The Existence of God

[Risottia]

Too bad that those arguments of Tommy's are fundamentally flawed, as shown by Immanuel a bit later.

How so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_ ... _Existence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_ ... _Existence

Coupled with showing the fallacy of the Ontological Argument, Kant completed the refutation of the rational theology (included Tommy's work) in KrV.

Want to call it an intrinsic limitation of logic? Likely. But it shows that logic cannot prove the existance of deities - much less so about their eventual qualities.

[Sanctissima]

Not a problem, there's no hurry. Thanks for replying.

But there's two major problems I see in your reasoning. The first being that there had to be a first cause, since for all we know the Universe or cosmos had no beginning and has simply always existed. It could simply have always been in motion.

The second is that you assume such an action would have had to be willful. It could quite simply have just happened, without the assistance of any sentient being. In fact, as far as our Universe is considered, there's already several scientific theories on how the Big Bang happened, or why our Universe isn't just a really condensed ball of matter. It's expansion didn't require the existence of a deity.

That energy had to come from somewhere as the atoms were propulsed outwards towards the cosmos it had to have a beginning. Matter just doesn't come out of nowhere.

There's two theories regarding that, actually.

The first being that, assuming our universe is the one and only, then it has always been in a state of motion. So, basically, it expands and contracts like dough on its own, and that's just the kind of universe we happen to live in.

The second being that, if our universe isn't the one and only, and we actually live in a multiverse, then all that matter came from some other universe. Where the very first, original primal zone of the multiverse is that started everything, we don't know. But ultimately the result is the same as the first theory. The multiverse grows and shrinks on its own, and this has always been the case.

Of course, there's a lot of other theories out there, but those two are the ones that really tackle the specific question of how everything started. The answer is simply that there never was a beginning. The universe has, quite simply, always been.

[Godular]

That doesn't address my point.



That wasn't my point, either.

I am saying your point has no bearing on the case.

Oh it absolutely does have bearing on the case. I'm pointing out that stories from that time were hardly examples of good reporting procedures, and that attempts to utilize them as evidence today is the logical equivalent of grasping at straws.

Objectively speaking, the man's leg was amputated, and, by some power, was restored to him, as was well documented with historical evidence.

Again, there is cause to doubt the veracity of such statements, and trying to claim 'objectivity' with church-controlled inquiries is hilariously naive at best.

[Chessmistress]

I voted "maybe", I'm basically an agnostic, I'm not sure if she really exist.

[Risottia]

I voted "maybe", I'm basically an agnostic, I'm not sure if she really exist.

Believing in deities is more of an act of will than an act of reason. Basically you get to choose: but it's not like reality automatically conforms to our peronal choices.

[Uxupox]

That energy had to come from somewhere as the atoms were propulsed outwards towards the cosmos it had to have a beginning. Matter just doesn't come out of nowhere.

There's two theories regarding that, actually.

The first being that, assuming our universe is the one and only, then it has always been in a state of motion. So, basically, it expands and contracts like dough on its own, and that's just the kind of universe we happen to live in.

The second being that, if our universe isn't the one and only, and we actually live in a multiverse, then all that matter came from some other universe. Where the very first, original primal zone of the multiverse is that started everything, we don't know. But ultimately the result is the same as the first theory. The multiverse grows and shrinks on its own, and this has always been the case.

Of course, there's a lot of other theories out there, but those two are the ones that really tackle the specific question of how everything started. The answer is simply that there never was a beginning. The universe has, quite simply, always been.

I've heard about this first theory though I've never heard about a physicist supporting the multiverse theory. Heard it like it was a like a state of continuity as the universe supposedly has a time where it will cease to expand and contract upon itself resembling a big crunch and from that specific event it again forms the big bang in a repeated cycle.

[United Marxist Nations]

[An] objection may be that the first cause needn’t be a sentient being. However, a true first cause should exist purely of its own accord and volition,

1. Why should that be the case?
2. Are you seriously arguing that something can come into existence by just willing itself into existence? How could something that has yet to will itself into exist have volition? In order to have volition, it would need to already exist.

and a non-sentient being, or a mere force, should be incapable of will. Furthermore, a first cause must be aware and willful, as otherwise its actions in creating or causing the universe would remain uncaused by anything (and we cannot say that the actions are a first cause, because, as identified earlier, there must be an actor for there to be an action; that is to say, for God to act, there must be a God to act), because the being from which the action came about would have no input upon the action. To demonstrate and clarify, when an object is not in motion, we understand that it will not come into motion unless acted upon, which is confirmed by Newton; thus, there must be a cause of the action, even if the action is that of an abstract force.

3. It could already be in motion. Things that are in motion remain in motion. As far as I'm aware, photons always exist in motion.
4. The cause of the action doesn't necessarily have to be sentient. Photons don't move because something wilfully pushed them.

Therefore, we would not be unfounded in thinking that God’s actions should have a cause, which can only be determined to be the will of that God. If a will is the only way to explain the actions of a force, then it would naturally be presumed that this force has a will (as opposed to more natural forces like tectonic plate movements, which have a definite cause which is easily observable, whereas a force described would have nothing but that which makes up itself, and thus must be affected only by itself).

5) Even if your arguments were sound, you'd only have demonstrated that the first cause has a will not that it's necessarily any conception of "God".

Going to change the numbering of the objections, just to make things easier for me to follow.

1) If it did not exist of its own accord, then something must have caused it, meaning it would not be the first cause.
2) What I mean is that its existence must be self-apparent (i.e. it must simply exist, with no condition).

3) Something would have to put them in motion, even if it is simply energy, and that energy must have an origin, etc.
4) This is what I presumed would be the greatest point of contention, because it is inductive; however, I will defend it by saying essentially what was already said: that, if there was no sentience (i.e. no will), then there is no reason this cause should have acted upon anything, but should have remained entirely isolated and inactive.

5) This is correct, which is why I base more specific beliefs upon the perceived truth of this argument (i.e. something like the design argument would be completely stupid if the first cause were incorrect, as I go into detail in an earlier paragraph of the same paper).

[Ashmoria]

I voted "maybe", I'm basically an agnostic, I'm not sure if she really exist.

"She" wouldn't be the Abrahamic god.

[Jetan]

I voted "maybe", I'm basically an agnostic, I'm not sure if she really exist.

"She" wouldn't be the Abrahamic god.

Hush, that doesn't fit Chess's personal narrative.

[Risottia]

I voted "maybe", I'm basically an agnostic, I'm not sure if she really exist.

"She" wouldn't be the Abrahamic god.

The Abrahamic god is father and mother (warranted by a Pope!), hence can be referred to both with the masculine and the feminine gender.

[Sanctissima]

There's two theories regarding that, actually.

The first being that, assuming our universe is the one and only, then it has always been in a state of motion. So, basically, it expands and contracts like dough on its own, and that's just the kind of universe we happen to live in.

The second being that, if our universe isn't the one and only, and we actually live in a multiverse, then all that matter came from some other universe. Where the very first, original primal zone of the multiverse is that started everything, we don't know. But ultimately the result is the same as the first theory. The multiverse grows and shrinks on its own, and this has always been the case.

Of course, there's a lot of other theories out there, but those two are the ones that really tackle the specific question of how everything started. The answer is simply that there never was a beginning. The universe has, quite simply, always been.

I've heard about this first theory though I've never heard about a physicist supporting the multiverse theory. Heard it like it was a like a state of continuity as the universe supposedly has a time where it will cease to expand and contract upon itself resembling a big crunch and from that specific event it again forms the big bang in a repeated cycle.

Eh, the multiverse theory is mostly just a product of science-fiction that turns out to actually have some credulity to it, but there are some theoretical physicists who support it, or at least consider it a firm possibility.

In terms of the first one though, or big crunch, yes, you're quite correct. It's a constant cycle of continuity. Basically, motion occurs because it has always occurred. There was no first cause because there was never a need for it.

[Godular]

"She" wouldn't be the Abrahamic god.

The Abrahamic god is father and mother (warranted by a Pope!), hence can be referred to both with the masculine and the feminine gender.

Sounds like that requires a gender neutral appelation. I'mma go with 'it'.

If it has a problem with this, may it strike me now with a swarm of murderous basset hound puppies that will proceed to flop about and lick me to death.

[Jetan]

"She" wouldn't be the Abrahamic god.

The Abrahamic god is father and mother (warranted by a Pope!), hence can be referred to both with the masculine and the feminine gender.

Pope doesn't define the Abrahamic god, only the catholic interpretation.

[United Marxist Nations]

How so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_ ... _Existence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_ ... _Existence

Coupled with showing the fallacy of the Ontological Argument, Kant completed the refutation of the rational theology (included Tommy's work) in KrV.

Want to call it an intrinsic limitation of logic? Likely. But it shows that logic cannot prove the existance of deities - much less so about their eventual qualities.

This is a bit long-winded, so I hope you don't mind if I keep a quote of this up in another tab and work on a reply to it in-between shorter things.

[Godular]

I've heard about this first theory though I've never heard about a physicist supporting the multiverse theory. Heard it like it was a like a state of continuity as the universe supposedly has a time where it will cease to expand and contract upon itself resembling a big crunch and from that specific event it again forms the big bang in a repeated cycle.

Eh, the multiverse theory is mostly just a product of science-fiction that turns out to actually have some credulity to it, but there are some theoretical physicists who support it, or at least consider it a firm possibility.

In terms of the first one though, or big crunch, yes, you're quite correct. It's a constant cycle of continuity. Basically, motion occurs because it has always occurred. There was no first cause because there was never a need for it.

Easy answer: Photons don't stand still.

[Uxupox]

The Abrahamic god is father and mother (warranted by a Pope!), hence can be referred to both with the masculine and the feminine gender.

Pope doesn't define the Abrahamic god, only the catholic interpretation.

Then by Catholic terms she is correct.

[Ashmoria]

"She" wouldn't be the Abrahamic god.

Hush, that doesn't fit Chess's personal narrative.

her personal narrative is irrelevant, eh? the Abrahamic god is god the father. that's one of the things that means he cant be the one true ultimate god.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, the multiverse theory is mostly just a product of science-fiction that turns out to actually have some credulity to it, but there are some theoretical physicists who support it, or at least consider it a firm possibility.

In terms of the first one though, or big crunch, yes, you're quite correct. It's a constant cycle of continuity. Basically, motion occurs because it has always occurred. There was no first cause because there was never a need for it.

Easy answer: Photons don't stand still.

This puts it very well.

I suppose it's like Einstein said: "If you can't put it simply, you don't understand it well enough".

[Risottia]

The Abrahamic god is father and mother (warranted by a Pope!), hence can be referred to both with the masculine and the feminine gender.

Sounds like that requires a gender neutral appelation. I'mma go with 'it'.

Why? It's not like it LACKS gender: it's got both. Omnipotence!

[Real Sperland]

https://youtu.be/rNOQ9MAUONQ

Don't forget the prophecy about the Antichrist. Sounds stupid right? Of course.
But really, Jesus says in the bible that there will be a signal from the heavens. I have heard people saying that an asteroid is heading for Earth. NASA denies that. Don't forget that Nostradomus also predicts an asteroid hitting earth. He also predicted the dead will come back to life. Jesus says that when he comes down to earth the second time he will bring the dead back to life. Jesus said that false prophets would arrive claiming to be christ. I have heard of a guy in Siberia who claims to be Christ. You should take a look at this.
https://youtu.be/W2Cv5hZfOmk

So, where did god come from? Simple.
https://youtu.be/Sr5lY0TcdAw

Hard to believe. Of course. You can't say that god definitely doesn't exist. You can either believe in god or not be sure. But remember, we know less then 1% of of our Universe. Even then we don't know much. So how can you say he doesn't exist? That doesn't make much sense does it? We only know about less then half our earth not to mention the whole universe.

[Godular]

Sounds like that requires a gender neutral appelation. I'mma go with 'it'.

Why? It's not like it LACKS gender: it's got both. Omnipotence!

But if it possessed both sets of equipment, and created man in its own image, man should have been hermaphroditic to start!

Uh oh, did I make a new contradiction?

[Risottia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_ ... _Existence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_ ... _Existence

Coupled with showing the fallacy of the Ontological Argument, Kant completed the refutation of the rational theology (included Tommy's work) in KrV.

Want to call it an intrinsic limitation of logic? Likely. But it shows that logic cannot prove the existance of deities - much less so about their eventual qualities.

This is a bit long-winded, so I hope you don't mind if I keep a quote of this up in another tab and work on a reply to it in-between shorter things.

No problem, but I would suggest you to read the various critiques to Kant's work before. Many of the best philosophers have tried tackling those antinomies, so you could get some ideas from them if you want to give a try.

[United Marxist Nations]

I am saying your point has no bearing on the case.

Oh it absolutely does have bearing on the case. I'm pointing out that stories from that time were hardly examples of good reporting procedures, and that attempts to utilize them as evidence today is the logical equivalent of grasping at straws.

Objectively speaking, the man's leg was amputated, and, by some power, was restored to him, as was well documented with historical evidence.

Again, there is cause to doubt the veracity of such statements, and trying to claim 'objectivity' with church-controlled inquiries is hilariously naive at best.

Then let us say that no historical events happened, after all, stories from those times were of poor reporting procedures. Even though this took place even after the English Civil War (i.e. in recent history).

The Church actually got involved because the civil authorities were at a complete loss. Moreover, the Church was hesitant at this (otherwise, it would not have called 24 witnesses to testify, of which two were surgeons).

[Ashmoria]

https://youtu.be/rNOQ9MAUONQ

Don't forget the prophecy about the Antichrist. Sounds stupid right? Of course.
But really, Jesus says in the bible that there will be a signal from the heavens. I have heard people saying that an asteroid is heading for Earth. NASA denies that. Don't forget that Nostradomus also predicts an asteroid hitting earth. He also predicted the dead will come back to life. Jesus says that when he comes down to earth the second time he will bring the dead back to life. Jesus said that false prophets would arrive claiming to be christ. I have heard of a guy in Siberia who claims to be Christ. You should take a look at this.
https://youtu.be/W2Cv5hZfOmk

So, where did god come from? Simple.
https://youtu.be/Sr5lY0TcdAw

Hard to believe. Of course. You can't say that god definitely doesn't exist. You can either believe in god or not be sure. But remember, we know less then 1% of of our Universe. Even then we don't know much. So how can you say he doesn't exist? That doesn't make much sense does it? We only know about less then half our earth not to mention the whole universe.

sure, I guess, but all we know about "god" is what we have made up whole cloth. that cant count for much in the 99.9999999% of the universe we know nothing about.

[United Marxist Nations]

This is a bit long-winded, so I hope you don't mind if I keep a quote of this up in another tab and work on a reply to it in-between shorter things.

No problem, but I would suggest you to read the various critiques to Kant's work before. Many of the best philosophers have tried tackling those antinomies, so you could get some ideas from them if you want to give a try.

The main problem I am having is wrapping my head around it all at once. I am sure we all know the feeling. Like reading old Hegel again.