A being is just a particular thing that exists (as opposed to a concept, so my computer is a being, the internet is a being, but "technology" is not a being).
What?
You have Not presented any relevant passages of Godel that "showed" there is god, or even Evidence OF god.
The great majority of NAS scientists are Atheists. The higher they are on the accomplishment ladder, the more atheist.
Godel is another Anecdote that is proof of nothing. Nor can you post debate that god is more likely than not.
I'm interested in Logical discusssion. You want to chat about, ie, your friend Ernie who was a drug addict and found a new addiction - religion - and is now doing much better.. as "proof" there is a god.
Um.... um...
So the laws of physics can be a "being"?
Erm... What you're saying has nothing to do with Gödel's Theorem.I think anyone rather odd that thinks humanity capable at this time of deciding the question of the existence of a Creator or Her absence. Actually, there is even a mathematical proof that we cannot understand that much, as we are a subset of a very much larger reality and subsets cannot understand the whole. But, of course, Kurt Gödel might have been wrong.
Did you not read what I just wrote?
"The laws of physics" is not a particular thing.
But that's the point. You've made a logical jump from necessitating a cause and effect to that cause necessarily being a "being". Why can it not just be an event? And if it's a being, and everything needs cause and effect, that what caused the "being". Here, you will remove the necessity for cause and effect because it's convenient for the argument.
But that's the point. You've made a logical jump from necessitating a cause and effect to that cause necessarily being a "being". Why can it not just be an event? And if it's a being, and everything needs cause and effect, that what caused the "being". Here, you will remove the necessity for cause and effect because it's convenient for the argument.
First of all, an event can only happen if it has beings for it to happen to.
First of all, an event can only happen if it has beings for it to happen to.
Second, you misunderstood the argument. I didn't say everything needs a cause. Everything that is contingent needs a cause (by definition, if a thing could either be or not be, then something must cause it to be one or the othe). If it is impossible for something to not exist, then there doesn't have to be a cause of its existing. Note that a cause is not the same as an explanation.
How do you know? Do random vacuum fluctuations require someone to set them off?
The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks require a reason. :shrug:
I know that because I understand English.
There's nothing about virtual particles that negates what I said.
No, you made it up because it fits your conclusion. Vacuum fluctuations and quantum uncertainties DO negate what you say.
No, they do not. What I said was strictly metaphysical, and thus not dependent on contingent facts like how the laws of physics work. Trying to discuss particular contingent realities in a general discussion of contingent reality is an attempt at changing the subject.
Of course it Cannot be proven, and hasn't been by far better than posting here.I'm not even arguing for Christianity here, just for the fact that God exists, which can be proven through rational arguments.
It's not changing subjects. It's displaying your logical leap. Your number 4 does not logically follow from 3 because there is no necessity on a "being" to bring about the universe as we know it. As I have clearly demonstrated.
QED
Basically, you are using the Goofy 'something can't come from nothing' routine.
I'm not even arguing for Christianity here, just for the fact that God exists, which can be proven through rational arguments.
Define 'God' and explain your use of the capitalisation.
It's on topic. 'God' with the capitalisation usually denotes the monotheistic Abrahamic God. Is that what you mean?The creator of everything else that exists.
I am happy to discuss the capitalization in a thread dedicated to that, or privately. But I don't want to derail this thread.
I've fixed it to avoid triggering your semantic hang up:
1. Things can either exist by logical necessity or by contingency.
2. If a thing is contingent, then something must cause it to exist rather than not exist.
3. Consequently, there must be a cause of contingent things, which is not itself contingent.
4. Thus there is a necessary being, who caused the existence of all contingent beings.
I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;
I do not know if there are no gods;
I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist;
I see no reason to suspect that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I don't.
Seems so clear-cut to me...although I acknowledge I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Anyway, this God, is that all it is, the creator or first mover? No other attributes or properties?
4 still doesn't follow from 3, unless you want to say that quantum uncertainty is a "being". Is quantum uncertainty a "being"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?