? Can you say, "Here is everything. Now, what caused everything? It must be something that exists outside of everything." Well DUH, everything necessarily excludes NOTHING, there is nothing outside of it!! It is just a completely idiotic mental picture for people to keep going, "Uh, what if God exists outside the universe...duh..." Well, then, wherever God exists is STILL part of the universe, just a part we did not know about.
 
Last edited:
Here is another problem. Measurement is an illusion.

For instance, let's take measuring a cube of wood. If we try to measure it exactly, we would end up measuring the dimensions of moving theoretical particles that are made of other moving theoretical particles, ad infinitum.

In trying this, we realize that space is not really space, and time is not really time. Space and Time are names for our percieved experiential realm. Like CrimeThink said, how fast does time move? How spacious is space? We can create a unit to help us understand our level of experience, such as the kilogram, the hour, or the meter, but these things are not what make our realm. If we try to measure a point in space to absolute accuracy, we cannot, yet space is made of points. If we try to measure a moment to absolute accuracy, we cannot, yet time is made of moments.

Even the objects and concepts we name do not really exist...for instance a bottle is a substance formed to a certain visible shape that does not disintegrate in our lifetime. If it is made of glass, and it breaks, it is now considered shards of glass, and glass is made of molecules, which are made from subatomic particles, which are composed of quarks, which are composed of somethingh that we have no idea of yet.

How can we say that "god" or "space" or "time" even exist, but in our own minds? We give names to the visible, based on the limits we appear to detect. Simply because we name these things does not make them objectively real.

For instance, can we measure exactly where the sky ends and the ground begins? Can we measure exactly the intervals between moments?
No, we can't. Therefore, there are no objects because we cannot measure the limits of the objects we appear to percieve. If there are no independent objects, then everything is inseperable, and therefore one.

If there are no independent things, then there is no time, no space, no cause, no effect. The only reality is subjective experience, which is to say, "I am".

There are no limits because infinitely accurate measurement is impossible.
We will ultimately be misled if we try to understand and answer metaphysical questions using these false boundaries.

I have found so far that the answers are unable to be put into words. As far as I know, this is my thesis on the nonexistent metaphysics of Zen Buddhism, which asserts that everything is Void, or no-thing. I have found that no-thing cannot be fully understood except through meditation. It is impossible to completely communicate it due to its nature.

Logic and thought are based on assumed limits, and that is why they can get you to the shore, but it can't get you across the river.
 
Last edited:
<<You are abdicating ALL CONCERN over exactly WHAT god is, merely so that you can feel secure that a thing labelled "god" exists. Even if I agree that SOMETHING preceded and caused the universe, maybe it was the former universe? Maybe each universe, at its death, explodes to create the next universe. So congratulations, you are praying to a dead universe that has no sentience, no immortality, no present existence, no love, no goodness, etc., etc. Is a dead universe really "god" just because it spawned our universe?>>

Bingo. The Cosmological argument makes no claims about God's nature, so even if it somehow entails that He exists, then for all we know He could be wholly amoral, or even evil. If you want an abstract "proof" of God's existence, go for the Ontological Argument, although that one is contingent on an Aristotelian idea of existence being a perfection over nonexistence.

In any case, it is not the case that everything has a cause. What "causes" virtual particles to pop in and out of existence? What "causes" the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? How do we know that the universe had a cause? To call on Hume again: how do we know we're seeing causes at all, and not an endless series of subsequent events? Finally, the Cosmological argument rests on the assumption that God, if He exists, would actually create the universe--as opposed to merely existing--and it doesn't prove that at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top