5 ms·

If all that exists is God and his creation, then it is enough to state that God determines his own will (i.e. has free will) and that he has all power with rela

by wbhart 15y ago

If all that exists is God and his creation, then it is enough to state that God determines his own will (i.e. has free will) and that he has all power with relation to his creation. No force, whether moral, physical, spiritual or temporal has the ability to oppose God and ultimately prevail. Thus he has no limits on his power. It is limitless. This all stands to reason if God created time and space and matter ex nihilo. He has all the power there is. "For from Him and to Him and through him are all things"... forever. In fact, nothing that has power has so without it being given by Him. All power derives from God. As God is changeless, his power necessarily cannot be improved. I'll be honest and say that I do not know of any argument which proves in a direct way that a God who created the physical universe must be able to do any thing which is possible. Of course, that does not imply that there is not such an argument, nor that I do not believe it to be so. I think that the necessary existence of God implies that there exists no being greater than God.

gnaritas 15y ago
> I think that the necessary existence of God implies There is no necessary existence of God nor can any logical argument establish it so.
- wbhart 15y ago
  Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?
  - gnaritas 15y ago
    As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it. If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't. If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe itself can be as well thus excluding any need to invent God. If you insist that God can be eternal but the universe can't be, or that the universe requires a creator but God doesn't, well... then you're just not being rational and there is not point in having a rational discussion.
    - wbhart 15y ago
      Do you believe the universe came from nothing? I find that absurd. I do not see what is absurd about the statement "nothing begets nothing". By the way, you attacked the premise, not the logic of the argument, which is not what you claimed in the first instance.
      - gnaritas 15y ago
        You find it absurd, but then believe God came from nothing. I find that irrational. The universe didn't come from anywhere, the universe is. Ok, the premise of your argument is flawed in that the very question is not logical.
    - wbhart 15y ago
      Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. That means you believe the existence of the universe is not contingent, which implies its existence is necessary. It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause. I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. By any definition of contingent that I know of, something with a beginning has contingent existence. Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). Good luck with that theory. You had better hope that a universe doesn't happen without a cause under your bed. Now you live in a universe where miracles can happen without any reason whatsoever. They just are. It actually sounds like in your world anything can happen any time for no reason. This begins to look very different from the universe I appear to live in.
      - gnaritas 15y ago
        > Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. No, I don't and I just told you that. The question is invalid; the Universe didn't come from anything. Even the visible universe, which we know was born from the big bang, no one believes came from nothing; Big bang theory says it came from an infinitely dense energy and the bang converted some of that into matter. No where does the theory state it all came from nothing. > You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. No, I did not. The rest of your rebuttal fails because you've setup a straw man to knock down while ignoring what I actually said; I expected as much. > It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause. I did no such thing. > I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. False. We know there was a big bang; we explicitly do not know that it was the beginning, or the only big bang, or that the visible universe it applies to is the only one, or that big bangs aren't cyclical. We just don't know. > Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). No, I believe there are answers we don't yet have. You are the one that believes things happen without a cause (e.g. gods), the universe at least is known to exist undeniably.

by wbhart 15y ago

gnaritas 15y ago

> I think that the necessary existence of God implies There is no necessary existence of God nor can any logical argument establish it so.

wbhart 15y ago
Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?
- gnaritas 15y ago
  As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it. If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't. If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe itself can be as well thus excluding any need to invent God. If you insist that God can be eternal but the universe can't be, or that the universe requires a creator but God doesn't, well... then you're just not being rational and there is not point in having a rational discussion.
  - wbhart 15y ago
    Do you believe the universe came from nothing? I find that absurd. I do not see what is absurd about the statement "nothing begets nothing". By the way, you attacked the premise, not the logic of the argument, which is not what you claimed in the first instance.
    - gnaritas 15y ago
      You find it absurd, but then believe God came from nothing. I find that irrational. The universe didn't come from anywhere, the universe is. Ok, the premise of your argument is flawed in that the very question is not logical.
  - wbhart 15y ago
    Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. That means you believe the existence of the universe is not contingent, which implies its existence is necessary. It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause. I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. By any definition of contingent that I know of, something with a beginning has contingent existence. Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). Good luck with that theory. You had better hope that a universe doesn't happen without a cause under your bed. Now you live in a universe where miracles can happen without any reason whatsoever. They just are. It actually sounds like in your world anything can happen any time for no reason. This begins to look very different from the universe I appear to live in.
    - gnaritas 15y ago
      > Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. No, I don't and I just told you that. The question is invalid; the Universe didn't come from anything. Even the visible universe, which we know was born from the big bang, no one believes came from nothing; Big bang theory says it came from an infinitely dense energy and the bang converted some of that into matter. No where does the theory state it all came from nothing. > You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. No, I did not. The rest of your rebuttal fails because you've setup a straw man to knock down while ignoring what I actually said; I expected as much. > It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause. I did no such thing. > I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. False. We know there was a big bang; we explicitly do not know that it was the beginning, or the only big bang, or that the visible universe it applies to is the only one, or that big bangs aren't cyclical. We just don't know. > Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). No, I believe there are answers we don't yet have. You are the one that believes things happen without a cause (e.g. gods), the universe at least is known to exist undeniably.