by joey written in early 2008
The most common conception of God is the Omnipotent Being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
It has however challenged the minds of many about His existence, including mine, pondering and doubting His supremacy.
But what is God, anyway?
As interpreted by many cosmological philosophers, everything that begins to exist has a cause; therefore a first cause must exist. But in order for the first cause to exist, it must have a cause; therefore the first cause must be an uncaused first cause.
A case would be a conversation between a theist and an atheist.
Atheist: Does God exist?
Theist: Yes, for he is our creator.
Atheist: Then who created your God?
Theist: He does not need to be created.
Atheist: *kena stun*
The cosmological approach for the theist to reply is to affirm that God is the uncaused first cause, or the prime mover (unmoved mover), and by doubting the existence of a first cause can the atheist continue the argument.
I would however want to make an amendment to the existing cosmological argument, it has proposed that:
Premise1 - Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise2 - The universe has a cause because the universe exists.
Conclusion - A first cause exists.
At first glance, this is a very appealing argument to the theists alike. However it often leads to confusion and does not provide a convincing argument. To avoid contradictions for the later parts:
Premise1 - Every existence has a cause. (Derived through the existing cosmological argument)
Premise2 - Nothing can be self-cause. (Because everything needs a cause)
Premise3 - But there must be a first cause which is uncaused. (Existence exist)
Conclusion1 - God is the uncaused first cause. (Derived through the existing cosmological argument)
Conclusion2 - God = Nothing. (Because Nothing can be self-cause)
If there is a Nothing, then the Nothing would not be in TIME or have PHYSICAL EXSITENCE for Space + Time = Existence.
-Nothing doesn’t ‘exist’, even if ‘it’ did, it would not exist in Space-time.
-And even as I type the previous 2 sentences, it seem inappropriate because when a Nothing is a Nothing, we can’t even talk about it, we can’t call it “a” , or “it” or “have” or “there is a Nothing”, simply because it’s Nothing(of non-physical existence).
Scientists now believe Nothing created everything, for at first:
There was Nothing -> then there was something
From the scientific point of view, this process is defined through what is now call, the Big Bang. They also believed that Nothing could be the key to the Theory of Everything.
(Scientific definition of ‘Nothing’ = dark energy.)
It is illogical and impossible for an empirical ‘proof’ of God due to its nature (ineffability-to be discussed). Therefore, the classic atheist argument of ‘absence of evidence is an evidence of absence’ is regarded as invalid.
Monotheistic religions affirmed that God created everything, the earth, life and everything there is (all existence).
Premise 1: Nothing created everything
Premise 2: God created everything
Conclusion 1: God = Nothing
Conclusion 2: Nothing = God
Atheist: Does God exist?
Theist: Yes and no.
Atheist: What?
Theist: He does not exist in existence, but He is ‘here’, He is ‘there’, He is ‘everywhere’.
Atheist: (o.O) okay.
*to be continued..............
