Proof of God, Continued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If something has always existed it has no origin and therefore no cause.[/quote]

What about what causes it to be and remain in existence throughout?

Does not having a beginning necessarily mean there aren’t causes for its existence? Without which the thing would no longer exist? Perhaps, causes that in turn do not depend on the thing for their own existence?
[/quote]

Here again we come to a good argument that is not a proof. Unless you can formulate a logical proof that things must be this way and cannot be any other, then this is just a (sensible) proposition.[/quote]

I don’t see the need, I guess.

I actually believe there is an uncaused-cause. So, I’m not really feeling compelled to say that every entity must be caused (contingent). That’s no what we even believe.

And I feel fairly confident that most everyone would agree that the universe relies on laws/mechanics/natural processes, whatever, for it’s continuous existence (beginning or eternal). I don’t see how a thing could even be considered for “uncaused-cause” if it is even maintained in existence.

[/quote]

Whether or not the universe relies on laws is a matter of serious contention. If a law is to the universe nothing more than a way for us describe things as they are, it is not unlike “Goodness” or “omnipotence” to God–He does not rely on these things and thus is not contingent.[/quote]

But doesn’t the existence of universe rely on those laws?

Or, are you saying that the universe causes itself?

342

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If something has always existed it has no origin and therefore no cause.[/quote]

What about what causes it to be and remain in existence throughout?

Does not having a beginning necessarily mean there aren’t causes for its existence? Without which the thing would no longer exist? Perhaps, causes that in turn do not depend on the thing for their own existence?
[/quote]

Here again we come to a good argument that is not a proof. Unless you can formulate a logical proof that things must be this way and cannot be any other, then this is just a (sensible) proposition.[/quote]

I don’t see the need, I guess.

I actually believe there is an uncaused-cause. So, I’m not really feeling compelled to say that every entity must be caused (contingent). That’s no what we even believe.

And I feel fairly confident that most everyone would agree that the universe relies on laws/mechanics/natural processes, whatever, for it’s continuous existence (beginning or eternal). I don’t see how a thing could even be considered for “uncaused-cause” if it is even maintained in existence.

[/quote]

Whether or not the universe relies on laws is a matter of serious contention. If a law is to the universe nothing more than a way for us describe things as they are, it is not unlike “Goodness” or “omnipotence” to God–He does not rely on these things and thus is not contingent.[/quote]

But doesn’t the existence of universe rely on those laws?

Or, are you saying that the universe causes itself?
[/quote]

Doesn’t the universe rely on these things? Is that what you’re asking.

I think this is a fallacy. If the universe is contingent by the fact that it “does” gravity, then why is God not contingent by the fact that he “does” Good? And whatever it is about God that allows him to escape that contingency in your mind, why is it the case that the universe cannot make the same escape?

343

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If something has always existed it has no origin and therefore no cause.[/quote]

What about what causes it to be and remain in existence throughout?

Does not having a beginning necessarily mean there aren’t causes for its existence? Without which the thing would no longer exist? Perhaps, causes that in turn do not depend on the thing for their own existence?
[/quote]

Here again we come to a good argument that is not a proof. Unless you can formulate a logical proof that things must be this way and cannot be any other, then this is just a (sensible) proposition.[/quote]

I don’t see the need, I guess.

I actually believe there is an uncaused-cause. So, I’m not really feeling compelled to say that every entity must be caused (contingent). That’s no what we even believe.

And I feel fairly confident that most everyone would agree that the universe relies on laws/mechanics/natural processes, whatever, for it’s continuous existence (beginning or eternal). I don’t see how a thing could even be considered for “uncaused-cause” if it is even maintained in existence.

[/quote]

Whether or not the universe relies on laws is a matter of serious contention. If a law is to the universe nothing more than a way for us describe things as they are, it is not unlike “Goodness” or “omnipotence” to God–He does not rely on these things and thus is not contingent.[/quote]

But doesn’t the existence of universe rely on those laws?

Or, are you saying that the universe causes itself?
[/quote]

Doesn’t the universe rely on these things? Is that what you’re asking.

I think this is a fallacy. If the universe is contingent by the fact that it “does” gravity, then why is God not contingent by the fact that he “does” Good? And whatever it is about God that allows him to escape that contingency in your mind, why is it the case that the universe cannot make the same escape?[/quote]

Hold up now. Are we saying that the universe causes its own continuous existence?

344

No–I am saying that it is not clear that things’ continued existence must have a cause.

345

I think premise #2 has generally been “X cannot have caused itself.”

Has then been debated as an assumption?

346

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No–I am saying that it is not clear that things’ continued existence must have a cause.[/quote]

But we agree that natural processes (mechancis, laws, whatever) maintain the universe’s existence, no? Now we could simply shift these things under the umbrella of the universe. Though, might they remain, independent of the Universe’s existence? Even if there were no “parts” to compel? Anyways, having shifted, aren’t we arguing that the universe is causing itself to be in existence?

347

[quote]Sloth wrote:

But we agree that natural processes (mechancis, laws, whatever) maintain the universe’s existence, no?
[/quote]

Sorry if I was imprecise about it: My answer to this is no. That such is an assumption, and that I have no good reason to believe that this is the case rather than not.

348

Don’t get me wrong.

I’m not acting as if this leading to the equivalent of security footage of God walking down the street at 3am.

Just saw something to comment on.

349

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’m not acting as if this leading to the equivalent of security footage of God walking down the street at 3am.
[/quote]

Lol, well put.

For the record, my only contention in this thread is that what you’ve described here has not been put forth by anyone–ever.

I keep saying this, but I feel the need to highlight the distinction between “God has not been proved” and “God does not exist/There is no reason to believe in God,” because I believe neither of those latter propositions.

350

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If something has always existed it has no origin and therefore no cause.[/quote]

What about what causes it to be and remain in existence throughout?

Does not having a beginning necessarily mean there aren’t causes for its existence? Without which the thing would no longer exist? Perhaps, causes that in turn do not depend on the thing for their own existence?
[/quote]

Here again we come to a good argument that is not a proof. Unless you can formulate a logical proof that things must be this way and cannot be any other, then this is just a (sensible) proposition.[/quote]

I don’t see the need, I guess.

I actually believe there is an uncaused-cause. So, I’m not really feeling compelled to say that every entity must be caused (contingent). That’s no what we even believe. I’m actually confused on the roles, here.

And I feel fairly confident that most everyone would agree that the universe relies on laws/mechanics/natural processes, whatever, for it’s continuous existence (beginning or eternal). I don’t see how a thing could even be considered for “uncaused-cause” if it is maintained in existence.

[/quote]
So do I as well, but if philosophical arguments are concerned, then it becomes important to show this. Actually, let’s rephrase that: if philosophical PROOFS are concerned, it becomes important to show this.

Pat made a claim of deductive proof, so it is incumbent on him to show this. I actually agree with Pat, but he is not correct in this very particular argument.

In other words, it is like a grammar evaluation in English. Yes, I might agree with the sentiment you are writing but if you are writing with improper tenses/word choice/sentence structure while your claim is that you are using proper English, then you are still wrong and you will still get red ink all over your class project paper because you are not adhering to the proper formalisms of required proper English.

351

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

But we agree that natural processes (mechancis, laws, whatever) maintain the universe’s existence, no?
[/quote]

Sorry if I was imprecise about it: My answer to this is no. That such is an assumption, and that I have no good reason to believe that this is the case rather than not.[/quote]

You’ll have to expand on that, because the way I read your comment any scientist and certainly myself is going to tell you you’re nuts if you don’t believe the universe is maintained by the natural physical laws. Are you saying there is no good reason to believe that this is the case?

352

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’m not acting as if this leading to the equivalent of security footage of God walking down the street at 3am.
[/quote]

Lol, well put.[/quote]

Hey man, He was hanging out in my yard a couple hours ago cooking brats. I dunno what you’re on about.

353

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

But we agree that natural processes (mechancis, laws, whatever) maintain the universe’s existence, no?
[/quote]

Sorry if I was imprecise about it: My answer to this is no. That such is an assumption, and that I have no good reason to believe that this is the case rather than not.[/quote]

You’ll have to expand on that, because the way I read your comment any scientist and certainly myself is going to tell you you’re nuts if you don’t believe the universe is maintained by the natural physical laws. Are you saying there is no good reason to believe that this is the case?[/quote]

I am saying that the natural physical laws are part of the universe and that they too get wrapped up into this “X” for which we are still trying to prove that a cause must be found.

354

I am asking for definitive proof ? I have heard about advanced logic , :slight_smile: , LOL , WTF :slight_smile: HA HA , eye roll , WTF

355

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

If you do not know Latin…[/quote]

Heh. Heck no. I’m only now trying to pick up a foreign language while in university.

German. And it’s taking up a lot more of my study time than I thought it would.[/quote]

Yeah, German is a ghastly language and only dogs bark it so why bother?

356

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

If you do not know Latin…[/quote]

Heh. Heck no. I’m only now trying to pick up a foreign language while in university.

German. And it’s taking up a lot more of my study time than I thought it would.[/quote]

Yeah, German is a ghastly language and only dogs bark it so why bother?[/quote]

…so he can speak to his horse?

357

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

If you do not know Latin…[/quote]

Heh. Heck no. I’m only now trying to pick up a foreign language while in university.

German. And it’s taking up a lot more of my study time than I thought it would.[/quote]

Yeah, German is a ghastly language and only dogs bark it so why bother?[/quote]

Ich heisse Sloth, und Ich komme aus die Vereinigten Staaten.

Heute ist das Wetter heiss, und ist der Himmel blau! Und, es ist gar nicht windig oder wolkig. Das Thermometer zeigt dreiundzwanzig Grad.

Ich lerne Deustch denn es ist interessant. Heute morgen gehe Ich in die Vorlesungen. Ich mache jetzt Hausaufgaben. Morgen habe Ich keine Vorlesungen.

Ein Jahr reise Ich nach Deutschland, oder Scweiz, oder Osterreich.
Wie bist du?

Yeah, that’s pretty much it so far. And I’m sure that’s shaky.

358

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

If you do not know Latin…[/quote]

Heh. Heck no. I’m only now trying to pick up a foreign language while in university.

German. And it’s taking up a lot more of my study time than I thought it would.[/quote]

Yeah, German is a ghastly language and only dogs bark it so why bother?[/quote]

…so he can speak to his horse?
[/quote]

I’d reserve Spanish for God, but I don’t speak it.

359

Just for fun, I want to see how much of german I remember.

My name is Sloth and I come from The Us of A.

The weather is good/or/and/ hot( ? ) and the sky is blue! And its windy( ? ).
The termostat shows the temperatur too be 33 degrees.

I am Learning German and think it is interresting. Good morning and something, I am doing or I have a home-asignment. Tomorrow ( ? ) …

In one year ( or in some year ) I am going to Germany, Switzerland and Austria.
Where do you live( or where are you ? ) ?

360

[quote]florelius wrote:
Just for fun, I want to see how much of german I remember.

My name is Sloth and I come from The Us of A.

The weather is good/or/and/ hot( ? ) and the sky is blue! And its windy( ? ).
The termostat shows the temperatur too be 33 degrees.

I am Learning German and think it is interresting. Good morning and something, I am doing or I have a home-asignment. Tomorrow ( ? ) …

In one year ( or in some year ) I am going to Germany, Switzerland and Austria.
Where do you live( or where are you ? ) ?

[/quote]
Close but not 100% correct. A couple of quick errors are 23, not 33. Zwanzig=20, drei=3. Wie bist du=how are you.