God's Existence

[dairygirl4u2c]

I ordered, somewhat, all my arguemnts against His existence being provable. I'll edit it more in the future as I'm sure it's not as clear as it could be.
I would like objections.

[quote]Depends on the level of proof you want, and how you define God. But ultimately, if you define God in any meaningful terms, or with substantial level of proof, God’s existence cannot be proven.

I believe in God’s existence, but I don’t claim it’s definitive proof.
(Faith is arbitrary; and the act of faith -- of its very nature -- involves man's free choice (libero arbitrio).)


CAUSATION
everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.


Atheists often talk about how the spaghetti monster disproves God, cause we could have been formed by it. This is not analogous completely, but it makes an important point. That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random. But, it’s still the point that it’s arbitrary, like the spaghetti monster, to say intelligence is necessary.

Now, It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. Ultimately this analogy does not fly either though, because a bike is specific, whereas the world is something that could have always been. (if god can alway have been, the world could always have been)
So we have the spaghetti monster on the one side and the bike on the other, ha.


In broader terms, there is the argument a fortiori. if there's an unending chain of events back in time, something must have made that chian. perhaps as you were saying, if existance is, even if infinte, it has to be here as an effect of something.
but, as i was saying, not necessarily. If that can just be, so can God.


Some people insist there’s “something” that just “has” to be. As Ronald Knox put it, you can add as many links and as large as you like to a chain, but at some point you have to have a peg to hang it on, reiterating the point of an infinite chain argument. Some people like to hang their argument on this “thing” that must just be.
it seems like this peg, or this thing that must just be regardless of existance is just extra fluff that theists use to say he must exist. cause if God an just be, existance can just be.
to say soemthing more needs to be is not necessary. ockham's razor, the simplest solution is prob right.
and even if there was oemthing more, it does't have to be God so much as the fabric of existance. it's just there and just is. that seems like part of existance to me, not soemthing separate from it. to use the metaphor, the peg is part of existance not soemthing separate from it.
and you can call it God, if it's even allowed to be argued that this just being is needed (which i don't think you can do) but that's not saying much.

now, the big bang actually helps verify the dogma of God's existence as certainty, because we stop talking about the never ending chain as much. But was there anything before the big bang? We shouldn’t assume so, it seems sufficient proof to say at least as far as that goes, that there ws nothing before the big bang, and if scientists are allowed to make deductions like this as a degree of proof, deductive while not inductive, the theologian should be able to too.
So, we see empiracally that there was a first cause, the big bang. if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next ones then God? Or if it was random chance, is that God? To make God’s existence mean anything, that is not God. If you define God as some abstract first cause, you’re not defining him as much if it could just be a bunch of particles or random chance.
So if particles and random chance are possible, then God’s existence isn’t proven. Even if we assume nothing before the big bang.

you'd just be stomping your foot saying that a first cause, ie God, can just be without a cause, cause he's the first cause and can't have a cause before him. it's like a leap of logic that's not necessarily warrnated or based on anything we've seen as humans empiracally.

definitive proof would be proving either logically that there was a first cause, beyond particles and random chance. proving that there wasn't anything before the big bang that went back on and on. as of now we just have evidence for God. like if you see a dark spot, you have evidence that it's a shadow and thus would need an object causing it, but it could also be a natural dark spot where the sun don't sun. (no i'm not saying in anyone's behind.....) i think it'd be techincally deductive proof, not inductive. i forget the meaning of those words or if they ar teh right words but it's one of those.


ORDER AND INTELLIGENCE
same for intelligence. that there is order to hte universe doesn't prove God.
First of all, you're arguing that something complex, ie existance, was created by something that would be presumably even mroe complex?
where'd that complexity of God come from?
ockham's razor. The simplest solution would be the most probable.

Order could just means that order happened to occur, if we assume random chance and particles.
if you define intelligence as order then sure, but that's not saying much. you have to give the intelligence consciousness to mean anything substantial.

same with somethign complex like a watch. it's just proof, even more proof, but not exhaustive. when you look at something complex like a watch, it didn't spring up out of nowhere. it got here as an end product of earth formation, and evolution, and trial and errors and all that. if it did just spring up, you'd have something.
if life can form from elementary particles, that would eventially give rise to evolution to complexity. as per the world being ordered, it seems like it just follows laws of entropy and order just happened to occur givne gravity and such. it's not an unreasonable argument. but i agree God makes most sense, just isn’t proof.


but, order, to the magnitude that exists with humans etc, tends to be almost miraclous to some. i don't think it's unreasonable to argue that order is so complex as to be almost miracalous, and put it in the proof for God category. but, i think that it evolved to what it is supports the no definitive proof argument. I suppose here it’d be reasonable to say God exists, almost certainly, but I simply cannot see how you could say for sure.the ultimate question remains, that why would something complex require something even more complex?

order is indicative of inteligent consciousness but not a proof definitively.


OTHER ARGUMENTS
but it's not without evidence theisitc faith. miracles is one. nderf.org is too.
though, nderf is pretty shaky about who or what God is doeother than many claim he exists.
miracles that can be done over and over would be very good proof in itself but that is lacking.
you could argue that miracles are proof, but, still, why would something complex ie miracles require something even more complex, ie God? This goes with the argument about about order and how it’s almost miraclulous…. It’s not definitive proof but at least with miracles, it’s much closer.

"God as existance". a catharisis so theists can certainly claim God exists. no one would deny existance, rational people anyway. and you can call that God if you want, but it's not saying much of anything.[/quote]

[rkwright]

You left out\skipped the Ontological argument

Your arguments against causation are nothing new and there are plenty of authors who have discusses these. I'll add a few comments.

[quote]everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.

Now, It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. Ultimately this analogy does not fly either though, because a bike is specific, whereas the world is something that could have always been. (if god can alway have been, the world could always have been)[/quote]

As I see it you're actually claiming two seperate arguments here, but they're running together in your logic.

1) The Universe is self-caused (paragraph 1 where you say 'if the first cause is God')
2) The universe is a chain of infinite causes (paragraph 2 where you say 'the world is something that could have always been')

1 - We find this is not true by observation. Everything in our observable world (ie the universe) has a cause. Your first argument is saying that the universe we observe is self-caused, which doesn't mesh with reality.

2 - An infinite chain of causation begs the question; why is there motion at all? Each event can be explained by the previous event, but as a whole there is no explaination.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well ironically, i was sitting in church and had somewhat of a change of heart.

as i said above about assuming nothing exists before the big bang. we can do that because it's what we observe in empiraclly minded, which is hte basis for deductive science so it goes with theology.

i should also say the same with the beginning when particles are there. we'd think, some **thing** would cause the first particle, or if the first particle was the first cause like a ticking time bomb, it's still some **thing**. it wouldn't be nothingness, ie randomness, based on our empiracl observations.
it's still not calling God much, that some thing, but it's still i suppose standard deductive proof. not exhaustive, but proof.

shouldn't be talking about God because that's too loaded of a term. the question is "first cause"... can it be proven.

incidentally, if it was nothingness and random chance.. i realized it wouldn't be random chance "causing" existance, but existance "just happening". kind of like asking where God came from, i suppose. he just happened, jsut was.

[rkwright]

[quote]as i said above about assuming nothing exists before the big bang. we can do that because it's what we observe in empiraclly minded, which is hte basis for deductive science so it goes with theology.[/quote]
I thought earlier you were arguing an infinite regress? But the big bang certainly has a finite point in time?

[quote]i should also say the same with the beginning when particles are there. we'd think, some **thing** would cause the first particle, or if the first particle was the first cause like a ticking time bomb, it's still some **thing**. it wouldn't be nothingness, ie randomness, based on our empiracl observations.
it's still not calling God much, that some thing, but it's still i suppose standard deductive proof. not exhaustive, but proof.[/quote]
I have to say your use of language makes it extremely difficult to dialogue with you, but I take from this you're starting to understand what God the argument from causation proves. Even if the big bang were true, the particles, as you state, still need to be explained. This is what we mean by God.

You're correct in that it doesn't prove much. But thats what the rest of the Summa was for, proving the qualities of God.
[quote]shouldn't be talking about God because that's too loaded of a term. the question is "first cause"... can it be proven.[/quote]
The Ontological argument is a well respected argument, and the only a priori one.