Why God Exists (Updated with Q and A at the end)
Created on: September 7th, 2006
WARNING: My comments are NSFW. Please evaluate and vote based on the merits and quality of the YTMND not based on your religious standpoint. If you have an objection, post below and I will address it in the YTMND at the end.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| GendoIkari | $19.12 | Peterguy | $9.41 |
| stewie | $9.41 | ||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $37.94 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2.95) | 2,637 | 228 | 2,543 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 57,817 |
Inbound links:
Or, I can merely state that the universe itself has simply existed without a cause from the beginning of time, which is OK since causes require time in which to exist. If you want to claim that a cause outside of time did it, fine, but just as nothing has been observed to happen without a cause, so too has nothing ever been observed that is caused by something that happens outside of time. So in reality, we're still at the agnostic position. Sorry.
Actually whetstone has proven nothing because there is no evidence that the laws of physics are the same outside time and space and there is no evidence that time and space don't exist outside the universe . However even if we we take you statements as fact all you have really proved is that the universe came into existence at some time in it's history.
The truth of the matter is that there is NO truth when it comes to proving the existence of God. Therefore, no one can claim that God does or does NOT exist. The concept of God, created in the mind, is only a CONCEPT and CANNOT -- as Kant argued -- manifest itself into a tangible idea. We can also see that the Bible is NOT divine by examining its existential symbolism. Something divine would not be applicable to only a tiny group of bronze age tribesman. Good try, but WRONG.
i can understand the argument that the universe can transcend causality, being as its the universe, but where the f*ck in here did he talk about a christian god? sheesh, just showing the basic fundamentals of all religions, take it or leave it.
I actually disagree with his argument, it was just a great presentation; f*ck down voters who cant respect disagreeing arguments
another point is that this argument to prove the existence of a God fails to define the criteria of what determines a God. You assume that time is linear, many of your arguments are based on theories, and the only thing you attempt to prove the existence of is a "First Cause" (you are unsuccessful at that attempt btw)
it faulted with the 2nd theory of thermodynamics and god existing out side the realm of space, time and thought, meaning he can exist outside causality. But decent none the less, and it gets a 5, because of the people bitching about christianity, when theyll 5 the nth thing about brian peppers or steve irwin
If you believe in abiogenesis and the evolution of man, then life can come from non-life and intelligence from non-intelligence. You did not prove that these were impossible, so the First Cause need not be sentient. Also, you are confusing "universe" and "existence" The universe we see today had a definite beginning (Big Bang) but that does not mean that all of existence began then, only that we are limited to knowledge about our universe.
"solid scientific theory"; Do you even know what science is? I see no empirical evidence or correct applications of any established theory. This is just a philosophical argument with flawed logic. To the site creator: The rebuttal about your circular argument is CORRECT. Your response to it is flawed, because your very first premise is to assume that everything obeys some "law" (physics theories are not laws) of causality, hence your argument boils down to what was shown in the rebuttal.
wow, a lot of 5 stars. I got some objections for you.
1. incorporating fads into this for a higher vote is cheap.
2. To suggest causality stops at god because god is amazing or infinite or whatever is making huge leaps of faith in assuming anyone mortal can understand what god is since there's so many definitions in different cultures. And if the universe encompasses all existence, where exactly would god be in order to create it? If god can just magically appear, why not the universe?
Holy writtings, hokus pokus
Magic incense, blood and tears
Impeccable the ways of Heaven
To inflict terror and fear
All are born of woman
And the female is of sin
So we are all drenched soaky wet in sin
When our life begins
And for the rest of our days
To reach his kingdom full of bliss
We seek forgiveness
For something we didn't do
To someone who does not and never has
And never will exist
Um...just curious...which god?
Also there is no such thing as unlife because living is just a state of being created by the human mind to explain what we do. In the end if you look down to out tiniest particals we are infact build of inanimate objects.
I do like it though. But still no such thing as unlife.
ok so you said "who created god"...and you compared it to president washington only being the first president...but wasn't there like other events that lead to that? ahem revolution...anyways...wouldnt that mean that a god would need something before him/her/it as well? the truth is you cant prove exsistance...you can just believe that's it. and thats how a god would intend it also....until then
you're full of bullsh*t
There are 2 flaws in your otherwise well presented argument(which I gave the 5star for):
1. Entropy. Energy doesn't disappear, it dissipates. It can still be collected later, e.g. by a black hole, or another singularity.
2. "Non-life/non-intelligence cannot create life/intelligence". Humans are horribly complex machines based on a mess of electric impulses and chemical reactions that just happens to form a relatively stable body capable of moving and making noise that varies based on past stimulation.
I believe, and this is not proven by me, obviously, that Life created non life which exploded into what we know as the universe. In other words, I believe that God is the ultimate in designers. I believe God created the matter that initiated the Big Bang, as we know it. I don't believe God was sitting on a proverbial cloud, waving a magic finger and owls sprouted from air. I believe he initiated the Big Bang.
Take a class on Philosophy then debate. You CAN NOT disprove the existance of anything, using a philosophical standpoint (Sunsets), but the inverse is true. Since science is not philosophical (but, ironicaly, stems from it) and theology (Lol, contradiction in terms) is the essence of philosophy, you can not truly debate the existence of god, becuse the medium you use to do it in.
Good grief dude no. You can't establish a premise and then contradict the premise in your conclusion. Also, there is no "Law of Causality." Casuality is an inference.
As for ye old creationist argument: good grief. You really expect people not to have heard that before? Advice: when trying to be all scientific and such, try not to get things like the 2nd law completely wrong.
God or not, I found a very interesting quote: "A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information...can we say mere chance brought about such an astounding organ? Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain." I thought that was cool.
"I don't see any preaching that the Christian 'God' exists or that the
Christians have it right, I just see a solid scientific theory on the
existence of a supernatural being that created life." That is the right answer IMO. the fact that God exists is a basis to all religon, but the nature and downright "personality" of God is where it differs.
Well made, but I'm still not convinced, the reasoning still leaves a lot of room for agruement.........though I must give credit for using actual research, I half expected something like "[name of person/relative] survived [terrible ordeal], there he must exist!"...I so hate that reasoning. Also liked how you didn't attach it to a certain religion and for that I'll give it a decent vote.
Why does the First Cause have to be alive and intelligent? You state that intelligence needs to be created by intelligence, but this is simply not true. We evolved from lower life forms with lower intelligence. In the fantastic book "Godel Escher Bach" by Douglas Hofstader, the author argues that intelligence is nothing more than complex organized patterns. It's quite a bit more complicated than that, but intelligence in and of itself does not exist as a physical thing. Think of brain trauma patients. They
have lost intelligence because the patterns of neurons in their head have been disrupted. Intelligence is, at its core, a chemical reaction. As is life. Think of everything that you're made out of: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen; these are all either elements left over from the Big Bang or heavier stuff created in supernovae. The fact that RNA and DNA can reproduce themselves and conduct a chemical reaction in order to create a shell around them to protect themselves and facilitate the transfer of new material is
"The basis of your arguement is that everything has a prior cause. Yet you state that the question of "What created God" is formed in ignorance. So everything BUT God HAs to have a
prior cause. So why is God exempt? Hint: Its because you want him to be." Actually He's exampt because He caused the universe itself including cause and effect. This is why we call it 'First Cause' not 'Just another Cause.' You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. The line must be drawn heah!
I don't think he is saying he wants God to be the Alpha and Omega, rather, that science can not come up with a cause for the universe, therefore logic of the human mind says that there was a supernatural being who innitiated life. It's one subject. Who or what created the universe. If we don't know what did, then maybe a god did.
First you make the assumption that the universe has a definite begining, which may or may not be true. Then, however, you make an immediate leap to assume that the only possible beginning of the universe was its creation by a supernatural being. No rationale is given for why only God, nothing else, could have possibly created the universe. Your argument concludes that there is a God and seeks evidence to support it, rather than the other way around.
-1 for NEDM, -1 for the questions at the end that only idiots and 4 year olds would ask. Well made, but doesn't have any real proof of "God", only a cause. That argument could also be used to explain the "Big Bang" theory. It was the cause, so you don't need to worry about anything before it. However this theory is also fundamentally flaud because of the argument that everything has a cause...action/reaction if you will.
Sometimes incomplete explanations can be worse than no explanation. It lets them feel justified in not believing. But at the same time you have to try, if people didn't try the word wouldn't be spread. No one knows everything. And the existence of God is most likely impossible to prove, which is the whole point behind faith.
So then by that argument what was the precurser to "God" from your point of view? And of course from a different point of view we must ask the question of what caused the "Big Bang" and why. One could also argue that it is pointless at this juncture to ponder these notions, as no difinitive answer can be reached. +1 for having well-researched and thought out ideas.
"You still fail. You start well, but it doesnt hold up. You conclude that, because the universe is here, something caused it, and so, god did it. I conclude that, the universe is here, something created it, so the big bang created it. Same logic, isnt it?"
Yes more or less, I only had enough space in the YTMND to show that God exists- without going really indepth into WHICH God exists and what exactly His properties are. So yes, the goal of this YTMND was ONLY to prove that a God exists.
Well done, however I do have a few OBJECTION(S)!
Why does "God" need to be intelligent? There is no observed law that states intelligence must come from intelligence. It could also be any god, from the FSM to Ra. Anyway, I feel that although it could be supernatural, the origin of life, the universe, and everything is far to complicated to be answered by humans. God is just our placeholder to explain what we cannot. I prefer to say "I don't know", then to go with "some god did it".
Never argued whether or not the universe "began". Disagreement is with the rationale used to argue God created the universe. His argument:
1. The universe came to be
2. Therefore God (the supernatural) created it
No reasoning or argument given, only the immediate leap to assume God created the universe. Not a valid argument.
People try to percieve god as this human-type of being in a spatial dimension like ours. "What created god?" "It couldn't have been there forever" But what most people fail to realize is that time is something that was created when the universe was, so some thing that caused the universe to be made doesn't nessicarily have to have an age, or has to have been around forever. Simply put, whatever it was, it was there right when the universe was made. Infinite infinites before then, and never before then. Blar
The Big Bang couldn't have created itself? Think about it. You take every single mote and mole of existence and pack it down to a point that makes a proton look spacious so you create a singularity: a point so dense and massive it exists outside the laws of physics. It then expands at the speed of light for 13.7 billion years. Doesn't the Big Bang fit the criteria whetstone set for god?
"And yet that same arguement can't
be used about a god? Its wrong of me to ask what caused god, and anything
before that?"
I'll say it again, Big Bang = Science Theory, God = Not a Science Theory, you CANNOT apply Science to god, he's a supreme being, our minds can't comprehend why or how he got here, however they can comprehend how the big-bang happened.
Then how is it that we're able to percieve at which point his existance would be vital? (i.e. the creation of the universe(s))Simply, we couldn't. People just can't seem to be able to wrap their mind around the idea that god doesn't need to have existed at any point in our dimesion to have existed at all.
Your arguement of a first cause is certainly not a bad one, but certainly doesn't lay the groundwork for "God". Now, you immediately dismissed the idea of non-intellegence creating intellegence, and non-life creating life. In order for those characteristics to work, you have to provide both better examples AND a definition of life and intellegence. Even plants can exhibit "forms" of intellegence (ie growing towards light).
I would probably say yes, sadly. Trying to prove to someone that God started the universe is like trying to prove to someone that man went to the moon who doesn't think that man went to the moon. If they believe in their heart that it is impossible to go to the moon, than no amount of philosophy or science can move them from their stand. So yes. lol.
Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence? That is a logical fallacy. What if the universe simply...exists? An infinite cycle of Big Bang's and Big Crunches. As the universe ends, it begins again, a byproduct of the structure of spacetime. Don't get me wrong, I personally do not totally doubt the existence of God. But any college professor, including most ministers and Divinity profs, will find many flaws in your suppositions. Finding God isn't about logic. It's about your own personal journey.
Your conlclusion is insufficently proven even by the false statements you tried to slip in at the end among the ones you proved logically. Specifically:
Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence - insufficiently proven. Your argument about rocks and research papers is a straw man. Toddlers also do not write college level research papers. Yet with further development (and a corresponding increase in complexity and intelligence) they may one day be capable of it.
A singularity is a point so dense that in our universe, it curves space to the point that light cones (scientific models of time in relation to space) intersect with an event horizon. In simpler terms, you'd have to accelerate faster than the speed of light to escape its gravity, which is impossible. But if you had a singularity that was so dense, it representing everything in the universe, the laws of physics would be bent to the point that there would be no space OR time, and that space and time would be
Right you are, fry! And exactly what I was getting at earlier. A being that created the universe, as this ytmnd states, it outside this universe's sphere of influence I guess you could say. The "supernatural." This being in this "supernatural" realm could simply be a dimension we cannot perceive, or completely outside any sort of interpreting. So, how could something like this effect/create our universe? Refer to string theory for a second. Objects could possibly be created from a non-spatial universe as--
Similarly, "Life cannot come from non-life" is false. Minerals in rock are simple non-living molecules. However, when ingested by living things, they become integrated into them, essentially becoming part of life. The same holds true for any other atom or molecule. By themselves none of them are alive. Brought together in the proper arangement, they are.
Troggie42: "'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God."
The only thing that scares me about religion is this: Say god did exist and I was born into a Christian family. I get "brain washed" into fallowing God and go to heaven! Yes! Now lets say that a boy is born into a buddhist family and is dead set on the fact that Buddha will lead him to heaven. He theoretically goes to hell. That scares me. Is it fair for everyone?
Heard it before. The problem comes when you try to apply physics and laws to the big bang. The very act of explosion instead of being a black hole forever defies all current theories, of, well, everything. There's no way you can say that the beginning of the universe wasn't an exception as well. the fact is, we have no f*cking clue what the hell was going on there, and saying "God must have done it, prove me otherwise" isn't proving anything.
Look, if you want other people to believe in God, who do not already, then preaching with YTMNDs is not going to be effective. Honestly, the only way to get people to pay attention to your beliefs is to live them, and hope that your example is good enough that they want some of what you're smoking.
3 for effort
-2 for no NEDM music with NEDM images.
Whetstone, I give you a five for a quality ytmnd, but subtract two for obnoxious proselytizing. The strength of your argument lies in its graphic layout and presentation, not in the argument itself. I will acknowledge that you bring up some interesting points, but none that can hold up to an intelligent rebuttal. Also, I highly doubt that you believe you will convince people of the existence of God by using ytmnd as your pulpit. Understand that I'm not belittling your effort, merely offering criticism.
define "intelligence", define "cause", define "beginning". if it exists it must be within space and time. period. if it is "outside of space and time" it "does not exist, and has never existed, anywhere". also misstating the laws of thermodynamics. the Universe can not "run out of energy" because it can not exchange heat with anything else, as it is by definition "everything".
anyone who upvotes this is an illogical dumbf*ck.
Your answer to the first, and most powerful, objection is shallow. You have proclaimed that everything must have a prior sufficient cause. You have proclaimed that the universe must have a prior sufficient cause. You move this back one step and proclaim it god, but ague that god need no prior sufficient cause. I ask: why? If we can say that god needs no prior sufficient cause then why do we not just stop at the beginning of the universe and proclaim it is the universe that is a first cause uncaused?
Okay I've watched the whole lot including objections and I still don't think everything in there is right. Can't put my finger on it yet though. And didn't God in his autobiography... erm Bible say that we shouldn't attempt to work out if he exists but just believe it? Anyhow I think the process you described is more like the big bang.
Once again we play the shell game. I can also claim that things outside of time need not be caused. Therefore I can postulate that the universe "began" itself out of the "before" of the universe. We can play the game of hide the god in the incomprehensible all you like, but there is no particular reason to believe that uncaused causes must be deities except that it makes some of us feel fuzzy inside.
Furthermore it seems that modern quantum mechanics make invalid the premise that "all events must have a sufficient cause". Indeed physics seems to show that there are many non-causal events occurring all of the time at the quantum level. If and until this can be reconciled with the idea of macro causality the causal ground of the cosmological argument is, at least, shaky.
It sure is convenient when we cannot explan something to say "God did it". Just because we cannot explain certain things now with our current theories doesn't mean there is a supernatural explanation. This kind of view is dangerous and closeminded, because then people stop looking for the true answers.
God created the atoms, too. He has a complete understanding of physics on the quantum level, and causality does exist there too. Just because our instruments (or slits, in experimemtation lol) tell us an electron "appears" to be in two places at once, doesn't mean it actually is. It's like a blind man using a toothpick trying to track the random movement of a minnows in a lake, and describing it with math. We will never conquer quantum mechanics. Oh mand I hope that doesn't sound stupid.
Bullsh*t. Your own logic for the extistence of a god states that for something to come into being their must be something before it. This is circular reasoning. Using your own methods whatever came before god (since he must have been caused by something...) was:
-inteligent (God, whom is inteligent couldn't have been created by something non-intelligent)
-Very powerful (he created God!)
So what created the cause of god? This goes on forever.
Three major problems spring to mind;
Firstly, the statement that "life cannot come from non-life". If you knew even the basics about cellular life you would know that it's entirely possible for living organisms to be created from biological components. Basic amino acid/protein strings can form, under the right circumstances, to create very basic forms of life, but life none the less. It's theorised that this is how life on Earth might have began, the "primordial soup" theory.
Secondly, the concept that intelligence cannot be made by non-intelligence. Again, flawed if you consider life that can be observed on our own planet. We are aware that evolution has been taking place on this planet for billions of years. This can be shown through our own DNA sequences, which not only share common characteristics with other organisms, but also hold redundant information that shows our biological past (for example we have DNA that technically allows us a dorsal fin).
Since bacteria and the like clearly possess no intelligence baring natural instinct, which is more a product of their phisiology rather than any nerve centre, it's possible to conclude that intelligence can indeed spring from non-intelligence. It merely takes time, not divine intervention.
Thirdly, the idea of causality cannot be attributed to the creation of the universe, since causality is a product of the laws of our universe (you did touch on this granted, but didn't fully explore it).
As such it's impossible to attribute any creation of the universe to a single point, because you're viewing it from the idea that time is a constant, which before the universe (and indeed time itself) would not have applied. It's been suggested that the universe does indeed have a beginning, but in the same sense it may also not have an end either (see the Big Crunch theory for more information on this).
QED. Or should that be NEDM?
Sorry. These premises are not new at all, and are even more illogical than stating there is for a fact no god at all. It would be very strange and breaking much logic if a being somehow existed, had intelligence, and had power, all from no where. Just like the question of the universe. It could be, that there is a much more complex and very strange, but completely logical explanation to the universe, and thats what I think is more likely than a being having all that out of nothing.
This was very flawed. Since the universe was compressed into an infinitely small point, and time is a property in our universe, time would not have existed until the big bang. Therefore, to ask 'what created it' is like asking 'what was before the big bang, which is an illogical statement as time did not exist then.
Uhh, just because a question is "ignorant" (and it wasn't in the context you used it. That's an honest question you didn't want to hear because it upset you so you screamed the crutch-word.. ie ignorant) doesn't mean it's not a good, legitimate question. Refusing to ask or answer a question because you don't know, discuss, or hear the answer - IS ignorant. Secondly, you can't disreguard the "but then who created God?" question with the babble you put there. That question is essentially impossible to know.
err.. *want to disuss, or want to hear. Anyway, something, can't be created out of nothing. So inevitably, the question cannot ever be answered by anything known to man to date. Because the process of the question is infinite. What created God? Ok, if something created Him, what created the thing that created God? What created the thing that created the thing that created God? It will go on like that forever. Now I'm not saying something did create Him, or that something didn't create him..
Your logic for Objection 1 doesn't make any sense. I'm not American and know pretty much nothing about US history, but I'm hazarding a guess that George Washington didn't just appear out of thin air and automatically become president. I'm assuming that he was put in power by the people/rose to power himself, which doesn't fit with your explanation at all.
I'm simply stating that currently, we as human beings have no possible way knowing one way or the other. We don't even have the kind of science and/or information to even begin theorizing about it one way or another. To end my 2 cents, I believe that -ORGANIZED- religion is a horrible thing that actually limits the boundaries of human exploration and spiritual evolution. It leads to wars and hate, and in the end, almost all major religions are essentially based around the same thing anyway.
What do I personally believe? I believe we'll never know the answer to the questions, at least not while we're in bodies here on Earth. Is God a person-type, that walks around and says, "I'm gonna make this today", or "Let's watch this", or "Let's punish this for this reason"? Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know. I do feel though, that at the very least, there is a creative force somewhere in space and time..Wrether it has a personality or not, who knows.. It may just be a simple "spawning machine" so to
At least it's a fairly intelligent opinion, but you are really quick to credit any current hole in a theory to the existence of a supernatural power. Science is constantly inmproving, even recently a new theory on the universe's origins has been proposed that allows for an infinitely existing universe. You need to ask more questions before you make claims. Also the further you can get away from being condescending the better. You could go a little farther in that direction.
speak, LoL.. But I think just about everyone can agree that something, somewhere, is responsible for creation and exsistence itself. Where is my evidence? How can I prove this? I can't, other than to say, "It just feels right.". Notice too I said that I don't believe in ORGANIZED religion.. But do I think it's great to be religious/spiritual, and always reach out and question the things around you, and ask questions like, "Where did we come from", ect, and explore and delve into the situation
as a whole.. Without being organized and boxed into a single particular thought or feeling, like organized religions force you to do. Infact if there is a God or a creative force, I would think that that's the very last thing he'd have wanted us to do. So yeah, that's what I have to say about that =P.
Needs more NEDM. ... However, I believe that the world is in a cycle, much because of my interest in Quantum Physics and the Buddha. The universe expands, retracts, explodes to expand again... a cycle. Wish I could tell you the begining of this, but there a bigger questions and more immediate ones to me than whether or not their is a constant governing spiritual force in my life.
Funny thing is, no one truly knows when/how the universe came about. Mankind's collective intellect is far too simplistic to fathom such things. Thus, most people credit it to God. But the entire point of this YTMND is "cause/effect". Essentially, something happens and because said "thing" or "event" if you will occurred some other "thing" or "event" must occur because of it. If we run off this theory and say the universe is the inevitible result of a higher intelligence - then said higher intelligence...
must have, itself, had a beginning. You drop a glass, it shatters, you incorporate hammer, nails, lumber and human energy, you get carpentry. You drop a bomb, it explodes. God wills, the Heavens are created. Fine and dandy but where does God's creator come into play? How can you say God can will him/she/itself into existence but the universe could not. Simple answer - faith.
Further, how can you say God has always been but the universe has not? Who's to say the universe had a beginning? Some say the universe has an inevitable end. Does this mean God will have an inevitable end? That's what always gets me. So quick to say God has no begining (no creator) and no end (no destructor) because you think you can understand God - in all his/her/it's complexity. This, in itself, is arrogance at it's finest.
I voted 1 initially, then changed it to 3 because it is a good effort.
But I gotta agree with the other commenters you don't address the causality problem. You can't just say 'everything has a cause, except God'. Like a lot of other people, you take the logic only so far, then abandon it when it's convenient. You have to dig deeper into that question and not be tempted by sentiment.
Also you should back up your 'intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence' point with evidence of some sort.
I have to downvote this because of one glaring problem which the whole assertion of an intelligent creator hinges on in your argument: Can intelligence come from "non-intelligence"? You implied your owm ridiculous answer and it's without basis. Suns planets and galaxies gradually transform over a long-assed period of time, emerging into these states from a state that is unlike what they eventually become. The same can be applied to intelligence, and is illustrated through evolution.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link