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:
If you establish that the universe is expanding then it cannot be as described in Genesis 1-2, which is described as a static universe. Do you accept that the Bible is not always the literal truth?
It does not follow that because the universe is expanding that the universe 'came to be'. To 'come to be', there has to be something before it. The universe, by your definition, includes time, so there was nothing before it, because 'before' requires the concept of time.
"non-intelligence cannot create intelligence." it's called evolution. i.e. we are smarter than the apes. we evolved from apes. therefore, non-intelligence can develop into intelligence. you fail. oh, and you neglected to mention the big bang theory. i wholeheartedly disagreee with you and find your logic ridiculous, but i HAVE to +1 for "also, poland." it's just my nature.
Peyton Randolph (VA) 5 September 1774 - 22 October 1774
Henry Middleton (SC) 22 October 1774 - 26 October 1774
Peyton Randolph (VA) 10 May 1775 - 24 May 1775
John Hanc*ck (MA) 24 May 1775 - 1 November 1777
Henry Laurens (SC) 1 November 1777 - 10 December 1778
John Jay (NY) 10 December 1778 - 28 September 1779
Samuel Huntington (CT) 28 September 1779 - 10 July 1781
Thomas McKean (DE) 10 July 1781 - 5 November 1781
John Hanson (MD) 5 November 1781 - 4 November 1782
Sorry, good sir. This is faulty logic. The First Cause has been refuted many times. I am a Catholic, but also a philosopher, and I have only seen persuasive arguments for God's existence, not solid proofs. You need faith for religion, reason only aids so far... also this is way too long with a simple argument, a faulty one.
Elias Boudinot (NJ) 4 November 1782 - 3 November 1783
Thomas Mifflin (PA) 3 November 1783 - 30 November 1784
Richard Henry Lee (VA) 30 November 1784 - 23 November 1785
John Hanc*ck (MA) 23 November 1785 - 29 May 1786
Nathaniel Gorham (MA) 6 June 1786 - 2 February 1787
Arthur St. Clair (PA) 2 February 1787 - 22 January 1788
Cyrus Griffin (VA) 22 January 1788 - 2 March 1789
Speeding up the animation over the part where you make logical errors (i.e. the crux of your argument about what constitutes the First Cause) does not strengthen your case. If you are going to claim to use logic, you can't make assertions like "Can beauty come from non-intelligence?" or "Sounds like God, doesn't it?" are as logicially sound as 'Just look at a sunset'.
You also did not resolve the 'what came before God' objection. If the Universe exhibits characteristics A,B, and C and 'to have characteristics A,B,C' you must have been 'created by a creature that has characteristics A,B, and C', then if "God has characteristics A,B,C" the question 'what created God' is valid. 'Nothing came before God because he's God' is equivalent to 'Nothing came before the Universe because it's the Universe'. You can say 'God Is.', but it is as logicially sound as 'The Universe Is."
If god is not governed by our logic, then why even discuss him? He's the equivalent of a square circle. Also, there is a reason for the "rock so heavy even he cannot lift it" questions... they demonstrate the problems of using Omnis. Omni categories are illogical by default as they allow illogical actions to occur as well as logical actions.
Your argument is that because the universe exists, something started it, but then what created God? I know you answered that in your site, however all you said was that the idea was stupid. Your main argument proves your argument wrong. Sorry man.
The human mind can't grasp something with no beginning, and whether it was God who had no beginning or the universe, it doesn't matter. No matter how hard a person tries they can't prove/disprove God.
Your theory is wrong. Mildly intelligent, but wrong. Entropy says that energy declines due to the expansion of space but theres documented proof that eventually the universe will collapse, thereby reseting the system. Therefore its possible the universe has existed for an eternity before now. Also, "non-alive cannot make alive" is a terrible argument. When the universe began it was primordial basics like hydrogen. These are the basic blocks for life. I believe in god for differn't reasons. 1 for not funny
5d for effort. I stopped agreeing with you once you stated that the first cause had to be alive and intelligent. I do agree with you about the first cause being 'super-natural' - unexplainable. I'm an agnostic bastard; I don't believe that we can know if there is a god or the true nature of god. (if one exists ^_^)
I liked the idea, and it started well. But, in the end you haven't proven anything. Causality is a redundant arguement made as a backlash against scientific explanations of the origins of the universe (which cannot in turn be used to disprove a God): "what was the cause of the cause of the universe...erm, must be God", in the end even you dont know, so you just assume divine intervention, pat yourself on the back and dont think to try and look any further.
I don't feel like reading all the comments, so this may have already been said-
You can't use science to prove the existance of a God, or use science in making a case for religion. Also, it life CAN come from non-life. If the conditions are just right, and the right molecules are present, the formation of amino acids is possible. This is incredible rare, which would explain why there are no other forms of life outside of Earth. (As we know so far)
It's possible the big bang occured after the previous universe, after expanding to it's limits, lessened in size until returning to it's previous, highly dense, shape.
You failed once you made the assertion of God. It really just seems to say 'it Could be God, it could be a prior Universe imploding on itself and rexploding, it could be anything'.
If something that occurs must have a cause, then what caused God?
Really though, your unfounded assumptions that you state as fact such as non intelligence cannot create intelligence and that life cannot come from non life are rediculous,_you_dont_know_. Zealous religious types trying to charade as logical people who can present carefully constructed arguements...Im not saying I can disprove or prove the existance of a creator, what I can do however is disprove your arguement. But I guess at this point nowone is still reading the comments ^_^
"Entropy says that
energy declines due to the expansion of space but theres documented proof
that eventually the universe will collapse, thereby reseting the system."
That just ain't true. There's a possibility that the universe is closed, and thus will result in a big crunch, however scientists today have found that omega is close to 1 (Closed Universe) < 1 = Flat Universe < (Open Universe).
As such, the universe will keep on expanding infinitely unto a cold and empty hibernation.
I just read that thing that DoomRater posted "http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-objections.html"... That is so retarded, so if things don't need a cause to happen, then lets skip God and say that the universe created itself without any cause... :P And scientists have observed things that happen that have no cause? Then they obviously were not looking hard enough and they didn't notice a cause. There always has to be a cause, no matter how small, like the butterfly effect...
...ok.. i cant come up with anything but my belives is that he doenst exist i belvien evolution not adam and eve and the big bang not that god created everything there are millions of other planets out there theres hella religions here and cristianity wasnt the first jews were first and so were muslims this so called jesus claims that god is his father i belive that started cristanity along with virgin mary its impossible to be pregnet with out getting knocked up.. if there is a god... he did it to mary.
You get a plus 1 because you at least tried to use logic. You have proven to a reasonable extent that something that we do not understand created the universe, but you haven't proven what. Which do you think statistically would be more likely to be the cause of the universe: A being that somehow knows everything, yet manages to make mistakes, is full of contradictions, and has yet to give us any evidence of its existence, or f*cking anything else because choice one makes no sense.
I'll keep this short and simple. The teleological/inductive argument for the existence of God has been thoroughly refuted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_design_argument
Your explanations are thoroughly unsatisfactory. If intelligence requires intelligence to be created, then God would require a creator, unless you make this an exception, but this breaks the rule since even one instance in which intelligence doesnt require an intelligent creator removes the 100% certainty assumed for proof
no ..whetstone, arguing the existance of god in this manner only serves to divide. if you truly want to help your fellow ytmnd'er, address the heartfelt writings of men like robert ingersoll (see especially ch. XII of 'about the holy bible') or give counsel to the hearts of those who feel betrayed and offended by a god they thought was merciful and good..
That's full of logical fallacies...and you're making way too many assumptions. 1. You're assuming the Big Bang was the creation of everything. 2. You're assuming that there has to be a "first causal"...and... 3. Your George Washington analogy is horrible. He may have been the first president, but there were still people before him who created his position. Oh, and the "laws of geometry" are completely man-made. Please have a basic understanding of physics and mathematics before you spout nonsense.
Yet still, if everything comes from something, any God there is must have some from something. You can't just say that whatever is outside of our universe is immune to the laws of our universe. It's like saying whatever's outside of Earth's atmosphere is immune to its gravity.
And there WAS a President before Washington. In fact,several. In Congress Assembled.
Let's look at why God DOESN'T exist, though, shall we? What makes Christianity and all that any different than Roman and Greek "mythology"?
2 stars for trying. But saying, "Durr, causality doesn't apply to God because nothing existed before God" begs the question (in the original definition of the term) so obviously that I trust that even you can figure it out. *** Causality is a universal rule; perhaps it breaks down at the beginning of the universe because BEFORE THE UNIVERSE began causality did not apply. *** Or, perhaps, something OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE caused it, preserving causality nicely (in this universe anyway).
I like this very much and it is basically my standpoint, yet with a few differences, and since this is not totaly about religion, I do not find it necessary to state them. I do, however, have some statements. You are assuming that life cannot come from non-life and that intelligence can not come from non-intelligence. It has not been proven by science, and conversely has started to be proved opposite. Dr. Cyril Phenom Peruma sealed what is beleived to be the contents of a primitive Earth atmosphere.
No one can really say where the universe came from, and it all stems from personal belief and thought about this subject, or loosely, religion. I am an atheist, so I do not believe in a "god" but I can't explain what started the universe... but this doesn't mean I'm wrong in my belief because if one asks a christian or catholic the same question, they can't answer it for sure either. So while while whetstone is saying that a god or higher power created the universe, it absolutely doesn't prove anything...
You're an idiot. All cosomological arguments suffer from the falacy of special pleading. Even a basic Philosophy 101 course would have taught you this. Basically, your first "Objection" slide doesn't address the question. You state that everything needs a cuase but then proceed to create a special class of objects ("god") which needs no cause. That's straight up ignorant dog.
inside a jar and pulsed ultra-violet through it. Within a very short amount of time he observed among other things, ATP, and I beleive clumping of proteins. If you beleive in evolution and natural selection you will also beleive that from that over the course of time, viruses or pryons, or some other primitive life would evolve due to mutation.
P.S. It's actually Cyril Ponnamperuma, my bad.
P.P.S.- A response would be appreciated.
People have a tendency to confuse the Christian God, and the concept of an omnipotent supernatural being, because people refer to them by the same names. Change it to "PROOF OF THE MAGICAL OMNIPOTENT UNICORN LAWLZ!!!11" or something like that. The logic remains the same, but people won't confuse it with the Christian God.
You had my 5 at the NEDM reference. A noble effort, and though I do find your logic flawed, I am a Roman Catholic and I believe in God. I just don't think we as humans were ever meant to ever fully grasp the concept of one. Faith is good enough for me; everybody has their reasons to believe what they do.
Simply put, it will never be certain for any of us to truly know what happened and if it happened. Whether or not, civilization often felt the need to have a superior being to them. Though I admire your bravery for sharing your insight, people will never truly know whats going on in this universe. For now, we really need to focus on our own lives and not who or what created them. Only time will tell where these things go, but YTMND isn't the place for that. Good luck
First, let me say that I am Roman Catholic. Now let me say your argument is flawed. Life can arise by chance. It's just very unlikely. There doesn't have to be intelligence behind intelligence. And, even if I were to accept this as true, that there needs to be a higher intelligence behind any intelligence, St. Thomas Aquinas's assertion that the First Mover doesn't need to be moved doesn't make much sense. I thought every effect needed a cause?
Hey I've got a great idea why don't you make a bold "I know more than you do" statement on a medium that's meant to be humorous and irreverent?
You should look into air-dropping this in detailed leaflets over the ocean. That would have about as much point as you posting this on this website.
Pick your battles better.
Your argument has several inherent flaws. The obvious one is that you say all things have a cause, except God. Either all things have a cause, or they do not. The other is Life cannot come from non life, and as such, intelligence cannot come from non intelligence. Intelligence evolved at the same pace life did. And the theory of life coming from amino acids, proteins, etc can be read about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
as I do not have the room to discuss it here.
So you're saying that George Washington magically appeared out of nowhere? And had no mother and father? Really, this is just baseless. Why can't the big bang be the 'first cause'? Just because it's unintelligent and unalive.... hold on, what if the big bang WAS intelligent and alive? That's just as possible as a god, right? This God might have a Bible to 'prove' his existance, but from a scientific standpoint, it's statistically just as possible as an omnipresent omnipowerful individiual.
As you have used Wikipedia for your philosophical challenge, I will likewise direct your attention to another of its pages. Specifically, they discuss the work of Dr. Günther Wächtershäuser, whose iron-sulfur theory of self-promoting chemicals may hold the key to understanding the origins of life. Life may indeed come from non-life. Hence, intelligence, which only life possesses, may arise from nothingness as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_W%C3%A4chtersh%C3%A4user
Sure, there may be a higher life form that created us and the universe for that matter (which is all you are really trying to prove here), but what about the thought of being bad in life sending you do a "hell" for the rest of eternity? And if you're good, you go to this eternal paradise? Come on, that's insane. Also, do you think this higher being listens to our "prayers" and whatnot? Does going into aa building with a cross on it to pray have any effect at all on the outcome of sed prayer?
And since when do you know what god does? You said something about god 'not tempting himself', yet you clearly have no way to tell how god acts, unless you claim to hear god's message and are a prophet. Which I highly doubt. (wow, I sound really mean) How do you know that he's not lying to you? Maybe he doesn't love everyone... he did have 'his people' destroy all those other cities. Not only destroy, but to murder the men, women and children.
This is basically Aquinas' 2nd proof of the existance of God (Don't bother reading the other 4 they're basically the same idea). However, this argument is flawed. First I would like to point out to commenters that assume some conclusions that this proof does not prove the existance of a god (much less the Christian God) but only the existance of a First Cause.
But more importantly you claim that there exists another realm that is outside of human understanding and therefore outside science and reason.
...No, it doesn't. All you've "proven," is that there is something intelligent and powerful that created the universe. Not a God that listens to prayers and grants miracles. Lets say you, somehow, actually managed to create matter. And inside that matter was a world similar to ours. on that world, there's a form of life. And they believe it was you who made this world of theirs. So, they decide to construct some buildings and talk (with feeling) to you. Would you listen, let alone be able to hear?
The merit and quality are outstanding. I don't believe it, however, because you claim that since something had to cause the univere, then something had to cause God. In this case, they are equally meritless, and what's more, this only proves the existence of a Deist God and does not necessarily implicate a Christian one of any sort. Science still accounts for more than religion, so out of the two implausibilities I'll accept the one that took more work.
a clearly thought out review of the Defence of God.. makes me feel like I was in First year Philosophy all over again lol. But I must ask. If based on your position everything must have a prior cause what is God's prior cause? Second of all people can use the big bang theory as a replacement to God in your argument because all you have proven is that the World requires a cause not that God is that Cause. I would try to provide a bit better of an argument but alas my knowledge of Philosophy has declined
However you do not allow the possibility that the universe we live in is above our understanding. Life and intelligence being special and causality are not truths but rather human ideas of how the universe works. Causality, the major idea behind your argument, is a human inference based only on what we can observe. Your application of it my be an overextrapolation of it similar to how Newtonian mechanics fail at relativistic speeds.
Personally, I think that technology will progress at a rate such that as time approaches its end, computing power will appproach infinity. And in that last instant where time is at its end, right before nothingness, computing power will hit infinity (since it would have long ago become self-sustaining), and the ultimate computing expiriment will begin: simulating an entire universe from beginning to end. And it will repeat this universe. So on, ad infinium. This way, everything has a cause.
Problem solve
I gave it a 3 for the sheer fact it did have quality on it's side, but there were a few flaws I saw. 1. We know you wanted to not have this address a christian god, and you did a mostly good job. Until you started referring to god with a sexual attribute. God wouldn't need a gender for one, not to mention even in the christian belief, Adam and Eve were originally sexless and created in god's image. Therefor, god would be sexless. I see that causality flaws with god was already addressed, --
Also, though I am not sure the impossibility of it, you use logic to prove something that is outside of logic. Thus logic is creating non-logic which I don't think can be done. This leads to my personal belief that talking truthfully about the existance of gods is impossible because it is attempting to comprehend that which is by definition above human comprehension.
Here's the big flaw in your argument: "Sounds a lot like 'God' doesn't it." Hey, maybe it does - but "sounds a lot like" is NOT the equivilent of "is". Or, in simpler terms - it may be a strong argument, but it's not proof. You may rebut and say, "Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" but you'd be wrong - because that could just be some freak in a duck suit. If you're interested, I suggest checking out the philosophical difference between "necessary" and "sufficient".
Nice try in answering "Who created God?"...
But "First Cause" was a phrase that you used. Just because this supernatural force came before the universe does not mean that it was the first thing to "exist" on any plane. It could easily be that there is more than one of said supernatural beings that we are simply not aware of, could it not?
So you got a B in philo 101. Should I be impressed? +5 for attempting to bring logic and discussion to the internet. -2 for gaping logic gaps.
There have been amazing defenses of theism in the past 60 or so years of philosophy. You should try copying and pasting Kierkegaard instead of your freshman lecture notes.
1) Life can come from non-life.
2) Intelligence can come from non-intelligence.
3) You have a lot more research to do on the origins of the universe.
I'm giving it 3 stars because it's a good try, but not thought out enough. It only works on those ignorant enough that they simply need something "scientificy" to reaffirm their beliefs.
meh, nothing that hasn't been said before. although i would like to note the following: you're rebuttal of the "who created god" objection is false. The origins of God are strictly faith related. If you have faith, then you believe God has always been and always will be, however, this is just a belief. NOT a fact as you put forth. non-believers can legitamtely question the origins of god but it ultimately comes down to the fact of whether or not you believe in Him...
This was a good try to blend science with religion but i see it as flawed. You use the law of causality to say that everything that comes to be has a sufficient prior cause. You then say that there was was a first cause (that started it all) but according to the law that is incorrect. God would have had to have something before him that would have caused him. You use a Scientific law then exempt what you call the first cause. doing so you just broke the law making this assumption impossible.
You didn't provide evidence of anything, all you did was state unknowns and say, "Well it must have been god then!" Fact is, religion can't be backed up by any amount of science. If you can recognize this and still have faith in something greater than yourself, good for you, but if you have to make up some bullsh*t speculation to try to prove it to yourself and others, then maybe you need to reconsider your choice of faith.
And to all the people claiming "life can come from non-life", you're wrong. This is basic cell theory. Scientists have only been able to create parts of cells from non-life. But don't worry, because it in no way aids in the proof or disproof of the existence so it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place.
The ambiguity of the origin of the universe is not a definitive argument for the existence of God. You HAVE fallen into a stereotypical Christian Creationist argument by saying "because we don't know, means He did it." Causality does seem tempting to say that He definitively exists, however the Cause of our universe may be something completely different outside of the realm of our current sciences. A previous universe may have had different laws of the conservation of matter and energy and caused the
Big Bang. This cycle could theoretically regress infinitely as it is impossible to define a true start, however there is a start to OUR universe as Hawking and others have said. Your argument that there must have been life in the First Cause is bollocks, in my honest opinion. What is life? Life is a certain arrangement of procreating atoms that have been specifically arranged to have thought. However, is there life in a single atom? These atoms came into existence as themselves, and that is not life.
"Profoundly stupid. Well, science has yet to explain all the origins of the
universe, therefore an invisible man who lives above the clouds made it.
And he's got 10 rules, so follow them or you'll suffer for all eternity.
But He loves you." -Indeed. Ill let the other users point out the flaws in your arguement.
Religion looked at in the wrong way is Ignorance. In my own defense, I am not an atheist, do not look at me as such. I do not try to prove that God does not exist, only that using our tools of science will never give an answer. I believe that God and the Holy Spirit is an X-Factor in humans that we will never come to understand. It is the sign of respect for our luck, (our divine gifts) for reason. I just don't want you feeling better than atheists, because that's also not what God would want. Eh? ;)
I appreciate the effort, and you really had me going. But then you threw these in there (and I see many others have noted this as well)- basically, that non intelligence cannot cause intelligence and non-life cannot cause life. You can do better then that. I guess I could too, by actually finding some sources to back up my objections here, but I'm pretty sure your off base on those two items. What say you?
Non-intelligence can't called intelligence? It did. Evolution created intelligent life-forms out of amoebas. You can't take a bunch of things that "seem like common sense to you" and use that to say that proves something exists. If something caused the universe to exist, you start by hypothesizing what it is and working your damndest to disprove it. Only when you've exhausted every available option can you say you've done a thorough search. Instead, you assume a conclusion because it's what you want.
Umm, you forgot to list your *ss in the source credits. I hate how "you people" take scientific truths and add in your own assumptions in these weird cyclical ways that hardly make any sense to anyone but yourselves. Watch your little movie again and think about what you are saying, think about it scientifically and you will see you science is nothing but a flaming bag of dogsh*t.
Let me call bull on the "life can't come from non-life" argument. I'll agree that it is highly unlikely that life would emerge from nothingness, in fact I've heard it said that the probability of life just appearing out of nowhere is about the same as that of a tornado hitting a toothpick factory and leaving a model of the Louvre museum made out of toothpicks, but there are more stars in the univers then grains of sand on all the beaches on earth. I'd say the chances are pretty good.
Major, major flaws here guys...seriously.
1. You defined cause incorrectly.
2. The worldview of "Essence" was destroyed, creating a logical fallacy in causation
3. Alive can come from non-alive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis)
4.Intelligence is subjective, proof being this garbage. Intelligence is evolving, not simply placed on earth.
This is asinine, and I expect the brains of YTMND to come alive with this sh*t.
Whetstone. I first want to say very, VERY nice job doing what you did here. Appropriate music, excellent and well thought research and explanation, I think that people should applaud this even if they disagree. COMMENT: You say that it is a "flawed question" to ask "Who was the first president before Washington", while it's true that there is no answer, there was still a nation before him. Would it be possible to assume that there was a "Nation" before "god"? The Romans believed in their sets of gods.
boy are there a lot of lame assumptions here. life cannot come from non-life? what the hell makes you think that life is such an important part of the universe when it only seems to exist in one place to our knowledge? its a fluke! quit flattering yourself! i'm only going to complain about that one, cuz its the last one you said and the only one i remember. plus, you do contradict yourself with the whole "first cause" thing. statement 1: everything has a cause. statement 2: the first cause has no cause.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link