Logical explanation: why a god must exist

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 beginning to notice what you mean by that about the philosophy group. Gotta really be interested to hang in sometimes.
But the existence of God cannot be empirically proven. Empirical Science is only 1/2 of science though. There is another field known as Forensic Science that looks at past events. We cannot empirically recreate the big bang, nor can we empirically build a God and test it.

We can however, look at the principals of science, such as the General Theory of Relativity and the Law of Causality(which if you disprove, kudos because you just disproved science's ability to prove anything) and see that the GTR requires a bang and the Law of Causality requires a cause for it. That cause is by definition supernatural(because it is outside of the natural world).
If the GTR is ever overturned or the Law of Causality revoked as hog-wash(though I again tell you it is the basis of science, which is a search for causes at its heart), then my theory will not stand. But until such time as they are disproved, then my theory stands, and therefore we can logically accept that there is a supernatural force(be it the force, God, or the IPU).

Ding, I believe I have covered this, but I think you just made your debut on this thread, so I will be happy to answer. The Law of Causality is the foundation of science. It states that every effect has a cause. This is a natural law that is self-evident in the universe.
There have been a few who have been trying to debate the Law of Causality, but to do so, you debate the validity of ALL science and for that matter, rational thought. Which is composed of thoughts(causes) which lead to conclusions(effects).
I hope that is an adequate answer.

Firstly, my apologies about failing to post on the religion thread, I was unaware it had been started. Thanks for the link and I will be sure to take a look at it.

While Wikipedia is a good place to check for such things, the failure to find it is not at all grounds to exclude it.
Yes, the foundation of science is the scientific method. I agree.
The scientific method involves applying various causes to observe their effects.
A simple example. One that many elementary school students have done.
You take two seeds and plant them both in pots. You give them both equal water and soil conditions(as equal as possible anyway).
Pot A you place in direct sunlight.
Pot B you place in a dark closet.
You give them 2 weeks and observe what condition they are in.
Pot A has grown into a healthy little sprout.
Pot B, while it may have grown is yellow and as far as plants go, sickly looking.

You conclude:
The sunlight caused the plant to grow in a more healthy way(effect).

The basis of the scientific method, and therefore science, is the Law of Causality, regardless of its relative obscurity as a term.

As for David Hume's assertions, I am well acquainted with them.
He offers two conditions on which a proposition can be considered meaningful.
A proposition must meet one of these, not both, in order to be considered meaningful.
1) The truth claim is abstract reasoning such as a mathematical equation or a definition (e.g., "2+2=4" or "all triangles have 3 sides"); or
2) The truth claim can be verified empirically through one or more of the five senses.

These are known today by many as the Principle of Empirical Verifiability.
Unfortunately, his argument is self-defeating.

"The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful propositions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable. Since the prinicple of empirical verifiability is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful."


I am quoting Norman Geisler on this, a reputable theologian. However, who said it is quite irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that this clearly shows that by its own logic, the principle of empirical verifiability is not meaningful.
I have studied the philosophy of good science as well as bad science and have come to the conclusions that I have because of that study. While it is, admittedly, quite foreign to many, that does not make it less logical.

Would the plant have grown in a more healthy way(effect) if the sun had not shone on it(cause)?

Meaningful, the way it is used in this context, implies scientific. If it is not meaningful, it is meaningless. Anyway, the point is that it is a self-defeating argument, it doesn't meet either of its own premises.

As for believing in something that can't be observed, that is where faith comes in.

It is quite frankly ignorant to say that causes cannot be observed.

No we can't, I suppose. Your argument is basically that the sunlit plant growing more healthy was just a fluke. But we can conduct ANOTHER experiment to figure it out, where neither of the plants are in the sunlight. If one of them still grows to be healthy in the same way as Pot A from before, sunlight was not the cause.

The point is that Hume's argument is self-defeating and therefore irrelevant. I hope that much is obvious.

No, there's lots of causes.

Very well, repeat the experiment until you are satisfied it is not a fluke. This is good science, repeating the tests.

If an argument cannot meet its own criteria for truth, it proves itself false.
The point of his logic is that if it can't meet one of the 2 criteria, it cannot be true.
Since his logic does not meet either of the criteria, it cannot be true. By its own standards, it is false.

You are arguing semantics when you say 'correlations' instead of causes.
Using the same sun and flower experiment, how would you describe the correlation between the sun and the plant? I personally would describe it as the sun causing the plant to grow.

Again, this is a matter of semantics.
If X didn't happen, neither would Y.
If you didn't post that(X), I would not have responded(Y).

We're saying the same thing in different words.
That 'perfect correlation' is a cause/effect relationship.