Zone1 The God Proof

[Z99]

Do you agree that this proves God?

 

[BULLDOG]

Not even close.

 

[alang1216]

Do you agree that this proves God?


View attachment 1081686

What is the cause of God's existence?

 

[onefour1]

Do you agree that this proves God?


View attachment 1081686

I don't find this reasoning to be a proof. Let me address each point:

1. Everything that exists has a cause of its existence - This assumes that there must be a cause for existence. Why is this assumed. Why can't something be self-existent or have an eternal existence? Why must it be assumed that everything has to be brought into existence? Maybe much of existence is eternal in nature and has always existed. If God is the only thing that has self-existed and everything else never existed at some time in the past, then before the very first thing was brought into existence, God would have existed for an infinite amount of time before his first creation. Do we really believe that there was a God who existed for an eternity past without a single other thing existing for an eternity past? Does that not come off as strange to anyone else? My personal belief as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that intelligence and matter have always existed. This knowledge was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith in the following verses:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29, 33
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

This would mean that our intelligence and matter have always existed. God has taken intelligence and matter and created worlds without number and also created mankind's spirits and then their bodies. If God could not create intelligence, then he could not create mankind to be perfect. This is why mankind are not perfect and need to go through a mortal experience to learn good from evil and learn to choose in and of themselves to be truly good beings.

2. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes (because and infinite regress would mean there is not first cause, and hence, nothing would exist).- Referring back to my initial response in point one above, I don't believe that everything had to be brought into existence but that there were things that have always existed or that have a self-existing nature. Thus these things, intelligence and matter, go back for all eternity and at some point in the infinite past intelligence has progressed in knowledge to the point of becoming all knowing for certain intelligences who have become gods and are capable of instructing and bringing the rest of us intelligences to progress to advance to that same status. So if self-existence is a true principal, then an infinite regress is possible but once intelligence reached the stage of godhood, then progression became much faster for all the eternal intelligences.

3. Therefore, there must be a first cause, which itself is uncaused.- Not agreeing with the first two premises, I cannot agree with this conclusion. If there are self-existing intelligences and self-existing matter, then there was no first cause that created absolutely everything out of absolutely nothing.

4. If there were more than one uncaused cause, they would either have to be identical (leading to one) or different (which would imply a cause for their difference, contradicting the uncaused nature). - Again, if there are self-existing things that have always existed, then there is no first cause because there are many uncaused causes with innumerable self-existing intelligences. However, it is implied that some of the intelligences would have to advance to a stage of intelligence to be able to apply that intelligence to create worlds and galaxies and mankind etc. A God would have to come to understand the material universe that matter and intelligence exist in and know how to control his environment to bring about the ultimate way to exist in this eternal existence.

 

[jwoodie]

Do you agree that this proves God?

It proves there was a creation, and thereby a creator. Since a creator must be greater than his creation, that power must exceed any power in that creation. Human beings are a part of creation. Even if they finally understand creation, their power would still be less than that of the creator. This means that the creator is god-like within the limits of human understanding. Therefor, there must be a God.

 

[BULLDOG]

It proves there was a creation, and thereby a creator. Since a creator must be greater than his creation, that power must exceed any power in that creation. Human beings are a part of creation. Even if they finally understand creation, their power would still be less than that of the creator. This means that the creator is god-like within the limits of human understanding. Therefor, there must be a God.

That is an absurd remark.

 

[Z99]

Why can't something be self-existent or have an eternal existence?

What exists that has always existed?

 

[onefour1]

What exists that has always existed?

If you read my post I stated that I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that we believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. We believe that it was revealed unto him the following:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29, 33
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

In this revelation it was revealed that the intelligence of mankind was not created or made and neither indeed can be. In other words, our intelligence is self-existing and has always existed. It was also revealed that the elements are eternal and have also always existed.

 

[Z99]

If you read my post I stated that I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that we believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. We believe that it was revealed unto him the following:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29, 33
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

In this revelation it was revealed that the intelligence of mankind was not created or made and neither indeed can be. In other words, our intelligence is self-existing and has always existed. It was also revealed that the elements are eternal and have also always existed.

I don't share that belief.

 

[norwegen]

No.

We have no proof of God's existence.

We have evidence for it, though, I think, which may be a different discussion.

 

[onefour1]

No.

We have no proof of God's existence.

We have evidence for it, though, I think, which may be a different discussion.

Yes, as a people that is so that we can learn to walk by faith.

 

[onefour1]

I don't share that belief.

We are all free to believe as we choose.

 

[DStar777]

Do you agree that this proves God?

No (and I say this as a theist). But.. let's forget that for now.
Premise #2 contradicts Premise #1.
Does EVERYTHING have a cause? Then there IS an infinite regress of causes.
If there is NO infinite regress of causes then everything does NOT have a cause.

 

[ding]

What is the cause of God's existence?

Existence itself because God is existence. God isn't a thing. Things have causes.

 

[BULLDOG]

Existence itself because God is existence. God isn't a thing. Things have causes.

And we're back to that again. If you so easly say god simply is and always has been, why is it so hard to say the bg bang theory can't be right because we can't yet prove why it happened? Explain your logic.

 

[alang1216]

Existence itself because God is existence. God isn't a thing. Things have causes.

Easy to say, impossible to prove right or wrong in the complete absence of evidence.

 

[kjw47]

And we're back to that again. If you so easly say god simply is and always has been, why is it so hard to say the bg bang theory can't be right because we can't yet prove why it happened? Explain your logic.

The big bang would equal trillions x trillions x trillions, etc of atoms being blasted out in utter confusion, yet all landing perfectly to create all creation working in harmony= never. One can put a jar of peanut butter, a jar of jelly and 2 slices of bread on a table, how many years would it take to have a pb and jelly sandwich if blown out into outer space?= never.

 

[BULLDOG]

The big bang would equal trillions x trillions x trillions, etc of atoms being blasted out in utter confusion, yet all landing perfectly to create all creation working in harmony= never. One can put a jar of peanut butter, a jar of jelly and 2 slices of bread on a table, how many years would it take to have a pb and jelly sandwich if blown out into outer space?= never.

If there were no jelly, no jar of peanut butter, no bread, and no table, and no outer space to blow them out to, how many more years would it take for that same sandwich to appear?

 

[alang1216]

The big bang would equal trillions x trillions x trillions, etc of atoms being blasted out in utter confusion, yet all landing perfectly to create all creation working in harmony= never. One can put a jar of peanut butter, a jar of jelly and 2 slices of bread on a table, how many years would it take to have a pb and jelly sandwich if blown out into outer space?= never.

Because you can't understand how the BB created our universe, that makes it impossible? I think not.

 

[BackAgain]