Proving God's Existence (Part 2)

[behnam1999]

Hello again. This is part 2 of a series of posts which is going to prove that God exists. If you want to have access to part 1, click here.

In the last part, what I concluded was "Whatever that has come into existence has a cause" and I used some arguments to prove that, and I'm going to use this conclusion in this post and later posts to finally get to God. If you have any question or doubt about what was discussed in Part 1, you can ask either here or in my last post.

If we say something that has come into existence has a cause, we can say the same thing about its cause, maybe the cause has also come into existence and thus has a cause itself. So we come up with this chain of causes and effects. Now we have a few options here:

Option 1) This chain of causes and effects makes a closed circle, meaning both ends of this chain are connected together

like this:

cause 1 - cause 2 - cause 3 - cause 1 -..... (and over again)

Option 2) This chain of causes and effects has no beginning and is infinitely stretched both ways, making and infinite number of effects!!!

Option 3) This chain has a beginning, a first cause that has started everything.

Option 1)

This can't make any sense. Cause 1 has logical priority and precedence over cause 2 and 3, but again we say cause 3 has logical priority and precedence over cause 1 which is obviously a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. To make it more sensible, I am gonna mention this example:

Imagine a group of people sitting together on chairs in the form of a circle. They are told they can stand up only if there's nobody on their left that is still sitting down. This is a circle and obviously there is nobody standing up on the leftmost side so that everybody else can stand up, so nobody will stand up at all. We can relate this to the cause and effect chain we were talking about.

Option 2)

If we say the cause and effect chain is infinite, that means we have infinite beings that are in need of a cause but somehow the entirety of the chain is needless of any cause because its infinite. It's like saying infinite ignorance, makes knowledge!! Or like saying infinite number of zeroes makes one!! To understand this better we can use this example:

Imagine an infinite number of runners participating in a race, all standing behind the starting line. They are told they can start to run only if there's nobody on their left that hasn't started to run. Obviously the race never begins, because there is an infinite number of runners, there is no leftmost runner that starts running so everybody else begins to run, thus nobody starts running.

Option 3)

This is the only sensible option that is left.

Sum up:

1. Whatever that begins to exist has a cause. (Discussed and proved in part 1)

2. This makes a chain of causes and effect.

3. Options 1 and 2 which were mentioned above are debunked.

4. This chain of causes and effects has a beginning and a first cause that has no cause, because it did not begin to exist, and has always been there. (Consider that this does not contradict my first premise, because I never said everything that exists has a cause, I said everything that began to exist has a cause.)

Now, the question is, well, how can we know that this first cause is God, a conscious being that is omnipotent, omniscient? I will discuss this in the next parts.

I'm waiting for your responses, and don't forget to check out part 1, because every part is based on the previous one.

[OfDeath]

Problems with your argument: You ignore that actual infinities exist within logic. The existence of literal infinities can't be ruled out by straw man examples like a race that never begins or a hotel that can never have a vacancy. These are fantasy scenarios and not the same kinds of infinities we don't know whether or not exist.

You also fail to realise that positing a beginning to a chain of things that begin to exist with something which did not begin to exist doesn't in any way prove a god or that this beginner embodies the qualities like being timeless or immaterial (which I know is where you're going with this). There are no immaterial objects and the immaterial does not influence the material in all observations ever made. So your conclusion is nothing other than fantasy.

You're also at a loss when you need to explain why an uncaused cause would be a god when that god is reliant on the uncaused being a factor of reality in order to exist. That which is reliant, can't be a first cause. There is no way to get out of that dilemma for your god. That which it relies on to exist in the first place, obviates it from being an explanation. You're inserting an unnecessary middle man between nothing and something.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

"Now, the question is, well, how can we know that this first cause is God, a conscious being that is omnipotent, omniscient?"

This is the answer I want to see.

[behnam1999]

Of course. There's a third part coming. Let's see if people have questions about anything that I have discussed so far. Because if we doubt any of this, there is no point in going further, because the basis is defective.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Give me the link of the next part once it's ready please.

[behnam1999]

Of course. You have any objection to what I have discussed so far?

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

I don't think so.

[behnam1999]

Ok. So, I will send you the link of the third part when it is finished.