Proof of a Deity
- Thread starter rjr6
- Start date
I don't even need proof, just some indication that there is one, or that the universe could not occur without one.
are you an atheists?
Yup.
The word God means much more than first cause, since that could be something inanimate.
The word God means much more than first cause, since that could be something inanimate.
what IF it always existed,
no cause needed,
How would you go about proving it? So far we've only been able to work our way through some of the mechanics involved. Even if we were to discover tomorrow that M-Theory is absolute scientific fact, we still wouldn't be able to say whether or not the branes weren't just God's kneecaps.
impossible. every effect needs to be caused by something, especially the universe, since it's such a big effect. if the universe didn't have a cause, it would have no reason to exist, so its existence would be illogical.
even if the universe had always existed, there would still have to be something that causes it to always exist.
notice that god is not an effect, so he is the only thing that doesn't need to have a creator/cause behind it.
I agree for me the first cause hypothesis is plain common sense even as a minimum it means the first consciousness that divided itself to procreate.
No, the words 'big bang' are 'first cause'. The word 'God' is superstitious bullshit.
Oh, and words are defined by men, so your argument rather falls on it arse.
a 'bang' can't cause anything because it's an effect, so that bang must be caused by something.
you think god is nonsense because you associate it with your own idea of the word god. to say that god is nonsense you first have to have the right definition of god.
It's just a term for a process, a happening. Stop being so literal.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
lol your thinking is seriously flawed.
then explain why it's flawed so that i can explain why your thinking is flawed.
i only said perfect statements so how could there be a flaw?
This is silly. If you're going to say that god is not an effect, why not just say that the universe is not an effect? What is your proof that the universe is not an "effect," whatever that means?
because the universe is obviously an effect. an effect is the result of a cause. an effect is something that can be seen. god is invisible. the cause is invisible.
the universe can be seen, so there must be a cause for it. god and the universe is not the same thing.
Nope.
phara, yorda,
It then necessarily follows that something infinite exists. This also proves that not everything needs a cause.
This then negates the argument that the universe must be caused because everything needs a cause, which we just just disproved.
This means that a god is not a necessity and that it is perfectly logical to consider the possibility that the universe is infinite.
This is a paradoxical impossibility. There cannot be a first of anything. It implies there was a point where nothing existed. If that were true then there would be nothing to cause an effect, and we couldn't be here. I.e. nothing could have ever begun.
It then necessarily follows that something infinite exists. This also proves that not everything needs a cause.
This then negates the argument that the universe must be caused because everything needs a cause, which we just just disproved.
This means that a god is not a necessity and that it is perfectly logical to consider the possibility that the universe is infinite.
"I'll take 'logical FAILS' for $2000, Alex!"
And even if this BS reasoning was true, it would only prove that something created the universe - it wouldn't prove that it was any sort of deity, consciousness, or entity that has thoughts or a will. You can label it "god" if you want, but it doesn't actually tell you anything about god (other than that god created the universe, which is only true a priori because you defined whatever created the universe as "god").
Not that you speak for atheists, but I here from atheists I talk with that they don't believe because there is no proof. Which seems all well and good, but why don't atheists establish a parameter for a proof so theists had an idea what they were wanting, rather than some sort of personal affirmation for themselves?