[Ahopes]

How can it claim to prove the existence of God when all it states is that everything must have a cause? Surely it is equally, if not (in my opinion) more viable that the original cause was the Big Bang, not God.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Norton1]

(Original post by Ahopes)
How can it claim to prove the existence of God when all it states is that everything must have a cause? Surely it is equally, if not (in my opinion) more viable that the original cause was the Big Bang, not God.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

And what caused the big bang?

[Ahopes]

But what caused God?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Norton1]

(Original post by Ahopes)
But what caused God?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I don't believe in God, I'm just pointing out that saying 'it was the big bang' doesn't end the argument.

[maturestudy]

It doesn't.

First of all the entire argument hinges on cause and effect, which is an assumption that can only be arrived at inductively.

Second, the argument is just one long form of special pleading. That everything must have a cause, except this one thing that we'll call God.

Third, it suffers from the same problem that all (apparently) logical proofs for the existence of God share. There is no way to get from 'God exists' to 'My particular God that is all powerful, unchanging, all loving, cares about human behaviour, etc. exists'. It's equally plausible that space aliens from another dimension created the universe, or that an invisible pink dragon caused the universe to come into existence ten seconds ago but gave us all memories.

[chickenonsteroids]

It usually comes in the form of the Kalam cosmological argument. (it was started by Muslim philosophers in the 8th century but it's mainly promoted by William Lane Craig. A Christian apologist.)

1) everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) the universe began to exist
3) the universe has a cause for it's existence.

The cause must be space less, timeless and immaterial otherwise it would be part of the universe. It's also usually preceded by a premise stating that an actual infinite cannot exist.

There you go. That's one argument. Whether I agree with it or not isn't relevant, I'm just letting you know such an argument exists

(if I've got anything wrong, let me know)

[ChampEon]

(Original post by Ahopes)
But what caused God?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Well that's why God's called the Creator. He has always existed and was not created or caused.
(Quote from Quran: "He, God, is ONE (alone). God, the Absolute, He begetteth not, nor is He Begotten, And there is none like unto Him")

[ChampEon]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
It usually comes in the form of the Kalam cosmological argument. (it was started by Muslim philosophers in the 8th century but it's mainly promoted by William Lane Craig. A Christian apologist.)

1) everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) the universe began to exist
3) the universe has a cause for it's existence.

The cause must be space less, timeless and immaterial otherwise it would be part of the universe. It's also usually preceded by a premise stating that an actual infinite cannot exist.

There you go. That's one argument. Whether I agree with it or not isn't relevant, I'm just letting you know such an argument exists

(if I've got anything wrong, let me know)

That is a pretty interesting argument tbh

[Ahopes]

(Original post by ChampEon)
Well that's why God's called the Creator. He has always existed and was not created or caused.
(Quote from Quran: "He, God, is ONE (alone). God, the Absolute, He begetteth not, nor is He Begotten, And there is none like unto Him")

Yes but there's no evidence for that is there?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by ChampEon)
Well that's why God's called the Creator. He has always existed and was not created or caused.
(Quote from Quran: "He, God, is ONE (alone). God, the Absolute, He begetteth not, nor is He Begotten, And there is none like unto Him")

That's also a problem with the argument. It's just special pleading. Which is a fallacy. You can read about it here.

[Ahopes]

(Original post by maturestudy)
It doesn't.

First of all the entire argument hinges on cause and effect, which is an assumption that can only be arrived at inductively.

Second, the argument is just one long form of special pleading. That everything must have a cause, except this one thing that we'll call God.

Third, it suffers from the same problem that all (apparently) logical proofs for the existence of God share. There is no way to get from 'God exists' to 'My particular God that is all powerful, unchanging, all loving, cares about human behaviour, etc. exists'. It's equally plausible that space aliens from another dimension created the universe, or that an invisible pink dragon caused the universe to come into existence ten seconds ago but gave us all memories.

That last thought is strangely beautiful haha.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[CurtisDean]

Every effect must have a cause - If God is omnipotent, then only he could have caused something as great as the Big Bang? - This is an answer from the Edexcel Religion and Life text-book from a 'Christian and Science perspective'

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by CurtisDean)
Every effect must have a cause - If God is omnipotent, then only he could have caused something as great as the Big Bang? - This is an answer from the Edexcel Religion and Life text-book from a 'Christian and Science perspective'

It's the first statement that isn't necessarily true nowadays. Especially with the knowledge we have of Quantum mechanics. Things can happen to particles a-causal. However, there are different types of causes which raises a debate around that issue. It'd also work with a simple deity, or any theistic god that someone brings up.

Just letting you know

[ChampEon]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
That's also a problem with the argument. It's just special pleading. Which is a fallacy. You can read about it here.

I see no problem with the argument. Seems completely logical to me. I mean let's say for argument's sake that the Big Bang did take place, then what caused it to happen? What created all that energy? Most importantly, what made something come from nothing?

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by ChampEon)
I see no problem with the argument. Seems completely logical to me. I mean let's say for argument's sake that the Big Bang did take place, then what caused it to happen? What created all that energy? Most importantly, what made something come from nothing?

I'll explain it to you.

You've said everything has a cause but for some reason god is not included in that. It's faulty logic. If you'll say 'he was always there' then you have to allow the same circumstances for the natural universe. (the possibility of it happening anyway). Secondly, it's not wrong to say 'I don't know what caused the big bang' as saying god did it doesn't actually explain anything. The method of how that happened is still unknown. Do you get my point? The rest of the statements you've made have been argued about for a long time but I won't get into it here. I just wanted to let you know where you went wrong. There are better arguments out there, so use them instead.

[FDR]

I'm a christian, but I believe in the 'Big Bang', and this is something I've thought about.

I think that we don't know the entire story, and our understanding is too simple to be able to fully comprehend what happened before the big bang, because all our guesses and ideas are based on assumptions that hold true on earth, and in this universe, but may not hold true outside of the universe - for example, it's a physical law that you can't get something from nothing, however just because this holds true in this universe, it doesn't mean it applies outside of the universe, and in the same way that everything and everybody must have a 'beginning' in order to exist, this law may not apply outside of the universe, so the existence of a God can scientifically be feasible.

I like to think of it all like this: A pet animal (e.g a cat) doesn't understand electricity, but it acknowledges that sometimes the light in the landing will be on, sometimes it will be off, but it doesn't know how, or why. We understand that there is a universe, and we have a reasonable idea about how it's evolution through time, but we don't know the full story.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by FDR)
I'm a christian, but I believe in the 'Big Bang', and this is something I've thought about.

I think that we don't know the entire story, and our understanding is too simple to be able to fully comprehend what happened before the big bang, because all our guesses and ideas are based on assumptions that hold true on earth, and in this universe, but may not hold true outside of the universe - for example, it's a physical law that you can't get something from nothing, however just because this holds true in this universe, it doesn't mean it applies outside of the universe, and in the same way that everything and everybody must have a 'beginning' in order to exist, this law may not apply outside of the universe, so the existence of a God can scientifically be feasible.

I like to think of it all like this: A pet animal (e.g a cat) doesn't understand electricity, but it acknowledges that sometimes the light in the landing will be on, sometimes it will be off, but it doesn't know how, or why. We understand that there is a universe, and we have a reasonable idea about how it's evolution through time, but we don't know the full story.

tbh I like quite like this post. You aren't claiming to know all the answers, which is an honest thing to do

We may never know the full idea, but it's always fun looking

[Ahopes]

(Original post by FDR)
I'm a christian, but I believe in the 'Big Bang', and this is something I've thought about.

I think that we don't know the entire story, and our understanding is too simple to be able to fully comprehend what happened before the big bang, because all our guesses and ideas are based on assumptions that hold true on earth, and in this universe, but may not hold true outside of the universe - for example, it's a physical law that you can't get something from nothing, however just because this holds true in this universe, it doesn't mean it applies outside of the universe, and in the same way that everything and everybody must have a 'beginning' in order to exist, this law may not apply outside of the universe, so the existence of a God can scientifically be feasible.

I like to think of it all like this: A pet animal (e.g a cat) doesn't understand electricity, but it acknowledges that sometimes the light in the landing will be on, sometimes it will be off, but it doesn't know how, or why. We understand that there is a universe, and we have a reasonable idea about how it's evolution through time, but we don't know the full story.

Interesting point of view.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Like a BAWS]

God is outside of the Universe, so isn't bound by our laws of physics and constraints such as time.

Or that's what theists would argue anyway

[Раскольников]

(Original post by Like a BAWS)
God is outside of the Universe, so isn't bound by our laws of physics and constraints such as time.

Or that's what theists would argue anyway

How very convenient for them.