If god then ...

Originally posted by Pudgenik
Your interpretation of the word cause is not mine.

God has a cause, has a purpose, it is us.

I believe you are right.
We (humankind) caused god.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I did not ask "What is god?" or "What is the cause?"

I did not ask "Who won't get it?"


I asked what was wrong with the argument.
(If you cannot tell me then you must agree with the conclusion)
I'm afraid you may have to think a little bit. (Sorry)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

What's wrong with this argument?

Everything is wrong with that argument. To be accurate it should read:

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God is the cause for the existence of everything
3. Therefore God has no beginning nor end

Get it yet?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

What's wrong with this argument?

Everything is wrong with that argument. To be accurate it should read:

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God is the cause for the existence of everything
3. Therefore God has no beginning nor end

Get it yet?[/b]

What is the cause of god?

If this question doesn't have a satisfactory answer, then we have a paradox here. If the christian religion is based of paradoxes, then it is a no-good religion.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What is the cause of god?

If this question doesn't have a satisfactory answer, then we have a paradox here. If the christian religion is based of paradoxes, then it is a no-good religion.

God created everything that exists. God has no beginning. God is eternal.

Is that too difficult for you to understand? You see, you frame the idea in your mind that God needs a cause in order to exist,Reveal Hidden Contentand then loop it around in your mind causing circular reasoning. Get past it!

Of course you won't, because the moment you do you have to deal with God.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

What's wrong with this argument?

Everything is wrong with that argument.[/b]

Are you familiar with logic?

Originally posted by josephw
God created everything that exists. God has no beginning. God is eternal.

Is that too difficult for you to understand? You see, you frame the idea in your mind that God needs a cause in order to exist,[hidden]God wouldn't be God if God had a cause. Only logical.[/hidden]and then loop it around in your mind causing circular reasoning. Get past it!

Of course you won't, because the moment you do you have to deal with God.

I put a simple question based on your logic: "What is the cause of god?" And you avoided to answer. You accept the paradox as a truth.

Which shows clearly to me that the christian religion is based upon paradoxes.

Originally posted by josephw
God created everything that exists. God has no beginning. God is eternal.

Is that too difficult for you to understand? You see, you frame the idea in your mind that God needs a cause in order to exist,[hidden]God wouldn't be God if God had a cause. Only logical.[/hidden]and then loop it around in your mind causing circular reasoning. Get past it!

Of course you won't, because the moment you do you have to deal with God.

The reply is that if God doesn't need a cause to exist, then universe doesn't need one either. Logically, there is no reason to prefer a magical (divine) explanation over a physical (natural law) explanation.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

What's wrong with this argument?

God is the cause of all causes.

A qualification to be God ........is that you must be the cause of all causes.

Therefore God qualifies to be God above everything else.

Originally posted by Dasa
God is the cause of all causes.

A qualification to be God ........is that you must be the cause of all causes.

Therefore God qualifies to be God above everything else.

Perhaps you have an answer to the question: "What is the cause of god?"

Because if you don't then also your religion is based upon paradoxes and has no values.

Originally posted by moonbus
There is a use of the word "cause" to mean "purpose", as in 'fighting for a cause' ("I have a dream" MLK). This however is not the sense in the argument above.

He did not clarify his definition of the word "cause".

Originally posted by Pudgenik
He did not clarify his definition of the word "cause".

So to clarify then, the meaning of 'cause' in the OP is this:

a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
"the cause of the accident is not clear"

Now do you actually have any problem with the logic in the OP?

--- Penguin

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Are you familiar with logic?

Not yours' apparently. 😕

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I put a simple question based on your logic: "What is the cause of god?" And you avoided to answer. You accept the paradox as a truth.

Which shows clearly to me that the christian religion is based upon paradoxes.

You are being illogical. You asked the question, "what is the cause of God"? I did answer you, but apparently I need to make it more simple for you.

God has no beginning. Therefore, God was not caused to exist. God exists forever, without beginning or end.

That understanding of God renders the logic of the opening post irrational.

Originally posted by josephw
You are being illogical. You asked the question, "what is the cause of God"? I did answer you, but apparently I need to make it more simple for you.

God has no beginning. Therefore, God was not caused to exist. God exists forever, without beginning or end.

That understanding of God renders the logic of the opening post irrational.

So essentially, as I suggested a while ago, you reject premise 1:
1. Everything that exists has a cause

and so the conclusion
3. Therefore God has a cause

is not logically valid in your view.

Is that correct (and if so, why didn't you just say so)?

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
So essentially, as I suggested a while ago, you reject premise 1:
1. Everything that exists has a cause

and so the conclusion
3. Therefore God has a cause

is not logically valid in your view.

Is that correct (and if so, why didn't you just say so)?

--- Penguin

Hi, Penguin. question: Isn't "1. Everything that exists has a cause" an argument from Ancient Saudi Arabia or Islam?