Even brick walls are a little porous!    

Oh yes, we can prove the existence of God ....through causality, on this principle if there were no God, there would be no you or me...from universal reasoning....from reason and Natural or Moral Law, from the voice of conscience and lastly from justice as I have just mentioned.

A good question as far as it goes, but there is more. There is another component that you are either not aware of or ignoring yet, must be acknowledged. We must first ask how do you know that what you are doing is good, loving compassionate or honest and 2nd....from where or whom do these virtuous acts come?

To be good, loving, compassionate and honest for yourself or fellow man implies that right ought to be done. Why ought it be done? Ought or must supposes a Lawgiver. All law derives its force from the right of a lawgiver. To do what is right or what one ought to dopushes us straight back to doing right for the sake of the Author of all that is right.

The bottom line is that no one can be or do these virtuous acts for right's sake if he ignores God for without God he cannot prove that what he thinks to be right or good or loving or compassionate or honest, is right or has any binding force at all.  

No, just because we are here does not mean that there is a God. That's a flawed premise. We physically exist because we have evolved into what we are today; we mentally (etc) exist because of...simply put, "Je pense' donc je suis." I think therefore I am (Descartes). So our existance is merely a perception based of of our biological structure/evolution, etc.

Whether or not God was involved is another question. 

I for one, would like to you proove the assertion, in detail.

Because the people are not crying out in pain, are smiling, grateful, and so on; that would be the first way.These acts, technically, come from me and likely the emotions behind them are biological responses.

(I can be a pain in the butt, sorry, lol. )

It ought to be done because to cause harm is wrong, and actually it would imply a law system and set of standards that a society/world has adopted. Therein, those adopted standards may or may not come from a religion, and may or may not come from a God. Look at Buddhism, they have a set of standards/morals. Yet, they do not believe in your God.

I disagree, a person can justify a right and wrong. In fact, the law system does it without God all the time. You don't hear any one judge saying "I am ruling this way because of God." Well, not any competant judge. (Since they're supposed to uphold the law, not religion or their beliefs/opinion)

I already have proved the existence of God from justice .....as summed up in the highlighted below.

And you confirmed it by saying....

The existence of God can be proven from causality.  But we should first answer,  Who is God?

The universe limited in all its details could not be its own cause. It couldn't come together with all its regulating laws anymore than the most famous bridges could just happen or a clock could assemble itself and keep perfect time without a clock-maker.

Right reasoning asserts every effect has a cause. Primary, secondary, and extended effects relate back to First Cause. Fire, mist, time, force, matter, a tree and termites, you and me all are effects of one First Cause. The Cosmos presupposes a cause, a being necessarily outside the thing produced. All creation stands in ultimate contrast to the cause of its production. This uncreated Cause --this Being having no cause, no beginning--Christians name God.

The Eternal Creator is necessarily sovereign Lord and Master over all created beings, man included. Since no thing posesses a quality not found in its cause, the supreme qualities in nature are manifestations of the qualities of the Creator of nature.

Nature evidences the elevation, expansion, and extension of Creation. Order, beauty, and harmony in nature evidences design, intention and intelligence of God.

God is the Supreme self-existent, infinitely perfect Eternal Spirit who designed, created and rules the universe. God is the Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth and Moral Ruler of man. God is the Author of all good. ANd this is why I prompted you to think along those lines after telling us you are a good person....and we believe you, but where do you get this goodness is the deeper question? I answered by saying being "good" supposes a Lawgiver.

Where is God? And what are His Perfections?

God is in Heaven, on earth, and in all places. He is everywhere present...Omnipresent. God had no beginning and can have no end. He is Eternal, Unchangeable, can do all things whatsoever He pleases, for He is ALmighty. God knows and sees all things, even our thoughts, for He is all-knowing.

While the universe is the work of God's omnipotent power and dependent upon Him for its maintainence, He--God--is eternally distinct from His creation.

Right reason sustains belief in God by logically going from effect to cause, the human mind finally comes to the First Great Cause--God.

The changing phenomena of the material universe is a single great effect which must have emanated from an efficient cause, an un-caused cause. The universe can only be seen, intellectually, by being placed in contrast to that which does not change, its Cause. Thus its multitudous effect stands over against an Ultimate Cause-God. We know rationally that this First Cause is not merely equal but necessarily superior to all the effects which flow from all natural causes taken together.

This Ultimate Cause must have personality, intelligence and free will, since we ourselves, whom God created, have intelligence and free will. While this First Cause is responsible for our existence, it is not the cause of our free-will acts. We are responsible for our obedience to the Natural Law of our being, namely, the law obliging us to acquire the knowledge of our First Cause, and so to obey the holy will of God and to worship Him.

We "Evolved" from what; from who? My genes go back to Adam and Eve....and since there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned against God...there couldn't have been any previous ancestors...animal, human or otherwise.

Our existence is merely a perception? Really? When you are do good as you described is that just perception? Or when you are in pain, is that just perception...or really real? If it's really real, then you, my dear, are really real.

Precisely, every thing has something that causes it, in whatever way. However, there are two things wrong with it when it comes to the idea of God:

1. If we accept that we are here because there is a god, then it implies that every thing has its source - hence, God must have its source because Go's occurance would imply that there is something needed to cause it. Right?

2.Even if God causes Man, and that shows evidence that man was caused by God - that doesn't necessarily settle the entire discussion. The reason is that there could be a factor, say Z, that is the actual thing that caused Man, not God. Therefore, we're stuck back at the question of who created us, if we were in fact created. 

First off, that's your opinion - history and science proove otherwise. As to answer your question: Primates. I do have a question though - How do you know that Adam and Eve were not lower/past form of Primate?

1. There is a theory that our existance is merely because we think.

2. What is real Lula? Is what we call reality real, or is it merely the perception we all have (collectively or individually) of our surroundings. Would other beings perceive things the same way and call it reality?

It doesn't confirm it because it doesn't confirm any higher being. Any sentient creature can naturally form a structured system simiilar within it's species or habitat if it has the intelligence.

Oi vey...my eyes are crossed now.

~Alderic

No, this isn't right.

Consider what I wrote:

God, the Creator can't be a creature which He would be if He were made. God Himself told us that He is the I AM WHO AM. In other words, God has no past or future. He is Eternal Being and therefore with out a beginning or an end. To ask, Who made the Eternal is as absurd as to ask When the Eternal the Timeless began.

Hang in there...in studying the source of created things, right reason demands that we go from the finite back to the last in the series, beyond which we come to the Infinite. For man, a dependent calls for the existence of a Necessary Being, who is  Independent existing by and of Himself....Our Lord Almighty God.

Now, for a moment look at God as I hold Him to be as stated above, the First Cause. The First is first, right? Of course it is. Then why ask, if the first is first, who made the First?   

Because by your reasoning, every Y must exist because of X. Hence...the dilemma.

If causality posits that Man exists because of God, because the existance of man implies a creator (in this case god)...then doesn't that set a precedent for implying the need for a creator, of a creator? i.e. A creator of god? Yes, if one is to assume that a thing need be created by another thing. Which, is what you've implied in the case of Man. This would be applied to all things given that all of the laws of the universe apply to everything.

So such an argument would become redundant... and would essentially disprove itself, as there'd have to be an infinite number of gods. But then that throws away the very concept of anything needing any creator because

There is a possibility that we were not created by God, but God could still exist none the less (as a concept), which therein sort of screws up the concept of a god as we know it. So at the end, we're largely left with, "I don't know."

If one believes in God, then one has to believe in the possibility that God does not exist, otherwise one must believe that there is a God who was created by another God and so on to infinity. So then one cannot believe in a single God, then, and defeats his own belief. Unless of course, you don't believe in the idea of one begets another, etc.. But then you wouldn't believe that by existence alone there must be a creator, either. Therein confounding your reasoning.

So, by that argument you must admit that it is possible that we were created without a creator, as such you have opened yourself to doubt and shown a flaw in the logical reasoning of Y being, because of X.

~Alderic

Make any sense?

There is no doubt, there is no possibility that we were created without a Creator, there is no dilemna in my reasoning.....I defined X as Almighty God, the First Cause. The first X is first X, is it not?

Alderic, I believe a better way to think of the possibility of a God in this way:

If the universe, and everything within it was created by God as it was described in the Bible (whether taken literally or not), then with that creation came the existence of "beginning" and "end."  Before the creation of our universe, there was no such thing as beginning or end, as life or death.  If a being created time, that being would also exist outside of it, even when choosing to deal inside of it, therefore lacking the need for a "creator", as a creator would imply a beginning.

The way Lula is attempting to describe an eternal God is incorrect, as "first" "second" and "third" all depend on an idea of a progression.  Progress indicates the passage of time, and an eternal being would exist above that.

Eternity is not a unimaginable amount of time, it is LACK of time.

Maybe, I'm still skeptical though that a God would give us the skills to use reason, etc...and yet the tools we have that show a belief in a being as flawed or whatever - would be wrong.

Lula, by your own reasoning, there is an underlying implication that every Y must have an X. That's the problem, that's the catch. You may still think the way you do, but your reasoning is actually the hole in your argument.

How so? Maybe in a theological stand point, but then again if eternity is an infinite amount of time, how can it be timeless?

LoL, as I said, eternity is not an infinite amount of time... it is the non-existence of time.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here?

IF there was an eternal, scient diety that created us, he himself would be, assumably, perfect, at least by the standards s/he/it set up for us.   Over the years of our existence, we would develop perceptions of this creature, based on what we could understand of our world/universe, and notions.  Overtime these notions evolve into religions, all claiming that their understanding of God is how God really is, leading into the thousands of religions into existence today. 

So it's not improbable for our reasoning skills to show a flawed being, based on studying various religions/notions, because our current understandings are built on the previous perceptions/understandings of God, going back to the beginning of our existence.  It's like I descibed Truth in another thread.  God (assuming s/he/it existed) simply Is.  Everything we "know" of him are based upon perceptions thousands of years in the making, and may be so far from what God really is that we may never comprehend while we exist in this universe.

That is where we need to use our reasoning skills/intuition/knowledge, and discover "God" for ourselves.

I'm saying that since we were given (unless cognitive thought is merely a product of necessary evolution/adaptation) a brain, it seems only logical that with that brain and ability...one could prove the existance of God.

However, even if you could prove the existance of God through our existance, a la Y must have an X, there's the fact that the established precedent (Y must have an X, etc.) sets up a dilemma because it is then assumed that this reasoning is fairly universal and could be applied to everything. So:

If one believes in God, then one has to believe in the possibility that God does not exist, otherwise one must believe that there is a God who was created by another God and so on to infinity. So then one cannot believe in a single God, then, and defeats his own belief. Unless of course, you don't believe in the idea of one begets another, etc.. But then, logically, if you didn't believe that Y is caused by X, then you wouldn't believe that by existence alone there must be a creator either. Therein confounding your reasoning.

You see what I mean?

In the end, you have a conflict in the idea that: God was the beginning; which therein implies that the basis for your argument concerning the existance of God due to our existance is flawed. It's entirely based on the idea that Y must be caused by X. So, the concept that God exists because we exist - defeats itself.

This does lend credibility, I think, to the idea that God, is merely a man made concept and one that is "found" by each individual.  

That's assuming there is a God. Can you prove it?

I'm not trying to prove there is a God, Alderic.  I'm simply saying that an eternal God, (the God that Lula is trying to prove) would exist outside "first" "beginning" "creation" "end," in the realm of eternal (lack of time) which is a realm that we cannot use time to explain.  (Which is what you both were doing.)

Eternal is OUTSIDE the paradigm of time, therefore an eternal being would not have a creator, as "creation" implies a beginning.  Only INSIDE the paradigm of time is there a beginning, end, etc.

Look at it this way.  Our universe functions in cycles, and in time.  Our universe is in a box.  God created everything inside of the box, (including time).  He is outside the box, outside of time, therefore "eternal."  So you have to think outside the restrictions of time in order to even begin discussing an eternal being.

So just as "God created the world, so he was first," cannot be used to PROVE God, neither can "God must have a creator," be used to DISPROVE God, because they are both referencing time, which is opposite to eternity, the NON-EXISTENCE of time.