The Existence of God [Discussion Topic: See First Post]

On 28-Nov-2007 Kenny 2x4 said:

I'm actually in agreement with that. As did Hume and many others.
Basically if the universe is to have a first cause then why couldn't it have been the Big Bang? I mean we have scientific evidence to illustrate and suggest this.
Or quite equally, why can't the universe be like the description of God in that the universe could be a necessary thing where it does not depend on something else for it's existance.

The problem with the First Cause Argument is it seems to start with the premise "God exists", as you're essentially making a jump from "I don't know what caused the universe to exist" to "I believe the universe was made by God, who doesn't need a cause to exist". It's essentially replacing one unknown with another, and it doesn't prove anything.

Care to explain some of the other arguments you mentioned? They've got to be better than First Cause.

I'll elaborate on that jump as well slightly. The jump is made because apparantly to Aquinas, God was the only one who could "fit the bill" since we have this idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent person and only he (to Aquinas) could possible have created this universe.
Anyways...the Teleological Argument (incidently meaning end or purpose) also believed God was the creater and is was as follows:
1) The World around us ressemble Human artefacts (creations) in that they both display design and complexity.
2) The complexity of Human artefacts come from having been made and designed by intelligent beings (Humans).
3) We have no reason to assume that whatever holds for Human artefacts should not hold for the world around us.
4) Therefore the complexity in the world around us comes from having been designed and made by an intelligent being (God).
In my opinion the Teleological argument is actually quite weak too, but not quite as weak as the First Cause argument.

On 29-Nov-2007 Kenny 2x4 said:

I'll elaborate on that jump as well slightly. The jump is made because apparantly to Aquinas, God was the only one who could "fit the bill" since we have this idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent person and only he (to Aquinas) could possible have created this universe.
Anyways...the Teleological Argument (incidently meaning end or purpose) also believed God was the creater and is was as follows:
1) The World around us ressemble Human artefacts (creations) in that they both display design and complexity.
2) The complexity of Human artefacts come from having been made and designed by intelligent beings (Humans).
3) We have no reason to assume that whatever holds for Human artefacts should not hold for the world around us.
4) Therefore the complexity in the world around us comes from having been designed and made by an intelligent being (God).
In my opinion the Teleological argument is actually quite weak too, but not quite as weak as the First Cause argument.

Ah, I learned this as the Argument from Design. I'll point out the essential flaw in this argument:

Basically, the argument can be summed up as "The world is so complex, that it must have been designed and made by an omnipotent, intelligent being". Ok, so let's assume that all complex objects and entities require a creator, as that is the central premise of this argument. Presumably, the creator which designed the world and everything in it would have to be incredibly complex itself, far more so than its creations. See where I'm going with this? Presumably, God himself has to be so complex that he himself requires a creator - God 2.0? Of course, God 2.0 requires a creator as he is more complex than God, so presumably we have a God 3.0 as well, and the chain continues unto infinity.

Therefore, it doesn't matter which God you worship; there's always an infinite number of Gods who're more powerful - you may as well not worship anything.

I've learned a lot of things about God and other things such as biases towards him/her/it because of these 'Science Fan Boys' who want to prove the Big Bang Theory was real.

There has been the littlest amount of evidence shown that God (or Jesus) have existed but people have not found any evidence proving that he doesn't exist. And for things related to general religion such as : David and Goliath which showed a small Shepard defeat a giant. Now, seems a bit farfetche'd, no? Science itself shows that people and humans can make these irregular shapes/formsand science proves this undoubtedly.

I think it's hard to actually go on... To know if God exist all you can do is have faith...

This is a very touchy subject. Like Shadow Cast says its hard because you have hypothesis from both sides that can be made into facts and great theories.

Christianism & Creationism. Who knows what to believe is real or not. Like shadow cast says to know if God does exist is believe, have faith.

Science does prove a lot of things too which is why sometimes it is hard.

I believe both are true because sometimes they go hand in hands...like for example. Languages. We have different languages through out the world. Science says all the conteninets were together and broke away like a puzzle. The bible says people were worshipping this temple to the heavens that GOD was so enraged that he struck the tower down and people were given different languages and those who could understand each other went in seperate ways. Now as they all went in seperate ways the earth shifted into what we now know as continents and as you all know there are different languages through out the world now.

On 29-Nov-2007 Catharsis said:

Ah, I learned this as the Argument from Design. I'll point out the essential flaw in this argument:

Basically, the argument can be summed up as "The world is so complex, that it must have been designed and made by an omnipotent, intelligent being". Ok, so let's assume that all complex objects and entities require a creator, as that is the central premise of this argument. Presumably, the creator which designed the world and everything in it would have to be incredibly complex itself, far more so than its creations. See where I'm going with this? Presumably, God himself has to be so complex that he himself requires a creator - God 2.0? Of course, God 2.0 requires a creator as he is more complex than God, so presumably we have a God 3.0 as well, and the chain continues unto infinity.

Therefore, it doesn't matter which God you worship; there's always an infinite number of Gods who're more powerful - you may as well not worship anything.

Well actually the God bit you mentioned at the end has also a slight flaw in that God is a necessary being remember? No cause needed. And if God is omnipotent (all powerful) you can't get more powerful than that.
Though another criticism about the Design Argument is that if we are able to do the Analogy correctly (following William Paley's Analogical argument) with clearly designed objects and undesigned objects say a house compared to a carrot (I know it's a bad example, but you'll get the idea). If we are able to draw out comparissons between them of complexity and so on and so forth then as Hume said the grounds are quite weak for the Teleological argument.
In addition....The argument does not state what kind of God we should be thinking of should we accept it. I mean when you look at a house there wasn't just one builder behind the construction of it or just one designer behind the actual framework, pipes, etc behind it all. There were teams of them. So couldn't the universe have been created by a team of Gods? I would say yes if we were to accept it.

On 30-Nov-2007 nyeem78 said:

This is a very touchy subject. Like Shadow Cast says its hard because you have hypothesis from both sides that can be made into facts and great theories.

Christianism & Creationism. Who knows what to believe is real or not. Like shadow cast says to know if God does exist is believe, have faith.

Science does prove a lot of things too which is why sometimes it is hard.

I believe both are true because sometimes they go hand in hands...like for example. Languages. We have different languages through out the world. Science says all the conteninets were together and broke away like a puzzle. The bible says people were worshipping this temple to the heavens that GOD was so enraged that he struck the tower down and people were given different languages and those who could understand each other went in seperate ways. Now as they all went in seperate ways the earth shifted into what we now know as continents and as you all know there are different languages through out the world now.

Yes, but isn't God described as benevolent? All forgiving? He wouldn't allow this kind of disruptancy between people if he was forgiving no matter how bad, devious, criminal, mischievous, etc their acts were.

On 30-Nov-2007 Kenny 2x4 said:

Well actually the God bit you mentioned at the end has also a slight flaw in that God is a necessary being remember? No cause needed. And if God is omnipotent (all powerful) you can't get more powerful than that.
Though another criticism about the Design Argument is that if we are able to do the Analogy correctly (following William Paley's Analogical argument) with clearly designed objects and undesigned objects say a house compared to a carrot (I know it's a bad example, but you'll get the idea). If we are able to draw out comparissons between them of complexity and so on and so forth then as Hume said the grounds are quite weak for the Teleological argument.
In addition....The argument does not state what kind of God we should be thinking of should we accept it. I mean when you look at a house there wasn't just one builder behind the construction of it or just one designer behind the actual framework, pipes, etc behind it all. There were teams of them. So couldn't the universe have been created by a team of Gods? I would say yes if we were to accept it.

"Well actually the God bit you mentioned at the end has also a slight flaw in that God is a necessary being remember? No cause needed. And if God is omnipotent (all powerful) you can't get more powerful than that."

Well, no. Again, this is only if you start with the conclusion "God exists" and from there, apply the Design Argument. The Design Argument only suggests that a being of the ability and intelligence to design and create the universe exists, and doesn't at any point prove that said entity is omnipotent, acausal and necessary. And as it's more complex than something which is so complex it requires a designer, then it would surely require one itself.

But even if we accept these statements as true, ultimately, which is the more ridiculous option? Claiming that an infinitely complex God doesn't require a cause while a finitely complex universe does, or claiming that the finitely complex universe doesn't require a cause?

On 30-Nov-2007 Catharsis said:

"Well actually the God bit you mentioned at the end has also a slight flaw in that God is a necessary being remember? No cause needed. And if God is omnipotent (all powerful) you can't get more powerful than that."

Well, no. Again, this is only if you start with the conclusion "God exists" and from there, apply the Design Argument. The Design Argument only suggests that a being of the ability and intelligence to design and create the universe exists, and doesn't at any point prove that said entity is omnipotent, acausal and necessary. And as it's more complex than something which is so complex it requires a designer, then it would surely require one itself.

But even if we accept these statements as true, ultimately, which is the more ridiculous option? Claiming that an infinitely complex God doesn't require a cause while a finitely complex universe does, or claiming that the finitely complex universe doesn't require a cause?

Hence why the First Cause argument failed since we have a stronger reason and beginning: the big bang.

The fact that God exists is based on faith. I, for one, am a Christian and therefore obviously believe in God.

Facts that God exist? Here are some reasons that I've never thought about.

Couple of things to consider in that link.
Earth isn't the only planet that funnily enough doesn't revolve on it's own axis to ensure equal heating/cooling. In fact the rest of the 7 planets and Pluto (Pluto is now considering more a meteor or comet due to it's size) do so in their own or similar manner. The one that I remember most is Uranus in that not only does it revolve similar to Earth, but it also "rolls"
In addition water isn't the only thing that is so "universal" I mean certain vitamins are universally required.
The Big Bang too had a perfectness in it in that it required the right amount of force for expansion and right stength of gravity to bring various particles and what not together.
In saying that it's still not satisfactory for me that God had to be the creator or anyone had to be a creator at all.

Posting to say "leave the big bang out of this".

I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but I pretty much always assume people are bright enough to realize that the big bang doesn't prove/suggest/deny anything in terms of the existence of a higher power after they post it.

The big bang theory, or more accurately so, it's proponent, clearly states that it's a theory that's meant to explain the origins and development of the universe if there was something there to begin with.

In other words, should we consider the universe to be a plate of pasta, the big bang theory is merely a recepie; how the ingredients got there in the first place isn't accounted for by the recepie itself.

And V: biased link was biased... they're conveniently twisted towards how people want to perceive them.

For example: water's qualities as a universal agent... a life source, if you will. While it sounds amazing at first, if you revert back to evolution, it becomes rather obvious that we're perfectly compatible with water simply because we (living organisms in existance, in general) have adapted to the characteristics of water, and are using it to our advantage. Given any other abundant resource alternative to water, it's perfectly rational to assume the same, and that it would become a vital component of (a different kind of) life.

Ah now I can also develop on that final note in your post. A little bit of evolution perhaps may have been involved.

On 03-Dec-2007 v-gamer said:

The fact that God exists is based on faith. I, for one, am a Christian and therefore obviously believe in God.

Facts that God exist? Here are some reasons that I've never thought about.

"When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2"

Why, then, are there people who have sought God and remain atheists or agnostics, and why do people lose faith in God?

"1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today."

See my refutation of the Design Argument above. Also, how does complexity suggest that a designer sustains the universe? Even assuming there was one, he doesn't have to stick around - everything on our planet is part of an unending cycle which doesn't require external interference.

"2. Does God exist? The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it."

Is a rewording of the Design Argument...

"3. Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations."

Is a rewording of the Design Argument...

"4. Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God."

"To state with certainty that the Earth is not the center of the universe, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that the Earth is the center of the universe."

Galileo Galilei faced this problem...

"5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him."

"God exists because God exists."

"6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us."

"God exists because God exists."

I don't think there's anyway to prove God is real and things such as evolution or 'The Big Bang' are real. Though people often use propaganda to kind of 'edge' people onto one theory (meaning people convert a person to believe The Big Bang was real or vice versa).

It's like asking ; "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?". It's impossible for us to tell unless we came up with some hard evidence in this case proving God doesn't/exist(s).

I would honestly delete that post if I still could. We covered this a few pages back: of course you can't prove it either way. The whole point is... oh, just read my earlier post. I think it's on page 2.

Anyway, one of the things I find remarkable is that no religious argument actually proves (if you take it as correct, that is) its god exists; simply that a god exists. For example, all of the arguments provided on the page v-gamer provided, although intended to be from a Christian point of view, could be used for any other monotheistic religion with no adaptation other than the removal of the obvious Christian references (eg. any mentioning the Bible), of which none are essential, or indeed of any purpose at all, to the actual arguments proposed by that page; they only served to provide, in essence, filler.

On 05-Dec-2007 Shadow_Lord said:

I would honestly delete that post if I still could. We covered this a few pages back: of course you can't prove it either way. The whole point is... oh, just read my earlier post. I think it's on page 2.

Anyway, one of the things I find remarkable is that no religious argument actually proves (if you take it as correct, that is) its god exists; simply that a god exists. For example, all of the arguments provided on the page v-gamer provided, although intended to be from a Christian point of view, could be used for any other monotheistic religion with no adaptation other than the removal of the obvious Christian references (eg. any mentioning the Bible), of which none are essential, or indeed of any purpose at all, to the actual arguments proposed by that page; they only served to provide, in essence, filler.

If you already covered it then how the heck is this topic still active? There's basically nothing else to go on, and what I've just said is basically what everyone else said...

On 05-Dec-2007 Shadow Cast said:

If you already covered it then how the heck is this topic still active? There's basically nothing else to go on, and what I've just said is basically what everyone else said...

Well technically, according to what you've mentioned, nothing can ever be sufficiently proven/denied so long as an opposition is willing to yap on about nothing... wait.

Well everybody (should) already know(s) this, but we're discussing the existence of God, not trying to prove it. Besides, this topic alone has probably only covered 1/10 of the cookie-cutter arguments for/against God, so "nothing to go on" would be a radical assumption.

Heck, we're still at the level where people are trying to argue that God exists as a sentient, separate entity to all life, rather than considering plausible alternatives such as God existing as a spiritual/mental state of being; a reference to unexplainable events; a governing tool created by man; so on and so forth.

Just because our beliefs are different doesn't deny us the ability to explore and evaluate such possibilities, if for no other reason than to validate our own beliefs.

I think I've mentioned on numerous occasions that I'm religious - I believe in a higher power - but you don't see me just nodding my head to every random explanation as to why God exists... it has to make sense too, not just agree with my beliefs.

On 04-Dec-2007 Catharsis said:

"When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2"

Why, then, are there people who have sought God and remain atheists or agnostics, and why do people lose faith in God?

"1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today."

See my refutation of the Design Argument above. Also, how does complexity suggest that a designer sustains the universe? Even assuming there was one, he doesn't have to stick around - everything on our planet is part of an unending cycle which doesn't require external interference.

"2. Does God exist? The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it."

Is a rewording of the Design Argument...

"3. Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations."

Is a rewording of the Design Argument...

"4. Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God."

"To state with certainty that the Earth is not the center of the universe, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that the Earth is the center of the universe."

Galileo Galilei faced this problem...

"5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him."

"God exists because God exists."

"6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us."

"God exists because God exists."

Now I remember what David Hume said. He said that all we know is that we exist, the world exists and so does the universe. This is sufficient enough for us and so we don't have to question about whether we have a creator of the universe or not.
Personally for me that seems quite a good point seeing as all theories so far based on trying to prove God's existance is by a priori means (meaning to have/gain or attempt to gain knowledge without or prior to experience) which quite frankly in this case is just impossible.

Does got exist?


hard one

I say yes, I believe so , because could such intelligent things as humans be a complete pot of luck? i don't think so... i think were like a toy for god or some superior been and i think were put on the earth to protect it and its other creatures

If some other creatures went extinct so would we

for example the bee

I do believe in god but its hard to believe in the afterlife because you lose all your organs including yourr brain which stores everything like memory

« Last edited by jord-t on Dec 7th 2007 »