There is no god or gods!

[Darkstar]

As to 1, it may assist you to think of the Cosmological argument not as proving the first cause but simply saying all things require a reason (i.e. the universe isn't just magically so). If something (including the universe) explains itself sufficiently, then it needs no cause. An infninite being explains its own existence (there is no logical need to inquire why intrinsically non-contingent beings exist).

The video I posted basically says: If we assume no god, then the creation of the universe is a mystery. If we assume a god, the cause of this god is even more mysterious than the cause of the universe.

One cannot argue that god exists by his own definition, because 1.I could use this to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and 2. If we do not assume that god does or does not exist, then his definition is not enough to prove his existence. You cannot say "X exists because I define X as 'something that must exist'". If you do, then anything you make up (like Flying Spaghetti Monster) can be X and can prove itself by that logic.

[Dranu]

There would also have been no time for a creator to exist so in summary, yes, it is perfectly possible and not in conflict with the laws of nature for the universe to be causeless.

That's what I think anyway.

Few have ever argued God exists in time you know, and even if God did not cause it, reason demands a reason for its cause.

[Darwinian]

reason demands a reason for its cause.

Just because the human mind cannot conceive of something does not mean that the universe has to conform to that view.

[Darkstar]

There would also have been no time for a creator to exist so in summary, yes, it is perfectly possible and not in conflict with the laws of nature for the universe to be causeless.

That's what I think anyway.

Few have ever argued God exists in time you know, and even if God did not cause it, reason demands a reason for its cause.

So either god has no cause or the universe (maybe) has no cause (doesn't have to be supernatural). You say god has no cause because he just doesn't need one. But, if someone invented him, they would definitely define him in this way so he couldn't be falsified. You basically assume that god existing for no reason (note that he's infinitely greatert than the universe) is less mysterious than the universe existing for no reason. You say that because god is infinite, he can prove himself. I have been told by another christian on this forum that god cannot make 2+2=7 because it is not a thing and he can do anything. Where do we draw the line, then? Can god create himself (don't think so)? If not, I don't see how he proves himself by definition.

---

reason demands a reason for its cause.

Just because the human mind cannot conceive of something does not mean that the universe has to conform to that view.

Just like when humans couldn't concieve of lightning, so they incented Zeus. I see the cosmnological argument as a somewhat more intellectual version of god-of-the-gaps. If we prove that the universe could have evolved from the singularity on its own and that the singularity could be eternal, would this (effectively, not absolutely) disprove god?

[Dranu]

If we assume no god, then the creation of the universe is a mystery. If we assume a god, the cause of this god is even more mysterious than the cause of the universe.

I'll assume my assesment of the discussion earlier was correct so we can move on to the Ontological argument and this issue of causality. The universe does not need a cause/reason if it is infinite (it would be God by my deifnition), and if its not God does not need a cause/reason. They would be internally non-contingent beings and thus self-explanatory. So yes, if the creation of the universe is a mystery if we assume no God (and assuem the universe is not God), but it is not really a mystery (at least logically) if God caused it or it is God.

One cannot argue that god exists by his own definition, because 1.I could use this to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster

No, unless by flying spaghetti monster you mean the infinite being. In which case I'll just say you have an awfully cute name for God, but mean God nonetheless.

and 2. If we do not assume that god does or does not exist, then his definition is not enough to prove his existence. You cannot say "X exists because I define X as 'something that must exist'". If you do, then anything you make up (like Flying Spaghetti Monster) can be X and can prove itself by that logic.

But I can. If God's existence follows from an argument, and you agree all the premises are true, then you have to accept he exists as a matter of logic (if you hold to logic and reason at least; unlike Spence96 ). Although most people accept the premises of the Ontological argument when posed with it without knowing the outcome, surely there will be debate over their truth here, and surely this thread will become an ontological argument thread.... if you wish to discuss it anyhow.

---

reason demands a reason for its cause.

Just because the human mind cannot conceive of something does not mean that the universe has to conform to that view.

You can deny reason if you want, but that would end our discussion as I tend to stick with logic when talking. I do not deny mysteries of the universe, but I do deny the claim that reason and logic do not apply to everything.

[Darkstar]

---

I'll assume my assesment of the discussion earlier was correct so we can move on to the Ontological argument and this issue of causality. The universe does not need a cause/reason if it is infinite (it would be God by my deifnition), and if its not God does not need a cause/reason. They would be internally non-contingent beings and thus self-explanatory. So yes, if the creation of the universe is a mystery if we assume no God (and assuem the universe is not God), but it is not really a mystery (at least logically) if God caused it or it is God.

---

The universe isn't a mystery, yes, but god is, and god is a bigger mystery. Here's a question to consider, which is more incredible: an infinite universe, or an infnitie sentience that could easily create a finite universe?

---

One cannot argue that god exists by his own definition, because 1.I could use this to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster

No, unless by flying spaghetti monster you mean the infinite being. In which case I'll just say you have an awfully cute name for God, but mean God nonetheless.

---

Flying Spaghetti Monster is the god of a parody religion http://www.venganza.org/

---

and 2. If we do not assume that god does or does not exist, then his definition is not enough to prove his existence. You cannot say "X exists because I define X as 'something that must exist'". If you do, then anything you make up (like Flying Spaghetti Monster) can be X and can prove itself by that logic.

But I can. If God's existence follows from an argument, and you agree all the premises are true, then you have to accept he exists as a matter of logic (if you hold to logic and reason at least; unlike Spence96 ). Although most people accept the premises of the Ontological argument when posed with it without knowing the outcome, surely there will be debate over their truth here, and surely this thread will become an ontological argument thread.... if you wish to discuss it anyhow.

---

What, then, are the premesis for god's existence? If they are attriutes of god (such as his being infinite) then the whole argument is using circular reasoning.

---

Just because the human mind cannot conceive of something does not mean that the universe has to conform to that view.

You can deny reason if you want, but that would end our discussion as I tend to stick with logic when talking. I do not deny mysteries of the universe, but I do deny the claim that reason and logic do not apply to everything.
[/quote]

---

Right, so what logical reasoning is there for god's existence?

[spence96]

1) What caused the First Cause i.e. God?
2) How does it logically follow that a 'First Cause' must be:
>a divine being
>caring as opposed to apathetic after creation
>identified with none other than Jesus Christ of 'Nazareth'

Absolutely agreed to #2, but I never yet said it does. I am only arguing the natural theology God (deism tends to make a claim of inactivity, so I am not willign to go that far either at least here).

As to 1, it may assist you to think of the Cosmological argument not as proving the first cause but simply saying all things require a reason (i.e. the universe isn't just magically so). If something (including the universe) explains itself sufficiently, then it needs no cause. An infninite being explains its own existence (there is no logical need to inquire why intrinsically non-contingent beings exist).

Yes, I think the problem is that I do not believe all things require a reason. For instance, things have "essences" and "properties." That is the property of a thing causes it to interact with certain other things in predictable ways. In fact these "properties" to an empiricist simply are the collection of stored knowledge concerning the behavior of things, so property and "predictable behavior" could be used as synonyms.
So a child might ask why does an object close to earth with no support have the property of falling at 9.8 m/s/s? But then the use of property in that sentence is unnecessary. IF the child had said "why does an object with no support & close to earth fall at a 9.8 m/s/s?" it would have the same meaning. But then you tell the child, there is no reason for the consistent behavior: there just is the behavior. So not everything requires a reason.
Atheists apply this same line of thought to all things existing in general. Where did the universe come from? It didn't come from anywhere, it just is. But that does seem oddly similar to your idea of God. Where did God come from? Nowhere, he just was. But that sounds weird because I thought you were saying there must be a reason for everything. It sounds more correct from my point of view to say there is no reason for God than to say God is the reason for himself.
I also don't like this use of the word infinite. Infinite means without bound. Bound is a term that means the limit of an extension. There aren't very many things that can be infinite I don't think. Numbers might not fit into that definition, but numbers are descriptive terms, not things in themselves. So numbers can describe extension. I say this is 1 foot, not this is a 1, unless I'm pointing at the symbol. So what things can have extension? Well time and space. Think about it. You can't be infinite red. You can't be infinite just. You can be completely red or just, not infinite. So you can't have an infinite being unless you are talking about it extending through all time and space, but then you have the same problem as something that only extends through part of time and space. You can still ask "well why is that there."
But maybe that's just playing with words (of course the whole argument is just a word game). Well maybe anything with number can have infinite. So any thing capable of measurement. Like infinite power. But power is also energy or matter. Infinite knowledge is thing I can think of that isn't "material". But you dont say God is infinite knowledge. The infinite just doesnt make sense at all. It seems like infinite is just like number. Like it's a specific kind of number. The highest "conceivable" number. But that implies that it requires units because numbers are numbers of somthing. So an infinite being or "the infinite" really sounds like a meaningless concept if you use infinite properly.
So maybe you should just tell me why God explains himself. It'll be easier than me guessing

[will_alltogether]

You ask for the impossible OP, for God is necessarily possible.

To prove something's non-existence can be rather simple (despite this wild claim that says proving the negative is impossible). You prove its impossibility. For instance, I can prove, with near certainty, there is no elephant in my house because it is impossible given the space available and what otherwise exists therein.

Unfortunately, God cannot be shown impossible. Something is only impossible if its existence is contradictory with something. Contradictions exist because of the conflict of limits (e.g. an elephant's physical existence entails it is limited spaciotemporally and can be contradicted by the existence of some other physical thing in its place). God (of the philosophers), by definition is the I AM or the infinite being. Infinite means to lack limits, therefore God cannot admit of contradiction, and therefore is necessarily possible.

Are you suggesting that if an elephant were infinitely large, it could fit in my house?

That's just for fun, not a serious objection. My serious objection is that something not being impossible in no way implies that it's true, much less likely. It's possible that Hume was right in saying there is no such thing as cause and effect, that the universe may be a series of elaborate coincidence, and that I can't assume that just because every time I've dropped something it's fallen that the next time I drop something it will fall. It's possible that he's right. But nobody's going to jump off a bridge because of it.

[IATIA]

The problem with those that believe in a 'universe creator' is that they feel there must be a purpose to all of this existence and their god gives them a purpose.

If god is infinite, then what purpose could there possibly be for creating a finite universe? What possible enjoyment or gain could there be for an infinite being?

They think, therefore, I am.

[spence96]

lol sorry im just rambling.
in that in between stage where i like to think about a topic but not write my thoughts coherently

---

lol sorry im just rambling.
in that in between stage where i like to think about a topic but not write my thoughts coherently

Ugghh i dont understand how commenting on these forums work. I see your comments after Ive written stuff and what i said was talking about my stuff but i never saw your stuff lol. im the worst comment-maker. but also your comments seem to be repeating what you said to previous people, so apparently we are all arguing in a circle. So im going to have to not use the forum.