It was also once believed that the earth was flat. In which case, the surface of the earth might be considered to have a beginning. It begins at, say, the east edge and ends at the west edge. But, that is not the case, and in-fact, there is no beginning or end to the surface of the earth. Stephen Hawking proposed a boundryless model of the universe to the Vatican in the 1980s. The non sequitor is that the universe must have a beginning for it to exist at all. I understand their distaste for infinite regression, but it does not follow that there must therefor be a self-sufficient first cause. Both are equally as distasteful. However, with the argument of God as the first mover, we must extend the argument to God and ask what moves God.
If you reason in Aristotelian terms, this question is meaningless because by definition the Prime Mover/God is the cause and origin of all, therefore nothing moves God.
Additionally, as we have become aware, "intelligence" arises in humans from a highly complex interaction of nerve cells. Human intelligence is not self-sufficient, it requires underlying causes. So therefor, one must explain how God's intelligence is self-sufficient.
God and human intellingence are the same in your argument then, because human intellingence is derived from God's, that is not being self-sufficient? If so, then, according to the Aristotelian/Scholastic view of the Prime Mover, God is self-sufficient, because it is not originated by anything else.
There may or may not be a God of sorts that preceeded the creation of the universe, or the universe it's self may be self-sufficient. The point is, we don't know and none of those philosopher's were able to tip the scales in their favor. They may have convinced themselves and others who shared their ideology, but in an objective sense, it's all rubbish.
The arguments demonstrating the proof of God's existence either in ontological, cosmological or teleological sense, have been logically validated, therefore if you accept any of those arguments, God existence is proven.
There are other possibilities that are far more plausible. The desire to anthropomorphize everything is a human fallacy. It's even more likely that the so-called "Big Bang" was the result of a benign and unintelligent force. A result of quantum fluctuations, by chance, giving rise to a system that works. As cosmologists like Hawking have shown, if the universe were in but a few configurations it would recollapse within seconds of the Big Bang. Therefor any Creator's hands would be strapped to do it one of a few ways. From that point on the evolution of the universe would strictly follow the laws we observe today. There is no room for any freedom of human or divine will and thus the Christian God is a false God.
Anyway, I am just playing Devil's Advocate on your claim that God does not exist, because instead in philosophical and logical terms (not faith, obviously, as there's no need for proof of existence, but merely acceptance) you can prove that it does exist as many philosophers and theologicians have done.
*edit* it also seems to me you are mixing positions from various different arguments in science and philosophy to create your arguments, a sort of intellectual pick 'n' mix ...
If you reason in Aristotelian terms, this question is meaningless because by definition the Prime Mover/God is the cause and origin of all, therefore nothing moves God.
God and human intellingence are the same in your argument then, because human intellingence is derived from God's, that is not being self-sufficient? If so, then, according to the Aristotelian/Scholastic view of the Prime Mover, God is self-sufficient, because it is not originated by anything else.
No, it doesn't in Aristotelian terms: God/the Prime Mover exists and is not originated by anything else.
The arguments demonstrating the proof of God's existence either in ontological, cosmological or teleological sense, have been logically validated, therefore if you accept any of those arguments, God existence is proven.
Anyway, I am just playing Devil's Advocate on your claim that God does not exist, because instead in philosophical and logical terms (not faith, obviously, as there's no need for proof of existence, but merely acceptance) you can prove that it does exist as many philosophers and theologicians have done.
*edit* it also seems to me you are mixing positions from various different arguments in science and philosophy to create your arguments, a sort of intellectual pick 'n' mix ...
You aren't proving God's existence. You are just saying "God" a lot.
I know it's hard to think logically with a background in religious dogma. But there is no reason why there must be a First Cause, and there is no reason why that First Cause must be a God with any properties at all. Nowhere has any philosopher, including Aristotle, shown that a God is necessary for the universe to exist. I read Augustine's work and just like most theology it's a series of circular reasoning.
These philosopher's like to insert black boxes called "God" as the answer to any question that cannot be answered. That isn't a logical conclusion, that's just a God of the Gaps. Any religion in the world will do this and then say "Therefor you should..." "wear a burka", "go to church on sunday", etc.. It certainly does not follow that a First Cause necessarily has the qualities of Yahweh or Allah or Ahura Mazda. The First Cause could be a benign, unintelligent force, which is not how the term God is defined.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You aren't proving God's existence. You are just saying "God" a lot.
I know it's hard to think logically with a background in religious dogma. But there is no reason why there must be a First Cause, and there is no reason why that First Cause must be a God with any properties at all. Nowhere has any philosopher, including Aristotle, shown that a God is necessary for the universe to exist. I read Augustine's work and just like most theology it's a series of circular reasoning.
These philosopher's like to insert black boxes called "God" as the answer to any question that cannot be answered. That isn't a logical conclusion, that's just a God of the Gaps. Any religion in the world will do this and then say "Therefor you should..." "wear a burka", "go to church on sunday", etc.. It certainly does not follow that a First Cause necessarily has the qualities of Yahweh or Allah or Ahura Mazda. The First Cause could be a benign, unintelligent force, which is not how the term God is defined.
Uh, never said I was to prove you the existence of God - just pointing out that it has been demonstrated in various occasions, something that you denied I seem to recollect.
Anyway, you seem to have totally misunderstood what I was trying to communicate, so I'm giving up trying to explain.
Comments
well i am an athiest afterall.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If you reason in Aristotelian terms, this question is meaningless because by definition the Prime Mover/God is the cause and origin of all, therefore nothing moves God.
God and human intellingence are the same in your argument then, because human intellingence is derived from God's, that is not being self-sufficient? If so, then, according to the Aristotelian/Scholastic view of the Prime Mover, God is self-sufficient, because it is not originated by anything else.
No, it doesn't in Aristotelian terms: God/the Prime Mover exists and is not originated by anything else.
The arguments demonstrating the proof of God's existence either in ontological, cosmological or teleological sense, have been logically validated, therefore if you accept any of those arguments, God existence is proven.
Anyway, I am just playing Devil's Advocate on your claim that God does not exist, because instead in philosophical and logical terms (not faith, obviously, as there's no need for proof of existence, but merely acceptance) you can prove that it does exist as many philosophers and theologicians have done.
*edit* it also seems to me you are mixing positions from various different arguments in science and philosophy to create your arguments, a sort of intellectual pick 'n' mix ...
You aren't proving God's existence. You are just saying "God" a lot.
I know it's hard to think logically with a background in religious dogma. But there is no reason why there must be a First Cause, and there is no reason why that First Cause must be a God with any properties at all. Nowhere has any philosopher, including Aristotle, shown that a God is necessary for the universe to exist. I read Augustine's work and just like most theology it's a series of circular reasoning.
These philosopher's like to insert black boxes called "God" as the answer to any question that cannot be answered. That isn't a logical conclusion, that's just a God of the Gaps. Any religion in the world will do this and then say "Therefor you should..." "wear a burka", "go to church on sunday", etc.. It certainly does not follow that a First Cause necessarily has the qualities of Yahweh or Allah or Ahura Mazda. The First Cause could be a benign, unintelligent force, which is not how the term God is defined.
Uh, never said I was to prove you the existence of God - just pointing out that it has been demonstrated in various occasions, something that you denied I seem to recollect.
Anyway, you seem to have totally misunderstood what I was trying to communicate, so I'm giving up trying to explain.