Support NeoGAF

[Nivash]

My problem with the 7 day creationism argument is ... why 7 days?

Like, if you're omnipotent, surely you don't need to work to a schedule. And what's with the rest? An omnipotent God gets tired?

Either God isn't as powerful as he'd like people to believe or he's lazy. Or both.

That's actually an interesting question. Why indeed? My bet is that for the original creators of the myth, all those thousands of thousands of years ago, the answer was probably obvious in a way that's been forgotten. Maybe their creator god wasn't omnipotent. Maybe it's religiously symbolic in some way. Maybe there's some narrative element that we're not aware of, because I agree with you - it doesn't make much sense.

There are actually some Christians who have tried to explain it as symbolic in a way that can be combined with what we now know of how the Earth was formed. They would argue that it actually refers to epochs, not days (although they would relatively speaking be to God what days is to a human), that it reflects how God formed the Earth over a very long time and through the now known mechanisms of geology and evolution and that the rest period explains why God seems absent now.

Personally, I think it's all mythical. Still, it's interesting to think about why it's written the way it is.

Abiogenesis has a ways to go before it actually answers his questions.

True, but it makes more sense than "God did it" based on what we know about the world. And the fact that our knowledge is incomplete doesn't logically support creationism in any way.

 

[Netherscourge]

It is impossible to answer the question.

Based on what we know:

1. There is no such thing as an ultimate starting point origin of all things.
2. There is no such thing as something existing from nothing.
3. There is no such thing as a pre-existing environment or conditions that would somehow interact within itself to produce something out of nothing.

No matter how much we uncover or learn about the origin of 1 thing, we'll never be able to find out the ultimate origin of everything.

The idea of it being a God, itself, can't make sense either. Because that God would also need an origin, and then that origin would need an origin, and so on for infinity.

However, there are couple 'tangible' theories that could at least take us back as far as our own ultimate conception:

1. One could theorize that if we actually do have an ultimate origin, then it is most likely the case that we are actually NOT REAL. That everything we know and do, the entire universe we know of and everything going on inside it, is in fact, a subconscious creation of some larger being. And that our whole existence started when that being was born and started having dreams of it's own. Our 'creator' may in fact just be someone greater being's active imagination and we're all free-form creations in some greater being's mind.

2. Or, if you believe in a more physical origin, our entire universe may actually be the internals of some greater being. Solar systems are actually super-sized molecules, with suns being nuclei in which atoms (planets) orbit. Outer space, filled with dark matter, would represent the fluids inside our own bodies. Black holes may be actual orifices or pores for this super being. Sun's exploding into Supernova may just be a molecule expending it's last energy. In our own bodies, our cells die and are replaced with new cells all the time. Galaxies maybe be segments of gigantic organs. Humans, reproducing and creating pollution, may be a form of cancer attacking the particular molecule that we inhabit. Maybe some day this greater being will have surgery and cut us out to preserve it's own life? This greater superbeing we live inside of may live for quintillions of years, which is why our universe may feel so old to US, but to them, they may just be hitting puberty. Heaven(?) help us if this super being ever takes a tumble - if our galaxy is inside it's elbow, for example, him falling and landing on it might smash our whole galaxy in an instant. Or we might be in it's butt cheek or ear lobe. You never know. I hope he's healthy and eats good food.

But these theories only take us back to OUR origin. It leaves us still wondering, "Ok, then what created the superbeings?" It could drive you mad. So, just eat fruit and go to amusement parks.

 

[E-phonk]

Abiogenesis has a ways to go before it actually answers his questions.

Let's be honest here:
acids > RNA > DNA > single cell organisms

This is the hardest part in the origin of life. Once you are at single cell organisms and DNA it only gets easier in explaining (and grasping) evolution theory. It's was also the most controversial part of his question.

I'm no biologist though (i'm a programmer), but I have an interest in the subject.

 

[Arkeband]

My problem with the 7 day creationism argument is ... why 7 days?

Like, if you're omnipotent, surely you don't need to work to a schedule. And what's with the rest? An omnipotent God gets tired?

Either God isn't as powerful as he'd like people to believe or he's lazy. Or both.

How does a being outside of time and space measure seven days?

...that are determined by the Earth's rotation around the sun?

So God first created the concept of time measured by the movement of planets, and then created planets that adhere to his Time Rules? I guess as long as the argument for his existence is 'well it doesn't have to make sense' this is a perfectly useless thread.

True story. Dawkins is a Christian pretending to be a horrible atheist to bring people to Christianity.

I don't agree with this. Dawkins is arrogant, but the arrogance is amplified by the thousands of hurt butts. When the only rebuttal he ever hears is akin to 'how can you say unicorns don't exist if you've never seen one', the fact he hasn't developed an instinctual response to slap every face he sees is proof he's a saint.

 

[Kaffeemann]

Isn't the logic really more like:

"The idea that something can't come from nothing suggests an infinite existence that predates the known and material universe."

With the idea that the infinite existence is (specifically) divine coming (supposedly) from divine encounters and/or inspiration that leads one to have faith in the premise that there's a divine/spiritual order to things (or at the very least to creation).

To revisit an idea that was brought up earlier in the thread:



Hawking thinks he's ousted God from the scientific "something from nothing" equation. But of course he has not - he has admitted even in his answer that, in his view, the universe can create itself from nothing specifically due to preexisting laws of physics. He has not repelled the question of "where did the laws of physics come from?"

There really is no other end to the question of the origins of reality that does not point to some kind of always-existing something-or-other. It is an endless chain, since any "explanation" that could be posited must necessarily have an even further explanation. Whether or not that always-existence has some kind of sentience or purpose isn't really knowable, of course.

The current theory is that there was no "something" or "nothing" before the big bang. There was also no time so words like "infinite" and "ever-existing" loose their meaning.

 

[Nivash]

The current theory is that there was no "something" or "nothing" before the big bang. There was also no time so words like "infinite" and "ever-existing" loose their meaning.

I'm somewhat of a fan of the suggestion that it's completely pointless to even ask the question because we could never understand the answer. All of our knowledge and even our ability to process knowledge has evolved within the context of the universe. Because of that we just don't have the framework to speculate about something outside the universe, or before it. It's like trying to describe a colour no one has ever seen to a person who was born blind.

There wasn't some empty black space before the Big Bang, or a glowing singularity. If time didn't exist there wasn't even a "before" in the first place!

 

[Fenderputty]

True, but it makes more sense than "God did it" based on what we know about the world. And the fact that our knowledge is incomplete doesn't logically support creationism in any way.

Right, but that poster clearly had his mind made up before asking any of the questions. Like an effort to "gotcha" the scientific community here. At some point saying, these are our best unproven theories is all science has. Posting link to a Wiki of abiogensis isn't going to convince someone who's made up their mind and will likely have the opposite effect since I'm sure many religious people feel they got this one in the bag. Sorta like ..... "Ha and now you're jumping into faith based science realm, see you have to have faith too"

I find it comforting knowing were stuff of the stars.



EDIT: I've enjoyed the classical arguments for god in this thread. IMO it's all word / mind games but they've been an enjoyable google.

 

[Catdaddy]

Heavy shit for a Monday morning...

 

[Principate]

Right, but that poster clearly had his mind made up before asking any of the questions. Like an effort to "gotcha" the scientific community here. At some point saying, these are our best unproven theories is all science has. Posting link to a Wiki of abiogensis isn't going to convince someone who's made up their mind and will likely have the opposite effect since I'm sure many religious people feel they got this one in the bag. Sorta like ..... "Ha and now you're jumping into faith based science realm, see you have to have faith too"




I find it comforting knowing were stuff of the stars.

Where is your god now! I find your lack of faith disturbing.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Isn't the logic really more like:

"The idea that something can't come from nothing suggests an infinite existence that predates the known and material universe."

With the idea that the infinite existence is (specifically) divine coming (supposedly) from divine encounters and/or inspiration that leads one to have faith in the premise that there's a divine/spiritual order to things (or at the very least to creation).

To revisit an idea that was brought up earlier in the thread:



Hawking thinks he's ousted God from the scientific "something from nothing" equation. But of course he has not - he has admitted even in his answer that, in his view, the universe can create itself from nothing specifically due to preexisting laws of physics. He has not repelled the question of "where did the laws of physics come from?"

There really is no other end to the question of the origins of reality that does not point to some kind of always-existing something-or-other. It is an endless chain, since any "explanation" that could be posited must necessarily have an even further explanation. Whether or not that always-existence has some kind of sentience or purpose isn't really knowable, of course.

The problem here is assuming they have to come from somewhere to begin with. The laws of physics may just be an eternal part of reality itself. Universes could be born and die based entirely on those laws.

For all we know, singularities and big bang events are as common in the universe as stars are. Just the space between them and the time periods are beyond anything we can comprehend.

 

[dabig2]

I remember as a kid wondering if God has a God.

 

[Nivash]

Right, but that poster clearly had his mind made up before asking any of the questions. Like an effort to "gotcha" the scientific community here. At some point saying, these are our best unproven theories is all science has. Posting link to a Wiki of abiogensis isn't going to convince someone who's made up their mind and will likely have the opposite effect since I'm sure many religious people feel they got this one in the bag. Sorta like ..... "Ha and now you're jumping into faith based science realm, see you have to have faith too"

I find it comforting knowing were stuff of the stars.

Well yeah, it's like that playing chess with pigeons analogue. But there's not a lot more you can do than point to our best current theory and suggests that in absence of a better theory we might as well roll with it. Maybe they'll learn something. If the other guy still isn't convinced though there's not a whole lot you can do about it. I've never found any better tactic anyway, there just doesn't seem to be any common ground, even about the basic view of what is a logical approach.

 

[blakep267]

If God is a being that is beyond our comprehension why does "he" have to come from anything. We can't comprehend something just happening or being there.

That comes across a a huge cop out for people looking for answers

 

[Principate]

The problem here is assuming they have to come from somewhere to begin with. The laws of physics may just be an eternal part of reality itself. Universes could be born and die based entirely on those laws.

For all we know, singularities and big bang events are as common in the universe as stars are. Just the space between them and the time periods are beyond anything we can comprehend.

That's not what he's saying, simply that either the laws themselves or something governing those laws must be eternal or at least within a loop. if there's thousands of universes there's a force, reaction something that creates those thousands of universes and perpetually does so.

The rather tangent postulation is that force could be sentient, though you could postulate the force could be well anything under such postualtion, but that the god of gaps still remain.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

God is a Culture mind enjoying its time in the infinite fun space.

 

[Version 3.0]

Here's the thing about God: it doesn't matter if He exists or not, in the context of our search for answers to how the universe works, and its origin. Whether the universe was created by God or by chance, or has another origin, it's based on rules that we can discern and trace, and work out how it functions and maybe how it started.

Anyone who believes the existence of God is the answer to everything, and we shouldn't question or learn about where we live, has taken the intellect God has given us (assuming they're right) and flushed it down the toilet.

The anti-science faction of Christianity infuriates me. Shouldn't a Christian celebrate the amazing "design" of the universe and nature?

 

[Bornstellar]

God did not create new matter but reorganized existing matter.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

That's not what he's saying, simply that either the laws themselves or something governing those laws must be eternal or at least within a loop. if there's thousands of universes there's a force reaction, that causes those thousands of universes and perpetually does so.

The rather tangent postulation is that force could be sentient, though you could postulate the force could be anything, but that the god of gaps still remain.

Oh, ok. Though there doesn't have to be anything governing the laws from a logical standpoint. They are what they are.

Though, being a Deist, I do believe there is something that ether created the laws, or manages them, but that's just a belief, i've no solid empirical proof. It may just be we lack the proper tools to detect or communicate with a god like being at this time.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Abiogenesis has a ways to go before it actually answers his questions.

I agree. I almost said "...he only has a potential answer..." as my intention wasn't to say that the question is settled. I was trying to say the opposite. That this poster who mentioned abiogenesis doesn't claim to have the answers to all the questions. Only reasonable attempts at answering some.

 

[Fenderputty]

Well yeah, it's like that playing chess with pigeons analogue. But there's not a lot more you can do than point to our best current theory and suggests that in absence of a better theory we might as well roll with it. Maybe they'll learn something. If the other guy still isn't convinced though there's not a whole lot you can do about it. I've never found any better tactic anyway, there just doesn't seem to be any common ground, even about the basic view of what is a logical approach.

Part of the issue was the poster asking questions himself. At least from a disingenuous perspective. You probably could have provided him proof of Abiogenesis and still gotten a bad response. I mean, more than half this thread has dealt with philosophical questions / arguments because that's really all anyone has in the end and yet we get "chicken / egg / where do the elements come from" posts 5 pages deep.

I just think when we approach these topic against people like that we end up only providing them with their perceived "gotcha" ammo. I'm not really sure what tactic to take though ...

 

[facelike]

Here's some thoughts of mine.

1. God is just a mistranslation that ancient people used to describe nature. This is why acts of nature were considered holy works of God.
2. God is just a mistranslation that ancient people used to describe the 'energy' that we all feel. That sixth sense.
3. God is just the initial word used to describe the Sun. For cave dwellers seeing it, having it bring life, warmth and the ability to see in the dark sky, it became holy. We're scared without it.
4. Not mine thought but Ancient Aliens put it this way, if God existed and came to this word to create it, then he is extra-terrestrial, by definition. So....Aliens.
5. God is everything because the way the universe is organized is similar to an atom, which makes us one small atom in a larger creature. God is the larger creature.

 

[Fenderputty]

For those interested yet too lazy too google:

The First Way: Argument from Motion

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Most natural things lack knowledge.

But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

 

[Mengy]

Interesting thread.

Science says the universe created itself out of nothing.

Religion says God created the universe

It's a popular book on a complicated subject. Popular books on complicated subjects necessarily have to resort to simplifying descriptions and terms. He is not playing a joke on us, that's just how popular science writing works. "Nothing" is not a technical term, and he is not using it to describe absolute nothingness.

As I said, what he his referring to is the model of exponential inflation of space-time out of a "singularity". Which means a situation that is not properly described by our current physical models. These, when "played backwards" predict an infinitesimal dense space-time region, which is very likely nonsense produced by the fact that our models are incomplete and cannot account for the effects of quantum gravity. Nevertheless, that situation is what Hawking refers to as "nothing", since our space-time expanded out of it and hence didn't exist "before".

But nobody really knows the original state "before" inflation. There are several hypothesis. None of them is secured by robust evidence. But none of them talks about absolute nothingness.

For a popular discussion of that that I can recommend is Brian Greene's books. They touch on that subject on several occasions.

But El Torro, no matter the technical details of what Hawking has said, his implication is that he believes the Universe is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and thus the existence of a "God" is not necessary for it's creation. The significance of that is that the argument of "we don't understand it so "God" did it" holds less scientific merit now than it once did with respect to the big bang.

 

[boiled goose]

Let's be honest here:
acids > RNA > DNA > single cell organisms

This is the hardest part in the origin of life. Once you are at single cell organisms and DNA it only gets easier in explaining (and grasping) evolution theory. It's was also the most controversial part of his question.

I'm no biologist though (i'm a programmer), but I have an interest in the subject.

We have made progress. Nucleic acids might have come after enzymes. There are ways to get self sustaining metabolism without DNA.

Also, RNA might have come before DNa.

The question is not hard because we don't know how it could possibly happen, but rather there are too many ways it could have naturally happened.

 

[Principate]

Interesting thread.






But El Torro, no matter the technical details of what Hawking has said, his implication is that he believes the Universe is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and thus the existence of a "God" is not necessary for it's creation. The significance of that is that the argument of "we don't understand it so "God" did it" holds less scientific merit now than it once did with respect to the big bang.

What you mean it once did, since when did we believe the big bang wasn't a naturally occurring phenomena. The specific postulation something out of nothing. is nothing new to the big bang theory, maybe back when it was high density to low density, but outside of that, not really.

 

[happypup]

For those interested yet too lazy too google:

The First Way fails, it makes sense based on the universe our senses can perceive, but modern physics has shown that we cannot trust our senses when dealing with the fundamentals of our Universe. It is an inductive argument that cannot account for the weirdness of the Universe.

The second and third way are easily challenged, We have no idea how nothing behaves, nothing very well could, or must, result in the formation of something.

Indeed nothing fits the bill exceptionally well for the precursor to the first something. It is simple, not composed of contingent parts, and would exist of it's own necessity. When there are no somethings there is nothing.

The Fourth way does not work given our modern understanding of physics, simply, I challenge the existence of gradation. The Universe appears to be composed, at a fundamental level, of discrete states. It is only that we cannot see or experience the Universe at this level of detail and instead we see a gradation, where it is actually a series of discreet states.

The Fifth Way assumes the universe has a goal, that it's behaviors are directed, that our behaviors are directed,

Expressions of complex patterns can emerge through the following of simple rules, these rules, these simple behaviors, simply need to exist, they do not however need to be thought first.

 

[Fenderputty]

The First Way fails, it makes sense based on the universe our senses can perceive, but modern physics has shown that we cannot trust our senses when dealing with the fundamentals of our Universe. It is an inductive argument that cannot account for the weirdness of the Universe.

The second and third way are easily challenged, We have no idea how nothing behaves, nothing very well could, or must, result in the formation of something.

Indeed nothing fits the bill exceptionally well for the precursor to the first something. It is simple, not composed of contingent parts, and would exist of it's own necessity. When there are no somethings there is nothing.

The Fourth way does not work given our modern understanding of physics, simply, I challenge the existence of gradation. The Universe appears to be composed, at a fundamental level, of discrete states. It is only that we cannot see or experience the Universe at this level of detail and instead we see a gradation, where it is actually a series of discreet states.

The Fifth Way assumes the universe has a goal, that it's behaviors are directed, that our behaviors are directed,

Expressions of complex patterns can emerge through the following of simple rules, these rules, these simple behaviors, simply need to exist, they do not however need to be thought first.

Ultimately the logic behind those broken down points all seem to imply that an external force, and one not bound by our rules, must have existed to create our internal reality. I'm sure those are extremely reduced points, but nowhere did I see an attempt to explain why the external needs to be god and not some matrix simulator. Just that a "first mover" must exist.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Where did God come from?

A construct that someone or a group attached the label God to.

 

[Caelus]

Occam's Razor is probably the only principle holding together my belief in the physical world.

 

[Any Questions]

Basically this.

http://www.godcontention.org/compare-religions/how-can-god-be-an-uncaused-cause

I enjoyed reading this

 

[Version 3.0]

where the hell did the almost chicken come from though?

From an "almost chicken" egg, of course. I can see you're trolling, but I just love this sentence. Brings to mind "why we still got monkeys?".

 

[Kyzer]

You gotta specify which God, cuz there's different source material for each one. Lol seriously though

 

[KDR_11k]

1. Science cannot explain X
2. Let's call the cause of X "God"
3. Because we called it "God" it has all the attributes of the Christian god and every word in the Bible is true.

All the "proof" talk tends to be focused on the mere possibility of some supernatural entity existing. That this entity must be exactly the god that the speaker believes in, well, that's just presumed obvious.

Ultimately only the philosophers care about the outcome of discussions about the existence of the supernatural. Those who follow their religion just assume their god exists no matter what the debate yields, those who don't follow their religion don't. And those who believe in homeopathy don't care about all the studies that show it's bogus.

 

[dabig2]

You gotta specify which God, cuz there's different source material for each one. Lol seriously though

It's really funny how the most powerful being in the universe is so egomaniacal and wholly wanting of praise and adoration yet he allowed this to happen. Maybe relying on bronze age men to write down his words wasn't that good of an idea because we certainly did not stick to any kind of script.

 

[Abstruse Moose]

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know".

There's nothing wrong with saying "this seems like the most probable explanation", as long as the evidence points towards it.

There is something wrong with saying "this is the explanation" with no evidence to back up said claim.

 

[Version 3.0]

I enjoyed reading this

A link on that page led me to this page:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-wanchick/carrier2.html

I liked this observation in particular:

In fact, this universe appears more epistemically probable given naturalism than it does given basic theism (BT).[12] In the words of cosmologists Hawley and Holcomb, "if the intent of the universe is to create life, then it has done so in a very inefficient manner," e.g. "Aristotle's cosmos would ... [have given] a much greater amount of life per cubic centimeter."[13] In fact, I've made the same point before:

A universe perfectly designed for life would easily, readily, and abundantly produce and sustain it. Most of the contents of that universe would be conducive to life or benefit life. Yet that's not what we see. Instead, almost the entire universe is lethal to life--in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life.[14]

In other words, that we appear to be an extremely rare, chance byproduct of a vast, ancient universe almost entirely inhospitable to life is exactly what naturalism predicts, but not at all what BT predicts.

 

[happypup]

Ultimately the logic behind those broken down points all seem to imply that an external force, and one not bound by our rules, must have existed to create our internal reality. I'm sure those are extremely reduced points, but nowhere did I see an attempt to explain why the external needs to be god and not some matrix simulator. Just that a "first mover" must exist.

Aquinas relied on the concept of Revelation to bridge the gap between some first agent and his Catholic God.

Ultimately Aquinas put forth that God is self evident, so when the logic broke he could fall back on that.

 

[HK-47]

God is a Culture mind enjoying its time in the infinite fun space.

Thats my reality headcanon.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

I'd suggest reading the Summa Theologica for your answer, wherein Thomas Aquinas defines God as the only entity that doesn't rely upon another entity for existence.

You may disagree with that concept, but that's the idea, that for anything to exist at all, there must be something that doesn't rely on another agent for existence, which by definition = God.

 

[Regulus Tera]

If God is real how come Ice Climbers got cut from Smash 4?

Because wobbling is stupid.

 

[Version 3.0]

I'd suggest reading the Summa Theologica for your answer, wherein Thomas Aquinas defines God as the only entity that doesn't rely upon another entity for existence.

You may disagree with that concept, but that's the idea, that for anything to exist at all, there must be something that doesn't rely on another agent for existence, which by definition = God.

IIRC, you're leaving out that this sole entity that is non-reliant has to be sentient (because reasons). Otherwise, that entity could just be a cosmic metronome or dripping faucet, creating a universe with each tick or drip.

 

[dabig2]

IIRC, you're leaving out that this sole entity that is non-reliant has to be sentient (because reasons). Otherwise, that entity could just be a cosmic metronome or dripping faucet, creating a universe with each tick or drip.

Or why does there only have to be 1 "god" entity. Why can't there be multiple of these gods who have no beginning.

 

[number47]

Or why does there only have to be 1 "god" entity. Why can't there be multiple of these gods who have no beginning.

There can millions of gods. You're just making it all up as you go.

Op has to prove god created everything first

 

[-tetsuo-]

Its all flawed though, science, religon, people. Instead of acting like I have found the end all be all truth from science or religon I just embrace the unknown.

You seriously can not tell the difference between science and religion?

 

[Version 3.0]

There can millions of gods. You're just making it all up as you go.

No, there can't be millions of gods - not if you're a Christian. Remember, you have to tie this back to the Bible (or at least the parts you agree with or can cherry-pick to show a correlation).

But yes, "making it up as you go" is a damn good description of theological arguments over the years, as they respond to growing human knowledge.

I think my personal favorite one is the idea that God is simple, not complex. You'll sometimes see this as a rebuttal to this common back-and-forth:

"Nothing as complex as the universe could be the product of chance; it had to be created."

"But a being that can create a universe would be immeasurably complex and powerful - the same argument would then apply to that being."

"No, it wouldn't - he's divinely simplistic."

The next line in the exchange is supposed to be "Touché!", I guess. A being who can create not just our Earth and all of its complex life, but a universe so vast we can't even guess how many other such worlds may exist, and a sub-microscopic underlying structure that we can barely perceive, is not immeasurably complex. He does not have a mind such as our own, but on a cosmic scale, despite the "fact" that He created us in His own image. No, He has "divine simplicity". He can create such a thing, know its entire future path through time, and simultaneously follow the thoughts of every being within it, and still not be complex, all so that He can't be subject to such an argument.

It's truly amazing. Truly.

 

[Fenderputty]

Aquinas relied on the concept of Revelation to bridge the gap between some first agent and his Catholic God.

Ultimately Aquinas put forth that God is self evident, so when the logic broke he could fall back on that.

Which seems intellectually lazy to me. Create this logical argument for a first mover only to illogically fall back on that idea when poked specifically about the Abrahamic god.

 

[dragonzdogma]

Where did God come from?

This reminds of can a circle be a square question?

Other have already explained why God exists outside of time and laws of the universe.

The questions I would be asking is how did humans came up with this philosophy so long ago? and for what purpose and how is it possible that in the year 2015 people still believe in God?.

 

[sphinx]

and for what purpose and how is it possible that in the year 2015 people still believe in God?.

for the lack of answers.

this thread is the reason why humanity at large believes in something that can not be proven.

we are just enough intelligent as species to be aware of all of this we are talking about but we have absolutely no idea how we made it here in the first place.

it's like the "Cube" movie, and we don't know who put us here or for what. One thing is for sure, we are going to die, like in the movie

 

[happypup]

Which seems intellectually lazy to me. Create this logical argument for a first mover only to illogically fall back on that idea when poked specifically about the Abrahamic god.

He is a product of his time, I can't say for certain what his personal conclusions to his inquiries were, but, He surely couldn't come to any conclusion except the Abrahamic God without becoming a heretic and risk banishment, persecution, even death.

His reasoning is also a product of his time, the logic is more or less sound given what was known about the Universe in his life, all in all I find him to be an interesting read, just not divinely insightful.

 

[Tertullian]

Aquinas relied on the concept of Revelation to bridge the gap between some first agent and his Catholic God.

Ultimately Aquinas put forth that God is self evident, so when the logic broke he could fall back on that.

Aquinas did not hold that God is self-evident. He rejected the ontological argument. He held that God is evident from some basic foundational facts about the material world, but he did not hold that God is self-evident.

I'm also not sure your first sentence is accurate. Aquinas held that we could know some basic things about God using reason. He also held that we could know, via reason, what is genuine divine revelation and what isn't. And then, once you've established that something is in fact genuine divine relevation, you know that it's true.

Thanks for linking to that article and the book. I'll definitely have to order it when I get some time. Admittedly I've only ever read heavily condensed versions of Aquinas' 5 ways, with Hume's composition fallacy being a major sticking point for me delving deeper, I may have overestimated his refutation. Any online resources that are worth a look?

Well, he's a link where the same Thomist I already linked addresses Hume and the fallacy of composition specifically. Other than that, I dunno. Like I said, I'm not an expert, and I'm more familiar with Aquinas' classical arguments than I am with more popular contemporary arguments like W.L. Craig's Kalam cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, etc.