Where did God come from?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Something can come from nothingness. There's your uncaused entity. I agree that there can't be an infinite chain of causes, but God isn't the only conclusion, and it's actually a rather illogical one.

Like I said before, invoking causality to "prove" something with the characteristics of God, then discarding causality as soon as it fits a religion is patently silly.

Indeed, its a classic example of working backwards I suppose. We have a God...lets prove he's real. Which is ofcourse why the argument supposes he was the first cause.

However, you haven't said anything about the Contingent Being argument yet...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
However, you haven't said anything about the Contingent Being argument yet...

ok. Was I supposed to?

😕

Originally posted by DigiMark007
ok. Was I supposed to?

😕

I was just interested to hear what you had to say...innocent discussion thats all 🙂

Im not going to try and spring some sort of trap as other members might...lol.

k. Cool.

🙂

So what the hell's the Contingent Being argument? I've likely heard some variation of it, but most "arguments" go by various titles that I never bother to learn, or never hear in the first place.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
k. Cool.

🙂

So what the hell's the Contingent Being argument? I've likely heard some variation of it, but most "arguments" go by various titles that I never bother to learn, or never hear in the first place.

It was my number 2.

2) Everything that exists depends on something else for existence. This leads back to the conclusion that there must be one thing that everything depends on to exist. However, that thing does not depend on anything to exist. This could be God...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
How is that ontological? Explain to me please, im a little confused.

What were your impressions of the First Cause argument, if not ontological?

Originally posted by Mindship
Ontological relates to the study of being. "First Cause" highlights how being might've began, if it is not eternal.

What were your impressions of the First Cause argument, if not ontological?

Well, I always understood it like this:

Ontological: Argument to prove God exists because of our perception of him.

Cosmological: the universe has a cause, this cause was God.

So I don't see how the First Cause is Ontological.

Your use of ontological (small O) is needlessly confusing in the context of Arguments for the Existence of God.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, I always understood it like this:

Ontological: Argument to prove God exists because of our perception of him.

Cosmological: the universe has a cause, this cause was God.

So I don't see how the First Cause is Ontological.

Understood. You're seeing Ontology and Cosmology from a religious angle, whereas I was speaking more philosophically. From your perspective, then, "First Cause" would be more of a cosmological issue.

Scientifically, cosmology is the study of the material universe on the largest scale, asking the biggest questions. It relies on empirical evidence and logic. Ontology (as I understand it) is philosophical, relying heavily on logic.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It was my number 2.

Oh, ok. Didn't know it had a specific name. Thanks.

Though I disagree with it.

Everything that exists depends on something else for existence.

...so far, so good. I'm a determinist, so this doesn't clash with anything that we know and accept on a scientific basis.

This leads back to the conclusion that there must be one thing that everything depends on to exist. However, that thing does not depend on anything to exist.

....this is where it gets into trouble. If something doesn't depend on anything to exist, we've just discarded the rule (causality) that got us to this point in the first place. Accepting it invalidates the entire argument. It's using science and logic until the point where it stops being convenient for religion, then discarding them for an illogical conclusion. Which is an elaboration on a few of my earlier points. It's not a logically coherent argument and therefore devolves into the realm of blind faith.

...moving on.

This could be God...

To make this leap, we first need to accept the earlier premise, which I don't. Even if we did accept the earlier parts, we now make the transition from an uncaused entity to a uniquely Christian God. Granted, one could use this argument in an agnostic sense to attempt to prove some creative force that isn't the Christian deity. But it's nearly always trotted out to provide "evidence" for someone's religion. The logical gap between something (could be anything) and The God of the Bible (or any religion) is so large as to be preposterous as a rational argument. At best, it provides a passable argument for agnostics. At worst, it fails to provide a rational means for a creative force except by discarding reason for faith.

...

I don't want it to sound harsh. A lot of people justify themselves by similar means, and I'll concede that it's a possibility. I just see it as a remote and illogical one, and one that lacks any other evidence that a vague untestable hypothesis.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
This is a question that I have been asked more times than I can count... Where did God come from? He couldn't have always been here, so where did he come from? Well lets think about this:

We are constrained by time, everything has a beginning, every thing has an end. But why does God have to be? Remove time from the equation. This is eternity, no beginning and no end, and this is, I believe, where God resides.

Debate please.

Your comment "We are constrained by time, everything has a beginning, every thing has an end" is the key here. . WE ARE constrained. Not GOD. There are laws which govern our world, dimension or whatever you want to call it. But other laws govern other areas. For example a quantum particles can exist here there and everywhere at once at the same time, and appears out of nothing. Bye the way time doesn´t exist, its a human invention to measure the motions of heavenly bodies, the aging process which doesn´t happen in space.

All of these salvos back and forth skirt around one fundamental issue -- either matter is eternal or Spirit is. If matter is eternal then the universe is only determined by impersonal physical laws and; consequently, our pretensions to consciousness, will, and conscience are puny and illusory. If Spirit is eternal, then the physical universe is ultimately determined by and reaches its full significance in the personal.

One might say it another way. Either the human heart in its yearning for love and meaning reveals something fundamental about the universe, namely, that those things exist as fundamental (if not always self-evident) realities, or our perceived dignity as human beings is a cosmic illusion.

I suppose this is an anthropic argument for the existence of a personal God. As such, many here will probably reject it. So be it. The human heart is ridiculous too, yet it exists.

I believe in God because I cannot disbelieve in my own humanity.

Um, why exactly does believing matter is eternal make us non-sentient? Furthermore, why can't both exist? Why does it have to be one or the other?

seeing things in an "either this or that" sense is not very wise, there are probably many other possiblities. If you think only spirit (ie energy) and matter exist and thats it ,then you have a very limited imagination.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Bye the way time doesn´t exist, its a human invention to measure the motions of heavenly bodies, the aging process which doesn´t happen in space.

Then how is it that time can be manipulated and altered depending on velocity, according to an Einsteinian model?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
All of these salvos back and forth skirt around one fundamental issue -- either matter is eternal or Spirit is. If matter is eternal then the universe is only determined by impersonal physical laws and; consequently, our pretensions to consciousness, will, and conscience are puny and illusory. If Spirit is eternal, then the physical universe is ultimately determined by and reaches its full significance in the personal.

One might say it another way. Either the human heart in its yearning for love and meaning reveals something fundamental about the universe, namely, that those things exist as fundamental (if not always self-evident) realities, or our perceived dignity as human beings is a cosmic illusion.

I suppose this is an anthropic argument for the existence of a personal God. As such, many here will probably reject it. So be it. The human heart is ridiculous too, yet it exists.

I believe in God because I cannot disbelieve in my own humanity.

You'd first have to show any evidence for what you term "Spirit." Pointing to consciousness is really your only save there, and even that is suspect, at best, and many purely physical theories account for consciousness elegantly. No other substantial evidence exists to back such a claim.

The heart doesn't yearn for anything. It pumps blood, and regulates various bodily functions. You're likely referring to your mind. And if you think the heart's existence is preposterous, I'd hate to see what you think of far more complex organs in many species. Anyway, it's a product of evolution, which is completely off-topic. We have enough threads that devolve into evolutionary talk...we don't need another.

The anthropic argument has to do with the relationship of fundamental physical forces in such a way that the universe is conducive to life. It's not a terribly good argument, but is very different from anything you said.

This sentence really baffles me:
I believe in God because I cannot disbelieve in my own humanity
...you are a human being with morals and "humanity" regardless of whether or not God exists. It seems a weak proof for something that isn't directly linked to the question of the divine.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
This sentence really baffles me:
I believe in God because I cannot disbelieve in my own humanity
...you are a human being with morals and "humanity" regardless of whether or not God exists. It seems a weak proof for something that isn't directly linked to the question of the divine.

You're correct that I can act like a human being whether I believe in God 's existence or not. In fact, its a mercy that our conscience doesn't demand that a clear or consistent rationale be present before it prompts us to act. (Perhaps our humanity believes in us more than we do it). However, from a big-picture perpective, acting humanely without believing in a transcendent meaning to our humanity is ultimately absurd.

If there is a purely physical explanation for consciousness/sentience, then these things don't really exist as we undertand them to exist. Love, hope, courage, nobility, etc... are biochemical tricks our bodies play on us to help keep our cell tissues fed. That is why I argue that unless these acts have a transcendent referent, they are meaningless. If the universe is merely atoms bumping into one another, then what's the point of talking about justice, or caring for the poor, or loving your wife, or anything? You could never consciously or self-consistently aspire to anything more than your own self-interest.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
You're correct that I can act like a human being whether I believe in God 's existence or not. In fact, its a mercy that our conscience doesn't demand that a clear or consistent rationale be present before it prompts us to act. (Perhaps our humanity believes in us more than we do it). However, from a big-picture perpective, acting humanely without believing in a transcendent meaning to our humanity is ultimately absurd.

If there is a purely physical explanation for consciousness/sentience, then these things don't really exist as we undertand them to exist. Love, hope, courage, nobility, etc... are biochemical tricks our bodies play on us to help keep our cell tissues fed. That is why I argue that unless these acts have a transcendent referent, they are meaningless. If the universe is merely atoms bumping into one another, then what's the point of talking about justice, or caring for the poor, or loving your wife, or anything? You could never consciously or self-consistently aspire to anything more than your own self-interest.

It is your own self-interest that demands that you do the things like caring for others. The reason for this is simple: you cannot survive on your own.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is your own self-interest that demands that you do the things like caring for others. The reason for this is simple: you cannot survive on your own.

Survival is a meaningless construct.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Survival is a meaningless construct.

I disagree. Survival is the driving force behind all living beings.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You'd first have to show any evidence for what you term "Spirit." Pointing to consciousness is really your only save there, and even that is suspect, at best, and many purely physical theories account for consciousness elegantly. No other substantial evidence exists to back such a claim.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm merely making an argument for my own belief. I suppose by Spirit, I mean disembodied sentience/will.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The heart doesn't yearn for anything. It pumps blood, and regulates various bodily functions. You're likely referring to your mind. And if you think the heart's existence is preposterous, I'd hate to see what you think of far more complex organs in many species. Anyway, it's a product of evolution, which is completely off-topic. We have enough threads that devolve into evolutionary talk...we don't need another.

Actually the metaphorical "heart" of man isn't his mind. The Greeks and the Hebrews understood it as a separate faculty, one by which man not only contemplates the world, but also invests himself in it.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm merely making an argument for my own belief. I suppose by Spirit, I mean disembodied sentience/will.

Actually the metaphorical "heart" of man isn't his mind. The Greeks and the Hebrews understood it as a separate faculty, one by which man not only contemplates the world, but also invests himself in it.

But you are talking about something that does not exist. We do not have a soul or spirit.