A Jew Proves the Existence of God aka the Primal Cause

[Ben Masada]

A Jew Proves the Existence of God aka the Primal Cause

The universe is composed of matter from the size of a galaxy down to the size of an atom. In 1922 a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre formulated the theory of the big bang. Never minding that he was a Theist, Scientists from all over the word, especially Cosmologists immediately adopted the theory of the big bang as the best the world had achieved so far as the beginning of the universe was concerned. Carl Sagan in his book "Cosmos" declared in page 285 that the big bang had given us the beginning of the universe.

Now, that we have the best to assert that the universe had a beginning, I would like to ask if the universe caused itself to exist or it was caused by something else that preceded it. Any attempt to reply that the universe always existed, will contradict the big bang and together with it, about 90% of all scientists throughout the world.

if the reply is "yes" that the universe caused itself to exist, how could it have caused itself to exist if it already existed? If it already existed, there would be no need to cause itself to exist for it already existed. Bottom line, the universe was caused to exist by something else that preceded its existence. If the reply is "no" that the universe did not cause itself to exist, it is only obvious that it was caused to exist by something else not composed of matter aka the Primal Cause to explain the fact that It is not constituted of matter.

According to the concept of Causality, cause & effect cannot extend back ad infinitum or the Primal Cause that caused the beginning of the universe would not be there to cause the beginning. Hence, "In the Beginning HaShem aka the Primal Cause caused the beginning of the universe." (Gen. 1:1)

 

[Interplanner]

Stay tuned. I will try to reprint a few paragraphs from Dr. Schaeffer on the options for the cause of the beginning, from GENESIS IN SPACE AND TIME. He was spot on. Can't do it right now.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

...According to the concept of Causality, cause & effect cannot extend back ad infinitum or the Primal Cause that caused the beginning of the universe would not be there to cause the beginning....

This is reasoning in a circle.

You can't rule out infinite regression into the past. 1 notion thats out they're, is that the universe vibrate's between state's of existence and non-existence. If thats not whats happening, how would we know?


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Interplanner]

This is reasoning in a circle.

You can't rule out infinite regression into the past. 1 notion thats out they're, is that the universe vibrate's between state's of existence and non-existence. If thats not whats happening, how would we know?


DJ

1.0
​

I think you mean if it IS happening (and there is non-existence) how would we know?

A: because there is no period that we know of of non-existence going back. The 'metaphysical' problem would not go away (why is there something, instead of nothing) because there was some existence. So non-existence does not solve anything, unless you are really anxious and depressed and don't want to believe you exist. The closed system of natural causes and effects, is, after all, part of Eastern religious fatalism.

 

[Interplanner]

"Man is shut up to relatively few answers (about primal cause)... Here there are four:
1, Once there was absolutely nothing and now there is something
2 Everything began with an impersonal something
3 Everything began with a personal something
4 there is and always has been a dualism...

"An impersonal beginning explains neither the form of the universe nor the personality of man... but the Judeo-Christian tradition begins with the opposite answer. The universe had a personal beginning (in God)..." p21

 

[Dan Emanuel]

"Man is shut up to relatively few answers (about primal cause)... Here there are four:
1, Once there was absolutely nothing and now there is something...

Bare assertion is not evidence, for an unnamed legitimate expert. This is so that we can all judge whether or not this quoted source, is in fact a legitimate expert. Then we must check that what this source is saying, align's with the vast majority of other expert's in that same field in which this expert is an expert, because an appeal to authority, when valid, is by definition not an extreme position, within, the field in question. They're is no valid way to appeal to authority on any matter that is not the super majority view of all the expert's within that exact field that pertain's to the claim in question, I.O.W. You can make any case you'd like for any position you'd like, but if your making a case for an extreme position within any field, you've automatically (because of logical necessity, not by conscious choice necessarily) forfeited, the appeal to authority, in making you're case, for you're extreme position.

...2 Everything began with an impersonal something...

I.O.O.W., you can't even prove that they're is not still nothing! What is nothing? Define nothing! Once they're was this, this, this S.T.U.F.F.; called nothing. It was everywhere. And it was not nowhere. Then --nothing was gone.

So you say. Nice story. Occam called, and he want's his razor back because we don't know how to use it. We're disgracing ourselve's because we're not using it right.

Nothing never was.

...3 Everything began with a personal something...

Bare assertion.

Its worthy of note that their are many topic's for which an appeal to authority is invalid, because the expert's in the field themselve's, divide on the precise matter in question --the expert's do not divide into a super majority on the matter; they just divide. You can't appeal to authority validly when their's no super majority in the body of expert's in the relevant field or field's? No, you cannot.

Cloud's are made of moisture. So say's Harvey the weather caster. Harvey is a certified, recognized, accepted, expert in the weather casting field. Most of Harveys colleague's, other certified, recognized, accepted expert's in the weather casting field, would confirm that what Harvey say's here is in fact true. So this is a valid appeal to authority. Its unnecessary in common parlance to reveal this underlying language but its they're, and sometime's we should remember its their. I appeal to authority, that cloud's are made of moisture. We see white, but its moisture. Fact. Proven by a valid appeal to authority. I appealed to a named expert who offered the super majority position of all of the other expert's in Harveys field of weather casting. Therefore, cloud's are made of moisture. When Jesus come's, Hes coming in the cloud's. Hes coming in water. Appeal to authority?

...4 there is and always has been a dualism......

Like, between nothing and not nothing? Thats imaginary dualism, since nothing never was, and nothing is not now. I don't think you can prove me wrong. Show me nothing, produce nothing. Lay out nothing for us so we all know what we're talking about here.

..."An impersonal beginning explains neither the form of the universe nor the personality of man......

Unless it does; is my 1st thought. As a modern person, I'm not unimpressed with the argument against the existence of God. If their's no God, then the exact opposite of this is true. I don't happen to find the argument against God compelling. Mainly because I believe in Jesus, and I know thats circular, and thats what make's it religion, and I'm free to my religion, and I like the religion where I can be a youngster for the rest of my life.

...but the Judeo-Christian tradition begins with the opposite answer. The universe had a personal beginning (in God)..." p21

They're are two time's where Scripture tell's us exactly what we need to know about the beginning.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word is not nothing.


DJ

1.0​

 

[OCTOBER23]

Let me see............

CLOSE YOUR EYES

WHAT DO YOU SEE ?

NOTHING ?

THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD EVENTUALLY BE WITHOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE.

See you in the Kingdom . :rapture:

 

[Ben Masada]

A Jew Proves the Existence of God aka the Primal Cause

A Jew Proves the Existence of God aka the Primal Cause

This is reasoning in a circle.

You can't rule out infinite regression into the past. 1 notion thats out they're, is that the universe vibrate's between state's of existence and non-existence. If thats not whats happening, how would we know?

What I meant by saying "...or the Primal Cause would not be there to cause the universe to exist" was simply the existence of the Primal Cause.

 

[Ben Masada]

A Jew Proves the Existence of God aka the Primal Cause

A Jew Proves the Existence of God aka the Primal Cause

They're are two time's where Scripture tell's us exactly what we need to know about the beginning.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word is not nothing.

Here is how I see the beginning. In the beginning God created the universe. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was OF God and the Word was God. That's the only way to think of God as an absolute Oneness.

 

[Ben Masada]

Let me see............

CLOSE YOUR EYES

WHAT DO YOU SEE ?

NOTHING ?

THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD EVENTUALLY BE WITHOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE.

See you in the Kingdom . :rapture:

Do you have any idea what you mean by "See you in the Kingdom?"

It means, "See you among the Jews." Where does this come from? Exodus 19:6. "And you shall be to Me a Kingdom of priests and a Holy Nation." These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel aka the Jews as the new Israel. (Isa. 48:1)

 

[Interplanner]

Bare assertion is not evidence, for an unnamed legitimate expert. This is so that we can all judge whether or not this quoted source, is in fact a legitimate expert. Then we must check that what this source is saying, align's with the vast majority of other expert's in that same field in which this expert is an expert, because an appeal to authority, when valid, is by definition not an extreme position, within, the field in question. They're is no valid way to appeal to authority on any matter that is not the super majority view of all the expert's within that exact field that pertain's to the claim in question, I.O.W. You can make any case you'd like for any position you'd like, but if your making a case for an extreme position within any field, you've automatically (because of logical necessity, not by conscious choice necessarily) forfeited, the appeal to authority, in making you're case, for you're extreme position.
I.O.O.W., you can't even prove that they're is not still nothing! What is nothing? Define nothing! Once they're was this, this, this S.T.U.F.F.; called nothing. It was everywhere. And it was not nowhere. Then --nothing was gone.

So you say. Nice story. Occam called, and he want's his razor back because we don't know how to use it. We're disgracing ourselve's because we're not using it right.

Nothing never was.
Bare assertion.

Its worthy of note that their are many topic's for which an appeal to authority is invalid, because the expert's in the field themselve's, divide on the precise matter in question --the expert's do not divide into a super majority on the matter; they just divide. You can't appeal to authority validly when their's no super majority in the body of expert's in the relevant field or field's? No, you cannot.

Cloud's are made of moisture. So say's Harvey the weather caster. Harvey is a certified, recognized, accepted, expert in the weather casting field. Most of Harveys colleague's, other certified, recognized, accepted expert's in the weather casting field, would confirm that what Harvey say's here is in fact true. So this is a valid appeal to authority. Its unnecessary in common parlance to reveal this underlying language but its they're, and sometime's we should remember its their. I appeal to authority, that cloud's are made of moisture. We see white, but its moisture. Fact. Proven by a valid appeal to authority. I appealed to a named expert who offered the super majority position of all of the other expert's in Harveys field of weather casting. Therefore, cloud's are made of moisture. When Jesus come's, Hes coming in the cloud's. Hes coming in water. Appeal to authority?
Like, between nothing and not nothing? Thats imaginary dualism, since nothing never was, and nothing is not now. I don't think you can prove me wrong. Show me nothing, produce nothing. Lay out nothing for us so we all know what we're talking about here.
Unless it does; is my 1st thought. As a modern person, I'm not unimpressed with the argument against the existence of God. If their's no God, then the exact opposite of this is true. I don't happen to find the argument against God compelling. Mainly because I believe in Jesus, and I know thats circular, and thats what make's it religion, and I'm free to my religion, and I like the religion where I can be a youngster for the rest of my life.
They're are two time's where Scripture tell's us exactly what we need to know about the beginning.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word is not nothing.


DJ

1.0​

What Dr. Schaeffer was doing in those pages was summarizing the four options about primal cause. If you found some you didn't like, that's probably because only one will stand at the end of the day. He knew that; he was simply organizing his discussion of them.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

What Dr. Schaeffer was doing in those pages was summarizing the four options about primal cause. If you found some you didn't like, that's probably because only one will stand at the end of the day. He knew that; he was simply organizing his discussion of them.

Only 1 of them is even sensible. The other's postulate this entity "nothing," and I contend that "nothing" is a ghost or an apparition. Nothing was not in the beginning, is not now, and never shall be. I don't think it can be proven wrong.

What field is it where the fields expert's are expert's on God? They're are other example's probably, but I contend that the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church constitute's the entire valid field; composed entirely of the Churches' validly ordained and consecrated bishop's. When they all agree with each other, this constitute's the super majority on the matter, and we can appeal to there authority. The only wrinkle is that they're is a single officer in the field, with whom everybody else must agree, in order for there view to be a valid Church teaching. It is the man presiding over the whole Church right now, the archbishop of the particular Church at Rome, who's official name is the second most popular male name in all Italy (behind Giuseppe). The convenient thing is that the official teaching of the Church doesn't change much at all, and when it does, it become's more refined and clearer than it was before.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Interplanner]

Only 1 of them is even sensible. The other's postulate this entity "nothing," and I contend that "nothing" is a ghost or an apparition. Nothing was not in the beginning, is not now, and never shall be. I don't think it can be proven wrong.

What field is it where the fields expert's are expert's on God? They're are other example's probably, but I contend that the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church constitute's the entire valid field; composed entirely of the Churches' validly ordained and consecrated bishop's. When they all agree with each other, this constitute's the super majority on the matter, and we can appeal to there authority. The only wrinkle is that they're is a single officer in the field, with whom everybody else must agree, in order for there view to be a valid Church teaching. It is the man presiding over the whole Church right now, the archbishop of the particular Church at Rome, who's official name is the second most popular male name in all Italy (behind Giuseppe). The convenient thing is that the official teaching of the Church doesn't change much at all, and when it does, it become's more refined and clearer than it was before.


DJ

1.0
​

Since T. Huxley, the West has been taught that 1 and 2 are the only realistic options.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Since T. Huxley, the West has been taught that 1 and 2 are the only realistic options.

Circular reasoning. When we see circular reasoning being employed, does it automatically render the position invalid? No. You're point can be valid even when you're reason's do not support it. In this case religious faith is ruled out arbitrarily, but what I'm saying is that in so doing, language itself is ruled out, like a helium balloon released into the atmosphere, language is no longer in contact with the ground when we're talking about the beginning, and we invoke "nothing."

Nothing never was.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Interplanner]

I can't tell whether you are commenting about me or them. You're not clear.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

I can't tell whether you are commenting about me or them. You're not clear.

Gold star. (Its a good thing. )


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Interplanner]

Gold star. (Its a good thing. )


DJ

1.0
​

I still don't know what you mean. If it's important to you, say what you mean in terms of the 4 options.

 

[Ben Masada]

A Jew Proves the Existence of God aka the Primal Cause

A Jew Proves the Existence of God aka the Primal Cause

Stay tuned. I will try to reprint a few paragraphs from Dr. Schaeffer on the options for the cause of the beginning, from GENESIS IN SPACE AND TIME. He was spot on. Can't do it right now.

All right but, in the meantime tell us something of your own understanding of the Scriptures. The appeal to authority is a little too uncertain. I mean, something like chewing on a cud already digested by another.

 

[Interplanner]

In terms of the few options available in metaphysics/being? The Christian/Scriptural position is that everything came from a personal Creator who always existed.

The other three are:
1, once there was absolutely nothing and now there is something (Sartre's dilemma)
2, everything came from an impersonal beginning of time, chance
3, there is and always has been a dualism (notice the need for an 'always')

 

[Ben Masada]

A Jew Proves the Existence of God aka the Primal Cause

A Jew Proves the Existence of God aka the Primal Cause

1 - In terms of the few options available in metaphysics/being? The Christian/Scriptural position is that everything came from a personal Creator who always existed.

The other three are:
1, once there was absolutely nothing and now there is something (Sartre's dilemma)
2, everything came from an impersonal beginning of time, chance
3, there is and always has been a dualism (notice the need for an 'always')

1 - ...Who always exists. "Existed" implies that It no longer exists.

2 - Sartre was wrong. There has never been an absolute nothing. The Primal Cause has always existed.

3 - Time and space came about as a result of the creation of matter.

4 - The absolute Oneness of HaShem has always been. Therefore, nothing to do with dualism.