• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Proof of God, god, universe.

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

So Hatcher claims to have proven a unique, universal, uncaused cause. Cool. Is it an impersonal system of laws and processes or a entity with a name, desires, and an agenda I need to get behind? Does this unique, universal, and uncaused cause have human representatives I should be concerned about? Which ones would that be I wonder, there are so many people claiming they have the exclusive rights. Sigh.
 
Well...I'm still reading it but this guy lost me with
We begin with our one extralogical assumption:
30
P.0. Something exists (there
is not nothing).
Click to expand...

He's already biasing his "proof" with an assumption. Moreover, he seems to be using philosophy to "prove" something.

And then the piece states:

6. Thus (Avicenna’s criticism),
even if we grant the cogency
of AT, this theorem does not
really do the job of proving
that God exists because the
59
that God exists because the
phenomenon whose
existence is proved (at least
one u.c.) does not satisfy the
minimal criteria for Godhood.
Click to expand...

The author, in my opinion is trying to prove that there is an "uncaused first cause" and is forgetting about a little thing we call "serendipitous occurences."

Sorry, what he is calling "god" others could call "the big bang" as far as I'm concerned.
 
Yeah, I kinda got lost myself. ;) I happened on it and posted it. Then read it. Don't do that very often but there ya go. :o I am gonna read a little more about him cause I had never heard of him before. I was perusing the blogs at beliefnet.com when I came across a mention of him.
 
You have to wonder. Does this unique, universal, uncaused cause conform to human notions about its nature, its objectives, and so forth? Assuming it has or should I say had objectives. Is there any reason to believe that such a thing, a unique, universal, uncaused cause persists in some manner until the present day? What attributes does the unique, universal, uncaused cause possess? Does it undergo change or is it immutable? Does it possess a personality like a human being, is it an automation, or simply a collection of laws, rules, and processes? How could ya tell?
 
His logic falls apart with his definition of reality as, "the totality of actual existence = everything there is (or was or will be)."

The only reality within any single universe is that which exists in the present. Past and future realities do not exist, but are fun to use in fantasy stories. For those who like to think they do exist, just viualize a fantasy story that magically transports someone to the past or future. Suddenly that realm then becomes their present reality, so again the same logic applies. The only way for a past or future to exist simultaneously is within separate universes running identical programs, but then those realities would not be our realities, but our out of synch duplicate's realities. He also misses that reality can be objective or subjective. So to continue with any further acceptance of his proof from this point forward would be faulty.

Apart from the above, he also has not defined God, but simply assumed him to be a universe creator, and not just any universe creator, but the creator of everything and every universe. This is typical of those who want to advance their God as the one true ultimate God. Before science had figured out as much about the universe as we now know, it was good enough for several Gods to share the responsibilities, then came the "one true God" who created the "Heaven and Earth". It's just typical religious one-upmanship.

However the existence of God can still be proven logically as a subjective reality, sometimes manifest in a physical being or thing, such as a living God in the form of a deified human being or an object such as the Sun.
 
ufology said:
His logic falls apart with his definition of reality as, "the totality of actual existence = everything there is (or was or will be)."

The only reality within any single universe is that which exists in the present. Past and future realities do not exist, but are fun to use in fantasy stories.
Click to expand...

You make an excellent point. There is only now. This is one of those fundamental concepts that escaped me for most of my life I am ashamed to say. Furthermore, time as human beings experience it, only exists within human consciousness, much like the color red and so forth. I think this is at the heart of some anomalous and paranormal phenomena. A mismatch, a mistracking, of the human experience of time (amongst other things) and some real world object, entity, or process.
 
Wow, y'all followed it better than I did. :o I got bored part way through it. But, I am gonna go back to those blogs and see what else is going on there.
 
trainedobserver said:
You make an excellent point. There is only now. This is one of those fundamental concepts that escaped me for most of my life I am ashamed to say.
Click to expand...

And there it is, a vote of confidence for the modality underlying the whole of my profession. Existential Psychology: Therapist, "What are you aware of?"... You'd be suprised how much effort it takes to ground a person in this one simple fact -i.e. the Here and Now. We are a flighty species.
 
Back
Top