[medicine gapper]

EDIT: MY PREMISES RELY ON THE LAW OF CAUSE = EFFECT. EVERY EFFECT MUST HAVE A CAUSE, OR IT CAN NOT BE AN EFFECT. (YOU ARE USING THE PRINCIPLES OF CAUSE = EFFECT TO TYPE TO ME) . IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS LAW, THEN MY ARGUMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO YOU.

This thread is not if God exists. I do not wish to give my personal opinion. My answer to this question is look up at the sky.

Now, many of us say 'well if God exists, then who made God'.

There is no thread for this. I want an open debate (;

If we believe that we have around us a universe, with it's many laws and rules, then we can assume the following:

> Within this universe, of time , matter, space , and it's various components, the simple rule of 'cause = effect ' must be implied.
> Nothing makes nothing. Things WITHIN our universe must have a cause.
> Energy can not be created or destroyed.

If we assume God , an entity with no form, no shape, unlike any creation exists, who originated our universe, many rightly ask "well who made God". i don't think anyone has not contemplated this.

However, If God created our universe, he must have existed before the universe - this is a simple derivation.

If this is the case, and he can exist outside the universe, the laws of the universe i.e cause = effect, or needing to be 'created' do not apply to him. Rather, he made the notion that things must be 'created'.


What is your other alternative? the universe making itself. a paradox. infinite causes.

What do i mean by this? well, if you did not have an ultimate starting cause, every cause must have been caused. You therefore have an infinite set of causes - a paradox.

Somewhere along the line, there must have been a cause which needs no cause. Which needs not time and space to exist.


We either believe in a creator who has not been caused, or a paradox.

These are our only two options.

I want opposing views on this. i am restless about my ideas. Like leonardo da vinci in the renaissane, i seek to analyse the universe around me, think freely of what 'famous people' like to tell me i must believe. I want to use my own five senses, and own intellect.

Feel free to post!

[Cephalus]

God is uncreated.

You get a paradox when you apply human logic to God.

God is beyond the bounds of our comprehension.

[HeavyTeddy]

^

/thread.

[medicine gapper]

(Original post by Cephalus)
God is uncreated.

You get a paradox when you apply human logic to God.

God is beyond the bounds of our comprehension.

Did you not apply human logic to infer that God is beyond our comprehension?

This does not at all touch my arguments.

You are welcome to answer again

[normal]

No. If the laws of cause and effect don't exist outside our universe then there is no reason to assume that they can be used at the beginning of our universe, if it had a beginning at all. We only can assume that cause and effect works inside the universe once it has started, however even that is debatable in some philosophical and scientific circles.

I don't know how you intend to prove God through an inductive argument like yours when you have no experimental evidence to back up your premises. Without evidence they are just guesses and you can't just guess there is a God.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
Did you not apply human logic to infer that God is beyond our comprehension?

This does not at all touch my arguments.

You are welcome to answer again

You say that a paradox has been caused at the end of your post.

But you have obtained that paradox by applying human logic to God.

It is not possible for humans to comprehend how God works.

[Cephalus]

Ok then I will answer again.

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end.


Obviously, I have answered this from a Christian perspective, of course, lots of people will disagree.

[medicine gapper]

(Original post by normal)
No. If the laws of cause and effect don't exist outside our universe then there is no reason to assume that they can be used at the beginning of our universe, if it had a beginning at all. We only can assume that cause and effect works inside the universe once it has started, however even that is debatable in some philosophical and scientific circles.

I don't know how you intend to prove God through an inductive argument like yours when you have no experimental evidence to back up your premises. Without evidence they are just guesses and you can't just guess there is a God.

The big bang proves our universe had a beginning and origin.
Matter must obey laws. Energy can not be created or destroyed either.

If you do not believe that an astronomical sized big bang needed a cause, something to set it off, then do not read on, for it is my logical premises i have derived, which i feel is solidly sound and without error.

If you do beleive in cause = effect, then you either believe that our universe had an ultimate cause(and i have described how God does not need to be created).

Or , you believe in an infinite paradox.

Your argument is better than the original few responders, however, but does not quite touch most of my points.

[medicine gapper]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Ok then I will answer again.

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end.


Obviously, I have answered this from a Christian perspective, of course, lots of people will disagree.

i don't beleive in the bible as it currently is.

this debate only needs five senses, and an open mind.

[Elwyn]

It's similar to the question of what existed before the big bang. The big bang explains how the universe came into existence, but trying to get your head around how what existed before the big bang came into existence is mind boggling.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
i don't beleive in the bible as it currently is.

this debate only needs five senses, and an open mind.

Yes but the idea of God is subjective according to each religion.

[normal]

(Original post by Cephalus)
You say that a paradox has been caused at the end of your post.

But you have obtained that paradox by applying human logic to God.

It is not possible for humans to comprehend how God works.

How do you know? If might well be possible for us to comprehend God assuming there is one. I'm not saying it is possible to comprehend God either. But any logical paradoxes in arguments can not be dismissed due to the incomprehensibility of God un till you have proved your point.

If we took a similar attitude to understanding the universe 200 years ago science would not have got very far. That attitude kills discovery and the advancement of knowledge dead.

[thenumber2goose]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
> Nothing makes nothing. Things WITHIN our universe must have a cause.

I suggest you look up the work of the physicist Lawrence Kraus. His latest book "A Universe From Nothing" outlines a precise mechanism for something coming from nothing.

In simple terms his work states that if you have nothing, quantum fluctuations can produce something.

He also states that the -ve energy in the universe (i.e. gravitational potential) is equal to the +ve energy in the universe (i.e. energy of matter). Thus, the total energy of the universe is 0. Thus, something can indeed be "created" from nothing.

[medicine gapper]

(Original post by Cephalus)
You say that a paradox has been caused at the end of your post.

But you have obtained that paradox by applying human logic to God.

It is not possible for humans to comprehend how God works.

Humans can not comprehend God. But have you ever heard the famous saying, we do not judge things by what they are, rather than what they do ?

This can be loosely applied to God.

Though we can not comprehend him, we can identify and talk about him through what he has done: what i believe to be, creating an astronomically sized expanding universe.

If your argument is that you can not rebut any of my points because neither of us can comprehend God, then let us not debate further, for i see no link to that and my argument.

[Friar Chris]

Finally, at the end of time, before the universe expires, an ultra-advanced descendant civilisation (perhaps of mankind, if we're not extinct by then) has the power to ensure that existence perseveres and starts again, but in doing so realise that despite their advanced technology and enlightenment, doing so will result in their own demise when re-triggering the existence of the universe.

As the end draws near, they take a sacrificial decision - they choose one individual, the wisest and highest in regard of their society and use their technology to elevate said person to a position of near deity-like power from which he (or probably more likely SHE) could survive the impending doom and shape the new universe. As the universe expires, they trigger the formation of a new one, annihilating themselves in the process, with the exception of their harbinger.

She spends much of her precious time and power shaping the universe to accommodate life and to persist, and watches over the growing civilisations, attempting to protect and guide them and encourage their better natures. She makes mistakes, she does her best, she performs 'miracles'. She even sends messengers to help guide the primitive sentient species in advancing culturally and into caring societies. Sadly, their words are often misinterpreted and lead to the opposite of what she intends. Many revere her as 'God', or even a pantheon of multiple, insisting that she is perfect and all-powerful, even though she is not.

Finally, she will eventually die, and this universe will have to make its own way without prophets, miracles and guidance from their mystical 'God'.


Well that was fun. Story time YAY.

[Kathy89]

I like to separate GOD from CREATOR.

CREATOR is that one/thing/things or whatever who created everything or some things that created other things (BIG BANG THEORY)...

GOD is a center of a certain religion, he/she/it taked (or sent messages) to certain chosen people....

In my theory, PEOPLE created GOD(s).

[Cephalus]

(Original post by normal)
How do you know? If might well be possible for us to comprehend God assuming there is one. I'm not saying it is possible to comprehend God either. But any logical paradoxes in arguments can not be dismissed due to the incomprehensibility of God un till you have proved your point.

If we took a similar attitude to understanding the universe 200 years ago science would not have got very far. That attitude kills discovery and the advancement of knowledge dead.

Not really. Obviously, I talk from a religious background which states that we can truly work out God. He exists out of time, where obviously we don't.

And what's wrong with my attitude? Science concerns itself with everything in the observable universe, and the only thing that isn't here is God

[medicine gapper]

(Original post by Kathy89)
I like to separate GOD from CREATOR.

CREATOR is that one/thing/things or whatever who created everything or some things that created other things (BIG BANG THEORY)...

GOD is a center of a certain religion, he/she/it taked (or sent messages) to certain chosen people....

In my theory, PEOPLE created GOD(s).

Good points, however, i believe God created everything, and people distorted the image of God

[Cephalus]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
Humans can not comprehend God. But have you ever heard the famous saying, we do not judge things by what they are, rather than what they do ?

This can be loosely applied to God.

Though we can not comprehend him, we can identify and talk about him through what he has done: what i believe to be, creating an astronomically sized expanding universe.

If your argument is that you can not rebut any of my points because neither of us can comprehend God, then let us not debate further, for i see no link to that and my argument.

Loool at you for thinking that you can try and really understand how God exists.

This argument will go round in circles

[Cephalus]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
Good points, however, i believe God created everything, and people distorted the image of God

How did they distort the image of God?

And on what evidence?