There is a god! I have proof:

 

 

My mom just came home from school supply shopping and there was NO ONE in the store at all and she was being helped by the people at office depot. There is a god!

897886[/snapback]

The NHL and NHLPA reaching an agreement is enough proof for me.

 

:mischief

There is no God the way most people conceive him. Isn't it true that God is everywhere? And isn't it true that God was never created nor could never be destroyed?

 

God is everything. You, me, all of us. We are God. Our dogs, our cats, our plants are God. The Earth is God. God is matter. God is nature. God is the universe. We are all little bits of God, of life.

It comes down to a matter of whether you're a person of faith or not.? Religion cannot be proven nor can it be disproven.

896839[/snapback]

 

Yes.

 

I'm an agnostic for these reasons. You can't find evidence for or against God's existence. It's the ultimate paradox.

896882[/snapback]

 

 

in all reality everyone is agnostic as noone has completely proven Gods existance.

897051[/snapback]

Very untrue. One must believe it is impossible to prove God's existance or believe their isn't enough evidence of his existance to be an agnostic. Not everyone is agnostic.

 

I, for one, am very strong in my Christian faith.

897451[/snapback]

 

Actually that's not true. Your definition of agnosticism is slightly wrong. Acgnosticism has to do with *knowledge* of the existence of a god. An agnostic cannot prove or disprove a god's existence because they have no *knowledge*, only *beliefs*. Theists cannot prove or disprove a god's existence. Neither can atheists. They can believe that one does or doesn't exist, but they don't *know*. If they say they do, they are lying. Therefore, everyone is technically an agnostic. You don't have to believe it is impossible to prove or disprove, it IS impossible whether you believe it or not.

 

To recap:

Agnosticism = knowledge

[A]Theism = belief

897548[/snapback]

 

precisely, thats why I started off the statement with "in all reality" by definition everyone is agnostic.

 

dictionary.com->

1

a) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

b) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

 

If you dont believe it is impossible to know whether there is a God or not youre full of s***. You can have all the faith and beliefs you want but you, like everyone else, has no true and absolute knowledge of Gods existance. They only day youll know for sure is the day you die.

 

after reading wikipedia, they state that its the philosophical view that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God, which is more accurate. When comparing agnostics to atheists they may claim not to know anything about God as well as believing that it is impossible to know, thus allowing for it to be a belief and a philosophical view. By itself its a philosophical view, but when comparing it to atheism or theism its thought of as a belief- although it really shouldnt be.

 

Id never considered myself agnostic prior to this thread, now I do along with everyone else. But I still hold the beliefs I stated earlier in the thread.

First, let me apologize for my arrogance and pride, which is due to many members of this board. I was absolutely comsumed with hatred, selfishness, and foolishness. We all have these problems, but it does not justify my obsession with them. I hope to God that you can forgive me, I sincerely hope so. It is possible to love one's enemy.

 

Yes, this is indeed Sorianofan, and I notice this board's undying obsession with God and the belief of many that God has no basis in fact, that the veracity of Its existance is a matter of faith. It requires inspiration for people to repent and improve their lives, and I come to offer you the example of a hardened and devout agnostic who has indeed seen the light.

 

To me, what I will say is totally true and logical. I am a mere mortal and prone to error, so do not take my words as true without contemplating them. However, I am totally convinced God's existance is absolutely necessar and real.

 

Because it is 2:30 AM and I cannot sleep after a very important day in my life, I am going to present my argument from that of my past writing.

 

The absolute necessity of a primary cause:

 

The universe seems to need an origin; creation seems to be necessary. Why? I believe the mass historical record reveals outcomes have reasons for existance, thus an origin. Let us think of qn example. If Xavier is a nice guy and nice people return lost items and Susie loses her watch and Xavier not only finds the watch, he knows Susie, it is only logical to assume the watch being returned is a guarenteed outcome assuming the qualities of Xavier and the description of the situation are absolutely true.

 

We know existence is absolutely true. The here and now is true. We know there was a past. However, for a result, the here and now, it appears only logical that there must be reason for it, just as there is reason that we exist, because we have parents.

 

There is two ways to approach this. There is either a first cause or an infinte regress of causes, meaning that, because there is one cause for another cause infinitely back in time, there would be no reason for a first one. Every single cause would essentially have a cause of its own and no problem is posed. Furthermore, to essentially just throw in a first cause amongst these causes ontologically assumes there is a God in this place, because if the other causes adequately explain themselves, then God is not necessary and thus to make it one part of the mix would invokes the impossible ontological argument.

 

However, I believe that an infinite regress of causes does not adequately explain existance, a logical result of creation.

 

Let me put forward that is a negative infinity is impossible when speaking of a regress of causation. Think of a stack of books. There is an infinite amount of books, thus every single book is held up by another. However, what is the result we are speaking of? The result is that the books are held up. It is generally understood that when speaking of a pile of books, if there is an infinite amount, it is a positive infinity. The books keep climing skyward forever, but that makes me ask this: Where does the first book lay?

 

Logically, if the resulting action is that the books are standing, there must be a cause for their standing and let me say they are on a table. You can have an infinite amount of books falling at once and logically there would have to be a cause for the fall. Being infinite does not mean you can explain the result. An infinite pile of books cannot stand unless there is a cause for its standing. This is much like existence. It is not merely enough to assume that as long as the present has a cause that an infinite causal series adequately explains the current being of things. The current being of things needs reason. A result needs cause and if there is an infinite amount of causes there must be a reason for that being so. To explain existence this way, you would need a negative infinity.

 

In order to believe this is so requires an act of faith. The historical record leads us to believe that a result needs a logical cause, thus a series of causes needs a reason for being. A pile of books supporting itself makes us ask why they are supporting themself. Why are they in that place and how? The reason why inherently must be that something primarily supports them. Such an explanation is absolutely essential for the reason for existence. I do not believe the Principal of Sufficient Reason can be adequately explained by an infinite regress of causes, because it is contrary to the mass historical record and it appears to be not possible for something infinite to support itself, creation is necessary logically. The present logically cannot be explained by an infinite past for the past would lack any true support.

 

Implications of a necessary first cause and the order of the universe:

 

Concerning the teological argument (the universe shows evidence of intelligent design,) if the universe was not designed perfectly, we would live in udder chaos. I used to believe that chaos was a relative term, where one can see chaos the other can see stability. However, concerning the make up of matter, how it relates to energy, the laws of nature and how they work...if any piece of all of existence was not stable, making existence as a whole imperfect, would nothing exist as result? The order of the universe, being that it is governed by predictable laws and does not contradict itself is absolutely perfect. Nothing breaks the laws of nature, because everything works perfectly. Then, is the universe as perfect as can be by design? One can argue, "I can fathom a better universe," but this is not true. We can fathom universes that suit humans better, but we cannot possibly fathom a better design. That being said, the design is perfect, and therefore is evidence of intelligent design.

 

To be designed, something must be made. However, for reasons I have already stated, I do think the universe was made somehow. I do not believe in an infinite causal series sustaining the universe. The universe can only exist with an initial, uncaused cause.

 

So whatever created the universe created it perfectly, assuming both the cosmological and teological arguments are correct. So it all comes down to whether or not science can ever explain the creation of the universe. Is the uncaused first cause, the essential reason everything is, mere scientific law/formulae? For this to be so, science must be the uncaused first cause. This is what hit me. Science is not uncaused, it would have to result from an infinite causal series, and I believe an infinite causal series is impossible. Science cannot create itself, science is simply the truth of the inner workings of everything. A law of science is eternal, true forever. However, science (the laws of nature), cannot exist in their own right without logical errors. Merely being true is not a source of action or power, thus creation. Therefore, there must indeed be an uncaused first cause that is not science, that can create a perfection, thus this uncaused first cause is infinitely great at the power of creation. People will call this uncaused first cause God, and I would be stupid not to as well.

 

So:

 

1. The universe shows intelligent design and

 

2. The universe was at one point created because an inifnite causal series is illogical, therefore:

 

3. There is an uncaused first cause that is the reason there is a perfectly designed existence.

 

 

 

4. This uncaused first cause is eternal, and the highest of all truths, because from it came existence which permits every other form of truth to exist, and

 

5. Science, the laws of nature, cannot exist in an infinite causal series, because such a series is illogical, and

 

6. Some uncaused cause caused science, therefore

 

7. There is a supreme uncaused first cause which created existence and the workings of it (the laws of nature).

 

 

 

To me, the above proves the existence of God, because I as an individual have come to agree with both the cosmological and teological arguments. I cannot fathom why anyone would believe in an infinite causal series (it is illogical), or that the universe is not perfect (because if it was flawed, this would go against the mass historical record of uniforimity in the laws of nature).

 

I am totally serious about what I just wrote. I am sure some people will call me arrogant, stupid, or anything else concerning a supposed reversal of my position. However, by being an agnostic, I never took a position; I took the position that you cannot take one. Being that two premises of my initial beliefs failed, the conclusion was faulty, so I have improved it. If there is a logical flaw in the above, bring it to my attention. I apologize to all who I have angered, but that was never my wish. My wish was truth, and the more we know of truth, the less we are the slave to lies.

 

 

 

The necessary existance of God appears to me to be intellectually defensible.

 

For reasons that were not totally related to such a relevation, I finally started to read a Bible carefully. Yes, much of the Bible is beyond a shadow of a doubt fairy tales, heck, there are 2 different creation stories. However, we all know the importance of ethics set forth by many sources such as religion. Christianity, unlike Judaism, stresses the idea of repentance and going beyond the literalism of law and instead following it in spirit. A life of sin is seemingly more fun and happy than that of righteousness, but one need not look no farther than the fact that one's desire to sin is never satisfied by more sin. Sin is a viscious cycle that is enslaving. I can attest to the fact that intent to follow one's conscience (and invoke the "holy spirit") is liberating and the most satisfying feeling I have had in 20 years. I am not asking you to pick up a bible, cross yourself, and put money in the collection plate. Your life will pass you by if you never reflect, humble yourself, and realize that you cannot forge your own salvation.

 

Quite possibly the only person who read this far is shamrock and I rember his genuine desire for truth. I hope that some truth in what I have wrote has been helpful. Otherwise, I can only beg for forgiveness and wish you the best.

First, let me apologize for my arrogance and pride, which is due to many members of this board.? I was absolutely comsumed with hatred, selfishness, and foolishness.? We all have these problems, but it does not justify my obsession with them.? I hope to God that you can forgive me, I sincerely hope so.? It is possible to love one's enemy.

 

Yes, this is indeed Sorianofan, and I notice this board's undying obsession with God and the belief of many that God has no basis in fact, that the veracity of Its existance is a matter of faith.? It requires inspiration for people to repent and improve their lives, and I come to offer you the example of a hardened and devout agnostic who has indeed seen the light.

 

To me, what I will say is totally true and logical.? I am a mere mortal and prone to error, so do not take my words as true without contemplating them.? However, I am totally convinced God's existance is absolutely necessar and real.

 

Because it is 2:30 AM and I cannot sleep after a very important day in my life, I am going to present my argument from that of my past writing.

 

The absolute necessity of a primary cause:

 

The universe seems to need an origin; creation seems to be necessary. Why? I believe the mass historical record reveals outcomes have reasons for existance, thus an origin. Let us think of qn example. If Xavier is a nice guy and nice people return lost items and Susie loses her watch and Xavier not only finds the watch, he knows Susie, it is only logical to assume the watch being returned is a guarenteed outcome assuming the qualities of Xavier and the description of the situation are absolutely true.

 

We know existence is absolutely true. The here and now is true. We know there was a past. However, for a result, the here and now, it appears only logical that there must be reason for it, just as there is reason that we exist, because we have parents.

 

There is two ways to approach this. There is either a first cause or an infinte regress of causes, meaning that, because there is one cause for another cause infinitely back in time, there would be no reason for a first one. Every single cause would essentially have a cause of its own and no problem is posed. Furthermore, to essentially just throw in a first cause amongst these causes ontologically assumes there is a God in this place, because if the other causes adequately explain themselves, then God is not necessary and thus to make it one part of the mix would invokes the impossible ontological argument.

 

However, I believe that an infinite regress of causes does not adequately explain existance, a logical result of creation.

 

Let me put forward that is a negative infinity is impossible when speaking of a regress of causation. Think of a stack of books. There is an infinite amount of books, thus every single book is held up by another. However, what is the result we are speaking of? The result is that the books are held up. It is generally understood that when speaking of a pile of books, if there is an infinite amount, it is a positive infinity. The books keep climing skyward forever, but that makes me ask this: Where does the first book lay?

 

Logically, if the resulting action is that the books are standing, there must be a cause for their standing and let me say they are on a table. You can have an infinite amount of books falling at once and logically there would have to be a cause for the fall. Being infinite does not mean you can explain the result. An infinite pile of books cannot stand unless there is a cause for its standing. This is much like existence. It is not merely enough to assume that as long as the present has a cause that an infinite causal series adequately explains the current being of things. The current being of things needs reason. A result needs cause and if there is an infinite amount of causes there must be a reason for that being so. To explain existence this way, you would need a negative infinity.

 

In order to believe this is so requires an act of faith. The historical record leads us to believe that a result needs a logical cause, thus a series of causes needs a reason for being. A pile of books supporting itself makes us ask why they are supporting themself. Why are they in that place and how? The reason why inherently must be that something primarily supports them. Such an explanation is absolutely essential for the reason for existence. I do not believe the Principal of Sufficient Reason can be adequately explained by an infinite regress of causes, because it is contrary to the mass historical record and it appears to be not possible for something infinite to support itself, creation is necessary logically. The present logically cannot be explained by an infinite past for the past would lack any true support.

 

Implications of a necessary first cause and the order of the universe:

 

Concerning the teological argument (the universe shows evidence of intelligent design,) if the universe was not designed perfectly, we would live in udder chaos.? I used to believe that chaos was a relative term, where one can see chaos the other can see stability.? However, concerning the make up of matter, how it relates to energy, the laws of nature and how they work...if any piece of all of existence was not stable, making existence as a whole imperfect, would nothing exist as result?? The order of the universe, being that it is governed by predictable laws and does not contradict itself is absolutely perfect.? Nothing breaks the laws of nature, because everything works perfectly.? Then, is the universe as perfect as can be by design?? One can argue, "I can fathom a better universe," but this is not true.? We can fathom universes that suit humans better, but we cannot possibly fathom a better design.? That being said, the design is perfect, and therefore is evidence of intelligent design.

 

To be designed, something must be made.? However, for reasons I have already stated, I do think the universe was made somehow.? I do not believe in an infinite causal series sustaining the universe.? The universe can only exist with an initial, uncaused cause.

 

So whatever created the universe created it perfectly, assuming both the cosmological and teological arguments are correct.? So it all comes down to whether or not science can ever explain the creation of the universe.? Is the uncaused first cause, the essential reason everything is, mere scientific law/formulae?? For this to be so, science must be the uncaused first cause.? This is what hit me.? Science is not uncaused, it would have to result from an infinite causal series, and I believe an infinite causal series is impossible.? Science cannot create itself, science is simply the truth of the inner workings of everything.? A law of science is eternal, true forever.? However, science (the laws of nature), cannot exist in their own right without logical errors.? Merely being true is not a source of action or power, thus creation.? Therefore, there must indeed be an uncaused first cause that is not science, that can create a perfection, thus this uncaused first cause is infinitely great at the power of creation.? People will call this uncaused first cause God, and I would be stupid not to as well.

 

So:

 

1.? The universe shows intelligent design and

 

2.? The universe was at one point created because an inifnite causal series is illogical, therefore:

 

3.? There is an uncaused first cause that is the reason there is a perfectly designed existence.

 

 

 

4.? This uncaused first cause is eternal, and the highest of all truths, because from it came existence which permits every other form of truth to exist, and

 

5.? Science, the laws of nature, cannot exist in an infinite causal series, because such a series is illogical, and

 

6.? Some uncaused cause caused science, therefore

 

7.? There is a supreme uncaused first cause which created existence and the workings of it (the laws of nature).

 

 

 

To me, the above proves the existence of God, because I as an individual have come to agree with both the cosmological and teological arguments.? I cannot fathom why anyone would believe in an infinite causal series (it is illogical), or that the universe is not perfect (because if it was flawed, this would go against the mass historical record of uniforimity in the laws of nature).

 

I am totally serious about what I just wrote.? I am sure some people will call me arrogant, stupid, or anything else concerning a supposed reversal of my position.? However, by being an agnostic, I never took a position; I took the position that you cannot take one.? Being that two premises of my initial beliefs failed, the conclusion was faulty, so I have improved it.? If there is a logical flaw in the above, bring it to my attention.? I apologize to all who I have angered, but that was never my wish.? My wish was truth, and the more we know of truth, the less we are the slave to lies.

 

 

 

The necessary existance of God appears to me to be intellectually defensible.

 

For reasons that were not totally related to such a relevation, I finally started to read a Bible carefully.? Yes, much of the Bible is beyond a shadow of a doubt fairy tales, heck, there are 2 different creation stories.? However, we all know the importance of ethics set forth by many sources such as religion.? Christianity, unlike Judaism, stresses the idea of repentance and going beyond the literalism of law and instead following it in spirit.? A life of sin is seemingly more fun and happy than that of righteousness, but one need not look no farther than the fact that one's desire to sin is never satisfied by more sin.? Sin is a viscious cycle that is enslaving.? I can attest to the fact that intent to follow one's conscience (and invoke the "holy spirit") is liberating and the most satisfying feeling I have had in 20 years.? I am not asking you to pick up a bible, cross yourself, and put money in the collection plate.? Your life will pass you by if you never reflect, humble yourself, and realize that you cannot forge your own salvation.

 

Quite possibly the only person who read this far is shamrock and I rember his genuine desire for truth.? I hope that some truth in what I have wrote has been helpful.? Otherwise, I can only beg for forgiveness and wish you the best.

902911[/snapback]

I skipped to the end, and found out very quickly that you judge people that you don't even know.

 

The end.

 

PS- Friend, sorry if you expected a more significant and competent response--but this 'God' talk follows me everywhere. I'm tired of God....

 

god..

 

sacrilege.

This might be off topic, but I find it strange that the Muslim, Christian, and Hebrew faith all worship the same God, all three religions were founded in the same part of the world, yet they all seem hell bent on eradicating and dis-crediting eachother in God's name.

This might be off topic, but I find it strange that the Muslim, Christian, and Hebrew faith all worship the same God, all three religions were founded in the same part of the world, yet they all seem hell bent on eradicating and dis-crediting eachother in God's name.

902923[/snapback]

Um...just to put in my two cents.

 

Judaism doesn't preach hate or 'eradication' of other religions. At least not the Judaism I was taught.

 

(don't know much about those orthodox, I must admit).

 

Circumcision is the way to go, folks.

This might be off topic, but I find it strange that the Muslim, Christian, and Hebrew faith all worship the same God, all three religions were founded in the same part of the world, yet they all seem hell bent on eradicating and dis-crediting eachother in God's name.

902923[/snapback]

Um...just to put in my two cents.

 

Judaism doesn't preach hate or 'eradication' of other religions. At least not the Judaism I was taught.

 

(don't know much about those orthodox, I must admit).

 

Circumcision is the way to go, folks.

902928[/snapback]

 

Maybe I should of just said discrediting, but still, it doesn't take away from the clashes between 3 religions which essientially have only minor differences.

Yes there is a God.

 

He puts Skippy in my lunch

I skipped to the end, and found out very quickly that you judge people that you don't even know.

 

The end.

 

PS- Friend, sorry if you expected a more significant and competent response--but this 'God' talk follows me everywhere. I'm tired of God....

 

god..

 

sacrilege.

 

 

I am unsure how many posts I can write before I am banned again, but let me tell you this:

 

I am not sure what you mean by quickly judge people I do not know. The statement might not be false as it pertains to my character, but I am unaware how it applies to my post. Being that my mother is Jewish and I have Jewish friends, I am not sure how I negatively judged anyone. However, I would be lying if I said I did not believe repentance is important. Repenting is no believing Jesus died on the cross, it is a more complicat process of the changing of personal orientation. Repenting is useful to anyone and I am not here to reject the validity or usefulness of any religion. However, even an atheist can turn away from sin without following any religion.

 

Apparently, your tiredness of God talk prevented you from seeing the great substance of my post. I believe it is one thing to truthfully not believe in God, but yet another to purposely close oneself off for other reasons; unless you are a buddhist where the none existance of God is a central belief.

First, let me apologize for my arrogance and pride, which is due to many members of this board. I was absolutely comsumed with hatred, selfishness, and foolishness. We all have these problems, but it does not justify my obsession with them. I hope to God that you can forgive me, I sincerely hope so. It is possible to love one's enemy.

 

Yes, this is indeed Sorianofan, and I notice this board's undying obsession with God and the belief of many that God has no basis in fact, that the veracity of Its existance is a matter of faith. It requires inspiration for people to repent and improve their lives, and I come to offer you the example of a hardened and devout agnostic who has indeed seen the light.

 

To me, what I will say is totally true and logical. I am a mere mortal and prone to error, so do not take my words as true without contemplating them. However, I am totally convinced God's existance is absolutely necessar and real.

 

Because it is 2:30 AM and I cannot sleep after a very important day in my life, I am going to present my argument from that of my past writing.

 

The absolute necessity of a primary cause:

 

The universe seems to need an origin; creation seems to be necessary. Why? I believe the mass historical record reveals outcomes have reasons for existance, thus an origin. Let us think of qn example. If Xavier is a nice guy and nice people return lost items and Susie loses her watch and Xavier not only finds the watch, he knows Susie, it is only logical to assume the watch being returned is a guarenteed outcome assuming the qualities of Xavier and the description of the situation are absolutely true.

 

We know existence is absolutely true. The here and now is true. We know there was a past. However, for a result, the here and now, it appears only logical that there must be reason for it, just as there is reason that we exist, because we have parents.

 

There is two ways to approach this. There is either a first cause or an infinte regress of causes, meaning that, because there is one cause for another cause infinitely back in time, there would be no reason for a first one. Every single cause would essentially have a cause of its own and no problem is posed. Furthermore, to essentially just throw in a first cause amongst these causes ontologically assumes there is a God in this place, because if the other causes adequately explain themselves, then God is not necessary and thus to make it one part of the mix would invokes the impossible ontological argument.

 

However, I believe that an infinite regress of causes does not adequately explain existance, a logical result of creation.

 

Let me put forward that is a negative infinity is impossible when speaking of a regress of causation. Think of a stack of books. There is an infinite amount of books, thus every single book is held up by another. However, what is the result we are speaking of? The result is that the books are held up. It is generally understood that when speaking of a pile of books, if there is an infinite amount, it is a positive infinity. The books keep climing skyward forever, but that makes me ask this: Where does the first book lay?

 

Logically, if the resulting action is that the books are standing, there must be a cause for their standing and let me say they are on a table. You can have an infinite amount of books falling at once and logically there would have to be a cause for the fall. Being infinite does not mean you can explain the result. An infinite pile of books cannot stand unless there is a cause for its standing. This is much like existence. It is not merely enough to assume that as long as the present has a cause that an infinite causal series adequately explains the current being of things. The current being of things needs reason. A result needs cause and if there is an infinite amount of causes there must be a reason for that being so. To explain existence this way, you would need a negative infinity.

 

In order to believe this is so requires an act of faith. The historical record leads us to believe that a result needs a logical cause, thus a series of causes needs a reason for being. A pile of books supporting itself makes us ask why they are supporting themself. Why are they in that place and how? The reason why inherently must be that something primarily supports them. Such an explanation is absolutely essential for the reason for existence. I do not believe the Principal of Sufficient Reason can be adequately explained by an infinite regress of causes, because it is contrary to the mass historical record and it appears to be not possible for something infinite to support itself, creation is necessary logically. The present logically cannot be explained by an infinite past for the past would lack any true support.

 

Implications of a necessary first cause and the order of the universe:

 

Concerning the teological argument (the universe shows evidence of intelligent design,) if the universe was not designed perfectly, we would live in udder chaos. I used to believe that chaos was a relative term, where one can see chaos the other can see stability. However, concerning the make up of matter, how it relates to energy, the laws of nature and how they work...if any piece of all of existence was not stable, making existence as a whole imperfect, would nothing exist as result? The order of the universe, being that it is governed by predictable laws and does not contradict itself is absolutely perfect. Nothing breaks the laws of nature, because everything works perfectly. Then, is the universe as perfect as can be by design? One can argue, "I can fathom a better universe," but this is not true. We can fathom universes that suit humans better, but we cannot possibly fathom a better design. That being said, the design is perfect, and therefore is evidence of intelligent design.

 

To be designed, something must be made. However, for reasons I have already stated, I do think the universe was made somehow. I do not believe in an infinite causal series sustaining the universe. The universe can only exist with an initial, uncaused cause.

 

So whatever created the universe created it perfectly, assuming both the cosmological and teological arguments are correct. So it all comes down to whether or not science can ever explain the creation of the universe. Is the uncaused first cause, the essential reason everything is, mere scientific law/formulae? For this to be so, science must be the uncaused first cause. This is what hit me. Science is not uncaused, it would have to result from an infinite causal series, and I believe an infinite causal series is impossible. Science cannot create itself, science is simply the truth of the inner workings of everything. A law of science is eternal, true forever. However, science (the laws of nature), cannot exist in their own right without logical errors. Merely being true is not a source of action or power, thus creation. Therefore, there must indeed be an uncaused first cause that is not science, that can create a perfection, thus this uncaused first cause is infinitely great at the power of creation. People will call this uncaused first cause God, and I would be stupid not to as well.

 

So:

 

1. The universe shows intelligent design and

 

2. The universe was at one point created because an inifnite causal series is illogical, therefore:

 

3. There is an uncaused first cause that is the reason there is a perfectly designed existence.

 

 

 

4. This uncaused first cause is eternal, and the highest of all truths, because from it came existence which permits every other form of truth to exist, and

 

5. Science, the laws of nature, cannot exist in an infinite causal series, because such a series is illogical, and

 

6. Some uncaused cause caused science, therefore

 

7. There is a supreme uncaused first cause which created existence and the workings of it (the laws of nature).

 

 

 

To me, the above proves the existence of God, because I as an individual have come to agree with both the cosmological and teological arguments. I cannot fathom why anyone would believe in an infinite causal series (it is illogical), or that the universe is not perfect (because if it was flawed, this would go against the mass historical record of uniforimity in the laws of nature).

 

I am totally serious about what I just wrote. I am sure some people will call me arrogant, stupid, or anything else concerning a supposed reversal of my position. However, by being an agnostic, I never took a position; I took the position that you cannot take one. Being that two premises of my initial beliefs failed, the conclusion was faulty, so I have improved it. If there is a logical flaw in the above, bring it to my attention. I apologize to all who I have angered, but that was never my wish. My wish was truth, and the more we know of truth, the less we are the slave to lies.

 

 

 

The necessary existance of God appears to me to be intellectually defensible.

 

For reasons that were not totally related to such a relevation, I finally started to read a Bible carefully. Yes, much of the Bible is beyond a shadow of a doubt fairy tales, heck, there are 2 different creation stories. However, we all know the importance of ethics set forth by many sources such as religion. Christianity, unlike Judaism, stresses the idea of repentance and going beyond the literalism of law and instead following it in spirit. A life of sin is seemingly more fun and happy than that of righteousness, but one need not look no farther than the fact that one's desire to sin is never satisfied by more sin. Sin is a viscious cycle that is enslaving. I can attest to the fact that intent to follow one's conscience (and invoke the "holy spirit") is liberating and the most satisfying feeling I have had in 20 years. I am not asking you to pick up a bible, cross yourself, and put money in the collection plate. Your life will pass you by if you never reflect, humble yourself, and realize that you cannot forge your own salvation.

 

Quite possibly the only person who read this far is shamrock and I rember his genuine desire for truth. I hope that some truth in what I have wrote has been helpful. Otherwise, I can only beg for forgiveness and wish you the best.

902911[/snapback]

Wow! ive never heard it explained like this.the idea of intelligent design and an uncaused 1st cause make sense and prove pretty definitively that there is a God. this isnt the cliche you have to have faith response

Concerning the teological argument (the universe shows evidence of intelligent design,) if the universe was not designed perfectly, we would live in udder chaos. I used to believe that chaos was a relative term, where one can see chaos the other can see stability. However, concerning the make up of matter, how it relates to energy, the laws of nature and how they work...if any piece of all of existence was not stable, making existence as a whole imperfect, would nothing exist as result? The order of the universe, being that it is governed by predictable laws and does not contradict itself is absolutely perfect. Nothing breaks the laws of nature, because everything works perfectly. Then, is the universe as perfect as can be by design? One can argue, "I can fathom a better universe," but this is not true. We can fathom universes that suit humans better, but we cannot possibly fathom a better design. That being said, the design is perfect, and therefore is evidence of intelligent design.

 

To be designed, something must be made. However, for reasons I have already stated, I do think the universe was made somehow. I do not believe in an infinite causal series sustaining the universe. The universe can only exist with an initial, uncaused cause.

 

So whatever created the universe created it perfectly, assuming both the cosmological and teological arguments are correct. So it all comes down to whether or not science can ever explain the creation of the universe. Is the uncaused first cause, the essential reason everything is, mere scientific law/formulae? For this to be so, science must be the uncaused first cause. This is what hit me. Science is not uncaused, it would have to result from an infinite causal series, and I believe an infinite causal series is impossible. Science cannot create itself, science is simply the truth of the inner workings of everything. A law of science is eternal, true forever. However, science (the laws of nature), cannot exist in their own right without logical errors. Merely being true is not a source of action or power, thus creation. Therefore, there must indeed be an uncaused first cause that is not science, that can create a perfection, thus this uncaused first cause is infinitely great at the power of creation. People will call this uncaused first cause God, and I would be stupid not to as well.

 

So:

 

1. The universe shows intelligent design and

 

2. The universe was at one point created because an inifnite causal series is illogical, therefore:

 

3. There is an uncaused first cause that is the reason there is a perfectly designed existence.

 

 

 

4. This uncaused first cause is eternal, and the highest of all truths, because from it came existence which permits every other form of truth to exist, and

 

5. Science, the laws of nature, cannot exist in an infinite causal series, because such a series is illogical, and

 

6. Some uncaused cause caused science, therefore

 

7. There is a supreme uncaused first cause which created existence and the workings of it (the laws of nature).

 

 

 

To me, the above proves the existence of God, because I as an individual have come to agree with both the cosmological and teological arguments. I cannot fathom why anyone would believe in an infinite causal series (it is illogical), or that the universe is not perfect (because if it was flawed, this would go against the mass historical record of uniforimity in the laws of nature).

 

902911[/snapback]

however the idea of a perfectly designed universe begs the question why is there evil. why did God allow free will knowing that people would sin and create evil. Evil is an imperfection

however the idea of a perfectly designed universe begs the question why is there evil. why did God allow free will knowing that people would sin and create evil. Evil is an imperfection

 

 

 

I think you are making the mistake many people make, which is to personify God. God "allows" and God "knows"... how does God "Know" things? You are picturing God as a person that just happens to know everything, future and past. You see God as a very very wise man, not as a spirit or essence or whatever. Phrases like "God punishes" and "God forgives" enhance the personification of God and make it harder for people to see the truth.

 

Me personally, I do not believe in good and evil the way most do. What is considered evil among humans (for example murder) is not evil among animals (a lion killing its prey, for example). I believe that God is the essence that fuels nature, God is nature. In a way God is both good and evil, the way we see it. The universe is so big, and the animal kingdom so vast that for us to say that certain things are good "in Gods eyes" and others are bad is just cocky. I think the concept of good and evil is just a means for the human race to ensure its survival and is what helped us evolve from being cavemen to having our current societies, where "evil" acts only upset the balance that we have created. The story in the bible about Cain and Abel I think symbolizes this well. Instinctively we may want to kill our brother, but we must suppress our instincts at times if we want to better our race.

 

I hope I explained myself well enough, I would like to clarify my point better but I can't find the right words right now. It all boils down to survival and evolution, because that is our goal.

This might be off topic, but I find it strange that the Muslim, Christian, and Hebrew faith all worship the same God, all three religions were founded in the same part of the world, yet they all seem hell bent on eradicating and dis-crediting eachother in God's name.

902923[/snapback]

The only religion that preaches death of the infidels is Muslim. Christian is a very liberal Judaism if you look at it. Christians throughout history, though, have misinterpreted their bible to mean killing of the Jews. They looked at the Gospels and not the rest, which preach understanding, love, and tolerance. Judaism in no way, preaches eradication of other people's beliefs, other than idol worshiping.

If this is indeed Sorianofan, I as a new member would like to say that your presence would be appreciated on the forum again. (I've read some of your old posts).

903119[/snapback]

I do not think anyone would want to claim to be me, but my time here will be short because I am a banned member. I just want people to know that I am sincerely sorry about how I hurt others. I would undo it if I could.

First, let me apologize for my arrogance and pride, which is due to many members of this board. I was absolutely comsumed with hatred, selfishness, and foolishness. We all have these problems, but it does not justify my obsession with them. I hope to God that you can forgive me, I sincerely hope so. It is possible to love one's enemy.

 

Yes, this is indeed Sorianofan, and I notice this board's undying obsession with God and the belief of many that God has no basis in fact, that the veracity of Its existance is a matter of faith. It requires inspiration for people to repent and improve their lives, and I come to offer you the example of a hardened and devout agnostic who has indeed seen the light.

 

To me, what I will say is totally true and logical. I am a mere mortal and prone to error, so do not take my words as true without contemplating them. However, I am totally convinced God's existance is absolutely necessar and real.

 

Because it is 2:30 AM and I cannot sleep after a very important day in my life, I am going to present my argument from that of my past writing.

 

The absolute necessity of a primary cause:

 

The universe seems to need an origin; creation seems to be necessary. Why? I believe the mass historical record reveals outcomes have reasons for existance, thus an origin. Let us think of qn example. If Xavier is a nice guy and nice people return lost items and Susie loses her watch and Xavier not only finds the watch, he knows Susie, it is only logical to assume the watch being returned is a guarenteed outcome assuming the qualities of Xavier and the description of the situation are absolutely true.

 

We know existence is absolutely true. The here and now is true. We know there was a past. However, for a result, the here and now, it appears only logical that there must be reason for it, just as there is reason that we exist, because we have parents.

 

There is two ways to approach this. There is either a first cause or an infinte regress of causes, meaning that, because there is one cause for another cause infinitely back in time, there would be no reason for a first one. Every single cause would essentially have a cause of its own and no problem is posed. Furthermore, to essentially just throw in a first cause amongst these causes ontologically assumes there is a God in this place, because if the other causes adequately explain themselves, then God is not necessary and thus to make it one part of the mix would invokes the impossible ontological argument.

 

However, I believe that an infinite regress of causes does not adequately explain existance, a logical result of creation.

 

Let me put forward that is a negative infinity is impossible when speaking of a regress of causation. Think of a stack of books. There is an infinite amount of books, thus every single book is held up by another. However, what is the result we are speaking of? The result is that the books are held up. It is generally understood that when speaking of a pile of books, if there is an infinite amount, it is a positive infinity. The books keep climing skyward forever, but that makes me ask this: Where does the first book lay?

 

Logically, if the resulting action is that the books are standing, there must be a cause for their standing and let me say they are on a table. You can have an infinite amount of books falling at once and logically there would have to be a cause for the fall. Being infinite does not mean you can explain the result. An infinite pile of books cannot stand unless there is a cause for its standing. This is much like existence. It is not merely enough to assume that as long as the present has a cause that an infinite causal series adequately explains the current being of things. The current being of things needs reason. A result needs cause and if there is an infinite amount of causes there must be a reason for that being so. To explain existence this way, you would need a negative infinity.

 

In order to believe this is so requires an act of faith. The historical record leads us to believe that a result needs a logical cause, thus a series of causes needs a reason for being. A pile of books supporting itself makes us ask why they are supporting themself. Why are they in that place and how? The reason why inherently must be that something primarily supports them. Such an explanation is absolutely essential for the reason for existence. I do not believe the Principal of Sufficient Reason can be adequately explained by an infinite regress of causes, because it is contrary to the mass historical record and it appears to be not possible for something infinite to support itself, creation is necessary logically. The present logically cannot be explained by an infinite past for the past would lack any true support.

 

Implications of a necessary first cause and the order of the universe:

 

Concerning the teological argument (the universe shows evidence of intelligent design,) if the universe was not designed perfectly, we would live in udder chaos. I used to believe that chaos was a relative term, where one can see chaos the other can see stability. However, concerning the make up of matter, how it relates to energy, the laws of nature and how they work...if any piece of all of existence was not stable, making existence as a whole imperfect, would nothing exist as result? The order of the universe, being that it is governed by predictable laws and does not contradict itself is absolutely perfect. Nothing breaks the laws of nature, because everything works perfectly. Then, is the universe as perfect as can be by design? One can argue, "I can fathom a better universe," but this is not true. We can fathom universes that suit humans better, but we cannot possibly fathom a better design. That being said, the design is perfect, and therefore is evidence of intelligent design.

 

To be designed, something must be made. However, for reasons I have already stated, I do think the universe was made somehow. I do not believe in an infinite causal series sustaining the universe. The universe can only exist with an initial, uncaused cause.

 

So whatever created the universe created it perfectly, assuming both the cosmological and teological arguments are correct. So it all comes down to whether or not science can ever explain the creation of the universe. Is the uncaused first cause, the essential reason everything is, mere scientific law/formulae? For this to be so, science must be the uncaused first cause. This is what hit me. Science is not uncaused, it would have to result from an infinite causal series, and I believe an infinite causal series is impossible. Science cannot create itself, science is simply the truth of the inner workings of everything. A law of science is eternal, true forever. However, science (the laws of nature), cannot exist in their own right without logical errors. Merely being true is not a source of action or power, thus creation. Therefore, there must indeed be an uncaused first cause that is not science, that can create a perfection, thus this uncaused first cause is infinitely great at the power of creation. People will call this uncaused first cause God, and I would be stupid not to as well.

 

So:

 

1. The universe shows intelligent design and

 

2. The universe was at one point created because an inifnite causal series is illogical, therefore:

 

3. There is an uncaused first cause that is the reason there is a perfectly designed existence.

 

 

 

4. This uncaused first cause is eternal, and the highest of all truths, because from it came existence which permits every other form of truth to exist, and

 

5. Science, the laws of nature, cannot exist in an infinite causal series, because such a series is illogical, and

 

6. Some uncaused cause caused science, therefore

 

7. There is a supreme uncaused first cause which created existence and the workings of it (the laws of nature).

 

 

 

To me, the above proves the existence of God, because I as an individual have come to agree with both the cosmological and teological arguments. I cannot fathom why anyone would believe in an infinite causal series (it is illogical), or that the universe is not perfect (because if it was flawed, this would go against the mass historical record of uniforimity in the laws of nature).

 

I am totally serious about what I just wrote. I am sure some people will call me arrogant, stupid, or anything else concerning a supposed reversal of my position. However, by being an agnostic, I never took a position; I took the position that you cannot take one. Being that two premises of my initial beliefs failed, the conclusion was faulty, so I have improved it. If there is a logical flaw in the above, bring it to my attention. I apologize to all who I have angered, but that was never my wish. My wish was truth, and the more we know of truth, the less we are the slave to lies.

 

 

 

The necessary existance of God appears to me to be intellectually defensible.

 

For reasons that were not totally related to such a relevation, I finally started to read a Bible carefully. Yes, much of the Bible is beyond a shadow of a doubt fairy tales, heck, there are 2 different creation stories. However, we all know the importance of ethics set forth by many sources such as religion. Christianity, unlike Judaism, stresses the idea of repentance and going beyond the literalism of law and instead following it in spirit. A life of sin is seemingly more fun and happy than that of righteousness, but one need not look no farther than the fact that one's desire to sin is never satisfied by more sin. Sin is a viscious cycle that is enslaving. I can attest to the fact that intent to follow one's conscience (and invoke the "holy spirit") is liberating and the most satisfying feeling I have had in 20 years. I am not asking you to pick up a bible, cross yourself, and put money in the collection plate. Your life will pass you by if you never reflect, humble yourself, and realize that you cannot forge your own salvation.

 

Quite possibly the only person who read this far is shamrock and I rember his genuine desire for truth. I hope that some truth in what I have wrote has been helpful. Otherwise, I can only beg for forgiveness and wish you the best.

902911[/snapback]

 

I respectfully disagree(a premise to prevent this from getting heated ). And I would also state that I am a flawed human so if my logic fails or if I have missed your logic, forgive me and just explain.

 

But I believe that your argument is flawed because it is circular logic.

 

You state that a uncaused first cause must be true because an uncaused first cause and an infinite number of causes are the only two possibilites. Once youve disproved the infinite causes, youve proven uncaused first cause. That I agree with.

 

I don't however think youve disproven infinite causes because your disproof of infinite causes relies on the conclusion youre trying to ultimatley prove, hence the circular logic. As you state.

 

"An infinite pile of books cannot stand unless there is a cause for its standing." But the cause for standing is precisley what we havent proven.

 

Stated a more clear way:

 

1. First uncaused cause must exist

Why?

2. Infinite causes cannot exist.

Why?

2. Because they would need a first cause(reverts back to #1).

 

Without the disproof of infinite causes you cannot prove the existence of first cause and without the proof of first cause you cannot disprove infinite causes.

 

 

The presumption that there must be an uncaused first cause because infinite causes are illogical itself rely on first cause having to exist ie the books still have to stand on something? You premise a table must be the cause but the laws you agree that are absolutley true, created by God, state that a table cannot stand on itself. Again, as you state, "there must be cause for the standing." That is the ground and that is what has created God and hence reverts right back to the infinite causes. ie, who created God.

 

In reality, youre having faith that the table stands in and of itself.

 

 

 

On a side note, the view of scientists has never been one that God cannot exist. Its been one in a belief of the laws of nature which you yourself believe in. Furthermore, teaching of science should be isolated to these laws of nature. The proof of God to philosophy.

Wow! ive never heard it explained like this.the idea of intelligent design and an uncaused 1st cause make sense and prove pretty definitively that there is a God. this isnt the cliche you have to have faith response

 

Thank you and I hope that you and others can derive some sort of truth from my humble opinion, even though I believe the implications of it are grand.

 

however the idea of a perfectly designed universe begs the question why is there evil. why did God allow free will knowing that people would sin and create evil. Evil is an imperfection

 

Let me try to answer this question to the best of my ability.

 

The problem of evil makes one central presupposition: that the very essence and reason for existance revolves around soley humans in particular, thus bringing with it the moral implications of mortal judgement. This viewpoint is flawed because it has no basis in fact. Arbitrary amounts of goodness and badness and moralness and evilness by no means implicate the creator of a perfectly ordered existance if such arbitrary amounts of such things are a logical result. Seemingly, I am talking myself into a circle, but if we can agree that the degree of evilness is rather arbitrary and not set in stone, we can agree that among creatures of value judgements percieve the existance of these things. However, as being mere parts of existance, it is rather arrogant to make a value judgement on the whole of creation because how it particularly implicates us and us alone.

 

I assert that our judgement of evil is meaningless because it relies upon the presupposition that humans are the measuring stick of goodness and perfectness. As long as "good things" are gauged by mortal standards of good and evil, then the supposed intelligent design of the universe and its purpose must apply to humans. This anthropomorphizes God into our image and is more an illusion of our belief of humanity's superiority than any substsantiation in fact. Existence is not good or evil, good and evil is a value judgement that humans alone assign and a perfectly ordered existance is not at all implicated by rather superficial and meaningless judgements.

 

Sure, existance can be concievably better for humans. Heck, what if twinkies grew off trees? However, the best existance possible is not at all implicated by what we want existance to be for us, because existance does not revolve around us, we are merely part of it. If this is so, evil is not an issue.

 

 

The problem of evil is only a problem if evil itself had true substance and truth. If it is a mere perception and not measurable, then it is more a problem of creatures of free will than that of the Divine.

onelastpost,your explanations are very interesting and hought provoking. you seem to have a good idea about the existence of God and creation of the perfect universe. you say you have had a troubled past? are you a born again christian? ill have to sleep on this and write back tommorow