A universe exists therefore G-d exists

[SimonArizona]

Here comes the goods.

Objection. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, **The existence of God can be proved in five ways. **

1. The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

2. The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

3. The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

4. The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

I think there are actually 7 proofs now.

 

[jfhh]

1. you are correct, if the chain of causality were infinite, then G-d would be no better a stopping point in the regression than anything else. however, there are no existent infinities that i know, of. so an actual regression must have a terminus in order to correspond with what we know of the observable universe. maybe we could consider this as one of the attributes of G-d, lets see where the argument leads.

if you have some evidence of existent infinities i would be happy to discuss them. i don’t know everything. and i am looking for flaws in my own arguments.

Then this is no proof. I don’t think it even qualifies as an argument unless you are saying because you don’t know of any existent infinitities that that is evidence that they can not exist.

Traditional physics actually does involve infinite things such as infinite sets. For example, swaths of space time can be captured mathematically by certain infinite sets. Non-traditional physics posits space time atoms and so in that respect they do not involve infinite sets there. They still involve infinite sets in other areas, but not with any clear ontological implications.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

post #11 provides detailed, commonly accepted definitions of, of those words.

i am asking for arguments against first cause, so far none have been offered, we are only talking about what words mean. thats why i use the common definiton.

don’t be offended, but this does go to my post in that we are already devolving into word games, next come names calling

first cause is a thousand year old idea, rather well defined, lets use these definitions to have a common ground of understanding.

but i cant elaborate on them with out biasing the meaning in one direction or the other.

if you care to use definitions from another dictionary, one commonly accepted, that would be fine by me.

or you could just choose defintions that fit your line of attack, but then the results could be skewed in one way or another. not lending itself to credible discussion.

yet i am interested in moving forward into arguments against first cause. not word games

Dictionaries are little help in this sort of discussion, for knowing the definition of a word as recorded & glossed in a dictionary does not of itself tell us anything of its use in the language; let alone how it is used in technical contexts (such as theology & philosophy).​

Semantics is extremely important - even if it can seem like “word games”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Correct. But we do not attempt to use it as a “proof”. Don’t forget, atheists do not assert anything in particular on the metaphysical level, they just say that they do not believe in the existence of a God or gods.

it is only possible not to know in the sense of ‘doesn’t want to know’

have all the information necessary to make a judgment for the big bang, evolution, or, frankly, any theory that one has not personally observed, if one simply doesn’t know, then by the same token one simply doesn’t know anything that one did not witness in person.

in that case why should i believe anything outside my sphere of physical senses? does anything exist outside this room? i don’t know.

obviously this is only an exercise in philosophy that cannot be practical in implication. one can know with the same certainty of knowledge as any other phenomenon not personally witnessed.

therefore we have proof of nothing beyond ourselves, and that only because of descartes cognito ergo sum.

p.s. good for you have a good time

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Does it? How can you substantiate that?

my understanding is that the mathematical regression to the singularity from current observable conditions would be the substaniating arguments for the ‘bush’ analogy

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Then this is no proof. I don’t think it even qualifies as an argument unless you are saying because you don’t know of any existent infinitities that that is evidence that they can not exist.

Traditional physics actually does involve infinite things such as infinite sets. For example, swaths of space time can be captured mathematically by certain infinite sets. Non-traditional physics posits space time atoms and so in that respect they do not involve infinite sets there. They still involve infinite sets in other areas, but not with any clear ontological implications.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dictionaries are little help in this sort of discussion, for knowing the definition of a word as recorded & glossed in a dictionary does not of itself tell us anything of its use in the language; let alone how it is used in technical contexts (such as theology & philosophy).​

Semantics is extremely important - even if it can seem like “word games”.

as long as we all use the same set of definitions then that will help, but indeed the translation from language to thought is different from every indivual, but thenif we get so aexact as that, it doesn’t seem tht any meaningful communication could occur on any subject.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

as long as we all use the same set of definitions then that will help, but indeed the translation from language to thought is different from every indivual, but thenif we get so aexact as that, it doesn’t seem tht any meaningful communication could occur on any subject.

If so, what is the uise of ecumenical dialogue - or of this exchange ?​

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If so, what is the uise of ecumenical dialogue - or of this exchange ?​

indeed what good would any communication between people be?

i just had a :newidea:

i will now only communicate in binary to avoid any confusion

111010010101010100010101001010101000101111010101010111011
101010100000110010100101111111100010100010010001010101010
10001001010

101000000011111101010001001010001010010010010010100100010
10101001001010101000 01010101010!

1111010100101010100101110010111100101001010?

and thats what i think

 

[jfhh]

…
this implies that there was no actual singularity. …science also shows that there was a beginning to time

 

[jfhh]

further as science has shown we live in a universe with a finite amount of matter, as such there can be existent infinities in the first three dimensions, science also shows that there was a beginning to time, meaning that there is also no infinity in the fourth dimension, so indeed this also precludes existence of any infinities in this observable universe

You make a move here from “universe” to “observable universe”

Nice, but no cigar.

If you view space time as having ontological character, then I don’t see how you can deny the existence of something that is captured conceptually by infinite sets there. As I noted in LQG, space time atoms are posited, but in traditional physics space time is a continuum and so has properties, physical properties, that require infinite numbers in their mathematical description.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;4434344:

Actually, in loop quantum gravity, there are no singularities, not in black holes and not in Big Bangs. In loop quantum gravity atoms of space time are posited. Experiments may lend credibility to this theory in the near future. In loop quantum gravity, time prior to the “Big Bang” can be explored also. There need be no “beginning to time.”

So arguments about God resting on time or the universe having a beginning will be falsified if experimental data ends up giving credence to LQG.

a big if, and never has string, or any one of its variants been found to be the G.U.T that einstein sought, indeed in all it permutations, it has turned back on itself several times.

either way it is theoretical and unproven, so the proper tools to use now, are still accepted science

though string theory is interesting, its permutations just lead back to an infinite regression if correct.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You make a move here from “universe” to “observable universe”

Nice, but no cigar.

 

[jfhh]

a big if, and never has string, or any one of its variants been found to be the G.U.T that einstein sought, indeed in all it permutations, it has turned back on itself several times.

either way it is theoretical and unproven, so the proper tools to use now, are still accepted science

though string theory is interesting, its permutations just lead back to an infinite regression if correct.

what I don’t get is … if there are scientists who are true believers why don’t they do work on seeing if there is some message God left for us in the background cosmic radiation, for example … it wouldn’t be hard for God to do that and such a message would if not prove God’s existence, prove the existence of intelligent design for sure. There seems to be no push to get such a long term project going which makes me think that there are very few scientists who truly in their heart of hearts, in their gut, believe in God (besides deists etc.)

LQG is sometimes seen as a competitor to string theory; sometimes as a complementary theory. Critics of string theory and LQG often accuse them both of not being science, but of being “philosophy” which is coincidentally, the name of this forum

edit

I pointed out the observale universe thing b/c many don’t know that sometimes people say “universe” to mean observable universe as opposed to everything that exists. I think limiting your argument to the observable universe weakens the force of it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

what I don’t get is … if there are scientists who are true believers why don’t they do work on seeing if there is some message God left for us in the background cosmic radiation, for example … it wouldn’t be hard for God to do that and such a message would if not prove God’s existence, prove the existence of intelligent design for sure. There seems to be no push to get such a long term project going which makes me think that there are very few scientists who truly in their heart of hearts, in their gut, believe in God (besides deists etc.)

you know, when the rich man was in hell, and lazarus (the beggar he did not care for) was in heaven, the rich man called out to lazarus to go and tell his brothers so they didn’t wind up in hell with him, the answer he received was that they had the prophets to listen too, the rich man said they would not believe the prophets

then he was answered this

‘if they won’t believe the prophets then they won’t believe when they see lazarus’

so what evidence could be written in the stars that you would believe?, what sign could you see that was not something that could be explained away?

i understan that people want to make sense of G-d according to what they know

but the truth is that you are not here for your benefit, G-d does not exist for you, you exist for G-d.

its hard to believe when only the material universe and rationalism are your tools

if you try to force Him into a box of what makes sense to you, you may never find Him, instead force yourself into his box, perspective is everything

LQG is sometimes seen as a competitor to string theory; sometimes as a complementary theory. Critics of string theory and LQG often accuse them both of not being science, but of being “philosophy” which is coincidentally, the name of this forum

edit

I pointed out the observale universe thing b/c many don’t know that sometimes people say “universe” to mean observable universe as opposed to everything that exists. I think limiting your argument to the observable universe weakens the force of it.

 

[Nepenthe]

Pardon me for just checking in here. Things have been utterly crazed and stressful here for a while, though that’s cooling back down now - but it did not make for a good atmosphere for serious discourse!

I should be getting right back up the horse shortly - I actually had to had to be dosed hard with antianxiety medication for a couple days things had gotten so bonkers (really necessary - I was bidding fair to break down completely under the strain, so I’ll take that ounce of prevention and like it, thanks!), which would have really woolified my posting even more than usual! But I am really looking forward to it, and I’ve noted serveral more interesting threads of inquiry besides the one I was starting to track have happened, so yay!

Do forgive the contentless post in all charity: I really didn’t want you guys to think I’d just weenied out.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Pardon me for just checking in here. Things have been utterly crazed and stressful here for a while, though that’s cooling back down now - but it did not make for a good atmosphere for serious discourse!

I should be getting right back up the horse shortly - I actually had to had to be dosed hard with antianxiety medication for a couple days things had gotten so bonkers (really necessary - I was bidding fair to break down completely under the strain, so I’ll take that ounce of prevention and like it, thanks!), which would have really woolified my posting even more than usual! But I am really looking forward to it, and I’ve noted serveral more interesting threads of inquiry besides the one I was starting to track have happened, so yay!

Do forgive the contentless post in all charity: I really didn’t want you guys to think I’d just weenied out.

im still waiting on replies so don’t feel bad

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, indeed. We all must start “somewhere”, with some basic, unsupported assumptions. The point is that the atheist assumptions are not used as a “proof” for God’s nonexistence.

Tautalogically correct, but not in practice. Atheists judge theistic arguments and then fail them based on atheistic assumptions. This should come as no suprise. Atheists, however, try to pass their arguments off as “scientific” and “reasoned” when they are in fact based on unsupported assumptions.

Of course I don’t argue against causality, just pointed out that is may not be universal. And since it is a starting point for the alleged proof, we should all acknowledge this fact.

Agreed on a physical level, although there is the deeper “final causation” that needs to be addressed as well.

Excellent observation. Now I wonder if you argue for true randomness here? Or just that the complexity of the results prevents us (non-omniscient beings) from being able to assess the precise causative chain? Obviously these are different.

I argue for true randomness in terms of human free will.

Does it? How can you substantiate that?

I don’t think I can argue directly for or against its existence, but I can argue for its logical coherency.

Causation does not mean that everything in the world will unfold in a fixed way due to a fixed process. For example, a bush grows at the tips even though every new growth is caused in an ultimate sense by the initial cells. A chain of causation exists but does not completely determine the outcome, because new cells can form and react due to changing conditions despite the fact that they are ultimately caused by prior cells.

Correct. But we do not attempt to use it as a “proof”. Don’t forget, atheists do not assert anything in particular on the metaphysical level, they just say that they do not believe in the existence of a God or gods.

They typically assert that there is no known logical support for the God “hypothesis”. Therefore, they are making a positive assertation that can challenged.

 

[Dameedna]

i am looking for original arguments against first cause, either i haven’t heard a convincing argument, or i haven’t heard a convincing arguer, so to speak. please post ‘your’ work first. then any common arguments you find persuasive from another source after.

with that in mind

i assert that an observable universe exists, therefore G-d exists. i further assert that no argument exists which can deny first cause. i throw down the the metaphorical gauntlet. i challenge any one to offer and defend such an argument. any takers?

I think the first cause argument is a bit of a moot point, because as soon as you start talking about a first cause, you are getting into the nature of the first cause, and all and sundry will disagree.

However, it is possible(and for many probably) that there is the observable universe, and then there is that which is infinite. This is really beyond human comprehension I think, but it’s fun to think about.

You can call that inifite entity the actual universe in it’s infinite(not observable) form, or you can call it God.

In other words, the universe that which is now observable, could have infinitately existed in an unobservable form making the universe itself, in it’s infinite form the first cause. Call it God if you want, but that’s just a word. Can you say that the infinite cannot create itself? It didn’t, it simply became observable, it alway’s existed(just like the theory of God)

It’s the attributes of this infinite universe/god that we debate about.

 

[Dameedna]

Here comes the goods.

Objection. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, **The existence of God can be proved in five ways. **

1. The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.

Just wanted to point out, that since the only thing we can rely on are our senses, any “truth” we come to is dependant on that. meaning, it may not be any kind of ultimate truth at all, but simply our truth as a result of our existance.

Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects.

So the universe, that infinite regress could be it’s potential, not it’s actuality.

For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.

It could just be however. If something can’t move “itself” then something can’t be God, or the first cause. There’s something very circular about this first clause argument but this is an interesting point.

You are saying something “must” be, but you are claiming that something is not the universe itself, and I’m not sure why that claim would be “true”.

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.

Then you once again have infinite regress. The other, has to be put into motions by another, and by another and by another, until you get “that first clause”. At some point, something existed.

Why, would it not be an infinite universe(not necessarily alway’s observable).