An argument for God

[Rhyfelwyr]

I was looking into some of the cosmological arguments for a creator, and after doing some thinking I thought I had come up with a case to show how these arguments not only make the case for a creator, but more specifically for the Abrahamic concept of God. However after doing more reading, I realized that people had already followed this same logic and presented it in the form of the Kalam cosmological argument. I'll present this argument below, but I'll describe it the way I imagined it and not the way it has been popularized by figures like William Lane Craig (however the first 3 points I copy from the standard cosmological argument where I started out from):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. Therefore the existence of the universe necessitates the existence of a self-existent creator who created the universe.*
5. Since time, space and all natural laws are properties of the universe, this creator must transcend these properties and any temporal limitations.
6. In relation to the universe, this creator must therefore be timeless, formless, all-present and all-powerful.
7. Such a figure would therefore be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial.
8. This is the Abrahamic concept of God.

I maybe haven't quite followed the protocol for setting out philosophical arguments, but I'm just a layman trying to express my thoughts. I guess by extending the cosmological argument like this, the hope is to shut down arguments by atheists about how this creator could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or other silly things. The idea is to deduce the qualities of God in relation to the universe by virtue of the nature of their relationship.

Thoughts?

* Although it could be said that a universe might be created by an existing universe which was not self-existent, ultimately we will have to get back to who created the first universe.

[Greyblades]

This would be interesting if the well hadn't been long poisoned by Totalrelism. Sorry.

[Fragony]

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

[Beskar]

- So, who created the creator?
-Where is it in your argument that simply doesn't shut down but actively encourages arguments such as the Spaghetti Monster?
There is also possibility that the MPB (Massively Powerful Being) may not be the 'Abrahamic concept of God', which alternatives such as Cthulhu, A.I-mastermind or pretty much anything being open.
- You are also removing the actual concept of a 'Personal God' which is central to the Christian faith. Where does your argument suggest this is the case?

There is no actual argument for anything other than "We do not know", and this is most valid position to take and we can theorise alternatives till 'kingdom come'. There is also the problem that the statistical odds are in hugely in favour of it not being be a deity worshipped on earth, which makes current religion/faith a rather pointless concept. So yes, even if there a Massively Powerful Being, it doesn't mean it sent a son to die for our sins either, which kind of makes the who debate point 'moot' since the religious usage of this argument is trying to suggest that 'Something created everything, therefore the bible is true' is I think with fair reflection, you will clearly see that it would be nonsense to suggest this.

There is the very strong case of Linear-Time being a fallacy, that there is something infact 'eternal' that is currently and completely beyond our sphere of comprehension exists, but putting forward "That's God!" is what causes people face-palm and not approach the subject. The whole point of the 'Spaghetti Monster' is to actually show that the argument has an equal validity to the statement: 'That is God', which is so people who use that argument know how 'non-believers' feel every time they mention it.

tl;dr version -
There is no argument for 'God' and unfortunately, the replies will not get any better from this point.

[Rhyfelwyr]

- So, who created the creator?

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
...
4. Therefore the existence of the universe necessitates the existence of a self-existent creator who created the universe.


-Where is it in your argument that simply doesn't shut down but actively encourages arguments such as the Spaghetti Monster?
There is also possibility that the MPB (Massively Powerful Being) may not be the 'Abrahamic concept of God', which alternatives such as Cthulhu, A.I-mastermind or pretty much anything being open.

6. In relation to the universe, this creator must therefore be timeless, formless, all-present and all-powerful.
7. Such a figure would therefore be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial.

So as you can see Cthulhu clearly does not fit this bill. As for the possibility of an AI mastermind, I refer you to the * of point 4:

* Although it could be said that a universe might be created by an existing universe which was not self-existent, ultimately we will have to get back to who created the first universe.


- You are also removing the actual concept of a 'Personal God' which is central to the Christian faith. Where does your argument suggest this is the case?

The nature of God's qualities (omnipotence, omnipresence etc) necessitate that he must be a single, indivisible and intelligent being, because naturally such qualities cannot be shared by multiple beings without causing contradictions (eg you can't have two all-powerful beings). Still, whether or not this being could be said to be a person in the sense of temporal beings is another question.


There is no actual argument for anything other than "We do not know", and this is most valid position to take and we can theorise alternatives till 'kingdom come'. There is also the problem that the statistical odds are in hugely in favour of it not being be a deity worshipped on earth, which makes current religion/faith a rather pointless concept.

Um... no. There is the argument that I quite clearly laid out in this thread. It is logically coherent and falsifiable. I have clearly stated a positive case for something, so now it is up to you to prove it false.

Also, your claim that we are unlikely to be worshipping the correct God is loaded with dubious presuppositions, but more importantly for this thread, it is also irrelevant to my argument.


So yes, even if there a Massively Powerful Being, it doesn't mean it sent a son to die for our sins either, which kind of makes the who debate point 'moot' since the religious usage of this argument is trying to suggest that 'Something created everything, therefore the bible is true' is I think with fair reflection, you will clearly see that it would be nonsense to suggest this.

Irrelevant, as I am arguing for the Abrahamic concept of God, not the particulars of Christian theology. If you were to grant that an all-powerful God exists I would be happy with that for just now.


There is the very strong case of Linear-Time being a fallacy, that there is something infact 'eternal' that is currently and completely beyond our sphere of comprehension exists, but putting forward "That's God!" is what causes people face-palm and not approach the subject. The whole point of the 'Spaghetti Monster' is to actually show that the argument has an equal validity to the statement: 'That is God', which is so people who use that argument know how 'non-believers' feel every time they mention it.

Nope, since like I said the point of my argument is to deduce the qualities of the creator by virtue of its relationship to the universe which it creaed. Once again:

5. Since time, space and all natural laws are properties of the universe, this creator must transcend these properties and any temporal limitations.
6. In relation to the universe, this creator must therefore be timeless, formless, all-present and all-powerful.
7. Such a figure would therefore be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial.
8. This is the Abrahamic concept of God.

Just like Cthulhu earlier, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not display these qualities. Only an Abrahamic God does.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with you up to and including #4.

Any attempt to define the nature of that creator -- or even to hypothesize that creator-force's nature as cognitive -- can only be an act of faith. As Tiaexz noted, it is an unknowable.

If, as I do, you believe in the divinity of Jeshua of Nazareth, Christos, then you have an explanation (at least in parable form) explaining things. The acceptance of that is an act of faith. I personally think that steps 5-7 are correct as you outline them above.

In terms of argumentation, however, steps 5-7 really only serve to argue that conceptualization about a creator that take any more 'limited' a scope in their explanation would very likely fall short. Steps 5-7 are a logical extrapolation based on a limited comprehension of an inherently unconfirmable subject.

[Greyblades]

Just like Cthulhu earlier, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not display these qualities. Only an Abrahamic God does. Taking into consideration that cthulu and the FSM only have a set form because humans assume they do the same way that christains assume god has the form of a bearded human, please explain how you came to this conclusion?

Actually, you might as well consider any imperfections cthulu and FSM has in your eyes to fit the abrahamic mold are due to those assumptions.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Taking into consideration that cthulu and the FSM only have a set form because humans assume they do the same way that christains assume god has the form of a bearded human, please explain how you came to this conclusion?

Actually, you might as well consider any imperfections cthulu and FSM has in your eyes to fit the abrahamic mold are due to those assumptions.

I am not of the belief that God is a bearded man who lives in the sky. I believe God to be formless and all-present as I said in my argument. And although what I am about to say is tangential to this discussion, the Bible does not teach that God is a bearded man who lives in the sky. Sometimes Christians take a bit of artistic license on the subject, but I am opposed to this because it leads to atheists making the sort of misconceptions you have brought up.

Now if followers of Cthulu or the FSM were to tell me that they believed as I do that God is essentially immaterial and transcendent of the material universe, but that he may choose to take on the particular forms of a giant underworld monster or a floating pile of spaghetti, I would ask them to provide evidence of this physical manifestation. And in the absence of any evidence, I won't believe it.


I agree with you up to and including #4.

If, as I do, you believe in the divinity of Jeshua of Nazareth, Christos, then you have an explanation (at least in parable form) explaining things. The acceptance of that is an act of faith. I personally think that steps 5-7 are correct as you outline them above.

I'm at the stage where its nice to see that somebody agrees with me on something!


Any attempt to define the nature of that creator -- or even to hypothesize that creator-force's nature as cognitive -- can only be an act of faith. As Tiaexz noted, it is an unknowable.

If (I'll try to debate this 'if' below) we can deduce that the creator has traits like omnipotence and omniscience, don't they require a sort of intelligence?


In terms of argumentation, however, steps 5-7 really only serve to argue that conceptualization about a creator that take any more 'limited' a scope in their explanation would very likely fall short. Steps 5-7 are a logical extrapolation based on a limited comprehension of an inherently unconfirmable subject.

But if you say that points 5-7 successfully rule out the possibility of a more "limited" or minor creator (or at least show it to be highly unlikely), then what possibility remains other than the absolute terms which I used? After all, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are absolutes - by their very nature they cannot be greater, and you say that the argument proves such a creator cannot be less. Must not the conclusion then be the one which I stated - that the creator is, in relation to the universe, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent?

[Greyblades]

I am not of the belief that God is a bearded man who lives in the sky. I believe God to be formless and all-present as I said in my argument. And although what I am about to say is tangential to this discussion, the Bible does not teach that God is a bearded man who lives in the sky. Sometimes Christians take a bit of artistic license on the subject, but I am opposed to this because it leads to atheists making the sort of misconceptions you have brought up.

Now if followers of Cthulu or the FSM were to tell me that they believed as I do that God is essentially immaterial and transcendent of the material universe, but that he may choose to take on the particular forms of a giant underworld monster or a floating pile of spaghetti, I would ask them to provide evidence of this physical manifestation. And in the absence of any evidence, I won't believe it.

Curse my lack of the word "some".

Regardless, Ryf, I find myself confused on one point, Are you:
1. arguing the mere existance of a being that is timeless, formless, all-present, all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial? Or:
2. are you arguing that the timeless, formless, all-present etc being in 1. is specifically actual jewish/christian god that spoke to abraham, moses, job etc and (by extention of my assumption that you are christian) came down to earth in the form of jesus?

Because to my understanding the FSM and Cthulu are responses to the second argument, mainly one that asks why is it more likely that it is the specific god of abraham running the universe instead of some alien flying spagetti monster/elder god/[insert idea here] that just happens to do the same job.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Regardless, Ryf, I find myself confused on one point, Are you:
1. arguing the mere existance of a being that is timeless, formless, all-present, all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial? Or:
2. are you arguing that the timeless, formless, all-present etc being in 1. is specifically actual jewish/christian god that spoke to abraham, moses, job etc and (by extention of my assumption that you are christian) came down to earth in the form of jesus?

I happen to believe Option 2, but my argument in this thread is purely concerned with Option 1.


Because to my understanding the FSM and Cthulu are responses to the second argument, mainly one that asks why is it more likely that it is the specific god of abraham running the universe instead of some alien flying spagetti monster/elder god/[insert idea here] that just happens to do the same job.

EDIT: Just re-read this. As I said above if they are talking about Option 2, its not directly relevant to my argument here.

[Husar]

A couple of questions, beginning with omniscience:
If he already knows whether you go to heaven or not, how is it your fault if you do not?
And if you do have an actual choice in the matter, how can he know in advance? What exactly does timeless mean in this regard?

How can a timeless god turn from killing almost all of humanity except Noah to supporting just one people to loving the entire world? If he is timeless, should he not have the same opinion/traits etc. over our entire timeline as he would be the same at the beginning and the end of it given that it would not apply to / affect him?

Why can god be self-existent and the universe cannot?

[Beskar]

If the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, then why are the planets perfectly shaped like meatballs?

FSM doesn't have corporal form, it is an illustration so our feeble minds can conceptualise his essence. Whilst 'God' the 'father' is pretty clear in 'his' words, it seems the 'abrahamic god' follows the rules of binary gender. Clearly, 'he' cannot be what you proclaim. Considering the pantheon he originally came from as well... it is an area best not really going into.

I can visualise the concept of a MPB (Massively Powerful Being), as such creatures are beyond our grasp of knowledge, or things so powerful, they can change the fabric and reality of things we know them, but these things do not need to have the attributes listed in 5-7 to do that job.

In short, 1-3 has some plausibility which there can be broad agreement, but it depends on what level/scope you are using, are we talking this universe? There are various multi-universe theories and ones which rely on dimensions outside our narrow lay concept.
4 - 7. There doesn't need to be a sentient creator. This doesn't need to be the case. Doesn't actually need to be present, or necessary powerful, timeless or formless. etc
8. It is not.


I happen to believe Option 2, but my argument in this thread is purely concerned with Option 1.

The issue is, you haven't actually given us an 'Option 1' as such because of the 8th point. You have given us 'Option 2 -lite' and use it as a means to justify your preference for 'Option 2'.

Personally, I am of opinion of 'Option 0', the steps before which haven't really been covered.

[Brenus]

When all believers will agree on the species, name(s), the gender(s), the number and the creation story(ies) and how to worship the god(s)/goddess(es). When you all guys agree on this, your point might be discuss.

All what we do is looking at the story for the Judeo-Christian made-up story from a book written by bronze-age tribe(s) to justify their conquest of others. Sometimes Muslims are accepted.

God(s) exit(s) because men/women created him/her/them, and, when nobody do, well, he/she/they die as thousand gods did before this one (which is 3, err, perhaps).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rhy's argument is internally consistent but not as compelling as he thinks.

However, Tiarexz's argument is just terrible, operates under multiple fallacies and fails to address the argument in Rhy's OP.

FOR SHAME!

*Stomps off*

[Tuuvi]

Rhy's argument is internally consistent but not as compelling as he thinks.

However, Tiarexz's argument is just terrible, operates under multiple fallacies and fails to address the argument in Rhy's OP.

FOR SHAME!

*Stomps off*

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

[Ronin]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. Therefore the existence of the universe necessitates the existence of a self-existent creator who created the universe.*
5. Since time, space and all natural laws are properties of the universe, this creator must transcend these properties and any temporal limitations.
6. In relation to the universe, this creator must therefore be timeless, formless, all-present and all-powerful.
7. Such a figure would therefore be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial.
8. This is the Abrahamic concept of God.

I maybe haven't quite followed the protocol for setting out philosophical arguments, but I'm just a layman trying to express my thoughts. I guess by extending the cosmological argument like this, the hope is to shut down arguments by atheists about how this creator could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or other silly things. The idea is to deduce the qualities of God in relation to the universe by virtue of the nature of their relationship.

Thoughts?

* Although it could be said that a universe might be created by an existing universe which was not self-existent, ultimately we will have to get back to who created the first universe.

1 - ok
2 - the universe began to exist "in it's current form", we have proof of this - we call this the big bang....there is no way to know what was before...maybe it always existed, maybe it is just the natural state of things that the universe exists and it always did. so I don´t agree. and there is no need to make stuff up if we don´t know it.
3- comes from 2 - don´t really agree.
4- uhm....no. Objection! leading the witn....uhm..the argument.
5- are they properties of the universe itself? or just constraints that everything must follow?? anyway, I don´t get the "must", and it's starting to look like you're trying to start cherrypicking "facts" to fit into a "logical" solution you like.
6- again, cherrypicking, the "timeless" part is a cop out, pulled out of nowhere in an attempt to not have to deal with the logic question "if everything needs a maker then who made god"?
7- it might also need to be a giant pink kangaroo with blue polkadots that likes to play bridge.....if you're going to make stuff up go wild man!
8- it is the concept of many gods.....it's the basic concept of a godlike mythological figure.

[Sigurd]

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:



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

(Universe vs. God)

[Fragony]

However, Tiarexz's argument is just terrible


Helpfull possibly, how the hell do you make perfect meatballs. They always fall apart, and my cats somehow always manage to steal what's left of them, they are pocket ninjas getting it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A couple of questions, beginning with omniscience:
If he already knows whether you go to heaven or not, how is it your fault if you do not?
And if you do have an actual choice in the matter, how can he know in advance? What exactly does timeless mean in this regard?

How can a timeless god turn from killing almost all of humanity except Noah to supporting just one people to loving the entire world? If he is timeless, should he not have the same opinion/traits etc. over our entire timeline as he would be the same at the beginning and the end of it given that it would not apply to / affect him?

Interesting questions, but not relevant to my argument here. This thread is not about what the Bible says, or the moral questions surrounding free will and determinism.


Why can god be self-existent and the universe cannot?

I have not said that the universe cannot be self-existent, I am simply going with the scientific consensus which says that it is not, and that it had a creation from which it began.


If the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, then why are the planets perfectly shaped like meatballs?

FSM doesn't have corporal form, it is an illustration so our feeble minds can conceptualise his essence. Whilst 'God' the 'father' is pretty clear in 'his' words, it seems the 'abrahamic god' follows the rules of binary gender. Clearly, 'he' cannot be what you proclaim. Considering the pantheon he originally came from as well... it is an area best not really going into.

The Bible does not say that God is a "he" in the sense of having a physical male form. There are different ways of understanding its usage of gender in relation to God. I would like to point out once again that this is irrelevant to my argument as I am arguing for those core attributes as described in point 7 (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial), and not every particular thing that the Bible or the Koran says about to God.


I can visualise the concept of a MPB (Massively Powerful Being), as such creatures are beyond our grasp of knowledge, or things so powerful, they can change the fabric and reality of things we know them, but these things do not need to have the attributes listed in 5-7 to do that job.

A Massively Powerful Being is a whole different matter from an Infinitely Powerful Being. Any MPB which is part of the material universe will thus be subject to its laws, and therefore I don't see how it can replace the role of my creator.


In short, 1-3 has some plausibility which there can be broad agreement, but it depends on what level/scope you are using, are we talking this universe? There are various multi-universe theories and ones which rely on dimensions outside our narrow lay concept.
4 - 7. There doesn't need to be a sentient creator. This doesn't need to be the case. Doesn't actually need to be present, or necessary powerful, timeless or formless. etc
8. It is not.

Regarding multiverse theory, I have already addressed this in my OP and in another response to you. Once again, while a universe might be created by an existing universe which was not self-created, we are still left with the question of who or what created the first material universe.

As for your critique of points 4-7, you have completely failed to address my argument, so what can I say? The arguments themselves explained how the creator would necessarily be all-powerful etc, to which you have effectively said "no, I disagree", without explaining why.


The issue is, you haven't actually given us an 'Option 1' as such because of the 8th point. You have given us 'Option 2 -lite' and use it as a means to justify your preference for 'Option 2'.

Personally, I am of opinion of 'Option 0', the steps before which haven't really been covered.

The 8th point reads:

8. This is the Abrahamic concept of God.

I said the Abrahamic concept of God, as in having the attributes attributed to a creator God according to that school of theistic thought.

I did not say that the argument proved the God of the Bible to be true. I accept that my argument cannot prove this, and until you accept this as well, we are not going to have a meaningful dialogue.

[Husar]

Interesting questions, but not relevant to my argument here. This thread is not about what the Bible says, or the moral questions surrounding free will and determinism.

Then you could at least explain what being timeless means and how a timeless being can create something over a period of time when the being itself is not subject to any form of time. Can a timeless being change the past and the future? Does a timeless being having direct "access" to all points in our time mean that all points in time exist simultaneously on a meta level that we cannot grasp?


I have not said that the universe cannot be self-existent, I am simply going with the scientific consensus which says that it is not, and that it had a creation from which it began.

IIRC it is more a consensus on when it began to expand, which does not mean that it did not exist at all before.
I could be wrong, but I do not think there is a scientific consensus that something can just appear out of nothing.

[Beskar]

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

Being honest, I am not sure either.

Since my argument is "We do not know" and that we simply do not have enough information on the points, trying to place additions on those said-points makes no sense to me. since the said definitions are too narrow. It is akin to suggesting a drop of water is representative of the ocean.

---

On a side-note: "Operating outside laws, order and existence, etc" makes this 'God'/Creator supernatural, which basically means there is no logical reasoning behind the occurrence and doesn't operate within the natural order.

But by the virtue of doing an action, there is a cause and effect, which is explained by logic and therefore has a natural order to how it operates.

Therefore, the said creator cannot be supernatural but is part of the natural order.



I have not said that the universe cannot be self-existent, I am simply going with the scientific consensus which says that it is not, and that it had a creation from which it began.

The Universe isn't the 'end-all'. There are the likes of Stephen Hawking suggesting this is a pocket-universe within another Universe which follows a different set of physics to our own. This is why I said "at which point" in regards to your first point.

As for "What is the first Universe" to your later comment, I said it is possible that there isn't infact a start. There is also the point that 'Time' is merely the breakdown of order within our Universe via entropy. This may not affect anything greater, or be part of the said greater system.


Can a timeless being change the past and the future? Does a timeless being having direct "access" to all points in our time mean that all points in time exist simultaneously on a meta level that we cannot grasp?

If you take this a step-further, it would lead to a very sadistic 'creator', which is basically using Planet Earth for its amusement in 'The Sims: Real Life Edition' except it actually knows all the outcomes already and allows people to suffer needlessly for giggles.

[Fragony]

Since my argument is "We do not know" and that we simply do not have enough information on the points, trying to place additions on those said-points makes no sense to me. since the said definitions are too narrow. It is akin to suggesting a drop of water is representative of the ocean.

Do you mind if I borrow that one, that's a beauty

[Beskar]

Do you mind if I borrow that one, that's a beauty

Sure.

But yes, nothing is as simple as it seems. I think this .gif summarises my thoughts in many ways, you cannot simply work from a flawed assumption. Your assumption might look right look right to you, but it is not the reality before you. It is our duty to try to decipher the truth by keeping a mind open to the great many possibilities and not simply pigeonhole ourselves with a fixed viewpoint.

https://i.imgur.com/BnTOUa1.gif

[Fragony]

I don't see any god to be part of possibilities, I just know that I am too stupid to understand these things.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Being honest, I am not sure either.

As PVC said, you haven't understood my argument, and because of that pretty much all my replies to you have involved me quoting my OP where I had already dealt with the counter-arguments you raised. You've also spent half your time fighting strawmen because for some reason you presume my argument goes beyond the bounds of what I said it did.


Since my argument is "We do not know" and that we simply do not have enough information on the points, trying to place additions on those said-points makes no sense to me. since the said definitions are too narrow. It is akin to suggesting a drop of water is representative of the ocean.

I have used simple logical reasoning, which, I presume you will agree, is axiomatic to any sort of philosophical/metaphysical/scientific discussion. You have to pin-point the "where" and the "why" when you feel there are gaps or errors in my argument. A general "we do not know" is useless and dismissive.


On a side-note: "Operating outside laws, order and existence, etc" makes this 'God'/Creator supernatural, which basically means there is no logical reasoning behind the occurrence and doesn't operate within the natural order.

But by the virtue of doing an action, there is a cause and effect, which is explained by logic and therefore has a natural order to how it operates.

Therefore, the said creator cannot be supernatural but is part of the natural order.

5. Since time, space and all natural laws are properties of the universe, this creator must transcend these properties and any temporal limitations.
6. In relation to the universe, this creator must therefore be timeless, formless, all-present and all-powerful.

If the creator created the natural order, how on earth can he be subject to it? The act of engaging with the created order does not mean the creator suddenly becomes subject to it.


The Universe isn't the 'end-all'. There are the likes of Stephen Hawking suggesting this is a pocket-universe within another Universe which follows a different set of physics to our own. This is why I said "at which point" in regards to your first point.

As for "What is the first Universe" to your later comment, I said it is possible that there isn't infact a start. There is also the point that 'Time' is merely the breakdown of order within our Universe via entropy. This may not affect anything greater, or be part of the said greater system.

Wait... so do you now agree with my point 4 - that the creation of our universe shows it must have had a self-existent creator? And are you saying this creator would be an original self-existing universe, or a sub-universe of such a self-existing universe? On the one hand, you say there might not be a "start" and that time and order do not apply outside our universe, but on the other your appeal to the multiverse theory and some implied ordering in which our "pocket-universe" is a sub-creation of this greater universe.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Ironside]

5. Since time, space and all natural laws are properties of the universe, this creator must transcend these properties and any temporal limitations.
6. In relation to the universe, this creator must therefore be timeless, formless, all-present and all-powerful.
7. Such a figure would therefore be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial.
8. This is the Abrahamic concept of God.

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

I would say that anyone claiming to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent in their own simulation are using definitions that most people aren't. I mean, technically, I'm omniscient and omnipresent about youtube since I can see any public youtube video, yet it's impossible for me to see all videos on youtube, since much more is produced than it's possible to see (every minute there's 100 hours of new uploadings).

It's also possible to create a simulation where being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial in any form would require you to break the simulation. So 6, 7 and 8 does not follow from 5, since they would have to be true for the creator of a computer simulation as well.

[Kadagar_AV]

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

Rhyf, two questions:

1. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial, he shouldn't change... Right? Yet, the old and the new testament clearly show that this version of a god seems to be changing. Am I wrong?

2. Also, why would a omnipotent god need to rest on the 7th day? Specially if he even is immaterial? This also argues against this version of a god as being what science is looking for as answer to "the eternal question".

Also:


Genesis 32:22-32New International Version (NIV)

Jacob Wrestles With God
22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”

But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”

“Jacob,” he answered.

28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”

But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.

30 So Jacob called the place Peniel,[b] saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

So god couldn't even wrestle down a man, but needed to cheat? I guess that hip breaking move was something deemed as not befitting wrestling. But Jacob STILL held on to him...

:rolleyes:



I understand that everything can be takes in whatever way anyone want, more or less. The Jacob story might just hold some moral lesson.

But IF the Abrahamic religions are correct:

A) God really has done a absolutely RUBBISH work of explaining to us humans what he wants from us.

B) Not even the people who agree with the basic premise of the Abrahamic god, can agree on any specifics.





Nah, I still can only see the Abrahamic religions as man-made... To much point to it being so, to little show any real reason as to why it would be "the real deal".


You are of course entitled to your own opinion...

However, the ONLY thing you have brought forward here is covered by the "God of the gaps" argument... Just because we don't KNOW what caused certain things, gives us no reason to believe it was your specific idea of a godlike being who did it.




So meh :shrug:

[Paltmull]

Ah, the good old Kalam argument! I'm an atheist, but I must confess that due to some sort of intellectual masochism I really enjoy watching William Lane Craig's debates and become incredibly frustrated by how he always seems to win. He is really a great debater.

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'.

[HopAlongBunny]

Dress it up anyway you want, it is still a faith based argument.
Cosmology may sound outlandish to some, but at least it is comprehensible and adheres to what we do know.
We don't need to reach for a "God" to explain how we (might) have got here; as always the "why" eludes us, perhaps because there is no "why".

[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:


The First cause is either personal or mechanical.
The First cause is not mechanical.
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 :creep:

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.

~:smoking:

[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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycncqy7S66E

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 (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html):

"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 :creep:

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 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/111004-nobel-prize-physics-universe-expansion-what-is-dark-energy-science/).


*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 (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html) 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycncqy7S66E

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

I was very explicit in my point, you showed yourself either unwilling or unable to understand it.

I'm saying - Jesus walked on water - normal water - because he was God.

You can't test it, you can't disprove it, you can only deny it.

So you're basically pretending to engage with Rhy's point or you have a huge intellectual blind spot.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This thread has been frustrating. If it wasn't for Philipvs, I would be questioning myself and wondering if I was going mad.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorry Rhy, I misinterpreted the thread and thought it was open for all of us to just talk about what we feel is wrong with the argument. If you were looking for a specific conversation about a certain premise, I did not catch that.

[Husar]

This thread has been frustrating. If it wasn't for Philipvs, I would be questioning myself and wondering if I was going mad.

Questioning yourself is not a bad start.

[rickinator9]

This thread has been frustrating. If it wasn't for Philipvs, I would be questioning myself and wondering if I was going mad.

You asked for everyone's thoughts on your argument and they did so. What did everyone do wrong then?

[Brenus]

"Physics isn't called Philosophy, either, because it's just a branch of it." Can you explain how Physic is a branch of Philosophy?
"I'm saying - Jesus walked on water - normal water - because he was God. You can't test it, you can't disprove it, you can only deny it." Nope. Even if Jesus walked on water, it doesn't prove he is/was God. There is no relationship between your two propositions. He could walk on the water as the son of Evil, of Tivr, a powerful sorceress, or an alien.
Of course, the more simple solution is he never walked on water and this story being a pure christian propaganda.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry Rhy, I misinterpreted the thread and thought it was open for all of us to just talk about what we feel is wrong with the argument.

That is indeed what this thread is for but some people seem to think it is about something else entirely. I was not thinking of you when I said that, btw.


You asked for everyone's thoughts on your argument and they did so. What did everyone do wrong then?

Some people (not everyone) gave thoughts that had nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. Jesus' miracles, the God of the Bible, Christian theology, spaghetti planets, Cthulhu etc are all totally irrelevant to the argument I gave in the OP, and anyone bringing them up doesn't understand the argument.

I'm sorry for throwing all the toys out the pram, but the attitudes of some posters in this thread have been completely disrespectful.

[Ironside]

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 God can create a universe, he can also destroy it, thus making our world no more metaphysically distinct from his own plane of existance than a rock or a tree. A computer world is much easier to create than a mechanical universe (in particular the way that direct communication is one-way), but the principles are the same.

I mean if you can prove that God acts with the world in a completely fundamentally different way then you might have an argument, but my points still stand if God can act in 4-room dimensions in our 3-D world, so it's not limited to simulations.

We can start with something easy. Why should metaphysical distinction between worlds by default give more powers than a simulator that can control absolutely everything in the simulation?

[rickinator9]

Just a thought. Point 8 doesn't have to be the Abrahamic god as Ahura Mazda also has the properties described in point 7.

[Beskar]

Just a thought. Point 8 doesn't have to be the Abrahamic god as Ahura Mazda also has the properties described in point 7.

That is a better example of a point I was making which was being disregarded, thank you, Rick. :bow:

[Sigurd]

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 current scientific view of the Big Bang is of a mechanical nature of which the singularity transcends natural laws and time as they have no meaning in a singularity.
You have to show using logic statements how you move from mechanical to personal creator.

[Paltmull]

A problem with the kalam arument is that it applies an everyday common-sense notion of causality to the creation of the universe, which probably isn't possible to do. If the statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is true within our universe it doesn't necessarily follow that it is true outside of it.

Also the creation of the universe is claimed to be both timeless and ex nihilo ("out of nothing", i.e. it wasn't put together by previously existing parts but literally came from nothing), which really isn't like any kind of causality that we have ever experienced. We might even ask if this is what we mean by causality at all. It certainly is a very different form of causality than that which we refer to in saying that "everything that begins to exist has a cause".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Physics isn't called Philosophy, either, because it's just a branch of it." Can you explain how Physic is a branch of Philosophy?

Philosophy is the "Love of Wisdom" or "truth" depending on how you render it.

Physics mercilessly searches for the truth of the structure of the universe through mathematics.

That's why Aristotle and Newton studied it.


"I'm saying - Jesus walked on water - normal water - because he was God. You can't test it, you can't disprove it, you can only deny it." Nope. Even if Jesus walked on water, it doesn't prove he is/was God. There is no relationship between your two propositions. He could walk on the water as the son of Evil, of Tivr, a powerful sorceress, or an alien.

Excellent counter argument - although I would point out that it Jesus was not the Ultimate and the Ultimate didn't want him to walk on water then he would have got wet.


Of course, the more simple solution is he never walked on water and this story being a pure christian propaganda.

It's a solution, but it's not one we can discuss. We either have to agree to disagree and drink more wine, or we have to tear our shirts off and wrestle for it with out nipples touching.

More wine?

[Brenus]

"More wine?" No thanks, I don't drink alcohol. I don't like the taste, the effect, so not by religion, just me doesn't like it. I would prefer Jesus changing wine in water, even if water wasn't that safe at the time, and still is not in this region (remember my trip in Iraq). And too old for wrestling... I prefer the talking nowadays. One upon a time, I was a soldier,.... and young...~;)
"Jesus was not the Ultimate and the Ultimate didn't want him to walk on water then he would have got wet" Or walked on the stones as I did as a kid, crossing the river. I tried running fast, but is more err, hazardous. Worked, but one lack of momentum, and water is closing.

"That's why Aristotle and Newton studied it." It is a quite old version. François Rabelais (16th Century) describe the possibility for all men to have the all knowledge (une tête bien faite), but as in Aristotle and Newton's case, we have to acknowledge that Philosophy is a Human Science, studying human behavior, language and others concept, when Physics studies facts that can be repeated as often you want and get always the same result. Drop an apple it will always fall. You give speed to the apple, will still fall, after a little journey in the air. Put 3 French in a room and you've got 5 opinions.

[Tuuvi]

It's a solution, but it's not one we can discuss. We either have to agree to disagree and drink more wine, or we have to tear our shirts off and wrestle for it with out nipples touching.

More wine?

I'd kinda like it if you guys started wrestling.

[a completely inoffensive name]

"Physics isn't called Philosophy, either, because it's just a branch of it." Can you explain how Physic is a branch of Philosophy?

Physics depends on philosophical underpinnings in order to even begin the scientific method. When applying the scientific method, think about whether:

A. This information will manifest itself through experiments, in other words, that the information we seek is indeed observable.
B. This information is in fact universal and applies everywhere.
C. That repeated observation alone is justifiable in asserting scientific truth.
D. That the model you obtain is indeed the truth of the matter or simply a model that describes the situation (an important distinction).

There are many other questions related to science that are philosophical in nature. But all the above statements are still in flux and while the day to day physicists do their work and publish their findings and build upon their knowledge, the foundation of what they do is based on philosophical positions that they accept without question, whether they realize it or not.

[Papewaio]

Philosophy like mathematics are part of a physicists toolset.

Mathematics is to Physics what weight lifting is to sports.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I go away for a week and people fight my battles for me... You guys...

Just to finesse the point - "Metaphyiscs" are literally the books that "come before Physics" in Aristotle's corpus. Aristotle called them "First Things" (never "Metaphysics") because he considered the questions they asked to be fundamental to all enquiry, including scientific enquiry.

Today we take out Metaphysics for granted and instead of studying them Scientists skip straight to studying how to apply the Scientific Method.

This is why so many modern Scientists are bad at philosophy.