Logical explanation: why a god must exist

But the OP is simply re-iterating the impossibility of causality ad infinitum. There cannot be an infinite series of causes else the series could never begin and there could be no causality now.

Unless you side with Hume and deny causality altogether...

However, this does not disproof the exisence of God.

I agree that matter is not important. But causality is not limited to material things. It is not necessary for there to be material change for there to be causality. So when you try to prove that causality can go on into infinity by using matter as an example, you are not taking into account the existence of immateria l things that change.

But nevertheless, even if your point is true it still doesn't prove that causality can proceed into infinity. Here is why:

An infinite series of events does not have an end or beginning. But, if it doesn't have a beginning, then the series could never get going. That is, if there are distinct events in the series that proceed back in time infinitely, then the series could never exist. It is like saying a series of falling dominoes never started, it is imposible. There had to have been an initial push extrinsic to the first domino that got the series going.

In other words, if the chain of causality which evidently exists today (my finger hits the key, a letter comes up on the screen, my eye sees the letter, my mind apprehends it, etc etc) never had a beginning, then there could be no now, there could not be a present moment which is distinct from a few moments ago and will be distinct from a few moments from now.

Also, the laws of physics are not what is being debated here. This is more fundamental than physics, it is what is called "metaphysics."

By the way, how do you quote a text like you did with mine?

If you wish to quote something, put it inside quote brackets.

I never said it would disprove. But stating the opposite does not imply a god. It is assumed that the cause is a god. Even more so the people who claim the cause is a god, also somehow know more properties of that god. ie. omniscience, omnipotence , ect. How is it they can claim all these properties without ANYTHING to base it on except the notion that THAT is how the WANT their god to be?

No, this is an incorrect perception. You are only stating that case because you view the domino as requiring to be in the standing position as it's first cause before it can be knocked over. However; if the domino does not require needing to be in a standing position then it can precede indefinitely. This is why your analogy is flawed, because you don't understand quantum physics or thermodynamics.

These "properties" follow necessarily from God, they are not added to Him. If God exists, then he must be omniscient, omnipotent, etc else He is not God.

You seem to really know your physics. That's great and definitely worth while, but this is essentially a philosophical question. The "laws" of physics are not really laws at all, but hypothesis formed from experience that are often being changed or augmented because of experiences that seem to contradict them.

So your god must have those properties but there is still no way to confirm it. Just like I can say, the flying pink elephant is necessary for any object to fly through the air. Without the flying pink elephant, nothing can move through the air. Your definition of your god and my flying pink elephant are exactly the same.

Although what you say above is true, for the most part the laws of physics as we currently know them are pretty much supported by observable reality and or mathematics. They rarely if ever will alter. But there is always a possibility they could change when or if there is new information that reveals something different. That makes science flexible and not dogmatic like religion.

This very simple concept is how and why a universe can potentially come about. All you need is energy, and time. Given enough time and enough energy you can create particles. Particles are nothing different than energy, they are just a different form of energy. Nothing special is required.

So the more important question is what is this energy that is everywhere? I don't think it is anything special. It is probably just a field of potential and that is it. But our interaction with it, makes it seem much more substantial or important. Since we are made up of matter, we deem matter as necessary or important. Yet really it's not and the universe proves that time and time again. Energy is the ultimate constant, it actually never changes, doesn't increase nor decrease. Can't be created and can't be destroyed.

I realize we have differing views. I don't know if the pink elephant analogy was intended to be derogatory, but if it was, it has no place in a philosophical discussion.

More importantly, I'm not following this analogy. The elephant is a created, finite being. I'm speaking of an uncreated, infinite Being. Even if you do not hold that God exists, you must see that the two cannot be "exactly the same."

My point is this, if God exists then he must necessarily be everything mentioned. The analogy would follow more closely if you said "if a pink elephant exists, he must necessarily be pink and an elephant." If God is not eternal in every sense of the word, then he isn't God.

Ok, so we agree science is flexible. It seems, though, that this should be further evidence against the notion of holding it as dogmatic. If you don't hold to the existence of God because of science, you are also admitting that further scientific discovery might convince you, but that discovery itself would not be unalterable, so you would never be certain. This is why this question falls to philosophy, the object of which is the unchangeable truth. Yes, my religion is dogmatic and unchanging. That is one reason why I love it so dearly.

You're point on the particles is very interesting. But does this try to prove that an effect is greater than its cause? If so, then I will have to say that something wrong with the experiment.

Ok, point taken. They are not created from nothing, though.

That a thing never increases or decreases does not mean it doesn't change. I can throw a rock into space and it can still spin and move without its quantity being altered. Alteration presupposes quantity, yes, but this does not mean quantity itself is increased or decreased.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I think this is where the problem is. Energy changes insofar as it takes on various forms, as you observed. This means that energy is subject to the laws of cause and effect, it does not stand outside it. Thus, I will cite my last post, that this chain cannot be an infinite regress.

Energy cannot be created by anything material, agreed. But that it can't be created at all is to say it is an un-caused cause, aka God. This is impossible by the very fact that energy changes, and is subject to the laws of cause and effect. As already said.

Another point a I should have made earlier:

Nothing can be the cause of itself. A cause is distinct from the effect. If a thing caused itself to exist, it would have to precede itself in existence. That is to say, It must have existed and not existed at the same time. This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Logical proofs for the existence of God serve mainly to discredit logic as a path to truth (insight). I require empirical evidence even if it is subjective/private evidence as in mystical insight.