Home › Forums › Philosophy › The case for God;
This topic contains 62 replies, has 21 voices, and was last updated by 
Anonymous 2 years, 9 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
I hope @ohno sees this video. Thanks man!
watched it. just great!
I believe Job 40 describes a dinosaur and not a hippo or an elefant. Its officially a hippo or an elephant because they couldnt find an animal that matches better, but they dont have tailes like a cedar! They have tiny tailes and a cedar is a very high tree.
Noone especially not god would come with such a stupid comparison.
The discription fits a dinosaur…a brachiosaurus or maybe a diploducos.
The creation process in Moses implies that dinosaurs were made together with all other land animals on the same day and so on.
So humans and dinosaurs must have met technically speaking.
After the flood there were only 2 of each kind…Im guessing those few dinosaurs “died out” quickly, because of the hero status you get for killing monsters…the flying ones not so fast…if you look at the chronicles, f.e. the chronicles of the anglo-saxons you will find a few entries about dragons. There are many different kinds of sources, that suggest that dragons still existed not too long ago.15″Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. 16″Behold now, his strength in his loins And his power in the muscles of his belly.
17″He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18″His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron.be·he·moth (bĭ-hē′məth, bē′ə-məth)
n.
1. Something enormous in size or power.
2. often Behemoth A huge animal, possibly the hippopotamus, described in the Bible.Holy crap—I didn’t know that; Forgive me I misunderstood your earlier post. I was limiting myself to the “proof” argument made by St. Augustine. I (and I’m sure others) would be very interested in your analysis. YOU GO Brother!
No apology necessary; it was an easy thing to misunderstand, and I’m very used to it. The Augustinian proof I was referring to comes from “On Free Choice of the Will” and it is a logical demonstration, that makes no reference to or mention of religion.
In fact, strange as it may seem, the existence of God is not even a religious question at all, but a philosophical/scientific one. Religion is just a matter of our relationship to God based on what he has revealed. There is nothing religious about Aristotle’s “Metaphysics,” but that’s where he demonstrates God’s existence, purely as a scientific concept.
I gather from your response that you’d like to hear my argument. I’ll give it my best shot. It may take some time, because I need to formulate certain concepts in laymen’s terms (kind of like explaining any advanced science to someone who isn’t an expert in the field). Even if you end up not agreeing, I’m glad that you’re interested in the debate.
Now, if I type a 10,000 word explanation and hit “post my reply” only to find that I’ve been logged out in the meantime and everything was lost, I can’t say for sure about God, but I’ll sure believe in the Devil 🙂
Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.
Holy crap—I didn’t know that; Forgive me I misunderstood your earlier post. I was limiting myself to the “proof” argument made by St. Augustine. I (and I’m sure others) would be very interested in your analysis. YOU GO Brother!
No apology necessary; it was an easy thing to misunderstand, and I’m very used to it. The Augustinian proof I was referring to comes from “On Free Choice of the Will” and it is a logical demonstration, that makes no reference to or mention of religion.
In fact, strange as it may seem, the existence of God is not even a religious question at all, but a philosophical/scientific one. Religion is just a matter of our relationship to God based on what he has revealed. There is nothing religious about Aristotle’s “Metaphysics,” but that’s where he demonstrates God’s existence, purely as a scientific concept.
I gather from your response that you’d like to hear my argument. I’ll give it my best shot. It may take some time, because I need to formulate certain concepts in laymen’s terms (kind of like explaining any advanced science to someone who isn’t an expert in the field). Even if you end up not agreeing, I’m glad that you’re interested in the debate.
Now, if I type a 10,000 word explanation and hit “post my reply” only to find that I’ve been logged out in the meantime and everything was lost, I can’t say for sure about God, but I’ll sure believe in the Devil
Please do. I would love to learn this. Seems very intriguing.
Fuck bitches... literally and metaphorically
I will pray to God for your success! Yes I really want to read such an analysis. I have faith in God but I’m not much of a dogmatist when it comes to religion.
I will pray to God for your success! Yes I really want to read such an analysis. I have faith in God but I’m not much of a dogmatist when it comes to religion.
I agree with you Pete. The Catholic Church is the source of much of the hypocrisy seen in in the Christian faiths. I think strict adherence to any dogma is actually detrimental to anyone
Fuck bitches... literally and metaphorically
True and they NEVER LEARN. You’d think that after the stench of their hypocrisy and corruption caused the Protestant Reformation they would get a clue…Nope same ol same ol.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AS A LOGICALLY DEMONSTRABLE TRUTH
This is going to be a long post. I fault no one for skipping it entirely. But if you’re going to respond to it, please read it FIRST. After that, if you have questions or counterarguments, I would love to hear them all. I do however ask for this courtesy: PLEASE be aware that I’ve debated this topic more times that I can count, and no matter how clever or intuitive your counterargument is, I guarantee I’ve heard it before, so don’t be that guy that writes “The Big Bang proves you wrong *drops mic*.”
Philosophers and theologians throughout the ages have formulated numerous proofs of God’s existence. All are valid, to an extent, but most (all but one, in fact) are flawed insofar as they don’t fully prove what they intend to prove. For instance, Anselm’s famous ontological proof of God’s existence runs like this:
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (Definition).
2. Insofar as you can conceive of him, God exists in your mind. (First premise)
3. However, if God only exists in your mind, than he is not the greatest thing that can be conceived, because to exist in reality and in the mind is greater than to exist only in the mind. (Second premise)
4. Therefore, in order to fit his own definition, God must exist not only in your mind, but also in reality.It’s a peculiar proof. Bertrand Russell, while teaching this proof to his students, apparently suddenly stopped dead in his tracks and said, “Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!” Russell was correct, to an extent. The proof is logically sound. There is no fallacy. But does it really prove what it attempts to prove? Looking at the outcome of the proof, the proof only demonstrates one thing: that the greatest thing in the universe must exist. Fair enough. But what is this “greatest thing”? For all we know, it may be Chuck Norris. Sure, I can imagine something greater than Chuck Norris (with some effort), but if it doesn’t exist outside my mind, than Chuck Norris is still greater, because he exists in reality. Therefore, the ontological argument isn’t a real proof of God’s existence.
There are many others like it, some of which draw very near to the truth without quite touching it. Augustine’s proof in “On Free Choice of the Will” is one of these. I won’t explain the entire proof here (it’s longer than Anselm’s), but it ends by concluding (correctly, with sound logic) that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and that truth itself, or something higher than truth, must be God. Now this presents a bit of an intellectual conundrum. Many atheists would accept the existence of truth, while denying the existence of God. Maybe Augustine is correct to say that truth is God (spoiler: he is right), but it still isn’t very helpful. The only way to prove God’s existence is to prove the existence of a being who has the properties that are attributed to him by believers. Is truth, for instance, omnipotent? Omnipresent? Omniscient? The goal of our inquiry must be to arrive at the necessary existence of a being who has the properties we ascribe to him.
From this I conclude that there is only ONE perfect proof of God’s existence. On to the proof.
Proving the existence of God is like proving the existence of gravity. We are not able to experience the cause directly, but we can reason to its existence through its effect. Last I checked, atheists don’t doubt the existence of gravity just because they can’t see it. The existence of the effect (the attraction of bodies) is self-evident, and therefore, the existence of a cause capable of bringing about that effect is necessary. Imagine that you’re walking on the beach and you find a watch half-buried in the sand. You know that it was made by man. But how do you know? You can only see the cause, not the effect. How do we know the cause was a man, and not random forces of matter and motion? The answer is that the effect is so complex that it requires a rational, intelligent agent. So here’s our first premise:
1. FOR EVERY EFFECT, THERE EXISTS A CAUSE WITH THE POWER TO BRING ABOUT THAT EFFECT.
Without a cause, there can be no effect. When the effect exists, the cause must also. Furthermore, the cause must be powerful enough to bring about the effect. Going back to the watch, one could argue that it resulted merely from scrap metal tossed into the sea and washed around by random forces until it happened to form a perfectly working watch that happens to have the right time. But one would be an idiot. Take an infinite number of monkeys, and give them all typewriters, and I guarantee that even after an infinite amount of time typing, not one would have written War and Peace. If War and Peace exists, a rational agent who wrote it must also exist (or at least, he did at some point, rest in peace Tolstoy).
Now, going back to the God question, to prove his existence, it is necessary to discover an effect that only God could have caused. Many overly zealous God-provers will point to various things and claim that only God could have caused them, but, with one exception, they all fall flat. Some argue that the only explanation for seemingly intelligent actions in irrational creatures (squirrels gathering nuts for the winter, for instance) is an intelligent designer, which is God. This is great evidence for God’s existence, but IT IS NOT PROOF. If the cause can be explained by any other cause besides God, then we have not proven that God exists, only made an argument. For all we know, aliens created animals with advanced technology, or else an intelligent designer created all the animals and then f~~~ing died. Whatever the case may be, to PROVE God’s existence, it is necessary to find an effect that only God himself could have caused.
2. EVERY PROPERTY OF A BEING IS DERIVED FROM ITS OWN NATURE, OR IS RECEIVED FROM SOMETHING ELSE.
All things that exist have certain properties. For instance, man has the ability to laugh. You have the ability to laugh because of your nature, i.e., the kind of thing that you are. Therefore, your own nature is the cause of all the properties it gives you. However, if someone spray-paints you green, your greenness is not derived from your nature (since there is nothing in man’s nature that demands he be green), but was received from an outside source. Therefore, if you possess a certain quality, but that quality is not the result of your own nature, you must have received that quality from an exterior source.
3. THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTINGENT BEING CANNOT BE A PROPERTY DERIVED FROM ITS OWN NATURE.
A “contingent being” is a being that may or may not exist. It is able to exist, but it is also able to not exist. All the things we encounter in our daily lives are contingent beings. The computer I’m typing on right now is a contingent being. It did not always exist, and, at some point in the future, it will no longer exist. But the existence of a contingent being is NOT a property of its nature. This can be shown in various ways: (1) If a contingent being had existence as part of its nature (just like man has the ability to laugh as part of his nature), it would NEVER STOP EXISTING. If existence is part of its nature, than it would necessarily have existed always, and would necessarily continue to exist forever. But contingent beings can lose their existence (i.e., stop existing), and therefore, they clearly DO NOT exist by nature. (2) The nature of a thing can be conceived of separately from the existence of that thing. For instance, I can conceive of a unicorn. By the mere fact that I conceive of it, a unicorn has a nature, i.e., certain properties and attributes. However, unicorns do not actually exist, which shows that “what is it?” and “does it exist?” are two separate questions.
4. EXISTENCE IS AN EFFECT THAT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY A BEING THAT HAS EXISTENCE AS A PROPERTY DERIVED FROM ITS NATURE.
What can cause existence? Only something that has existence. Why? Because as I explained above, the existence of an effect REQUIRES the existence of a cause that is able to bring about that effect. But a cause cannot produce an effect that has properties which the cause does NOT have (i.e., the cause must be greater than the effect). For example, a can of green spray-paint cannot paint you red. Therefore, existence is an effect that can only result from a cause that possesses the property of existence from its own nature.
Therefore, the conclusion is, THE FACT THAT CONTINGENT BEINGS EXIST PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF A NECESSARY BEING.
Because contingent beings are able to not exist, they do not have existence by nature, but must have received their existence (and in fact STILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE their existence) from a necessary being, i.e., a being that exists by its very nature, and therefore existed always, never began to exist, and can never cease to exist, in other words, SUBSISTENT EXISTENCE. This being not only necessarily caused the existence of all other things, but continues to uphold them in existence, because just like air cannot retain light from the sun if the sun stops shining, since it receives the property of light from an external agent, contingent beings cannot continue to exist unless the being that created them continues to cause their existence.
This being, since it is responsible for creating all things, must also have all the properties of its creatures, or it would not be a sufficient effect to cause them. Furthermore, it must have all those properties to the highest possible degree, since it has none of the limitations of a contingent being. Some of its creatures exist in a finite location, so this being exists everywhere (omnipresent). Some of its creatures are powerful, so this being is almighty (omnipotent). Some of its creatures are knowledgeable, so this being is omniscient (all-knowing). The name that we give this necessary being is God.
If you made it to the end, congratulations, and God bless you for taking the time and effort to read it. I am positive you will have questions and criticisms. That’s the necessary result of discussing something like this over the internet, as opposed to a real life discussion, where you can interject your questions as we go. I put a few common questions/critiques below for your reading pleasure.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
1. What created God? ANSWER: Nothing. He exists by nature, so he did not need to be created. In that regard, he is fundamentally different from the things of our common experience. Everything else in the world is a contingent being, so it had to be created, but a being that has existence as a property of its nature does not need a creator.
2. Aren’t your PARENTS the cause of your existence? ANSWER: No. Your parents are the cause of your NATURE, i.e., the kind of thing you are. Your parents are the reason you are a human and not a platypus. But they do not cause you to exist. To do that, they would need to have existence by nature, but they do not, since your parents did not always exist, and are therefore contingent beings.
3. Could the universe itself be a necessary being, i.e., exist by nature? ANSWER: No. Even secular scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. Furthermore, the universe is composed of matter, and matter can cease to exist, so there is no reason why the universe cannot cease to exist, thereby showing that it does not exist by nature. Even if the universe has always existed (it has not, and this is also logically demonstrable), that would simply mean that God has always been upholding it in existence, since it cannot exist by its own nature.
4. Could there be more than one God? ANSWER: God is subsistent existence. There is only one existence, so there is only one God.
5. Why does God hide himself? Why not make his existence obvious? ANSWER: Those of us who are Catholics don’t think God is hiding. We believe he became man and walked among us, and we see him every Sunday at Mass. But he’s not hiding from atheists either. His existence is evident from the works he has made.
6. Why doesn’t God prove he exists through miracles? ANSWER: God has worked miracles, but they are a bad source of proof. Miracles can always be explained away by natural causes. If I were an atheist, seeing a man rise from the dead would not convince me that God is real, just that the doctors made a mistake, and the man wasn’t really dead. The rich man burning in hell asked Abraham to warn his brothers, and Abraham said they have the Scriptures to warn them. The rich man replies that his brothers do not believe in the Scriptures, but they will surely believe if they see a miracle. Abraham responds that if they do not believe the Scriptures, neither will they believe even if they see a man rise from the dead (Luke 16:27-31). Abraham, incidentally, was right.
7. How is this proof connected to religion? ANSWER: This proof does not attempt to prove that God became man or any of the other things that religion teaches. Those are matters of faith. I believe in God because of the proof above. I am a Catholic for other reasons. I’d be happy to answer that question in more detail, but this thread is really just about the existence of God.
I’m going to post this now so that people can start reading it whenever they want, but I’ll be proofreading it in the meantime, and I may slightly change some things (nothing significant). EDIT: I’ve added a few extra FAQs. I may add more as they occur to me.
Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.
So existence is an effect but not an effect caused by the nature of the contingent being itself. e.g. it is contingent upon something external for its existence, but not its nature. And that “being” has always existed because it is not contingent. “We are not able to experience the cause directly, but we can reason to its existence through its effect.” I think that is the key.
I think I get it but I’m not 100% sure. I’ll have to re-read and study this further. Superb analysis by the way. I recommend you start another whole new thread with this argument. Its really quite brilliant and if you leave it tagged to the end of my thread hardly anyone will see it which would be a tragic waste.
I’m reasonably sharp and I’m not sure I get it completely, but i’d love to see Faust, Yumbo or Machiavelli tackle this one.
Well, since you summarized it well and picked out the key components of the argument, I’d say you understood it. If anything about it is confusing, it’s probably due to my lack of clarity.
I suspect that if you think about it more, you’ll start to come up with questions. That can only be a good thing, because getting those questions answered will only make you feel more confident about the validity of the proof.
I’m confident that it’s perfectly sound logically, but that doesn’t mean everyone will find it convincing. It requires a lot of abstract thought which is simply not everyone’s forte. That’s not a problem with the proof though, just the limitations of the human intellect.
Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.
Trust me there is NO lack of clarity–it is very clear and well reasoned. Again I recommend starting it as a new thread—your work elevates the discussion to the 13th floor of a 12 story building.
I’m confident that it’s perfectly sound logically
Yep. To an atheist the natural law of cause and effect applies to everything in the universe just not for the beginning of it.
If there was a big bang something must have caused it.
At the end of the chain there must be something that doesnt underlie the law of cause and effect, something that is self-existing, because otherwise you never have a beginning.About the FAQS…I just cant nod my head to it.
It would be very time consuming to comment on that all so I will just leave it.I am a Catholic for other reasons. I’d be happy to answer that question in more detail, but this thread is really just about the existence of God.
Would love to hear them, because I really dont understand this.
Please let me create the topic about this when this threat here has finished.Standing Ovation
Pete for your thread & moderation and the rest for making this probably one of the most entertaining threads on the site I have read.I love the sensible decorum here. Most theological discussions get thrown off the rails.
So existence is an effect but not an effect caused by the nature of the contingent being itself. e.g. it is contingent upon something external for its existence, but not its nature. And that “being” has always existed because it is not contingent.
I understood this. However, If God is the external stimulus for creating existence, then what stimulus created god? Does God not need a creator due to his nature not needing an external source? How do we know if his existence isn’t contingent on some other external source? It seems with this reasoning I’m just lead to a never ending loop of what created God?
Fuck bitches... literally and metaphorically
I understood this. However, If God is the external stimulus for creating existence, then what stimulus created god? Does God not need a creator due to his nature not needing an external source? How do we know if his existence isn’t contingent on some other external source? It seems with this reasoning I’m just lead to a never ending loop of what created God?
Law of Cause and Effect ( typed in google…u get this on top )
http://lawsoftheuniverse.weebly.com/law-of-cause-and-effect.htmlNothing happens by chance or outside the Universal Laws. Every Action has a reaction or consequence “We reap what we sow”. Ralph Waldo Emerson said the Law of Cause and Effect is the “law of laws“. The most important lesson involving human conduct and interation is seen in the Cosmic Law of Cause and Effect. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”…
This law counts as PROVEN and there are NO exceptions.
Except for what caused the so called “Big Bang”.
The big bang is clearly an effect, because its something that is supposed to have happened (I dont think so of course) and caused the existing of the universe after that.
If the big bang happened without a cause, the law of cause and effect isnt a universal law. There must be a cause. It must start with a cause, because otherwise we would be in an eternal loop that has no beginning. If there is no beginning (the original cause) there cant be an effect as a result.
The beginning original/first cause can be god or “something else”, it must be something that is self-existing, because every effect only exists because there is a cause.Even I have doubts that god exists and I really dont have a logical reason why I should still have doubts, yet i do.
The most important lesson from this threat is to realize the Big Bang theory is less logical than creationism and to act accordingly.
Its not about winning an arguement, but sadly most debates are only about that.
If we have a creator, a self-existing being, because that is the only solution to the natural law of cause besides “something undefined by humans “, then find out more about him of course…The next thing would be not to only believe that there is a god, but to actually find out what is going on here.
If god exists and were made in his image, he is probably teaching us something, because we like to teach each other too dont we?Like Jesus said: “You have ONE teacher, the father…”
However, If God is the external stimulus for creating existence, then what stimulus created god?
There is no need to look for a cause for a being that exists by nature (i.e., a necessary being). If something created it, it ain’t God. God is subsistent existence by definition, so he is immune from the necessity of a cause, since he is not a contingent being.
Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.
Please let me create the topic about this when this threat here has finished.
Let me know when you do.
Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.
Anonymous1Lots of interesting ideas here. For me, it’s all mathematical. God is Infinity and Zero. It’s a necessary concept.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
