RE: The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence
July 13, 2019 at 11:46 pm
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2019 at 11:49 pm by polymath257.)
(July 13, 2019 at 6:52 am)Nogba Wrote: First of all please excuse my english, it's not my original language.
every thing that existes must have a reason that made him come to existence right ?
you can't create something from nothing.
nothing comes to existance by coincidence, but if you say so then what brings this law of coincidence in existance.
the coincidence law it self need something to bring him to existance
the probleme is that if every thing needs a first reason to existe,
nothing will existe in first place.
why is that ?
because we need that very first reason that doesn't need a reason to exist that will begin the chaine of causes.
this first causes is called god, that will catalyst the existance.
So you have shown that it is NOT true that everything needs a reason to exist. But you didn't show that this is true of just *one* thing. And, in fact, there are *many* events in the real world that are NOT caused: they are, fundamentally, random.
So, to label something 'god' simply because it is uncaused is making an identification that is unwarranted. You have not, for example, shown that any uncaused causes are *intelligent*. And, in fact, most quantum events are uncaused but not intelligent.
You also did not address the possibility of an infinite regress of causes.
(July 13, 2019 at 8:21 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:(July 13, 2019 at 6:32 pm)Aegon Wrote: I don't know why any of this First Cause stuff is necessary. You can theoretically reject the notion of the first cause entirely, as all things seem to be relative to other things, i.e. are caused by something and cause something themselves. Actually, in my opinion (which means please be gentle if I sound stupid) it's easier to argue that there is no first cause because nothing is actually absolute and independent. It's what we know, it's what we've observed. I have no compelling reason to come up with a First Cause, and I definitely do not have any compelling reason to introduce a God into the equation to explain it.
The principle of sufficient reason is compelling enough to illicit concern over the first cause. This doesn't mean one must conclude "God"... but, hey, it asks a pretty good question: Why does all this shit exist? True, "Godidit" is a poor answer. But still. There's an unanswered question floating about.
And I see the problem as assuming there is a *cause* for everything to exist. Since, for example, any cause must exist prior to causing anything else to exist, there is ultimately no cause for why things exist.