Philosophical arguments for the existence of God

Philosophical argument for the contingency of the universe:
(1) If the universe didn't have a beginning, the universe is eternal.
(2) If the universe is eternal, the past is infinite.
(3) If the past is infinite, there has been an endless amount of past events.
(4) If the amount of past events is infinite, it would take an infinite amount of events to reach the present events.
(5) However, present events are constantly reached.
(6) Therefore, (4) is false.
(7) Therefore, the amount of past events is finite.
(8) Therefore, past is finite.
(9) Therefore, the universe is not eternal.
(10) Therefore, the universe began to exist.
(11) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Philosophical argument against an universe caused by nothing:
(1) Nothing is the absolute absence of things.
(2) Properties are exclusive of things.
(3) Therefore, nothingness doesn't have properties.
(4) Therefore, nothingness doesn't have the property to cause the existence of beings.
(5) Therefore, nothingness cannot be the cause of the universe.
(6) Therefore, the cause of the universe is something.

(1/?)

Other urls found in this thread:

novaroma.org/via_romana/stoicism.html
youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Philosophical argument for the nature of the cause of the universe:
(1.1) The cause of the universe is a being by which the universe came to exist.
(1.2) The cause of the universe either has to exist, could or could not exist, or cannot exist.
(1.3) If the cause of the universe is something, its existence is not impossible.
(1.4) If the cause of the universe could not exist, it’s not the actual cause of the universe but a mere means.
(1.5) Therefore, the cause of the universe has to exist. It’s uncaused and necessary.
(1.6) Therefore, it cannot change from one state to another. It’s changeless.
(1.7) If temporal, spacial or material beings can change, the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial.
(2.1) A changeless being caused the universe.
(2.2) Therefore, the cause of the universe cannot be impersonal.
(2.3) Therefore, the cause of the universe must be personal.
(3.1) Among explanations based on the same evidence, the simplest one is the most probable.
(3.2) The cause of the universe is something necessary, uncaused, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial and personal.
(3.3) Therefore,it is most probable that the cause of the universe is one necessary, uncaused, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial and personal being.

(2/?)

That's like saying that just because you can theoretically cut a rope infinite times before reaching the middle that there is no middle.

Modal ontological argument:
(1) The greastest being is defined as a being that possesses all virtues at its maximum grade and all flaws at its minimum grade.
(2) Such being, by definition, would have to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving (therefore personal), since these properties are greater than their negations.
(3) These properties doesn’t contradict each other.
(4) Therefore, it’s possible that the greatest being exists.
(5) Therefore, it exists in one possible reality.
(6) Therefore, it exists in all possible realities. It’s greater to exist in all possible realities than just some of them.
(7) Therefore, the greastest being cannot not exist. It’s necessary.
(8) Therefore, the greatest being is uncaused, changeless, timeless, spaceless and immaterial.
(9) This reality is a possible reality.
(10) Therefore, the greatest being exists.
(11) Therefore, an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, personal, necessary, uncaused, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being exists.

Putting two and two together:
(1) Among explanations based on the same evidence, the simplest one is the most probable.
(2) The cause of the universe is something necessary, uncaused, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being.
(3) The greatest being is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, personal, necessary, uncaused, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being.
(4) Therefore, it is most probable that the cause of the universe is one all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, necessary, uncaused, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being.

(3/3)

When you start cutting a rope ad infinitum, you get a POTENTIAL endless amount of cuts; when you have an infinite fast, you get an ACTUAL endless amount of past events.

>(1.7) If temporal, spacial or material beings can change, the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial.
>(2.2) Therefore, the cause of the universe cannot be impersonal.
>(3.1) Among explanations based on the same evidence, the simplest one is the most probable.
These "conclusions" don't follow from the previous arguments. There's no logic here.

You can't cut a rope infinite times unless the rope is infinite.

But none of that discredits the middle of the rope, and those potential cuts are actual divisions that already exist. You could cut the rope down to the last atom and then split that atom, but the only thing holding that together is magnetism.

>(11) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
I'm sorry, I was waiting for your argument for God's existence.

I must've missed it while you were talking about your argument for the existence of a cause to the universe.

(1.7) follows from the previos premises, where it's established that the cause of the universe has to exist, therefore it cannot change from A to B (because A would stop existing and B would come to exist).

(2.2) Comes from the idea that a changeless impersonal being would never cause the universe, since there is nothing triggering it to cause it. The only known possible way is that the cause has a will.

(3.1) Is an independent premise: Ockham's razor.

However, it's potential because you can never reach infinity. With an endless amount of past events, present would be the result of reaching the infinite which is absurd.

Look at part 2 and 3. Too much words for one single post.

You can cut the rope infinite times down to the last particle, then cut it further into pixels, so on.

>However, it's potential because you can never reach infinity. With an endless amount of past events, present would be the result of reaching the infinite which is absurd.
The past, like the first half of the rope is infinitely complex but I still don't see why that nullifies either the present or the middle of the rope. Just because you don't have a knife sharp enough to keep cutting it doesn't say anything about the present other than you need a sharper knife.

>(1.1) The cause of the universe is a being by which the universe came to exist.
You're assuming it's a being for no reason

>(1.6) Therefore, it cannot change from one state to another. It’s changeless.
Why?
>(1.7) If temporal, spacial or material beings can change, the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial.
Again, why?

>(2.1) A changeless being caused the universe.
>(2.2) Therefore, the cause of the universe cannot be impersonal.
>(2.3) Therefore, the cause of the universe must be personal.
How do you from changeless (which is questionable in the first place) to personal? What does personal even mean here?

>you prove God, you don't find him

autism

Atheist who think the universe created itself render the idea that no God exist void because at that point God is simply the universe. It's a pantheistic conception of God, or even a stoic one novaroma.org/via_romana/stoicism.html

>You're assuming it's a being for no reason
I posted an argument against a universe coming out of nothing, therefore the cause is something.

>Why?
>Again, why?
Gong from state A to state B means A stops to exist and B begins to exist.

A personal being is a being that possesses a will. If the changeless cause of the universe is impersonal, it would never cause the universe because nothing would trigger it to cause it.

What's the point of calling the universe God?
Just proclaiming that all is one or something?

>Self-created universe.
That's logically impossible, because in order for A to cause its own existence, it would need to exist before A. In other words, A would have to exist and not exist.

>theoretically

The pantheist believe God is everything. This would include extra dimensial beings.

Rebellion against a personal God; autists have a difficult time picturing God as a person.

>(6) Therefore, (4) is false.
Then movement wouldn't be a thing either, yet Xeno got BTFO by convergence.

Granted, there is also the problem that past events aren't infinite, because time isn't infinite. (Protip: "infinite" is a human fantasy concept that does not exist in reality.)

>(1) Nothing is the absolute absence of things.
Nothing is also a fantasy concept that doesn't exist in reality.

...and even in this fantasy where infinity and nothing exist, none these arguments actually require the existence of God.

>Infinity doesn't exist.
True. An actual endless amount of things cannot exist, or else you get absurds like endless past events being reached at the present.

>Nothingness does not exist.
Well duh, because there is something. However, some atheist argue that the univer came out of literal nothing. Not even quantum vacuum, but literal nothingness.

>Gong from state A to state B means A stops to exist and B begins to exist.
So what? There's nothing indicating that something that caused another cannot become a different thing.

>If the changeless cause of the universe is impersonal, it would never cause the universe because nothing would trigger it to cause it.
Why? Are you saying that it would need that a personal being "decide" to create? Because that would imply change.
It seems to me that personality precludes changelessness in the first place.

>seems to me that personality precludes changelessness in the first place.
The Christian God is changeless.

>personal god

lmao

Then he is not personal.

>So what?
If the cause of the universe has to exist, it cannot stop to exist or begin to exist.

>Are you saying that it would need that a personal being "decide" to create?
Yes.
>Because that would imply change.
How come? Choosing in itself doesn't imply a change in your being.

"Events" is just a fancy way of saying "time"
Time moving indefinitely, or "infinitely" as you put it, is not a paradox
Thats like one of Zeno's paradoxes (Achilles and the Tortoise)
>universe caused by nothing
Thats not exactly a theory a lot of people hang their hat on

His creation can change. He can choose to interact with it if he wishes.

>If the cause of the universe has to exist, it cannot stop to exist or begin to exist.
It could potentially cause the universe and then stop existing for whatever reason, or change. Nothing says this can't happen

>Choosing in itself doesn't imply a change in your being.
It does. If you're a being that doesn't create and you become a being that creates, you changed.

This is nice bait, anyone else got an itch to race a tortoise after the first argument?

>Achilles and the tortoise
The difference is that both Achilles and the tortoise never reach infinity. Infinity is just potential. With an endless past you have an actual infinitel where present events are the result of reaching the end of and endless amount of past events.

>It could potentially
A being that has to exist is not a potential being. Otherwise it doesn't have to exist.

>If you're a being that doesn't create and you become a being that creates, you changed.
What do you mean by those titles? "Being that doesn't create" and "being that creates"?

>Otherwise it doesn't have to exist.
It only HAD to exist when the universe was caused. Past the point, not necessarily.

>What do you mean by those titles?
You can call it a property, the "creator" property.
This being didn't have it before, then started having it. This implies change.

Sure, I can accept philosophical gods like that. The problem I have is that in 99.9% of cases, this shit is just an excuse to start jamming in stories about psychic Jewish zombies that are the son of (and simultaneously are) gods that like to kill kids with bears for throwing rocks at bald dudes.

Spinoza did a way better job of this than you by the way, and his conclusion was that this god could not be separate from its creation or considered intelligent in any capacity we'd understand.

>Nothing is the absolute absence of things.

That's not scientific nothing.

A being that has to exists is a being that exists in all possible realities. The cause of the universe would exist even if there was no universe at all.

>You can call it a property, the "creator" property.
This being didn't have it before, then started having it.
The cause didn't get the property to create when it caused the universe. If anything, it got the title of creator or cause but that's not a change in its being.

>That's not scientific nothing.
Shoo, Krauss. The quantum vacuum is something.

So, you can understand the problem better than Spinoza, who said that God surpassed his capacity to understand.

What arrogance.

I don't dispute that. But it's still what a scientist means when they say "nothing." There's also no reason to think that the quantum vacuum isn't eternal, and indeed I'd be fine with calling it God as it fits the description of "divine" pretty well.

I claimed nothing of the sort.

I hope you don't feel uncomfortable with the existence of a being that is pretty much screaming "the judeochristians are right".

>One
>All-powerful
>All-knowing
>All-loving
>Uncaused
>Changeless
>Timeless
>Spaceless
>Immaterial
>Necessary
>Personal

It doesn't gain the title "creator" because at no moment did it choose to create - because what it creates is moments themselves. There are no moments outside of the creation. This is what eternal/atemporal means.

~not OP~

Very rarely actually does this shit ever make its way back to jesus lol

A god is a personal being with control over nature; the quantum vacuum is an impersonal thing. Also you still need to deal with the absurd of endless past events if the quantum vaccum is temporal.

>However, some atheist argue that the univer came out of literal nothing. Not even quantum vacuum, but literal nothingness.
I've never heard that one myself, and only an atheist lacking even a pop-sci understanding of modern cosmology would make that claim, as that quantum vacuum is key to its creation.

youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Some atheists may make the same claim that many Christians do about God - namely that it's unknowable. In that context, however, the Flying Spaghetti monster or Rainbow Dash are just as good an explanations as is God - maybe even a bit better, if you assume they don't or cannot interfere with the chain of cause and effect emanating from the first moment of creation, but that would fly in the face of the traditional Christian model of the universe.

And leibniz does a way better job than spinoza at this

Most people are. Even when they come to the right conclusion their own way.

Except theres no reason to think it's personal, intelligent, or willing in any capacity we'd understand. A perfect being can't have a reason to do anything, as that would require some manner of unfulfilled desire, meaning it either wasn't always perfect (this screws with the timeless part) or that it went from perfect to imperfect. Further any sort of action requires change, which destroys the unchanging part.

It doesn't scream "the Judeo-Christians were right" because perfect beings don't experience the kind of petty jealousy that's required to kill 42 kids with bears for mocking their BFF. It screams "Plato might have been on to something with the form of the good."

Everything goes back to Jesus; he is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.

>a god is a personal being

BZZT! Wrong! Read Spinoza.

The quantum vacuum doesn't need to be temporal anymore than God is. Causality doesn't apply to it, and time and space are interlinked, so without space there is no time. Read Hawking.

>laughingvoltaire.jpg

As a philosopher, Leibniz was a complete fucking joke.

>Philosophical argument for the contingency of the universe:

That is completely and utterly retarded. Just because you can't count to infinity doesn't mean you can't start counting FROM infinity.

lol yeah. I meant that rarely do philosophers try to directly link their ontological/cosmological or modal arguments from God back to jesus

I mean its actually pretty clear that that is what I meant lmao

As if Spinoza were right?

Even worse, not only do you imply that Spinoza was right (he might be) but you imply that Spinoza is OBVIOUSLY right (he's not....about anything)

Causality is only relevant if time exists. Since without universe there's no time, any argument that relies on causality is irrelevant.

wrong

>No reason to think it's personal
There are.
(1) The timeless, changless cause of the universe must be personal. If it was impersnal nothing would trigger it to cause the universe. It would be like an isolated machine.
(2) The greatest being is a personal being.

>Perfect
Never said that.

Christianity teaches God created man so there would be love in the universe. Man learns to love God, who is perfect.

A changeless being can't choose anything, because making choices requires change.

A changeless being with free will can decide to do something. Your adding criteria where they need not be any.

You claimed all kinds of garbage.

You will be repaid to your face.

Hawking, whose god is the Law of Gravity.

Pass.

There's no light between God and Jesus.

Not that he's obviously right, just that your definition of God is complete fucking bunk.

As a machine it's timeless and non-causal, so it doesn't need someone to put into motion. Further it would by its existence require an infinity of attributes in an infinity of varieties, and would express that could be throughout the course of its existence.

>(2) The greatest being is a personal being.

Why does that follow?

Further, God's intellect couldn't be anything like our own, because it can't exist in a posterior state as our own does; it would have to contain within it the cause of all things, and exist a priori. It's will would have to be static and enacted exactly as it intended from the beginning, and this doesn't fit with the Christian God. Unless you truly believe that God intended for us to eat the fruit.

Christianity is also philosophically bankrupt. What's your point?

God in Christianity supposedly is love, so it has no reason to create for there to be love. Why would it create an imperfect copy of itself?

>best of all possible worlds

That alone invalidates anything he ever said as a philosopher.

>God is greater than we are.

Duh.

>A being that has to exists is a being that exists in all possible realities.
It's not a being that has to exist today. It only HAD to exist at one specific point in time. It's not necessarily eternal and changeless, it only needed to exist at that moment.

> that's not a change in its being.
It is. The being that did not create ceased to exist, and the one that creates started to exist.

It's not necessarily time, just logical steps. Well i guess it could be the same but then you're arguing for something beyond logic that can't be proven through logic in the first place.
The point is that making a decision implies change.

I never claimed to understand God better than Spinoza.

>You will be repaid to your face.

Internet tough guy, or Christian trying to scare me with hell?

Free will requires being able to act in a non-deterministic manner. This by itself means that a changeless being cannot have free will.

The Christian God is described as having free will and being infinite. I'm not arguing here, just saying the facts. If you don't believe its possible that's your business.

Infinite and changeless are different things.

He's also described as unchanging.