«Home

Whether God Exists?

Whether God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. 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 is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. 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 is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

Avatar
Newbie
37 answers

@KAG

are you a female?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@KAG,

FYI am an Architect, an Evangelist as well, i understand what you are talking about.The bible says that God

has used the little things of this world to confuse the wise.Get understanding.God is the Chief scientist,

there are some things that your mind cannot comprehend when it requires GOD's FACTOR.

0
Avatar
Newbie

No, ignorance kills. Thank goodness most scientists didn't and don't share your viewpoint. On the other hand, if they had shared your stupidity, no one would have been subjected to your silliness. Win some, lose some.

0
Avatar
Newbie

First, no, Newton's gravitational law wasn't modified by Einstein, it was superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity; and while Newton's law isn't exactly considered right, it's still a useful tool for explaining and showing the workings of several things - especially to non-physicists and students.

Second, what laws of Darwin have been modified? As far as I know, the closest Darwin came to establishing a law would have been indicating that mutations tend to happen with reproduction. No, I haven't seen any reason to think the theory of evolution is wrong. It isn't a law, though.

Oh no, the two worlds influence each other, there their relatedness lies; but to be clear, the

Oh, I know you weren't implying he gets ignored because he is Nigerian, I just thought I'd mention that.

Read it again. I don't see where I even imply that the "thermo laws are impractical for the macro world". Also, it is known how the thermodynamics laws work.

I believe this is a major point of contention: do the quantum and classical world follow the same rules? I don't think so, but I'm open to the idea that they might.

Um, it doesn't work that way. For one thing, all things don't point to zero not existing. For another, that you intuitively feel zero can't exist doesn't logically lead to a conclusion that zero can't exist.

Come again. Why would you need to find another perfectly symmetrical photon to have one perfect photon. That makes no sense.

Again you've missed my points. Ignoring those for a second, though, a singularity isn't just a concept, it's something that exists. So, if it is nothing, then, following your logic, it directly implies that nothing does in fact exist.

Coming back to the final points, "Two things. like I said above, if that's your present argument then it would seem you now don't object to the notion of a singularity being something - a something antecedent to the Universe.

Second, I've stated that it's wrong because I don't see how you can consider something that exists, the closest to nothing we have, considering we do indeed have notions of nothing especially with vacuums of different states and observations being the most prevalent examples used to represent a state of nothing"

0
Avatar
Newbie

What do you mean by the Laws need to be modified, as opposed to them breaking down at the micro-level? Further, doesn't the notion of modifying a law invalidate the purpose of the law? That is, it ceases to be a law at that point'

thats wrong dude1 quick example, Newtons law was modified by Einstein, but we dont exactly consider Newtons gravity laws wrond do we? Also Darwin s laws have been mofified more times than i can count and even though i m convinced Darwin is crap im sure you dont consider his theory wrong. or do you?

I[b] agree that scientists have been searching for a unifying theory for decades. Such a theory would need to be able to explain and unify quantum physics with classical physics, that is, the micro and macro worlds. In other words, there exists a division in how both states operate. And, you'd be wrong to say the two cannot be separated - if they couldn't, quantum physics wouldn't be so damn annoying and cool.[/b]

im assuming the fact that scientist assume that a unifying theory has to exist SHOWS that the two worlds are considered a continuation of the same thing.dog, the term UNIFYING theory says it all.

Also, there's a reason the Nigerian guy has been ignored, and it's not because he's Nigerian.

cant remember alluding to that. i just mentioned that as an aside. i have no idea of the veracity or otherwise of his claims.

Yeah, I didn't say any of that

DIRECT QUOTE FROM KAG

So, for the first, the laws of thermodynamics may be found impractical for the micro-world, and for the latter, the emergence of virtual particles would be counterintuitive.

[i][/i]

yes u did kag

Well, it is. Someday some genius or group of geniuses may find a way to fully unite both.

It isnt really. the two worlds just seem to follow two different laws. we all know they follow the same rules, we just dont know the rule yet.

yes. some genius will do that

First, I'm inclined to state that there is a possibility of zero existing. You mentioned something about limited knowledge earlier. It would seem that's applicable here, as we should not conclude dogmatically that something mathematical can't exist based on nothing more than our intuition.

Kag, all things at present point to zero not exisiting. so for now, zero cant exist!

Second, again a false syllogism seems to have crept in: the argument for the unlikelihood of a zero in reality is no indication on the likelihood of a one, as they are slightly different conceptions in reality. What may be considered a perfect one? Would one photon suffice?

No! except you find another photon that is perfectly symmetrical to the first photon

Finally, again, I'm disinclined to believe that a perfect vacuum can't exist. It certainly can. In any case, if we agree that a singuarity is something then we are back to the beginning of the line that started the discussion (and perhaps the end), where I indicated that a singularity is something.

A singularity is a something, in the sense that zero as a concept is a something. a singularity is zero, which is nothing.

0
Avatar
Newbie

What do you mean by the Laws need to be modified, as opposed to them breaking down at the micro-level? Further, doesn't the notion of modifying a law invalidate the purpose of the law? That is, it ceases to be a law at that point.

I agree that scientists have been searching for a unifying theory for decades. Such a theory would need to be able to explain and unify quantum physics with classical physics, that is, the micro and macro worlds. In other words, there exists a division in how both states operate. And, you'd be wrong to say the two cannot be separated - if they couldn't, quantum physics wouldn't be so damn annoying and cool.

Also, there's a reason the Nigerian guy has been ignored, and it's not because he's Nigerian.

Yeah, I didn't say any of that.

Well, it is. Someday some genius or group of geniuses may find a way to fully unite both.

First, I'm inclined to state that there is a possibility of zero existing. You mentioned something about limited knowledge earlier. It would seem that's applicable here, as we should not conclude dogmatically that something mathematical can't exist based on nothing more than our intuition.

Second, again a false syllogism seems to have crept in: the argument for the unlikelihood of a zero in reality is no indication on the likelihood of a one, as they are slightly different conceptions in reality. What may be considered a perfect one? Would one photon suffice?

Finally, again, I'm disinclined to believe that a perfect vacuum can't exist. It certainly can. In any case, if we agree that a singuarity is something then we are back to the beginning of the line that started the discussion (and perhaps the end), where I indicated that a singularity is something.

Two things. like I said above, if that's your present argument then it would seem you now don't object to the notion of a singularity being something - a something antecedent to the Universe.

Second, I've stated that it's wrong because I don't see how you can consider something that exists, the closest to nothing we have, considering we do indeed have notions of nothing especially with vacuums of different states and observations being the most prevalent examples used to represent a state of nothing

0
Avatar
Newbie

Simple, for one thing, many of the laws that apply in the macro-world break down in the micro-. Further, several of the things that the macro-world has urged us to consider intuitively impossible, are in fact, possible in the micro. So, for the first, the laws of thermodynamics may be found impractical for the micro-world, and for the latter, the emergence of virtual particles would be counterintuitive.

the laws dont exactly break down. they need to be modified. the scientific community since the days of Einstein have been searching for a unifying theory (the theoryof everything which by the way a nigerian scientist claims to have discovered to everyone elses indifference). the micro and macro worlds cannot be seperated, where is the dividing line? whatever happens in the macro should be explainable in the macro and vice-versa. saying the thermo laws are impractical for the macro world is fasle! we havnt just found out (in our limited capacities) how these laws work together.

Neatly? I'd say not.

i dare say it isnt divided at all, or shouldnt be.

Yes, the macro comprises of the micro, but the behaviour of things in the two separate instances gives reason to differentiate. Also, the micro may not necessary determine what occurs in the macro, as it is certain that the macro also influences occurences in the micro-. As to your second point, I don't see how it follows from the first. How does the fact that the macro-world constitutes of the micro- lead to a point that perfection doesn't exist? As it stands it seems a false syllogism

i gave you a simple example to demonstrate how zero does not exist in one of my earlier posts. since im convinced the micro world and the macro world are one and the same, then i can conclude that no absolutes exist, if zero doees not exist, an absolute one cannot exist. what exists in reality is 0.9999999999 to infinity and if an absolute 1 does not exist it means nature approximates in its calculations and perfect situations dont exist. if perfect situations dont exist, then a perfect vacuum will not exist, all you ll have is the closest thing to the perfect situation, which is what a singularity is!, the closest thing to nothing! my point is nothing does not and cannot exist!

So your argument is now that although singularities are somethings, they are conceived as the closest to nothing we can have? If that is indeed your argument, it's still wrong.

you took the words right out of my mouth. and my arguement is right!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Simple, for one thing, many of the laws that apply in the macro-world break down in the micro-. Further, several of the things that the macro-world has urged us to consider intuitively impossible, are in fact, possible in the micro. So, for the first, the laws of thermodynamics may be found impractical for the micro-world, and for the latter, the emergence of virtual particles would be counterintuitive.

Neatly? I'd say not.

Yes, the macro comprises of the micro, but the behaviour of things in the two separate instances gives reason to differentiate. Also, the micro may not necessary determine what occurs in the macro, as it is certain that the macro also influences occurences in the micro-. As to your second point, I don't see how it follows from the first. How does the fact that the macro-world constitutes of the micro- lead to a point that perfection doesn't exist? As it stands it seems a false syllogism.

Why is it impossible for there to be nothing in nature?

So your argument is now that although singularities are somethings, they are conceived as the closest to nothing we can have? If that is indeed your argument, it's still wrong.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@kag

why is the macro world different from the micro world, 

is the world neatly divided into macro and micro?, 

what is the macro if it is not made up of the micro?  i.e the micro determines what happens in the macro

which leads to the point im trying to make which is perfection does not exist! 

even nature has to approximate !

in nature nothing does not exist, it is impossible for nothing to exist, 

so something has to become nothing, 

which is where singlarities come in handy,

0
Avatar
Newbie

You see what i've been saying about theories.THEORIES KILL,

JUST BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR & HAVE PEACE.

0
Avatar
Newbie

A perfect vacuum probably doesn't exist, but singularities do. I don't think you're using the word "symmetry" correctly. To make an argument on symmetry as a property, one needs to be apprising something. If there's nothing in a perfect vacuum, then there can be no indication or allusion to symmetry.

Necessarily.

0
Avatar
Newbie

For the first, you state that "a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry". What exactly would be symmetrical in a perfect vacuum. Are you sure you are talking about the right thing?

Second, no, a perfect vacuum isn't a singularity

a perfect vacuum does not exist. but if it did, it would indicate sameness,  the sameness of nothing. in other words symmetry, perfect symetry that is

What on Earth are you talking about? That one thing may be indistinguishable from another does't indicate that they are in the same space. By the way, you do realise that to posit an argument that objects are symmetrical in a singularity is to indicate that a singulaity is a something, right?

not necesarily.

0
Avatar
Newbie

That's interesting. What do you mean? In the macro-world, at least, as far as I can tell, one plus one does equal two.

0
Avatar
Newbie

For the first, you state that "a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry". What exactly would be symmetrical in a perfect vacuum. Are you sure you are talking about the right thing?

Second, no, a perfect vacuum isn't a singularity.

What on Earth are you talking about? That one thing may be indistinguishable from another does't indicate that they are in the same space. By the way, you do realise that to posit an argument that objects are symmetrical in a singularity is to indicate that a singulaity is a something, right?

Okay. Fair enough.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Is this a correct syllogism? I doubt it.

Correcto! In this state All things are a Unity. I reckon Mathematics would be perfect if 1 plus 1 actually equalled 2. But Alas! 'Tis not so.

Not to mention the fact that Space is not Nothing. It has qualities that can be discerned.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@kag

1. a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry. A singularity is a phenomenon where all laws break down and symettry is absolute. a 'perfect vacuum is a singularity.

2. semantics asides, there are different types of symetrry (ur mirror image for instance) but absolute symetry occurs when image 1 is totally indistinguishable from image 2 in ALL respects, which by the way is scientifically impossible since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, in a singularity, since ALL laws break down, this can happen.

3. the space that exists in the atom is not empty space.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Actually, no. A perfect vacuum is the closest you'll ever get to a definition of nothing. Singularities, with the properties they possess are somethings.

I'm not sure i understand. To what or how is uniformity relative?

I agree that nothing exists as a concept - which was the point of this segment.

But is the internal part of an atom "empty space"? Yes there are things within the atom, but there's also a lot nothing that can be deciphered within the atom.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Let no one be confused about the existence of God.Forget theories and the rest of them.

There is a God in heaven that answereth by fire. He is a Spirit,He allows all these theories

for his own Glory. I've tasted the goodness of God and i know for sure that He exists.

0
Avatar
Newbie

No, everything doesn't become everything, but the laws that we know do break down, when a singularity is involved. Those of course don't make it nothing (even the notion of "everything bcoming everything" indicates a something).

the point where all laws break down rendering all things indistinguishable is the closest you ll ever get to a definition of nothing.

How so?

how so? uniformity is relative. absolute uniformity is absolute!

Yes, it indicates that "I" as a thinking subject exists and "I" am involved in thought of contrasting two different ideas. However, that isn't an indictment on the idea of nothing or nothingness, as thinking about those ideas are necessary for several philosophical cosiderations

this argument really depends on your definition of nothing, i still maintain that nothing is just a concept. the universe is yet to provide us with an example of nothing. (empty space isnt nothing)

Oh, no, I know all that, but within the atom is a great deal of nothing. Protons, neutrons and electrons make a relatively small part of the atom.

like i said earlier, empty space isnt nothing a lot of 'something'works through empty space.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Once again, NO ATHEIST has been able to disprove the existence of God/gods.

0
Avatar
Newbie

which is why I know that when die I'm going to Valhalla. Praise Odin!

0
Avatar
Newbie

i wonder why all the religious people in the house are refusing to provide answers to my questionsbut dancing around some other things.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@abasifo

Please can you provide answers to the questions i asked above? I will like to engage in an objective discussion with you hope you have the open mind to engage, will be waiting for your reply since you have made a flat out assertion that you believe in the biblical god and hence he must be the one that controls everything in the world and he alone is god.

0
Avatar
Newbie

If there is a god then which is it? is it all-ah, jehova, buddah, the hindu gods, horus, kuns,zeus, sango,shinto, ba'al, ajenaku. . . . . . .  which of the gods or goddess should we believe in. the mo'slems believe very well in their god and believe that he answers their prayers and takes very good care of them, they believe that all his revelation in his holy book(ko'ran) will surely come to pass so do the christains and all the other religions in the world. what i fail to understand is why a god that revealed himself to people in the first centuary living in middle east(christains, mo'slem and jews)  throw over 2 billion people living in asia(india and china) who he never revealed himself to at any point in time in history in hell for enternity for not believing in him. it just does'nt make sense to me. the other day i was talking to a christain friend and she told me that he likes chinese people but its just unfortunate that they will all end up in hell(lol) when there is no mention of china in the bible even though china was existing at that time and when no prophet was sent to them from the bible or the ko'ran.

If you read the bible, ko'ran and other religious text with an opened mind u will see that there are a lot of good things and a lot of things that just don't make sense in them but the bottom line is that there is nothing in them that can not be written by any man even though i will admitt they were written by great men who wrote what and how they understood the world and how they believe life should be lived here on earth. Religion has more to do with imperialism and expanding a particular ideology and culture that is seeking to dominate the entire world. the mo'slems believe that the arabs are the people that were choosen by all'ah hence they should be highly respected while christains believe that the jews are the people that were choosen by god. the chinese believe they are the chosen people by their various gods, while the indains who are mostly hindus believe they are the chosen people by their various hindu gods and goddess and the saga continues, if god can physically reveal himself to the people living in the 1st centuary then why would'nt he reveal him self to the world in these mordern day and time?

i have heard grapical testimonies of christains and mo'slem who all claimed that they went to heaven to see their various gods and they were both very sincere and passionate when sharing their testimonies, some of them were weeping as they shared their testimonies, how then can it be all true?there was this mos'lem man i saw on TV on an arabic channel the other day as i was flipping channels who was weeping profusley and sharing his experience, he said that he was taken to the world beyond on his sick bed where he meet with the prophet mo'hammed and the prophet showed him hell and paradise from a distance he describe in details what he saw, he said he saw so many angels but the prophet told him he could not see all'ah because he has'nt been chosen to enter paradise because only those that were in paradise can see all'ah, he said the doctors had pronouced him dead but he came back to life in the car when his body was to be taken home for burial, i have heared countless christains share such stories too about them meeting jesus and god in heaven and it only makes me laugh because they can not all be true. yet people believe in all this things to the extent of giving up their lives for it. so the question is if there is a god then which one is it? because people of different religions and faiths have so many claims of encountering their various gods and goddess weather in their sleep or while walking on the street in the afternoon or at night.

so many mo'slems have claimed they have meet god in one way or the other, same with so many christains, i believe there are jews that are claiming that they have meet him too, it will not be suprising if there are hindus or buddist monks who will tell you they have meet him in one way or the other and they will all tell you that the god they meet or encountered is the same god that revealed himself in their holy books or the god that their religion subscribes too. i can't say that those who claim to have seen these revelations are lying because i was'nt there when they saw their revelations but if there really is a god then which one is it? because all the gods in all the religions claim they are the way, the truth and the life and no one goes to heaven unless they subscribe to their ways as revealed in their holy books be it the ko'ran ,the bible the mormon bible, hindu text, buddhist text etc. if there is a god the which one is it? , what makes jehova the god of the bible better than all'ah the god of the ko'ran?  why is the jewish god a false god and what makes all'ah better than buddah? why is is'lam false and why should christainity be regarded as the truth? why should judaism be discarded?what makes sikhism a false religion and why should their god be discarded?  why is is'lam better than buddhism? what makes kuns less of  a god than all'ah and why should jehova be regarded as a better god than zeus? why is all'ah better than jehova? why should jehova the god of the bible be trusted and believed in and not alla'h? why is kuns better than horus? why do all  the gods of all religions claim they are the alpha and the omega the creators of the heavens and the earth? and why do their followers always claim that they have encountered or physically seen them in one way or the other? and who are you to say that those that claim they have seen or encountered other gods other than the one you believe in are lying and who told you the god of your religion is the only true god? Pls i need answers. . . . . . . . . . . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

There is a GOd. I am not a born again Christian but I can tell you this. He has bought me out of many situations that even today I can't explain. He has blessed me and He keeps on blessing me.

0
Avatar
Newbie

dont know about god but i believe in aliens

0
Avatar
Newbie

The only post I can agree with on this thread is the one posted by KAG, I can only add that the most we as humans at the moment with the level of knowledge we posses is that all scientific evidence does not point to a deity creating the universe and everything in it . As a matter of fact the evidence tends to show that we have no reason to believe that there was any god behind the genesis of the universe because there are other explanations.

The most intelligent position i would contend is that we do not know for a fact for now and we should endeavour to open our minds in order to investigate the truth and not speculate based on some ancient text or the proclamations of some "holy man"

In conclusion god may or may not exist but the real question i think is how can anybody say they know categorically or prove the existence, because it is simply impossible to know the answer to that question based on the current state of science and information available to us. I therefore ask that people keep their minds open and also try to cultivate a culture of learning and not of ignorance based on religion which is our first failed attempt as humans to interpret the natural world.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@grailife

Wonderful. Keep it up.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This can be said to be the cosmological arguement of proving the existence of God from a closed Bible. 

Motion is not natural, on the contrary, what is natural is rest.  Everything that moves has to be moved by someone or something that has been moved by something.  Just like a pack of dominoes fall from a single move of the mover.  Every effect has a cause and this first mover or first cause is the Eternal being, the uncreated Creator who is the Mighty-Strong-One-Elohim, The Covenant-keeping-never-failing-Yahweh, The El-shaddai-All-Sufficient-God and The Ever-present-I am that I am.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Two contaries be infinite? Also the word God does not mean infinite goodness, and that in itself isn't the objection skeptics bring to the table, but that I suppose is irrelevant.

I'm not sure I agree with "For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will.", but the rest is pretty bang on.

I sincerely doubt that.

You've just used a lot of words to disguise an argument devoid of actual content. What you've basically said is, "things are in motion, everything I know needs something to give them a push first, well everything except something else that is in motion which *ahem* did not require an initial push though, and that arbitrary thing would be my God, thank you very much". Why every other thing except your God required a push? Damned if we know. Now, I very well may be wrong on this, but don't things in quantum just happen without a "push"? Also, there are theories for how things got into "motion" in the first place, and they don't require the push of a deity anyway.

What? Were you trying to argue that because entropy occurs, then God exists? I'm not completely sure what your argument was, but it looks highly ridiculous. Just FYI, the Universe isn't infinite, if that was what you were getting at. Also, arbitrary claims and assumptions without any backing evidence, do not proofs make. You saying there must be a being with immunity against entropy, doesn't make it so.

This is getting (improbably) more and more ridiculous, what, in all that is holy, does "We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be" mean? Anybody? Also, the science community doesn't claim that the Universe came from nothing, IIRC, it claims that before the Universe there was some kind of a singularity that expanded, and became the Universe.

Also, I IRC, quantum gives the possibility of quantum particles (right word?) coming from nothing.

Finally, No, actually we can help but postulate the existence of some being with the ability to just simply exist, for it may very well be nothing but "God of the gaps" argument, and we all know how that's worked out since ages past.

What? No seriously, what? People are good, fire is hot, therefore God? Seriously? No I'm not even going to bother. I mean who needs to explain that "good" really is a relative concept, and most of our morals and ethics are simply empathic and self preserving ideals (at least at their basest levels), that have evolved with human civilisations, brains, etc.

No they don't, should suffice.

The obvious objection to that reply would be to ask why an omnipotent God needs evil to produce

Good. Why not just circumvent it, and just give goodness and be done with evil altogether. An omnipotent God could very well do that. The argument of good and evil is a silly one though, at least in my opinion.

No. Nature does not work towards a determined end.

Reading through your "proof", all you've done was beg the question, make baseless assumptions, make strange claims, and assert that everything else is subject to arbitrary rules that for some bizarre unclear reason don't apply to your God.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ drusilla

i did go back to understand what the guy was saying, but it was to long so whatever.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Apparently people are not reading the whole post.

Maybe it is too long for some.

The person is actually FOR the existence of God.

This is why the bible tells us not to be hasty before we have heard the whole story.

0
Avatar
Newbie

how dare you speak such thing and everyone for agreeing with him. God do exist and that's that. no questions about it.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.