# The concept of "God" proven illogical



## Doubletap (Dec 22, 2013)

The following argument by Nathanial Branden does, I think, counter successfully ANY "creationism" or "big bang" idea: "FIRST CAUSE" IS EXISTENCE, NOT GOD

Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?

Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created the god? Was there still an earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?

It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.

This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of that which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all causal chains. Existence - not "god" - is the First Cause.

Just as the concept of causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

The man who asks, "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or a mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to non-existence.

Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask, "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking, "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists: you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.

-- Nathaniel Branden PH.D Author, Psychologist


----------



## GrosMinet (Dec 22, 2013)

That's a bunch of strawmen and confusions that may be reasonably put down to a sophomore more than to a PhD. Theistic philosophers and theologians are way more sophisticated than that. 





Doubletap said:


> The following argument by Nathanial Branden does, I think, counter successfully ANY "creationism" or "big bang" idea: "FIRST CAUSE" IS EXISTENCE, NOT GOD
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 22, 2013)

It makes as much sense as the universe is a hologram and none of us is real.  Therefore there can be no such thing as murder because no one is really alive.  It's all just part of the hologram


----------



## Doubletap (Dec 23, 2013)

I posted what I believe is an interesting take for those who care to discuss the points raised.
Merry Xmas to all


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 23, 2013)

If God can have immortality, why then not the universe?

???

Something must have already existed, unless it could have possibly been "borrowed" by an unconnected source that was tapped from some unmeasurable future point in time. 

We see something similar with virtual particles, while they appear to come out of nowhere, they are actually coxed into existence.

While I would admit that god could have been the original source from which the universe came about, it would be more likely that they were BOTH here and the universe AND God could be considered the same entity.

Example: my left arm is my prime method by which I may manipulate my surroundings, yet it takes all of its orders from my brain. Without my brain, my arm has no direction and nothing to guide it. My body and my mind are part of me, however ... without my body, my brain would have no capacity for critical thought; thus, they are equally important.


This is always a good starting point for this type of discussion:


> The law of conservation of mass, or principle of mass conservation, states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy (both of which have mass), the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is "conserved" over time. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed. The law implies (requires) that during any chemical reaction, nuclear reaction, or radioactive decay in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products.



This suggests that the universe is immortal and was NOT created.


> The concept of mass conservation is widely used in many fields such as chemistry, mechanics, and fluid dynamics. Historically, mass conservation was discovered in chemical reactions by Antoine Lavoisier in the late 18th century, and was of crucial importance in the progress from alchemy to the modern natural science of chemistry.



Here is a simplified explanation of matter.


Theory of created universe


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 23, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> It makes as much sense as the universe is a hologram and none of us is real.  Therefore there can be no such thing as murder because no one is really alive.  It's all just part of the hologram



Spoken like a true psychopath.

Good to know that we can see at least a part of your scheme.  I pity those you will kill eventually because you think that there is no such thing as murder.

I also hope that you're taken out before you can kill someone, since you don't think that there is such a thing as murder.


----------



## Chuckt (Dec 23, 2013)

katzndogz said:


> it makes as much sense as the universe is a hologram and none of us is real. Therefore there can be no such thing as murder because no one is really alive. It's all just part of the hologram



lol.


----------



## Chuckt (Dec 23, 2013)

GrosMinet said:


> That's a bunch of strawmen and confusions that may be reasonably put down to a sophomore more than to a PhD. Theistic philosophers and theologians are way more sophisticated than that.



You saved me a lot of time.  Thank you.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Dec 23, 2013)

L-rd save me from psychologists acting like astrophysicists. 

If G-d is immortal, because the universe isn't, we wouldn't be able to know if G-d is or isn't immortal.

What I think many people don't understand about physics and explanations of the universe is that the explanations are usually only equations that work. It doesn't mean they're true, only that for a very specific problem, such and such an equation and explanation correctly answers the question - but it doesn't mean it's gonna work in every instance. Like classical mechanics vs quantum mechanics. For a while Newtonian physics worked solving very specific questions. As technology continued to advance and we discovered the atom and quantum scale though, these solutions stopped working. And now we seem poised to make a similar leap in scale going from the quantum to dark matter/energy scale. Consequently, things that 'work' right now may be shown to not work once we figure out what 96% of the universe actually is vis a vis dark matter and dark energy.

The hypothesis in favor right now about the universe itself is membrane theory. That there are perhaps many 'verses like sheets of paper stacked on top of each other but not precisely in contact with one another. When they do 'touch' big bang events are the result creating new 'sheets' of verses. Even more amazingly, there's evidence this might in fact be true as all matter in the universe is being pulled to one section of it as though by some gravitational force. As with another 'verse.

Unfortunately even this is the infinite regression idea. Rather than solving things it simply enlarges the scale. But when you think of the universe as a unit, and then other 'verses it makes G-d seem very small indeed. Of course that doesn't mean there isn't any gods, just that as our earthly religions describe it, compared to the multiverse, gods are really just as small as we are.


----------



## theword (Dec 23, 2013)

Doubletap said:


> The following argument by Nathanial Branden does, I think, counter successfully ANY "creationism" or "big bang" idea: "FIRST CAUSE" IS EXISTENCE, NOT GOD
> 
> Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
> 
> ...



Only us saints were given the knowledge from our Creator that we see illusions that aren't real. What is real is our Creator and His thoughts to make us believe we exist as more than His mere thoughts.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 23, 2013)

GrosMinet said:


> > Existence exists: you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.
> 
> 
> 
> That's at best an awkward expression. Existence does not "exist". THINGS, PEOPLE and their properties exist, and that's all. Existence as such is an abstraction, it is a concept of the mind, we don't literally perceive something called "existence" in the world. We perceive things which exist and we sometimes dream of things which don't exist, but that's all.



Think of existence as the sum of all things that are tangible; anything that has no energy, force or matter would be "nothing." 

Now, imagine me saying "go 10 miles north of the north pole." 

That would have the same basic coordinates as if I had said to you - "go out into the _nothing_ and hang a left." Nothing is not a place, it's _nothing._


Ergo, you cannot create something from nothing.


----------



## hobelim (Dec 23, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> > > Existence exists: you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.
> ...



but you can create light where there had always been only darkness.

The creation story is not about the creation of the solar system or the universe.

it is about the law given as a light to teach people to distinguish between right and wrong, clean and unclean, true and false, and life and death in a world that  had been for billions of years without shape and void where darkness had covered the face of the deep.

what is illogical is the assertion of human beings only a few thousand years removed from wild beasts that there are no higher intelligences and even one with absolute existence beyond the confines of space and time independent of the material universe..

to deny the incorporeal nature of existence is illogical since the realm of thought in which it is possible for people to even think is itself incorporeal and in existence.


----------



## GrosMinet (Dec 23, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Think of existence as the sum of all things that are tangible; anything that has no energy, force or matter would be "nothing."



It would not exist as a *physical *being, sure, but why assume that no other form of existence is possible? Why assume that this physical world is everything? 

There is nothing self-contradictory in the concept of a nonphysical reality. It's hard to conceive clearly, though, because our minds are attuned to physical existence. 

Spinoza thought that there is an infinite amount of attributes of God beyond matter and mind.


----------



## Doubletap (Dec 23, 2013)

Define "God". 
Don't say what he/she/it isn't-say what he/she/it IS.


----------



## theword (Dec 23, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> > > Existence exists: you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.
> ...



When a computer programmer takes his invisible thoughts ( which can't be seen by anyone ) and uses 0's and 1's in a binary code to convert his invisible thoughts through a computer processor to give us a way to see those thoughts in action, all we're seeing are illusions that come from nothing but invisible thoughts. 

The invisible illusion called a retina is like an invisible illusion called a computer monitor to view invisible processed thoughts that were processed through an invisible illusion called a computer processor. Everything we see are only illusions within the mind of our Creator from His thoughts that have no mass, space or time. The illusions make us believe there are things such as mass, space and time.


----------



## theword (Dec 23, 2013)

Doubletap said:


> Define "God".
> Don't say what he/she/it isn't-say what he/she/it IS.



God is invisible where all invisible thoughts come from. We are His thoughts.


----------



## hobelim (Dec 23, 2013)

theword said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> > Define "God".
> ...





If that was true then God has one hell of a messed up up sense of humor.


the truth is that people are a product of their own thoughts whether good or evil, sane or insane.


"For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."  Isaiah 55:9




"Our Savior. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other . . . (he searches for the contrary of saved) . . . damned.

Saved from what? 

We are all born mad. Some remain so." 

Samuel Beckett ,Waiting for Godot


----------



## Doubletap (Dec 23, 2013)

theword said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> > Define "God".
> ...



Proof presupposes existence. Prove it.


----------



## GrosMinet (Dec 23, 2013)

Doubletap said:


> Define "God".
> Don't say what he/she/it isn't-say what he/she/it IS.



Some theologians would tell you that it's impossible to "define" God because God is a unique being whereas things that can be defined belong to wider classes of beings. 

It's like being asked to define Shakespeare. What would define him in his very individuality? We may describe him, his work, his thoughts, but we will always fall short of encompassing his very "Shakespeare-Hood" with our general concepts. 

At any rate, here are some attributes of the theistic God which are usually agreed upon : 

1) The Creator of all that is not him. 

2) Almighty or at any rate far more powerful than any created being. 

3) Morally perfect. 

4) All-knowing. 

5) Eternal and self-existent 

6) Revelatory (though Deists would dispute that). 

7) Involved in human affairs, though discreetly. 

8) He leaves people some room for freedom, including the freedom to reject him, because he doesn't want to be loved by slaves or robots. 

9) He is beyond genders though for convenience's sake we refer to him as a "he". 

10) Not physical, though the stuff he is actually made up of is left unclear.


----------



## hobelim (Dec 23, 2013)

GrosMinet said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> > Define "God".
> ...





It is for this reason that it is forbidden to make images of any kind for use in worship of God because any and every material representation of God that is made by human hands cannot accurately represent God and as a consequence is false.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 23, 2013)

theword said:


> When a computer programmer takes his invisible thoughts ( which can't be seen by anyone ) and uses 0's and 1's in a binary code to convert his invisible thoughts through a computer processor to give us a way to see those thoughts in action, all we're seeing are illusions that come from nothing but invisible thoughts.



His thoughts are hardly "nothing" - they are nerve impulses (energy) and chemical reactions (matter).

Information is stored in the brain until it is accessed - it has a physical form.


----------



## GrosMinet (Dec 23, 2013)

So to get back to the original post, no serious theistic philosopher or theologian has ever defended the claim that whatever "exists" has a cause (for no other reason than its existence). Or if they did, then show me where. 

However, atheists have often ascribed that childish piece of reasoning to believers. Which is not first nor the last strawman atheists have made up.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 23, 2013)

> 8) He leaves people some room for freedom, including the freedom to reject him, because he doesn't want to be loved by slaves or robots.



Why then, does God banish sinners to an afterlife of suffering as a punishment for intellectual disobedience?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 23, 2013)

GrosMinet said:


> So to get back to the original post, no serious theistic philosopher or theologian has ever defended the claim that whatever "exists" has a cause (for no other reason than its existence). Or if they did, then show me where.
> 
> However, atheists have often ascribed that childish piece of reasoning to believers. Which is not first nor the last strawman atheists have made up.



Not quite sure what this means ... philosophers and theologians don't usually dabble in science - when they do, it for the most part lands with a thud.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 23, 2013)

> The concept of "God" proven illogical



It may be illogical, but it is not impracticable.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 23, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> > 8) He leaves people some room for freedom, including the freedom to reject him, because he doesn't want to be loved by slaves or robots.
> 
> 
> 
> Why then, does God banish sinners to an afterlife of suffering as a punishment for intellectual disobedience?


there is no evidence that he or she does that or anything...camp fire stories prove nothing except belief in campfire stories...


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 23, 2013)

theword said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> > Define "God".
> ...



Sounds like a bunch of nonsense.


----------



## Doubletap (Dec 23, 2013)

GrossMinet "Some theologians would tell you that it's impossible to "define" God because God is a unique being whereas things that can be defined belong to wider classes of beings"

So the "theologians" are a privileged group & they have the knowledge which no one else has?
Additionally they say its impossible to define god, 
yet they classify god as a "unique being"?!?!?!?!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 23, 2013)

*The concept of "God" proven illogical *

Double Tap is the atheist equivalent of Koshergrl: neither are believable and neither can forward an argument that can stand, other than "because I said so."


----------



## GrosMinet (Dec 23, 2013)

Doubletap said:


> GrossMinet "Some theologians would tell you that it's impossible to "define" God because God is a unique being whereas things that can be defined belong to wider classes of beings"
> 
> So the "theologians" are a privileged group & they have the knowledge which no one else has?
> Additionally they say its impossible to define god,
> yet they classify god as a "unique being"?!?!?!?!



Faith is not knowledge. Though some believers say they really experience the presence of God in their lives or in their hearts.

Some believers think there is evidence for God's existence though it is controversial.

Some believers trust the revelation of the Bible and Christ because it makes sense to them. 

Yes God is held to be a unique being. That's what Monotheism is about.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 23, 2013)

God is also a state of mind and existence to yearn for and practice.


----------



## GrosMinet (Dec 23, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> > 8) He leaves people some room for freedom, including the freedom to reject him, because he doesn't want to be loved by slaves or robots.
> 
> 
> 
> Why then, does God banish sinners to an afterlife of suffering as a punishment for intellectual disobedience?



Such is not the view of Catholic theology nor of Hick's Pluralism. 

Here is an excerpt from a text of the Second Vatican Council ( _Lumen Gentium_ ): 

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.


----------



## Doubletap (Dec 23, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> God is also a state of mind and existence to yearn for and practice.



So a state of mind created the universe??


----------



## TheShinyOne (Dec 23, 2013)

Delta4Embassy said:


> What I think many people don't understand about physics and explanations of the universe is that the explanations are usually only equations that work. It doesn't mean they're true, only that for a very specific problem, such and such an equation and explanation correctly answers the question - but it doesn't mean it's gonna work in every instance. Like classical mechanics vs quantum mechanics. For a while Newtonian physics worked solving very specific questions. As technology continued to advance and we discovered the atom and quantum scale though, these solutions stopped working. And now we seem poised to make a similar leap in scale going from the quantum to dark matter/energy scale. Consequently, things that 'work' right now may be shown to not work once we figure out what 96% of the universe actually is vis a vis dark matter and dark energy.



I'm convinced that is a computability problem the solution of which is a paradox unacceptable to the kind of authoritarian personalities to be had in political spheres. The quantum stuff throws them for a loop. How can anything be fundamentally uncertain?

Start with the most basic of basic facts:
 0-1+1=0.

Now, let's go ahead and break the rules of arithmetic:
 0 x/ 1 y/ 1 z/ 0

Because we cannot be certain anything such as addition or subtraction is actually taking place in the expression, all we know is there's a set of circumstances that results in the perception or observation of a basic fact.


----------



## hobelim (Dec 23, 2013)

TheShinyOne said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > What I think many people don't understand about physics and explanations of the universe is that the explanations are usually only equations that work. It doesn't mean they're true, only that for a very specific problem, such and such an equation and explanation correctly answers the question - but it doesn't mean it's gonna work in every instance. Like classical mechanics vs quantum mechanics. For a while Newtonian physics worked solving very specific questions. As technology continued to advance and we discovered the atom and quantum scale though, these solutions stopped working. And now we seem poised to make a similar leap in scale going from the quantum to dark matter/energy scale. Consequently, things that 'work' right now may be shown to not work once we figure out what 96% of the universe actually is vis a vis dark matter and dark energy.
> ...



And that perception of a basic fact consists of what? Matter or thought? and where in the material universe exactly does conscious thought exist? What about words that create images in other minds? By what means do those images come into being? sound? written words without sound or through something intrinsic to life yet undiscovered?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 24, 2013)

hobelim said:


> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> > Doubletap said:
> ...



I agree.  God is too big to be tied up in just one type of representation.

Quick question...............if God is too big to be represented by just one thing, then why do Christians worship the crucifix?

Isn't that a form of idolatry?


----------



## hobelim (Dec 24, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > GrosMinet said:
> ...




sure, if they are kneeling before it and then praying to God. But most people just wear it like a club tie,

why?

maybe they wear it so that when he came back Jesus could easily identify those who support and celebrate his torture and death  in the same way that Judas was the only one given bread at the last supper according to John 13:27, as a way for Jesus to identify his betrayer before he left?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 25, 2013)

hobelim said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Actually, most of those in the Christian faith kneel before a crucifix.  Many of them even pray to Jesus (who is the Son of God) rather than pray to God Himself.

There are many times that Jesus said he wasn't God.  A big misinterpretation of "the Father and I are One" is those who think that Jesus was God.

He was actually telling people that Jesus is the SON of God, not God Himself.  How many times have people who have kids said that their child is part of themselves?


----------



## hobelim (Dec 25, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...




seems like a no brainer to me. 

What is astonishing to me is how anyone can rationalize away their professed belief in a trinity or that a human being, Jesus, was God when it is impossible to honestly resolve that belief with the entire witness of every book in the bible, not to mention simple logic and reality..

If scripture is true and death is the consequence for worshipping false gods, bearing false witness, adultery, murder, eating the flesh of serpents and swine,  etc.,  then every orthodox and almost every single Christian denomination is nothing more than a grave full of rotting corpses reeking of corruption.

The only good news is that if scripture is true, at the resurrection, the Christian dead will be the first to rise.

I wonder what they are waiting for?  Christmas?

and though the concept of God is not illogical in any way, the belief that a human being could be or become God was proven illogical thousands of years ago.


----------



## editec (Dec 27, 2013)

_GOD is either a wave or a particle depending on the viewer._

editec


And since the viewer changes the fundamental nature of its being, one must ask oneself if the whole concept of CAUSE AND EFFECT hasn't just flown out the window.

waver servus particle - YouTube

So what we THINK we know is this...

On both the macro and micro scale...mostly there is NOTHING.

Electrons are either something orbiting something or nothing orbiting nothing depending on the viewer.

And you guys think believing in GOD is mindblowing?

Advanced  particle physics is as weird as any religion mankind ever invented.


----------



## Doubletap (Dec 27, 2013)

Haven't yet read a non-contradictory definition of precisely what God is.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2013)

Doubletap said:


> Haven't yet read a non-contradictory definition of precisely what God is.


maybe this will make it easier :" the one thing god is not, is here."


----------



## LittleNipper (Dec 29, 2013)

"Existence is all that exists." Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!" God said to Moses, &#8220;I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: &#8216;I am has sent me to you.&#8217;&#8221; God fits the bill. He IS --- so that existence can be.


----------



## Marie888 (Dec 29, 2013)

Doubletap said:


> The following argument by Nathanial Branden does, I think, counter successfully ANY "creationism" or "big bang" idea: "FIRST CAUSE" IS EXISTENCE, NOT GOD
> 
> Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
> 
> ...




1)  Poof - we came from "nothing" or a "dot", or some primordial soup.  Which begs the question, where did "nothing", or a "dot", or the primordial soup come from?  
(Which, when we are honest with ourselves, that takes faith too  )

2)  We are "created" by God.  From the amazing depths to sea, to the beautfy and magnificance of whole universe - things we've yet to see and/or may never see.  Time in itself is something that can blow our minds away- and we all know our bodies are going to die.

Guess you gotta take your pick in what or Whom you have faith in 


.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 3, 2014)

Granted................we all started with the Big Bang.

And.................granted..............we all come from the things created by stardust.

Quick question..........................who created (or who gave birth to) God?

My quick answer is the Tao.


----------



## Doubletap (Jan 6, 2014)

Marie888 said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> > The following argument by Nathanial Branden does, I think, counter successfully ANY "creationism" or "big bang" idea: "FIRST CAUSE" IS EXISTENCE, NOT GOD
> ...


----------

