Does God exist?

[Urban Ranger]

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.

You have a very strange definition of what this universe is.

[Urban Ranger]

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 can go visit New York and prove to yourself that it exists. The same thing cannot be said about your god.

Refuted.

[Jon Miller]

no, New York is only one example

consider the moon, or the sun

Jon Miller

[Japher]

I like to write. I don't consider myself a writter, but I just write sometimes. Here is the start of a story I write when I feel like writting... It's about a bunch of idiots searching for the origion of the universe. It's rather fun... to write that is, reading it kindof suks.

THE BEGINNING

In the beginning there was darkness, and then there was more darkness, until it was so dark that someone got really sick of it and said, “Man, it is really dark.”
And then someone else said, “Yup.”
Then the first voice said, “Can we do anything about it?”
And the other voice said, “Nope.”
So, the darkness went on for some time. It was a rather boring time, and not much happened at all. Then, in the darkness, the voice came, not the first voice the second one, “Hey!”
“What,” said the first voice.
“This.”
“What is this?”
“I don’t know, pull it?”
“O.k.”
And then there was light, a lot of light… and a weird smell.

THE MIDDLE

The universe was created in a day, this day, the day when the first voice pulled something in the dark and made stuff happen. That voice became known as the Creator. Not at first, mind you, it took some time before there was actually anyone to know of the Creator, or at least wonder where they came from. The big problem, however, came when these ones to know the Creator, let’s just call them “people”, started thanking and praising the Creator, the second voice got rather mad. Heck, why not? The second voice did find the thing to pull, but no, the Creator took all the credit.
So time passed. The “people” became rather “civil” and created a nice little “civilization” (fine, I’ll drop the quotes) of about four or five billion people that spread out across the planet called earth, which was relatively near where the thing that was pulled was located. They had cities, cars, planes, pretty much all the stuff we think of the modern day earth of having. Around this time, which was a long time after the thing was pulled and a little while after the people showed up, that some guy named Preston Herrington asked, “So what was that thing that was pulled?”
This was the beginning of the end.

Pretty much, man, you're wasting your time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So? Theologians say the same.

Says the same of what? I have never seen, heard, or read about any theologian admitting that his brand of religion is limited. Especially Christian theologians.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Science cannot disprove the actions and the intervention of God on the world because of the inherent limitations of science.

The same old "god of the gaps" argument.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.

If you could show conclusively that this universe needs a first mover, and that your god does not, you are better than any of the theologians ever lived. Make that you are better than all of them combined.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by loinburger
I'll cite you on two counts of bull**** -- one for giving a faulty definition, and another for claiming that said definition is absolute.

First, when "universe" is used in a logical context, then entities can and do exist outside of the universe. The universe merely delimits the set of entities within the universe of discourse.

First pwnage:

u·ni·verse Audio pronunciation of "universe" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs)
n.

1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
2.
1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
4. Logic. See universe of discourse.
5. Statistics. See population.

Clicking "universe of discourse" gives:

universe of discourse
n. Logic

A class containing all the entities referred to in a discourse or an argument. Also called universe.

Clearly God is part of that universe.

Second, the meanings of words can and do change over time. Or do you wish to argue that computer bugs are organisms? You cannot simply cry "fallacy" and dismiss the scientific definition of "universe" in favor of Kuciwalker's ad hoc definition of "universe."

Philosophical meanings of terms do not. And since there is no explicit scientific definition of universe... your point doesn't mean anything at all.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by loinburger
Once the shrinking universe reaches a given mass/energy density then it collapses to a singularity and it doesn't really make sense to think of it as anything else at that point, because the laws that govern our universe don't apply in any meaningful sense (as far as we know) to the singularity. I suppose that we could still think of the singularity as "the universe," but even so we'd still be dealing with two entirely different entities -- the "normal universe," and the "singularity universe" -- when we make any statements concerning either. F'rinstance, we could no longer say "the universe is causal," because for all we know the rules governing a singularity are acausal. That's why it doesn't make sense to have both an eternal and expanding universe -- we'd be making the term "universe" pretty meaningless if we equated a singularity to what we're living in.

Continuous contraction doesn't have to be to a single point.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not so. Just because he can do something doesn't necessarily mean that he will do something.

If you are willing to concede to me that God can be responsible for these things, then that's all I'm asking.

It's obviously possible. It's also possible that God created the rest of the universe five seconds ago.

What source will you accept? Remember scientists cannot prove such a causal relationship because it is beyond the scope of science.

No it isn't... it's clearly empirical fact, whether or not he has intervened...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You have a very strange definition of what this universe is.

You have a very poor memory.

I've been arguing this same point in every single thread about this topic.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Like I said earlier, I believe there is some truth in the Hindu accounts of Vishnu, but that the Christians have had more revealed to them of the character of God.

The two are CONTRADICTORY!

[Ben Kenobi]

I have never seen, heard, or read about any theologian admitting that his brand of religion is limited. Especially Christian theologians.

That there are areas that they do not understand?

All theologians say that they cannot wholly conceive the mind of God, ergo, they know their religion to be limited in understanding God.

If they say otherwise, then we know this to be a fallacy, that if God is omniscient, then they would be unable to wholly conceive the mind of God, even if they claimed to have done so.

The same old "god of the gaps" argument.

Am I limiting God's involvement in the world to the time before Planck time? No. I'm saying that it is possible for God to intervene throughout history, rather than confining him to a gap.

If you could show conclusively that this universe needs a first mover, and that your god does not, you are better than any of the theologians ever lived. Make that you are better than all of them combined.

That's the real merit behind Anselm, in saying that if there were a power higher than God, or if what we called God had a mover before him, then we would call that being God.

If you say we have a finite universe, then it does not make sense that there can be an infinite regress of causality. There must be something that starts the whole process off.

Therefore, there must be a First Mover, of whatever sort, that by definition becomes God.

Now, if YHWH were not this first mover, in having a cause, then this First Mover would be God, and not YHWH. I cannot go from the principle of a First Mover to YHWH without additional presuppositions.

So from the combination of both principles, it seems obvious that there must be a First Mover, and regardless of that First Mover, we would call that First mover God.

[Giancarlo]

I'd like for somebody to actually prove god, instead of speculating about it.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's obviously possible.

Thank you Skywalker. That's an important concession. You say that it is possible for God to intervene in the world, but it is an open question as to whether or not he has.

No it isn't... it's clearly empirical fact, whether or not he has intervened...

How would you ascertain the causal relationship empirically? It's not like a chemical reaction where you can isolate the reagents.

[Ben Kenobi]

The two are CONTRADICTORY!

How so?

[Ben Kenobi]

You can go visit New York and prove to yourself that it exists. The same thing cannot be said about your god.

Is that so?

"Blessed be the pure in heart, for they shall see God."