Boshko

Your basic premise is completely groundless, just read up on Quantum Mechanics, billions of uncaused events are happening every second.

Media-1

Are you certain of this? How so?

Media-1

bgponder

Media 1:

Supposing your first premise true (not that I do, particularly--re Boshko's suggestion that you read up on QM), then you have simply defined "God" as first cause. Yet you have not as yet differentiated "God" from the classical formulations of pantheism, Christianity, Islam, ad infinitum, so, to read between the various lines, or the lines themselves already offered here--even if we do concede that there is a first cause, what are you offering besides arguments from antiquity ("One of the oldest proofs for the existence of God goes something like this:") to compel us to accept the ancient baggage that the very word "God" implies as existent?

hinduwoman

In fact, according to hinduism, the whole universe is God. so you don't need a first cause. Your argument is valid only if god and the universe are separate.

bd-from-kg

Media-1:

In response to my question “in what sense is it 'possible' that something that exists might not exist?”, you said:

This misses the point once again. The question was not what it means to say that it is possible that something might not have existed in the past or might not exist in the future, but what it means to say that it is possible that it might not exist now. I can see two possibilities: (1) It is logically possible that it does not exist, or (2) Given what I know, there is a nonzero probability that it does not exist. But neither of these interpretations seems to make your argument work. For example, there is no way of knowing whether it is logically possible for the universe to not exist. On the other hand, given what we know the probability that the universe does not exist is zero. So on the second interpretation of “possible”, the existence of the universe would seem to be “necessary”, while on the first it’s not clear whether it’s “necessary” or “contingent”. On the other hand, God’s existence isn’t logically necessary (more on this later) and given what I know there is (to say the least) a nonzero probability that He doesn’t exist. Thus for either of these meanings of “possible” it is possible that God doesn’t exist, so His existence (if He exists at all) is contingent.

The point here is that I don’t see any definitions of what it means for something to be “contingent”, or “possible”, or “necessary” which makes your argument go through. If you want your argument to be taken seriously you’ll have to provide such definitions.

Why? Suppose that God is a “necessary” being (whatever that means), and that He “necessarily” created this universe. Wouldn’t that mean that this universe is “necessary”?

And if He didn’t “necessarily” create this universe, what determined that He did? Was it some aspect of God? Then that particular aspect must be contingent: it could have been otherwise. But if it was something outside of God, then God was not originally “everything that is”; something else existed – namely the thing that caused Him to create this universe. And that “something else” must have been contingent.

In short, I don’t see how you can get from a “necessary” being (and nothing else) to a “contingent” creation.

OK, so how does it follow that it is impossible for “reality” not to exist? It seems to me that all that you’ve shown is that if reality exists (whatever that means) it must necessarily have the “property of existence” (whatever that means). Frankly, this seems to be nothing but a word game, and not a very interesting one at that.

In fact, just above you seem to be arguing that if the universe is all that exists, it exists necessarily, because “existence must necessarily be a characteristic of reality”. If this argument is meaningful at all (which I seriously doubt), if the universe is all that exists (i.e., it is “reality&#8221 , then existence must be a necessary characteristic of it – i.e., it necessarily exists. This wipes out your argument that the universe cannot be the only thing that exists because it’s “contingent”, because if it’s the only thing that exists it’s “necessary”.

Sez who? This may be how you “conceptually understand” universes, but why am I compelled to accept your conceptual understanding? If it’s possible for something to be “necessary” (whatever that means) why not the universe?

Again, I don’t know what that means. Does it mean that it’s logically impossible that God doesn’t exist? If so, how is the concept that God does not exist logically contradictory? If it doesn’t mean that, what does it mean?

In any case, if you’re trying to argue that God must exist because He is defined as a “necessary” being, you’re just repeating the original form of the Ontological Argument, which is transparently fallacious. If X is defined to be a necessary being, it follows that if X exists, it exists necessarily, but it doesn’t follow that X exists.

Finally, you said in a reply to jdawg2:

Why? Why can’t something that could possibly not exist simply exist without having been created? This doesn’t seem to be a self-contradictory concept. Once again, if you were to explain what you mean by “possible” you might shed some light on this.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

Blu

This is the point I weeded out from what you have written: If there is a omnipotent God looking down on us, why does this great and powerful being allow suffering and death to occur on earth?

Some human beings believe in a "God" that organized religion teaches. I personally believe that there is a "presence" or an energy that is "behind" the workings of the Universe, or what we can deduce from science involving the Universe. I don't think human beings have capacity to correctly define or understand this "presence." So we use words like "God" and "Allah" and we give this God a persona so we as humans can relate.

I believe that we are all energy. Physical energy is the most densest form of the energy (ideas from Quantum mechanics.) But what is the energy that pumps our hearts and allows the brain to function? That is another form of energy we do not see but we can see the results of this energy and we can also measure this energy through EEG (involving the brain.) We can even say this energy that makes the body function stems from what popular religion have termed "soul."

What is the energy of the neurons in our brains? Some call that consciousness. What is consciousness then? Is it an accumilation of perceptions, what we have learned from experience, temperment, intelligence? And doesn't all of this determine were the "energy" or activity of the brain goes? Could this be the "soul"? It can have many names.

If there is a "soul" than what could be its purpose? Does it even have a purpose? Evolutionary psychologist say that it is to procreate. Is the purpose of all lifeforms,including the human animal to just procreate and fulfill our evolutionary whims? Is our reptilian brain so powerful that we are nothing more than that?

I like to think with my frontal lobe and the cerebral cortex so I would have to say no. Some our slaves to the parts of their brains that our considered less evolutionary advanced then the gray matter that is the cerebral cortex. They choose not to think before they act. They are the criminals, murders, aggressors, rapists, and terrorists of our society.

Back to the question: why does this God allow such horrendous things to happen? Maybe it is because we are not puppets and that is why humans, as individuals and as a species, have complete absolution, or freedom, over their own destiny.

Destiny is the path we are going down through the ages of our "evolution." Individuals are going through a certain kind of evolution you could say as well. The results of individual evolution are the microcosom and the results that we can see as a species (agriculture, democracy, etc) is the macrocosom. What does it mean to become evolutionary advanced as an individual? Does it mean we are intelligent and excel at math and science? Or does it mean something else?

To be evolutionary advanced could mean that we as individuals are capable of positive selfless acts. Saving lives not for monetary gain or for power but for honest humanitarianism. This is one of the biggest aspects that separate us from lower lifeforms.


So does that mean anyone who murders, who perpetuates acts of terrorism (Osama Bin Ladan) and violence mean they are not as evolutionary advanced as someone who disregards their own life in order to save someone else? I would say yes. He still has a cerebral cortex so what makes him not as evolutionary advanced? Could something else determine evolution of an individual? Is it the energy that determines individual evolution?

We all know that there is more to everything then just a physical realm. There may be dozens, if not more, dimensions to the Universe. Just because our human brains haven't learned to determine all of these mysteries, does that mean it cannot be? Just because we can't fully comprehend what it means does that make in not Universal truth?

There is an aborigine in Australia who has never seen modern society. If you try to explain to him what computers are and what they do, he will think you are possessed by spirits and laugh at you. He cannot comprehend computers so they are not true for him, they don't exist for him.

Who knows what humans will be capable of doing 200 or 300 years from now. Maybe the theories regarding "spiritual" type theories and advances in quantum mechanics will give birth to a knowledge we can't even begin to fathom or dream.

Isn't it important to realize we are limited in what we know and decide maybe an open mind is very valuable? Discoveries come from open mindedness. If you close your mind how can you receive knowledge...how can you advance?

What is spirituality anyway? People get caught up with words rather than meanings. Spirituality can mean anything to anyone. We all have different brains and different perceptions about life. Some people see the surface other people are aware of other aspects of the surface. Some people just ask themselves a lot of questions rather than sum everything up and administer judgment.

Being human and knowing that there is still so much room for the advancment in our knowledge of the Universe should create a certain degree of humility. I don't pretend to know everything there is to know. And I also realize what is true for me may not be true for another. So I stay away from judging other people's perceptions about their lives, their Gods, their general beliefs and the meaning of all of the above.

Godless Sodomite

The problems with your argument have been pointed out in numerous posts. But I'm interested in the above statement. You say that you find the argument convincing. Were you a believer before you heard the argument? Or is this the argument that turned you into a believer after years of non-belief? I only ask because I've not yet met anyone who has become a believer based on such a poor argument. Arguments such as these merely proved the faithful with reasons for keeping the faith and are useless for conversions.

-Jerry

Technos

How about this one?

1. Protons and Neutrons are composed of quarks.
2. Quarks and electrons are clusters of energy accumulated by their own charges, as well as by the gravity that the movement of energy produces (as put forth by Einstein).
3. Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, thus everything composed of atoms is ultimately composed of energy on a quantum atomic level.
4. Energy can not be created nor destroyed, and is never static, so there's no need for a creator. All things in the universe are natural or man made.

Technos

PS: I look forward to your reply. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Technos ]</p>

Blu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Technos:
[QB]


How about this one?

1. Protons and Neutrons are composed of quarks.
2. Quarks and electrons are clusters of energy accumulated by their own charges, as well as by the gravity that the movement of energy produces (as put forth by Einstein).
3. Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, thus everything composed of atoms is ultimately composed of energy on a quantum atomic level.
4. Energy can not be created nor destroyed, and is never static, so there's no need for a creator. All things in the universe are natural or man made.

Hi,

I am focusing on one aspect of this post and that is: "All things in the Universe are natural or man made."

Now let's separate this a little. The Universe or the concept of the Universe, was created by the intellect of man therefore it is flawed and certainly limited but yes everything human was man-made including all science, all perceptions, all beliefs, etc.

Beliefs, perceptions, even all things we know today involving quantum mechanics and other aspects of science and physics isn't the limit to what there is left to discover. There is evidence that points out that the Earth had a beinning, that the lifeforms had a beginning so isn't it safe to say that energy can change form and expand, develop...become stronger... pick your word.

There is energy "behind" all physical matter. What is the "energy's" beginning if there even was one? Does it have a source? I am talking about an Absolute Source. There are systems of systems on earth. Could there be systems upon systems upon systems in the Universe? There is the quark on one end of the spectrum and then on the other hand people could argue that there is the Universe. The Universe can be anything.

Focus on the Universe. We are in a house, in our city, in our state, in our country, in our continent, in our Earth, in our Solar System, in our Universe. So what is beyond the Universe? Is there anything beyond the Universe?

What about the theory about dimensions? Could advancement in Quantum mechanics prove or disprove this theory? And if it is somehow proven in the future what would happen? I think it is safe to say that human beings do not have the capacity to comprehend the workings etc. of Universe. It is like opening up the secrets of life, of existence, of dimensions, of all matter, to essentially have the knowledge of "God."

Can our human brains which are still limited to the five sensory world and space and time ever fully comprehend its complexity?

Some people call their Creator, the Universe. Did it not have a "hand" in creating matter? Did the Universe do it? Or did aspects inside the Universe create the planet and all life?

I personally don't hold my heart responsible for my life. Because my heart is one organ (or system) that has a "hand" in keeping me alive. I am a system. It works in combination with so many other aspects that keeps a human being or animal, functioning. Could the same be true with the Universe? Could aspects of the Universe work together to keep things running? Could the end of the Microcosm-Macrocosm scale be the Universe?

"God-Universe" could be one all-encompassing macro-system. And all of matter, life, planets, etc are systems within systems of "God-Unverse." So doesn't this mean that every one of us, including quarks and microrganisms, is God? We think of Universe as being out there away from us. Could it be around us, inside our individual systems?

I have a body and I am human and my systems are all a part of my body, but I don't think of them as separate because the heart can't function without the lungs, and all systems in the body can't function without the brain. So none of the systems in the Universe can function unless all function together. That is definitely not chaos or disorder. What you can't understand doesn't make it chaotic. What you can't comprehend doesn't make it an untruth.

Media-1

There are several possibilities for a naturalistic universe without a creator-god. Here are the most popular ones I've heard:

1. The universe has always existed in some form.

2. The universe was/is self-created.

Of course there might be other possibilities that I haven't thought of. Number one seems to suggest that the singularity was eternal, creative, intelligent, and purposeful. In other words, "godlike." I don't find anything wrong with that view. It seems consistent with the Christian God. Number two seems to involve a logical absurdity.

Media-1