Author Topic: The Existence of God  (Read 1068 times)

Idris

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Karma +1/-0
The Existence of God
« on: March 22, 2004, 02:21:42 PM »
http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm

plus you should go here

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=pages/articles.jsp&pagetitle=Articles

By G. Brady Lenardos

In August   of  1993,  my friend, Jeff McCain,  and I  participated in a
debate  at the Orange County Regional Gathering of Mensa.   The topic
was the existence of God. Jeff and I took the affirmative position,  an
Agnostic and an  Atheist took  the negative   position.   Jeff presented
an   inductive,  historical argument for the existence   of God,  and I
presented a  deductive argument for   the existence of  God.   As I was
developing  the  material   for the debate,   I began  testing it by
arguing  some  points  with  a number of Atheists  and Agnostics   on  
the Internet.  To my surprise, in every case, my opponent either outright
rejected logic, or tenaciously held on to a logical fallacy, even after
knowing it was a fallacy.

The version you have   before   you is   an   updated version of the
argument.  There are  more   diagrams and charts,  and several new
sections have been added to answer objections that I   have encountered
in my debates.   I hope you will  enjoy this new version.  My thanks to
all who took the time and thought to enter into debate with me.
 
Let's Begin -
 
A common phrase that I hear  from would  be philosophers   is:  "No one
can prove that God exists."  This is usually followed by  someone else  
saying: "Oh yeah!  Well,   no   one can prove He   doesn't!"   This is  
not a  very well   thought out assertion by  the unbeliever,  but  the
response  of the believer is even worse!

For the unbeliever  to  make the assertion   "No one can prove  that God  
exists"   requires  one  of  two  possibilities  to  be  true  on  the
unbeliever's part.

1) The unbeliever has examined and found all possible  arguments
(inductive and deductive)   for the existence of God that have   ever
been offered  and could ever be  offered to  be  wanting,

2) The unbeliever  has some  way of knowing without  examining any
arguments that  it  is  not possible  to  prove that God exists.  

I personally have never found an  unbeliever  who has claimed to
have examined all possible arguments for the existence of God,  nor have
I found one who could give an apriori reason why it is  impossible to
prove that God exists.  This would not mean that  one of  these two
possibilities could not be the case;   But the fact that I am offering a  
logically valid demonstration that God does exist,  would suggest that
neither is the case.

Let's go   back   to the believer.   The burden of proof does  fall  to
the person  making  the affirmative  statement.   This  means  that  the
person stating   that  God exists  must  show his  position to be  true.
The statement by the believer, " No one can prove God doesn't exist," is
quite unacceptable.  In other words,   he must show that his position
accurately reflects  reality;  that there is a correspondence between
what  the believer says,  and  what  really  is the   case.   Luckily  
for the believer,  we can demonstrate that God does exist.  The  person
who believes in God does  not have  to   use  such   lame   comebacks as
"Nobody can   prove   that  God  doesn't exist." However, the believer
must take the time to  study and research  the issues that are  being
discussed. After  you finish  studying  this  paper,   when someone  
says:  "You can't demonstrate that God exists!",   you can respond:  
"Sure I can. Let me show you!"  

Absolute certainty -
 
Throughout history theologians and philosophers have  presented  
cosmological,   or  causal arguments   for  the existence of  God.  Such
well known names  as St. Augustine (5th cent. AD),   Rene Descartes
(17th cent. AD),  and Norman Geisler (20th Cent. AD), as well as many
others, hold to the logical validity of such arguments.   The advantage
that  Augustine,  Descartes,  and Geisler have  is  that they start from  
a point of  certainty.   After  this they went   into different
directions.   We will also start with   these thinkers, and then we will
go our separate way.

The  point of  certainty we  will  begin with  is our self.  Rene
Descartes, the  French,  rationalist, philosopher is  famous  for the
expression "I think,  therefore I am."  Although  he never put  it in
those exact   words,  the thought can be found is his book "The  
Meditations"  (I suggest reading at least the first three chapters   of  
"The Meditations"). Descartes'   idea is  that this expression  is   the
first  thing that  we  can  know  with certainty. Briefly,  his argument  
runs something like this:   Let us take   a philosophical journey.  We  
will  only  affirm as   true   everything  that  we  can know with
certitude.  Everything else we will doubt,  until we can build a case
based upon the  thing(s)  we  can know   for  certain.   We   should  
doubt our   senses;  for our senses may deceive us,   as with optical
illusions.   We should doubt our  idea of the world around us,  for even
the idea of our own bodies may be false, as in a dream.  But, the one
thing we can't doubt is that we are doubting; for if we doubt that, we
are still doubting.   And if you are doubting,  then you are thinking;  
for doubting  is thinking.   If you are thinking you must exist; for
only existing beings can think.

Another way of   putting it  is:  If you can say "I  exist,"  then you
know with certainty that you exist,  for you must exist to state  "I
exist." If one does not exist,   then that person would not  be around
to  make the statement. Norman  Geisler   calls this   statement   an  
"existentially  undeniable" statement  (See  Geisler's   "Philosophy of  
Religion").   Even if a person tries to   deny his own existence,   it
can  easily  be  proven  that their denial is false.  The very denial
creates a contradiction.   For the person must exist  to   deny that  
the person   exists.  If the person did not exist,  then the person
wouldn't be around to make the denial.   So, we are forced to a position
of certainty.   The statement "I  exist,"  is necessarily  true  every  
time I uttered it.   The only other alternative is  to reject logic.  
The reason  is that     this    premise    is   firmly   grounded    in    
the    law   of non-contradiction.  Without this  law no  communication
would  be possible. Without this law there is no meaning at all.  A
logician would define  this law by saying:   'A'   cannot equal non-'A'.  
That is to say that something cannot be both wet and dry,   in   the
same   way,  at  the same  time,  in the   same sense. Therefore,  I
cannot exist and not exist in the same way, at the same time,  in the
same  sense.   It is this basic law that  must be rejected in order  to
reject our premise, and that leads to absurdity.  

We  have   reached  a point of   certainty:   I exist.   If  I exist,  
then something exists, for I fall into the category of something.    

Here is our starting point, our first and undeniable premise:    

Something exists.  

I also   ask,   for the sake  of  argument  and available space,  that  
you grant something that you probably already affirm as true: That the
universe around  us  also exists:   That is our  dimensions of time  and
space,  and energy and matter,  and all that   are   inherent  to  them.  
If you really have  a problem   with this,  please write to me,   and I
will  be happy to discuss it  with you individually. Due to the limited
space we have, I will ask for your indulgence.
 
So, here we are with something that exists.
 
Let's take a moment to diagram what we have agreed on.

        Everything existing
        -----------------------------------
        |                                 |
        |                                 |
        |   I                             |
        |                                 |
        |                                 |
        |   Universe                      |
        |                                 |
        |                                 |
        |                                 |
        |                                 |
        |                                 |
        -----------------------------------

 Diagram 1.1

In the   above diagram we  see the category  of everything that  exists.
In that  category  we  see the  two  "somethings"  that  we  have  
agreed upon existing: "I" and "the universe", and actually, I am part of
the universe.  At this point in the argument this is all that we know.

The next question that comes to mind is:   Given that something exists
now, did something always exist? We may also ask whether we can know the
answer?

Fortunately   there are a limited number   of   explanations,   and  we
can readily  exclude  several  of  them.   Here  is  a  list  of  all  
possible explanations  for this something that exists:
 
1)   Something   always   existed.  In  other words,  either this
something (the universe) always existed,   or there was something  else  
that  always  existed  from which this something is derived.
 
2) There was a point when nothing existed.  

Let's begin a chart that  will  help  us visualize the  relationship of
the option.

 CHART 1.1
 
                            Something exists
                                   |  
                                   |
                       -------------------------------
                       |                             |
                       |                             |
                       |                             |
             A point when there                Something always
             was non-existence                 existed


We have set up what is known in logic as a disjunct.  That means that
there are  two options available,  and if one  is false, then the  other
is necessarily true.

Allow me to digress for a moment to explain how it works.
 
Let's say that you and your friend  Fred are going  to play a little  
game. You  have a  penny and Fred  has a quarter.   These two coins  are
the only coins in the room.  The way to play the game is: First, you
turn your back. Next, Fred places one coin in his pants pocket,  and the
other in his hand, and  then closes his hand.  The object is for you to
guess which coin is in his hand.  (You must lead a very dull life  if
you are  playing this game). So,   with this being done,  you turn and
are about to make your guess when you   notice the  edge  of   the  
quarter  protruding   from   Fred's pants pocket.   Given that there are
two and   only two coins  in  the room,  you have disproven that   the
coin  in Fred's hand  is the quarter.  Therefore, you conclude that the
coin in Fred's hand  is necessarily (meaning: it must be) the penny.
You are right.
 
If we were to write it out long hand, it would go something like this:
 
1) Either the Penny or the Quarter is in Fred's hand.
2) It's not the Quarter (I see that in his pocket).
3) Therefore, it's the Penny in his hand.

In logical notation it would look something like this:
 
Let P = Penny, Let Q = Quarter
 
1) P or Q (Premise)
2) Not Q (Premise)
3) Therefore P (Conclusion)

The  upshot  of all  this is, if  we can demonstrate  one of the  
options in our disjunct to be false, then we know that the other option
is true.

To make matters more interesting  there are  three options that  come
under the leg of "a point when there was non-existence":
 
a) Everything is an illusion, and nothing really exists.
 
b) Something created itself. The "something" is self-caused.
 
c)   Something  that  now exists  is  derived,   or  caused,  or  came
from nonexistence (i.e. something came from nothing).
 
Let's add these to our chart:

                               CHART 1.2

                            Something exists
                                   |  
                                   |
                       -------------------------------
                       |                             |
                       |                             |
                       |                             |
             A point when there                Something always
             was non-existence                 existed
         ------------------------------                      
         |             |              |              
         |             |              |                    
         |             |              |                
      All is      Self-caused     Something          
      illusion                    came from          
                                  non-existence      


Let's   examine  "a   point when there   was non-existence,"  and its
three options first.
 
Option   (a)  is easy  to  exclude as a  real possibility.  Option (a)
says that  nothing exists;  that everything  is  an  illusion.  We  have
already determined that something exists,   and we know that to be
undeniably true. If something  exists,  then everything   cannot be an  
illusion.  But,  for the  sake  of  argument,  let's  assume  that  
everything  is  an illusion. Wouldn't something have to exist  to be
having an  illusion?  Non-existence can't have illusions,  only
something that exists can have an illusion. Not only that, but the
something having the illusion must be a cognitive something. So this  
possibility  is  self   contradictory.  It  is  logically impossible.
Scratch the first one.
 
Option  (b)   asserts that something (this something - our universe,  or
perhaps something else from which this universe  is derived)   created
itself.   However, in order to create itself,  it would have to  be
prior  to its own  existence. In other words it would have to be before
it was;  it would have to be,  and not be, at the same  time,  and   in  
the   same   sense.   This  is  a  flat  out violation   of   the   law  
of non-contradiction.  A logical contradiction forces us to reject this
option.  

Option (c)  says that  something  is  derived  from  nothing.  Let's
define 'Nothing.'  Nothing is what we find when we look into an empty  
cookie jar, there  is  nothing there,   or no  -   thing  there.   By  
nothing  we mean non-existence,  or a complete lack of all attributes:  
No color,  no shape, no size, no substance whatsoever, no attributes at
all.  If something could come from nothing,  this nothing would have to
at least  have the attribute of being able   to have  something   come  
from  it.   If  nothing has that attribute,   nothing is not 'nothing'.  
This is because the  definition  of 'nothing'   is a complete lack   of
ALL  attributes, and that which  we are calling  'nothing'  would have
an attribute.  The person who claims that something can come from  
nothing is equivocating on   the terms.  That person is using the same
term in two different ways.  The word 'nothing' means one thing at the
beginning of the argument (it means  a   complete lack of  all
attributes), later it  means something  else  (it  means  something  
with  at  least one attribute). In other  words this person is  cheating  
us  with  a semantic trick. But, we will not be fooled. Thus this third
option fails, and with it so does the entire point.
 
Given our above inferences, let's see what conclusion we can draw:
 
1)   If there ever was a point when there was   nothing (no existence)  
and as we  have  already   seen there would   be no way to   get
something from nothing, then there would be nothing now.
 
2) There is something now.
 
3)  Therefore,  there  never  was  a  point  when  there  was  nothing  
(no existence).
 
Our conclusion is just  another   way of stating the second   point  of
our disjunct: Something always existed.
 
By   examining our conclusion   a   little  closer  we  are  also  able  
to derive additional information from it.   If something always existed,  
then it does not have a cause that brought it into existence (if it  did
have  a cause,   then it did not always exist).  If this something had
no cause, it is uncaused.  If it is uncaused,   it is infinite in its  
existence.  These are  some   things that can be readily deduced,  or
unpacked from  the term "always existed."  It may not be  all that  we
may know   about that  which always   exists,   but it does give us  
enough information  to continue our quest.   We now know that  there is
something that exists  that has  always existed,  that is uncaused, and
infinite in its existence. There  is  nothing   inherently    
contradictory   about  something  always existing.  It is
philosophically sound.  In fact it is held by most  of the worlds  
cosmologies,  including  Naturalism.  The  traditional Naturalistic
cosmology  maintains that  the universe is,   in some way  or another,  
the always existing  something from  which anything   and everything  
else  is derived.   Theism (Christianity,  Judaism,  and Islam)  also
maintains that there is an  always existent.  The difference is that  
the Theist maintains that the always existent is external to, or outside
of, or transcendent  to the universe   in which   we find ourselves,  
yet this original  being can somehow still directly work inside the
derived universe.

Let's add the always existent something  to our diagram:

      Everything existing
        -----------------------------------------
        |                                       |
        |                 -----------------     |
        |   I             |               |     |
        |                 |  always       |     |
        |                 |  existing     |     |
        |  Universe       |               |     |
        |                 |               |     |
        |                 -----------------     |
        |                                       |
        |                                       |
        |                                       |
        -----------------------------------------
                  Diagram 1.2


We now know that the membership  of  the category of "Everything"  
includes The  universe,   and I (as part  of  the universe),  and a
subcategory of  "Always existed."   As  stated  above it is possible  
that the universe  belongs to the category of "Always existed."  At this
point we do not know   that to be  the   case.   So, we  leave it  
outside the category until we  can determine if it belongs there.

Is the universe the always existent? -

Given that something has always existed,   then either  this universe
has always existed, or it is not. Again, we have set up a disjunct.

                             CHART 1.3
                                   
                            Something exists
                                   |  
                                   |
                       -------------------------------
                       |                             |
                       |                             |
                       |                             |
             A point when there                Something always
             was non-existence                 existed
         ------------------------------              |        
         |             |              |              |
         |             |              |              |      
         |             |              |              |  
      All is      Self-caused     Something          |
      illusion                    came from          |
                                  non-existence      |
                                                     |
                                                     |
                                                     |
                                                     |      
                                                     |        
                                                     |
                       --------------------------------------
                       |                                    |
                       |                                    |
                       |                                    |
                       |                             The universe has
                       |                             not always existed
                       |                                    
                       |                                    
                 The universe has                            
                 always existed                              
 

If we   can prove  the leg   that  asserts  "The  universe  has always
existed"  is false,  then we have demonstrated that the other leg is
true (again by disjunctive syllogism).
 
The  attribute of 'always existent  being'  that  we will focus  on is
infinity.  As we discussed above,   an always existent being  would have
to be  infinite in its existence.  Since the attribute of infinity is
inherent to always existing,  if we can demonstrate that the universe
does  not have this  attribute, then we have demonstrated  that the
universe does not fall into the category of "Always existed."
 
There  are three   possibilities   that   are offered  under  the  leg
"The universe has always existed," :

1)   It  is  possible  that  the substance,   or stuff,   or being  of
this universe is infinite in existence.

2) It is possible that there was an infinite regress of finite events.

3)   It is possible that the universe   existed in  some form prior to  
the first  motion   event,   outside of   a  dimension of   time,   and  
in  a completely static condition.

If  we  can  demonstrate that these three  possibilities  are  false,  
then  we have demonstrated that the leg is false.  As we will see, these
three cover all possibilities.

Let's add the  three possibilities for an  always existing universe  to
the chart:
                                 CHART 1.4

                            Something exists
                                   |  
                                   |
                       -------------------------------
                       |                             |
             A point when there                Something always
             was non-existence                 existed
         ------------------------------              |        
         |             |              |              |  
      All is      Self-caused     Something          |
      illusion                    came from          |
                                  non-existence      |
                                                     |
                       --------------------------------------
                       |                                    |
                       |                             The universe has
                       |                             not always existed
                       |                                    |
                 The universe has                           |
                 always existed                             |
        --------------------------------              There is something
        |              |                |             transcendent to our
        |              |                |             universe that always
        |              |                |             existed, is uncaused,
 The substance of   an infinite    The universe       and infinite.
 the universe is    regress of     existed timeless  
 infinite           finite events  and static prior  
                                   to 1st motion  
                                   event


Let's examine the  first two historical  options available under this  leg.
The  first   one says   that the   nature,  or stuff,  or substance of this
universe is infinite;   it always existed.   The changes we see are changes
in appearance not in substance.  The second option says that the nature, or
stuff  of  the universe  is finite,   but there was an infinite  regress of
connected events.  Although, no thing or event could be considered infinite
in itself,   the universe as a whole would have always existed  though this
infinite, endless chain of cause and effect events.

These two views are different in  fundamental points,  but  they  do  share
one point that   is  vulnerable to criticism,  and shows them  to be false.
Both views maintain  that  an infinite number  of events have  preceded the
present event,  the  event we  are experiencing  right now.  They say  that
an infinite series   of  events  that  stretch out into  the past has  been
traversed  or  crossed to  bring   us  to  the current event we   are now
experiencing.   If   we  can disprove  this  point,  then  both options are
shown to be false.
 
The above position is vulnerable when it claims that  an infinite  number  
of  events  have  been completely traversed.   In other words,  all
members of the  set we can  call `the past   events'  have been crossed,  
and  there are no  events   that   can be  called  `past events' that have  
not  been  crossed. The position  also  maintains that  there is no
beginning to  the series,  thus the claim that the series is infinite.

To show the problem let's try a little theoretical experiment.   Let's  say
we can reverse the logical order of events. So, we would begin going
backward, crossing all events in the logical order except reversed.

The infinite  universe  models say that all past events  have been
traversed coming forward. So, we should be able  to traverse all events  
going backwards.   After all,  there are no more events going backward,  
than are coming forward;   there are the exact same number of events.  
But,  if we can traverse all   past events going backwards,   we   will
have come to   a point when   there are no more events to cross.  Thus,  
all  events  would be  traversed.  If all events have been traversed
going backwards,  and no events remain to be traversed, then we will have
come to an  end.   If we come to  an end,   then the series is finite.  You
see,   an end  going  backward  would  be  a  beginning coming forward,  
and if it had a beginning it must be finite.  If it is finite it is not
infinite.
 
What if we never   get to an end going backwards?  It  would mean  that all
past events could not be  traversed;   and if all past  events cannot  be
traversed going backwards,  then  they  could not  be  traversed coming
forwards. The same number of events are  involved.  If the series of events
could not be traversed coming  forward,   then we would never  be able to
get   to the current event  we  are experiencing  right now.  Yet,  we  are
at   the   present  event.  Therefore,  there are not an infinite number of
events.
 
To summarize:  If all past  events could be traversed,  then the  past is
not infinite.  If the past is  infinite then all past  events  could not be
traversed to get us to the present event.   Since the  latter is patently
false (we   are at the current event),   and   the former  denies  the main
premise  of the infinite universe,  which  makes the proposition false,  we
can conclude   that   the two options that  maintain an infinite  series of
past events are both false.

This brings us to the third  option. It  goes   something  like  this:  
The  universe  that  is currently in motion existed in some form  logically
prior to  it's being in motion.   At that  point it   was in   a state
absolutely  static  (without motion,   or   event)  and  absolutely  
timeless  (without  a dimension of time).  

This option tries to  avoid the error   of attempting to   traverse an
actual infinite series of  events.   If there were   no events and no  time
prior to the first   motion  event (presumably the big bang),  it  would be
possible for the universe  to   be  placed  in   the  category   of "always
existed."   This is because it could have existed without  a beginning, and
prior to the first motion event.

For the above to  be  a real  possibility the following  two  premises must
both be possible at the same time.

1) There was a point logically prior to the first event.

2)   Whatever  form  the universe   was in,   it was absolutely  static and
timeless prior to the first event.

Let's   examine the proposed first event a little  more  carefully and see
what  we can deduce given the premises.

There   are   three   possibilities   concerning   any   event.  Either  an
event is necessary (which means it must  happen,   and cannot not  happen),
the event is contingent (it can happen   or   not happen  depending on  
conditions),  or the event is impossible (it cannot happen).
Let's say that given the above scenario the first  event was  contingent.
There would  be  a point where the conditions  needed  for the first  event
were not  present,   so there would be no first event until the conditions
came about for the first event.   This gives  us the "eternal"  point prior  
to  the first event that  is  suggested.  But, this means  that  conditions  
would have  to  change  in some way,   so that the conditions needed for  
the first event could come about. But, this change would be an event in
itself. So, it would be necessary to have an event precede the first event.  
This  would  mean that the  first event is  not the "first  event."  It
also  would deny  that the universe   was static   prior  to the   "first
event."  The idea that  this first event is  contingent  allows  for
premise 1,  but denies premise 2.

Let's say that the first event was necessary. This would mean that  if the
first event could occur,   it must  occur.  If all conditions needed for  
the first event were always present    and there was no contingency,   then
the event would occur. This would save us from needing an event preceding
our first  event. However,  If  all   conditions necessary   for the first
event were present,  the event would have occurred without a point
logically prior  to it,   for there would be no point logically prior such
that  the conditions for the first  event were not present. This denies
premise 1.

So,   we see that  given the above scenario,  the  first  event  is neither
contingent,  nor necessary.  Therefore,  it  is an impossible  event, given
the  premises.   Since the universe  is  here,   we must conclude that this
third option is false.

We  may derive  something else  from the fall of  the three above  options:
Any other   attempt to  maintain  that  the universe  always  existed would
have to present a scenario such that the universe  could not be  always  in
motion,  nor be motionless at some prior point.   Given the third law of
logic, the law of excluded middle,  there is no possibility of any other
rational scenario proposing an always existent universe.

Since the three options available to  the   leg  that  maintains   that the
universe  has always existed   are shown to   be false,   the leg itself is
shown false.  If this  leg is  false,  then  the other leg of  the disjunct
must  be  true (via disjunctive syllogism).  The leg we find to be  true is
that  this universe has not always existed.  

Although we   have found  that this universe  did not always  exist, we are
still stuck with the fact that there is something  in the  category  of  
"always  existed."  We  also  know  that this `something' is infinite,  and
uncaused.  The  philosophical   term  for an  actual  always existent  
that   is   other  than our universe   is  'transcendent.'  This argument  
also   shows   that   if the universe is not infinite,  it had a beginning,  
it is finite.  If it is finite, then it is derived.  That means it had to  
come  from  something  else.   For,  as  we  have  already seen, something
cannot come from nothing.
 
So, here is what we have learned through our discussion:
 
1: Since something exists, something has always existed.
 
2:  The  something  that  has  always  existed  is  uncaused,  infinite  in
its existence.
 
3:  This always  existing  something is  transcendent  to  our universe  (a
universe that did not always exist, and is derived).
 
Our final version of chart 1 now looks like this:

                              CHART 1.5

                            Something exists
                                   |  
                                   |
                       -------------------------------
                       |                             |
             A point when there                Something always
             was non-existence                 existed
         ------------------------------              |        
         |             |              |              |
         |             |              |              |      
         |             |              |              |  
      All is      Self-caused     Something          |
      illusion                    came from          |
                                  non-existence      |
                                                     |
                       --------------------------------------
                       |                                    |
                       |                             The universe has
                       |                             not always existed
                 The universe has                           |
                 always existed                             |
        --------------------------------              There is something
        |              |                |             transcendent to our
        |              |                |             universe that always
        |              |                |             existed, is uncaused,
 The substance of   an infinite    The universe       and infinite.
 the universe is    regress of     existed timeless  
 infinite           finite events  and static prior  
                                   to 1st motion  
                                   event

Although minimally so,   isn't the term 'God'  consistent with what we mean
when we  talk  about an  infinite,   uncaused,   always  existent,  that is
transcendent to our finite, derived (created) universe?
 
Is this argument a good argument?-
 
First,   in   examining  the argument   we   see  that   it   follows
standard disjunctive  syllogisms,  nothing fancy,  just straight forward
deductions. The form is   a valid form.   Which  means that  the form  of  
the argument will yield  a true conclusion  provided all  the premises are  
true.  Thus, we say, the conclusion follows necessarily.  

Second,   we  must   examine  the truth of   the  premises.   The  argument
unfolds by examining  the  possibilities  that  come  from   unpacking   an
existentially  undeniable   premise  ("I exist").   By  `unpacking'  I mean
finding the necessary implications of the  idea.  For instance, if I exist,
then it necessarily follows that something exists.   If I know what  I mean
by `I'   and I know what I mean  by  `something,'   then I know for certain
that if I exist, then something exists. I unpacked `something exists'  from
the  statement  `I  exist.'  Where  there  was  more  than  one possibility
unpacked,   each was examined logically,  and those that did not  stand the
examination   were   discarded,  leaving  those  that  were shown logically
to be the case.   In other words the premises used to demonstrate  that God
exists are true premises.    

Therefore,  since  the argument  is  valid,  and  the  premises  are  true,
the conclusion yielded is   a true   conclusion.   It is a  conclusion that
accurately describes reality.

Some objections -
 
Even though the argument is  sound,   there have been some attempts  to get
around the   implication that   God  does   exist.   Allow me to share some
attempts people have tried to use to get out of accepting the conclusion of
the argument.
In the words of one gentleman whom  I debated on this point:
"What Mr.  Lenardos has not accounted for is  that  in   addition  to being
uncaused,    always  existent,   transcendent,    etc.,   `God'  is  almost
universally understood to be a conscious,  volitional  being.  From this it
follows  that  no  item   picked out   by  the term `God'  could lack these
properties and still be God." Here are a few examples of quotes from modern
day Atheist writers that were presented to me in that recent discussion:

From Philosopher Paul Edwards:

"It  has frequently  been  pointed out that  even   if this  argument  (the
classical  causal  argument)   were  sound  it   would  not  establish  the
existence   of  God. It would not show that the first cause is all-powerful
or all-good or   that it is in any sense personal.  Defenders of the causal
argument   usually concede this  and insist  that  the argument  is  not in
itself  meant to prove  the existence of God....Supplementary arguments are
required to show   that the   first cause must have attributes  assigned to
the deity."  (From his article  in The Rationalist Annual, 1959)

From William Rowe:

"(I)t might be objected that even  if   Aquinas'  arguments do prove beyond
doubt the existence of   an  unchanging changer,  an uncaused cause,  and a
being that could not have  failed to   exist,   the arguments fail to prove
the   existence  of the  theistic God."  (Philosophy of Religion, Wadsworth
Publishing Co., 1978)

Apparently   these men,   and there   are  others  who  follow  them,  feel
it is necessary to demonstrate personality to demonstrate that what we have
in a real always existing,  uncaused,  infinite that is transcendent to our
finite,  caused,  derived universe can be termed as "God."  The question is
not  whether God is  a personal,  active,  volitional, conscious being, but
rather,  is it necessary to demonstrate that the always  existent that does
exist has these  qualities in order to refer to it(?) as God?

I   happen to  believe  that  God  is  personal.   I  don't  believe  that
the  demonstration of  personality  is  needed  to  show  that   the always
existent is  God.   You  will  note  that  although  my  argument  does not
demonstrate that  the always   existent   is personal,   the argument in no
way  denies   that the always  existent  is  personal.  At  this  point the
question is open.

This objection seems   to me as  nothing more than a last  ditch effort  to
keep from   having to admit the obvious.   The idea   that one  must either
demonstrate personality,   or one cannot refer to  the always   existent as
"God"   is absurd.  One  reason  is  that  there are several  religions and
philosophies that  assert an impersonal God.  It is not true that volition,
action, consciousness, i.e., personality is universally held. Here are just
a couple of examples:

1)  Hinduism. The ultimate being (God) in Hinduism is Brahman. Here is what
John  B.   Noss,   author of  "Man's   Religions",   has  to say concerning
Brahman  in  the  Hindu  writings:   "Some  treatises,   the  earlier ones,
regularly  refer to  Brahman as  a neuter   something,   without  motion or
feeling,   the impersonal matrix from which the universe has issued  and to
which it   will in  time   return.  This  It,  this   One  Thing,   is  the
substratum   of   everything."  Further reading  in the Upanishads  (sacred
Hindu writings)  reveal that  there is  a personal  form of Brahman (called
the formed)   and   an   impersonal  form  (called  the formless). However,
it   is   the  impersonal   that   is   the ultimate and  real: "There are,
assuredly,  two  forms of  Brahman:  the formed and the  formless. Now that
which is formed is unreal;  that which is formless  is real"  (from "Maitri
Upanishad").  So we  find that the "real"   is the impersonal.   On further
reading we also find that this "formless" and real is also action less.

2)   Plotinus.   Plotinus had a  huge neo-platonic following in   the third
century A.D. This next quotation is from Fredrick Copleston's "A History of
Philosophy."  It is  about Plotinus'   concept of God:   "God is absolutely
transcendent:  He is the One,   beyond all thought and all being...  God is
accordingly THE   GOOD rather than "good."   Moreover,  we can legitimately
ascribe to the One neither thought nor will nor activity."  

3)   Furthermore,  we  find  that  not even  Theists historically  believed
that demonstrating personality was necessary to show that God  exists. Such
as  Thomas Aquinas,   Anselm,   Descartes, Leibniz, and many others offered
arguments for the   existence of God   that did not  include personality as
a  criteria  for demonstrating that  God existed.   Assuredly,  all of them
offered  other arguments at  different points   that   God  is   a personal
being,   but they  did not   find  it  necessary to  offer an  argument for
personality  to  demonstrate that  God existed.   So we   find   that  from
historical,  philosophical,  religious, and theistic stand  points,  it  is
not   necessary   to   demonstrate  that  God  is personal,  to demonstrate
that   God does   exist.  Allow me to offer  a list of  just  a few of  the
philosophers  who   argued  for the   existence of God  without an inherent
argument for personality in the argument presented:

Plato (see "Laws" and "Phaedrus")

Aristotle (see "Metaphysics")

Anselm (see "Prologion" and "Monologion")

Alfarabi (for easy references for this and the next see "A  History of
Medieval Philosophy" by Armand A. Maurer)

Avicenna

Thomas Aquinas (see "Summa Theologica")

John Duns Scotus (see "Philosophical Writings" trans. Allan B. Wolter)

Rene Descartes (see "Meditations" ch.5)

Leibniz (see "Monadology")

Spinoza (see "Ethics")

Richard Taylor (see "The Cosmological Argument")

Charles Hartshorne (see "The Ontological Argument")

N. Malcolm (see "The Ontological Argument")

Here   we   have   a  wide   range  of   philosophers from  many  different
viewpoints.  Represented  are Dualists,  Pantheists, Panentheists, Muslims,
and Christians.

The  meaning of  a term  can be  drawn from   its  common  usage  within  a
community. The  community that  deals with  the type  of  argument  I  have
given   is the philosophical/religious community.  The common  usage within
this community for the last 2500   years refers to  an infinite,  uncaused,
always  existent  which is  transcendent  to  our  finite,  derived, caused
universe  as  God.  The conjunction of the above  examples demonstrate that
the premise that   says it is   necessary to show personality before we may
refer to the always existent as "God" is false.
Another debater attempted to argue in this manner:
"The article fails to carry out some crucial self-analysis on its conclusions.
Doing so would reveal that the conclusions reached within the article disprove
the entity the article claims to prove exists. The same reasoning by which the
article 'disproves' an always existent universe also apply to the entity the
article proposes."
What this debater is trying to say is that the same argument that is used to show
the universe is not always existent can be use to show the God is not always
existent. This debater would be correct given any type of God that existed
sequentially or was trapped within our dimension of time. In Christianity at
least, God is not a sequential being and two other options have been offered
concerning His existence. Christian theology has suggested that God is either
timeless (outside of a dimension of time) or exists on multiple dimensions of time.
God is not trapped in our one single dimension of created time. If either of these
options is the case, then the above objection fails. So, our friend has not shown
the existence of an always existent God to be impossible. He has shown that one type
of god would be impossible and type of god is not one that most religious philosophies
are interested in anyway.
Another debater reacted to the argument for the existence of God in this fashion:
"Although, the argument that our universe is not infinite looks good at first,
we must remember that we don't know everything there is to know about infinity.
We may even learn some new things in the future that would overturn what we
know now. But, I think it may just be that our minds are not able to grasp enough
about infinity to make the conclusion drawn here."
There are actually three objections here:
1) We shouldn't accept that the universe is not infinite, because we don't know
enough about infinity.
2) We shouldn't accept that the universe is not infinite, because we may learn
more about infinity later that would change our views.
3)We shouldn't accept that the universe is not infinite, because our minds cannot
grasp enough about infinity make that conclusion.
Regarding the first two, they are forms of the logical fallacy Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam. This is because the conclusion they seek to draw is not based on
what we do know, but based on what we don't know. The reason they are fallacious
is because they can be use for or against anything. For instance, we shouldn't
accept the theory of relativity or the laws of thermodynamics because we just
don't know enough about them and we may even learn some new things in the future
that would overturn what we think we know now. Consider this one, we shouldn't
reject the existence of unicorns or leprechauns because we just don't know enough
about them and we may even learn some new things in the future that would overturn
what we think we know now. One could also argue, we shouldn't accept that the
universe is infinite because we just don't know enough about it and we may even
learn some new things in the future that would overturn what we think we know now.
This is just bad reasoning and is to be avoided at all cost.
In the third objection, I guess our critic is at least willing to accept that
something is finite, our minds. Although this objection is similar to the first
two, it differs slightly. The first two merely claim a lack of knowledge. This
claims a lack of capability to know. But the problem that this critic has just
run in to is not based on what we don't know about infinity, but what we do know.
Let's take an example, If the only thing a person knew about a cat is that it
is a mammal, that person could easily conclude that his goldfish was not a cat.
He need not know everything about either the cat or the fish. He just needs
to know one clearly identifying feature to draw this basic conclusion. The one
thing he does know about the cat, clearly and distinctly, does not fit with what
he knows about the fish. No matter how much more information he gathers about
the cat and the fish, that disparity will never be closed. The fish will never
be though a cat, because our person knows that a cat is a mammal and he knows
the fish is not a mammal.
That is the problem our objector has here. When ever we compare the clear and
distinct things we do know about infinity to our universe, we never have a
correspondence, in fact just the opposite is true, we see a disparity each and
every time. No matter how much more capable our minds could become or how much
more information we could get about infinity, this basic and primary disparity
can never be expunged.

Last thoughts -

The argument I have given rest firmly and solidly on the laws of logic;  in
other words, rational thought. If someone would like to get around  this
argument there is  only  one way to  do it: simply reject  rational  
thought.   You  see,   at   the very   beginning  of  the argument   we had  
to make a choice:   If we   would deal  with our  topic rationally,   or
irrationally.  If we chose the irrational,  my argument is cut off at  the
root.  I  can't even  make  my  first  point,   because all communication
assumes rational  thought. If, however, we chose to deal with the subject
rationally, then the conclusion is clear: God exists!
 
You may find some who don't mind taking the irrational route   when dealing
with the existence of  God.  But,  there can be  no  real reason to  reject
rational thought when  it  concerns God,  and accept it in other areas.  It
is the  same rational thought that  tells a person  to   chew on the steak,
and  not   the steak knife.   So,   if   a person  would be  consistent  in
really   giving up rational thought,   it would be a toss up  as to whether
the  person chews on the  edge of the knife,  or the steak presented on the
plate.   But,  since we find few people who  reject  the existence of  God,
who are chewing on  steak knives,  we must assume  that  either  they  have
not   examined    this   argument,  or  they  are selectively rejecting the
argument   despite its validity,  and soundness. Each person must choose
the way he  will  go.   My  only  problem is  with the person who   rejects
the argument   and insists he  is  being rational.  The  person who rejects
the argument, and rational thought,  has a right to do so,  but should at
least be honest about it.
 
Suggested reading:
 * R. Descartes, Meditations, Chapters 1-3
 * N. Geisler, Philosophy of Religion, Chapters 8 & 9
 * R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, Chapter 7
 * William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Chapter 3
 * J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, Chapter 1
Workers and their families may starve to death in the New World Order of economic rationality, but diamond necklaces are cheaper in elegant New York shops, thanks to the miracle of the market.
-Noam Chomsky

symtacs

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 255
  • Karma +0/-0
The Existence of God
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2004, 10:50:46 AM »
I browsed over the delightful treatise above. Im going to go over it again in peace and some free time. I just wanted to share my own thoughts for the for/against God analysis.

First, human beings have three states of mind regarding the validity of a statement or statements. They are:

1-claim is true.
2-claim is false.
3-i dont know whether it is true xor (exclusive or) false.

of course you can determine truth and falsehood directly (when you are in the third state). Sometimes you can determine truth and false hood indirectly. Meaning, a series of statements and claims connect perfectly and you can verify those statements.

Those statements also contain another statement that connect coherently with the verifiable statements, but is not directly verifiable.

You can verify the truth of that particular statement by investigating its position within other statements.

E.g. I land on a deserted island. I land there thinking and knowing that no other human had landed on that island before. Yet, I find a small crude hut on the island. I see no human there. There is no record of another human being there prior to me, yet I firmly conclude that another human has been there before. How? The existence of a hut.

This is how I found God. The evidence called Quran firmly points at His existence.

jkhan

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Karma +4/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Existence of God
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2020, 07:23:47 PM »
Peace everyone.....

This is a very interesting topic.. I think everyone who believe that God does exist should individually perceive why they accept God or is it just a belief?  Are we really in a confirmed state of mind that God does exist or we perplex.. If not perplex then what makes you firm that He exists...

I like to here your comments or even debate why you accept and why you reject God in life... Probably we will learn a lot if we dig deep in this topic...

good logic

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Karma +4/-1
Re: The Existence of God
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2020, 12:39:33 AM »
If you seek GOD, there will be a trial period of your conviction.
Then GOD will let you know through the message and His guidance.
You will attain certainty that GOD exist .
This is GOD s promise .
there is no proof for those that do not seek or want GOD.
Proof is for believers .
GOD bless you all.
Peace
TOTAL LOYALTY TO GOD ALONE.   IN GOD I TRUST

38:65″ Say:? I warn you; There is no other god beside GOD, the One, the Supreme.?

 http://www.total-loyalty-to-god-alone.co.uk/website-pages/good-logic/

good logic

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Karma +4/-1
Re: The Existence of God
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2020, 01:47:17 PM »
It is a big moment when one knows for certain that GOD exist. You want to know who GOD is and this is mind blowing and difficult to understand. Some of GOD s attributes are way above what we can perceive or imagine.
Then one should become GOD conscious, and we will need to change our attitude in life and ways
Our life will need to go beyond just accepting and saying that GOD exist

Proving the existence of GOD has consequences and is a big responsibility for the following reasons:( GOD exist means)
1- The only GOD,Authority and power.
2-Surrender to His system and follow His message.
3-Do not take any other gods/power/authority.
4- Follow the straight path/do good/be good/love GOD with your mind ,heart and soul and  love your neighbour...etc
5- have GOD on your mind 24/7 to help offset the desires/lust...etc i.e a deterrent to bad things/doing bad...
6-start on a journey to get to know and learn the message and start on a sincere and honest relationship with the Lord.

There is nowhere for us to hide  or run to except back to GOD,then we will meet GOD after this life.
In other words once we know GOD exist,we have no choice. The only reasonable and best choice is to surrender fully to GOD Alone.

Any other way (like just acknowledging/saying but ignoring the message) will be covering the truth and  sidelining the duty /purpose of our life.
If we just accept there is a GOD but  ignore His message,this is lip service belief . Iblees believes GOD exist as well.

If we know/ believe GOD exist we have got to believe GOD as well.
GOD bless you all.
Peace.
TOTAL LOYALTY TO GOD ALONE.   IN GOD I TRUST

38:65″ Say:? I warn you; There is no other god beside GOD, the One, the Supreme.?

 http://www.total-loyalty-to-god-alone.co.uk/website-pages/good-logic/

jkhan

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Karma +4/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Existence of God
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2020, 04:22:42 PM »
If you seek GOD, there will be a trial period of your conviction.
Then GOD will let you know through the message and His guidance.
You will attain certainty that GOD exist .
This is GOD s promise .
there is no proof for those that do not seek or want GOD.
Proof is for believers .
GOD bless you all.
Peace

Peace..

I appreciate that you believe in God and so probably God has guided you and me... let's pray till last breath to guide us... But it is different story to many millions of people... Why they should seek God?  Is it not manifest that God exist  or has HE hidden it to seek Him? Coz many in this earth are doing fine without  accepting God.. And while denying His existence... I don't see much difference  between a good God believer and a good non God believer...

But God keep saying in His book that He will show His signs until they know.. Are you saying that disbelievers won't know the existence of God but only believers..

Anoushirvan

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: The Existence of God
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2020, 03:01:50 AM »
 Peace,

I'm not member of Mensa and I might not have the high IQ of Mr. Brady Lenardos, but there are a couple of flaws in his argument.

Basically he argues for a finite universe, in space and most importantly in time, so this universe could not have always existed ; and from that finite universe, he infers that some transcendent entity must have brought this finite universe into existence.

The main flaw lies in the crux of his argument for a finite universe is here, though there are other fallacies:

Quote
To summarize:  If all past  events could be traversed,  then the  past is
not infinite.  If the past is  infinite then all past  events  could not be
traversed to get us to the present event.   Since the  latter is patently
false (we   are at the current event),   and   the former  denies  the main
premise  of the infinite universe,  which  makes the proposition false,  we
can conclude   that   the two options that  maintain an infinite  series of
past events are both false.



He argues for a finite universe in time (and also in space), because, and this is the essence of his argument, if we count the past events backward, either their number is finite, and here is the point, or, their number is infinite but then when we try to count them forward from the infinite, we are not able to reach our present, which kills this possibility.

So his argument implies two counts, one of all events backward in the past, and one of all events forward from the past.

An implicit mathematical hypothesis lurking behind is that the set of physical events in our universe is countable, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set.
Roughly, a countable set in mathematical sense means that this set can be put in bijection one to one with the set of natural numbers, or finite subset of it.

For example, the set of natural numbers itself is countable (by definition), and so is the set of even numbers, or the set of odd numbers.
But the set of real numbers is not countable, because it cannot be put in bijection one to one to the set of natural number.

Then, it is a reasonable to assume that the set of physical events of our universe is mathematically countable, nevertheless this is still an hypothesis.

So he wants to enumerate all the physical events backward in the past, and forward from the past. Then he argues that this enumeration procedure is impossible if the set of physical events is infinite.
He doesn't provide a rational for this impossibility but likely his argument relies on the fact that counting an item takes a constant amount of time, hence the sum of the time spent on counting all events diverges.

We could argue that the enumerating procedure might not need to take the same amount of time for every event, hence like we can have a infinite sum that converges, the enumerating procedure could take a finite amount of time even for an infinite number of physical events. This is the analog of one the Zeno paradoxes called Achille and the tortoise (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise)

But let's assume, like he is implicitly doing, that counting one physical event takes a finite constant amount of time.

The problem is that, while events happening and flowing is a physical process because we live in this reality, enumerating them, either backward or forward in time is not a physical process.
And here, I do not even speak of technological issues.

Let's put aside some theoretical issues related to CPT symmetry and time reversal (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry), which could imply that going backward in time is not the same as going forward, hence the universe might have a different face depending time is flowing onward or backward.


By requiring that enumerating event backward and forward be still theoretically possible
(1) either this process has to be made physically possible, or
(2) Mr. Lenardos reasons in a different universe and reality than the one we live in.

As for (1), in order to make the backward counting physically possible, the trace of every event must be recorded somewhere, like in a big RAM or a big hard drive.

The first difficulty is that if the universe is infinite, then an infinite amount of resources is needed to record the trace of each event.
A second difficulty is that the physical laws of the universe that we know today, namely the Einstein Relativity, forbid to record an event that lies outside the cone of future of the recorder.

So, not only past events that have not been recorded cannot be recorded anymore, but also those that are too far for their light to reach the recorder.
In addition, events happening inside a black hole cannot be recorded since their light cannot cross out of black hole horizon of events.

Also, in order for events to be recorded and enumerated, they must be discernible. But quantum mechanics challenges our conception of reality that events can discernible.
In some conditions, two identical particles cannot be discerned by any measure process.
Even worse, things could be indiscernible in one world but discernible in another (https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789813146280_0011)

And since according to quantum mechanics, in order to know something, we must measure this thing first, and this modifies the physical reality, it means that physically recording each event is a process that potentially affects the whole universe.
It is then not clear how this universe would be the same as one we live in.

So likely, no physical process can be setup that allows to enumerate all physical events.


As for (2), if we assume that it is possible to enumerate events without a physical process, it means that some external entity to our universe is able to know every event happening inside.
But then, isn't this external entity able to enumerate everything in this universe a transcendent one, that we actually could call "God", the same as in the sequel on the reasoning of Mr. Lenardos ?

Likely yes.

As my math teacher told us when I was a student, in order to warn us against reasoning errors: "if you include the conclusion in your hypotheses, then surely you will demonstrate the conclusion".

So basically, Mr Lenardos is subtlety embedding the conclusion of a transcendent god able to know count everything in this universe in the set of his hypotheses, and then surely he managed to reach to conclusion that this transcendent entity must exist.
There is just one caveat in his reasoning: this transcendent god would not be able to enumerate an infinite amount of physical events in a finite amount of time, thus this universe must be finite in time, hence it must have been created by a transcendent entity.

If we discard approach (2) which implies the logical fallacy to include the desired conclusion (a transcendent god) in the hypotheses, then we are left with the conclusion that no physical process can count all physical events, either backward or forward.

So if it is not possible to define a process to say if the number of events in our universe is finite or infinite in time, there is not way to decide by such mean that the universe is finite backward in time or not.

QED.


good logic

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Karma +4/-1
Re: The Existence of God
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2020, 04:34:19 AM »
Peace jkhan.
You say,quote:
"But God keep saying in His book that He will show His signs until they know.. Are you saying that disbelievers won't know the existence of God but only believers.."

I am saying "GOD exist" should affect the individual  Which way?.
 Iblees knew that GOD exists.
There is no difference between Iblees stand and those who do not believe GOD exist. and those who say they believe as lip service only.
Either it changes our whole way of life or deep down we do not really believe. Both sets that do not surrender/submit do not value GOD as He should be valued.

There is no point in us trying to prove GOD s existence, GOD has proved it to all those that submit.
There is no point in any individual just saying GOD exist.if they do not seek GOD Alone for a "connection"/guidance and follow His message.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
TOTAL LOYALTY TO GOD ALONE.   IN GOD I TRUST

38:65″ Say:? I warn you; There is no other god beside GOD, the One, the Supreme.?

 http://www.total-loyalty-to-god-alone.co.uk/website-pages/good-logic/

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11241
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Existence of God
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2020, 05:45:00 AM »
peace all,

I thought the original post was very good. If I were to choose a weakness I'd go with this bit:

Quote
Another debater attempted to argue in this manner:
"The article fails to carry out some crucial self-analysis on its conclusions.
Doing so would reveal that the conclusions reached within the article disprove
the entity the article claims to prove exists. The same reasoning by which the
article 'disproves' an always existent universe also apply to the entity the
article proposes."
What this debater is trying to say is that the same argument that is used to show
the universe is not always existent can be use to show the God is not always
existent. This debater would be correct given any type of God that existed
sequentially or was trapped within our dimension of time. In Christianity at
least, God is not a sequential being and two other options have been offered
concerning His existence. Christian theology has suggested that God is either
timeless (outside of a dimension of time) or exists on multiple dimensions of time.
God is not trapped in our one single dimension of created time. If either of these
options is the case, then the above objection fails. So, our friend has not shown
the existence of an always existent God to be impossible. He has shown that one type
of god would be impossible and type of god is not one that most religious philosophies
are interested in anyway.

I haven't pondered over it more though.


Anoushirvan,
I'm not sure I get your point but I have never got my head round infinity in the natural world, but I know it is present in the world of mathematics. I think the issue you raise about a countable set was mentioned in a video I watched:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI&ab_channel=iERA and I believe a differentiation was made but I cant recall what exactly.
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org

jkhan

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Karma +4/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Existence of God
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2020, 06:13:31 AM »
Peace jkhan.
You say,quote:
"But God keep saying in His book that He will show His signs until they know.. Are you saying that disbelievers won't know the existence of God but only believers.."

I am saying "GOD exist" should affect the individual  Which way?.
 Iblees knew that GOD exists.
There is no difference between Iblees stand and those who do not believe GOD exist. and those who say they believe as lip service only.
Either it changes our whole way of life or deep down we do not really believe. Both sets that do not surrender/submit do not value GOD as He should be valued.

There is no point in us trying to prove GOD s existence, GOD has proved it to all those that submit.
There is no point in any individual just saying GOD exist.if they do not seek GOD Alone for a "connection"/guidance and follow His message.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Peace GL...
I understand your point.. You are taking this topic from the point where you have already found the God.. But the one who originated this topic in different level...  I do really applaud his effort but very unfortunate no one has given a good debate for us to read after all these years...

You raised a good point saying Iblees knew there is God,  so did Adam ... But  this topic is not from the angle of Quran or any religious point of view.. But  self research...  In my life experience knowing the God without any religious book at certain point time is key to sustain our faith to be in a convinced situation...

You must be having something that is away from Quran that makes your belief in God / existence of God more stronger... Share with us,  if you don't mind that