There is no god or gods!

[Mystic]

Fortunately the natural sciences (in very recent years; thanks to a Catholic priest) have 'proven' to us that the universe is 14 billion+ years old, not eternal. Everything empirical points to a start point, disproving the quasi-atheistic 'atheism-of-the-gaps' theory of the static universe. As [/b]far as the cause of the universe goes, atheism-of-the-gaps can at least still seek a refuge there in the closing gaps and speculate the cause was non-theistic or try and criticize the science of the big bang (which is pretty solid by this point).

Or they can have explanations with the big bang, like there is no more north then north pole, just as there is no before time. So whenever time started, then there is no "before that".

[Darkstar]

I am not sure I understand you here. How does the fact that 2+2=4 at all places and at all times prove physics is false? Numbers are not physical things and so are beyond physics even though physical laws still apply to physical things.

and

If a contradiction is not a thing (as it most certainly is not), then not being able to do it is not a thing God cannot do. Thus, not being able to do contradictions does not negate omnipotence (the ability to do anything).

Okay, I understand what you mean now.

I know of instances of apparent contradictions in Scripture, but no necessary ones. Certainly, I can see how you can fair mindedly call them contradictions though. Anyhow, I deny God commits contradictions by reason. I'm Catholic after all. We also believe in the holy book of nature and reason and deny Sola Scriptura as heresy. Thus I interpret scripture in light of Tradition, Magisterium, reason, and science.

Nevertheless, though perhaps an interesting criticism for certain believers of the Christian god, this is somewhat off my point. I am talking about God in the generic natural theology sense, not Christian specifically (even if that is the right interpretation ).

If that is the case then my assumption of a generic, omnipotent, but otherwise undefined god would be correct (as in that is what your argument was supporting). That would also fit with the idea that god is unknowable. I'll tailor my argument towards a more deistic god, then.

You will find some fundamentalists who will give you a falsifiable version of a god and to who this god-of-the-gaps criticism is somewhat applicable (typically the ones who think evolution and God are incompatible, etc). However, as to God of natural theology in general, you are right.

The thing I find most elling is that the fundamentalists, the ones most religious, are the ones with the flimsiest defenses for god. The more you claim to know about god, the more you have to provide in evidence to support that interpretation. The only god position that I believe is even vaguely defendable is the deistic one because it does not have any supernatural claims to disprove, or any scripture to contradict itself. The problem with scripture is that it teaches moral lessons that were applicable in the day, but which might be appauling now.

According to what I have argued so far, some may conclude, like Spinoza, that the universe is the infinite being (though this has some logical problems). Assuming the universe is creation though, then it is finite, at least in the way of Cantor's transfinites. That is, it might be infinite in kind but not absolutely. It is lacking/limited in some ways. Thus, if we hold the principle of sufficient reason (basically the principle that reason applies to all things), we need assume a sufficient reason for it (we wouldn't if it were completely infinite). God, however, being infinite, is a sufficient explanation for Himself. Of course being infinite means being eternal, so there is no coming into existence or instantaneously appearing for Him either.

(bolding + italics mine)
If we assume that god exists, that he is infinite, and that the universe cannot be infinite, while he can, then he explains himself. However, as I said before, if we consider the possibility that god was invented and arbitrariky defined as infinite, then this would be circular reasoning. If someone who had not been told about god were asked to examine the evidence, it is unlikely that they would conclude an infinite sentience as the cause of the universe. The problem is that if we assume that god exists, and is infinite, even without evidence for such, then we can say that he is infinite and doesn't need an explanation. I do no believe that you have given any proof that the universe cannot be infinite other than your assumption that if it were created by a god then it would be finite.

Fortunately the natural sciences (in very recent years; thanks to a Catholic priest) have 'proven' to us that the universe is 14 billion+ years old, not eternal. Everything empirical points to a start point, disproving the quasi-atheistic 'atheism-of-the-gaps' theory of the static universe. As far as the cause of the universe goes, atheism-of-the-gaps can at least still seek a refuge there in the closing gaps and speculate the cause was non-theistic or try and criticize the science of the big bang (which is pretty solid by this point).

Indeed, the universe former is 14 billion+ years old. However, I am referring to the universe former, not matter itself. How can anything be eternal? Wouldn't an infinite amount of time have had to have passed to reach this point? Wouldn't it then be impossible to be here? I make an important destinction between the singularity and the universe former. The singularity could have existed for eons before the big bang. If we define the singularity as infinite, then the universe explains itself. However, we have no proof for this, like we have no proof for an infinite creator. In fact, if we do not assume that an infinite creator exists, then there is no evidence for him. If we assume that he does, we can make him justify himself by defining him in a way that does so.

Also, the god of christianity is not actually all powerful (and definitely not loving) despite what people say.

Genesis 22:12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

(bolding mine) In other words, he didn't know before. Therefore he is not omniscent. Therefore he is not infinite.

[Dranu]

I'll tailor my argument towards a more deistic god, then.

Just a natural philosophy one. Deism makes some pretty wild claims in addition to the idea of God (like non-interaction, etc).

Just to see where we are in this to give the discussion a bit of a road map as these things get chaotic after a while (correct me if you think otherwise Darkstar):
1.) We agree that God as defined as an infinite being is impossible to disprove.
2.) However, we are not in agreement that this god is anything more than just the universe, and so does not really show the typical notion of the God of natural theology is impossible to disprove. This appears to be the primary point of disagreement in this thread and topic.

Anyhow, on with the reply

The thing I find most elling is that the fundamentalists, the ones most religious, are the ones with the flimsiest defenses for god. The more you claim to know about god, the more you have to provide in evidence to support that interpretation

Indeed. Fortunately for a lot of them, the thing that matters most is what you love in life, not what you know.

if we consider the possibility that god was invented and arbitrariky defined as infinite, then this would be circular reasoning.

We don't create something simply by defining it; agreed! Definitions refer to something or they do not. If the definition can't be false then that tells us something, much like our other abstract reasoning’s do (e.g. axioms of math, etc)

I do no believe that you have given any proof that the universe cannot be infinite other than your assumption that if it were created by a god then it would be finite.

Correct, I have not. The universe may indeed be God at least on first appearances. I would say common sense may refute this idea (just for starters). If we say that there is such thing as void/vacuum in the universe, then we can say that there are places where the universe is lacking in being (namely in the void). Thus it is finite (even if infinite in kind). There are other ways of showing it, I'm sure.

How can anything be eternal? Wouldn't an infinite amount of time have had to have passed to reach this point? Wouldn't it then be impossible to be here?

Eternal things are atemporal, thus there is no passage of time. An example of an eternal thing that is really common sense and easy to think of is a truth claim. Another is a principle of math or logic. E.g. 2+2 IS 4.

The singularity could have existed for eons before the big bang. If we define the singularity as infinite, then the universe explains itself.

If it is logical to define it as infinite. I contend, as with the universe, it arguably isn't given what we know about it.

Also, the god of christianity is not actually all powerful (and definitely not loving) despite what people say.

Genesis 22:12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

(bolding mine) In other words, he didn't know before. Therefore he is not omniscent. Therefore he is not infinite.

Again, this is the Christian God, and as you are right to think He to be the one true version of God , I am at this point only arguing the necessary possibility of the God of natural theology.

However, you have baited me to at least make this comment: much reference to God is done by analogy, and references to God changing have more to do with how our reception to God shifts rather than God Himself. The main point of that story, as I see it, is showing that God requires loving Him above all else (loving the Good for its own sake and above all else), that God ultimately provides the sacrifice (after all, remember what the mountain Isaac nearly dies at is thereafter named), and it is showing a prophetic prefiguring of the sacrifice of the true Isaac in Christ (wood bearing, chosen one, seed of the children of God, scape goat, up a hill, etc etc).

[FallentoReason]

I can see you guys are rubbing shoulders with the cosmological argument. Two objections to it:

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'

It would be special pleading to justify #1 by saying the First Cause was uncaused and always was. For #2, if it somehow logically did follow that the First Cause was an intelligent being then all you have done is establish a Deist god. You would still have quite the work ahead of you to show the First Cause lives in people through some 'Holy Spirit'.

[Darkstar]

This guy basically says what I have been trying to say all along.

[spence96]

So I agree that Dranu's topic is relevant. If you are asking for proof God exists, logical proof is proof. At the risk of repeating what has been said, I will try to give a fair analyses. There seems to be two arguments being given for God. The argument from definition and the argument from causation.

The argument from definition goes like this: God is infinite; an infinite thing can't possibly not exist; therefore, God cannot not exist; God exists. The problem is not that the definition of infinite, the problem is whether there is anything that corresponds to that definition. That is to say, verbally one cannot ascribe nonexistence to a "thing" which has already been ascribed existence. But this argument basically boils down to the familiar unicorn argument. If I say "It (unicorn) is not," some have said that I both say "the unicorn is" and "the unicorn isn't." That is the people are ambiguously using the word "is" both as a helping verb (a verb merely linking the predicate to the object) and as a verb connoting existence. Clearly I'm using the word "is" as the helping verb. I'm saying there is no such grouping of abstract properties as connoted by the word God when Dranu uses it.

The definition of God (to Dranu at least) really is "an infinite being", but, just like the unicorn, logical consistency of abstract properties does not ensure existence. I could define unicorn as a necessarily existing thing. But Dranu would think that was ridiculous. That's not his definition of unicorn. Well that's not our definition of god. But Dranu might say "oh well, most people agree with my definition." So as long as I got a bunch of people to agree that unicorns necessarily exist, they would?

Maybe I'm straw manning that argument. Maybe it's better to say that "infinite is infinite" so "infinite" must exist. Well that's the same problem. I have some idea of a thing, so my idea of the thing must correspond to reality. The universe may very well be finite. Admittedly it is hard for the human mind to imagine a universe with an end. Isn't there something on the other side of the "barrier." Well it used to be troublesome to imagine bodies acting on one another without touching: but now gravity is admitted by most everyone.

Moreover, even if some infinite were required, it need not be God. Space and time could be infinite. There also could be many infinite things, none of which are God. I know not how you make the jump from "this is infinite" to "therefore this infinite is God."

But then there is the argument from causation. Every contingent thing has a cause. Any chain of contingent causes must eventually have a necessary cause. Therefore, there is some necessary cause, and that it God. Again how do you make the jump from "this thing is necessary" to "this necessary thing is God?" More importantly, how do you get to pick and choose contingent things? Oh well the bed I'm lying on must be contingent. It didn't have to be manufactured. Well, no, if I have a mechanical view of the universe, it definitely did have to come to be.

But perhaps that's what you mean by "contingent": not that it might not have been, but it "came to be." But is it not possible for everything to come to be? Well because everything needs a cause. No not everything needs a cause. Spontaneous generation: term for not needing a cause. Just because we rarely see it (almost never), doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Theoretical scientist supposedly have seen particles come into existence inside a vacuum.

Let's work with the "might not have been" definition again. Let's say there was a 50% shot something might "be". Flip a coin, the universe came to be. Couldve missed it but we got lucky. There doesn't have to be some necessary thing. But I guess you had that argument that if you have an infinite chain of events, then we couldnt have gotten here. Well, this "bang theory" says there was no infinite chain. We sprang out of nothing and have experienced a finite amount of time: just the right amount of time for us to have got to the now. But also, even if there was an infinite chain, we could be here now. The "end" of an "infinite" chain can be arrived at given "infinite" time. Maybe there's an issue with this "infinite". It's like adding up ones forever. That doesn't get you an infinite, it just gives you an uber long time, that you can't really add up. Idk, but I feel like there's enough said, to show that these arguments don't work.

Dranu can reply. When I get time I'll address the reply. And maybe I'll have time to do some research for better refutations from Mill and Kant.

---

So this is Kant from Wikipedia.
Kant questioned the intelligibility of the concept of a necessary being. He considered examples of necessary propositions, such as "a triangle has three angles", and rejected the transfer of this logic to the existence of God. First, he argued that such necessary propositions are necessarily true only if such a being exists: If a triangle exists, it must have three angles. The necessary proposition, he argued, does not make the existence of a triangle necessary. Thus, he argued that, if the proposition "X exists" is posited, it would follow that, if X exists, it exists necessarily; this does not mean that X exists in reality.[49] Second, he argued that contradictions arise only when the subject and predicate are maintained and, therefore, a judgement of non-existence cannot be a contradiction, as it denies the predicate.[47]
Kant then proposed that the statement "God exists" must be analytic or synthetic—the predicate must be inside or outside of the subject, respectively. If the proposition is analytic, as the ontological argument takes it to be, then the statement would be true only because of the meaning given to the words. Kant claimed that this is merely a tautology and cannot say anything about reality. However, if the statement is synthetic, the ontological argument does not work, as the existence of God is not contained within the definition of God (and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found).[50]
Kant goes on to write, "'being' is obviously not a real predicate" [47] and cannot be part of the concept of something. He proposed that existence is not a predicate, or quality. This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. He stated that by taking the subject of God with all its predicates and then asserting that God exists, "I add no new predicate to the conception of God". He argued that the ontological argument works only if existence is a predicate; if this is not so, then it is conceivable for a completely perfect being to not exist, thus defeating the ontological argument

---

Hume Wikipedia
...there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.

I really can conceive God as not existing (even though Dranu thinks I cannot). There for nonexistence is not impossible. One might argue against a priori reasoning all together. The principle of noncontradiction doesn't prove that a thing cant both be and not be. It simply shows that "reasoning" normally assumes this to be true. Why does reasoning have to reflect reality? Why cant shroedinger's cat (spelling bad) be dead and alive? That's even farther than assuming that pure thought mandates God's existence while denying the empirical reality of that thought.

[spence96]

I just realized the true import of contingent being. That is it depends on the existence of some other thing. Not all things can be dependent on each other. That would be like turtles having to keep the world up. So someone might say my bed is contingent. Contingent on what? Well the matter being there beforehand. Yeah but we can say that the matter itself is not contingent. It was either always there or it came out of the nothingness & the nothingness was necessary.

[Dranu]

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).

[Darwinian]

When the universe came into existence it was infinitely dense and infinitely small and would have obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics and just as a proton can wink into existence from nowhere so it would have been same for our infant universe. Also, as time itself came into existence with our baby universe it would have been impossible for there to have been a cause for it as there would have been no time for a cause to exist.

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.

[Dranu]

The principle of noncontradiction doesn't prove that a thing cant both be and not be. It simply shows that "reasoning" normally assumes this to be true. Why does reasoning have to reflect reality?

After the OP's reply I'll say I guess an Ontological argument would be relevant here, however there is no point of arguing that with you if you deny logic, because I use logic to argue and you seem to question if logic is valid or not and I can only show it is by assuming logic is true .