If somebody wants to believe in god just because WIKIPEDIA in one of its entries says so

Doesn't the entry serve more as an argument AGAINST the elementary understanding of God, trying to use basic logic on the problem?
Its mildly surprising,amusing, a bit distressing, to see in the media, all the questions,theories, and applications of logic 'man' must have wondered at for centuries,(milenia?), and that are the first ones a child asks who is raised with teachings about "God" (...but Daddy, who made God,then?), and see them proposed with such pomp as if they are breaking new ground and evolving to new levels of insight.
If one wasn't mentally wondering and tossing it aro...

If somebody wants to believe in god just because WIKIPEDIA in one of its entries says so

Doesn't the entry serve more as an argument AGAINST the elementary understanding of God, trying to use basic logic on the problem?
Its mildly surprising,amusing, a bit distressing, to see in the media, all the questions,theories, and applications of logic 'man' must have wondered at for centuries,(milenia?), and that are the first ones a child asks who is raised with teachings about "God" (...but Daddy, who made God,then?), and see them proposed with such pomp as if they are breaking new ground and evolving to new levels of insight.
If one wasn't mentally wondering and tossing it around as a mystery as a very young child, one needs to 'catch up', in a sense, before dressing his oh-so profound adaptations of "logic" in such a revelatory air.

I refer more to postings such as Wiki and things I see 'out there' ; even other clips on this site.

This exercise in causation is interesting. It is saying that everything in the universe is a result of something preceding it. This, I can fathom up until the first thing that started the reaction.
It is highly unlikely that first thing is spontaneous. For something to come of nothingness is perplexing. Nothing is nothing, nada, zip, zilch. Not even energy. For something to appear is not possible as far as I know.
So Something Seeded the nothingness to start the reaction. Since we cannot know what that something is with any proof, we find that God is as good of an explanation as any. However it could also be due to a collision of dimensions or the universe could be the hole in a rip of spac...

This exercise in causation is interesting. It is saying that everything in the universe is a result of something preceding it. This, I can fathom up until the first thing that started the reaction.
It is highly unlikely that first thing is spontaneous. For something to come of nothingness is perplexing. Nothing is nothing, nada, zip, zilch. Not even energy. For something to appear is not possible as far as I know.
So Something Seeded the nothingness to start the reaction. Since we cannot know what that something is with any proof, we find that God is as good of an explanation as any. However it could also be due to a collision of dimensions or the universe could be the hole in a rip of space-time fabric that was polluted by other dimensions or realities.
I like to think that a being purposely created the source seed of the universe with a purpose. Like a morphing algorithm that was designed to chain-react to a predetermined outcome.
If God has the power to create life such as ours then it's not too far fetched to view the universe as a living entity.
There are many ways we can view creation. There are known constants that allow speculation in many different directions. I feel nobody is right or wrong. Nobody knows.
Perhaps the universe is a single cell in a much larger creature and we are the spark of life in the nucleus.
Perhaps this universe is all there is, but doesn't that just feel wrong?
Imagine all the matter in the universe turning into its energy equivalent. That energy is massive but what about the potential energy that resides in the dimensional planes. Is the potential energy, energy or is it something else? If the 3d reaction to release that energy never happens what happens to that energy? Does it exist or is it a phantom?
I have read multiple times that energy never dies, it just gets changed into other forms. Perhaps the universe was created by a collision of energy and potential energy. This is an interesting clip

If god created the universe, then what created god?

That is what is meant by non-contingent in the cosmological argument. I think it is important to distinguish that the argument in not "proof" as the clip title suggests. It is just simply an argument. One of dozens of equally valid arguments.

While I believe it to be utterly absurd to suggest, as Arifsali does in his critical-theoretical way, that God both exists and does not exist, I do believe he is correct in suggesting the folly of proof as it relates to God.

Arifsali, It seems to me you box God in. Do you not make God to be subject to a condition rather than master of the condition. You place God in a categor...

If god created the universe, then what created god?

That is what is meant by non-contingent in the cosmological argument. I think it is important to distinguish that the argument in not "proof" as the clip title suggests. It is just simply an argument. One of dozens of equally valid arguments.

While I believe it to be utterly absurd to suggest, as Arifsali does in his critical-theoretical way, that God both exists and does not exist, I do believe he is correct in suggesting the folly of proof as it relates to God.

Arifsali, It seems to me you box God in. Do you not make God to be subject to a condition rather than master of the condition. You place God in a category, rather than outside the category. That is like saying God has a face and he does not have face, or that God can be reduced to individual parts or ideas. Would that not mean God is subject to parts and ideas.

Anyway , I've heard you make that statement before, perhaps it is more of a theological concept for you, but I'd like to understand where you are coming from here.

perhaps it is more of a theological concept for you, but I'd like to understand where you are coming from here.

As I said above, the philosophers have argued over God hundreds of years ago. Let me quote just one source for now which is appropriate under the discussion, the topic is never-ending of course.

The Ismaili philosopher, Hamid al-Din al-Kirmani argues that the Godhead is not non-existent and then proceeds to show that He cannot be existent either.


“One group of existing things derive their existence from another group. If that other group of existing things from which this [first] group derives its existence from and...

perhaps it is more of a theological concept for you, but I'd like to understand where you are coming from here.

As I said above, the philosophers have argued over God hundreds of years ago. Let me quote just one source for now which is appropriate under the discussion, the topic is never-ending of course.

The Ismaili philosopher, Hamid al-Din al-Kirmani argues that the Godhead is not non-existent and then proceeds to show that He cannot be existent either.


“One group of existing things derive their existence from another group. If that other group of existing things from which this [first] group derives its existence from and from which its existence is contingent upon were not confirmed in existence, if it did not exist, then this [derived] group [of existing things] could not exist. Now, insofar as it is proven that that this group of existing things cannot have existence without this second group of existing things, then it is known that the Being to which all things derive their existence from God – there is no God but He, and that God is He who makes them existence. If God was a non-existent then the existing things must also be non-existent. But since the existing things exist therefore the supposition of its non-existence is invalid…

Okay. This is a 'proof' of a God figure, not necessarily the personal God religion speaks of. It merely states that, assuming causality is constant, which is to say non-contradiction is constant, then there must have originally been an uncaused cause to start it all.

As far as God existing and not existing: Existence is probably the wrong word here. If by existence, you mean materialistic and of this world, then no, God doesn't exist. If you mean to exptrapolate it's meaning to merely being, then yes, God does exist. It's difficult to try and impose qualities on a figure that by nature must exist outside of this universe. All this proof proves is that some type of uncaused figure caus...

Okay. This is a 'proof' of a God figure, not necessarily the personal God religion speaks of. It merely states that, assuming causality is constant, which is to say non-contradiction is constant, then there must have originally been an uncaused cause to start it all.

As far as God existing and not existing: Existence is probably the wrong word here. If by existence, you mean materialistic and of this world, then no, God doesn't exist. If you mean to exptrapolate it's meaning to merely being, then yes, God does exist. It's difficult to try and impose qualities on a figure that by nature must exist outside of this universe. All this proof proves is that some type of uncaused figure caused the beginning of this universe. As far as other explanations of the big bang, they don't take you anywhere. So the big bang was caused by something other than an uncaused agent. What caused it? Eventually, whether or not the big band was the start of it all, an uncaused agent must have started it all.

These terms (logical, rational etc) are all our terms

Of course they are our terms. They are still valid in the same way you use the words you have used to explain your views about God. The fact that God is beyond ourselves and our terms does not make our entire language useless. It just means that our language is deficient.
What is it about my contention that god exists and does not NOT exist makes me an idol worshipper?

I am not trying to be contentious, Arifsali. I think yours is an interesting concept, at least in the way I understand it.

However, you say logic can not apply. Then, you say: "if I don't follow thislogic then I'm simply an atheist because I know I'm not ...

These terms (logical, rational etc) are all our terms

Of course they are our terms. They are still valid in the same way you use the words you have used to explain your views about God. The fact that God is beyond ourselves and our terms does not make our entire language useless. It just means that our language is deficient.
What is it about my contention that god exists and does not NOT exist makes me an idol worshipper?

I am not trying to be contentious, Arifsali. I think yours is an interesting concept, at least in the way I understand it.

However, you say logic can not apply. Then, you say: "if I don't follow thislogic then I'm simply an atheist because I know I'm not an idol worshiper."
I have not seen your logic. I have just seen your contentions.

I am not challenging you. I am just seeking to understand.