Why God Exists (Updated with Q and A at the end)
Created on: September 7th, 2006
WARNING: My comments are NSFW. Please evaluate and vote based on the merits and quality of the YTMND not based on your religious standpoint. If you have an objection, post below and I will address it in the YTMND at the end.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| GendoIkari | $19.12 | Peterguy | $9.41 |
| stewie | $9.41 | ||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $37.94 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2.95) | 2,637 | 228 | 2,543 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 57,567 |
Inbound links:
Your argument is pointless. All you prove is that some unknown cause was the start of the universe - this is what scientists have been saying for years. You have not proven the existence of God. There is no proof of continuing intervention by that cause. Hence there is absolutely no reason to waste time worshipping that cause. It's similar to worshipping your father's sperm because it created you. Next time search beyond your freshman physics and ethics textbooks for a way to live a good life.
Sorry son. You admit at the end you don't know. "Sounds a lot like God to me". Your assumptions are not proof. Setting aside detailed deconstruction of your argument, I'll shoot this lame beast right away: Just because the human mind cannot yet wrap itself around some concept (whatever existed before your self-styled and misleadingly named "First Causality"), doesn't argue successfully that that something didn't/doesn't exist.
Simply put, your ignorance is not proof of a God.
It does not follow that a collection of entities requires in itself a cause, therefore the plead to causality is fallcious in this context. Moreover, the Prime Cause itself does not need intelligence, direction, nor intention to be as such. So, if the first thing that made the Universe possible and Nature, it could have been a twinky from Max's cupboard that fell back in time and it would not be a God.
I had already made that deduction by myself. Except that I was smart enough not to think that what created the universe is undoubtedly sentient. Could as well have been the fart of a retarded space whale for all that matters. Additionnally, I'd like to point out that entropy has been proven time and time again to be bullsh*t. Anyway, I'll make a YTMND soon to make people understand why it's impossible to prove God exists. And by soon, I mean when I very well feel like it. Until then, stop trying.
This SOOOOO won't be read, but here I go: Two points stuck out to me, that the "first cause is beyond space time and matter" - you seem to just throw this out without any proof; second, you said "cannot have time without matter and space" - this all depends on how you qualify time, namely without matter/space there are no events to mark points in time rendering it somewhat meaningless, but an 'observer' would still feel the sensation of time moving on. Moreover, you go back to a "first cause" and ...
... qualify it as being 'God' - without REASON, you just throw that in without backing it up. I'm not disagreeing with causality. Science at this point makes no claims as to what that "first reason" is (was) because the technology, mathematical modeling and physical laws aren't there... YET. You, on the other hand, seem to put yourself above Cosmologists (some of which are VERY distinguished) who've spent decades postulating this and claim to know the "truth" and call it God. So far NOTHING you've said...
... here screams "first Cause = God", except you of course. Why does the first cause have to be a "higher power" that supposedly cares for us, will bring on the apocalypse, etc etc... Only you make it so. At any rate, that's why I don't beleive this crock. Science doesn't claim to know the truth, it sems it. Religion on the other hand claims to know EVERYHITNG and then blasts science for not being able to explain it's gaps. HAVE A GREAT DAY :) Oh, and I guess this kinda deserves a 2 for effort.
I'm 2'ing you because you showed a sense of humor in your presentation. Your argumentation is still deeply flawed - but this time you deserve a bit of a miss because a lot of the concepts you regard as immutable facts are contradicted by higher-order physics. For example, there are cases when matter can be created out of nothingness.
More importantly, a CAUSE isn't necessarily something that exists. Entropy is a CAUSE of the heat death of the universe, but entropy doesn't "exist" as more than a concept.
Well whetstone,you can make a decent and informative site if you tried as is evident here. Calling people "infidels" or saying that they are going to hell because they don't believe what you believe is ignorance; ignorance is what you perceive that you are going against(as to say in your view that you believe atheists are ignorant). If there is a God,he is a loving one and not the fire and brimstone that he has been painted out to be.
~*~*~Fail. I don't see why you waste your time with this let alone believe in it. Just because people haven't figured something out yet doesn't mean that it was God. Also, why or how the universe was created shouldn't matter at all. Once scientists do find out some scientific way to show how the universe was created all we'll see is a bunch of christians yelling and muslims rioting and other than that our days will still be normal. I guess you'll have fun though once you die and (most likely) realize your
Upon viewing this again I am reminded of how I would have given it a higher rating if A. Peterguy's endless slew of YTMND's hadn't already exhausted these conversations to death prior to its creation and B. if you hadn't decided to show your anti-social side in your "Christian Martyrdom" and "Cries of the Infidels" sites. Unlike those aforementioned sites, this is polite and entertaining.
Your logic is sure infalable. Yep, 100%. Except for one little thing called "The Anthropic Principle." The "First Cause" of the Universe /is/ dependant on the universe because if the universe didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to observe that there's ever was a cause for it to be created. When there was no universe, the first cause of our universe hadn't caused our universe, and thus didn't exist.
I believe in god. If you do, too, fine. But don't call this evidence.
Why would god (or the first cause) not need a prior cause while the universe does need one? You know it's funny. We can't explain the universe perfectly yet. Whenever there's something humans can't explain, they always go straight for god. Every freaking time. Hurricantes, earthquakes, etc used to mean "God's angry with us. We have sinned, and he wants us to suffer", etc. 50 years from now, we'll probably have a much better understanding of the universe, and your current argument will become worthless :P
I am an atheist, and I respect this ytmnd. You do what most religious fundamentalists fail to do and try to find logical reasons for his existence, rather than simply saying so and forcing everybody to agree. However, it doesn't really PROVE the existence of God. We don't know from where the universe came. God is only one theory, and there are a multitude of others being formulated. The only reasons this isn't a 5 are a. it's still preachy and b. it's flawed logic anyway.
Hey! Awesome site- very well presented. Ignore the kids who simply get in a tizzy anytime anyone mentions God, or confuses them. You should read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis as he also discusses some similar ideas- in fact the first three chapters or so he doesn't even mention "God", he's just proving the necesity for the existence of a higher being.
don't be fooled by his attempts to use logic to prove god, Whetstone is the same as the christian fundamentalists who pulled "creation science" out of their ass. People like him are simply trying to get religion into our schools so that they can program children into being christians. Here's the truth, being a christian does not make you a better person, some of the most evil people in history have been christians, and along the same lines, some of the greatests people in history have been atheists.
People like whetstone are trying to send this country into the dark ages, where science takes a backseat to religion. The reason so many politicians like the idea of a fundementally religious country is because extremely religious people are easy to scare and control, they're especially easily controlled by people with a seat of power, mostly because these people tend to be weak minded.
I highly suggest you drop Aquinas's argument and stick with Godel's - http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html for details. I'm an atheist, but unlike most of the dumbasses around here, I actually am familiar with both this "proof" of God's existence and most others as well. Godel's ontological argument is the only one I've seen that's remotely convincing, and this is mainly because he clearly defines everything he is talking about, and makes clear what we are assuming. Check it out.
You talk about proof? Yet this proof is the result of the theories you mentioned. While these theories may be widely accepted, they have never been proven hence they are still theories. Therefore, the proof you talk of does not exist. That obviously does not conclude that God does not exist, but it does provide a flaw to your logic and therefore will not convince anyone logical of anything.
The second theory of themodynamics states that the amount of USABLE energy in the universe is decreasing. The FIRST law says the amount of energy in the universe is constant. I don't think that time is necessarily related to the begining of the universe either, since time isn't dependent on matter. This could possibly mean that the universe expands to the point where it collapses into the center, and the whole process starts over again. The existence of God and this theory aren't mutually exclusive.
I applaud you. Most people talk about religion as fanatics, swearing up and down that they don't need proof of God. You've taken it to an entirely different - and logical - level. YTMND was created to cure the Internet of boredom, but I tire of mindless gimmicks. Hell, I've made a couple of them myself, because I can't think of anything to say. But you did, and did a wonderful job of it! Oh, and if Max ever deletes this because it's 'propaganda'... I wouldn't think so. It's not saying 'CHANGE YOURSELF!'
i beleive in God and all
this makes just perfect sense
but there is a cause for everything and there is so many reasons why this could be wrong
when jesus comes bak and if he does
thats the only time i can really beleive this
something out there did something to create this universe
god?maybe but again there is no proof just theories
well im done
notice how all the people who give a 5 rating can only say "OMG THAT WAS GOOD UR A GENIOUS" They are the ones that ARE Christians and are just as blind as Whetstone himself, but everyone who is right in rating this site a 1 has entire paragraphs expressing how they disagree and how everything on the website is wrong. I can't say something bad about this site OR Whetstone because, frankly, it's all been said already...too bad...
Interesting. While I'm actually a firm believer in the first cause argument, I believe you sadly don't get it. It doesn't "logically prove" anything, rather it provides scientific backing which is complementary to one's already existing faith. Faith can't define science and science can't define faith, they're two completely incompatible systems.
Also, it wasn't very funny.
Here's the main problem with this ytmnd... the big bang theory revolves around the concept of singularit. It is usually a misconception that all the matter in the universe was crammed into one small dot. Artists paint big bang as one point to make it easier to understand. Matter didn't come out of nowhere. Matter is infinite and always existed and always will exsit. Try to imagine 'time' before the big bang as the universe having infinite matter with absolutely no 'space'. Then space expanded.
First off, not all things have causes. Read up on quantum physics. Second there are plenty of things besides a "Prime Mover" (Hello, Aquinas!) theory to explain the "beginning" of the universe. Cyclical big bangs and great crunchs stretching back into infinity, or if you'd read Hawking you'd know he says there is a 95% chance that the universe was uncaused. So yeah, you are wrong.
Don't believe me? See http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=smith_18_2 I'd love to see you refute this, but I am quite sure you won't, because you can't; you're a pathetic theist in cloaking his ridiculous beliefs in the veneer of science and logic, vomitting forth the same centuries old argument for the existence of his pathetic imaginary friend. Good day, sir.
You expect me to be convinced by downright ancient scientific principles? If something can't come from nothing, explain the occurance of a particle and antiparticle coming from a void and then anihilating each other. Aside from that, you misused the second law of thermodynamics. Here's a hint, trying to use science you don't have a solid understanding of for biblethumping is a waste of time, except to convince idiots, or people who already believe what you do.
This ytmnd also insults Theists. There are three types of people:
Theist: There is no proof or disproof for the existance of god... but you you believe in god.
Agnostic: There is no proof or disproof for the existance of god... but you neither believe nor disbilieve in god.
Atheist: There is no proof or disproof for the existance of god... but you disbelieve in god.
Then there are the crazy people who say there IS proof that god does or does not exist... when in fact there is no proof (not yet anyway)
How do you know the universe was even created in the first place? how do you know that everything doesn't just exist indefinitely? You don't, so stop pretending you do. And if everything that ever existed had to have something cause it to exist, then that means god was caused by something else. And that thing was caused by something else. And that by something else... It just goes on and on.
I don't think that YTMND is the best place to push your agenda. Those who are not already of 'the flock' very rarely tend to convert, and people generally get pretty offended when you tell them their worldview is wrong. Also, your argument fails to take into consideration that the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies in a closed system, which the Universe is not. Mass is constantly being converted into energy and back again in this crazy universe of ours.
I've been saying that for years... People don't listen. It turns out that the definition of "Athiest" is not someone who DOESN'T believe in God, it's someone who BELIEVES in no God. Athiest's have a blinding faith of their own. I only have respect for Agnostics, because if you are truly an agnostic, and you honestly don't know whether there is a God, tyhen your mind should be open, and these scientific laws should prove God's existance.
what created god? god is created by the human mind. its supposed to be a sign of hope for those in dispair. The very begining of the universe has to do somthing with a dimension we cannot precieve. the whole "cause and effect" thing is created by some greater dimension through the continuem. a Space-Time-matter-x (x being this mysterious dimension) Paradox, which created all matter. now stop conflicting with peoples beliefs and make somthing stupid. its ytmnd lol.
there is a considerable hole in this concept. Your argument boils down to "if B, then A must precede B. Every B must have an A before it". Unfortunately, you have no evidence that the universe is in fact caused by "god". In addition, using your own argument, god could not simply exist, something must have happened to cause him/her/it. But then what is the cause of god? How did that come to exist? Something must have come to cause that. And the cause of the cause of god?
And the cause of the cause of the cause of god? And the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of god? By the logic you use, theoretically there should be an infinite number of these things, because nothing can simply exist without cause. The only possible explanations i can see are that either A) The universe was created by a being that somehow managed to be its own cause (which is completely illogical) or B) nothing created the universe, it simply exists without a cause
I think you did a great job with this ytmnd. It's very well made. I don't agree with the "short stories don't belong on ytmnd" belief and as for religious beliefs, I don't mind ytmnd's related to them. Personally, I renounced my catholicism after I started thinking independently from my mother. I do, however, admire your politeness. 5 stars (if this system works) for clearly and intelligently conveying your point in a dignified manner.
just a thought in case you wanted to add another argument sometime: ever hear of the moral argument for the existence of god? it basically says that it is not a mere coincidence that every culture around the globe shares the same or similar moral and ethical values. its wrong to torture babies for fun no matter where you go.
or you can just say "abiogenesis. can you prove it? no? please come again."
I agree with "allord" causality is a term created by humans, which means it may not be correct, so your entire argument falls apart from the very moment you use the word causality. Why should this so called god be put at the beginning of it all? Like allord said, if causality is true in the way in which you used it for this argument, then god should have a god should have a god should have a god etc etc.
I am sorry that you are blinded by a book that a small group of human beings wrote and started spreading around because humans wanted an answer to the almighty question of "where did we come from"
I am sure I speak for most of us in saying "please stop attempting to influence us enlightened ones with your blinded theories of an invisible father figure who watches over us" he is doing a good job by the way. *murder* *rape* *starvation* *human sacrafice* :-)
It is beyond childish that when faced with a question that you don't know the answer to you simply fill in the word god to make yourself feel better. This hinders the philosophical and spiritual growth of everyone by turning what should be an enlightened search for where we come from and how we got here into thinking that you already have the answer in one word format. I'm giving your site a 1 for the simple reason that its not funny, not well done, and doesn't actually answer the questions posed by others.
hey whetstone, i can prove that god (as defined by you and other christians) does not exist. it's called 'history'. you see before christianity, there was judaism, and before that there were all these egyptian religions. now the funny thing is, those egyptians religions bear a striking resemblance to judaism and christianity. concepts of the dying and reviving god, based mainly on the idea that the seasons change, everything dies in winter, and in spring, plants grow, mammals procreate, etc.....
...you might also want to research the egyptian god horus, whose story was told for centuries before the liar jesus was righteously punished by romans, who for their just feat, were the inspiration for Trojan brand condoms. It's funny, horus lives nearly the exact same life as what is told in the 'gospels'. so does krishna, and a host of other spiritually deceptive people who have lived throughout time. the overwhelming evidence in favour of imposters ptretending to be the son of god, rules in my favour
We have no reason to believe that space is finite, how do you think anyone could prove the universe had a beginning? Not everything has a cause, and there is no logical support of that cause being god. You assume god had to exist because time had to have had a beginning in which the universe didn't already exist. You only see what you want to see, so please, ffs, stop posting this garbage on a site full of people who only consider your ytmnds to be an annoyance.
On the quantum level, Premise 1 (everything has a cause) is (depending on who you talk to) either highly questionable or demonstrably false. Ergo, your first premise is not (pardon the pun) to be taken as gospel. Add to that the fact that all indications are that the initiation of the universe (that we can detect) began on the quantum level, and you'll see that scientists have no need for a "first cause" to explain the existence of this space/time continuum, though it's fun to look for one and some do.
So what's gods cause? Of course I always felt that human’s mental capacity is too limited to grasp cretin truths in any form so I'm sure anything that might have brought GOD to be would be far beyond our realm of understanding. gg whetstone this is getting a well earned 5. (Much unlike your evolution ytmnd.)
Seriously, I think mankind will never solve this, because our brain is just too limited for this kind of stuff. Same as like some of the man-apes previous to men, they did have the same size brain, had humor, but just couldn't think out of the box, they didn't have imagination whatsoever. They were also limited to think in a small box, though our "box" is way bigger. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.
You are entilted to your opinion, but its an opinion at best, foolishness at worse. To think you could apply human developed laws to a device as large as the "universe" as we know doesn't work. Humans like to explain how things work, we know the universe has expanded, but we don't know and cant explain how or why it chose to and who or what willed it to do so., because the evidence of it doesn't exist, anywhere.
It is a falacy in our own logic, and when we run into barriers we like to use factors that are not clearly understood or logical from a scientific aspect. Don't know why something happens? God willed it. Thats what you are using here in this argument. I am not opposed to people using science or god to explain the creation of the universe, but I disagree on the priniclple that humans _can't_ understand something as mysterious and ancient as that. You get a 3 for general effort, btw.
1/ According to your theory, the self-sufficient prior cause to the universe "is beyond (...) everything the human mind can observe". Err... you're human, right ? So what's your point ? Are you a liar ? 2/ It may "sound like" God to you. To millions of people it sounds a lot more like a Flying Spaghetti Monster. This sh!t is called subjectivity. Thus it's not scientific.
It's unfortunate that such a good propagandist should be forced to bear the crtuch of religion. Your mistake is in commiting the same follies as you attribute to your critics. Certainly, you must understand how hypocritical you appear. You are attempting to take scientific arguments and apply them to your religious beliefs. Science is about observation, experiment, and discovery, not taking convenient selections of the truth and making it your gospel. Put this comment in one of your YTMNDs.
I love your work Whetstone. Keep it up. There's a lot of unkowns though and I really don't think this proves that there is a god. (Although, I don't think there's enough evidence to disprove god either). So while I disagree with your statement I respect your maturity and intelligence when it comes to making an argument, expecially one so heated.
Hey Whetstone, Im from the future and I must prove to you how God exists right here. Paradox Universes! The very meaning of it means that a Universe can be made from changing an original Universe, this means that the Universe knows its own past present and future and in such, has a consciousness. Which in turn mean that the Multiverse in itself IS God! Complicated? Yes. But all the same true.
I've heard this alot, and It pretty much proves nothing, we can pretty much agree that The universe is existance itself, So anything outside must be non-existance, therefore your God is non-existance, You see, Theres No way Non-existance can "exist" Without another area that does indeed exist (our universe) so in a way, Non-existance was the cause for existance, and existance cannot exist without non existance
That said, I'd like to ask why you think that we humans, in the year 2006, have anywhere near the intelligence to come up with the correct conclusion as to how we were created, or how existence came to be. As said earlier, the human race once thought the world was flat, owning a television would have you labeled as a witch and murdered, and way far back, creating fire made you god-like. How can you possibly think that we have any answers? I understand that it is human nature to be curious and question,
but to draw a conclusion!? Preposterous. Some day we may be able to travel time, read peoples’ minds, and create life with a though! To say that is impossible and could never happen is narrow minded and just plain ignorant. Impossibilities are merely what people perceive as current limitations. Electricity was once impossible. And also, perhaps, existence.
A vergance.... a point were time does not exist....stuck inbetween a Beggining and an End.... Your YTMND is full of holes.... mainly... you side track far to much... the original proposal of the YTMND was good....should have stayed with it and left it.... I hate to 3 a decent concept.... however it phailed to accualy pinch....
very nice but, you are thinking of time as linear when actually thats only one demension of it that we experience, think of it as more circular i could get more into this but i would have to write an essay to explain to you all the implications of what i said. In any case, think of everything as always existing and were just experiencing a small part of what reality actually is, causality does not apply outside of the linear mapping of reality. If you want to know more about this message me. :)
Sorry, but if your attempting to prove logically or scientifically that a god/deity exist, you have fallen short. To prove my point, you have made the assumption that matter, space, and time are attributes only related to the universe. This might be true, but since you can't prove the existence (or lack thereof) of matter, space, and time outside of a universe then you can't prove that they are "universe-specific".
One big problem with all the arguments about, well everything infact, is that we can only deduce truth or facts by applying laws or statements that themselves are derived from other (usually simpler) truths or facts. This creates the notion of a ultimate truth or fact that is the mother of all facts and truths. This "ultimate" cannot be subject to any law nor statement since there is no higher truth nor fact. Thus we cannot hope to prove anything. We can only indicate that the possiblity of something might
be higher or lower than previously thought. This scale of probability is, sadly, subject to a never-ending change of parameters since new knowledge is presented to the arguments all the time. What had a 90% probability might be 89% tomorrow since the scale upon wich we mesure the argument's probability has changed.
What I am trying to say is: Nothing that is, can be, unless we accept it to excist.
So if you don't accept that (for example) the air excist, it doesn't, FOR YOU. This doesn't mean it doesn't
excist for others though. So what I can see is that you belive that God excist and you accept this to be the truth. This may be true for you but not for others. So who or what created everything, the universe, matter and time and space? I would say that it is every single thing that accepts the notion of it. The only units of time that come into excistance are those that chose to accept to excist. The only atoms that excist are those that chose to. Hard to belive, Hard to understand but indeed possible...
I fully agree with you on this subject, and think you are a very intellectual person. However, I think you should seriously dumb down some of the ideas in your YTMND. This YTMND is the second hardest thing I've tried to comprehend, nest to religion itself, and the average YTMND user isn't going to sit down for a day straight trying to make sense of it. Aside from that, this is the best Informational YTMND I've seen.
I really enjoyed this man, thanks for making this and more power to you to keep doing this kinda stuff.
It is sad that so many people automatically disregard anything you put up and just sink back into their comfort zone of their own opinions and refuse to let anyone or thing challenge them.
I will say, I don't think God can ever be proven entirely - that's why it's called a faith. This is an important issue however - if people choose to disregard it, it's their loss - and it could be a huge one.
So many people demand evidence of a God of some sorts... I just don't get it. We can't even answer many simple questions about the universe, and yet people think that they can prove or disprove a higher power? Fact is that atheism teaches that life (and thus humankind) is nothing more than a chemical reaction guided by instincts and logic. By this opinion, we could clearly gather that the thing known as 'free will' is nothing but an illusion. We simply run by our programming and end when our time is up...
... and thus, we are reduced to little more than machines in the eyes of the logic driven atheist. But there is the problem... Logic. Human beings are some of the most illogical creatures known to exist. If we were driven solely by programming and instincts, we would have no need for emotions, no need for a feeling of self-preservation (cause the species would live on in the event of our deaths), and no need for creativity or entertainment. From this, we can clearly gather that we have something that...
... seperates us from the machines. Is it a soul? Possibly. Is it divine intervention? Maybe. Fact is, we don't really know. We have a basic idea of how the human brain works, but there is no logical reason for humanity to do 99% of the sh*t it does. Our stupidity and failure to conform to logic is more proof of a greater power than any theory could ever be. We are not machines. We think, we feel, and we do irrational sh*t constantly. Logic has no place in human nature. And thus, a God must exist.
LOL, god of the gaps. :D
The First Cause could have been anything. Calling it a 'singularity' is a way of saying that it somehow created all the 'stuff' (space, time, and matter), and since it's /a/ thing (we only know of one Big Bang), it's a singularity. Either way, the First Cause could have been anything. An accident, even. Thing is, we don't know. Using God to explain things science hasn't explained is a logical fallacy.
Wonderful ytmnd, the problem is that you make too many assumptions in your statement. You disregard your first statement saying that things must be created by some outside force and then claim that "god" is beyond that force. Then you basically state that because we dont know why the universe started expanding it must have been god. Thats a pretty big leap in judgment just on logic. Its a wonderful ytmnd and Im sure it would make sense to those who have never taken a philosophy class.
Yeah, couldn't watch the whole thing because you were too wrong. It would have been a waste of time to continue. Honestly, all you did was go "Well SOMETHING had to cause everything!" Just as childish and silly as all the defenses you cast down at the beginning. Your religion is referred to as faith because that is all it has to sustain it. Thanks for spreading ignorance, and since you're stupid I guess I'll just have to tell you--that was sarcasm. Eat your one knowing it's the lowest I could give you.
alright, i read the first 50 or so comments and saw nothing of taking the argument to a different set philosophy, dualism as we know (correct me if im wrong) would mean that everything has an equal opposite, so therefore "existance" which is a much better way of saying your "universe" would have to have its complete opposite to exist, a thought cannot be understood unless the absence of it is also understood, so, you would have to give a name to that which is not "existance"
looking futher at this would suggest that that which is (not "existance") and "existance" are the same thing, being one whole two sided coin, this could be taken as a way of explaining your theory of "god" (horrid word) to be true, what it does in my own mind is just prove that your first cause is the other half of your "universe", are a dual sided idea which must exist, therefore that in its own combination is your "god" not the first cause alone
1'ed for lack of logic. You are saying that all things "come to be" because of another thing. The universe came to be because of another thing. That doesn't prove the existence of god, because it doesn't not prove that he was what caused it to "come to be". Finally, if there is a god, he must have "come to be" as well. So what caused him? And what caused what caused him? Isn't this a bit of a flaw in your logic?
As you all may or may not know, the "Big Question" is never truly answered. Our universe could have been created from another dimensional universe, but of course what created that dimension. I believe the whole existence dilemma suffers from a space time paradox. Things come into existence in a present time, let's assume that present time is "neutral" which leaves past and present as "negative and positive" of a space time continuum wavelength. The neutral zone is where things enter their existence and.....
Very well made, I give you that but we must look towards history rather than science to prove the existence of God (assuming Christian, Jewish, or Muslim). Like you said at the end of the YTMND, which God it might be can never really be proven since humans have been living on this planet for about 100,000 years and I doubt that all the religions that exist today existed at the dawn of mankind.
Stating that the underlying cause of the universe is self-sufficient denies Causality, which is the basis of your argument. Also, you make some weird leaps of logic - just because the current universe originated from a singularity doesn't mean this singularity is/was God, UNLESS of course, you acknowledge that to you, God is simply a creator as opposed to a metaphysical being as described by every theistic religion. Your argument also assumes that entropy is irreversible, which is not proven (or disproven).
Eh, looks like you just added several steps to the same old argument. Just because it's something you don't understand doesn't mean it was a god. Man weaves a basket and says "Look I made a basket." Man looks at the sky and says "It's there so someone made it. Some guy like me, only he is really big."
It's a lot of throwing around random facts and opinion, but what you're forgetting, is that scientists aren't always right either.
I don't understand why Thiests and Athiests have to know everything. Why can't both groups just understand that the universe in it's entirety is out of our perception?
BTW, preaching religion on YTMND = teh suck.
I really appreciate how you've given reasoning and responded in a very civil manner. That's what makes me like your site so much. Too many times, with or without fallacies, the tone of a religious/conversion (you know what I mean) YTMND is so arrogant. I still have strong doubts, like how you can jump to an abstract concept like a diety and assume it can transcend all other barriers, especially simply coming into existence, but this makes me think and I applaud that. Nice job.
Alright, but before the Universe, there was no first cause and so there was no need for any cause of the universe's beginning. The law of causality relies on time, space and matter. Without this, it cannot exist. Also, can you prove that it was a god that may have created our universe? You could hypothesize that it was a superior race that lived outside the confines of space and time and matter, and our universe was just some freak accident or the result of the invention of some very specific rules. >=)
I'm a Christian, but I have to disagree with your reasoning. You say that everything must have a cause. This is true. But this is a law of the universe. That's why God, being outside the universe, doesn't need a cause. So far, that's right. But, while events IN the universe require a cause, the START of it doesn't. Think about it. The start of the universe is also the start of all laws. Therefore, the law of causality does not exist, and therefore does not apply, during the creation of the universe
Stupid.
Ockham's Razor: Don't add unnecessary steps. God doesn't solve the problem, because, by your "logic", something would have had to create him (deliberately lowercase, bitch). You try to solve this by saying god is "self-sufficient". Why can't the universe be? Why does it have to be created if god doesn't.
Please Die. Do not pass pearly gates. Do not collect afterlife. Become wormfood.
Bitch.
Its not an interesting point. Its an ancient point. Plato was using a this same basic argument. Even my alleged "80 iq logic mind[sic]" can see that it easily breaks down. How come the universe can't be self sufficient? Do you know, from experience, that universes are not self-sufficient. Maybe, just maybe, modern, educated people with high-tech equipment and complex mathematics are better at figuring sh*t out than a bunch of camelf*ckers in caves.
It is good to see there are others out there with minds sufficient to realize that the only thing...in this physical universe...that comes from nothing...is nothing. Thus, our physical universe had a cause apart from our physical universe. Nobody can dispute this fact, though we can all ponder what that extraphysical cause might be. It all came from somewhere...just not here.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link