The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

[gerry]

This thread from me in another forum was locked up twice by moderators there after a lot of action from me and contending posters.

Then I started two new threads which were I can say quickly locked up.

Lastly this morning I started a new thread, it's not been locked up yet; but I decided to walk out from that forum not waiting further to see what the moderators will do to it.



Now, I am back in this TheologyWeb forum.

I am bringing here that previously twice locked up thread; I cannot imagine the moderators here will ever lock it up -- not on the grounds for which moderators there locked it up not once but twice.


-----------------------


[ From posts in previous forum ]

We can call God by other names like nature and evolution, but these names only indicate ultimately that God is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

Would you atheists not want to also call God, the randomness?

You can also if you also explain the origination and annihilation on the one hand and on the other the order and the stability in the universe, by your own peculiar concept of randomness, by which you will slip in order and stability on the sly; just as you want to insist on your own peculiar concept of nothingness, by which you always slip in on the sly something to represent the nothing.



Now, if you have been following my posts from the very first initiating message from me, here are my step by step presentation of the argument for God's existence with the universe as the evidence.

Step 1. Set forth the concepts of universe, evidence, and God:

A. Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

B. Evidence = a fact known by man by which he comes to know another fact.

C. God = in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, maker of everything that is not Himself.

Step 2. Enumerate the kinds of actual and imaginable components of the universe:

A. Things which are subject to origination and annihilation.

B. The imaginable thing that is the maker of A., Whom Christians call God.

Step 3. Present the evidence:

A. In the universe there is the fact that the nose of man as man himself is subject to origination and annihilation,

B. Therefore it is the fact that he cannot be his own maker, and also everything else in the universe that is subject to origination and annihilation cannot be their own maker,

C. Wherefore, all these things with an origination and an annihilation witness to the fact of the actual existence of the imaginable being Whom Christians call God, as the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

You still ask, Where is the evidence there?

Okay, again but concisely:

In the universe:

I. The evidence is the fact that there are beings in the universe which are subject to origination and annihilation,

II. Therefore it is the fact that they cannot be their own maker,

III. Wherefore it is the fact that the imaginable being maker of everything in the universe that is not himself is the being that is the maker of all these beings subject to origination and annihilation, Whom Christians call God.

Since atheists maintain that there is no God Whom Christians call in His fundamental relation to the universe as maker of everything that is not Himself, then they must present objections: to the demonstration above for the existence of God from the fact of the existence of the universe, where there is the fact that there are beings subject to origination and annihilation.

Now, let me see rational objections, not mockery and parody of God, and not misdirection or evasions of the issue.


---------------------


[ Here below is the enumerated list of my statements above on the universe as the evidence for God's existence; it will be more convenient to refer to them by their numbers. ]

(1) Step 1. Set forth the concepts of universe, evidence, and God:

(2) A. Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

(3) B. Evidence = a fact known by man by which he comes to know another fact.

(4) C. God = in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, maker of everything that is not Himself.

(5) Step 2. Enumerate the kinds of actual and imaginable components of the universe:

(6) A. Things which are subject to origination and annihilation.

(7) B. The imaginable thing that is the maker of A., Whom Christians call God.

(8) Step 3. Present the evidence:

(9) A. In the universe there is the fact that the nose of man as man himself is subject to origination and annihilation,

(10) B. Therefore it is the fact that he cannot be his own maker, and also everything else in the universe that is subject to origination and annihilation cannot be their own maker,

(11) C. Wherefore, all these things with an origination and an annihilation witness to the fact of the actual existence of the imaginable being Whom Christians call God, as the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

So, atheists here, what do you think of the universe as evidence for God's existence.




Gerry

[The Pixie]

gerry

We can call God by other names like nature and evolution, but these names only indicate ultimately that God is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

Would you atheists not want to also call God, the randomness?

You can also if you also explain the origination and annihilation on the one hand and on the other the order and the stability in the universe, by your own peculiar concept of randomness, by which you will slip in order and stability on the sly; just as you want to insist on your own peculiar concept of nothingness, by which you always slip in on the sly something to represent the nothing.

If you want to prove that something that might be nature or evolution exists, then you are fighting a straw man. Everyone here believes nature exists, and everyone here believes either God or evolution exists (or both).

Redefining God to mean something that we all agree exists is not going to impress anyone. Let us call ducks unicorns, then prove ducks exists, and therefore unicorns exist. See? Redefining does not help the argument at all. The truth is that the concept of God has certain qualities, and when you pretend those qualities do not matter then you have already lost the argument.

One quality that all gods, from Jupiter to Yahweh, have is intelligence. Other qualitoes that you mght consider are supernatural (common to all, but admittedly hard to define), creator of the universe, all-power (or at least, more powerful than man), all-knowing.

A. Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

So let us note that according to your definition of the universe:

(a) It includes God (I recall from previous discussions that this is deliberate, but I mention it because it is unconventional).

(b) It is not limited by the physical universe that started with the Big Bang, but might include the multiverse if such a thing exists, and may or may not have existed forever.

C. God = in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, maker of everything that is not Himself.

Okay, so there is one quality of God, as the creator. But if this entity is not intelligent, but is instead just quantum flunctuation, would you still call it God? Would it be worthy of worship?

Step 2. Enumerate the kinds of actual and imaginable components of the universe:

A. Things which are subject to origination and annihilation.

B. The imaginable thing that is the maker of A., Whom Christians call God.

You missed:

C. Things which are not subject to origination and annihilation, but are not God.

Step 3. Present the evidence:

A. In the universe there is the fact that the nose of man as man himself is subject to origination and annihilation,

B. Therefore it is the fact that he cannot be his own maker, and also everything else in the universe that is subject to origination and annihilation cannot be their own maker,

Bad logic. You might as well say that a man and his nose cannot fly, and so therefore nothing can fly. Clearly this is wrong.

What you are doing here is making an inductive argument about pretty much everything in the universe based on just two example, a man and his nose. Okay, I appreciate we have a lot of examples that you have not listed, but all these things aree necessarily at our scale of experience. Can you really make claims about physical universes at one end of the scale, down to subatomic particles at the other end of the scale based on what we observe at the macroscopic scale? QM says emphatically no!

C. Wherefore, all these things with an origination and an annihilation witness to the fact of the actual existence of the imaginable being Whom Christians call God, as the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

No, because other possibilities exist:

1. Physical universes (and/or subatomic particles) can originate without a cause or are self-caused
2. Physical universes are spawned by an eternal, but non-intelligent phenomenum
3. Infinite regression
4. Something I have not thought of (seriously, the universe is a bizarre place, and to exclude an explanation just because you and I cannot imagine it is folly).

[gerry]

Let us talk about the universe first, because the existence of the universe is a fact no one denies.


As you have read, this is my concept of the universe:

Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

I like for you also to present here your concept of the universe.


Can we first work together to come to a common concept of the universe?

And should we also come to such a common concept of the universe for the purpose of this thread?




Gerry

[The Pixie]

I am happy with that definition. I made comments about it to highlight a couple of points, not to say it was wrong.

[shunyadragon]

This argument is in reality nothing new. There are many variations of the cosmological argument coming and going that boil down to the concept oe what is the 'First Cause' and the hypothetical claim that there cannot be be an 'Uncaused Cause.'

If we consider the Cosmological and Physics evidence as a basis for the argument the conclusions cannot support the existence of a 'First Cause,' outside the known cosmos. One may argue the question logically from the theological or philosophical perspective, but from the evidence there is nothing to support this conclusion.

The actual bottom line is there is no objective evidence that can definitively conclude anything as to the actual 'First Cause' of the physical existence that includes our universe. Zero, zip, nada, negatory, nothing nor whatever.

The only evidence we have is that natural causes and laws determined the nature of everything we are presently able to observe.

Many of these arguments dable in the effort to demonstrate the impossibiity of infinities from the antiquated Aristotilian perspective, but these fail miserably in the face of modern math and physics.

Others throw up the 2nd Law of thermodynamics road kill argument, but theoretically this only works in a closed system, and we do not know that our universe is such a closed system. to further criple this three legged dog, In the Quantum World our existence owes its foundation the 2nd law appears not to apply.

[gerry]

Thanks, Pixie, for your acceptance of my concept of the universe, namely:

the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

You are sure you don't want to add anything to my concept to make it more acceptable to everyone like yourself and me, who look at an argument positively in order to like a drama play it to the very end and see whether it brings us to sure knowledge and insight into the world which before we did not have?


Shuny, please don't preempt the proposition, that the universe is the evidence for God's existence, unless you want to proceed without any logic; for logic dictates that first we examine a proposition to see whether it is a possible proposition, and if possible then follow the argument of the author of the proposition to the very end completely.


Now, Shuny, if from your heart and mind you want to preempt it negatively by insisting that it will not lead to anything in the way of the attainment of sure knowledge and insight into the reality of God and His role which He did play out completely in the universe...

Then to be logical you must prove to yourself and to everyone with a command of logic that the proposition is an impossible one, it is like for example the proposition that there is such a concept as a square-circle, or there is such a human as a physiologically blind man with eyes that see physiologically, or like there is a man called Shuny with a nose that is not a nose.




Gerry

[The Pixie]

gerry

You are sure you don't want to add anything to my concept to make it more acceptable to everyone like yourself and me, who look at an argument positively in order to like a drama play it to the very end and see whether it brings us to sure knowledge and insight into the world which before we did not have?

I find it curious how much you want to drag out a discussion about a definition that I said we agree on.

Why not discuss something we do not agree on?

Shuny, please don't preempt the proposition, that the universe is the evidence for God's existence, unless you want to proceed without any logic; for logic dictates that first we examine a proposition to see whether it is a possible proposition, and if possible then follow the argument of the author of the proposition to the very end completely.

Yeah, Shuny, first we have to spend a dozen posts making sure we all agree what the universe is before we get to anything we disagree on. With luck, we will get to the conclusion by Christmas. May be not next Christmas, but certainly before some Christmas.

I mean seriously, you put content in your post. What were you thinking?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, please don't preempt the proposition, that the universe is the evidence for God's existence, unless you want to proceed without any logic; for logic dictates that first we examine a proposition to see whether it is a possible proposition, and if possible then follow the argument of the author of the proposition to the very end completely.


Now, Shuny, if from your heart and mind you want to preempt it negatively by insisting that it will not lead to anything in the way of the attainment of sure knowledge and insight into the reality of God and His role which He did play out completely in the universe...

Then to be logical you must prove to yourself and to everyone with a command of logic that the proposition is an impossible one, it is like for example the proposition that there is such a concept as a square-circle, or there is such a human as a physiologically blind man with eyes that see physiologically, or like there is a man called Shuny with a nose that is not a nose.

Gerry

First, the initial post appeals to the 'evidence' of the universe as supporting the existence of God. I challenge such evidence exists.

Second, If you appeal to logic, than the nature of the argument changes the thread intent to one of the classical cosmological arguments or something similar.

Third, It is not up to me to prove to myself anything in this thread. It is up to you present a coherent argument to support your case.

Fourth, Your definition of the universe is ok. I will present a simpler one that may cut out some of the fluff. The universe is simply all of the physical existence whatever it may encompass. The term universe may be used to describe our specific universe only, or it may be used to describe the greater universe that contains our universe.

I cut to chase in the previous post to cut through any gordian knot presented in this thread. There have been many threads on this subject, and none have presented a significant viable argument nor evidence for the existence of God. You may proceed with your argument, but my pocket knife is sufficient sharp enough to cut any knot presented.

[gerry]

Shuny states: Fourth, Your definition of the universe is ok.
[ http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...90#post3315590 ]


That is very good, now you and I have the same concept of the universe, namely:

Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

Now, Pixie, thanks for coming out categorically in your acceptance of my concept of the universe.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?148737-The-universe-is-the-evidence-for-God-s-existence.&p=3315447#post3315447

You are sure you don't want to add anything to my concept to make it more acceptable to everyone like yourself and me, who look at an argument positively in order to like a drama play it to the very end and see whether it brings us to sure knowledge and insight into the world which before we did not have?

I find it curious how much you want to drag out a discussion about a definition that I said we agree on.

No, I am not into dragging out a discussion about a definition, I just want to get you to come out categorically that you and I and everyone into this thread are in agreement on concepts crucially vital in the disquisition of a thesis.

Because my observation is that atheists are into mockery, parody (like unicorns), and evasions when they put up an appearance of deliberating on the issue of God or no God.


An argument is like a piece of delicate machinery, every part must be fabricated to very exacting precision, otherwise the piece of machinery will not work, will not at all achieve in any way the purpose for which it has been put together.



Now, let us work on the concept of God, shall we?

Here is my concept of God:

Maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

That is the concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe the part of which that is not necessary in its existence, unlike God Who is a necessary being in existence.


Do you have your concepts of God, or you accept my concept of God?


This is the time for us all to come to the agreement on what is the concept of God Whose existence we are examining to establish it or to conclude there is no existence to God.



Gerry

[The Pixie]

A universal property of all the gods mankind has imagined is that they are intelligent, sentient beings who take some interest in human lives.

If you want to define god as that thing that created the universe other than itself, then you are fightinbg a straw man. I find it entirely plausible that the universe had a cause, and I find that that is perfectly compatible with my atheism.

We need to think about what exactly are you hoping to prove exists. If all you are hoping to to prove something, intelligent or not, created the universe, then you are on your way to a trivial non-argument. However, I would suggest that the Christian concept of God has these properties too: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-loving, perfectly just, perfectly merciful, takes a personal interest in each and every one of us.

If you want me to choose, I suggest we go for the Christian concept of God, and require you to prove something with all those properties exists.

[JimL]

Now, let us work on the concept of God, shall we?

Here is my concept of God:

Maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

That is the concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe the part of which that is not necessary in its existence, unlike God Who is a necessary being in existence.

I don't think so Gerry. The Christian concept of God is not that he is the maker of everything in the universe that is not himself. The Christian concept of God is of a being who is distinct from and maker of the universe and everything in it. Theres a big difference. Perhaps you would like to clarify your definition?

[The Pixie]

I don't think so Gerry. The Christian concept of God is not that he is the maker of everything in the universe that is not himself. The Christian concept of God is of a being who is distinct from and maker of the universe and everything in it. Theres a big difference. Perhaps you would like to clarify your definition?

In fairness, this is consistent with gerry's definition of the universe (which is itself ideosyncratic).

[Doug Shaver]

[ From posts in previous forum ]

We can call God by other names like nature and evolution

Yes, we can, if we want to. I don't want to.

Would you atheists not want to also call God, the randomness?

I'm not calling anything God. If you call something God, then tell me what it is and then I'll tell you whether I believe it exists. If I agree that it exists, then chances are I will decline to call it God, but we'll see about that when the discussion gets to that point.

Now, if you have been following my posts from the very first initiating message from me, here are my step by step presentation of the argument for God's existence with the universe as the evidence.

[indent]Step 1. Set forth the concepts of universe, evidence, and God:

A. Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

As I understand the word "universe," its referent is everything that exists. People can imagine, and have discourses about, things that do not exist, and so those things are not components of the universe. Our imaginations and discourses exist, but the things they are about might not exist.

B. Evidence = a fact known by man by which he comes to know another fact.

I'll accept that for the moment. I reserve the right to object later if I think you're equivocating.

C. God = in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, maker of everything that is not Himself.

It's your God. You can define him however you wish.

Step 2. Enumerate the kinds of actual and imaginable components of the universe:

We're talking about whether the universe is evidence for God. You said evidence is a fact. Imaginable components are not facts, and so they cannot be evidence for anything.

A. Things which are subject to origination and annihilation.

B. The imaginable thing that is the maker of A., Whom Christians call God.

Step 3. Present the evidence:

A. In the universe there is the fact that the nose of man as man himself is subject to origination and annihilation,

B. Therefore it is the fact that he cannot be his own maker, and also everything else in the universe that is subject to origination and annihilation cannot be their own maker,

C. Wherefore, all these things with an origination and an annihilation witness to the fact of the actual existence of the imaginable being Whom Christians call God, as the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

I cannot parse the logic of that argument.

You still ask, Where is the evidence there?

Yes, I do.

Okay, again but concisely:

In the universe:

I. The evidence is the fact that there are beings in the universe which are subject to origination and annihilation,

II. Therefore it is the fact that they cannot be their own maker,

III. Wherefore it is the fact that the imaginable being maker of everything in the universe that is not himself is the being that is the maker of all these beings subject to origination and annihilation, Whom Christians call God.

That might be more concise, but it is not any more intelligible.

It does bear a faint resemblance to some version of the cosmological argument; but, so far as I am aware, that has never persuaded anyone who didn't already believe in God.

there is the fact that there are beings subject to origination and annihilation.

Yes, that is a fact. But it is not evidence for God because it does not entail God's existence.

Now, let me see rational objections, not mockery and parody of God, and not misdirection or evasions of the issue.

My objection is rational, but I don't expect you to agree with that. I expect you to say that it is a misdirection or evasion.

[JimL]

In fairness, this is consistent with gerry's definition of the universe (which is itself ideosyncratic).

Thats not how I interpret Gerry's words. He does not put God outside of the univese, as do Christians, he defines God more as if he were the greater eternal Cosmos, creator of all things within itself. His definition: "Maker of everything in the universe that is not himself" implies that God himself is somehow bound up with the eternal and infinite universe within which created things come to be. Perhaps I interpret him wrongly, but it is Gerry who says we need to be very exacting in defining our concepts when making an argument so perhaps he could make it clear as to whether in his concept of God, God is a distinct entity who exists outside of created existence?

[37818]

The concept of God being omnipresent would make God everywhere, including in the universe and in things created in the universe which are not Himself. God being in everything and separate from everything at the same time. God not being the things He created.