Arguments for God's Existence

[JDaniel]

Any competent argument for God’s existence must begin with a complete definition of God, else it is worthless. One must prove first that the properties themselves are possible, and move from there to a justification for the idea that an entity embodying these properties might exist, and from there to proof of existence.

Anything else is simply a relatively mindless exercise, taking one’s favorite dogma out for a walk.

Unless Plantinga defines and justifies the attributes of the entity he calls :“God,” his arguments are worthless.

Craig completely fails to justify, much less prove the properties he assigns to God. IMO his arguments and conclusions are of no value, except to mollify and reassure those who are already believers in the traditional God-concept.

The property of omnipotence cannot be proven, because to prove such a property it must be demonstrated. From the laws of relativistic physics it is clear that a single use of omnipotent power would destroy the universe.

And, as I’vw explained in detail in previous posts, an omniscient entity cannot think creatively. IMO a Creator who cannot think creatively, cannot create, meaning that he cannot be a Creator. An unthinking being who simply possesses knowledge is uninteresting in other respects as well-- we have enough mindless college perfessers already.

But, Greylorn, your answer is even more absurd: “a room full of giant, lab-coated geniuses?”

Where’s the book?

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Serious
**
Usual nonsense. Any ACTION involves a CHANGE. Any change involves a before and an after. Boring to point out such elementary logical errors. **

This fallacy is on a par with arguing that God was created like everything else, and that given the laws of entropy, he will end like everything else.

God is not subject to any silly “befores” and “afters.”

It’s always the atheist’s presumption that if there is a God he has to behave according to human logic. But of course, if He did, he wouldn’t be God, would he?

 

[Serious]

It’s always the atheist’s presumption that if there is a God he has to behave according to human logic. But of course, if He did, he wouldn’t be God, would he?

There is no such thing as “human” logic. There is only logic. And God is bound by it; he cannot change the past, cannot create a square circle, and cannot act without a change.

 

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II
It’s always the atheist’s presumption that if there is a God he has to behave according to human logic. But of course, if He did, he wouldn’t be God, would he?

There is no such thing as “human” logic. There is only logic. And God is bound by it; he cannot change the past, cannot create a square circle, and cannot act without a change.

I’m not an atheist, and I don’t buy it either, as many don’t. And while God has nothing to do with logic, even what we see as illogical in the Univers, even accepting it as “God/s Creation” it is the falult of the premise or our very limited vision that makes it appear that what we se doesn’t follow. It is not an inconsitency or change, or personal (good grief!) descision by God to accomodate someone on this speck. Cll’s argument is a form of “the God of the gaps,” and in this case gapping gaps, even with the great limitations posed by low order logics.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Serious

**There is no such thing as “human” logic. There is only logic. And God is bound by it; he cannot change the past, cannot create a square circle, and cannot act without a change. **

Logic does not exist as a separate entity. If there were no God nor any man, would there be logic? So obviously there is human logic. What you fail to consider is that the logic of God, because God is infinite, would be infinitely more complex than the logic of man. This in itself is a logical inference.

When Einstein said he wanted to know God’s thoughts, that was a tacit admission that God knew something Einstein didn’t know, and it was Einstein’s business to search out and find those thoughts. But at the end Einstein was still searching and not able to uncover all God’s thoughts.

 

[Gaber]

Logic does not exist as a separate entity.

And neither does anything else. God is ALL.

If there were no God nor any man, would there be logic?

Given.

So obviously there is human logic. What you fail to consider is that the logic of God, because God is infinite, would be infinitely more complex than the logic of man. This in itself is a logical inference.

The “logic of God” is an anthropomorphization, projected by our sense of wishing understandable order, as are our ideas about God, the Unknown not being penetrable in its etirety, or even nearly, by mortal mind. Nevertheless, man constructrs thoughts about what he thinks reality is, even, and maybe especially, if he feels he has “deivine guidance.”

When Einstein said he wanted to know God’s thoughts, that was a tacit admission that God knew something Einstein didn’t know, and it was Einstein’s business to search out and find those thoughts. But at the end Einstein was still searching and not able to uncover all God’s thoughts.

Which will never be discovered, as God as Being has none, unless you wish to consider Creation as God’s thought. But then we have the dualist delima of “If all this is God’s thought, God’s thought cannot be sepearate from God, yet Christians maintain a belief in an objective creation apart from God” that is not possible.

 

[greylorn]

I myself might ammed that to read “…possesses information, or book learning,” as distinct from actual knowledge which comes from experience and understanding. My experience is, say in driving a car, my ability to do that was hypothetical or theoretical at one point, became a matter of information at another, was practiced with heavy doses of thinking at another, and evolved into the ability to do it by attention to feel and sound later,as my mind and muscles came to “know” what to do without thinking out every step. Generally we might say that what is known is done by feel. Maths might even fall into this category. Remember th story of the benzene ring? Or how many mathemeticians say they think and think and think and then, unbidden, bingo! Darn, that sounds really zen! Similarly with other creative pursuits at their levels and degrees of maturity.

You are clearly on the right track, and if you examine what you already know about knowledge and the application thereof, you’ll find that more critical distinctions can be made.

For example, most EE students graduating with B grades or higher can write down Maxwell’s equations for electrodynamics upon request, and can work with those equations to develop solutions to particular geometries used in transmitting electromagnetic energy (e.g. transmission wires, waveguides, free em propagation in space, etc). Yet at best, only 3% of them can actually derive those equations from scratch-- “scratch” being simpler laws of em behavior such as Ampere’s and Faraday’s laws.

Deriving such concepts from scratch requires something I call “conceptual knowledge,” an understanding of something that runs so deep, that from it, all other knowledge about a topic can be derived.

Another example: Every high school physics student “knows” E=mc{sup]2[/sup], but only a handful of physicists in the world could be sat down in a closed room with pencil and paper and derive it from 19th century physics knowledge.

Driving a car is not an example of this. It is a brain-controlled phenomenon. Yes, for some it requires thought in the practice stages, When I felt that it was time for me to drive (age 14) I studied the family encyclopedia to learn how to shift gears, then went out and stole cars to get some practice in. Nothing to it, but I’ve known others who struggled, and know some today who cannot handle a gearbox.

Yet there is an example here for the application of conceptual knowledge. Because I knew how transmissions and clutches worked at the theoretical level, when I got a job driving an old 10-speed dump truck (3 x 5 tranny), with no synchronizing drums, learning to double-clutch and handle two sticks took about ten minutes.

Whatever, genuine ideas such as those of the mathematicians you mentioned seem only to follow conceptual understanding, mastering the use of the tools of thought. IMO the brain has nothing whatsoever to do with this process.

 

[greylorn]

There is no such thing as “human” logic. There is only logic. And God is bound by it; he cannot change the past, cannot create a square circle, and cannot act without a change.

You are correct. If you need an exercise in futility, try convincing Charley 2 and his many other programmed accomplices.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi Serious,

There is only logic. And God is bound by it; he cannot change the past, cannot create a square circle, and cannot act without a change.

Why do you think that action involving change is a logical necessity? In fact, it seems that asserting a universal like this on the basis of the action of material, temporal things is a logical fallacy, i.e.:

1. All material, temporal things change when they act
2. God acts
3. Therefore God must change

1-3 is clearly fallacious, because God is not a material and temporal thing.

 

[greylorn]

Serious

**There is no such thing as “human” logic. There is only logic. And God is bound by it; he cannot change the past, cannot create a square circle, and cannot act without a change. **

Logic does not exist as a separate entity. If there were no God nor any man, would there be logic? So obviously there is human logic. What you fail to consider is that the logic of God, because God is infinite, would be infinitely more complex than the logic of man. This in itself is a logical inference.

When Einstein said he wanted to know God’s thoughts, that was a tacit admission that God knew something Einstein didn’t know, and it was Einstein’s business to search out and find those thoughts. But at the end Einstein was still searching and not able to uncover all God’s thoughts.

Your assertion is wrong. You know nothing about logic, so here is something for you to learn, which you will blow off.

Note that logic does not change. In mathematical form it is the perfect language, which is why the dimwit scientists who wanted to direct potentially evil aliens to planet earth sent a disk with mathematical symbols along with the Voyager deep space probe.

God cannot declare that 2+2=5. As with all elements of logic, its principles remain to be discovered, and are independent of matter-based reality. 2+2=4 is true even if there is nothing to count, no bananas to sell. That is why mathematical logic is universally agreed upon.

 

[JDaniel]

Your assertion is wrong. You know nothing about logic, so here is something for you to learn, which you will blow off.

Note that logic does not change. In mathematical form it is the perfect language, which is why the dimwit scientists who wanted to direct potentially evil aliens to planet earth sent a disk with mathematical symbols along with the Voyager deep space probe.

God cannot declare that 2+2=5. As with all elements of logic, its principles remain to be discovered, and are independent of matter-based reality. 2+2=4 is true even if there is nothing to count, no bananas to sell. That is why mathematical logic is universally agreed upon.

Greylorn:

That’s strangely Thomistic! Look:
In the framework of immateriality, the mathematician in his strictly scientific character is said to leave aside all sensible matter and to retain in the abstracted result universal intelligible matter. - Summa Theologica, I, q. 85, a. 1, reply 2

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

2+2=4 is true even if there is nothing to count, no bananas to sell. That is why mathematical logic is universally agreed upon.

You have changed the terms of the discussion. What you are saying now is that God’s logic cannot be different from human logic.

What I was talking about is that God’s logic may transcend the ability of men to understand it. God’s intelligence is infinitely subtle. Ours is finitely subtle. Einstein never cracked God’s logic altogether. We can barely understand Einstein’s logic.

Please don’t reduce all logic, divine and human, to 2+2=4.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:

That’s strangely Thomistic! Look:
In the framework of immateriality, the mathematician in his strictly scientific character is said to leave aside all sensible matter and to retain in the abstracted result universal intelligible matter. - Summa Theologica, I, q. 85, a. 1, reply 2

JD,

Thank you for the insight and information. I object only to the word “matter,” realizing of course that TA used the word in an entirely different context than a physicist might. Compensating for that, this quote shows the depth of Aquinas’ insight.

Of course you sent this along, friend enough to recall what I’ve written, because of my disagreement with Aquinas. Please allow me to elaborate.

Each of us appears on this planet in a particular place and time, and are taught the knowledge of that place and time according to our abilities and interest. We begin life being taught certain “truths,” and the nature of the mind is to either reject those truths, embrace them without further thought, or to wonder if they are a complete description of truth, thence to improve upon them. The latter is my unlucky life-course.

I think that Aquinas chose the second path. He chose to elaborate upon the God concept he was given. and to codify it in an attempt to give it a semblance of logical validity, but never to question it. IMO he failed, but not for want of effort. If I could go back in time and converse with just one person, he would be my choice.

I expect that if TA were born in the same time as I, theological curiosity would have piqued his interest as it did mine. And, just as in his time he worked and thought from a base of the best available knowledge, he would do the same today.

This means that if born around the onset of WWII within a “first-world” society, with access to a modicum of education and plenty of libraries and bookstores, he would have acquired an education similar to mine. While interested in theology, he would have studied math, physics, engineering and such fun stuff, keeping his theological curiosities in the background while he made a living, until ready to reach and promote alternative conclusions. In our times, TA might well be an accomplished professor at M.I.T. who has written essays on the applications of physics principles to theology, or a mathematician at Stanford U. who has applied math theorems to theological questions, to the dismay of fellow professors.

What the hell-- I could be a reincarnation of Thomas Aquinas, here complaining about my own mistakes (not realizing that it was I in another body and time who made them), just like I whine to either of my friends, when they will speak to me, about the horrid mistakes I’ve made in my current life.

How’s that for a scary thought— me as an incarnation of TA? Check beneath the bed and in the closets for boogeymen before sleeping tonight.

 

[Serious]

Why do you think that action involving change is a logical necessity? In fact, it seems that asserting a universal like this on the basis of the action of material, temporal things is a logical fallacy, i.e.:

1. All material, temporal things change when they act
2. God acts
3. Therefore God must change

1-3 is clearly fallacious, because God is not a material and temporal thing.

No, I am talking about the metaphysical concept of “action” and the metaphysical concept of “change”, your addition of “physical” was merely YOUR addition.

The word “action” means that a “change” took place - that is what differentiates it from “inaction”. If there is a “change” then there is “before the change”, “at the time of the change”, and “after the change” - thus there is a time - which is the measurement of change.

I am aware that the church teaches otherwise. The church is wrong. This is not theology, this is philosphy, and within that - metaphysics.

 

[greylorn]

greylorn

2+2=4 is true even if there is nothing to count, no bananas to sell. That is why mathematical logic is universally agreed upon.

You have changed the terms of the discussion. What you are saying now is that God’s logic cannot be different from human logic.

What I was talking about is that God’s logic may transcend the ability of men to understand it. God’s intelligence is infinitely subtle. Ours is finitely subtle. Einstein never cracked God’s logic altogether. We can barely understand Einstein’s logic.

Please don’t reduce all logic, divine and human, to 2+2=4.

I’ve changed no terms and wea merely agreeing with “Serious” who pointed out that logic is logic. Let me elaborate.

The advanced forms of mathematical logic are rarely intuitive and must be learned. It is the rare 7 yo kid who is capable of solving partial differential equations. These are things which some are capable of learning, with effort. The amount of effort is such that very few are willing to put it out.

Logic is really just logic. What you refer to as “God’s logic” is just an extremely high level of mathematical expertise, such as the ability to develop multi-dimensional time-dependent topology theorems in one’s mind (a requirement for turning raw energy into atoms). Humans don’t understand much of this logic yet, but are working on it.

Is it hard to imagine Stephen Hawking, who has been doing complex math in his head for decades, dying and continuing to develop mathematics-based concepts thereafter— then returning in a few decades to further the course of human understanding?

Consider— modern day university level abstract geometry would have been inconceivable to Pythagoras. Given the focus upon understanding how the universe works that has been fostered by our now-defunct (thanks, B.O.) space program, furthered by the evil capitalists who buy advertising time to support speculative science pieces like Through the Wormhole, do you really believe that the mathematicians of a century hence will not be an order of magnitude more sophisticated than the quantum mechanicians and string theorists of today?

Certainly we do not know God’s logic, yet. But like all forms of logic, none inherently different from another (the logic required to solve partial differential equations is simply an extension of 2+2=4, to my considerable surprise back when I learned these things), we can learn each form, one step at a time.

God’s logic is not accessible to us now, but who is to say that it will not be accessible to our children, if we continue to teach them the best of our understandings?

You reference Einstein, and claim that “we” can barely understand him.

I submit that Einstein did indeed crack a piece of God’s logic, and that your “we” probably does not apply to you, and certainly does not apply to 99.99999% of the humans messing up this planet. Few humans are smart enough, and fewer still are willing to study hard enough to develop higher levels of understanding. Despite serious studies in physics and several attempts to really understand Al’s derivations, your “we” does not include me either.

You seem to belittle the simple statement, 2+2=4. Why? If the concept of integers and basic arithmetic embodied in this simple equation is not true, then the universe cannot exist.

Human logic, meaning that which is known to a small number of advanced humans who’ve put in a lot of study time, is not different from God’s logic. It is a subset.

What we know that is genuinely logical, such as 2+2=4, is some of what God knows. God does not have another form of logic which invalidates this simple truth. When a child learns how to multiply, divide, and calculate a square root, that child is learning “God’s logic.” Just a piece of it, but God’s logic all the same.

 

[greylorn]

But, Greylorn, your answer is even more absurd: “a room full of giant, lab-coated geniuses?”

Where’s the book?

God bless,
jd

Duh? The quoted quote, “a room full of giant, lab-coated geniuses” did not come from my fingertips.

The book, Digital Universe-- Analog Soul, is finished, and is in the hands of my publisher. I expect the opportunity for final proofreading next week, else I’ll be on his case. Anticipate a serious read. It looks like I’ll be lucky to get a final proof of fewer than 500 pages. I took the project way too seriously. The physics chapter alone took nearly a year— damned ideas just kept piling on.

 

[greylorn]

greylorn

And, as I’vw explained in detail in previous posts, an omniscient entity cannot think creatively. IMO a Creator who cannot think creatively, cannot create, meaning that he cannot be a Creator.

Sorry I missed those posts. They must have been humdingers!

I thought that they were pretty good, but seem to have been alone in that exalted opinion.

No matter that you missed them. Now you’ll have some incentive to read my book next month, where all is explained.

 

[greylorn]

greylorn

Any competent argument for God’s existence must begin with a complete definition of God, else it is worthless.

When I deduce from certain sounds, vibrations, smells, etc. that some is coming toward me around the next corner, do I have to have a “complete definition” of that something before I can believe that it exists?

I can speak for myself from your examples, but not for you.

From the footprint of a would-be burglar in my back yard, I deduced the reality of a spook (ghost). He made his presence known more clearly to a psychic guest, who clearly felt his presence before he gently dropped a 6-foot diffenbachia plant into her lap.

I had no trouble whatsoever accepting the existence of this spook, but the events through which he manifested gave me few clues as to his personality, and virtually none about his properties.

I have no difficulty believing in the existence of a creator. Even an idiot should be capable of recognizing the signs of engineering intelligence in the universe, and in life forms. Yet the conclusion that there must be a creator does not by itself tell us anything about that creator’s properties, capabilities, or motivations. It does not assure us that only a single creator was involved in the process of creation.

The alleged properties of God are, IMO, made up. Even worse, they were made up by humans who thought that the earth was flat, and who knew nothing of physics. The properties these nits invented are illogical, and cannot apply to the real creators.

Your definition of God is, IMO, incorrect. By your standards of belief, I am an atheist because I refuse to accept the same illogical definition of God that sits at the core of Christianity. Yet, I believe absolutely that we live in a created universe.

That is because after studying physics there seemed no better alternative than to accept the reality of a logic-limited and thermodynamics-limited Creator.

Definitions and properties really are important. Sure, you can smell the reality of the neighborhood skunk, but if you’ve never seen or learned about skunks, what you know is too meager to derive further information from.

That is why UFO enthusiasts have such trouble convincing people of the reality of visitors from deep space. I recall an old conversation with J. Allen Hynek, who understood this. He began working for Project Blue Book as a complete UFO skeptic, which is why he got the job. In time he came across so much evidence that could not be explained otherwise, that he became a believer in that which he had previously scoffed at. Having crossed that street, he knew both sides of it.

Objections to his beliefs were based upon dogma— the opinion that nothing can travel faster than lightspeed. Objections to ideas like mine are based upon the dogmas which claim, unnecessarily, that the Creator of the Universe must be omniscient and omnipotent.

Who says, really?
And why?

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi Serious,

The word “action” means that a “change” took place - that is what differentiates it from “inaction”. If there is a “change” then there is “before the change”, “at the time of the change”, and “after the change” - thus there is a time - which is the measurement of change.

I am aware that the church teaches otherwise. The church is wrong. This is not theology, this is philosphy, and within that - metaphysics.

In the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas, action refers to the actualisation of some potential. First, there is nothing necessarily temporal with respect to the actualisation of a potential - for instance, angels are immaterial and therefore atemporal, yet it is accurate to say that God acted to create them - there was still a actualisation of the form of the angels. Second, it does not follow that simply because a temporal change has taken place that the actualiser has also changed. An eternal act (i.e. no temporal change) can give range to a multitude of temporal effects/changes, in the same way that a single act can give rise to a multitude of effects. Look up “Cambridge properties”.

In fact all change logically requires such an unmoved/unchanged mover/changer - this is demonstrated in Aquinas’ First Way. Even if the idea of an unmoved mover is unintuitive to our temporally soaked minds, the necessity of its existence is demonstrable.

There has been plenty of thought poured into these questions over the centuries and also recently. For a contemporary account, I would refer you to Eleanor Stump’s “Aquinas”. I would be careful to jump to the conclusion that this is a simple question i.e. " To refute such arguments is not even challenging." Pride comes before the fall and all that.

 

[Serious]

In the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas, action refers to the actualisation of some potential. First, there is nothing necessarily temporal with respect to the actualisation of a potential - for instance, angels are immaterial and therefore atemporal, yet it is accurate to say that God acted to create them - there was still a actualisation of the form of the angels.

Nonsense. If God created the angels, then the angels came into being as the result of this action. Therefore: “time”. Time is simply a measure of change, and if there is a change, there is “time”.

Second, it does not follow that simply because a temporal change has taken place that the actualiser has also changed. An eternal act (i.e. no temporal change) can give range to a multitude of temporal effects/changes, in the same way that a single act can give rise to a multitude of effects.

“Eternal act” is a logical absurdity.

In fact all change logically requires such an unmoved/unchanged mover/changer - this is demonstrated in Aquinas’ First Way. Even if the idea of an unmoved mover is unintuitive to our temporally soaked minds, the necessity of its existence is demonstrable.

All 5 ways of Aquinas are incorrect and have been refuted innumerable times.