What are the odds of God existing?

I take it that by 'being' you mean some kind of conscious entity, as opposed to the non-conscious 'thing' of your second option. I sense that you put it that way because you want to make the distinction between a 'willed' universe - a universe that is created by a willful act of said being - and an eternally existing universe - which does not need such an act to exist.But whether the origin of the universe is a conscious entity or a non-conscious thing has no bearing on the fact that both must exist prior to the existence of the universe. However, the very meaning of the verb 'to exist' - that is to say, the meaning which is applicable in the current context - is to have a place and time. In order for a thing to have a place and time, a place and time must exist prior to the thing itself.So we have a paradox: if the universe has an origin, then, on the one hand, for the universe to exist, the origin of the universe must itself exist first. On the other hand, in order for the origin of the universe to exist, the universe itself must exist first. The only way to avoid this paradox is to conclude that the universe has no origin, no cause.This can mean two things, and they are almost exactly the two things you mention in your opening post:1. The universe was created - or rather, started to be;
2. The universe always existed.Note that, contrary to your option #1, mine does not mention a creator or cause. I might still flip a coin to choose between the options, but neither outcome would lead me to accept the existence of a causal entity, conscious or not; let alone something that could be considered to be a 'god'.By the way, your second option isn't really an origin, is it? In my vocabulary, an 'origin' is where something starts. An eternally existing universe has no such starting point. (It's part of my reasoning above.)

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Why not?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Why does something that happens need something to make it happen?

Does that apply to God also? In other words: is the idea of an eternal God unreasonable as well? How do you?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I asked: I think I should have emphasized the eternal character of God. Let me rephrase it:
If the idea of an eternal universe is unreasonable, as you have stated, then isn't the idea of an eternal God unreasonable as well? If not, why not? What difference between God and the universe makes the first's eternal character acceptable, and the latter's not? Fair enough.

Yes, after I posted I saw you edited your post to that effect, but I thought it best not to edit mine, so as not to confuse the matter any further. More reasonable than what? How does it say anything about whether or not the universe has always existed? Neither do I, but I have a hunch it's impossible.

Ah, I see.Dare I say, you are being unreasonably reasonable. That's nice.Got to go now. Say hello to Dan from me. Tell him he can disrupt anything anytime, as far as I'm concerned. (In other words: don't touch Dan.)See you.{popped back in to fix a spelling error}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 28-Apr-2006 03:18 PM

Why? You are the one who says that nothing can come from nothing. I just want to know why not. You made the assertion, so must you defend it.And don't say: "there is something standing in the way of something coming from nothing: no causal agent", because I would retort that if the absence of a causal agent is a problem for something coming from nothing, then it is also a problem for something that exists eternally.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

No. But I would agree that every cause has an effect.{added by edit:} That's OK.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 28-Apr-2006 08:19 PM

If the definition of 'effect' is "something that has a cause", then in that case, although it's tautologous to say that every effect has a cause, I'd have to agree. But I must stipulate that I think that not everything is an effect, i.e. caused.Why? Because it would lead to infinite regress; and infinite regress, or infinity in general, in turn leads to existential paradoxes. I think that reality cannot contain any real paradoxes, therefore I think infinity is not an aspect of reality.So there cannot be an infinite chain of causes and effects. And if that is true, then there must be uncaused things.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

O, I like paradoxes, I just think reality does not exhibit them. Eternity is infinity in terms of time. Again: why?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Why would something need 'producing'? Normally yes. But I find it hard to be normative when talking about the origin of the universe. No. Why would it need 'producing'? How shall I phrase it? O, I know: just "poof"--and it's there. Yes, it's odd. But no odder than that it always existed. Actually, less odd even. I've already explained why.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 28-Apr-2006 09:40 PM

That's wicked. Funny, but wicked.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 28-Apr-2006 10:32 PM

Infixion,Your question to Robin really was pertinent.Robin says there is no circular reasoning involved, but you have still pointed out a case of circular definitions: if we want to know what an effect is we are told so in terms of causes. If we then ask what a cause is, we are led back to effects, and we are none the wiser. If these are the only definitions available, we will never be able to say anything meaningful about causes and effects.Don't deprecate your intellect. You made a fine observation.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 28-Apr-2006 10:53 PM

What are things made of? And what are beings made of?Is the stuff of things different from the stuff of beings?