Deductive Argument for the existence of God?

[Age]

P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.

Questions?

That was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.

P1: There are two possible alternatives for a First Cause of the universe: an intelligent one, or a non-intelligent one.
P2: The evidence of intelligent design is significant.
P3: The reasonable candidates for non-intelligent design are zero in number.
C: Therefore, the most rational conclusion is that an Intelligent Designer is the First Cause of the existence of the universe.

Questions?

I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently? I mean, rocks seem to be shaped by water flowing in a stream and their edges are often smoothed some by the process. Probably no two rocks are the same. Is it fair to say that a rock in a stream has rounded edges but we don't know if it was "intelligently" designed or not?

Continued from another thread.

Thoughts?

It could be asked, 'In 'what universe' does the claim the Universe had a beginning actually exist and is true?'

If absolutely any one wants to claim that the Universe had a beginning, then just provide the 'actual proof' for said claim.

[Age]

I think we can look at the universe and ask: is it seamless? Does it all balance? is there *regularity in how it works? We can ask: is it a big, ungainly, kludge? Is it shot thru with willy-nilly irregularity? Does it proceed in fits and starts?

We can ask: why in an amoral, meaningless, universe are there clumps of matter that seem to worry about it?

We can ask: if there is no Creator, then why is there a universe?

The Universe is eternal. Therefore, there is no, other, Creator.

*Sure, quantum spookiness seems to negate regularity, but: as spooky as it might be down there, up here everything works pretty well. Gravity, for example, does it thing and we take it for granted it always will.

LOL Some of these people, back then, used to think that the Universe, Itself, worked on two different levels, one in minor, and, one in the major. Or, one on a big/ger scale, and, one on a smal/ler scale.

The only ones that 'these people' were confusing, and fooling, were "themselves" only.

There is only One Universe, which is eternal and infinite, and which works, or behaves, in One way only. LOL 'spookiness'. There is absolutely nothing scary, confusing, complex, nor hard HERE to comprehend, and understand.

Assuming quantum spookiness is real why doesn't it bleed up? Why aren't things spooky up here? Quantum spookiness is for crap, or, sumthin' keeps it confined to the basement. Either way: up here we have regularity.

LOL 'up here', and, 'down there'.

[Age]

So are you saying that water flowing in a river softens the edges of rocks because of the water's volition?

That's not creation.

So, what is 'creation', exactly?

Does 'creation', to you, involve 'a person'?

That's part of the regularity of things: matter interacting with matter in a predictable way.

So, 'creation' is cannot happen in a 'predictable way', to you, correct?

[Age]

I think we can look at the universe and ask: is it seamless? Does it all balance? is there *regularity in how it works? We can ask: is it a big, ungainly, kludge? Is it shot thru with willy-nilly irregularity? Does it proceed in fits and starts?

We can ask: why in an amoral, meaningless, universe are there clumps of matter that seem to worry about it?

We can ask: if there is no Creator, then why is there a universe?

I would say if the universe has a cause that came before it,

Well, considering the irrefutable Fact that this is a logical and physical impossibility, in 'the way' you and others envision and imagine this scenario, it is safe to say 'we' can rule this out, completely, and utterly.

However, however how the Universe is caused, and, exactly, by who and what 'before It' has, already, been proved, and thus is also, already, irrefutably, known. And, by the way, it is in no way like you, and others, are envisioning and imagining 'now', when this is being written.

then it had a cause that came before it.

Do you know how this could be both theoretically and empirically possible?

If yes, then how, exactly?

Given the fact that different religions interpret that creator differently, I mean, who knows what it is that we are calling "God"/creator of the universe?

'I' DO.

But, and once again, while one believes otherwise, then 'that one' will never learn, and know, HOW.

Maybe all of us are wrong. \_(o_o)_/

Well, obviously, all of you human beings have been so far.

Of, if any one of you is Right, then you have not let on, at the time of these words, yet.

[Age]

P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.

Questions?

I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently? I mean, rocks seem to be shaped by water flowing in a stream and their edges are often smoothed some by the process. Probably no two rocks are the same. Is it fair to say that a rock in a stream has rounded edges but we don't know if it was "intelligently" designed or not?

Continued from another thread.

Thoughts?

I attack the first premise. Something, physical stuff, could simply existed at the beginning of time without a cause.

The term 'the beginning of time' as though there was 'no period of duration', and then 'there was'.

[Age]

P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.

...

Thoughts?

That's a version of the Cosmological Argument I believe. It's been around for a long time. It has a wiki page which lists the main categories of traditional counter argument to it including the infinite regress issues and so on...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

However I go with..

P1. Time and space form some sort of continuum of contained time and space; apparently we call this spacetime.

So, to you anyway, 'time' and 'space' are contained within or by 'time and space', right?

If no, then what do you mean by 'time and space', and, 'contained time and space', exactly?

What is the difference, exactly?

P2. We are on the inside of that spacetime continuum thingy; our time begins with spacetime, and our space is contained within spacetime.

LOL What even is 'spacetime', to you, exactly?

P3. We have no means to look outside of time and space that we inhabit.

That is IF 'timespace' is some sort of thing that contains human beings, from which they cannot 'look/envision' outside of.

Which, by the way, goes against the very thing of being a 'human being'.

P4 There is no reason to suppose that time and space exist in similar forms to our own experience outside of the continuum that we inhabit here and now; even assuming we are conceptually equipped to fully understand what we inhabit, which is apparently also unlikely.

Talk about showing and proving how 'one' can completely bamboozle "itself" from just words alone.

'This one' does not even know what 'space', and, 'time' is, exactly, yet here it is trying to explain to others about how 'time', and 'space' is some sort of 'continuum', contained within 'time', and, 'space', which makes up so-called 'spacetime', or maybe even 'timespace'.

In the days when this was being written adult human beings could not even come-together agree up and accept what 'space' is, nor what 'time' is, yet some, still, went on talk as though they did know what they were on about, here.

P5 We can only describe that which both speaker and listener can equally conceptualise.

Okay. And, to 'see' if 'this one' can even describe what it can, and/or does, 'conceptualize', 'How do 'you', personally, conceptualize 'space', 'time', and 'spacetime', exactly?

Also, and by the way, the speaker, and, the listener can both describe what 'the other does not, equally, conceptualize at all.

Why do you believe that 'we' can, only, describe that which both speaker and listener can, equally, conceptualize?

Obviously one can describe what the other is not equally conceptualizing.

For example I can describe that 'space' is just the distance between matter, itself, and 'time' is just the measuring of the duration between, perceived, events. And, you, who is, maybe, listening is not 'equally conceptualizing'. For all I know you could be conceptualizing some thing completely different, correct?

C. Speculations about the events which predate time

For those of the Truly slow of learning and comprehending there was no point that predated 'a bang', which is, very Falsely, believed to be 'the beginning' of every thing.

LOL What 'predated' 'a bang', which is known and is called 'the big bang', is the 'exact same' as what 'dates' now at any time after 'that one bang', and that is the Universe is just in a constant state of change. Just as It always-is.

and which also happen outside of space can only possibly be systematically erroneous. There is no vocabulary to describe it. Vocabulary here should be understood in the broadest possible terms including all human languages, and that also includes mathematics and physics.

The only reason you human beings cannot fathom 'time' before a so-called 'big bang' is because your conceptions prior 'that bang' are of One single thing, only. And, obviously, for what you people call 'time' at least two physical things are needed, and even then it is hard for you human beings to conceptualize 'time', itself, or more correctly, to conceptualize what you human beings think of or consider is 'time', itself.

In other words, I declare pox on both houses, nobody who takes one side over the other in that debate has a sufficient understanding of the limits of their arguments.

LOL All of you here are just WAY OFF, anyway.

[Age]

If we live in a world where God is so easily logically provable, it seems strange that we also live in a world where the most apparently rational people in bulk seem not to believe in God...

It is great to see you use the 'apparently' word here. Because, and obviously, what is 'apparent' to you is not to another.

And, obviously, the 'rational people' are, always coincidentally, the exact same ones who have the exact same belief/s.

To not believe in God is just as foolish and irrational as to believe in God.

The Truly rational people here, by the way, already know what 'to do'.

[Age]

If you prove the existence of god, you are faced with the bigger problem of what to do with that proof.

Did you mean if one has the proof of the existence of God, or go, then they are faced with a so-called 'bigger problem' of what to do with that proof?

Because, and obviously, if one proves the existence of god, or God, then they would not be face with 'any problem' of what do with that proof. For obviously they have already done with 'that proof'.

So what if a god exists or existed?

What is this question being asked in relation to, exactly?

[Age]

If you prove the existence of god, you are faced with the bigger problem of what to do with that proof.

Well, at the very least, the first thing you could do with that proof is put an end to the ridiculous notion that the fantastic order of our earth/sun system is a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.

But, it was already stated, 'If you prove the existence of god'.

So, why say, 'the very thing you could do with 'that proof' is put an end to ....

Obviously, if you prove the existence of god, then you are proving the existence of god.

So what if a god exists or existed?

If an incorporeal Creator Being truly does exist, then don't you think it would be interesting to know...

The irrefutable proof that 'an incorporeal Creator Being' truly does exist is HERE for all to 'look at', and 'see'.

And, why you posters here are 'not looking' and 'cannot see' is just as obvious. That is; once how the Mind and the brain work is, also, fully understood, and known.

(never mind from a spiritual standpoint, but from a scientific standpoint)

Why?

Would make knowing the Truth so-called 'interesting'?

...the ontological status of such a Being?

Furthermore, it also raises the issue that if an incorporeal Being can exist in a higher (transcendent) context of reality, then why not us?

Again, there is only One, actual, Reality.

There are no, actual, different context/s of reality'.

Gary's questioning (and seemingly doubting) of how "intelligent design" can be involved in the process of a stream of water smoothing the edges of rocks, displays the same problem that evolutionary theorists demonstrate in their insistence that "natural processes" (and not any sort of intelligent design) are at the root of creation.

Matter evolves, within creation. Exactly like matter is created, within evolution. Always WILL.

However, just like the evolutionists, Gary is taking for granted (i.e., not taking into account) the pre-existence of an ultra-ordered setting (again, our earth/sun system) that had to be in place and pre-loaded with all of the vast and necessary ingredients before rock-smoothing streams and evolution could even begin to do their things.
_______

LOL Here 'we' have another one that believes 'evolution' was created 'after something else'.

The always, 'in creation', and creating Universe, Itself, is always evolving. Both creation and evolution need each other for each other to be able to work, just like the Universe could only work with both 'matter' and 'space', and which both of always exist.

[Age]

Well, at the very least, the first thing you could do with that proof is put an end to the ridiculous notion that the fantastic order of our earth/sun system is a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.

Does that really make a difference in anyone's life?

Well, aside from shifting all of humanity away from materialism and towards spirituality, hopefully, it would also have a humbling effect on all of the hardcore materialists who have spent their lives on philosophy forums making fun of those who believe in a Creator.

Yeah, yeah, I know - "so what".

"I can't make this month's rent money but at least I know the solar system was created."

I don't think you've given any critical thought to how you would really feel about reality if it were revealed to us that the universe is held within the Mind of a higher Consciousness.

There is no so-called 'higher Consciousness' with Its own Mind. Just like there are no 'human beings' with their own mind/s.

However, to your point, yeah,...

"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

Why believe that 'this' will be 'the case'?

Has 'enlightenment' already happened and occurred within, or prior to, 'your lifetime'?

If no, then what are you 'judging' 'your belief' here on, exactly?

If yes, then what was 'the enlightenment', exactly?

...but shut up about there being no God, and, instead, maybe give some thought to the question of why this Being made it possible for you to receive the gift of life.

1. Why does any one believe that 'life' is a so-called 'gift'?

2. Why was it a 'Being' that, supposedly, 'gave 'you' life'?

If an incorporeal Creator Being truly does exist, then don't you think it would be interesting to know...

(never mind from a spiritual standpoint, but from a scientific standpoint)

...the ontological status of such a Being?

You would still know nothing about that being.

You would know that it exists, and that the unthinkable order of the universe is not a product of chance. That's not "nothing."

Why do you say and claim that the so-called 'order of the universe' is unthinkable?

Especially considering the Fact that the so-called 'or of the Universe' is 'already known'?

Also, you seem to appear that the Universe was somehow 'ordered' for 'you', one single human being, personally.

It was 'by chance' that 'you' are 'the way' that 'you' are 'now'. But, the Universe, Itself, and/or the 'order of the Universe, Itself, was never ever about 'you'.

What the Universe, and, the order of the Universe, is about something else entirely.

Once, and if, 'you' learn who and what 'I' am, exactly, then 'you' will much better understand here.

Furthermore, it also raises the issue that if an incorporeal Being can exist in a higher (transcendent) context of reality, then why not us?

Because we are different kinds of beings?

Should a tree be a dog?

What makes you so sure that we and God are different kinds of beings?

Because 'being human' or being a 'human being' is different than 'being God' or being like a 'God Being', obviously.

you human beings 'look at' 'see', and 'think' things through the 'brain'. Whereas, God 'looks at', 'sees', and 'knows' through the 'Mind'.

I could be wrong, but my whole philosophical schtick is that we and God are of the "same species of being."
_______

So, what makes you so-called 'schtick' more true, more right, more accurate, or more correct than other's so-called 'schtick', exactly?

[Age]

Well, aside from shifting all of humanity away from materialism and towards spirituality, hopefully,

Why would that happen?

And, especially so when both are equally important, or when both play absolute equal parts, HERE.

it would also have a humbling effect on all of the hardcore materialists who have spent their lives on philosophy forums making fun of those who believe in a Creator.

They would just make fun of something else.

Why do you believe this.

Obviously, if a so-called "materialist" learned that they were wrong, and, how they were wrong, then, just maybe, they might stop making fun of 'other human beings. Who, just like "themselves", are just 'human beings', with different thoughts.

But sure, there would be some satisfaction for those who believed.

I don't think you've given any critical thought to how you would really feel about reality if it were revealed to us that the universe is held within the Mind of a higher Consciousness.

You're jumping the gun.

And, 'jumped' to a completely and utterly False conclusion.

There is only proof of a creator and nothing more. None of that "universe is held within the mind of a higher consciousness" is proven.

What is the 'actual proof' that there is 'a creator'?

...but shut up about there being no God, and, instead, maybe give some thought to the question of why this Being made it possible for you to receive the gift of life.

It would only be speculation since we don't know why.

But, why Life, Itself, exists is, also, already fully understood, and known.

You would know that it exists, and that the unthinkable order of the universe is not a product of chance. That's not "nothing."

Nothing would be known about the nature of the creator.

But, this also is also already fully understood, and known.

These people, back then, really did believe, and were, apparently, 'sure of', what they, actually, were 'not sure of', at all.

What makes you so sure that we and God are different kinds of beings?

I haven't been able to create a universe. That's on a whole different level.

But I'm okay with it.

Although 'you' have control over 'a body', the reason 'you' are not able to create 'a universe', whereas the One who is creating 'the Universe' is able to do so is just because of the size of 'the body', which It has control over.

[Age]

the idea of god flounders in a couple of areas....

LOL

But, what is 'the idea' of God, which does not flounder?

This might be what some are actually wondering here.

Also, and obviously, if an idea of god, or God, flounders, then it is 'an idea' not even worth repeating.

One: chance, randomness..... it is clear that the universe
is quite random.... two people walking down a trail,
a tree falls, kills one and totally misses the other, not a scratch....
and then those believers say, the mind of god is unknowable,
inscrutable.... we don't know why god
picked one and not the other... the evidence is rather clear,
god is a sadistic being.... he loves to torture people....
''The Book of Job'', from the bible, is just a well documented
example of god's need to torture people.... babies who get
brain tumors... babies who have done nothing at all, how
does god justify torturing babies with brain cancer?
oh, wait, he is inscrutable... he can torture people,
just for fun..... as in the ''Book of Job''....
in a universe with god, there is no such thing as cause
and effect.... things just randomly happen because
god willed it...... there is no pleasing such a god,
because he/she/it, is random, inscrutable.... how does
one please a god who is inscrutable, unknowable?
one might suggest that we should believe....
and yet even believers get cancer, get tortured by
events, die very ugly deaths.... we grow old, we suffer,
a god who is ok with torturing us with old age and disease....
But Kropotkin, it was Adam that brought that about....
no, it was god... if god is all knowing, omniscience..
then god knew what Adam was going to do...
and that is just god trying to escape blame for eternal
torture of human beings....... if god didn't know Adam
would pick the apple, then god is clearly not
all knowing and not worthy of any kind of respect....
either god knew and allowed it anyway, or he didn't know
and isn't worth anything....

Two: having god allows human beings a way to avoid
accountability, responsibility for their actions....
it was all part of god's inscrutable plan...

plus there is a very easy cop out plan with god....
and a couple of Middle Ages King did so....
Rape, murder, pillage, plunder to one's heart content....
but seconds before one's death, repent, and thus getting
a free out of jail card for actions taken.... getting the best of
both worlds.... violence and mayhem and then forgiveness...
as god has promised....

one of the arguments for god is that it is impossible for chance
to create our universe..... that is only possible by forgetting
that the universe is billions of years old... each step of the
universe does follow the prior step... Why can't gravity create
stars? Why is the big bang impossible? it is impossible to create
plants and animals and human beings with chance? but why?
given enough time, it is possible to accomplish anything....
and the process of evolution has pointed out how this worked....

the materialist version of how the universe began and works,
makes much more sense than any mystical, metaphysical
being that can't be seen, heard, touched, tasted or smell..
for god is spirit... as we often been told.... but what is lacking is
the ''Descartes problem'' how does the brain and the body connect?
How does god create and impact matter while only spirit? What is
the exact mechanism that allows god to be spirit and impact
the material world? Many have argued, that god/spirit is within
us... and yet, the human body has been dissected for centuries...
where exactly does this spirit reside in the human body?
Now one might argue, Kropotkin, where does consciousness
reside? it has no home... and yet it does.... clearly
consciousness resides in the brain.... as chemicals
and hormones and electrical activity... which the brain
clearly has plenty of.... the brain is an electrical box....
full of chemicals and hormones.... and a combination of
those can create consciousness.... which is a hell of a better
reason for consciousness to exists, then god to exist.....

having a god allows a great deal of superstition to exists.....
why not hold to superstition when god is just a spirit that
doesn't have a physical form that, in some unknown way,
can impact the material/physical......and we can ask
forgiveness from?.... we can be forgiven for our sins....
what a way to engage in sin.. if we can be forgiven for
our sin, why not practice sin, engage in all kinds of
terrible acts if, if we can be forgiven for our sins?
I could murder, rape and torture to my hearts content,
and then by the act of asking for forgiveness, I am
forgiven and can spend eternity in heaven... what a deal....

these are a few reasons that popped into my head..
and I am sure more will come after a good night sleep....

Kropotkin

[Me-Be]

Something, physical stuff, could simply existed at the beginning of time without a cause.

The beginning of time is a 'thought'. There is no time where time began. There is no time when time ends.
So what or who is conscious of 'thought' right now?
That question cannot be answered, because there is nobody asking it, it's simply a 'thought' known Now.
Now is never in some past or future time. 'Time' is a 'thought' known only Now.

[Flannel Jesus]

If we live in a world where God is so easily logically provable, it seems strange that we also live in a world where the most apparently rational people in bulk seem not to believe in God...

It is great to see you use the 'apparently' word here. Because, and obviously, what is 'apparent' to you is not to another.

And, obviously, the 'rational people' are, always coincidentally, the exact same ones who have the exact same belief/s.

To not believe in God is just as foolish and irrational as to believe in God.

The Truly rational people here, by the way, already know what 'to do'.

Well I'm glad our resident time traveller knows what to do, even if he's too good to spell it out for us lowly 21st-centurians

[attofishpi]

-