On the Universe as A Creation of God, the Supreme Spirit Being

[Tryggvi]

Why do Catholics believe that the universe and all life in it was created by, and is governed by, an all-powerful Spirit Being called God? What actual proof is there of God's existence and omnipotence?

Catholics believe that the universe is the creation, and the exclusive dominion, of an infinitely powerful Spirit Being, called God, because the evidence which points to that conclusion is so overwhelming that there is no room left for even the slightest vestige of doubt. First, there is the evidence of logic. Through the process of simple mathematical-type reasoning, man inevitably comes face to face with certain indisputable principles: Everything has a cause; nothing can bring itself into existence. Obviously there is a long chain of causes in the universe, but ultimately there must be a first cause, an uncaused cause. This uncaused cause we call ``God.''

Logics: The basics

1. In order for matter to exist, the universe must exist.
2. Without universe no matter.
3. Without matter no time (that's how time is defined).
4. Without time no cause and effect.
5. Without cause and effect the universe cannot be the effect of a cause.
6. From 1. - 5. we conclude that God cannot be the cause of the universe.

;P

[Milesian]

Logics: The basics

1. In order for matter to exist, the universe must exist.
2. Without universe no matter.
3. Without matter no time (that's how time is defined).
4. Without time no cause and effect.
5. Without cause and effect the universe cannot be the effect of a cause.
6. From 1. - 5. we conclude that God cannot be the cause of the universe.

;P

Wow, it took you only several seconds to pounce. Your hatred, sorry "contempt" of Christianity knows no bounds. Perhaps I should just become a Moslem to get an easy life here from you

I believe your logic to be flawed
I would think it follows that if we ask ourselves the origin of the universe we must come to one of two conclusions.

i) That there was ultimately a singular cause which brought everything else into existence.

ii) That there was no cause and the universe has existed forever

Current science seems to favour the former, therefore I will leave the latter for the moment.
Now if we believe that there was an original cause for the universe, which existed before everything else, then there could be no cause of this first. In effect, that which brought all else into existence is an Uncaused Caused. Current science also agrees, it calls it's Uncaused Cause - The Big Bang.
Christians call it God

[Tryggvi]

Wow, it took you only several seconds to pounce. Your hatred, sorry "contempt" of Christianity knows no bounds. Perhaps I should just become a Moslem to get an easy life here from you

That would help. You'd get lots of rep points from me and ladygoeth33, too.

I believe your logic to be flawed

Ja? In which step is the flaw?

Now if we believe that there was an original cause for the universe, which existed before everything else ...

And what did god do all the infinite time before he got bored and created the universe and angels as helpers (albeit he is omnipotent and needs no help)?

[Milesian]

That would help. You'd get lots of rep points from me and ladygoeth33, too.

I'm happy with my own desert religion, thanks

And what did god do all the infinite time before he got bored and created the universe and angels as helpers (albeit he is omnipotent and needs no help)?

Your answered yourself in Step 3. Without matter, there is no time, apparantly

[Tryggvi]

Your answered yourself in Step 3. Without matter, there is no time, apparantly

And without time no cause and effect.

[Milesian]

And without time no cause and effect.

Therefore, without cause and effect, there can be no time?
But that is obviously not so, I can see my watch ticking, I see people age, I see the seasons come and go, we can observe the law of Entropy at work. Therefore the universe runs one way through time, and time exists, therefore one concludes that your premise is faulty

[Milesian]

Actually, where your logic makes the mistake is at point 1.
God is not corporeal, therefore matter is not a prerequisite, therefore the chain of points is irrelevant

[Tryggvi]

Therefore, without cause and effect, there can be no time?

No, the e contrario conclusion would be fallacious.

Compare:

1. Without water no huöman life.
2. Without human life no water (fallacious).

1. Without Catholics no Holy Inquisition.
2. Without Holy Inquisition no Catholics (fallacious).

Similarly:

1. Without time no cause and effect.
2. Without cause and effect no time (fallacious).

[Milesian]

No, the e contrario conclusion would be fallacious.

Compare:

1. Without water no huöman life.
2. Without human life no water (fallacious).

1. Without Catholics no Holy Inquisition.
2. Without Holy Inquisition no Catholics (fallacious).

Similarly:

1. Without time no cause and effect.
2. Without cause and effect no time (fallacious).

Yes, that is actually quite correct, Njord.
I noticed that after I re-read the post the reasoning of that particular post was incorrect.
However, my following post remarked that as God is not composed of matter, then the flow of points fall at the first hurdle as it does not apply

[Tryggvi]

Actually, where your logic makes the mistake is at point 1.
God is not corporeal...

Yes, that's one of the strongest arguments against the existence of an omniscient god.

An omniscient god should have physical knowledge but being immaterial, it cannot.

Consequently, the Christian god either doesn't exist, or it is not omniscient. Note that Odin, the allfather of our rational, Germanic ancestors, isn't omniscient. He had to earn his knowledge the hard way, like everyone else.