Try to refute this argument against God

[alteredperception]

"...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.

Fair enough. Now were getting somewhere. The explanation for finite entities within the universe can be causally explained. I would say movement can in fact be relegated to the universe as a whole entity. Time is dependent on movement, therefore if there was no movement...there would be no time, so it would just be stuff existing in stasis. And you're saying something needed to start the movement. Ah, I get it. But can you explain why movement hasn't existed eternally? If the universe is eternal, then time is eternal, and this means entities would have to be moving eternally. Is this not possible? um its 2:44 a.m. and I need to sleep on this.

 

[Prince_James]

A refutation of this argument can be rooted in two things, namely, the fact that sponteneous generation is impossible, and the eternity of energy refutes the finitehood of existence. To elaborate...

Sponteneous generation: Something cannot come from nothing. If the universe started at the Big Bang, one must ask from whence did the Big Bang emerge? Nothingness is litterally incapable of producing such a thing physically.

Eternity of Energy: The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only shift form. The Big Bang thus could not have created energy, and thus energy must predate the Big Bang and, indeed, have no beginning nor end.

 

[Sarkus]

Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
...
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

My take on this is two-fold:

1. To say that the Universe is "all that exists" is not sufficient.

If we assume existence is a property internal to our Universe, then we can define our universe as being all that exists. It is a circular definition of existence:
The Universe defines existence and existence defines the Universe.

Now take this example - two Universes exist - each identical in terms of laws of physics, chemistry etc.
Each has their own internal "existence" - but neither can say the other Universe "exists" as existence is a property internal to that Universe.

Thus our Universe is more accurately: "all that exists inside our Universe".
But how do we get around the circularity of the definition?
Effectively to define our Universe we have to limit "existence" to that which is within our Universe.

My view is thus that the Universe is not all that exists - but is all that is "observable" (in an absolute sense - not just that which man can observe). If something can not be "observed" - then it does not exist.

2. To require a cause for the Universe is assumptive of the properties external to the Universe

If we accept that within our Universe, bound by the physical laws of our Universe, that effect implies cause and that the cause-effect relationship holds, then all we can say is that this holds internal to the Universe.

We can say nothing about this relationship, whether it exists or not, to that which is outside.
We can know nothing about that which is outside our Universe - as I have defined the Universe above as all that is observable.

Thus to require a cause for the Universe is assumptive of the properties of the unobservable - and thus does not hold up as a proof of the existence of God.

 

[Tavas]

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.

Ya welcome, I always aim to please

 

[MarcAC]

The only thing I attempt to "refute" here is the statement; "Existence exists."

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?

Simply put: observational evidence has dictated that the observable Universe had a beginning somewhere around the Big Bang. The question of what caused that beginning is therefore valid and it would be irresponsible of any enquiring mind not ask it - asking such questions is how humanity has progressed thus far. Unless one is afraid to ask it? Why? If we then ask the question what caused that Big Bang some of us are led to God. We may look at the properties of the caused to get an idea of the properties of the Cause. Thus some are led to God, the personal loving being which Caused a Universe, which has ultimately expressed itself as far as we can currently see as sentient life - us.

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.

I don't think so: if there is something then there is existence, if there is nothing there is not existence for as you state "Nothing does not exist." Thus existence cannot be soley considered a cause of something because without something there is no existence.

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.

All observations would indicate the observable universe did begin and time began with it some 13 billion years ago.

The man who asks, "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists[color=navy[?][/color]. 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 exists doesn't make any sense - clearly. What can be said is that something exists and without something there is no point referring to existence.

 

[Trilairian]

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. ... It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes.

Your last statement if correct is sufficient to assert that there was some grand initial cause that led to the next and to the next until the universe came to be in the specific state that it is now and on to how it will evolve into the future. The grand cause arguement doesn't so much assert that God is required for the first cause as it defines God AS that first cause. At first this doesn't tell one much about God like whether God desires to be worshiped or even desires or is even conscious at all, but then one tries to extrapolate the characteristics of God based on the state or developement of the Universe as we know it.

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.

You may aregue that the fact that it exists does not require a cause, but since the universe has evolved the state that it exists in does and that returns us to the idea of the grand cause defined as God.
Ok I disproved your arguement against God. Any questions?

 

[Sarkus]

Your last statement if correct is sufficient to assert that there was some grand initial cause that led to the next and to the next until the universe came to be in the specific state that it is now and on to how it will evolve into the future. The grand cause arguement doesn't so much assert that God is required for the first cause as it defines God AS that first cause. At first this doesn't tell one much about God like whether God desires to be worshiped or even desires or is even conscious at all, but then one tries to extrapolate the characteristics of God based on the state or developement of the Universe as we know it.

You may aregue that the fact that it exists does not require a cause, but since the universe has evolved the state that it exists in does and that returns us to the idea of the grand cause defined as God.
Ok I disproved your arguement against God. Any questions?

To require a first cause is presumptive of the nature of that which is not within our universe.
We can only assert that the cause-effect relationship holds within our Universe.
The initial argument started from the implicit assumption that cause-effect holds outside our Universe. Who is to say whether this is correct or not?

 

[ellion]

this has been done before in the universe is all tha exists i remember altered percpetion extremely defensive too, almost agressive.