God as the first cause.

[yrreg]

I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'.

 

So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question.

 

-----------------------

 

 

Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

 

As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

 

 

Yrreg

[John Cuthber]

There are two obvious problems (or 3 if you count the fact that this should be in the religion forum).

There is no evidence that God exists.

If He does exist, what caused him to exist?

[Ophiolite]

There is no evidence that God exists.

The existence of the universe constitutes evidence for a god. It is most certainly not solid evidence, but it is illogical to declare it not evidence at all.

[afungusamongus]

John Cuthber is really good at regurgitating atheist propaganda. Listen pal if you want to read or listen to Christians speaking about the evidences for their religion I can tell you their is a really good website called www.reasonablefaith.com It is runned by a well known apologist. You can find at that website well over a hundred podcasts from this well known aplogist where he speaks about all the evidence. The historical Jesus, Historicity of the Bible, Philosophical arguments. He responds to critiques and talks about debates he has had over the last few years.

 

Really I do not want to call you ignorant as that would probably be flaiming, but you seem to have a flawed understanding of Christianity if you believe that.

 

It goes to show that the Stuart Chase was indeed right when he said

 

 

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

Edited March 5, 2012 by afungusamongus

[mississippichem]

It is most certainly not solid evidence, but it is illogical to declare it not evidence at all.

 

Elaborate please. I'm with JohnCuthber.

 

How is the presence of our Earth evidence of any mystical being? Surely you agree with me that natural processes formed the Earth. Why evoke magic?

Edited March 5, 2012 by mississippichem

[Moontanman]

I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'.

 

Stuff happens...

 

So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

Again, problems do crop up on forums.

 

I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question.

 

Wrong forum, should have been the religious forum.

-----------------------

 

 

Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

 

Do you have any proof of this Christian God that supports him over any other god?

 

As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

Yrreg

 

Again, what is your evidence for this assertion?

[Tres Juicy]

John Cuthber is really good at regurgitating atheist propaganda.

 

I see the flow of propaganda going in both directions

 

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

 

Do you not see that is is in fact a dig at both sides?

[imatfaal]

John Cuthber is really good at regurgitating atheist propaganda. Listen pal if you want to read or listen to Christians speaking about the evidences for their religion I can tell you their is a really good website called www.reasonablefaith.com It is runned by a well known apologist. You can find at that website well over a hundred podcasts from this well known aplogist where he speaks about all the evidence. The historical Jesus, Historicity of the Bible, Philosophical arguments. He responds to critiques and talks about debates he has had over the last few years.

 

Really I do not want to call you ignorant as that would probably be flaiming, but you seem to have a flawed understanding of Christianity if you believe that.

 

It goes to show that the Stuart Chase was indeed right when he said

 

 

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

 

As this is a philosophy subforum of a Science Forum I think JohnCuthber's comment on lack of evidence (and the implicit assumption of what such evidence must entail) was quite justified and your labelling of it as "atheist propaganda" says more about you than it does about the comment. (Saying that the only reason you cannot call someone ignorant is due to netiquette is tantamount to calling them ignorant btw).

 

Stuart Chase's argument is a very useful rhetorical deceit - if someone will not accept as evidence the concepts that you yourself accept as evidence then that person or his logic must be flawed; of course, the counter-position is that the evidence is faulty and the sceptic's judgment is sound.

 

The existence of the universe constitutes evidence for a god. It is most certainly not solid evidence, but it is illogical to declare it not evidence at all.

 

It's evidence of something - but some exclusive link must be established for it to be evidence of the existence of the Christian God, otherwise it is just as good evidence for the Great Green Arkelseizure.

[Ophiolite]

Elaborate please. I'm with JohnCuthber.

 

How is the presence of our Earth evidence of any mystical being? Surely you agree with me that natural processes formed the Earth. Why evoke magic?

I am not evoking magic.

I was not speaking about the Earth. I was very clear about that. Your conflation of Earth with Universe troubles me. A creationist would take a strongly anthropocentric view of things and make such a conflation. someone who though they were about argue with a creationist might be tempted to make the same error.

 

The existence of the universe suggests the possibility of a first cause. There are alternate explanations, but a first cause is necessary in some instances. In million years or a billion years, if humans can survive that long, albeit in altered form, we may have the ability to create a universe. We would de facto gods.

 

It's just a variation of Payley's designer argument. Before you reject that out of hand recall that Darwin admired that work equally with Lyell's Principles of Geology.

 

I don't think it's great evidence, but it is evidence. and that was all i was rejecting was the absolute nature of John's statement.

 

 

 

Edit: I just saw imfataal's post. I am certainly not suggesting that the existence of the universe in any way constitutes evidence of the Christian god, which is a rather silly concept, though perhaps well intentioned.

[mississippichem]

I am not evoking magic.

I was not speaking about the Earth. I was very clear about that. Your conflation of Earth with Universe troubles me. A creationist would take a strongly anthropocentric view of things and make such a conflation. someone who though they were about argue with a creationist might be tempted to make the same error.

 

The existence of the universe suggests the possibility of a first cause. There are alternate explanations, but a first cause is necessary in some instances. In million years or a billion years, if humans can survive that long, albeit in altered form, we may have the ability to create a universe. We would de facto gods.

 

It's just a variation of Payley's designer argument. Before you reject that out of hand recall that Darwin admired that work equally with Lyell's Principles of Geology.

 

I don't think it's great evidence, but it is evidence. and that was all i was rejecting was the absolute nature of John's statement.

 

 

 

Edit: I just saw imfataal's post. I am certainly not suggesting that the existence of the universe in any way constitutes evidence of the Christian god, which is a rather silly concept, though perhaps well intentioned.

 

Point taken. Clearly and strongly argued. I conceed.

Edited March 5, 2012 by mississippichem

[John Cuthber]

John Cuthber is really good at regurgitating atheist propaganda. Listen pal if you want to read or listen to Christians speaking about the evidences for their religion I can tell you their is a really good website called www.reasonablefaith.com It is runned by a well known apologist. You can find at that website well over a hundred podcasts from this well known aplogist where he speaks about all the evidence. The historical Jesus, Historicity of the Bible, Philosophical arguments. He responds to critiques and talks about debates he has had over the last few years.

 

Really I do not want to call you ignorant as that would probably be flaiming, but you seem to have a flawed understanding of Christianity if you believe that.

 

It goes to show that the Stuart Chase was indeed right when he said

 

 

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

 

First off, I made three valid criticisms of the OP.

 

The existence of the universe is not really evidence of a God.

It is consistent with the existence of a God- but that's another matter.

 

The fact that it snows from time to time could be because there's an abominable snow man who plays with himself.

Are you going to start worshipping him?

Or perhaps it's Thor's dandruff?

Or any other "cause" I can dream up.

In particular, as has been pointed out, it cannot be evidence supporting the "Christian" God since it is equally evidence for the Islamic or Jewish versions (and others).

 

The second critical problem is that, even if He exists, then it doesn't actually solve the "prime mover" problem- the OP just pretends it' doesn't matter any more because "God did it".

Thirdly, this thread really was in the wrong place.

 

In return, rather than an explanation of why there are gaps in my logic, I get told I'm a propagandist.

 

There are a couple of problems with that approach

First- it might be the classic reply of any atheist to the "un-caused caused" problem but that doesn't invalidate it: it isn't propaganda.

 

Secondly the point about the word "propaganda", at least as commonly used, is that it implies deliberately dishonesty.

 

Would you like to justify that particular ad hom? In essence, why are you questioning my integrity?

 

And, for the record, the only important aspect of my understanding of Christianity is that they seem to think that "God did it" or " the question doesn't apply to God" is an answer to the question of "who made God?".

Feel free to show that I'm mistaken.

[JustinW]

John,

 

First off, I made three valid criticisms of the OP.

Yes, all of which could be applied in reverse.

There is no evidence that God doesn't exist.

 

What created anything?

 

I think it's funny that a creator is so vehimently denied but the creation abounding from a singularity is more acceptable among those same circles. Is it logical to assume that a singularity can have a reaction? A reaction that brought on a set determinism that athiests claim is all there is? To me it is not logical at all. You have to wonder about material's creation much in the same light as you question God's creation. One makes just about as much sense as the other, doesn't it?

 

And even though the topic is based around a religious platform doesn't mean that it can't be understood to be the philosophy of creation. (this last one is just for the sake of argument, it can be ignored)

[iNow]

John,

 

Yes, all of which could be applied in reverse.

There is no evidence that God doesn't exist.

Show me evidence that there is not an invisible teapot orbiting Neptune.

[doG]

There is no evidence that God doesn't exist.

There is no evidence that anything doesn't exist. None for Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, fire breathing dragons, etc.. Are you trying to say we should believe in everything until someone can prove it doesn't exist?

[DrRocket]

Show me evidence that there is not an invisible teapot orbiting Neptune.

 

A tea pot, virtually by definition and certainly because it contains tea, is composed of ordinary matter. Ordinary matter interacts with photons and is not invisible. Therefore there is no invisible teapot orbiting Neptune.

[iNow]

Technically, you've attempted to show me that my "invisible teapot" is not possible to be invisible... That it can ONLY be visible. You did not show me that there isn't one orbiting Neptune, so while I admire your attempt, I think you've missed the mark.

[Moontanman]

A tea pot, virtually by definition and certainly because it contains tea, is composed of ordinary matter. Ordinary matter interacts with photons and is not invisible. Therefore there is no invisible teapot orbiting Neptune.

 

 

Maybe it's a mirror matter teapot.... personally i think it's a lounge chair.... none the less none of them can be proven at this time not to orbit Neptune. Not being able to disprove something doesn't make it real

[DrRocket]

Maybe it's a mirror matter teapot.... personally i think it's a lounge chair.... none the less none of them can be proven at this time not to orbit Neptune. Not being able to disprove something doesn't make it real

 

 

Proof was not requested. Evidence was requested. Evidence was provided.

 

Proof applies to mathematics, not science. There is no such thing as proof in science, only evidence.

[Moontanman]

Proof was not requested. Evidence was requested. Evidence was provided.

 

Proof applies to mathematics, not science. There is no such thing as proof in science, only evidence.

 

 

Damn, trampled by pwnies..... No wait... what about that lounge chair?

Edited March 6, 2012 by Moontanman

[Appolinaria]

There is no evidence that anything doesn't exist. None for Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, fire breathing dragons, etc.. Are you trying to say we should believe in everything until someone can prove it doesn't exist?

 

 

Do they leave behind any evidence of their existence? No.

 

But there is evidence that's unaccounted for. Like our finite universe and why it began. So it's a free for all until we can answer a few questions.

 

P.S.- It's entertaining to watch when atheists all team up to battle the crazy theists, not realizing they're doing exactly what they claim to be against.

[iNow]

Do they leave behind any evidence of their existence? No.

 

But there is evidence that's unaccounted for. Like our finite universe and why it began. So it's a free for all until we can answer a few questions.

 

P.S.- It's entertaining to watch when atheists all team up to battle the crazy theists, not realizing they're doing exactly what they claim to be against.

The point I believe you may be missing, Appolinaria, is that one cannot prove universal nonexistence. It's an impossible request, and is used merely to evade the burden of proof which is implicitly held by the one making a positive claim. It's really nothing but hand-waving... smoke and mirrors... a "hey, look over there!" while the person runs away...

 

Further, it's not about "ganging up" or "battling theists," but instead about holding their theological claims to the same standards to which we hold all other claims. Claims of the theist deserve no special deference, and frankly the fact they don't receive unearned deference or respect does not ipso facto mean people are "doing exactly what they claim to be against."

 

Let's please try to maintain some perspective here. You're basically pointing and laughing and going "hahaha... tee hee hee... silly atheists..." when in fact you appear to be operating under a misapprehension.

 

 

http://nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

 

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

[Appolinaria]

The point I believe you may be missing, Appolinaria, is that one cannot prove universal nonexistence. It's an impossible request, and is used merely to evade the burden of proof which is implicitly held by the one making a positive claim. It's really nothing but hand-waving... smoke and mirrors... a "hey, look over there!" while the person runs away...

 

Further, it's not about "ganging up" or "battling theists," but instead about holding their theological claims to the same standards to which we hold all other claims. Claims of the theist deserve no special deference, and frankly the fact they don't receive unearned deference or respect does not ipso facto mean people are "doing exactly what they claim to be against."

 

Let's please try to maintain some perspective here. You're basically pointing and laughing and going "hahaha... tee hee hee... silly atheists..." when in fact you appear to be operating under a misapprehension.

 

 

http://nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

 

 

 

There is no missing evidence. The evidence is our universe.

[doG]

There is no missing evidence. The evidence is our universe.

That's not evidence of a cause, only that the universe exists. You might as well claim that since the universe exists it must have been conjured up by leprechuans. The point you seem to be missing between theists and scientists is that theists want to conclude there was a creator while scientists just want to theorize how it might have happened without drawing conclusions. Theists want to declare the truth without looking for it and scientists want to look for the truth before declaring it.

[Appolinaria]

The point you seem to be missing between theists and scientists is that theists want to conclude there was a creator while scientists just want to theorize how it might have happened without drawing conclusions.

 

I see no difference. A creator doesn't have to be human-like, nor must it have anything to do with any religion on this planet. It's just responsible for our universe. Whether you deem this explanation scientific, or religious, is not my problem.

 

 

Also, it seems a little ignorant to regard all scientists as atheists. It's theists vs. atheists, not theists vs. scientists.

[doG]

I see no difference. A creator doesn't have to be human-like, nor must it have anything to do with any religion on this planet. It's just responsible for our universe. Whether you deem this explanation scientific, or religious, is not my problem.

Theorizing there was a creator is one thing, declaring there was one is another. Theists have zero evidence to support any conclusion of a creator.

 

Also, it seems a little ignorant to regard all scientists as atheists. It's theists vs. atheists, not theists vs. scientists.

Yes and no. You can't lump all atheists together because they are really just non-theists. But most non-theists are non-theists because the are not willing to draw a conclusion with evidence, something scientists require. Theists on the other hand want you to buy their story as fact without any burden of proof so they are not scientists at all.