Does God exist?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
But indeed, you can chose. Either one choses to believe that the universe needs no cause and has always been, or one believes that something extra-universal caused the universe.

I think there is no scientific reason for believing that anything within our realm could have always existed without any cause.

Or this universe could come into existence via a random quantum event.

[Ned]

The search for the origin of the universe is scientific, not pseudo scientific. This is the difference between doctors of medicine and witch doctors.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Or this universe could come into existence via a random quantum event.

No, because quantum effects occur after the universe exists.

IMO, the universe must always have existed.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by CyberShy
philosophy acts within the borders of our ratio. Otherwise it's phantasy, not philosophy.
why should God have to fit within the borders of our ratio?

"ratio"?

That whole posts was random nonsense.

Philosophy acts through pure rationality. It is the formulation of relations between predefined concepts such that, given the definitions of those concepts, the relation is guaranteed to be true. Philosophy is fantasy.

Because all parts of the universe need a cause.

Prove it. And what caused God?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
The search for the origin of the universe is scientific, not pseudo scientific. This is the difference between doctors of medicine and witch doctors.

The search for the origin of the universe shouldn't exist - by definition nothing is outside of the universe, as the universe is the set of all that exists, therefore nothing outside of the universe exists. Ergo, an outside cause of the universe is nonexistant. QED.

Pwned.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The search for the origin of the universe shouldn't exist - by definition nothing is outside of the universe, as the universe is the set of all that exists, therefore nothing outside of the universe exists. Ergo, an outside cause of the universe is nonexistant. QED.

Pwned.

False premise.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
IMO, the universe must always have existed.

It doesn't make sense to both have an expanding universe and a universe that has always existed.

as the universe is the set of all that exists

The universe is not the set of everything that has ever existed, so your argument doesn't apply to the universe's origin.

[Ben Kenobi]

He too assumes God exists already, that' the issue here. Hell that's why it's called a 'belief'. It's not real

I've never seen New York. I believe it to be there, but only because of what others have told me. Does that mean that New York does not exist?

[Ben Kenobi]

Given that we're not debating the means, but rather the fact of evolution, no, it doesn't.

Punctuated equilibrium is much easier to reconcile with some form of evolution directed by God, and not by chance.

Because you're going to suggest, on no grounds at all, that such serendipity, despite having simple, purely scientific explanations, is the result of divine intervention.

And you'll be hopelessly wrong.

If God has intervened in nature before through catastrophes, why not also in this manner?

[Ben Kenobi]

However I like being given credit for being cunning when it was merely good fortune

It is a cunning arguement to redirect this away from punctuated equilibrium, regardless of the actual motivations.

[Ben Kenobi]

And?

This is the strength of science, we can freely admit that there are things we don't know.

So? Theologians say the same. Science cannot disprove the actions and the intervention of God on the world because of the inherent limitations of science.

Any philosophical conundrum that applies to this universe applies equally to YHWH. If we must look for an origin of everything, why stop at this universe?

For the whole reason we debated earlier in the thread as to the necessity of a First Mover. This is why your first statement does not hold, that the same conundrum applying to the universe also applies to God.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If God has intervened in nature before through catastrophes, why not also in this manner?

If God is omnipotent, then why would one form of divine intervention be any more likely than another form of divine intervention?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I've never seen New York. I believe it to be there, but only because of what others have told me. Does that mean that New York does not exist?

You've seen pictures, heard news from, and spoken to many, many people who've actually seen it themselves.

I've never seen Atlantis, and I don't believe that to exist. I've never seen Amsterdam, but I'm relatively sure it exists. Your analogy is far more like the second than the first of those examples.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Ontological Argument is even easier to refute. First of all, you can just dismiss it because it is just "proof by definition," or reject the idea that existence is a property.

Well, you get into lots of problems with saying that existence is not a property and is contingent on our will. It also causes problems for scientific inquiry, because this is one of the primary assumptions, that existence is a property, and does not change depending on the observer.

I'm not sure why you say the Ontological argument is just a proof by definition. Can you explain what you mean by the term?

1. Something that exists is somehow greater than an identical thing that doesn't exist.
2. Existence is a necessary condition for perfection.
3. If something is perfect, it must exist.

1. Seems true for all cases, that existence is always greater than negation.

2. That for something to be perfect it must also exist? I don't think that. We have an idea of perfection that does not exist, in each one of us, that seems greatly at odds with what we see around us, which is not perfect.

So something, like an idea, need not exist physically, yet it can still be perfect.

For something to be perfect and exist also implies certain things. One would be an immunity to entropy, such that a body would not decay or weaken.

As for the third, I'm curious as to why you see this as a necessary presupposition. If something is perfect, it does not necessarily have to exist. Most of what we understand as perfect cannot exist do to the constraints of nature.

You can easily knock over any one of these.

Does the argument rely upon anyone of these presuppositions, UR?

[Ben Kenobi]

If God is omnipotent, then why would one form of divine intervention be any more likely than another form of divine intervention?

Good question.

Such intervention would have to be consistent with his nature and his desires. I don't see any of evolution as contrary to God's desires in nature.