This is no different from the uncaused causer argument, is nothing new, and has many flaws. For instance, if you take the perspective of a causal determinist then it does not matter whether this "necessary being", upon which all contingent beings are contingent of, is a life form (like an omniscient god) or simply a cosmic cycle of protraction (like expansion) and retraction (like shrinking). Thus, it does not prove conclusively that an omniscient god exists, just that there was a cause (not that there was an uncaused cause, but just that there was a cause). These "uncaused causer" arguments seem to go awry in their logical deduction by assuming that at one point nothing existed (like the bible suggests), but this is not necessarily the case.
There was a time I had similar Question While the argument about causal loops like the expansion and contraction theory of the universe offers an alternative explanation, it doesn’t necessarily explain how or why that loop came into existence in the first place. The central question that remains is: why is there something rather than nothing? Even if we accept that causes are part of a perpetual cycle, we still haven’t explained how the cycle itself came into being, or why such a cycle exists at all. It may be self-sustaining now, but what set it in motion?
@DEEPSHEET Yes, but let's get clear on some language. If it is self-sustaining, what is to say that it needed something to set it in motion? After all the idea of that cosmic cycle hypothesis is that it doesn't need a causer to keep it in motion, so why would it need something to put it into motion? This is what I meant by "the problem with uncaused causer arguments". They always make an assumption that there needs to be an initial causer, and that this caused us the sentiment omniscience called God (also, is it just me or is this starting to seem like a horseshoe theory of religion). See naming this thing that supposedly started the chain of events in the fabric of the universe that lead to our current moment "God is nothing new, but we've created stories around the concept of God that I think are either A) false, or B) gives this concept of "God" characteristics that don't necessarily follow from the premises of any axioms rooted in the unknown/unknowable. Even in mathematical sciences there are things that we know we can not prove. I believe this applies to both the belief that God exists, and the belief that God doesn't exist. Beyond that, who am I to say one way or another? I believe humility is the greatest virtue, but it is also the most elusive because in almost any statement there are assumptions that we don't know for certain. I think this agnostic position is the only humble position to take, thus I have taken it, and I'm happy with it, as I'm sure you're happy about your own beliefs.
@@drewpocernich2540 Let’s critically analyze both scenarios you referred whether God exists or not and their implications. Scenario 1: God Exists If God exists, those who believe in the true God may gain eternal reward, while those who don’t believe or follow the wrong path could face significant consequences, such as eternal loss or punishment. The stakes are high, as belief in God could mean the difference between spiritual fulfillment or eternal doom. Scenario 2: God Does Not Exist If there’s no God, no one faces eternal punishment, and death is simply the end. However, religious believers still benefit from a life of purpose, moral guidance, and community. Even if their belief turns out to be false, they lose nothing of ultimate consequence, having lived fulfilling, structured lives. So If God exists, belief carries a potential eternal reward, while non-belief risks significant loss. If God doesn’t exist, believers still gain a meaningful life, while non-believers lose nothing. Thus, belief in God offers both potential eternal benefits and practical life advantages, making it a rational choice.
@DEEPSHEET That has nothing to do with whether or not God does exist. It does give an economic insight into the sensibility of spirituality for humans, but has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. Very economical (in a game theory sense) and existentially minded, but not very logical to propose in this discussion (on the proof of the existence of God) in the first place. Ultimately, it's all just humans being humans. We're all deluded in some way and no one really cares about the truth, but instead what is good for them, and in a social species like humans (scientific) generalizability increases group coherence (see also the book titled mutual aid by Peter Kropotkin) which leads to better outcomes for all. Cheers friend, I'll join back into the delusion when I feel satisfied.
This is no different from the uncaused causer argument, is nothing new, and has many flaws. For instance, if you take the perspective of a causal determinist then it does not matter whether this "necessary being", upon which all contingent beings are contingent of, is a life form (like an omniscient god) or simply a cosmic cycle of protraction (like expansion) and retraction (like shrinking). Thus, it does not prove conclusively that an omniscient god exists, just that there was a cause (not that there was an uncaused cause, but just that there was a cause). These "uncaused causer" arguments seem to go awry in their logical deduction by assuming that at one point nothing existed (like the bible suggests), but this is not necessarily the case.
There was a time I had similar Question While the argument about causal loops like the expansion and contraction theory of the universe offers an alternative explanation, it doesn’t necessarily explain how or why that loop came into existence in the first place. The central question that remains is: why is there something rather than nothing? Even if we accept that causes are part of a perpetual cycle, we still haven’t explained how the cycle itself came into being, or why such a cycle exists at all. It may be self-sustaining now, but what set it in motion?
@DEEPSHEET
Yes, but let's get clear on some language. If it is self-sustaining, what is to say that it needed something to set it in motion? After all the idea of that cosmic cycle hypothesis is that it doesn't need a causer to keep it in motion, so why would it need something to put it into motion? This is what I meant by "the problem with uncaused causer arguments". They always make an assumption that there needs to be an initial causer, and that this caused us the sentiment omniscience called God (also, is it just me or is this starting to seem like a horseshoe theory of religion). See naming this thing that supposedly started the chain of events in the fabric of the universe that lead to our current moment "God is nothing new, but we've created stories around the concept of God that I think are either A) false, or
B) gives this concept of "God" characteristics that don't necessarily follow from the premises of any axioms rooted in the unknown/unknowable. Even in mathematical sciences there are things that we know we can not prove. I believe this applies to both the belief that God exists, and the belief that God doesn't exist. Beyond that, who am I to say one way or another? I believe humility is the greatest virtue, but it is also the most elusive because in almost any statement there are assumptions that we don't know for certain. I think this agnostic position is the only humble position to take, thus I have taken it, and I'm happy with it, as I'm sure you're happy about your own beliefs.
@@drewpocernich2540 Let’s critically analyze both scenarios you referred whether God exists or not and their implications.
Scenario 1: God Exists
If God exists, those who believe in the true God may gain eternal reward, while those who don’t believe or follow the wrong path could face significant consequences, such as eternal loss or punishment. The stakes are high, as belief in God could mean the difference between spiritual fulfillment or eternal doom.
Scenario 2: God Does Not Exist
If there’s no God, no one faces eternal punishment, and death is simply the end. However, religious believers still benefit from a life of purpose, moral guidance, and community. Even if their belief turns out to be false, they lose nothing of ultimate consequence, having lived fulfilling, structured lives.
So If God exists, belief carries a potential eternal reward, while non-belief risks significant loss. If God doesn’t exist, believers still gain a meaningful life, while non-believers lose nothing. Thus, belief in God offers both potential eternal benefits and practical life advantages, making it a rational choice.
@DEEPSHEET
That has nothing to do with whether or not God does exist. It does give an economic insight into the sensibility of spirituality for humans, but has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. Very economical (in a game theory sense) and existentially minded, but not very logical to propose in this discussion (on the proof of the existence of God) in the first place. Ultimately, it's all just humans being humans. We're all deluded in some way and no one really cares about the truth, but instead what is good for them, and in a social species like humans (scientific) generalizability increases group coherence (see also the book titled mutual aid by Peter Kropotkin) which leads to better outcomes for all. Cheers friend, I'll join back into the delusion when I feel satisfied.
@@drewpocernich2540 hope it won't be too late, cheers