By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 30 August 2018
Edit Thread
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

How did you establish the uncaused thing is a "being".  As opposed to say quantum particles which do arise with seemingly no cause.  

How did you rule out the possibility of multiple uncaused things?  Granted you only need one to start off a chain, but if one could exist, it stands to reason that more than one can exist.  Things are either possible or impossible.  Not possible but just once.  

How did you come to the conclusion that this necessary being is God?  You used a capital G so I'm assuming you mean Yahweh Jehovah or whatever you call the Judeo-Christian god.  And this god has tons of characteristics that are entirely unnecessary, and perhaps unlikely, for a first cause.  So how did you get there?

How does a being exist without being caused?  Saying it's necessary doesn't solve this problem.  There has to be some kind of explanation for its existence for it to be justified.  If you are saying its possible, then you have to establish some kind of mechanism or process, and why it could only apply to one thing at one time?

So, yeah.  The argument is completely flawed head to toe.

For one, Quantum particles or virtual particles do not "appear" out of nowhere. They're temporary states.

The assumption that this being is God is jist that, a reasoned assumption. No other necessary being really fits the bill so jumping inductively to this being God is a jump we logically can make.

The explanation for this being being uncaused is that it is a necessary being. The mechanism of which is that due to it's very nature, God would be uncaused.

And lastly, it's only flawed in the sense that you bring non-metaphysical arguments in a metaphysical argument to show how unlikely it would be. That doesn't really work either. Even then, the argument isn't fatally flawed.

Seems to me your argument is basically "I defined God as necessary so he must exist".  It's pretty devoid of any actual content.

If you're proposing a god that interacts with this world, then at some point reality enters the picture.  Unless you're arguing for a purely metaphysical god, you can't discount non-metaphysical arguments.

Eagle367 said:
JWeinCom said:

If there is a god who interacts with the universe, but does so in a way specifically designed to avoid detection... Then I guess I couldn't detect it.

But, what reason could I possibly have to believe this god exists?  How could you tell the difference between an undetectable god, and a non-existent god?  

I also don't believe in an nth dimension or another universe, for largely the same reasons.  Why and how would/could I believe in something that cannot be detected?

Neutrinos couldn't be detected for a long while. Same with electrons and protons and atoms themselves. The point being we are primitive in many ways still and have a long ways to go to discover all that is within our grasp let alone every mystery there is in the universe and you can believe what you want and I can believe what I want but we both won't know until we die or won't ever know since death will be the end if you're right. In my belief this life is a test of faith .Wouldn't be much of a test if we could find evidence of God so easily when we can't even find everything in our oceans in our little world. I am strong in my belief but I'm not arrogant in it. That's the one thing I avoid. I use my little brain to make deductions and judgements as to how everything should be, hoping I am right. A Godless existence doesn't make any sense to me

So... we may find evidence of god's existence in the future?  Cool.  When that happens, let me know and then I'll believe in god.  Until that actually happens, belief is not justified.

If it's a test of faith... why?  What positive trait is it testing for?  To see who believes without evidence?  Why is that a good thing?            

SuperRetroTurbo said:
JWeinCom said:

 

I didn't assume it was a coincidence, I said this is what I see as the most likely explanation.  Slight but important distinction.  

How did you determine that it was not a coincidence?  And even if you don't believe it was a coincidence, how did you get to god or a soul being involved in this?

I didnt determine it was not coincidence.

 

I implied that I could not accept what I interpreted as your suggestion to be true. Slight but important distinction.

 

It may have been a coincidence but because of the surrounding circumstance I simply choose to believe in something more profound.

 

I have also had a number of unexplainable experiences that lead me to believe in the supernatural.

You want to believe it's profound so you do?  Ok then.  That's your option.  I don't find it very convincing, and I'm not sure why you asked for honest opinions if your mind is made up.