Reasons Why God "can" Not Exist And Why All Relegions Are Inherently Flawed

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the universe is subject to efficient causation, i.e. the universe is created, then the creator is also subject to efficient causation, i.e. the creator must also be created.

Yes the universe is subject to causality, but the creator of the universe wouldnt be subject to it because without him there wouldnt be causality. Something has to be there in the beginning to start the supposed infinite causality our universe is currently experiencing and that would be 'god'. Ofcourse causality is a human concept so this logic still doesnt prove god because we still know so little about the way things really are.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Yes the universe is subject to causality, but the creator of the universe wouldnt be subject to it because without him there wouldnt be causality. Something has to be there in the beginning to start the supposed infinite causality our universe is currently experiencing and that would be 'god'. Ofcourse causality is a human concept so this logic still doesnt prove god because we still know so little about the way things really are.

You cannot have it both ways; if it is possible that God has simply always existed, then by this same reasoning, it also possible that the universe has simply always existed.

We are do limited in our understanding at this time. Only now are we getting into some new sciences..

Occam's Razor says - all else being equal - we go with the simplest explanation, a very common-sense approach. The simplest state of affairs is that Something Infinite (call it what you will) always was and always will be, outside of which exists nothing.

I'm curious as to why many seem to feel uncomfortable with this, that they insist on some definite Beginning. Yes, science presents the rather reliable "as if" we call the Big Bang, but this may well represent only the beginning of what we generally call the "observable universe." That it has a beginning would seem to imply, IMO, that it is Not the Something Infinite referred to above, but rather, in true scale, only an infinitesimal part of the unending Whole.

Maybe many have a hard time grasping genuine Infinity. My two favorite approaches to "understanding" it (by realizing just how unimaginably unimaginable it is, so why even try) are 1) a sphere with an infinite radius whose center is anywhere; and 2) Everett's many-worlds hypothesis.

Originally posted by Mindship
Occam's Razor says - all else being equal - we go with the simplest explanation, a very common-sense approach. The simplest state of affairs is that Something Infinite (call it what you will) always was and always will be, outside of which exists nothing.

I'm curious as to why many seem to feel uncomfortable with this, that they insist on some definite Beginning. Yes, science presents the rather reliable "as if" we call the Big Bang, but this may well represent only the beginning of what we generally call the "observable universe." That it has a beginning would seem to imply, IMO, that it is Not the Something Infinite referred to above, but rather, in true scale, only an infinitesimal part of the unending Whole.

Maybe many have a hard time grasping genuine Infinity. My two favorite approaches to "understanding" it (by realizing just how unimaginably unimaginable it is, so why even try) are 1) a sphere with an infinite radius whose center is anywhere; and 2) Everett's many-worlds hypothesis.

I think the problem is that most people have a view of time that does not allow for no beginning. However, if you view time as space and not as something that is moving, it is easier to understand. After all, were is the beginning of a room?