Try to refute this argument against God

A

alteredperception

I know not what I do
Registered Senior Member
Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?

Answer:
There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created the god? Was there still an earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?

It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.

This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of that which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all causal chains. Existence - not "god" - is the First Cause.

Just as the concept of causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

The man who asks, "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or a mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to non-existence.

Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask, "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking, "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists: you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.

-- Nathaniel Branden
 
an interesting 2 page essay I think NASA or MAYO clinic..DNA..An astrophysicist..Also Author of said essay..a biochemist a mathematician and a musician..got together. The astrophysicist's DNA was charted in it's configuration by the bio chemist..then this graph was translated into a mathematical sequence..by the mathemetician..the musician then translated this into music..providing some credence to..in the beginning was the Word.
We are a symphony..but there are the consistent attempts to drown out part of the symphony..initially human sacrifice etc...ways of bumping off the competition without getting caught..to the choir director..psalms.
Let us say that creation evolution or fathers of all mankind or primordial ooze POINT A is a given. We are here..
[however we like a computer or elephants in search of the forgotten rivers..proceed to Point B
This is sequential..and consider this..the Scythians..horseriding bloodthirsty slaughterers of the Ural mountains and Russia..right to the steppes of Mongolia.(a little other info..Russia has most of the longest rivers but..they run Northward from China.)..these raids according to archaeologists and geologists are as predictable as the tide..with the same intervals between each.)So to change Point B..we must change the interval..the interval predertimes the sequence.
Perhaps what is God is not laws morals or comforting rituals..but the whole creation groans in pain from the beginning..so we as an image of God or as cretures which is my nature can be comforters healers.
Finally to this thought fish to the river and rivers to the fields..we become stuck in places comfortless, nailed and enslaved as Jesus was to that cross because we cannott free ourselves from the money jungle long enough to find our comfort zone. We cry out in pain, it has been said that if we desire to change POINT B..we must change the interval that predetermines the sequence.
In the concept of black and white..good and evil..there is only one logical state..1/2 of what is desires eternal life the other 1/2 desires eternal death..neither of these truly exist within what is nature..working with our nature..and all biological life forms..even as we gaze into neighbouring galaxies thee is neither but as William Carlos Williams wrote..only the imagination is real no ideas but in things.
.perhaps only colours and the last of such systems in the whole of all galaxies.our solar system..the youngest..and very small.
and we are all in pain everywhere there is weeping..the freedom to make choices..is love..Elizabeth.
 
Last edited:
if somebody aruges that existance is a subset or part of God/Gods/Little Green Men than you have a pickle.
 
Tavas said:
if somebody aruges that existance is a subset or part of God/Gods/Little Green Men than you have a pickle.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't comprehend the essay. It can be summed up quite easily though.

Causality presupposes existence, therefore existence doesn't require a cause. Time also presupposes existence, because time is a measurement of motion and motion requires entities that move. Therefore there was nothing before existence.

People don't grasp the fact that existence requires no explanation for how it came to exist. We don't completely understand the universe. We should accept that there are things unknown to us but continue trying to understand. We shouldn't try to explain things using primitive, irrational beliefs (religious beliefs).
 
alteredperception said:
Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?

Answer:
There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created the god? Was there still an earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?

It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.

This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of that which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all causal chains. Existence - not "god" - is the First Cause.

Just as the concept of causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

The man who asks, "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or a mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to non-existence.

Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask, "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking, "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists: you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.

-- Nathaniel Branden
Click to expand...

Excellent essay. However, I disagree with your equation of existence with the universe. Certainly, the universe is the summation of existing things, I don't think this can be disputed (it may be, but I wouldn't dispute it). However, that is it the summation of existing things does not mean that it is equivalent with existence. Existing things are constructed forms, and constructed forms come out of movement. Where there is no movement, there is no constructed form, there is no existing thing, but this does not mean that where there is no existing thing that there is no existence. That which is static and unmoving cannot be said to be existing, since existing denotes movement, or activity, and thus change. However, that unmoving, static reality has the quality of existence. Since all existing things are constructed forms, all existing things are of varying complexity. Therefore, the non-constructed, unmoving, unchanging reality, existence, is the most basic, most simple reality.

The idea of cause does not presuppose effect. It is vice-versa. Effect presupposes cause. The universe is the summation of existing things, thus when the first constructed form began, when movement began, the universe began. Prior to the universe was merely simple existence, non-movement, non-change, non-effect. However, even this is a misnomer, since time is the measure of movement and change, which initiated with the universe. Hence, there is no "prior," as such, to the universe, since this implicitly denotes movement and change.

There is only one quality that could possibly account for the initiation of movement, where no movement priorly existed, and that is will. However, this implies mind, and I know this is something you will not accept, and for which I do not have the knowledge yet to account for.

Which leaves the canundrum. The universe is the summation of existing things. Existing things are in motion. Within the universe, from whence sprung the first movement? Even if the universe is infinitely old, and there is no need to account for the beginning of the universe, there must still be accounting for that which is within the universe. Within the universe there is movement, from whence came the first moving entity? Within existence, from whence came movement?



As a side note, God has been called "Existence itself." Hence, Existence being the First Cause, so too in that light would God be First Cause.
 
alteredperception said:
You obviously didn't comprehend the essay. It can be summed up quite easily though.

Causality presupposes existence, therefore existence doesn't require a cause. Time also presupposes existence, because time is a measurement of motion and motion requires entities that move. Therefore there was nothing before existence.

People don't grasp the fact that existence requires no explanation for how it came to exist. We don't completely understand the universe. We should accept that there are things unknown to us but continue trying to understand. We shouldn't try to explain things using primitive, irrational beliefs (religious beliefs).
Click to expand...

Thank you for your enlightening summary but my previous comments still stands.

You just have to sit down and doodle around it. :)
 
beyondtimeandspace said:
Excellent essay. However, I disagree with your equation of existence with the universe. Certainly, the universe is the summation of existing things, I don't think this can be disputed (it may be, but I wouldn't dispute it). However, that is it the summation of existing things does not mean that it is equivalent with existence. Existing things are constructed forms, and constructed forms come out of movement. Where there is no movement, there is no constructed form, there is no existing thing, but this does not mean that where there is no existing thing that there is no existence. That which is static and unmoving cannot be said to be existing, since existing denotes movement, or activity, and thus change. However, that unmoving, static reality has the quality of existence. Since all existing things are constructed forms, all existing things are of varying complexity. Therefore, the non-constructed, unmoving, unchanging reality, existence, is the most basic, most simple reality.
Click to expand...

lets up it a notch, can consciousness develop/spawn without existance?
 
i'm not saying i disagree with you. but one of the important things to remember about any argument for God's existence, is that it is -severely limited- in scope. for instance: the argument from causality, far from proving that there is an Omniscient being, merely demonstrates that there's some form of cause. it reveals nothing about that cause's nature.

the idea of the first cause is not so much supernatural as 'necessary'. essentially, 'everything that exists which is contingent has a cause'. that necessary cause may simply be a principle or principles which are necessary for the functioning of the universe.
 
Tavas said:
if somebody aruges that existance is a subset or part of God/Gods/Little Green Men than you have a pickle.
Click to expand...


Existence cannot be a subset of something else. That is a contradiction. if something else exists it is apart of EXISTENCE!
 
beyondtimeandspace -

I don't really understand you're response or the implications of there being a "simple reality." Also cause and effect go hand in hand. There cannot be one without the other. But what causality does presuppose is existence.

I am defining the universe as the totality of existence. And I argue that nothing can occur outside of existence because there is NOTHING there.

Basically I am arguing against belief in the supernatural. The supernatural is something beyond existence. We developed that concept using our imagination. It only exists in our heads.

Tavas -

Unless you believe in dualism, consiousness is something that evolves from material things.
 
alteredperception said:
Existence cannot be a subset of something else. That is a contradiction. if something else exists it is apart of EXISTENCE!
Click to expand...

clue : "IS"

Just as can 7pm exist without time. Hope this helps.
 
Cause and effect do go hand in hand, agreed. Cuasality presupposes exsitence, agreed.

The universe is the totality of existence, not agreed (the universe is the totality of constructed forms). There can be nothing outside of existence, agreed.

The supernatural is something beyond existence, disagreed. The supernatural is merely that of a higher nature. A supreme nature would be a superlative nature. There is a hierarchy of natures, to anything of a lower nature, all higher natures are super by comparison. A human would be supernatural in comparison to a rock. Supernature is a relative term.

We developed this concept using our imagination, agreed. More specifically, we developed it using abstract thought pattern.
 
tavas - Wow you really refuted the essay well. I applaud you. Thats the best rebuttle I've ever heard. You said what if existense is a subset of something else! That is so profound.

I seriously want to discuss this. Can someone please tell me how something can exist outside of EXISTENCE???????????????????
 
beyondtimeandspace said:
Cause and effect do go hand in hand, agreed. Cuasality presupposes exsitence, agreed.

The universe is the totality of existence, not agreed (the universe is the totality of constructed forms). There can be nothing outside of existence, agreed.

The supernatural is something beyond existence, disagreed. The supernatural is merely that of a higher nature. A supreme nature would be a superlative nature. There is a hierarchy of natures, to anything of a lower nature, all higher natures are super by comparison. A human would be supernatural in comparison to a rock. Supernature is a relative term.

We developed this concept using our imagination, agreed. More specifically, we developed it using abstract thought pattern.
Click to expand...

Alright what you say may very well be true IF you define the supernatural as something within nature. I wouldn't jumpt ot conclusions though. We don't fully understand the natural world and I leave it at that. Currently there are UNKNOWN things. But what we can assert is that there is nothing outside of the natural world. And people who try to explain the unknown by believing in things beyond nature are crazy, stupid, foolish, misguided souls
 
I believe what Tavas is saying is something along the lines of the following:

Existence is a property. All existing things have the property of existence, otherwise they would not be existing. I can imagine a tooth fairy, and I can describe it in all kinds of ways, with all kinds of properties, except in one very relevant way, it does not bear the property of existence. What DOES bear the property of existence in that instant is my thought, but not the tooth fairy, the object of my thought.

Hence, in defining existence this way, we may describe it as a subset of a God. One may argue that God is, in essence, the totality of all properties, thus making God the primary reality, with existence as a subset of that reality. Hence, it may be said that there, at the very least, properties outside of existence, as existence is simply one of many properties.

It may also be argued that, since everything we observe have properties, it may lead us to the conclusion that existence itself is not a property, but the primary reality. However, this is a jump, not a necessary conclusion, since it may be shown that actually exsitence is a property, not the primary reality.
 
Well, nature is merely a term that refers to what makes a thing what it is, similar, if not the same, as essence. Within the universe, the nature of things is the construct(ed), the sequence(d), the moving, the changing, the finite. You should not forget the nature of the non-constructed, the holistic, the static, the unlimited, the unchanging. Even within our own minds we catch a small glimpse of this duality.
 
beyondtimeandspace said:
I believe what Tavas is saying is something along the lines of the following:

Existence is a property. All existing things have the property of existence, otherwise they would not be existing. I can imagine a tooth fairy, and I can describe it in all kinds of ways, with all kinds of properties, except in one very relevant way, it does not bear the property of existence. What DOES bear the property of existence in that instant is my thought, but not the tooth fairy, the object of my thought.

Hence, in defining existence this way, we may describe it as a subset of a God. One may argue that God is, in essence, the totality of all properties, thus making God the primary reality, with existence as a subset of that reality. Hence, it may be said that there, at the very least, properties outside of existence, as existence is simply one of many properties.

It may also be argued that, since everything we observe have properties, it may lead us to the conclusion that existence itself is not a property, but the primary reality. However, this is a jump, not a necessary conclusion, since it may be shown that actually exsitence is a property, not the primary reality.
Click to expand...

I understand what you guys are saying. Sure God could some supreme consciousness and we could be the "object of his thought." I get it. I could invent countless theories along those same lines. We are all Gods. Our bodies are gateways into this world. Or we all have the same consciousness, we are one. We just view the world through different sets of eyes temporarily but when our bodies die we return to being the "one"

My point is there is no rational reason for asserting that belief. And if you do assert it, there is no rational argument in favor of it.
 
alteredperception,


Why are you wondering about these things? What is your intention behind posting this thread?
 
"...there is no rational argument in favor of it."

Unless, what I touched upon earlier is true, and what accounts for any movement within the universe, or within all of what exists, is will. You say that there need be no explanation for the universe. Fine, I'll go along with that for the sake of argument. However, this still doesn't explain the source of movement within the universe. You can't argue that movement has always exsited because the universe has always existed because the movement is within the universe, it is a property belonging to entities within the universe, not necessarily relegated to the universe as a single whole entity. In other words, while there may not necessarily be an explanation for the universe itself, there must still be explanation for those finite entities within. Saying the universe is infintely old, or infinite itself, doesn't do this.

Hence, the only alternative you're left with is will as the initiator of movement. However, will implies intellect, the two go hand in hand. Unless you're willing to say that the universe istelf is this intelligent willing entity, there must be something aside, something that is not summed as relegated to all those same properties of the universe (constructs, sequences, finite, etc..), that is, conaining all opposing properties (holistic, infinite, eternal, etc..). What we term as "God" is merely this concept.

The rational argument is as I have presented it. It is not baseless, nor fanciful, nor purely speculative, nor illogical, nor irrational. Certainly it isn't a one-hundred percent perfect argument. It'll have holes. But it is not baseless. I would shudder to think that all acceptable arguments had to be perfectly irrefutable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top