This has to be bunk, right? (See details)
According to this page: http://bit.ly/10j5YgK, not only is the existence of God plausible but necessary. That can't be right, can it?
For me, the problem with that argument is step four:
"The cause of the universe is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being."
It assumes an awful lot about what could have caused the universe to exist. The most glaring of which is the 'good personal being' part. A cause needn't be a sentient being, and assigning it a label of good or evil is pointless. Considering how much pain and suffering life endures, the creation of the universe could be argued as an act of evil. And how would we judge the goodness/evilness of an event anyway? Until humans existed, there was no way to perceive morality, so what makes our interpretation superior to any other?
The second problem is the word 'unchanging'. If there was a singular cause for the universe, why would it have to be unchanging? The universe is constantly changing. I can be the cause of something, yet I continue to change after the cause is set in motion. So, again, the writer is taking huge leaps in assumption.
Perhaps a more accurate way to present this argument would have been to say "The cause of the universe might be a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, thing." But notice I said 'might'. We don't know what happened prior to the big bang. 13 billion years isn't the age of the universe, it's just as far back as we can see. What came before could just as likely be a million other universes that lived and died.
Perhaps the argument isn't that something came from nothing, but rather, something was always there, always changing. You might say that's god, but why couldn't it be the universe itself? Why couldn't the components necessary to create us always be here?
If we use the BGV theorem for the universe, then so too must we use it for god. Why does one need a beginning but the other doesn't?
Because the universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago.
Again, that age is just as far back as we can see. Something could have existed before it, or beyond our sight. Even if that was god, there is nothing to suggest he would be exempt from the BGV theorem.
Read the theorem for yourself and see how and why it cannot possibly apply to God.
The reason that it cannot apply to god is because he can't be measured (neither can Zeus or Voldemort). The theorem relies on time and movement of the universe to declare a beginning. It does not give any evidence what that beginning might be.
by David Bowman 15 months ago
Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from me.Now to the topic of this thread: One of the favorite arguments of the...
by Sooner28 5 years ago
The argument usually goes:1. All that begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.4. If the universe has a cause, it must be timeless and spaceless.5. God fits that description most effectively.6. Therefore,...
by Mark Knowles 8 years ago
It is my contention that the Christian religion (and specifically following Christ) is guaranteed to cause conflict, wars and ill will.As proof - I cite the last 1800 years - including the hubpages forums as evidence. Not only are these forums littered with arguments between atheists and believers,...
by Kiss andTales 2 years ago
Why do atheist and other none believers not accept as proof human existenceIncluding them ?I ask this question because atheist are persistent with this line prove that God existBut as they are given proof they persist to say the same words, example a husband and wife claims to love one...
by ElSeductor 23 months ago
The reality is that we are alone in this eternal, dark, and cold universe. Why can't we accept this reality? Death is the end. There is no heaven, and there is no hell. We do not need religion in order to have a purpose in life. The purpose is to survive and not harm...
by David Bowman 8 years ago
Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from me. Now to the topic of this thread: Theists claim that the complexity and order...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|