If I see a building, it is evidence of a builder.
Yes it is.
If I look at the universe ("the Creation"), it is evidence of a Creator, based on our knowledge that all things are caused; it is cause and effect.
Now you begin to beg the question, by assuming that the universe was indeed created.
Something was the first step (the first cause) in a chain reaction that caused all this to exist, something that by necessity pre-existed the existence, something not of this world.
This is not a logical necessity at all. Why must there be a first? It is nothing more than an assumption that there is a first. In fact, when you state that "based on our knowledge that all things are caused", this can also be taken as evidence against a hypothetical "first cause".
That first cause is what we call God.
Yes we do. But unfortunately your argument failed to prove its existance.
It really takes a very special person to deny that something caused all this to exist, or to claim that a house just built itself from ground up!
But it does not take a "very special person" to see the difference between Creation (which God made ex nihilo) and construction, which is simply a rearrangement of things that are already here!
It is impossible logically to PROVE God's existance. Think about it: How can God be "deduced"? Deduction works from general to specific (the opposite direction of inference). There is no set of axioms that can circumscribe God, and if there were He wouldn't be God! So we have to work from inference.
The Creation was created to procreate based on created physical laws, perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion), a self-generating and re- generating mechanism.
The laws were created? Ah, but this is where it gets interesting! We can observe things like the motions of planets or the interactions of atoms and, through empirical evidence, predict with confidence how these things might behave. So there seems to be a sort of natural order, or law that governs these things. Now if we really are to speak of a "first cause", then wouldn't that be the Law itself? But I don't mean the mathematical relations we use to describe the behavior of things, but the very essence of the Law itself which surpasses all understanding:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)
We are subject to God's Logos, not He to ours.
Thank you very much, That was great.
Proof is based on sufficient evidence. Evidence is that which constitutes proof. Exactly what constitutes "proof" or what is considered "sufficient" evidence is a based on human factors. Extraordinary or not, any proof requires sufficient evidence.
Obviously the evidence I offered is not sufficient proof to you. Ultimately, we decide what is true or not true. So, no matter how you turn it around, we believe in that which meets our personal standard of "sufficient evidence." It is utterly solipsistic in nature.
Either it was created or it existed from all eternity. However, just like a building, everything in nature is a complex structure and despite violence quite orderly, and that suggests a builder. I did not propose an intelligent builder; I simply said that something caused all this to exist, and just as parents pre-exist the child, so does this something pre-exist the creation.
If we assume that the universe existed eternally, then we must assume that organized structures existed eternally, and our experience tells us otherwise. For the pre-existence of the universe to hold any water, some organized structure (matter, black holes, etc.) along with physical laws had to exist in order to create the rest of this world. In which case the first cause, again, pre-existed the rest—except that it is not outside of nature, but its "primordial" first element. Which presupposed the eternal existence of "nature" (whatever that means). There are Eastern religions that subscribe to that belief.
ZS: Yes we do. But unfortunately your argument failed to prove its existence.
God is simply the name we give to that which gave rise to the universe, which by necessity had to pre-exist it. The existents of a building is evidence of a builder. The other alternative is to say that a building is evidence that it always existed and was never built. Which one if more "sufficient evidence?"
Apparently, when it comes to God, Christians believe (without sufficient evidence) that He is not only the First Cause, but that He was never "built" or "made" by something else. Moreover, God is taught to be simple and indivisible, that He is eternal and never changes. You, as a Christian, must believe that, yet you tell me that I offer insufficient evidence!?
And my claim is modest, without making inferences into God's simplicity, eternity or lack of change (perfection), never mind the biblical details! So, if my evidence fails as "sufficient evidence" what are to say about the Bible, Christianity or any other so-called "holy books" and religions?
But it does not take a "very special person" to see the difference between Creation (which God made ex nihilo) and construction, which is simply a rearrangement of things that are already here!
Creation ex nihilo is a giant leap of faith. Nothing can not give rise to something. Creation is, by definition, rearrangement of things "that are already here," the building blocks. But the blocks have to exist before any building takes place.
By denial. By negative knowledge. By knowing what God is not. This is the backbone of Orthodox theology: apophatic knowledge. The west always relied on the cataphatic proof, which is closer to our logic, but limited (just as out mental capacity is). Apophatic knowledge goes beyond that.
A good ex maple of the cataphatic approach is St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. The other one is Catholic teaching on transubstantiation.
The Orthodox approach to God is best summarized in St. John of Damascus' Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter III
Because of the properties of the physical world which are inherent in matter, namely gravity. We don't know why it exists, or what it is, but we can measure it and predict it to be proportional to the mass. We just know that gravity exists.
Now if we really are to speak of a "first cause", then wouldn't that be the Law itself?
Why? The stew tastes good not because the chef adds flavor but from the ingredients inherent in the elements of the stew. God simply provided energy, and the rest is simply a consequence. If I make a hammer, that hammer can do best what hammers can do. It can't paint a picture! The "law" is in the nature of things, how they are, in their essence. A house does not fly, but airplanes do. You are presupposing that God necessarily decided what properties the matter and energy will have. I don't see why.
I am not sure what you mean by "essence of the law itself."
We are subject to God's Logos, not He to ours
Logos is not "the Law." Nowhere in the Bible is it translated as "the Law."
We are subject to the physical world. We can be destroyed by forces that we cannot control. Whether God controls these or not is a speculation.
One thing seems certain: the earth is an oasis in a sea of hostile universe, literally a speck of dust which, by comparison to the outside world is a miraculous microcosm and potential cornucopia of endless blessings for its creatures.
If humanity follow what Christ taught us (love those who hate you, forgive so that we may be forgiven, mercy, loving your neighbor as yourself, etc.) we could have a paradise on earth, free of wars, crime, fear, hunger, unnecessary suffering, insecurity, greed, injustice, etc.
We are capable of that (because we have the dominion on earth in the image of God, and a potential for mercy in His likeness), and we have been blessed all these centuries since Christ to know the message, and have done absolutely nothing to come even an inch closer to making that a reality.