The logic for existence of God

[Guest guest]

1) Something exists

 

2) Nothing cannot produce something.

 

3) Therefore, this means there could never have been a point at which absolutely nothing existed, for then nothing would exist now.

 

4) Since something does currently exist, and there could never have been a point at which absolutely nothing existed, it follows that...

 

5) There must have always existed something necessarily.

 

4) Therefore, there must be a necessary being that has always existed. This necessary being is either the universe, or is something beyond the universe.

 

7) A Necessary being ( by definition) must necessarily exist, and cannot not exist. It can have no potential or possibility to not exist.

 

 

(read in a philosophy book)

[Guest guest]

absolutely beautiful! thanks for posting it!

[Guest guest]

Who created God?

 

Nobody has been able to answer this. How did God come into being? If nothing can't produce something, then something must have produced God, right? So what was it?

 

I believe in God, by the way, and I am Hindu. However, I think this question is very pertinent.

[Guest guest]

That question doesn't apply to the primal cause.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

I think what Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita more logical than any other argument.

 

nasato vidyate bhavo

nabhavo vidyate satah

ubhayor api drsto 'ntas

tv anayos tattva-darsibhih

 

Never does that which does not exist come into being, nor does that which exists become non-existent. The seers have observed the two and verily concluded the truth behind them.

[Guest guest]

First basic principle – the existence of God

 

The world is an originated thing. It did not come into existence without it having been caused. It came into existence at a certain definite point in time, and it also comes to our intellect that it came at that time without precedence or subsequence because of the urgency of its fixed time.

 

The proof that the world is a new originated thing is found in the fact that it is not free from either motion or rest and both these elements are the characteristics of every new material thing. Even motion and rest are in themselves two new originated things.

 

There are three matters pertaining to this:

 

A body is not free from motion and rest.

 

Motion and rest are themselves originated things and the proof is that one comes after the other and is found in all bodies. What is static can move and what is moving can become static. If either of the above two things are predominant over the body it becomes a new event. Therefore, because of its emergence, a new thing has been originated. An old thing is distant because of its extinction. If the eternity of a thing is established then its extinction is impossible. This we will prove by the subsistence of the creation.

 

Whatever is not free from change is an originated or new thing. Whatever is not independent of originated things is itself originated. The proof of this is that if it were not so, the world before any new thing may change which has got no beginning and unless these new things come to nothing, the turn for the present new things to come into being would never come.

 

But it is impossible for a thing, which has no end to come to nothing.

 

Another reason is that if there is no end of the motion of the stars and planets then three conditions would arise. Their numbers would either be odd or even, or both odd and even, or neither odd nor even. The last two are an impossibility, this is because positive and negative are united in them and the affirmation of one is the negation of another and negation of one is the affirmation of another. It is impossible that they be even, because an even number becomes odd by the addition of one. That which has no end cannot therefore be even without change. They cannot be odd because the number becomes even with addition of one. So, how can it change into odd when its number has no end? From this it is concluded that the world is not free from change and therefore it is an originated thing. When it is an originated thing it requires a Creator to bring it into existence.

Second basic principle – the existence of God

 

This is the knowledge that God is eternal. He has neither a beginning nor an end. He is the First of everything as well as the Last of everything no matter whether it is living or dead. The proof of this is that if He was an originated thing and not eternal, then He would have been in need of a creator and that creator would have been in need of a creator and so on ad infinitum. Whatever precedes ends in an Ancient Creator, who is the First. For this reason the Creator is the First and the Last, the Creator of the world and its Fashioner.

 

Third basic principle – the existence of God

 

This is the knowledge that God is without age, He is Ancient. He is the First and the Last, the Clear and the Hidden. Now that the attribute of Him being Eternal has been established it is clear that it is impossible for Him to have an end. The proof of this is that if He had an end then He would have remained in two conditions. He would have either come to nothing by Himself or through the annihilation of an opposing force. If it is possible for a self-existing thing to come to nothing, then it is also possible for that thing to come into existence. The reason is that if a thing requires a cause to come into existence it also requires a cause to come to nothing. We have learned in the previous discussions that God is Eternal, so how did He exist with His opposites? The answer is that if an opposite is an originated thing then is existence from eternity is impossible.

 

Fourth basic principle – the existence of God

 

This is the knowledge that God does not have a form. He does not occupy any space and is free from space, motion and rest. The proof is that every form occupies a space and either moves or stays in it. The body has both motion and rest, which, as we discussed before, are the characteristics of originated things, and whatever is subject to and affected by change is an originated thing. If a person should say that God has a body and occupies space, that person is in error for using such expressions but not for its meaning.

 

Fifth basic principle – the existence of God

 

This is the knowledge that God is not a body composed of different substances. Humans occupy space and have a body that is limited by space and composed of different substances. The substances of our bodies is not free from either division, composition, motion, rest, form or quantity which are all qualities found in an originated thing. If one were to think that the Creator of the world had a body, then it would be possible to attribute divinity to the sun, moon and other heavenly bodies.

 

Sixth basic principle – the existence of God

 

This is the knowledge that God, unlike the human who has originated length and breath, has neither. God, the Creator existed before His creation of such attributes so how will He enter a body as He existed by Himself before all originated things and there was nobody with Him! He is the All-knowing, the Almighty and creates by His Will, and it is impossible to find these attributes in a body. He is not like or comparable to any worldly thing, instead He, unlike His creation, is Ever-living and Everlasting. There is no similarity to the Creator and what is created, therefore it is impossible that anything could be like Him.

 

Seventh basic principle – the existence of God

 

This is the knowledge that God does not have the restriction of direction. He created direction, which is either above or below, right or left, front or behind. God created two directions for the human; what rests above the head is above and what rests below the feet is below. God created the human with two hands, one right and the other left, therefore there is the right hand direction and the left hand direction. Likewise man has front and a back both of which are directions. Because a direction is an originated thing, how can it be possible that God is governed by such? There is nothing above God because He does not have a head and the word above is connected with a head. There is nothing below Him as He does not have feet because the word below is connected with feet. If it is thought that He is above the world, then it ultimately follows there must be an opposite direction to it and every opposite thing has a body like it or similar to it. God is free from such restrictions, He is Unique and the Designer.

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

The world is an originated thing. It did not come into existence without it having been caused. It came into existence at a certain definite point in time, and it also comes to our intellect that it came at that time without precedence or subsequence because of the urgency of its fixed time.

 

 

If that were the case then existence along with everything else (except GOD), including all Jivas(living beings), will disappear or would have completely disappeared at some time.

 

This is clearly not the case, where existence(Space, matter etc.) always eternally exists along with GOD. This is the truth of GITA and Vedas. GOD of the vedas shares HIS LOVE eternally with all other beings.

 

 

FORM of GOD ? Whether HE HAS or HAS NOT ?

 

 

I would again differ here. GOD has FORM as per VEDAS and GITA(my other HIndu brothers may differ in both my points).

 

I understand the problem that when FORM is assigned, we automatically visualize boundaries, measures of finite lengths, breaths, width, height etc, thus making the FORM apparently limited.

 

While this limitation is true for material objects, it cannot be applied to GOD's FORM(S). In case of GOD's FORM(S), the limitation actually exists in our minds and not in that which is perceived ie GOD's FORM(S).

 

It is common knowledge in Vedas that GOD is immanent. Does it somehow limite GOD ? Obviously no. That which is immanent(known in upanishads as AHAM, TVAM etc.) and that which is omnipresent(known in upanishads as TAT, Brahma, Brahman etc.) is IDENTICAL in every way.

 

Tat tvam Asi, Aham BrahmAsmi etc.

 

There is also another Vedic verse

 

Purnam Idam, Purnam Adah ....

 

"This is perfect and complete, that is perfect and complete, From the perfect and complete arises the perfect and complete, Take away a part of that perfect and complete, what remains is also perfect and complete."

 

So GOD, as per Vedas, does have FORM.

[Guest guest]

There is a flaw that you or the book you have read is making. The flaw happens when going from point 5):

 

There must have always existed something necessarily.

 

to point 6) (which you labeled point 4 again:

 

Therefore, there must be a necessary being that has

always existed. This necessary being is either the

universe, or is something beyond the universe.

 

The flaw is that just because something has always existed, that that VERY ONE thing has always existed. There could be an infinite regress of things that have existed. So it would be flawed to go from saying that something (which can be substituted by saying anything) has always existed, to saying that one thing in particular has always existed.

[Guest guest]

----The flaw is that just because something has always existed, that that VERY ONE thing has always existed. There could be an infinite regress of things that have existed. So it would be flawed to go from saying that something (which can be substituted by saying anything) has always existed, to saying that one thing in particular has always existed.----

 

Something cannot come from nothing.

Something cannot become nothing.

something can only become something and not nothing or it can remain something.

If something becomes something,its still something

if something doesnt become something its still something

so something is always something

 

[M_A_R_A 0]

i believe in god, so please stop giving reasons for atheists to feel like they won an argument.

 

1) Something exists

 

What do you mean? Matter? Proove this has always been the case.

 

2) Nothing cannot produce something.

 

Proove this. You cannot. you will likely give some observation of the world liek a hen laying an egg, but there is a lot you have no experience with.

 

3) Therefore, this means there could never have been a point at which absolutely nothing existed, for then nothing would exist now.

 

4) Since something does currently exist, and there could never have been a point at which absolutely nothing existed, it follows that...

 

5) There must have always existed something necessarily.

 

Why God though? your post said you would proove god.

 

4) Therefore, there must be a necessary being that has always existed. This necessary being is either the universe, or is something beyond the universe.

 

 

 

7) A Necessary being ( by definition) must necessarily exist, and cannot not exist. It can have no potential or possibility to not exist.

 

WHo are you to say? Do you know God? LOL! Please don't give atheists fuel for their fire. Human beings have been trying to proove GOd for millenia, I serious ly doubt that some poster on thsee boards has come up with an answer. LOL!

[Guest guest]

1) Something exists

 

What do you mean? Matter? Proove this has always been the case.

------------------Do you exist or not?Are you something or not?Even to refuse that you exist, you should exist.So "something exists" is proved.To prove something always existed we need to look at law of conservation of energy "matter can never be created,nor destroyed"

 

2) Nothing cannot produce something.

 

Proove this..

 

---why cant you prove that nothing can create something?

 

 

 

 

[M_A_R_A 0]

Do you exist or not?Are you something or not?

 

Who are we to say? This could be someone's dream I am in...

 

 

---why cant you prove that nothing can create something?

 

I can't , but I am not the one makingthe claims here.

[Guest guest]

****Who are we to say? This could be someone's dream I am in...

 

even if you are a dream,somebody or something must be there to dream,right?

 

"Nothing cannot create something" logic is simple.

 

1.There are two things-something and nothing.

2.something exists

3.this something must have been created by either nothing or something.

4.Nothing by its definition can do nothing.If it does something,it isnt nothing,it is something.

5.So if nothing did not create something,then only something must have created something.

 

simple.

 

[Samkhya 0]

I would say that "the nothingness cannot create something" because creation is a relation between a creator and an effect, and for a relation to be real, the two terms of the relation must be real. It is as if you have to build a bridge between two edges. This is possible only if the two edges are there.

 

And if you quibble on this latter statement, you're incurable...

[maadhav 0]

yes, this is simple and clear logic,

but some still coud argue, unfortunately.

 

[Samkhya 0]

It seems, according to my experience on Internet, that there is a way of philosophizing which consists in casting doubt on every statement offered as evident in itself...

 

he who doubts is in a better position than he who asserts. He has nothing to lose. He is satisfied with uncertainties and he revels in shattering others' beliefs.

 

It is so easy to state that what you present as evident is not enough evident for me. It is so easy that it does not require much reflection.