God, from concept to existence

[Yrreg]

Here is my concept of God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Since the universe exists and it has a beginning and everything we we know to exist has a beginning, then it follows that God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning exists.

What are your comments to my take on God, from concept to existence?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

What are your comments to my take on God, from concept to existence?

Your concept plus $1.50 will get you an ice cold Coke at 7/11.

I like Coke as well...

FL

[Yrreg]

Well, I will just have to wait fro more posters, perhaps I might come to some sensible replies.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Download a copy of Jac's book, Making Divine Simplicity Simple - Rediscovering Who and What God is. You can find the link in the thread entitled Simplicity Book FINISHED in the Resources forum.

It is well worth the read.

FL

[Proinsias]

Sounds a lot like the Kalam cosmological.argument. As FL mentioned Jac's recent book on divine simplicity might be worth a read, Aquinas provides some arguments for God which allow for a universe which did not 'begin to exist'.

I don't get on very well with the Kalam, I can't get past the first assertion of 'everything which begins to exist has a cause'. The rest of the arguments seems rather thin after the opening statement has asked us to entertain things which do not begin to exist, contrasting starkly with things as we know them.

[RickD]

Yrreg,

Here's the link to Jac's book. It's well worth reading.
Making Divine Simplicity Simple.

[PaulSacramento]

Here is my concept of God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Since the universe exists and it has a beginning and everything we we know to exist has a beginning, then it follows that God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning exists.

What are your comments to my take on God, from concept to existence?

Some are still arguing that the universe had a beginning, but that aside.
God's existence is not and should not be contingent on the existence of anything else.
It matters that all things the COME INTO EXISTENCE have a beginning of course but only in the since that those things need a cause to make them come into being.
Since God is outside what we know as the universe, I don't think that because the universe is proves that God is.

[Kenny]

Here is my concept of God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Since the universe exists and it has a beginning and everything we we know to exist has a beginning, then it follows that God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning exists.

What are your comments to my take on God, from concept to existence?

This sounds like the Cosmological argument, or the Unmoved mover argument.
The problem with the Cosmological argument, unmoved mover argument and all others similar, is it imposes a set of rules it does not apply to itself.
 
According to what little bit we know about the Universe, the unmoved mover does not exist; it is merely a concept. But the argument proclaims the unmoved mover MUST exist, and presupposes the vast majority of the Universe that we are ignorant of, is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we DO know of (a claim nobody is not qualified to make), thus this unmoved mover cannot exist within the Universe, so it must exist outside it. The argument then proclaims God exists outside the Universe and is the unmoved mover.
 
Problem with these claims is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover to which the person making the Cosmological argument will probably use science to prove it cannot be. The problem with using science this way is the same science that will dismiss the possibility of the Universe being the unmoved mover will also dismiss the possibility of God even existing let alone being an unmoved mover! In other words, according to science God is a worse explanation than the Universe!
 
I suspect these arguments will only work on those who presuppose the existence of God because they are the only ones who will allow you to apply rules to the opposing argument without applying them to your own. I think they call that; “preachin to the choir”.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

I actually think the Kaman cosmological argument has been very effective against materialism in science.It makes sense to point out that if the Universe had a beginning it had a creator,however I would not use it if I was debating,instead I would be more bold and tell the materialist to demonstrate fully functional living life creating itself all on its own and I would say it might seem good for scientists to think outside the box and see if this is possible,but when it comes to believing it can create itself?It requires a lot more faith to believe than to believe God created it even if you don't know which God yet.

Then explain this should be obvious to everybody and you could point out that science does not know as much about life as some seem to think for if we took all of the most brilliant scientific minds and put all of their knowledge together they cannot even create living breathing fully functioning life and so it is crazy to assume science can ever demonstrate naturalism or assume it is possible - matter forming itself from nothing and then forming itself into life all on its own without a creator.It is a pipe dream.

[Kenny]

I actually think the Kaman cosmological argument has been very effective against materialism in science.

So you gonna tell a materialist (someone who only believes material exists) that something other than material exists and it is responsible for creation? That would be like telling a person who does not believe in Unicorns that Unicorns exist and is responsible for creation. Your first order of business should be to disprove materialism.

It makes sense to point out that if the Universe had a beginning it had a creator,

that would only make sense if you assume nothing existed before the Universe. Science says the singular existed before the Universe. Everything started with the singular

however I would not use it if I was debating,instead I would be more bold and tell the materialist to demonstrate fully functional living life creating itself all on its own

And suppose he admits he cannot? Do you really expect him to accept your explanation by default if he can't come up with a better explanation himself? How's that working out for ya?

Ken

[Kurieuo]

I actually think the Kaman cosmological argument has been very effective against materialism in science.

So you gonna tell a materialist (someone who only believes material exists) that something other than material exists and it is responsible for creation? That would be like telling a person who does not believe in Unicorns that Unicorns exist and is responsible for creation. Your first order of business should be to disprove materialism.

It's just a matter of time before Materialism is on the outer. It's ultimately too simple and primitive.
How old are you Kenny? If you get to live another 30 years then you'll start seeing many more Atheists having a more sophisticated and broader view than that of Materialism. The "new" philosophy is already seeping down.

[jlay]

So you gonna tell a materialist (someone who only believes material exists) that something other than material exists and it is responsible for creation? That would be like telling a person who does not believe in Unicorns that Unicorns exist and is responsible for creation. Your first order of business should be to disprove materialism.

Materialism is self-defeating. Your last statement is a thought. Is that material?

that would only make sense if you assume nothing existed before the Universe. Science says the singular existed before the Universe. Everything started with the singular

Several problems here. You say "before" the universe existed. The universe IS space, time and matter. Science demands the law of causality. What caused the singularity? You are just kicking the can further down the road.

[PaulSacramento]

Materialism has been disproved already, only materialists don't see that.

[Kenny]

Materialism is self-defeating. Your last statement is a thought. Is that material?

If thoughts were real I would be a billionaire; I am not. Thoughts aren't real, they are only imaginary.

Several problems here. You say "before" the universe existed. The universe IS space, time and matter. Science demands the law of causality. What caused the singularity? You are just kicking the can further down the road.

Science only goes back to the singular, they do not claim a point when nothing existed. that is the point I was trying to make, but just because science can't say the singular always existed, or where it came from doesn't mean inserting God is the answer unless you want to incorporate faith to believe it.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

I actually think the Kaman cosmological argument has been very effective against materialism in science.

So you gonna tell a materialist (someone who only believes material exists) that something other than material exists and it is responsible for creation? That would be like telling a person who does not believe in Unicorns that Unicorns exist and is responsible for creation. Your first order of business should be to disprove materialism.

It makes sense to point out that if the Universe had a beginning it had a creator,

that would only make sense if you assume nothing existed before the Universe. Science says the singular existed before the Universe. Everything started with the singular

however I would not use it if I was debating,instead I would be more bold and tell the materialist to demonstrate fully functional living life creating itself all on its own

And suppose he admits he cannot? Do you really expect him to accept your explanation by default if he can't come up with a better explanation himself? How's that working out for ya?

Ken

1. No,he does not only believe material exists,the materialist does not think there is a need for a creator and they think all of the material on its own formed itself into planets,life,etc.Think about this fairy-tale and you'll know it is logical based on reason to think that Almighty God took the matter and created the planets,life,etc,it is not "God of the gaps"it is what the known understanding in science about the universe knows.Compare God picked up material and formed man and breathed into him and he became a living soul or material formed itself into life all on its own.

2.Yes,I do expect him to accept the default position,just because you think no creator is not needed and have nothing to base it on scientifically does not suddenly make this more than the default position.Man has always believed in God which makes it the default position even if you reject a God.