From existence to the existence of God

I guess everyone knows what is existence.

Examples of things in existence: you and I and the universe studied by scientists.

Also babies and roses in our neighborhood.

From honest intelligent productive thinking, can anyone at all deny that there is always existence, and it isn't ever going to become extinct?

So, what do you think, everyone honest intelligent and productive in his thoughts, doesn't it follow that God exists, as that something that exists permanently?

What about you and me, we are not possessed of permanent existence, we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death, so it follows that we come from God.

There, that proves God exists, as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Thanks to the moderator for allowing this thread to come out.

What about everyone honest and intelligent and productive, like cthia?

I am very keen to read your reactions.

None of what you said proves or disproves God (whichever one you're referring too, there are so many to choose from...).

I believe what you said can be accurately paraphrased as "since we exist and that existence is for a limited time, God must exist". There is no proof or really even an honest argument in that.

Mariue wrote:I guess everyone knows what is existence.

Examples of things in existence: you and I and the universe studied by scientists.

Also babies and roses in our neighborhood.

From honest intelligent productive thinking, can anyone at all deny that there is always existence, and it isn't ever going to become extinct?

So, what do you think, everyone honest intelligent and productive in his thoughts, doesn't it follow that God exists, as that something that exists permanently?

What about you and me, we are not possessed of permanent existence, we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death, so it follows that we come from God.

There, that proves God exists, as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Mariue wrote:I am very keen to read your reactions.

You won't be.

Mariue wrote:I guess everyone knows what is existence.

Examples of things in existence: you and I and the universe studied by scientists.

Also babies and roses in our neighborhood.

From honest intelligent productive thinking, can anyone at all deny that there is always existence, and it isn't ever going to become extinct?

I feel like there's a bit of a language barrier at play here, but let's examine your argument a bit.

You start off with something easy. "The world exists" is an intuitively true statement (however, do bear in mind that "intuitively true" and "actually true" are distinct things), but we'll have to see how you develop your argument from there.

So, what do you think, everyone honest intelligent and productive in his thoughts, doesn't it follow that God exists, as that something that exists permanently?

Uhhh.

Okay. So you decide not to develop it then? Curious.

Assuming I'm interpreting your words correctly, your argument goes as follows:
1. The universe exists and is infinite
2. Therefore, God is the universe

This is.... insufficient. The conclusion you're drawing does not follow a logical progression from the axioms you've established. Humanity has spent literal millennia on the question of whether or not god, any god, exists; there are pages upon pages of philosophical discussion on the subject, and you are seemingly unfamiliar with any of it.
If you want to establish a proof for the existence of god, you need to do your homework. You need to study, study and then study some more, because what you want to do is infinitely harder than just believing god exists and getting affirmation from your fellow believers. You want to convince people like me, who are very firmly convinced that gods do not exist.

Secondly, if your argument is true: What does that mean?
Many religions postulate a mechanism by which a human being can petition their gods for boons, they establish rules of behaviour pleasing to the god that, when followed, will result in benefits for the person doing the following. If what you say is true and god and the universe are one and the same, you are ascribing intentionality to the universe - an intentionality that we cannot detect with any of our technological or philosophical tools.

There's a very basic question you need to answer here:
If God exists, and if the teachings of any given religion are true and accurate, why do bad things happen to religious people? Why does religious belief make no detectable difference in things like disease outcomes?

What about you and me, we are not possessed of permanent existence, we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death, so it follows that we come from God.

There, that proves God exists, as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Yeah, no. This is insufficient on many levels. If you want to enter this discussion, you need to do better. You need to actually dive into the philosophy of it all in order to actually participate in it, you need to learn how to make a philosophical argument. All you are currently capable of is saying "I believe god exists", but that isn't enough to convince anyone who isn't already on your side.

Mariue wrote:I guess everyone knows what is existence.

Examples of things in existence: you and I and the universe studied by scientists.

Also babies and roses in our neighborhood.

From honest intelligent productive thinking, can anyone at all deny that there is always existence, and it isn't ever going to become extinct?

So, what do you think, everyone honest intelligent and productive in his thoughts, doesn't it follow that God exists, as that something that exists permanently?

What about you and me, we are not possessed of permanent existence, we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death, so it follows that we come from God.

There, that proves God exists, as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

I actually don't know what to say. I'm simply not accustomed to running into many people in the forum who can spare a couple of neurons to rub together to light kindling, when discussing this subject.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Your logic is impeccable. There is a lot that you did not say, but you shouldn't have to show all of your work like you are a school kid who has to prove you didn't cheat to get answers to the questions on the exam. I don't think there are any kids in the forum.

Your thoughts are plain and clear: Man is a finite being and the Universe was here long before any of us was a sparkle in our parent's eye. We didn't bring ourselves into the world, and we WILL die. Our parents are responsible for bringing us into the world. So, in a way, they are our god. But THEY had parents as well. So, who was the first human? Who was the first being? Who was the first human-being? And who begat this first being?

Oh yes, there are a lot of things that are inferred in your post, and there is no need for you to expound upon it. Anyone with half a brain can follow it. This type of discussion should at least begin at the collegiate level as the starting block. Even a fifth grader can follow the airtight logic.

But what you won't get is anyone - who isn't a believer - that will actually challenge and intelligently discuss, specifically, what you stated. They will simply beat around the bush with nonsense and mumbo jumbo and never actually discuss what you said. Why? Because their science can't dig them out of certain things. Like, how did man birth himself?

If disbelievers do not believe in an immaculate conception, then how did man immaculately conceive?

Cue nonsensical mumbo jumbo and tap dancing around the questions.

Again, brilliant Mariue! And ...

WELCOME TO THE FORUMS!

Even though I'm not much of a drinker, I feel like opening up an expensive bottle of wine!

Donnachaidh wrote:None of what you said proves or disproves God (whichever one you're referring too, there are so many to choose from...).

I believe what you said can be accurately paraphrased as "since we exist and that existence is for a limited time, God must exist". There is no proof or really even an honest argument in that.

It certainly proves that man isn't God, or the Creator. Who is left? Creation can't be blamed on aliens from another system because most people in the forum don't believe in aliens either. You shot yourself in that foot long ago. LOL

Of course there are as many Gods as there are languages and cultures.

"That which we call a rose by any other name will smell as sweet."

BUT! What would bother me is if only one culture believed in a higher power.

As you say, there is not an honest argument to that. There isn't an honest argument to any of IT. There is plenty of mumbo jumbo to sing along with all of the tap dancing though.

A response without pages of repeated text. Cthia you say that science has failed to prove the origins of man. That is plain untrue. The scientific record is complete in macro there.
From the big bang through to formation of solar systems, to proof of a primordial soup being able to produce amino acids, to an evolutionary process over many millions of years. Then to hominids, with fossil evidence showing each step (no missing link), including some dead ends as well.
When did the early hominid become "Man"? Depends on your definition of sentience? Looking from afar at some of the Trump supporters it appears that not all are there yet.
As I said, in macro. Lots of micro details to be found yet, but the overall story is consistent and clear. No actual Adam and Eve, who founded a species by inbreeding their children.

Daryl wrote:A response without pages of repeated text. Cthia you say that science has failed to prove the origins of man. That is plain untrue. The scientific record is complete in macro there.
From the big bang through to formation of solar systems, to proof of a primordial soup being able to produce amino acids, to an evolutionary process over many millions of years. Then to hominids, with fossil evidence showing each step (no missing link), including some dead ends as well.
When did the early hominid become "Man"? Depends on your definition of sentience? Looking from afar at some of the Trump supporters it appears that not all are there yet.
As I said, in macro. Lots of micro details to be found yet, but the overall story is consistent and clear. No actual Adam and Eve, who founded a species by inbreeding their children.

I never said that the origin of man was not proved. But you seem to be headed to the jukebox to play one of science's favorite selections. Darwinism? And, you seem to think that Darwinism would invalidate God as the Creator?

No, Daryl, what I was alluding to is the common sense that would tell us - after man thinks he has proved what process of tools made him - where the tools came from.

You are quick to refer to this primordial soup? Yet, who produced this soup? Campbell's soup company?

Darwinism does not disprove the mainstream of religious claims that God created man. If, by chance, man actually figures out the steps God used to create man. So what? Is it the fact that a popular Bible claims that God created everything in six days bother you? Does God have to show all of his work - the steps in-between - too? That surely would have been jumping the gun... before man could even figure out, much less understand... that the world is round, amino acids, atoms and the composition of water.

I'll give unbelievers one thing. They need to come up with a hypothesis about where the primordial ooze came from. But, admittedly, some can be found between some people's ears. I admit, I can't explain that. It boggles my mind.

I'll say it now. The origin of man has not been proved. But science just may have illuminated some of the steps. I got faith in science. Science is as science does. But science did not jump start itself. Primordial soup did not create itself then all by itself, jumped into a non-existent pot and created man. Although, if it somehow made it into a crock pot, I admit, it could have caused a big bang.

And the crock pot could have been ordered through Amazon. Amazons existed back then, right?

Yep, cthia still functioning as intended, still making wild assumptions about everything and everyone based on his perceived intellectual superiority, still willing to disregard everything that may contradict him while blindly praising that which agrees with him....


It's funny that he, a person who has spent considerable verbiage on the most inane of proofs, thinks that "Man is finite while the universe is infinite, therefore god exists" is a complete and sufficient proof.

Did that cray in your basement tell you that? Is that still a thing you're doing?

For the uninitiated in deep forum lore: Cthia once claimed to be working on a formal proof of the existence of god. Either he abandoned that project, or he is still looking for what eludes him; at any rate, it seems he never published anything.

I wonder, is your sudden disregard for crossing the ts and dotting the is when constructing a proof just because it turns out to be really hard?