Your best argument that god exists

[outhouse]

Here I am.

Sorry you qualify for goddess, not god

 

[Sabour]

In the sense of cause and effect you're quite right; however, if you're saying that the cause must be a sentient creator then you've got a lot of explaining to do.

Try to think about the first thing that ever existed and figure out how it came. One can only conclude that there is a self sufficient, self sustaining Creator. One may not consider that as enough proof, but at least it would be a starting point

 

[McBell]

One can only conclude that there is a self sufficient, self sustaining Creator.

Why?
I mean, why is that the "only" conclusion?

 

[Sabour]

Please give an example of something that is "self created".

There is nothing that is self created. That is my point

Why do you claim that that something else is intelligent?

Didn't get what you are saying ? I am saying that this something else is God, here is my statement again

However, what we observe has a beginning and an end. Therefore they are not self created nor self sustaining. They are created by something else.

 

[Sabour]

Why?
I mean, why is that the "only" conclusion?

Because something that doesn't exist can't create itself. So the first thing that came into existence didn't create itself, but was created by the Self Sustaining, Self Sufficient God.

 

[Skwim]

Try to think about the first thing that ever existed and figure out how it came. One can only conclude that there is a self sufficient, self sustaining Creator.

Not at all. One can also recognize that so far it hasn't been figured out at all. There's nothing that says it's necessary that we come to a firm conclusion about anything, even as a jury. So, finding that the "self sustaining creator" is without merit, I'm sticking with the "We don't know" position, and leaning toward some kind of non-creator operation involving the BB.

 

[McBell]

There is nothing that is self created. That is my point

Good.
Where did god come from?

Didn't get what you are saying ? I am saying that this something else is God, here is my statement again

Yes, you claim that nothing is self created.
That is good to know.

Now let us apply that and ask where did god come from?

 

[McBell]

Because something that doesn't exist can't create itself. So the first thing that came into existence didn't create itself, but was created by the Self Sustaining, Self Sufficient God.

How can the very first thing to exist be created at all?
For to be created there must be a creator.
that means the creator had to exist.
Now if the creator exists, then would not the creator be the first thing to exist?
How did the creator come to be?

 

[Sabour]

Not at all. One can also recognize that so far it hasn't been figured out at all. There's nothing that says it's necessary that we come to a firm conclusion about anything, even as a jury. So, finding the "self sustaining creator" without merit, I'm sticking with the "We don't know" position, and leaning toward some kind of non-creator operation involving the BB.

One can surely say that we haven't figured it all, but will we ever do?

My answer is no. The existence of God can't be proved in the way you are describing, that is my belief. As I said before, that should be a starting point for one to take into consideration.

In my opinion, the existence of God must always be felt rather than analyzed. This would happen when we start truly seeking the truth with our heart. Once one becomes dedicated for that, he will find the proofs along the way. The problem is what may be considered as a proof for me may not be considered as the proof for you.

I don't expect anyone to convince other people of the existence of God, but rather one can give the other a certain approach or a hint to start with.

 

[Sabour]

Good.
Where did god come from?


Yes, you claim that nothing is self created.
That is good to know.

Now let us apply that and ask where did god come from?

God is by definition Self Sufficient and Self Sustaining. They are two of God's attributes.

 

[Sabour]

How can the very first thing to exist be created at all?
For to be created there must be a creator.
that means the creator had to exist.
Now if the creator exists, then would not the creator be the first thing to exist?
How did the creator come to be?

The rules of the creation does not apply to the rules of the Creator.

Creation needs a Creator but the Creator doesn't need anything to create it.

 

[Skwim]

One can surely say that we haven't figured it all, but will we ever do?

Don't know.

My answer is no.

Yet you claim "One can only conclude that there is a self sufficient, self sustaining Creator." Care to explain?

The existence of God can't be proved in the way you are describing, that is my belief.

I never described a way in which god can be proved. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

God is by definition Self Sufficient and Self Sustaining. They are two of God's attributes.

Whose definition is this, and who decided on these particular attributes?

The rules of the creation does not apply to the rules of the Creator.

Aside from yourself, who says so, and why should we believe them?

Creation needs a Creator but the Creator doesn't need anything to create it.

Sorry, but unless you explain why, this is no more convincing then the claim that unicorns exist.

 

[Bunyip]

Try to think about the first thing that ever existed and figure out how it came. One can only conclude that there is a self sufficient, self sustaining Creator. One may not consider that as enough proof, but at least it would be a starting point

Really? How could that be the only conclusion?

 

[atpollard]

Neanderthals performed burial rituals.
That something exists beyond our finite, meaningless existence is self-evident and apriori.
It requires some specific experiential events to screw up something so obvious and create atheists ... that is why there are statistically so few (single digit percentages).

 

[Bunyip]

Neanderthals performed burial rituals.
That something exists beyond our finite, meaningless existence is self-evident and apriori.
It requires some specific experiential events to screw up something so obvious and create atheists ... that is why there are statistically so few (single digit percentages).

How do you get from 'something' to God?

 

[kepha31]

Because it has little worth in my eyes.

Baseless rhetoric is not a refutation, it's a cop out. If you are not a polytheistic Deo-Atomist, then say so.

 

[kepha31]

In the sense of cause and effect you're quite right; however, if you're saying that the cause must be a sentient creator then you've got a lot of explaining to do.

(1) The first thing we can establish is that there is motion in the universe. Motion is another word for change or from the state of potentiality to actuality. For example, our thoughts change. No one can deny change. But whatever is in motion is moved by another since nothing can move itself. To deny this is to say that a potentiality can actualize itself, a nonbeing into a being, meaning a greater can come from a less. That is absurd since nonbeing cannot produce being since nothing can't produce something.

Therefore motion can only be moved by another or a potentiality can only be actualized by an act. If every motion is moved by another, can there be an infinite number of movers? According to Thomas, an infinite series of movers accidentally subordinated to one another in time is possible. This is because God could have made an eternal universe. However, an eternal universe must have a reason for its existence just as an eternal footprint needs a foot.

However, motion exists now. Since it exists now, we must explain its existence. However, an infinite number of movers does not explain the series of motion. Only when I arrive at an Unmoved Mover am I to give a full explanation of motion. The Unmoved First Mover, therefore, is not the first in order of time, but in the order of rational sufficiency.

But some may ask, “Who moved the First Mover?” The answer is simply that the Unmoved First Mover alone answers the true idea of a mover. A secondary mover, insofar as it is a secondary, is not a mover at all. For example, if I see a mover, but found that that this is moved by something else, what happened to the mover? It has become actually a motion. It makes no difference how often I go back to each mover, but until I arrive at a First Mover, the idea of motion will be unexplained.

Therefore in order to explain motion in the universe, there must be an Unmoved First Mover. Since changing beings consists of act and potency, and the First Mover is unchanged, then the First Mover must be Pure Act. There cannot be more than one Pure Act because they would coincide.
Thomistic Approaches for the Existence of God by A.L.

 

[Bunyip]

(1) The first thing we can establish is that there is motion in the universe. Motion is another word for change or from the state of potentiality to actuality. For example, our thoughts change. No one can deny change. But whatever is in motion is moved by another since nothing can move itself. To deny this is to say that a potentiality can actualize itself, a nonbeing into a being, meaning a greater can come from a less. That is absurd since nonbeing cannot produce being since nothing can't produce something.

Therefore motion can only be moved by another or a potentiality can only be actualized by an act. If every motion is moved by another, can there be an infinite number of movers? According to Thomas, an infinite series of movers accidentally subordinated to one another in time is possible. This is because God could have made an eternal universe. However, an eternal universe must have a reason for its existence just as an eternal footprint needs a foot.

However, motion exists now. Since it exists now, we must explain its existence. However, an infinite number of movers does not explain the series of motion. Only when I arrive at an Unmoved Mover am I to give a full explanation of motion. The Unmoved First Mover, therefore, is not the first in order of time, but in the order of rational sufficiency.

But some may ask, “Who moved the First Mover?” The answer is simply that the Unmoved First Mover alone answers the true idea of a mover. A secondary mover, insofar as it is a secondary, is not a mover at all. For example, if I see a mover, but found that that this is moved by something else, what happened to the mover? It has become actually a motion. It makes no difference how often I go back to each mover, but until I arrive at a First Mover, the idea of motion will be unexplained.

Therefore in order to explain motion in the universe, there must be an Unmoved First Mover. Since changing beings consists of act and potency, and the First Mover is unchanged, then the First Mover must be Pure Act. There cannot be more than one Pure Act because they would coincide.
Thomistic Approaches for the Existence of God by A.L.

How do you get from 'unmoved first mover' to God?

 

[Sapiens]

Again, you affirm my point. You reject metaphysical arguments not because of their own merits but because you have already made up your mind they have no validity. It won't matter what or how they are demonstrated.

No, I reject metaphysical arguments on their own merits, in 65 years on this planet I've yet to see a single on that deserved anything else.

Belief is not blind acceptance. That is an atheistic premise imposed on theists and it's false. Faith and reason are compatible, dichotomizing them is erroneous.

T'aint necessarily so. You can have reason without faith, that's easy. You can have faith without reason, that's common. But reason AND faith, that's rather much harder, you see reason demands "proof" (I'd rather say likelihood) whilst faith does not require proof, in fact if often exists in the face of clear falsification.

 

[Skwim]

(1) The first thing we can establish is that there is motion in the universe. Motion is another word for change or from the state of potentiality to actuality. For example, our thoughts change. No one can deny change. But whatever is in motion is moved by another since nothing can move itself. To deny this is to say that a potentiality can actualize itself, a nonbeing into a being, meaning a greater can come from a less. That is absurd since nonbeing cannot produce being since nothing can't produce something.

Therefore motion can only be moved by another or a potentiality can only be actualized by an act. If every motion is moved by another, can there be an infinite number of movers? According to Thomas, an infinite series of movers accidentally subordinated to one another in time is possible. This is because God could have made an eternal universe. However, an eternal universe must have a reason for its existence just as an eternal footprint needs a foot.

Excuse me, but what is this god thing that suddenly got thrown into the mix?

However, motion exists now. Since it exists now, we must explain its existence. However, an infinite number of movers does not explain the series of motion. Only when I arrive at an Unmoved Mover am I to give a full explanation of motion. The Unmoved First Mover, therefore, is not the first in order of time, but in the order of rational sufficiency.

But some may ask, “Who moved the First Mover?” The answer is simply that the Unmoved First Mover alone answers the true idea of a mover. A secondary mover, insofar as it is a secondary, is not a mover at all. For example, if I see a mover, but found that that this is moved by something else, what happened to the mover? It has become actually a motion. It makes no difference how often I go back to each mover, but until I arrive at a First Mover, the idea of motion will be unexplained.

Therefore in order to explain motion in the universe, there must be an Unmoved First Mover. Since changing beings consists of act and potency, and the First Mover is unchanged, then the First Mover must be Pure Act. There cannot be more than one Pure Act because they would coincide.
Thomistic Approaches for the Existence of God by A.L.

Don't know who this A.L. is, but his rambling ideas got more incomprehensible with every sentence. In particular is his silliness concerning the "First Mover." "the Unmoved First Mover alone answers the true idea of a mover. " I've seen better from freshman philosophy students, but maybe that's what he is.

FYI, Just because it appears on the internet doesn't make it worth repeating.

(Oh yes, quoting to this extent could be interpreted as plagiarism.)