What are the odds of God existing?

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

Did I?Well, I just go by my own lights and see what I can figure out. I think there is such a thing as "rational intuition" myself. For example, if a proposition contradicts itself, it cannot be true. I go by that. I can't "prove" that, but I accept it. And it seemed to me reasonable to suppose that something cannot come from nothing. With this as a base, I reasoned that the universe had to have either come from something or been eternal. That's it, in a nutshell.Then I reasoned that in order to come from something different from what we could call the universe, it had to be a being. For a being is the only other thing that is different from this thing, the universe. I mean fundamentally different.For a being can reason whereas a thing cannot. Now I'm beginning to understand that a being has to be that entity which can reason. Not only is it conscious--it can reason. So I don't know if animals would qualify.We, human beings, can reason. So it occurred to me that that's the only two types of entities there could be--things and beings. So since the universe was a thing (presumably), the alternative had to be a being. Those were the only two options. There's nothing else that an entity can be. People mention things like "corporations," but those are abstractions. They don't exist. Only individuals exist--things and beings.

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

Thanks Par. But I must admit, I would be lying if I said my mind was not twisted and contorted into a pretzel from reading this thread: cause and effect relationship at work.

quote:

---

And it seemed to me reasonable to suppose that something cannot come from nothing.

---

And that is a reasonable supposition. But it is also reasonable to suppose that it might be possible for something to simply exist without a causal agent. Until one supposition or the other can be eliminated, it is useless as a premise to an argument.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Sorry to be a downer on this, but despite many misguided opinions to the contrary, none of that stuff has any relevance to "something from nothing" and an "uncaused universe". It is all physics that is nicely and totally contained within an existant universe.This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-28-2006 06:12 PM

Heh. If you want to try to "get your mind around something", check out caverdiver's post where he attempt to explain why (in my words -- sorry if this isn't how you would explain it, cd) the idea of the "universe having a cause" doesn't even make sense:

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

No, no difference. But there is a difference between you, Parasomnium, and a rock.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-28-2006 05:15 PM

We aim to please. I take it your mind-pretzelization is satisfactory?By the way, it's not as difficult as it seems. I'm doing the exact same thing Robin is doing: taking a stance and following it through no matter what.

Which is fine if you remain aware of the assumptions that you are making.Robinrohan's big weakness here is that he seems not to recognize that there is some arbitrariness to his assumptions.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

More than satisfactory, I would say.Chiroptera brought up cavediver's post about humans' three-dimensional perceptions being applied to a four-dimensional universe (at least that is what I think he said). A great read.Another post I found most intriguing was, I think, lfen's post of a universal equilibrium, in which movement is inextricably attached to time and space. Sound's similar to Schrodinger's cat.Anywho, this thread has been a real pleasure.

You might want to try using your rational intuition instead of being dictated to by fashion.But you don't believe in rational intuition, do you?Do you think that Parasomnium is the same sort of thing as a rock?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-28-2006 05:37 PM

A few billion years ago, I used to be a rock.Anyway, if the difference between me and a rock lies not in the stuff I and a rock are made of, then it must be the configuration of the stuff, right?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 28-Apr-2006 11:38 PM

Uh, yeah. Makes all the difference.It doesn't matter what makes the difference.

quote:

---

You might want to try using your rational intuition instead of being dictated to by fashion.

---

You needn't try to muddy the waters.We have been discussing your premise that "everything that hasn't existed for eternity must have a cause". Namely, we have been discussing that this is not an obvious assumption to make. It is perfectly reasonable and logical to recognize the possibility that there is something (such as the universe) that has not existed for all eternity but yet had no cause.Since you seem to attach great importance to your assumption (presumably since you feel that your argument in the OP relies on it being true) you need to do a better job explaining why we should accept this premise as valid. Otherwise your argument fails from the very beginning.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)