Proofing God Exist: The Causality Argument

Hello lads and welcome to another article of mine regarding God and religion. In this post, I shall discuss one of many arguments most creationists use to explain God and this post series will be a continuing series of creationist arguments to proof God exists which I will personally debunk.

As a note, I will not attack the argument using science perspective since I’m not an expert in science. However, I will attack such arguments with logical reasoning since that’s my area of expertise. However, I will not stop people who wants to add the arguments using science and I welcome to such action.

Okay, so let’s start with the prime reasoning of this argument. The causality argument argues that “everything has to have a cause to exist” and the logical reasoning for such argument is that we always see that anything has to be created first to exist. For example, a house would not exist without someone building the respective house. Therefore, the universe that we live in has to have a creator to come into existence.

However, this kind of reasoning fails because of two reasons. First, if the argument here is nothing can create something and therefore there is someone who act as a creator to create everything which in this case a God, then what cause God to exist? Creationists used to counter this argument with God doesn’t need a causality to exist, he existed before time even existed. This, however, is a violation of the argument premise where you put something that violates the main point of the argument which is “Nothing can’t create something”. This reasoning is non-sensical since if you take human as a creator of a house, human has to be created from another human using the means of reproduction.

But for the sake of argument, let’s just agree that God doesn’t have to have causality to exist, then here comes the second reason why this argument is contradictory. How does the creator creates the universe if initially there is nothing to be created into? If we go back using human as the example of a creator, human needs the resource to create something. To create a house, one needs the tools (which also has to be created from something) and the resource such as bricks, woods, and so on. However, where does God get his resource? Does he magically pop out something he want to create out of thin air which again violates the causality argument of “Nothing can’t create something”. Is God an infinite massive energy which explains the thing he created? Then why don’t we just call God, energy, since energy can’t be created or destroy?

Now, I know you might say “If science can explain everything, then what comment has the science made to explain how the universe come to existence?”. I personally can’t answer that since I’m not an expert and to all my knowledge, the argument of universe existence is still unknown in the eye of science. However, isn’t that being honest to say something we don’t know to be unknown? I think it is an intellectual dishonesty to argue something that can’t be proven as a fact. In that, I put the argument to the table and let the discussion begin.

Advertisements

71 responses to “Proofing God Exist: The Causality Argument

  1. It’s the egg and the chicken all over again.
    This has got to be the biggest bummer in Human history, being unable to determine the origin, or at least the ‘base’. Galaxies are in what we call Universe. The general assumption of the Universe being infinite was never really valid even back when it was the only explanation, our brains simply can’t handle ‘infinite’. So that means the Universe has to end somewhere, it needs to have a frontier. Ok so ‘where’ is the Universe? Is it in some kind of larger space? And if so, where is that bigger space in? And so on and so forth…

    For something to be created it has to have something on the ‘outside’ to create it, as you said. If we assume that God is an effect without a cause then, at least to me, it’s difficult to think of what god could even be. I’d promptly discard an entity with Human form though, or any form for that matter. I am assuming that outside space, things that are possible inside it are impossible and the same for time because, well… we don’t really know how it would be without these concepts do we? xD

    So yeah I’m more inclined towards you’re view of God as a mass of energy. Although I’d assume that a mass of energy would still need space to exist. Maybe an entity such as God would be something even more vague than that. Perhaps in an existence without time and space, there would be nothing but possibilities. Maybe God was a possibility. Hmmm I’m sure this view won’t please religious people who see God as a concrete and sure entity…

    Well, that said, for something to exist, even if that something does not require a cause, it would still need ‘somewhere’ to actually be as far as we know. And if there is such a ‘place’, since infinity just doesn’t cut it, there would have to be something even more external to it. And then we’re back to square one…

    Now that my brain is crying and begging me (or itself I suppose…) to stop with the paradoxes, I’m gonna get some sleep.

    Oh one more thing. I think the answer to what God is can be found by looking at humanity’s past. I’d like to discuss it with you guys but I’m afraid of going off-topic since it would be more focused on whether God exists rather than the cause of everything.

    As always, great post! *headdesks and falls into a 3 hour sleep*

    • Actually no, a creator can be inside the environment to create something. Just like what Lucy said, creator needs the resource and tools to create something. These things can be gathered in an environment that the creator lives in. If you insist on God is outside the system, then you are denying your own logic, which things can pop-up from nothing.
      Then, you are stuck with God being an infinite of massive energy, which then contradicts your own argument that humans can’t handle ‘infinite’.If you persist on God is an infinite energy, then it contradicts the causality argument which God is created from infinite massive energy.

      • What I meant by “For something to be created it has to have something on the outside to create it” was just that. For example, you can’t build a house from inside it since it still doesn’t exist. And going with the assumption in Lucy’s post that God doesn’t need causality, He would need to be outside time and space in order to create them for the same reason you can’t build a house from inside itself. I was just assuming that since that environment would be outside time and space, such concepts wouldn’t apply so God would have no ‘physical’ form. Therefore it would be a mass of energy or something of sorts. It doesn’t have to be infinite.

        However I do agree it’s still contradicting, because there would always be something outside whatever environment for it to exist… recursiveness, my archnemesis xD

  2. “If science can explain everything, then what comment has the science made to explain how the universe come to existence?”

    for that question… there’s only a possible reason, IMHO… science came from people’s thought and knowledge about matters in this universe. But human’s knowledge about this universe is far behind the word ‘know’. That’s why science still isn’t capable to explain how everything begins. Even science itself is only able to explain “…zero volume with infinite density…” phrase in big bang theory with one word: nothingness…

    Well, everything’s back to human itself. everything in this universe is explainable *even God*. It’s human’s mind limit itself that make those things unexplainable right now…

    once more time, IMHO…

      • I can’t agree more since I believe there’s this ‘limit’ in human’s mind. That’s why up until now existence like God, spirit or ghost are still unexplainable by any logical science. :3 *in my opinion*

      • Isn’t believing to a God limits your brain to the real answer? I mean for something unexplainable (such as supernatural) you just put God because you don’t know what causes that and do not search for proof whether your assessment is true or false.

      • First, I’m sorry if anyone offended with my comment… :3

        Yes, it could be either true or false since I don’t search for any evidence *not capable for the exact*…

        then, could you explain about supernatural thing like spirit and ghost in a logic way to me please? :)

      • I don’t think that spirit or ghost even exist. Even so, it could be people seeing things that they want to believe is supernatural. So far, there is no such evidence that these things even exists or else it is tampered or doubtful.
        And you don’t have to apologize to anything you said, it is a discussion and if people gets offended, just get the fuck off.

      • Actually I think what kazasou said right there is right on target. When there is something we can’t explain, we label it ‘God’.

        When Humans discovered fire and didn’t know what it was, they worshiped it like a God. When it started looking at the sky and still didn’t understood what it was, it acknowledged it as a superior entity and even saw rain as it’s anger. When it couldn’t sleep and started looking at it at night, Humans saw the stars and planets and, without knowing what they were, called them Gods.

        Humanity is just at a point where it’s greatest ‘?’ is the origin of everything and so, as it has been doing for millions of years, labeled it God.

        In summary, I think that God is just another word for Unknown… it’s just that some just take things to an extreme… therefore religions.

        I think spirits and ghosts are sort of a side-effect of religions and beliefs, they depend on your viewpoint. For instance, someone has a photo where a strange shape can be seen. For a religious person, it could be a lingering spirit of sorts, but for a non-believer it could just be a software glitch or light playing tricks.

        I for one, would be on the ‘light playing tricks’ side, we’re all just atoms anyway…

        TL;DR – IMO God = Unknown & no real explanation for ghosts / spirits.

  3. I like these. The reactions of some of the replies are funny.

    This is regarding the science aspect. I have told countless people (believers more then non-believers) that science and god DO NOT disprove each other. I believe science and god happily coexist.

    This is regarding the “human building the house” comparison. I don’t think we can technically call god a human. The basic idea of god is all powerful and all knowing and he can supposedly create something out of nothing. OR…it may be a different system, for example, spiders produce their own silk for webs. Maybe god is a spider whose silk is space and time.

    This is regarding gods own creation. Well, you got me there. Someone like me who believes in intelligent-design never gave that much thought.

    But these are just my opinions, my little two-cents. I’ll be happy to discuss more, but as long as it doesn’t become hostile and causes an argument. I really don’t like being on people’s bad sides.

    • But silk doesn’t come from nothing right? It is the spider’s body system that can produce such achievement. If you use such argument then God indeed has a cause which is he has the system to produce space and time which makes him a God (God can’t create his own body system that produce space and time). Again, you have to deny a lot of logical reasoning to put God in context of all creation which makes the causal argument contradictive.
      Actually science does disprove God. Evolution disproves God on how humans come into place. Biology disproves God on how creatures are born. Physics disprove God on how Earth and the universe come into existence. Science explains how things work without any of God involvement.

      • Nothing can prove or disprove god. My belief is the watchmaker theory, god created the watch but science keeps the gears turning. Now you see the main problem is that people only see religion as a spectrum (one end or the other) when in reality, beliefs are a diverse plain. Personally, I believe in evolution and believe in god. Here is what most people think, bible=god, as you already know, I could care less what the bible has to say. This goes back to the whole “bible is not literal or even justifiable” discussion we had.

        We should take into account that gods body is supernatural. We picture god as a human, but I for one believe god is a conscious, supernatural mass of energy. Who knows? Maybe god does have a body system that can produce space and time. My beliefs aren’t based on the things I know or what I was taught, but it is rather based on the “what if’s” I ask. Whats really out there, whether its god or something completely different, is more than likely something we can’t comprehend. We need to switch the “this is” to a “what if.”

      • Well, don’t forget that God is considered an Omnipotent entity, that’s mean he can do thing’s that make no sense to us. Beside, what Jacob was suggesting is about some system that unknown to us, with the spider things as an example. What I can take from his comment is that God Himself is using a system that is unknown to us.

        From my point of view, since God is the one who supposedly create time and space and everything, there is a possibility that God is the one who make all limitation, argument, and theory that are inflicted on us. It’s just like the creators of soccer who decide everything inside the book of rules. And when someone is not inside a soccer game, including the creator, all the rules are not affecting him. It’s the same with God. Since He’s not inside the world “physically”, He is not bounded by the rules, theories and arguments in this world.

        This is just what I thought about God. No, I’m not attacking someone believe, I’m just stating out what I believed.

      • I should also address the logic issue while I’m at this last minute review. Its simple really, I don’t think we can hold what is unknown to us to our standards of logic.

      • Then congratulation on the argument that God is imaginary since he doesn’t fit all the arguments that are put on the table. Even the one who is making the rules needs the environment to do so (Lucy’s argument about one building a house). If you persist that God doesn’t need this then you are defying the causality argument. Also, it doesn’t matter if the system is unknown, the question is does the system created by God? If yes, then how did he created that system from nothing. If the system is in God himself, then you are saying God has a cause which is the system that makes him to exist.

      • Well, I honestly don’t have the answers now. Congratulations kind sir, you have bested me in this little debate. I say this again, I hope I haven’t gotten on your bad side and that we still have the potential to be friends.

      • Dude, none at all. People can have different views and it’s fun to discuss things. I hope I don’t insinuate any hatred to people in this discussion, I merely just rebute someone’s opinion against my opinion. That’s all.

      • @Jacob Ah the watchmaker theory. I will also discuss that on my next topic of this on-going series. So, tune in to this blog or subscribe if you want to weigh in some of your opinions. I’m looking forward to your counter-argument against the debunking of this theory.

      • @Lucy Thanks, I really enjoy enjoy reading these. Keep it up!

        @kazasou Thats a relief. I just can’t take being on someone’s bad side.

  4. Just one thing. . . don’t ever restricted your mind to logics alone. You could never solve the biggest mystery in life. That’s what I think, personally. If anything can be theorize and conclude like that, life would be much more, convenience. For me, If you consider ‘God’ to be almighty, then everything can be put aside. Logical reasoning is what makes people blunt and leaving some facts that something like supernatural do exist. I just like to have faith on my believe, that’s all. If you need prove and logical reasoning regarding the existence of ‘God’, then you already limit the point of view where your mind could not find the reason why. That’s why we just need to ‘accept’ the fact that ‘God’ do exist.

    • What? It’s the other way around. Logical reasoning is the one that open our eyes to mysteries in life. It introduces us to germs and virus, so we can expand our life span by inventing cure for diseases. Man can go to the moon because of logical reasoning. Evolution and big bang is the product of logical reasoning.
      Of course you need proof if anything exist, since that makes what you believe more reliable. Just like what Lucy said, it is an intelectual dishonesty to say something that can’t be proven as a fact. I better off say that we still don’t know how the universe come to existence and keep searching for evidence on that.

    • I’m sorry but I have to disagree. People who believes in God are the one making life much more convenience. It’s your way of thinking that you just need blind faith to justify how it all began makes your life convenience.
      Those who don’t believe in God knows that life is not convenience as that. They don’t rely on the premise “Why do I have to make humanity better if I could just die and go to heaven?”. They know that time is limited and therefore, they need to use it optimally. It’s that kind of thinking that makes inventions and answers to mysteries of life even available on the table to be discussed.

      • Yes, I agree that time is limited. But there’s a question I’d like to ask to you…

        What’s your opinion about afterlife? I mean what will happen after a human is dead based on your opinion? :)

      • What happened? Well, to my knowing is the body will decomposed if you bury them. No life after life, as simple as that. I know people might think “Isn’t that a sad way to believe that your life has no meaning?”.
        But, I think otherwise. With the limitation of time, we make each and every day counts. We know time is crucial and we want to make the best of our short life. I also think eternal life in heaven is a torture itself. Maybe it is fun for 1000 years or so. But what comes after that? You will be living forever incapable of seeing the end of things. It will be a suffering ordeal for me to live forever with no ending in sight.

  5. now this is an interesting topic… just to get a scientific angle on it (i’ll try to keep it simple which unfortunately makes it less accurate)… first we know that unless we get to disprove a lot of the work by people such as planck we will never be able to know what happened in the first 5.4*10^-44 seconds after big bang… simply because no ‘information’ in the form of movement or light can react in that little time… we do however have some hypothesis (thats the scientific word for an idea with no or little evidence) about how it started… super string theory tells us that there are 9 dimensions (we know the 3 physical and the 4th in time… beyond this there are some more but i’ll skip that to keep it simple)… however there are some 6+ of those theories… these can however be united by introducing a 10th theory (this is called m-theory)… now according to this m-theory (another hypothesis) says that maybe the whole universe can be described as being part of one big 10 dimensional membrane… And this is where the big bang comes in… because what if there are many of these membranes… then what happens when they hit eachother? they just might create another membrane which at a time could have been our universe… while it does explain something and some people think they have found some weak evidence for it… all of the findings can be explained by other phenomena….

    now all this sounds kind of wierd… and it is… but this is only a single hypothesis of how it all started and there are many more like them… i just thought i should add at least a slight scientific angle to the discussion… and sorry to all of you who got a headache reading this…

  6. But Lucy, I must inquire why you think that believers in God accept just that and don’t search for answers as well. Believers in God may as well, search for something to prove God’s existence, or if they find something that says otherwise, may lead them away from a God fearing life.

    Now granted, I am just trying to induce some thinking here, but who says the science of life that we have “discovered” now are true? Take this for example. We have based all the factors of physics on something constant that supposedly is the fastest you can go, light. The infamous equation e= MC^2 that Albert Einstein proposed has been the foundation of how the world works. But recently, many scientists tested a new sub-atomic particle that supposedly broke the speed of light. If this indeed happened, then what we know as fact for science has just been disproven and everything thereafter is wrong.

    So in theory, yes Lucy, you bring some good points to the table. But knowing that everything that you regarded as fact could be proven wrong in a heartbeat, doesn’t make science that exact of a science if it too is based on assuming that what you think is fact is really indeed fact. Just like people put faith in God, you also put faith in science. For what you argue, you must assume that something is SOLID or CONCRETE. But in all reality, how can you be sure that it is? It goes back to the old saying that “you need a leg to stand on.”

    So all I am saying is we have to have fact in our lives, its what our brains are based on. But if something can be disproven like it has so many times, then believing in science, or creationism, or evolution, or christianity, etc… is all based on faith. So it’s picking your faith, cause nothing is for certain. I personally pick Christianity as my faith, it at least promises some sort of afterlife and gives me a guidebook to how I should treat others. That faith that maybe believing in Christianity could possibly give me something concrete in the end is all I truly wanted.

    Does this make me a bigot? No. Does this make me any less of a person? No. This just says that I decided that I was going to try to believe something rather than nothing. Its putting faith in what you BELIEVE that offers the best benefits and the most truth.

    So, in the end, there is my statement.

    • Okay, then name a credible research that a bible scholar do to prove God exist. I was once a Christian myself and I have talked to dozens of colleagues and scholars about God, but as far as I got, the arguments that they used is based on a book (bible) with no credible evidence.
      I have to stress that evidence is important in making a reliable claim. Science so far has brought with so many inventions and answers that we could witness and reliably use. This is one of the reasons why I’m siding with science.
      If one of the science theory is disproven because of another convincing theory came up and there is an evidence to back it up, of course I have to change my perspective. In fact, I would also subscribe that God created the universe if you have the evidence to back it up. However, until this day that notion is unreliable since it can’t be proven.
      As I have said in my post, I would rather say I do not believe that God exist since I can’t prove the existence of God, rather than picking a God which I, myself, feel doubtful of his existence. I think it’s an intellectual dishonesty to do such action.
      I agree that faith has to be in play, but at least I put my faith which I truly can witness with my own eyes. I would not say that I believe something that I doubt it exist, therefore I’m a sceptic when it comes to God existence.

  7. IMO, this discussion/debate was dead from the start. Technically speaking, we can’t disprove each other. You can deny the existence of God all you want, but you won’t be able to disprove him.
    As for evidence for science, it’s everywhere around us. Our body functions, cycles of seasons, and the gravity holding us down can all be explained and proven by science. It’s a matter of scientific process and physical determination.
    As for evidence for God, you can say that anything not applicable to science can be used to prove his existence. How do people with stage 4 cancer survive their ordeal with seemingly no effort? Why do people have out-of-body experiences? What’s the science behind seeing a tunnel of light at death’s door?
    You may claim that the evidence for God is poor and not concrete, but that’s exactly my point. The evidence for God is the leftover evidence that science couldn’t incorporate into it’s own theories.
    I think we can all reach an agreement here and say that science governs the world we live in, but God gave science to govern the world.
    Fun fact: gravity is not only a law but also a THEORY, big bang is PURELY theoretical and has yet to be proven by the hadron collider, and quantum mechanics STILL have the dilemma of proving wave-particle duality.
    Sure we’re getting to understand more and more, but we reach the ultimate irony of creating more questions than we can answer. This endless chain of questioning and answering seems to be the paradox of science.
    It’s a multiple law/theory-bound world we live in, and the only way to explain that is through the idea that a perfect “creator” imposed various restrictions upon the universe in which we live.
    Science is opening our eyes to the various restrictions set on us by a higher being, and through our increased knowledge of these restrictions, we’re getting cocky about the power of human knowledge. Just because we understand several rules governing the world doesn’t mean we’re any closer to understanding the universe. Until we can unlock the ultimate mystery of our origins and discovering who the “clock maker” is (if there even is one), we should be satisfied with the explanation of God. Questioning God’s existence is like questioning the existence of our universe; we can’t answer such a complex question yet.

    • I laugh reading this comment. Gravity is a theory? So what is pulling you to the earth? An invisible rope? You can even create your own artificial gravity if you want to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity
      Big Bang is only a theory? We already have a convincing evidence for that sir: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html
      And you completely missing the point of quantum mechanics. The wave-particle duality is not a dilemma, it’s something that has to be observed first to determine its nature.
      Do you have a source about this stage 4 cancer guy that survive with no effort? Come on, at least state a source to back up your claim. Are you sure he just stroll around the street with his stage 4 cancer and suddenly healed?
      Out of body experience and seeing a tunnel of light do not proof God exist.
      Science always come up with questions because there are still links to connect and that’s why science is a great and reliable to answers to the question of universe. On the other hand, theist put a perfect being that creates everything and choose not to question the contradiction. Just because you choose not to question his existence doesn’t mean that he exists. You just choose to be ignorant about it.
      But I get your point, you say that we as a human wouldn’t stand a chance in unraveling the existence of the universe because of the bound that God made. However at least I’m not an ignorant who just accept anything is that from someone’s book or opinion..

      • First response: If you’re going to argue something, research it first. Gravity is a THEORY and a LAW. Look it up; doesn’t take that long on google. (http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law)
        Also, Big Bang is still a theory. It will always be a theory within our lifetime because there’s no way to prove it happened. Big Bang is a theory and will always be a theory (look this up on google too… It’s not that hard). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang <-first 4 words)
        The source for the stage 4 cancer guy as well as near death experiences is from the History Channel. It was one of the shows I watched 2 years ago, but now I don't remember what it was called, so I can't cite it.
        And lastly, you said, "However at least I’m not an ignorant who just accept anything is that from someone’s book or opinion.." You just proved yourself to be a hypocrite since everything we learn is from someone. We learn about gravity through a teacher. We learn our language from our parents. With your reasoning, you can't back up any of your points validly because you don't trust the sources you're citing.

      • Of course, Gravity and Big Bang are theories. But they are backed up with facts which makes them reliable. Just because the first four words says theory doesn’t make it not true and doubtful. Gravity can be explained because when you see particles in a subatomic level, you will see them attract each other. Magnetism also can influence gravitation or a simple case just jump out from a ten story building and you can see gravity in action. Big Bang also is a theory but we have evidence to back that up (I guess you forgot to read the link I gave you before). Heck, the resource link to the Wikipedia link you gave me can answer you perfectly.
        Of course I learn my science from a book and teacher, dude. But there is an evidence of which I can prove that the book or my teacher is reliable. I don’t take things blindfaithed. That’s why we have labs to answer our doubts. The question is, can your book (I assume bible?) provide evidence of the things that are written? Or are you just accepting it without further research?
        As for miracles (too bad you can’t cite the stage 4 cancer guy) here’s a great video to the argument (Just skip to 10:00 to get to the main point):

    • I think we already have disprove God in terms of causality argument by presenting many of its contradictions. Eventhough, we have add exceptions to the logic, it still brings contradictions to the premise. Unless you still have an argument on this causality theory which I will happily reply.
      And no, you don’t have to bring evidence to back your theory, this discussion is purely based on logical reasoning to prove how consistent the theory really is.

      • So, Scientific facts that written implicitly in any religion’s holy books is purely coincidences? *no offense of course…*

      • I think Lucy was talking about disproving God by debunking the causality argument not by scientific evidence.
        Anyway, what book are you talking about? Are you talking about Genesis where God created the universe in 6 days? Or are you connecting dots from the bible with scientific evidence available?
        Because I think it’s funny when you guys say that the bible contains scientific discovery while none of the scientific discoveries come from bible scholars.

      • I really wanted to talk about this here… but let’s just prevent the worst condition since it might lead to other problems as well… *I know I sound like a loudmouth this way.*

        p.s. demi menghindari hal-hal berbau SARA

      • @Kazasou: But if you insist, I’d happily continue it personally for you. Just contact me… rouzusuisen[at]gmail.com

      • Who the fuck cares, man. If people are offended because their religion is criticized, then just stay home, shut your eyes and ears and keep ignoring what people have to say. If you can’t handle criticism, just get the fuck off the internet.

      • Ok. Let me sum my argument up. I believe in God because science can’t answer everything at the moment. You may say that what I’m doing is closing my eyes and ears to knowledge of science, but I beg to differ. I’m majoring in biochemistry, and I have no problem with balancing my religion with what I’m learning (in fact, there’s no argument between the two at all).

        Let’s go back to what kazasou said as an argument against religion: “But silk doesn’t come from nothing right? It is the spider’s body system that can produce such achievement. If you use such argument then God indeed has a cause which is he has the system to produce space and time which makes him a God (God can’t create his own body system that produce space and time). Again, you have to deny a lot of logical reasoning to put God in context of all creation which makes the causal argument contradictive.”

        Let’s think logically: Silk comes from spiders. Spiders come from some ancestral bug that evolved over time. The ancestral bug came from a bacteria in a goop of earthly materials in the beginning of earth’s time. The earth came from the big bang. The big bang came from a gigantic mass of energy condensed into a small point. The gigantic mass of energy came from… Oh wait, we can only hypothesize what happened.

        How is hypothesizing the beginning of the universe any different from believing in a religion. Science can’t back up where all that mass came from. According to the law of conservation of mass, all that energy that caused the Big Bang couldn’t have come from nothing. How did all this begin? This is where I believe some omnipotent being, from the fourth dimension or whatever, came and created the universe. Otherwise, how did the universe exist in the first place. Causality doesn’t even work for science since we don’t even know the cause of Big Bang. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony)
        All in all, we can’t disprove each other. You can ask where did God come from; just remember I’ll always ask why did the Big Bang occur.

        As one of my friends posted online in the religious implications of Big Bang (he is atheist by the way, and he has a lot more respect for theists than you guys):

        “A theory is a theory. People shouldn’t be over-reacting if they don’t believe it isn’t true. It is just a theory! As to answering your question, there is a very, extremely huge possibility it is true. All of the universe was within a small “ball”, nothing existed yet. For some odd reason, the ball exploded and let out all of it’s cosmic energy, soon to be creating the universe.

        However, as some people say “It’s not true! It was created by God!”. I completely respect them, for I have the same idea as well. However, they do not KNOW this. This is what they guess. But without God, they are right, there would be no science or probably no universe. Perhaps he was the one that stored the energy into that ball? Maybe he was the one that wanted to create new life, so he exploded the tiny cosmic ball? Until we meet up with him in our death beds one day, we will never truly know.

        The theory is pretty much true. Although they are not 100% sure, there is a large amount of evidence.”

      • Oh and one more thing about the causality argument. First watch this video:

        Now let’s think for a second what just happened in the video. Dr. Quantum, the bearded guy in the video, dips his finger into the two dimensional universe. When he does, he “creates” his 2-D finger into the world and touches inside of the circle. How did he do that? How did he instantaneously create a 2-D slice of his finger into the universe without assembling the materials needed for the finger in the 2-D world?

        So here’s my reasoning. God is “above” our dimension. How far “above”? I have no idea. But going with the logic of dimensional transfer of “upper” beings into the “lower” realm, causality can be nulled.

        There you have it. A perfect argument created within 20 minutes against your years of researching and thinking (sarcasm intended).

      • I’m sorry but this video creates a new implication of the causality argument. If God is one dimension above us, then there would be infinite layers of dimensions, since God also has to be created from a being in a higher dimension. Also, this has to ignore the resource which God has to use to create things.
        Now now, we scientist never say that we already know how it all began. So far, the evidence that we have gathered has only answered it up to big bang. As far how the supernova occurs, we are still in research for evidence. So the conclusion of the begininng of the universe is still unknown. Now if you want to say God indeed creates the universe then you have to have a good logical explanation and address the complication that is brought upon God’s argument.
        You completely misunderstood, believing in God is not a problem for me. However, if you want to prove God exists, you have to back it up with evidence or a good logical reasoning so that your claim becomes reliable. I assume that you are also a scientist, you understand that to do a research, we have to be sceptic and doubtful, and ask for questions if our hypothesis are reliable.
        And as for your friend who says there are a lot of evidence of a God, bring him here to enlighten us with the evidence that he is talking about.

      • Ah this is a good video to debunk the Watchmaker theory. Especially when Dr. Quantum dips his finger to the 2-D world. It questions does the miracle he made has to obey the law of 2-D world or can he defy it? Because when he dips his finger in, his finger becomes 2-D also which he has to obey the law of that appropriate dimension.
        However, I’m getting ahead of myself. I will explain it in more great detail in another post.

      • To be honest, I can’t argue against you guys. You guys are calling me ignorant and absurd for believing in things that have not been proven in science. Yet, when it comes to theories and conjectures that sound remotely scientific, you guys jump on it like kids jumping after candy. How about a different approach. Rather than questioning God (since you seem to be doing that a lot, backing off might give you a new perspective), question the scientific theories and data presented in the argument. Don’t take everything for a fact even if there’s evidence. Just as how Dalton hypothesized wrong about the structure of the atom, people can make mistakes all the time.

        Also, let go of the causality argument. The moment you stated that there are different dimensions, time has gone out the window. In the fourth dimension, time does not exist, and therefore there can be no concept of “beginning” and “end”. Think these through before posting please.

        Well sirs and ma’am s, have a great day studying and learning science; just make sure you draw the line of when you start making science YOUR religion.

      • Wow, way to ignore all the arguments that have been presented. How do you know that in the 4th dimension, time does not exist? Time is a relativity, it is not a tangible object. And by the way, it is the 4th dimension right? How come you are scraping off something from a 3rd dimension world to define a 4th dimension world? We are in the upper layer of 3rd dimension, what additional dimension are you talking about? You are just spitting out theories with no evidence to backup whatsoever.
        Oh, and now you are complaining to us because we use evidence to back up our argument? If you think the evidence is false, then be our guest, disprove it. No one is stopping you from doing that. And don’t worry about us, worry about yourself since you take unproven things as a fact without caring that there is an evidence or not and call yourself a scientist.
        And of course we questions the God’s argument because this is what the god damn topic is all about. I believe if someone presents with a theory (in this case a God), they have to be question its validity of the argument not the other way around. And didn’t I also said that science has already taken a temporary stand that we don’t know anything before Big Bang yet? We are still researching on this area, but we can’t just put God there to justify the explanation. We have to have the evidence first and make a conclusion. And that my friend is call scientific method. And that my friend what brings us with technology invention, cure for disease, and other advancement for humans.
        You are a student that majoring in biochemistry and it seems you don’t have a grasp of what a scientific method is. You claim you balance your science with God, yet you completely don’t question whether God exists or not.
        And whoever said I make science as my religion? I always question science, I always look at the latest research, and I’m sure every scientists have to be sceptic when it comes to believing things. That’s why they are looking for evidence constantly to make sure that the theories they come up with, are consistent with the evidence found.

      • Why won’t you just get it? Kazasou, I think you’re intelligent enough to realize that I’m not questioning the existence of God because it’s impossible to! Just read the new post that I made in the new thread about the watchmaker theory.

  8. Oh, and if you like Nichijou, check out the episode where Yuuko goes, “God is Dead.” It’s from Friedric Nietzsche. Pretty interesting to read.

  9. hmm, and here it is, I just discussed this with my ‘crazy’ friend bout this last night, I’ll just sharing it here perhaps (since it’s Random, lol =w=)

    this question popped out nowhere when we’re talking about people those who are “believing too much”, “just believe”, and “not believe at all (rebel ones)” at our environments.

    “Where’s this universe come”

    most people say “God”
    and we can’t satisfy enough with those statement only. Since to make something happen, we need some “causes” to make it happen.
    and here’s our random thoughts for those causes:
    -We are just an experiments for people from other galaxies
    (stupid but possible, our reason is Dinosaur era ended by some “random” meteor and all living things annihilated and everything restarted again)
    -The “Creator” is from different Timeline for some “mission” or something and make it “happen”
    (another crazy idea, but we thought this since there’s a statement that say “Universe at beginning is just blank space”)

  10. If you still want to argue, please do after watching this documentary. It’s quite enlightening for both theists and atheists.

      • I believe when someone claims something as a fact, they have to back it up with evidence. Isn’t that what scientific method suppose to do? If not, I could just claim there is an invisible green dragon in my backyard that controls the universe.

  11. Also Lucy, if you want to continue to pursue the causality argument, post it and let me know on this post. Just upload a link in the reply or something. I’ll be happy to look at it and think it over (notice how I didn’t jump on the word “disprove”). I’m majoring in science (not physics, biochem but whatever), and I like to read these type of things.

    • Umm? I have already posted my rebuttal argument in this post. You just have to address the complications I have made in this post to justify if God indeed exists and created the universe :)

  12. Pingback: Proofing God Exists: The Watchmaker Analogy « Randomness Thing·

  13. Addressing atheists:

    Well, if I may, can you tell me whether there has always been something even when there was no time and no space and no matter and no energy and no nothing that is investigated by scientists with their observation and experimentation routine?

    Of course right away you will say that how can I use the words always and when: for as they denote time, therefore it is illogical for me to ask has there always been something even when there was no time, etc.

    Okay, very good you are smart, how about if I just ask you is it possible for something to exist without being in time and in space?

    If you say that it is impossible for something to exist at all without time and space, I will ask you how you know that, do you have any evidence or do you have any undeniable reason?

    Haha, now I got you in a corner.

    Anyway, let me hear from you how you explain the coming to existence of time and space.

    Mdejess

    • That question can’t be observable, because even in a vacuum space we encounter, there always will be energy or particle.

      “how about if I just ask you is it possible for something to exist without being in time and in space?”

      Again, we haven’t encounter such thing since we already bounded by time and space, so to answer your question, it is inconclusive. You treat time as though it is an object while it is only a measurement. It’s like asking what’s more north than north. Time is a relative measurement to measure things that changes. It is exist to help us measure things. Same thing as space, which is a measurement of object’s location. So, I don’t really understand what purpose this question is being asked.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s