UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 7 to Meditation 13
Re: Proofs of God's Existence (2)

by Thomas

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

Addendum to a Laundry list (2 of 7)

"Just so that you don't feel that there are no proofs, despite the fact that you continue to ignore the proofs I have sent previously, there are others:"

Ad tedium ad infinitum, assumptions are thus!

This one here (below) is a most distressing belief and defies humility, respect and/or any aspect one would associate with any idea of spirituality (here is the Second assumption from the Laundry list):

2.   The logical belief that every effect must have an adequate cause. The creation of all things had to have a first cause. As a watch demands a watchmaker, even so, Creation demands a Creator.

Adequate cause: A belief does not need an adequate cause if it is based on hearsay, myth, and faith (which are “beliefs” without reasons). And logical belief implies a “beliefs based upon reasons.” Such as the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, because it always has - so far. This is a logical belief. Adequate cause for the Universe = Yahweh; is a ridiculous assumption (worthy of ridicule!). . . Why not this: an adequate cause for the Universe = Zeus – or – why not this too: an adequate cause for the Universe = Allah (all assumptions are worthy of ridicule). Adequate cause for a snowflake = the spirit jewel maker.

God makes individual snowflakes – right? WRONG! The physical laws combined with circumstance; make a snowflake. No spirit cause here. You’re trying to rationalize myth and assumption; place a postage stamp on it and mail to a beginning – that might not be there. Someone has told you – “ye shall surely die” and you don’t like that idea - guess what neither do I. But wishful thinking will not change reality to meet your emotional needs. Someone has also told you there is a “path” through a “narrow gate” and few shall enter. This idea shamelessly appeals to your same need. And when you think you have the “gift” your attachment to the wishful thought defies making sense to even yourself. The Universe has NOT been created as an adequate cause so that a “few” may have a “gift.” If you praise the Universe, by some secret name: Yahweh, Yeshua; then you have past some kind of test; and now may have this “gift” - this is NOT an adequate cause for 100 Billion galaxies +/-; each with a billion to 200 billion star systems; those systems with countless planets; moons; comets; asteroid fields; etc; to exist.

 It is neither logical nor adequate that the rest of the Universe; or a penguin; or a virus; or the Dali-Lama; or “me”; none of us; and none of these things; nor anything; exists - so that you may speak a special name as praise to receive a “gift” of wishful thinking.

The most objectionable part about this adequate cause idea is this – “me.” While these Western theist arguments; ideas; assumptions have no reason(s) and are entirely absurd and devoid of logic – they lack spirituality most of all. This is to all Christians; Jews; Muslims and the like; these philosophical inevitabilities are grotesque; ugly and lacking in this respect; being is not an adequate cause; if one is to consider what a spiritual being might even be. To think that another man exists as adequate cause for your existence or your continued existence defies having a spiritual meaning altogether – for “you” and “I.” There is no deeper love, heart, understanding, growth, spirituality, etc contained within your adequate cause.

I do not exist – so that you exist. The countless values measuring the expanse of just this local incursion called this Universe is not adequate cause for this “gift” of your existence.

First cause: What is it? Was there one? This inception called singularity and Big-Bang expansion; does not infer a first cause, but a specific event; and “event” does not equate to “first cause.” Singularity does not mean “origin” as you literally think it means – this is your mistake. Singularity means an “event,” or a “locale” at which a measurable or traceable occurrence has happened. Just because logic and law breaks down here upon   this event-horizon, one cannot infer what is beyond being knowable. Beyond what is thought to be this “event-locale” is a measurement of time outside of time – this beginning you’re looking for is not there; nor can this “locale” simply be relabeled first cause.

If you told a 5 year old child your first cause theory: “God created everything,” even in their youth their wisdom would make yours pale and feeble, for a child would say, “so then what created God?” Everything must have a first cause. 

Second first cause assumption: Everything had a cause, and every cause is the effect of a previous cause. Something must have started it all. God is the first cause, the unmoved mover, the creator and sustainer of the universe. The monster assumption of this argument is: “everything had a cause”; but this is contradicted by the conclusion that: God did not have a cause.

 This universe could expand and contract ad infinitum. This universe could be the collision of quantum natural events. This universe could exist in an infinity of universes. Sole cause; first cause; (grotesque) adequate cause; are all mere assumptions.

Creation-Creator fallacy: The word “Creation” implies the word “Creator”; the word “Watch” implies the words “Watch maker”; the word “Design” implies the word “Designer.” The simple fact that you have associated one word with another word does not imply logic. Is the Universe a watch? Does mere complexity imply that complexity is designed? The analogy does not transfer. It doesn’t with snowflakes; it doesn’t with the Universe either.

Form zero space and infinite heat; to a time immediately after this event dubbed “singularity”; when the tiny Universe was extremely hot; billions times a billion degrees times hot; there were no laws; and therefore the word “lawgiver” CANNOT be implied.

No physical laws and nothing to impose upon this event. No God. From this chaotic time; the early universe was hissing and expanding; photons colliding and becoming quarks; they colliding and becoming neutrons and protons; etc and all the while the universe was cooling down. What ever the laws are now that came into existence in this order: no-laws – then an event – and subsequent chaos – interaction and then physical laws. No where is a “lawgiver” implied.  Snowflakes do not imply “snowflake maker.” Universe does not imply Yahweh or Zeus or Allah or Odin or Ahura Mazda or Baal or Marduk or any other anthropomorphic image of man cast into a fictitious “firmament.”

Demands: This word “demands,” the word “greater” and the phrase “had to” are misused all to often in so-called proof assumptions. It is no small wonder why Bertrand Russell said, “All ontological arguments are a case of bad grammar.”

It is so silly to suggest infiniteness (which is absurd) to a finite book, called “the Word” of any parochial appellation name-sake.

A restatement of the grotesque value that is placed upon other men/women’s lives; their being; their existence:  The most objectionable part about this adequate cause idea is this – “you and I.” While Western theists profess spirituality their arguments speak candidly and from an apocalyptic heart of darkness. Their ideas; assumptions have no reason(s) and are entirely absurd; devoid of logic – most of all; they lack spirituality. These philosophical inevitabilities are grotesque; and are lacking of respect; being is not an adequate cause; if one is to consider what a spiritual being might even be. To think that another man (or being) exists as adequate cause for your existence or your continued existence defies having a spiritual meaning altogether – for “you” and “I.” There is no deeper love, heart, understanding, growth, spirituality, etc contained within this adequate cause.

Creation as you call the Universe does not exist and I do not exist – so that you can.

NEXT