The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[vulcanlogician]

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.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

What about, ‘things exist because there’s no logical alternative’?  Or, said another way, ‘existence is necessary.’  Would that qualify as a ‘reason’ according to the PSR?

[vulcanlogician]

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.

What about, ‘things exist because there’s no logical alternative’?  Or, said another way, ‘existence is necessary.’  Would that qualify as a ‘reason’ according to the PSR?

Yes. That is a perfectly valid way of approaching the PSR. Things that exist, exist because they must exist. It is necessary for them to exist.

[LadyForCamus]

What about, ‘things exist because there’s no logical alternative’?  Or, said another way, ‘existence is necessary.’  Would that qualify as a ‘reason’ according to the PSR?

Yes. That is a perfectly valid way of approaching the PSR. Things that exist, exist because they must exist. It is necessary for them to exist.

I think that’s where my head is these days as far as philosophical positions go. It seems to me that there could never be nothing. That sentence itself is a logical contradiction. Even the word “nothingness” is an attempt to describe some thing. We try to hold a vague concept of “nothing” in our minds, but the second we attempt to use language to explain what nothing “is”, we’ve already defined it into existence. Anytime we use language like, “nothing instead of something” or “nothing is”, or, “if there was nothing”, we are talking, tacitly, about something. This is why I think that existence is necessary. I apologize in advance if none of that makes any sense, lol.

[brewer]

What about, ‘things exist because there’s no logical alternative’?  Or, said another way, ‘existence is necessary.’  Would that qualify as a ‘reason’ according to the PSR?

Yes. That is a perfectly valid way of approaching the PSR. Things that exist, exist because they must exist. It is necessary for them to exist.

[Nay_Sayer]

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
That cause is logically FSM.

[vulcanlogician]

Yes. That is a perfectly valid way of approaching the PSR. Things that exist, exist because they must exist. It is necessary for them to exist.

Excellent point, Lil Rik.

But I am not making some "proclamation through fiat" when I say: "Things that exist, exist because they must exist." Ask yourself: why are things the way they are? Why does the planet earth take 24 hours to complete a rotation? Why is the sun the temperature that it is? Why is the planet Venus so hot? Why does the moon reflect light from the sun?

The answer?
....
Is there an answer?

Yes. 

***

Prior causes. The conditions of reality before this present moment dictate what must be the case now. The reality that exists before our very eyes is necessary.

When a star produces an accretion disk, the accretion disk forms because it is necessary for the molecules being scattered from the newly-formed star to go somewhere. Likewise, the newly-formed star's formation was necessitated by what its composite hydrogen molecules must do when they enter such a state.

Give me an example of something that exists because of something other than prior causes, Brew.

[Anomalocaris]

First of all please excuse my english, it's not my original language.

It just so happens that English has become the de facto official language of physics.   So, please, improve your English by learning to read physics.

Then not only will that allow you to diminish the appearance of not knowing the language well, it will further allow you to shed the the appearance of being a ignoramus who hasn’t learned the concept of the world having kept progressing after the 16th century.

[GrandizerII]

Calling the alleged first cause "god" does not make it true that the first cause is "god". And certainly does not mean that it must therefore be the god that you specifically believe in.

Let's just call it the first cause then ?

A first cause that isn't supernatural and certainly isn't Allah of the Qur'an? Sure ...

Personally, I think the first cause (if there is one) is natural and "somewhere" in the universe itself.

[LadyForCamus]

Yes. That is a perfectly valid way of approaching the PSR. Things that exist, exist because they must exist. It is necessary for them to exist.

Was it something I said?