Cosmological argument (the argument from contingency)

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven’t read everything, but those who make the argument from contingency don’t consider God to be an observer at all, none of his knowledge is known by observation, which makes it a moot point and an epistemic barrier on our end of things who require observation.

Edit: Ah, I see it already pointed out.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
40.png
Gorgias:
Here’s the thing, though: we do not posit that God “observes” the universe. He simply knows it, fully. So, my point still stands.
Click to expand...
He cannot have such knowledge.
Click to expand...
You still miss the point; quantum particles are not particles as you imagine and they do not have simultaneously a definite value of momentum and position; this is simply a wrong way to imagine what matter is made of. Quantum particles are elements of a complex mathematical model existing in the mind of God, and the universe is the realization of such model. Therefore God knows everything about the universe since the universe is the realization of what God conceives in His mind.
 
lelinator said:
And yet you believe that a conscious being, (God) did indeed create the whole universe and all other beings. So you’re not questioning if such a thing is actually possible, you’re simply questioning the solipsistic explanation for who that being is.

I’m fine with that. I just hope that you understand the somewhat conflicting logic of that position.
Click to expand...
You should open a thread on solipsism. I don’t doubt it would be very interesting
 
Mmarco said:
You still miss the point; quantum particles are not particles as you imagine and they do not have simultaneously a definite value of momentum and position; this is simply a wrong way to imagine what matter is made of. Quantum particles are elements of a complex mathematical model existing in the mind of God, and the universe is the realization of such model. Therefore God knows everything about the universe since the universe is the realization of what God conceives in His mind.
Click to expand...
Again, matter is a substance.
 
Gorgias said:
Invalid conclusion. The appropriate one would be “therefore, there is no human sustainer of the material universe.” I think we can all agree on that conclusion.
Click to expand...
What if the universe is all subjective experience and the opinions based on that?
Then I am the sustainer of the material universe, and you have no rebuttal that will satisfy me.
 
goout said:
What if the universe is all subjective experience and the opinions based on that?
Then I am the sustainer of the material universe, and you have no rebuttal that will satisfy me.
Click to expand...
If you are sustainer then you could move my cup of tea.
 
STT said:
Something which is the foundation of reality, it obviously exists since otherwise, it could not affect you.
Click to expand...
So simply… it exists…? In that case, even abstractions are substance based.
 
STT said:
40.png
Mmarco:
Define your concept of substance.
Click to expand...
Something which is the foundation of reality, it obviously exists since otherwise, it could not affect you.
Click to expand...
According to your definition, we can say that matter is not a substance; in fact, science has shown that matter has an intrinsic mathematical structure, which implies that matter is not the foundation of reality, but its existence depends on a more fundamental reality i.e. consciousness; my point is that, according to our scientific knowledges about matter, consciousness is a more fundamental reality than matter.
 
Mmarco said:
According to your definition, we can say that matter is not a substance; in fact, science has shown that matter has an intrinsic mathematical structure, which implies that matter is not the foundation of reality, but its existence depends on a more fundamental reality i.e. consciousness; my point is that, according to our scientific knowledges about matter, consciousness is a more fundamental reality than matter.
Click to expand...
I did not say that the matter is the most fundamental thing in reality. I said that it is the foundation of reality. We couldn’t possibly communicate without matter so it exists. The point is that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known precisely due to uncertainty principle or a particle does not have definite value of both momentum and position at the same time due to Bell theorem (I have to say that I didn’t find this in wiki, do you have any reference to this because I just accept it from you). As such either way matter cannot be sustained.
 
STT said:
I did not say that the matter is the most fundamental thing in reality. I said that it is the foundation of reality.
Click to expand...
You are contradicting yourself; matter cannot be the foundation of reality if it derives its existence from a more fundamental reality (counsciousness); this means that consciousness is the foundation of reality.
STT said:
We couldn’t possibly communicate without matter so it exists.
Click to expand...
The point is to establish whether matter exists by itself, independently from consciousness or it derives its existence from a more fondamental reality, a conscious Being; from our scientific knowledges we can conclude that matter and the physical reality derives its existence from a conscious and intelligent “Reality”, i.e. a personal God.
STT said:
The point is that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known precisely due to uncertainty principle or a particle does not have definite value of both momentum and position at the same time due to Bell theorem (I have to say that I didn’t find this in wiki, do you have any reference to this because I just accept it from you). As such either way matter cannot be sustained.
Click to expand...
As I told you, your idea that matter is made of particles with a defined value of both momentum and position is simply a wrong idea about matter. Quantum particles are elements of mathematical models which predicts correctly natural phenomena. What sustains matter is the Mind who conceives it as a mathematical structure.
 
STT said:
He cannot have such knowledge.
Click to expand...
We posit that He does. He is the creator of the entire universe; He knows it all, by divine and simple knowledge.
goout said:
What if the universe is all subjective experience and the opinions based on that?
Click to expand...
So… pure relativism, then? “There is no absolute truth, only subjective perspective”? Yeah, then my rebuttal is “you’ve just punctured your little relativistic bubble by positing an absolute truth.”
🙂
Sorry if that doesn’t satisfy you; logic has that effect on weak arguments that way, sometimes. 👍
STT said:
Yes, redness is a property of matter.
Click to expand...
No… you posited that it was a mental property, such that it exists in the observer and not the object. Therefore, it’s a property of the mind, with respect to matter.
 
Mmarco said:
You are contradicting yourself; matter cannot be the foundation of reality if it derives its existence from a more fundamental reality (counsciousness); this means that consciousness is the foundation of reality.
Click to expand...
Yes, I should have said that matter is one of the foundation of reality. The other one is mind. The question is how mind can sustain matter knowing the fact that it is subjected to uncertainty principle.
Mmarco said:
The point is to establish whether matter exists by itself, independently from consciousness or it derives its existence from a more fondamental reality, a conscious Being; from our scientific knowledges we can conclude that matter and the physical reality derives its existence from a conscious and intelligent “Reality”, i.e. a personal God.
Click to expand...
The question of this thread is how God could sustain matter.
Mmarco said:
As I told you, your idea that matter is made of particles with a defined value of both momentum and position is simply a wrong idea about matter. Quantum particles are elements of mathematical models which predicts correctly natural phenomena. What sustains matter is the Mind who conceives it as a mathematical structure.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that matter is made of particles with a defined value of both momentum and position. Quantum particle simple exists though.
 
Gorgias said:
We posit that He does. He is the creator of the entire universe; He knows it all, by divine and simple knowledge.
Click to expand...
How He could know when our finest measurement cannot tell us what it is. The very fact that the finest measurement cannot tell us where is the particle means that it does not have a defined position.
Gorgias said:
No… you posited that it was a mental property, such that it exists in the observer and not the object. Therefore, it’s a property of the mind, with respect to matter.
Click to expand...
Yes, redness is a mental property of matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top