Logical explanation: why a god must exist

Forums: Religion, Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion, Logical Explanation
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?
everything must come from something.

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing (ex. if i say, count to a infinity, will you ever reach infinity? No.)

Thus meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) Must have created everything.

As for the then how was god created question

God does not need to be created because he has been around forever, you may say how is this possible. but God is without time. He lives in the past present and future and to him time is a mere physical boundary that us humans live in.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 28 • Views: 63,167 • Replies: 484

@Johnny Fresh,

By the same logic you must admit that everything does not need to be created because everything has been around for ever, negating the need for a creator god.

Or have I missed something

2 Replies

@Johnny Fresh,

VenomFangX;99378 wrote:

If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?
everything must come from something.

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing (ex. if i say, count to a infinity, will you ever reach infinity? No.)

Thus meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) Must have created everything.

As for the then how was god created question

God does not need to be created because he has been around forever, you may say how is this possible. but God is without time. He lives in the past present and future and to him time is a mere physical boundary that us humans live in.

Fixed

:shifty:

0 Replies

@Johnny Fresh,

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

False. You simply believe that your form of thought and perception are correct. An argument or train of thought is not the equivolent to the whole of logic. If you believe it is, you do not understand the concept of what logic is. Simply because when one holds a position that they must feel it is true does not mean one cannot have logic without holding said position. For example, I recognize that one can easily know "I shouldn't touch the fire or I'll get hurt" even if I hold to the Pro-Choice movement while they hold to the Pro-Life movement. They still have logic, they simply disagree.

In this instance, I bring an example of Epicuris. A major father of thought within west philosophy. He famously said:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

This, the Problem of Evil, is a major philosophical question still debated today.

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?

Yes.

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

everything must come from something.

Thus, if God exists, he as a something, must have come from something.

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing

Yes.

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

Thus meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) Must have created everything.

No, simply that existence began with matter(rather than your proposal of God), which continued in the only possible way it could in a cause and effect reality(that being, existence started out with a set of elements and proceeded logically in function. 2+2(cause) always equals 4(effect), nothing else.

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

God does not need to be created because he has been around forever, you may say how is this possible. but God is without time.

God cannot have been around forever, we've already clarified this earlier. You specifically admitted that time is a finite thing. Forever, however, is infinite. Thus, forever does not exist. It would be more accurate to say that if God does exist, he has existed since the beginning of time. Omnipresent is not without time. Omnipresent(all present) would be within all time. That would mean God would be present at every point in time in every place in time from the beginning of time to the end of time.

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

He lives in the past present and future and to him time is a mere physical boundary that us humans live in.

Again. If he lives in the past, present, and future, he is not without time, he simply resides with and percieves time at once(where we as humans view parallel). His supposed omnipresence is a boundary unto itself.

---------- Post added 10-23-2009 at 11:12 AM ----------

Kielicious;99384 wrote:

Fixed

:shifty:

I giggled lol.

:detective:

6 Replies

@Johnny Fresh,

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?
everything must come from something.

Why should we logically believe that?

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing

Why should we agree with that?

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

God does not need to be created because he has been around forever, you may say how is this possible. but God is without time.

So you're saying that we don't need to apply logic to this presupposition, we just need to accept it on faith.

1 Reply

@Johnny Fresh,

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

Alright but that statement is not very logical.

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?
everything must come from something.

Yeah, so what did god create the universe from? Nothing? When we make stuff it's usually from something else. I don't think we have ever created something that wasn't previously something prior. Oh wait, yes we have, the concept of god.

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing (ex. if i say, count to a infinity, will you ever reach infinity? No.)

I don't exactly agree with time being finite myself. I have absolutely no problem with non-beginning or a non-end to time.

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

Thus meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) Must have created everything.

Must is a strong word, but that is not my problem with this statement. My problem with this statement is the time issue. In my opinion you can't do anything without time. Time is change, time is motion, without time you can't do anything, let alone create something.

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

As for the then how was god created question

God does not need to be created because he has been around forever, you may say how is this possible. but God is without time. He lives in the past present and future and to him time is a mere physical boundary that us humans live in.

This is humorous because why can't you attribute this same characteristic to time or matter? If god just always existed, why couldn't matter or time always of existed? Silly how you ignore one argument in favor of the argument you presuppose is the only possible explanation.

Very few cosmologists actually make the claim that the universe was created from nothing. Most of what I have read, they say the universe existed as a singularity or a very compact form of energy or combination of matter/energy. But definitely not a "nothing". The only people I find who make the claim that the universe came from nothing are from creationists trying to debunk the big bang theory.

0 Replies

@Johnny Fresh,

There are large gaps in your thought processes as others have already stated. Here a few oversights and presumptions that occured to me. Please set me straight if I have misinterpreted any of your argument.
My apologies to those who have already made the following points...

1. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction within the physical laws. That doesn't necessarily mean there can be no event without catalyst* and what we are talking about is possibly the creation of the physical laws themselves.
*As we know any event, no matter how improbable is in fact almost certain to occur within an infinite duration.

2. Is 'finite' a typo? Either way it seems purely speculative that time will not end/alter/fragment.

3. Even if something immaterial and omnipresent (or at least with a different matereality and presence to which we generally concieve) created reality as we see it or even some of it, this doesn't indicate that the term 'God' is best to describe the theoretical entity let alone assuming it is singular or even it's gender.

4. What ever the literal meaning or theological concept of the god you use in this argument, it cannot be concidered as a factor until the concept of it's existence is founded with reason and not presumption.

5. 'God does not need to be created because he has been around forever' - So how was forever created? How was the existence that our existence was created in created?

0 Replies

@Johnny Fresh,

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?
everything must come from something.

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing (ex. if i say, count to a infinity, will you ever reach infinity? No.)

Thus meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) Must have created everything.

As for the then how was god created question

God does not need to be created because he has been around forever, you may say how is this possible. but God is without time. He lives in the past present and future and to him time is a mere physical boundary that us humans live in.

I'm sure Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas would be happy that they haven't been forgotten.

Obviously, people don't like being told they have to believe in God... or that the fact that a finite thing can't logically create itself implies that the entirety of finite things must have come out of the infinite.

You're saying that God is of the realm of the eternal.. outside of time.

You're not the only one who has come to the conclusion that there is a necessary thing, and that we're free to call it God.

The word God is used to refer to many different aspects of human experience. Some people find the word distasteful. That makes using the word tricky.

0 Replies

@Johnny Fresh,

Johnny Fresh;99378 wrote:

If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

Believing in logic and thinking logically are two different things.

0 Replies

@Johnny Fresh,

All fundamental ontological arguments rely on at least one postulated or assumed axiom (not proven, not provable, just accepted). Incompleteness theorems there is no provable or logically possible theory of everything without initial assumptions.
You are free to "assume god" if you wish but others are free "to deny,deny,deny".
I am a theist but I think first cause arguments are flawed and useless.

3 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;102392 wrote:

All fundamental ontological arguments rely on at least one postulated or assumed axiom (not proven, not provable, just accepted). Incompleteness theorems there is no provable or logically possible theory of everything without initial assumptions.
You are free to "assume god" if you wish but others are free "to deny,deny,deny".
I am a theist but I think first cause arguments are flawed and useless.

What is that axiom? No first cause arguments are ontological arguments.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;102392 wrote:

All fundamental ontological arguments rely on at least one postulated or assumed axiom (not proven, not provable, just accepted). Incompleteness theorems there is no provable or logically possible theory of everything without initial assumptions.
You are free to "assume god" if you wish but others are free "to deny,deny,deny".
I am a theist but I think first cause arguments are flawed and useless.

That is gospel truth. It is important, however, to keep in mind that God's existence is not dependent on our axioms. And here comes the question: if logic is helpless to establish non/existence of God, and the importance of the question could not be exaggerated, what is the adequate approach to the problem?

1 Reply

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;102433 wrote:

That is gospel truth. It is important, however, to keep in mind that God's existence is not dependent on our axioms. And here comes the question: if logic is helpless to establish non/existence of God, and the importance of the question could not be exaggerated, what is the adequate approach to the problem?

Well you have Kierkegaard's "leap of faith"
or
Pascal's wager "The smart man bets on god".
I think the benefits of the notion that "the universe has purpose" and that life has transcendent value, meaning and significance outweigh the benefits of doubt and atheism.

2 Replies

@prothero,

In other words, accepting God is not a matter of knowledge, it's a matter of wisdom...

1 Reply

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;102571 wrote:

In other words, accepting God is not a matter of knowledge, it's a matter of wisdom...

I deny that.

In the case of Pascal, it's a matter of "better safe than sorry!"
This is my Dad's philosophy as well, "don't rock the boat! Better
a live coward than a dead hero!"

Wisdom has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of fear.

Unless of course one argues that it is wise to be fearful.

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;102627 wrote:

I deny that.

In the case of Pascal, it's a matter of "better safe than sorry!"
This is my Dad's philosophy as well, "don't rock the boat! Better
a live coward than a dead hero!"

Wisdom has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of fear.

Unless of course one argues that it is wise to be fearful.

You probably owe your gallantry to your Dad's philosophy..

2 Replies

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;102633 wrote:

You probably owe your gallantry to your Dad's philosophy..

But even if his gallantry is owed to his Dad's philosophy, that still doesn't address why this is a matter of wisdom, as you stated.

Do you believe a snide remark in response to a legitimate rebuttal demerits the legitimate rebuttal?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;102634 wrote:

But even if his gallantry is owed to his Dad's philosophy, that still doesn't address why this is a matter of wisdom, as you stated.

If the Dad's philosophy facilitates gallantry, it cannot be rebutted as "fearfulness".

Zetherin;102634 wrote:

Do you believe a snide remark in response to a legitimate rebuttal demerits the legitimate rebuttal?

No. But I believe the legitimacy of the rebuttal is yet to be shown.

0 Replies

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;102633 wrote:

You probably owe your gallantry to your Dad's philosophy..

Indeed I do. He has been a splendid role model. I take your remark
as praise.

However, I'm still wondering why accepting God is any more
wise than rejecting God.

Or, more precisely if one is to take a hard atheist stance, why
accepting the existence of God is any more wise than rejecting
the existence of God.

I think it is important to recognize the difference in what can be inferred
by attaching the word "existence" to my question.

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;102678 wrote:

Indeed I do. He has been a splendid role model. I take your remark as praise.

It was a sincere praise, Tick.

TickTockMan;102678 wrote:

However, I'm still wondering why accepting God is any more wise than rejecting God.

Or, more precisely if one is to take a hard atheist stance, why
accepting the existence of God is any more wise than rejecting
the existence of God.

I think it is important to recognize the difference in what can be inferred
by attaching the word "existence" to my question.

Accepting just existence of God per se makes little difference from rejecting his existence, unless it is followed by accepting God Himself as God.

I think knowledge is intellectual capacity of storing/processing information, while wisdom is intellectual capacity to lead ones actions to better results.

Knowledge on existence of god or on non-existence thereof may be regarded just a matter of taste: whatever pleases you more. Even if god exists, you cannot turn this knowledge into power. The situation drastically changes when it concerns practical steps towards god. It's like discussing the problem of existence of a cake: as long as you just discuss its reality and properties without any action intended, it doesn't really matter whether it exists or not. But if you decide to eat it, you cause either good or bad consequences for yourself.

The wonderful thing is that one can eat the cake even without proving its existence and enjoy it not less then any of the greatest philosophers. Wisdom is practical thing.

I cannot prove the existence of the computer I am typing on now, I do not fully understand how it works, but I know for sure I can participate in philosophy discussions with its help. It takes simple wisdom to become familiar with computer instead of rejecting it.

I enjoy my connection with God without being able to prove His existence. I don't know how He works, but I have not a slightest doubt that with His help I can grow into perfection and eventually reach the eternal life.

Isn't it wise to go for it?

2 Replies

Logical explanation: why a god must exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know