Question About Christianity

College Confidential Community
241

<p>Glad you liked it (my critique) :)</p>

<p>So anyway, on to your arguments...
That last "proof" is nothing of the sort - it is a non sequitur.</p>

<p>Now, about the argument from causality - first, you got premise one a little off. It should say that "everything has a cause", not just what is "happening around us", because that is not exhaustive of everything. It goes on to say that since you can't have an infinite regress of causes (although as I mentioned earlier, Sarte takes objection to this, but that is neither here nor there), there must have been a first cause, and this first cause is god.</p>

<p>Okay so the damning objection to this is that it is contradictory. If you admit that god is something (i.e. exists), then you contradict your own first premise by allowing god to exist without a cause. Even if you do allow something to exist without cause, what's to say that thing is god? It just as easily could be the universe that first existed without cause.</p>

242

<p>the purest religion of God in my opinion is that of Zoroastrianism.</p>

<p>the battle between good and evil - and that good will ultimately win one day.</p>

<p>and by the way, this religion (which predates judaism) is the oldest monotheistic faith.</p>

243

<p>You can't expect someone else to make this huge sacrifice and absolve you of your sins. If that is the way it works, if the Devil loves Jesus, then will he go into heaven too?</p>

244

<p>I find this site fascinating and informative in a scientific, rather than religious discussion of ‘Intelligent design’:</p>

<p>“Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.”</p>

<p><a href="http://www.origins.org/articles/schaefer_bigbangandgod.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.origins.org/articles/schaefer_bigbangandgod.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Questions addressed:
1. Is the universe finite or infinite in size and content?
2. Has the universe been here forever or did it have a beginning?
3. Was the universe created?
4. If the universe was not created, how did it get here?
5. If the universe was created, how was this creation accomplished, and what can we learn about the agent and events of creation?
6. Who or what governs the laws and constants of physics?
7. Are such laws the products of chance or have they been designed?
8. How do the laws and constants of physics relate to the support and development of life?
9. Is there any knowable existence beyond the apparently observed dimensions of the universe?
10. Do we expect the universe to expand forever, or is a period of contraction to be followed by a big crunch?
It’s a good read.</p>

245

<p>
[quote]
Okay so the damning objection to this is that it is contradictory. If you admit that god is something (i.e. exists), then you contradict your own first premise by allowing god to exist without a cause. Even if you do allow something to exist without cause, what's to say that thing is god? It just as easily could be the universe that first existed without cause.

[/quote]
-Icarus</p>

<p>But if you define God as the Uncaused Cause then the argument is valid. I am using just one of the definitions of God for this argument.also, can you provide more info on how the universe could exist without a cause.</p>

246

<p>Ok, you define God as the first cause. Do any of the other things follow from this? That he is omnipotent etc etc.? No they do not.</p>

247

<p>Simply put the existence of one God is something which comes naturally to a human being's mind. The fact that God hasn't chosen to make Himself visible to mankind is proof to some that he requires of us to believe in Him. Religious monotheists believe that this life is a test through which God wants to see if we acknowledge that he indeed is the Creator and that everything we see originates from him.</p>

<p>Sure, you can use quantum mechanics or relativity to try in proving the existence of God but to the billions of humans who have passed through Earth, such proofs hold no value. </p>

<p>They see nature and the universe and inside feel that so much couldn't have happened by chance. Some Force must have brought it into existence.</p>

248

<p>Religious monotheists believe that this life is a test through which God wants to see if we acknowledge that he indeed is the Creator and that everything we see originates from him.</p>

<p>Thats a pretty sad reason for life, don't you think? Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good being need to create other beings just to worship it, or even to acknowledge its own existence? It just doesn't make any sense.</p>

<p>But if you define God as the Uncaused Cause then the argument is valid. I am using just one of the definitions of God for this argument.also, can you provide more info on how the universe could exist without a cause.</p>

<p>But you can't define god as "the uncaused cause" to validate the argument because that is exactly what the argument is trying to prove. Trust me, my point is valid. Saying that god is uncaused invalidates premise 1, and therefore the whole argument.
Also, I didn't say that the universe does exist without a cause, I'm just saying that if you use this argument (with the inherant problems it has), one could just as easily call the universe the "uncaused cause". Don't twist my words.</p>

<p>So... got any other 'flawless' arguments you'd care to try?</p>

249

<p>Simply put the existence of one God is something which comes naturally to a human being's mind. The fact that God hasn't chosen to make Himself visible to mankind is proof to some that he requires of us to believe in Him.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but I have to add that this statement is ridiculous. The existence of one god does not in any way or form come naturally. Also, saying that the fact that we have no proof of god's existence is proof that we need to believe god exists is well... nonsensical.</p>

250

<p>agree with icarus. ancient ppl like the aztecs and mayans mostly believed in many gods and there are still religions today like hinduism which believe in one god...these ppl arent fighting the "natural" belief that theres only one god, they genuinely believe there are many gods. the belief in the existence of one god is something which seems to come naturally to you because that's whats been drilled into you since you were a kid..and since it seems to come naturally to you, you think it comes naturally to everyone</p>

251

<p>"Simply put the existence of one God is something which comes naturally to a human being's mind."</p>

<p>Hogwash. I agree with icarus and lisasimpson. In fact, if you take into account the entire span of human history, I'd venture to say only a minority have been monotheistic. It's a bit of the tunnel-vision syndrome... everyone around you is monotheistic, so everyone must have an inclination towards monotheism. It's not unreasonable an unreasonable beleif, until you look at some other cultures.</p>

252

<p>
[quote]
But you can't define god as "the uncaused cause" to validate the argument because that is exactly what the argument is trying to prove.Saying that god is uncaused invalidates premise 1, and therefore the whole argument.
-Icarus

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First, lets agree on a definition of God, then we can argue whether God exists or not, okay? For the purpose of the following argument lets define God as an Uncaused Cause, however limited the definition may be.
The PREMISE is that everything in the universe has a cause. If A caused B then A had to have been caused by X which had to have been caused by Y which had to have been caused by Z, etc. However, that "chain" of causes cannot be infinite therefore the CONCLUSION is that there had to have been an Uncaused First Cause to start the "chain" of causes, i.e God</p>

253

<p>Why can't it be infinite?</p>

254

<p>First, lets agree on a definition of God, then we can argue whether God exists or not, okay? For the purpose of the following argument lets define God as an Uncaused Cause, however limited the definition may be.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but lets not define god as an uncaused cause. Why? because who do you know that, when asked how they define god, say "an uncaused cause". I think for the purposes of ANY discussions about the existence of god, we should define 'god' as an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being. Almost anyone, whether they believe in god or not, should be able to agree on this definition. (which is what we need in a definition to use for the point of argument)</p>

255

<p>No, God should be described as the Creator while everything else is the creation.</p>

256

<p>^ but that definition necessitates God's existence, which we are trying to argue for or against, and is therefore an argument in itself. Defining god as I did in my last post does not do this, and therefore allows us to even question the issue.</p>

257

<p>this is circular reasoning. the existence of God cannot be proven by scientific experimenation. you will fail miserably. it is a question of faith and relies on the intuitive side of mankind.</p>

<p>think this: mankind has created extremely amazing creations. supercomputers, rockets, machines, factories, calculators, on and on.</p>

<p>but has it created anything that is superior to the human brain? everything that exists must have an originator. the fax machine and the supercomputer that we made came from us. hence we are its originator. the unfathomable concept of the human brain must have been created from an undeniable source.</p>

258

<p>It just makes sense. Everything has to have an origin. Common sense dictates that anything we see around us must have been made by someone or come about through some Force. </p>

<p>Yes, the theory that everything happened by chance also works, but to what absurd extent. Why is our planet the only one with life till this date? Why are we at the exact distance from the Sun?</p>

<p>Putting forth the argument of chance is openly admitting that you have no reason for why we are here or why the universe is as it is. You say "it just happened" while others say that it couldn't have "just happened." </p>

<p>Something must have let it happen. </p>

<p>Icarus, let's see where you go with the definition of God you've put forward.</p>

259

<p>Icarus,
well obviously when someone asks you who God is, "Uncaused Cause" will not be the first thing to come your mind, but it is still an attribute of God along omniscient, omnipotent, and possessing free will. Unless you have any other problem with the definition of God, please counter the argument.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why can't it(the causal chain) be infinite?
-jerzak525

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since I'm not the one who is trying to argue against the existence of God, the burden of proof falls on you to prove an infinite causal chain. :)</p>

260

<p>“Why can't it(the causal chain) be infinite?”</p>

<p>The greatest modern proof against the circler reasoning of an infinite regress was presented by Monsieur’s Abbott and Costello in a proof they developed succinctly titled: </p>

<p>"Who's on First".</p>

<p>This 'proof' is fool proof (meaning many ‘skeptics’ here should 'get it') and conclusive:</p>

<p>Abbott: Goofè Dean. Well, let's see, we have on the bags, Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third...</p>

<p>Costello: That's what I want to find out.</p>

<p>Abbott: I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.</p>

<p>Costello: Are you the manager?</p>

<p>Abbott: Yes.</p>

<p>Costello: You gonna be the coach too?</p>

<p>Abbott: Yes.</p>

<p>Costello: And you don't know the fellows' names?</p>

<p>Abbott: Well I should.</p>

<p>Costello: Well then who's on first?</p>

<p>Abbott: Yes.</p>

<p>Costello: I mean the fellow's name.</p>

<p>Abbott: Who.</p>

<p>Costello: The guy on first.</p>

<p>Abbott: Who.</p>

<p>Costello: The first baseman.</p>

<p>Abbott: Who.</p>

<p>Costello: The guy playing...</p>

<p>Abbott: Who is on first!</p>

<p>Costello: I'm asking YOU who's on first.</p>

<p>Abbott: That's the man's name.</p>

<p>Costello: That's who's name?</p>

<p>Abbott: Yes.</p>

<p>Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.</p>

<p>Abbott: That's it.</p>

<p>Costello: That's who?</p>

<p>Abbott: Yes.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>