An argument for God

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Would you care to explain what's wrong with Tiaexz's argument? I'm not smart enough to figure it out myself.

Put simply, he's arguing against a far more primitive version of God than Rhy is proposing, Rhy described an Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent being, whist Tiaexz addressed the question of a "Massively Powerful Being" which would be an infinitely less potent entity. Then he starts waffling on about meatballs, an absurd an childish argument of a type abandoned by Christian theologians and scientists even before Isaac Newton.

Conversely, Kadagar raised some rather more difficult questions about a specifically Christian God without pretending that it proves there is no God at all.

You see it's two separate questions - the Almighty God and what people call the "personal God".

[Ironside]

Ironside, the "simulation"-theory I find quite interesting...

There's a reason some people are taking it very seriously. Now, that has more that do with if you can make one "universe simulation" then you can make several. And then you got like millions of simulations and one real world. So what the odds that this is a real world?

I don't ascribe to it though, but the idea is there. And is very useful as a framework of thought. The "real world TM" has the same creation issues though, so it's not solving the "who or what created the universe"- question.

Anyway, what does it even mean for something to be immaterial? For me, it's hard to grasp why 'immaterial' wouldn't simply be synonymous with 'nonexistent'.

I think it's the "programmer" in this context. Basically, you don't need a simulation avatar to change the simulation. You're immaterial to the simulation, but still able to do things with it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is merely an attempt to address the notion that infinite regress is impossible. Is it?
The First Cause is a contradiction to the argument of "everything has a cause". You designed the argument with "everything that begins". But everything that is, whether material or immaterial begs a beginning? If you allow for something to be uncaused, why choose God? Why can't the universe be the uncaused non-contingent being?
At least we know that it exists.

In addition to the Aquinas argument, you must also show:

1. The First cause is either personal or mechanical.
2. The First cause is not mechanical.
3. Therefore, the first cause must be personal

(Universe vs. God)

Well, if the first cause was mechanical (lets call it a "creator universe"), then presumably it could only create our universe by an accidental mechanical process rather than intelligent design. And if this creation is a mechanical process, then wouldn't this mean that this "creator universe" acts according to [at least some of] the laws of our own universe, since it would be creating our universe through a sort of 'cause and effect' of mechanical action/reaction. To be self-existent, the first cause would have to be totally transcendent of all our natural laws including cause and effect. The very idea of mechanicity entails a sort of inner working of cause and effect.

The problem I see with your argument Rhy is that premise 2 is not proven. It is possible that the universe has always been and always will. Maybe our universe is a part of a pair of universes that popped into existence, ours being matter, another being composed of the anti-matter we don't observe and both of these universes are within a much larger multi-universe.

The current scientific consensus is that our universe began to exist. From what I can see, even all the atheists who debate the cosmological argument accept this point. I would have thought that it would be the least contentious point of the argument.

...All those points also applies to anyone making a computer simulation.

As I said it is of course possible to have total control over an artificially created sort of sub/simulated universe. But this is not omnipotence or omniscience according to the pure, philosophical meanings of the terms; not least because of the basic fact that the simulated universe would strictly speaking not be a distinct universe, but in fact a part of the universe of its creator.

And as you said in a later post, the objection you raise here doesn't address the fundamental question of how the first universe was created.

Rhyf, two questions:

These questions are concerned with the particular God of the Bible, which as I have already said, requires going beyond the scope of my argument here.

Once again, the aim of this argument is not to prove that the God of the Bible is true. The aim is only to show that a broadly Abrahamic concept of God, in the sense of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial God is true.

[Husar]

Once again, the aim of this argument is not to prove that the God of the Bible is true. The aim is only to show that a broadly Abrahamic concept of God, in the sense of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial God is true.

But the self-existent creator in point 4 kind of contradicts point 1, does he not?

[Kadagar_AV]

These questions are concerned with the particular God of the Bible, which as I have already said, requires going beyond the scope of my argument here.

Once again, the aim of this argument is not to prove that the God of the Bible is true. The aim is only to show that a broadly Abrahamic concept of God, in the sense of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial God is true.

But it's not true.

It is ONE theory of what could be "true" among many, if it's even worth being called a theory - as it makes no real scientific effort.

Also, I think it's worth arguing the premise of your argument about Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent. If that were true, why would prayers be needed, as an example?



Endnote: I think you PVC is a bit harsh on Tiaexz... The Massively Powerful Being is just a way to say that the "force" doesn't really have to be godlike in its characteristics, and it ties in well with the simulation theory.

Depending on the purpose of the simulation, the massively powerful being running or starting it barely need to know or care we exist, maybe his hardware just alerts him when something INTERESTING happens.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But the self-existent creator in point 4 kind of contradicts point 1, does he not?

Why do you think so?

But it's not true.

It is ONE theory of what could be "true" among many, if it's even worth being called a theory - as it makes no real scientific effort.

My argument is not framed merely as a theory or a possibility. It is an argument which strictly follows the laws of logic where one point doesn't simply allow for the possibility of the next; it goes further than that, and actually demands the necessity of it. Logical argument like this is much more fundamental than scientific inquiry, indeed the principles of science are subject to those of logic. Science can only offer predictive theories (eg, I'm 99.9999% sure that two chemicals will react a certain way going by previous experiments), whereas logic deals with truths at a more fundamental and absolute level.

If you think that my argument is not true, you can't just dismiss it as a theory. You have to show why it is wrong by demonstrating where my logical reasoning is incorrect.

Also, I think it's worth arguing the premise of your argument about Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent. If that were true, why would prayers be needed, as an example?

You're going into particular questions about Christian theology again. That is not what this argument is about.

[Kadagar_AV]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

As far as we know? The cause might however still be something so unfathomable out of our limited cognitive ability that we can't even begin to understand it until we evolved more.

Also, how do you know something begun to exist? What MADE that thing exist? And what in turn made THAT thing exist? Maybe it's been there all along, and there has never been anything else.

I can question your basic premise that something begins to exist, as that would mean to make something out of nothing... Which goes against logic reason... Not that I understand why you started to bother with logic reason.... I thought faith was enough for you

2. The universe began to exist.

Why? Maybe Big Bang is an ever ongoing loop, where the universe expands, and then contracts back to a singularity, and then expands again aso aso aso... Every time maybe a little bit different, a little bit more complex.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Therefore the logic chain is broken already here. Well, at point one to be honest.

4. Therefore the existence of the universe necessitates the existence of a self-existent creator who created the universe.*

Nope.

5. Since time, space and all natural laws are properties of the universe, this creator must transcend these properties and any temporal limitations.

Nope. If the universe always existed and is in a loop, the universe is what it is, and is stuck by its own rules (at least until it reforms into a singularity).

6. In relation to the universe, this creator must therefore be timeless, formless, all-present and all-powerful.

Nope. In the scenario I brought up the universe is stuck with time, is all present though, but has no power to interact.

7. Such a figure would therefore be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial.

Such a figure would, but there doesn't have to be such a figure.

8. This is the Abrahamic concept of God.

Yes, and you are absolutely free to believe in it, just like others are free not to.

[Ironside]

My argument is not framed merely as a theory or a possibility. It is an argument which strictly follows the laws of logic where one point doesn't simply allow for the possibility of the next; it goes further than that, and actually demands the necessity of it. Logical argument like this is much more fundamental than scientific inquiry, indeed the principles of science are subject to those of logic. Science can only offer predictive theories (eg, I'm 99.9999% sure that two chemicals will react a certain way going by previous experiments), whereas logic deals with truths at a more fundamental and absolute level.

If you think that my argument is not true, you can't just dismiss it as a theory. You have to show why it is wrong by demonstrating where my logical reasoning is incorrect.

And this is where the simulation is utterly crushing your argument.

It fullfills 1-5, but not 6-8. But by your own argument, something fullfilling 1-5 has to fullfill 6-8.

Arguing about the orginal universe being special in that aspect, because we can't sneak peak on both sides is not a logic law.

Edit: My previous comment in the earlier post was about the idea that we're living in a simulation. That has nothing to do with us being able to create computer simulations and that those run parallell to the idea of a universe created by someone with a will to create a universe.

[Husar]

Why do you think so?

If he ever began to exist, he must have a cause. If he never began to exist, he does not exist.
If he does not need to have a cause, then neither does the universe need to have a cause and your first statement is simply wrong.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The current scientific consensus is that our universe began to exist. From what I can see, even all the atheists who debate the cosmological argument accept this point. I would have thought that it would be the least contentious point of the argument.

The current scientific consensus is that there was a big bang which emerged from a singularity some time ago. This is when the laws of nature as we know them began to exist, but it is another leap to say that is when the universe itself began. I don't think anyone is arguing that the inside of a black hole does not exist simply because we cannot model what happens inside of one.

[Montmorency]

There is neither Man nor God.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that the Universe was created 146 years ago. Everything was put in place to make it seem older than it, in fact, is.

[Brenus]

Pfff, the Universe was created 56 years ago, for my birth. And it will vanish when I will die, as your were just created for me to populate my world!!!!

[Beskar]

I find issues arise sometimes is due to the mistaken impression that the existence of the label means the 'thing' exists. We all know what a unicorn is and we can describe and define it, but they do not exist other than as mythical creatures. Then there are concepts such as 'god' which cannot really be defined or described in an accurate way with many conflicting theories on what it is.

[Papewaio]

First thought: what is wrong with not understanding anything about everything.

Pubs make a fine trade in providing refreshments that reduce ones ability to understand and their patrons are happy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Endnote: I think you PVC is a bit harsh on Tiaexz... The Massively Powerful Being is just a way to say that the "force" doesn't really have to be godlike in its characteristics, and it ties in well with the simulation theory.

Tiaexz sidestepped Rhy's OP, either deliberately or because he didn't understand it, he tried to reduce it to something he can conceptualise as "real".

That's not the point of the OP - so he fails as he's not responding to the argument but talking past it.

The correct response to the OP is "Epicurus".

Then Rhy has to explain why/how a God who is omnipotent etc. and Good lets bad things happen.

The fact that point,counter point, second counter etc. were written over two thousand years ago seems to be passing everyone by right now.

[Beskar]

Tiaexz sidestepped Rhy's OP, either deliberately or because he didn't understand it, he tried to reduce it to something he can conceptualise as "real".

Would be pretty pointless discussing something not 'real' in a matter like this. Whilst I have an interest in story-telling and reading a bunch of fantasy novels, that is unrelated to the matter at hand.

For me, there were big assumptions with no foundations, 'don't build your house on sandy land'. Don't mean that as a personal disrespect to Rhy, just that line of thinking doesn't work on me as I have seen through it all with myself, as I have tried to convince myself there is a 'god' to myself and failed. I went as far as delving into quantum mechanics to explain various occurrences.

Even if you remove the aspect of 'Personal God' and the magical supernatural elements, going for a more reasoned 'Deist' approach, erroneously trying to rationalise this into your belief-system doesn't prove that Jesus still turned water into wine.

[Brenus]

"belief-system doesn't prove that Jesus still turned water into wine." And even if he did, still doesn't prove there is a God, and his claim to be the Son of God true (and God and the Holly thing).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Would be pretty pointless discussing something not 'real' in a matter like this. Whilst I have an interest in story-telling and reading a bunch of fantasy novels, that is unrelated to the matter at hand.

For me, there were big assumptions with no foundations, 'don't build your house on sandy land'. Don't mean that as a personal disrespect to Rhy, just that line of thinking doesn't work on me as I have seen through it all with myself, as I have tried to convince myself there is a 'god' to myself and failed. I went as far as delving into quantum mechanics to explain various occurrences.

Even if you remove the aspect of 'Personal God' and the magical supernatural elements, going for a more reasoned 'Deist' approach, erroneously trying to rationalise this into your belief-system doesn't prove that Jesus still turned water into wine.

Right, so you didn't get the OP, you just demonstrated that.

[Beskar]

Right, so you didn't get the OP, you just demonstrated that.

How did I not 'get' the OP?

It is an argument for the case of a creator, and by extension, the Abrahamic-style Personal God.
I have argued that there doesn't need to be a creator, which interrupts the underlying assumptions and furthered it by suggesting even if we follow the limited amount of assumptions, it doesn't mean it is the Abrahamic-style God either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK - let me try to show you your fallacies:

Would be pretty pointless discussing something not 'real' in a matter like this. Whilst I have an interest in story-telling and reading a bunch of fantasy novels, that is unrelated to the matter at hand.

Theology is not fantasy - whether you believe it or not is not the point, it's a branch of philosophy and either you approach it as such or you don't engage the argument. "Oh, they're just entertaining stories" is a dismissal, not engagement.

For me, there were big assumptions with no foundations, 'don't build your house on sandy land'. Don't mean that as a personal disrespect to Rhy, just that line of thinking doesn't work on me as I have seen through it all with myself, as I have tried to convince myself there is a 'god' to myself and failed. I went as far as delving into quantum mechanics to explain various occurrences.

I'm sure the fact that you didn't mean to insult him makes all the difference. "doesn't work on me" implies that you are not fooled, you are wise, and we are primitives grubbing around in the dirt.

This attitude is most evident in your earlier quip about meatball shaped planets, Christianity and pretty much all other religions have abandoned an "intentionalistic" argument for natural phenomena. Planets aren't round because God likes perfect spheres, they're round because that's how gravitational force compacted them.

Even if you remove the aspect of 'Personal God' and the magical supernatural elements, going for a more reasoned 'Deist' approach, erroneously trying to rationalise this into your belief-system doesn't prove that Jesus still turned water into wine.

I propose that Jesus walked on water because, as God, he was able to bend the laws of physics.

Refutation of that statement is not possible, because I am not saying HOW he did it, or trying to fit what he did into the natural order, I'm saying that God basically picked up his train set and put it down on a different part of the track, without going through the signal, or stopping at the crossing.

The point is - you can deny what I say but you can't construct a logical argument against it. If we accept God is Omnipotent then he can do WHATEVER he wants, including breaking the laws of physics by walking on water.

I expect what you'll now try to do it to say that it's allegorical, or that he performed a "magic trick" and present one of the modern explanations of how you do it. The part you don't get is that I dismiss walking on water as impossible, it's nonsense, can't do it, unless you break the laws of physics.

By all means, call me a crazy man, go get the straight jacket, but don't call my simple or naive.

[spankythehippo]

I'm not sure if I understand the point of this debate. It seems like this argument solves nothing, and has no answer. So what's the point in discussion? Is to convert others to a specific belief system? Belief is exactly what it is. Belief. I read a lot of religious texts, not to find god, but to better myself. I subscribe to the notion that all texts were written by humans, with a purpose. I try to attain as much wisdom as I can from such texts, without believing in it word-for-word. It's a fairy tale to me, a fantastical story with a message. From what I've read so far, I feel like polytheistic beliefs have more meaningful texts. Each deity is associated with a specific attribute, be it virtue, courage, truth, wisdom etc. They are not complete beings, often displaying negative attributes as well, such as hubris, greed, arrogance etc. I feel like this is contrast with a monotheistic belief, where only one god is perfect and has no faults. I just can't relate to such a being. Everyone has their faults, and I try my best to rectify them. Having a deity with no faults to begin with doesn't show me the power of transformation. Instead, it shows me a finished product, with no means of attaining it.

I don't really understand this conversion herd mentality. Why does it matter if someone believes in something different? Is it hard to accept people are different? I actually prefer it, makes things more interesting. This aspect doesn't only apply to religion. I see it everywhere; Xbox vs Playstation, sporting teams, political affiliations. Who cares? Just live your life to your fullest.

[Beskar]

Theology is not fantasy - whether you believe it or not is not the point, it's a branch of philosophy and either you approach it as such or you don't engage the argument. "Oh, they're just entertaining stories" is a dismissal, not engagement.

Theology in many ways is the study of cult fantasy which people believe is real, which is why it is called Theology and not Philosophy.

---

As for your proposal, I counter with this "Jesus cannot bend/break the natural order to walk on water" with the argument that any actions influenced on the world have an explanation to why they occur, even if you do not understand it at the time (thus appearance of it occurring). I also don't deny the possibility of the feat as there have been enough magicians able to perform it on the river thames.


Such feats do not require supernatural intervention which you are proposing. So especially when you apply the KISS principle, it is something far simpler than external disruption of time and space. So it is something natural which is observable and can be explained which doesn't require things to be imagined which have zero evidence of existence.

I think that is a pretty solid logical argument against your proposal and a dismissal of your dismissal.

From your reply, it isn't a matter of me not having understood the OP, your objection more jerk-knee response as you dislike the notion of being incorrect in your beliefs.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As far as we know? The cause might however still be something so unfathomable out of our limited cognitive ability that we can't even begin to understand it until we evolved more.

If my argument is correct, then it is very much fathomable. You are falling back to that old "we don't know" argument (or rather, non-argument), which is useless as a refutation of a positive argument such as the one that I have presented. As I said, I claim to show what you say we cannot know. My claim is falsifiable and thus it is up to you to prove it to be incorrect. But to be fair you do attempt to do that below...

Also, how do you know something begun to exist? What MADE that thing exist? And what in turn made THAT thing exist? Maybe it's been there all along, and there has never been anything else.

We know with a good degree of certainty that the universe began to exist, and this is something that is as widely accepted within the scientific community as evolution. To quote a lecture from Stephen Hawking:

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted."

I have to say, it has been very interesting to see a number of atheists abandon the widely accepted scientific views of our day, in order to try to dismiss my argument... a bit of a role reversal from the evolution debates we have here.

But if we are to stick with the findings of the modern scientific establishment and accept that the universe began to exist, well then I refer you back to point 1 of my argument.

I can question your basic premise that something begins to exist, as that would mean to make something out of nothing... Which goes against logic reason... Not that I understand why you started to bother with logic reason.... I thought faith was enough for you

You do not understand what the word "faith" means, especially in relation to its use in the Bible. But I would prefer not to get de-railed by this little dig of yours. It is, as are most points which have been brought up by the atheists in this thread, totally irrelevant to the discussion.

2. The universe began to exist.

Why? Maybe Big Bang is an ever ongoing loop, where the universe expands, and then contracts back to a singularity, and then expands again aso aso aso... Every time maybe a little bit different, a little bit more complex.

This fringe, pseudo-scientific theory has been debunked by the discovery that the universe is actually expanding at an accelerating rate.

*critique of points 3-8

Since you haven't actually critiqued these points in an of themselves, but said simply that they don't stand without points 1 and 2, I maintain that my argument stands true according to the established science of our day which teaches that the universe began to exist.

And this is where the simulation is utterly crushing your argument.

It fullfills 1-5, but not 6-8. But by your own argument, something fullfilling 1-5 has to fullfill 6-8.

Arguing about the orginal universe being special in that aspect, because we can't sneak peak on both sides is not a logic law.

Edit: My previous comment in the earlier post was about the idea that we're living in a simulation. That has nothing to do with us being able to create computer simulations and that those run parallell to the idea of a universe created by someone with a will to create a universe.

Simulation theory doesn't crush my argument... in fact it doesn't even touch upon it. If we create a simulated universe, then that isn't somehow a separate universe from ours in any sort of metaphysical sense. It is just a part and parcel of our universe, which would exist as part of the code in our machines. Take that code away and the simulated universe disappears... it has no independent existence of its own. An AI world is no more metaphysically distinct from our own universe than a rock or a tree.

If he ever began to exist, he must have a cause. If he never began to exist, he does not exist.
If he does not need to have a cause, then neither does the universe need to have a cause and your first statement is simply wrong.

Well I disagree with each of these points.

1. "If he ever began to exist, he must have a cause." - Immediately your argument falls flat, as point 4 in my OP makes it clear that the creator did not begin to exist.
2. "If he never began to exist, he does not exist." - Nonsense, as the very concepts of time, order and beginning only exist within the material universe, which the creator by nature transcends.
3. "If he does not need to have a cause, then neither does the universe need to have a cause". - Did you even read point 1 of my argument?

The current scientific consensus is that there was a big bang which emerged from a singularity some time ago. This is when the laws of nature as we know them began to exist, but it is another leap to say that is when the universe itself began. I don't think anyone is arguing that the inside of a black hole does not exist simply because we cannot model what happens inside of one.

The scientific consensus is that the universe began to exist, and I think Stephen Hawking is a good enough authority on the matter:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."

Would be pretty pointless discussing something not 'real' in a matter like this. Whilst I have an interest in story-telling and reading a bunch of fantasy novels, that is unrelated to the matter at hand.

For me, there were big assumptions with no foundations, 'don't build your house on sandy land'. Don't mean that as a personal disrespect to Rhy, just that line of thinking doesn't work on me as I have seen through it all with myself, as I have tried to convince myself there is a 'god' to myself and failed. I went as far as delving into quantum mechanics to explain various occurrences.

Even if you remove the aspect of 'Personal God' and the magical supernatural elements, going for a more reasoned 'Deist' approach, erroneously trying to rationalise this into your belief-system doesn't prove that Jesus still turned water into wine.

As PVC pointed out, you are being rude, elitist, dismissive, refusing to engage with what I am actually saying, and bizarrely subjecting my comments to some sort of psychoanalysis instead of treating this as an intellectual discussion. And by this point you seem to have abandoned any attempt at dialogue and are just talking to yourself in platitudes.

[Brenus]

“it's a branch of philosophy” It is certainly not. Philosophy questions, theology provides answers you can’t question as God exists and these are the laws you obey or you die on Earth and then burn in hell for Eternity, and God loves you.

Philosophy can be “does the concept of table pre-exist the table, or the fact to create a table creates the concept of table then will expend the concept table to all kinds of tables”. That is fascinating… Basically, do you cut a tree then put you meat on it and find out it is very handy, and you can make it portable, or do you think first, if I cut a tree and make it portable, I can put my meat on it during my hunting party and it will be easier to handle it for the seasoning?

In theology, you can’t think before. You accept a set of rules, and then you discuss what God intended to say as it is quite opposite from one chapter to the other. As TR tried to convinced people that to rape, kill and enslave others is ok because the others were not of the good religions, so their human rights just vanish, an opinion shared by the ones like ISIS. If God says so, it is OK.
If you question the set of beliefs, it is a heresy when it failed, as the Cathars and the Bogomils learned it hard way. If successful it becomes a new Religion as seen in various branch of Christianity.

[Husar]

Well I disagree with each of these points.

1. "If he ever began to exist, he must have a cause." - Immediately your argument falls flat, as point 4 in my OP makes it clear that the creator did not begin to exist.
2. "If he never began to exist, he does not exist." - Nonsense, as the very concepts of time, order and beginning only exist within the material universe, which the creator by nature transcends.
3. "If he does not need to have a cause, then neither does the universe need to have a cause". - Did you even read point 1 of my argument?

You cannot prove point 1 with point 4 and point 4 with point 1 if both of these depend on eachother and both contain a statement that hinges on the respective other statement being true. That amounts to circular reasoning.

You seem to be saying that everything inside our universe needs a cause, but the creator is outside and therefore does not need to have a cause. But none of that explains why the universe itself needs to have a cause, maybe the universe is self-existent and only changes its form now and then as others have said, it could also be a sub- universe of a universe that is timeless and has other rules. Might want to call that other universe god or creator, but that still wouldn't make it intelligent. In fact, if our universe has such distinct and different rules, how can you apply the concept of intelligence, which only works and was borne inside our universe, to something outside our universe?

[Rhyfelwyr]

You cannot prove point 1 with point 4 and point 4 with point 1 if both of these depend on eachother and both contain a statement that hinges on the respective other statement being true. That amounts to circular reasoning.

I never offered those two points as proof of each other.

You seem to be saying that everything inside our universe needs a cause, but the creator is outside and therefore does not need to have a cause. But none of that explains why the universe itself needs to have a cause, maybe the universe is self-existent and only changes its form now and then

As I said to you earlier, it is not necessarily the case that the universe cannot be self-existent; but that with out current scientific understanding, we know that it is not.

If old ideas like the steady-state theory turned out to be true, then my argument would be totally blown out of the water. But steady-state theory was proven wrong, and with it the idea that the universe was eternal and self-existent was demolished. We know that the material universe began to exist. We know that the material universe adheres to the laws of cause and effect. Therefore, something must have caused it to exist.

as others have said, it could also be a sub- universe of a universe that is timeless and has other rules.

The very idea of our universe being a 'sub-universe' within a greater universe implies a sort of material order within that greater universe similar to our own. As I have said, the self-existent creator must totally transcend all these natural laws.

Might want to call that other universe god or creator, but that still wouldn't make it intelligent. In fact, if our universe has such distinct and different rules, how can you apply the concept of intelligence, which only works and was borne inside our universe, to something outside our universe?

God's intelligence is something totally incomprehensible to us, intelligence is just the best word that we lowly humans can use to describe it. God's intelligence is totally different from the mechanical workings of, say, a human or AI brain.

[Husar]

I never offered those two points as proof of each other.

Yes, I misread that earlier.

As I said to you earlier, it is not necessarily the case that the universe cannot be self-existent; but that with out current scientific understanding, we know that it is not.

If old ideas like the steady-state theory turned out to be true, then my argument would be totally blown out of the water. But steady-state theory was proven wrong, and with it the idea that the universe was eternal and self-existent was demolished. We know that the material universe began to exist. We know that the material universe adheres to the laws of cause and effect. Therefore, something must have caused it to exist.

There is still the problem that if everything that begins to exist within our universe needs to have a cause, this cannot apply to the universe itself, since the universe did not begin to exist within itself and the rules of the universe do not apply to the singularity that turned into the universe. There is also nothing within our universe that begins to exist, so I'm not even sure where you draw the conclusion from that everything that begins to exist, must have a cause. Maybe you can name an instance of something that begins to exist.

The very idea of our universe being a 'sub-universe' within a greater universe implies a sort of material order within that greater universe similar to our own. As I have said, the self-existent creator must totally transcend all these natural laws.

Why can that parent universe not transcend our natural laws itself? A god who transcends our natural laws would essentially be our parent universe himself, since if there is neiother time nor space, the only thing within which he could create a universe is himself, if he is the only "thing" that exists beyond our universe.

God's intelligence is something totally incomprehensible to us, intelligence is just the best word that we lowly humans can use to describe it. God's intelligence is totally different from the mechanical workings of, say, a human or AI brain.

And what then tells us that it is "intelligent" and not purely random?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Theology in many ways is the study of cult fantasy which people believe is real, which is why it is called Theology and not Philosophy.

Physics isn't called Philosophy, either, because it's just a branch of it.

As for your proposal, I counter with this "Jesus cannot bend/break the natural order to walk on water" with the argument that any actions influenced on the world have an explanation to why they occur, even if you do not understand it at the time (thus appearance of it occurring). I also don't deny the possibility of the feat as there have been enough magicians able to perform it on the river thames.


Such feats do not require supernatural intervention which you are proposing. So especially when you apply the KISS principle, it is something far simpler than external disruption of time and space. So it is something natural which is observable and can be explained which doesn't require things to be imagined which have zero evidence of existence.

I think that is a pretty solid logical argument against your proposal and a dismissal of your dismissal.

From your reply, it isn't a matter of me not having understood the OP, your objection more jerk-knee response as you dislike the notion of being incorrect in your beliefs.

Dynamo didn't walk on water - he just made it look like he did.

Congratulations on really failing to read my posts - you did EXACTLY what I predicted. In fact, you used exactly the example I expected. Your response was so predictable I already wrote the counter in my last post. If this was fencing then you just missed the parry and I landed a square hit.

[Beskar]

Congratulations on really failing to read my posts - you did EXACTLY what I predicted. In fact, you used exactly the example I expected. Your response was so predictable I already wrote the counter in my last post. If this was fencing then you just missed the parry and I landed a square hit.

Not really, you did a feint and I called your bluff, and it went through. However, I think we can both possibly agree that going further won't make any practical sense for either of us.