S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
Have you heard of Occam’s razor?
How are #s 1, 2, 3, and 7 evidence for God?
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Some of you may be interested in visiting the thread on Bertrand Russell’s China Teapot.
M
mytruepower2
Guest
Of course. Do not multiply causes beyond necessity. Why?
Proof 1: Dependability
When we’re functioning properly, we think that our senses and thoughts are reliable, but what basis do we have for thinking this? Unless there is a standard to link proper functionality together with honesty and the truth, how can we be sure that our proper function will lead to any understanding of the truth at all?
Certainly, naturalistic hypotheses provide no such standard for what the “proper function” of our senses is, or why we should assume that those who are functioning “properly” are able to perceive the truth with their senses.
However, if our senses were given to us by a God, who wants us to know the truth, then the correct function of the senses would be to reach the truth, and the reason for their dependability would be that God wishes us to know the truth.
Is there any reason, on atheism, for why our senses would lead us to truth, instead of just survival? I’ve never heard a good one proposed.
So, in the absence of alternative explanations for this, the dependability of our senses is good evidence that God exists.
Proof 2: Objective Morals
Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values are values which are binding on everyone, and would be correct, even if no human beings existed to agree or disagree with them. Without the existence of God, moral values wouldn’t be objective in this way. After all, how can there be a moral law, unless there is a moral lawgiver? How can we be responsible for acting in a certain way, unless there’s someone for us to be responsible towards?
God, as the source and true nature of all goodness, is, in his very nature, the objective basis of moral values, because his nature is inherently good, right, just and virtuous. It is that unchanging nature which provides us with a source of the objectivity of moral values, in the same way that the sun provides us with a source of light.
Most importantly, however, we know that moral values must come from God, or something very like him.
Moral values can’t be based on some inanimate force, because moral acts are acts of the will, and no inanimate object or force has a will.
They can’t be based on individual persons, or else, they wouldn’t be objective. Each person would just decide on their own “right” and “wrong” on the fly, and this is subjectivity, not objectivity.
They can’t be based on the decisions of societies, because even societies are subjective in their value judgments. This would not be objective.
They must therefore be based on an intelligence which is free, perfectly-good, and which is beyond human beings and human societies, and beyond the merely physical realm of which we’re aware.
Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist.
The fact is, unless objective moral values exist, nothing that anyone has ever done was really good or really wrong. We know that this is the case from our experience with life. When someone steals our car and drives off, this isn’t just some social taboo. It’s actually wrong. When a teenager walks into a school and starts attacking his fellow students, he’s not just being unfashionable. This is an objectively immoral act, which he has an obligation not to do.
Therefore, objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Proof 3: Evil
Premise 1: There is evil.
Premise 2: In order for the evil to really exist, there must be a real standard for actions and choices to be objectively moral or immoral.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is such a standard of objective moral good, against which evil actions act.
We then refer to argument 2 for what kind of standard it would have to be.
Proof 7: The Ontological Argument
Premise 1: If God exists, he is a maximally great being, for if a greater being existed, then that would be God.
Premise 2: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
Premise 3: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Premise 5: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Premise 6: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.
In the case of the first proof, God is cited as the only available explanation for why the proper functions of our senses coincides with the truth, and is therefore the best explanation.
In the case of the second proof, God is cited as the only plausible explanation for the objectivity of moral values, and in the third proof, the objectivity of moral values is cited as the only plausible explanation for the objectivity of moral evil.
Finally, in proof 7, God is proved to exist because he is, by definition, a maximally great being, and as long as all of the premises of the argument remain correct, the argument is a good one.
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
Though it seemed relevant.
Occam’s razor is our basis for thinking that. Also, I should point out that in order for rational thought to take place, the validity of reason must be presumed.
The moral law isn’t contingent, therefore it has no creator. Not even God. The same logic refutes your third argument.
This premise essentially says “if it is possible for God to exist, then God cannot not exist”. This seems circular.
I
inocente
Guest
Yes, I already quoted Feser saying the same thing - the argument says if the universe had a beginning then the beginning was caused, which is hardly rocket science. The problem is that the cause is an unknown quantity as far as the argument goes.inocente;11269433:
Defining God in this way doesn’t seem inconsistent, nor does it invalidate the argument at any point.The first problem is that it only uses the word God as a “label to name the ultimate source, cause, or explanation of things”, as Feser points out in the blog helpfully just linked by his greatest fan, Linus.
How about the first premise; that everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its existence, either through a necessary existence, or due to some cause? Is this premise disproved by the definition of God in this way? No. The first premise doesn’t even involve God at all.
How about the second; that the universe is not necessary in its existence? Again, no reference is made to God here, and once again, defining God in a certain way can have no bearing on this premise.
Neither can defining God in this way disprove the typical third premise of the argument; that the universe exists.
Lastly, from these three premises, it follows that the universe has a cause, and once again, the definition of God that you presented really does nothing to obstruct the logic of the argument. The logic remains valid, and so the argument is still a good one.
So, while you say this definition of God is a problem, I don’t see that it’s a problem with this argument, or even within this argument.
Yes, there’s that fallacy of composition taken to ridiculous lengths, I don’t know anyone who would argue that either.
Not sure why it needs to be pointed out that if nothing existed, no one would be around to ask that question.
Excellent attempt at a straw man, but I never said anything about proving a claim meaningless by proving that the opposite of the claim is meaningless did I.
Then let’s hear your system for knowing what is and isn’t logical, we can close down all the philosophy departments. Is Goldbach’s conjecture logical? How about the Riemann Hypothesis?
The world exists, so let’s hear this evidence that it could have been otherwise - what kind of evidence do you have: testimonial, statistical, anecdotal, analogical…?
I
inocente
Guest
Let’s get this straight: You introduce a list of people who I’ve never mentioned, then in the very same post accuse me of “still” not defending arguments made by this list of people that I’ve never mentioned, and then say you’ve just introduced a straw man.
Agreed. :coffeeread:
I
inocente
Guest
Russell erred in not being able to conceive of a God who created the very principle of causality. His refutation of the proof for God from causality is therefore inadequate. Conceiving of God does not break the law of causality; God transcends that law, having created it. Ergo, God is not subject to it as Russell liked to imagine. It is truly a limp argument to say that it might as well have been the universe that is eternal rather than God. As Le Maitre argued, the universe is not eternal. The Big Bang proves this. Russell was alive long enough to know about the Big Bang, but perhaps by then not mentally alert enough to make the connection between the idea of Creation versus the idea of Causality.
You keep saying that the big bang proves the universe is not eternal but it doesn’t. It can’t, the math breaks down. I think I’ve asked you before to cite the scientific paper which you think proves this, I even found an online copy of Lemaitre’s book for you.
Here is Lemaître, from catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847:, saying that the universe could be eternal according to his theory:
*In true Catholic spirit, Lemaître distinguishes between natural truth that “is proportional to the capacities of our intelligent nature” and supernatural truth that “never could have been reached by ourselves, and it was necessary that it would come down to us.” Lemaître always differentiated between religious and scientific “levels of cognition” or “orders of reasoning.” This can clearly be seen in his opposition to mixing physical and theological “levels” in the Big Bang hypothesis:
We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation*. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.
The wise Monsignor clearly pointed out that both the laws of physics and history did not exist before the Big Bang so the lack of knowledge about what came before isn’t a temporary phenomenon but intrinsic to our science. If one makes the assumption that God indeed created the universe with the Big Bang, one cannot prove this scientifically.
btw I also mentioned before that you keep spelling his name incorrectly, and you’re still doing it. It’s one word, Lemaître. Spelling it as Le Maître is kind of like spelling the German Theodor as The Odor. It’s one word, always has been, always will be: Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître.
I
inocente
Guest
I wouldn’t have thought you deserve such extreme measures.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
True. However we can infer ( I know you love that word ! ) that because the universe does exist ( assuming it existed eternally ) that God would have had to have been creating it eternally. But Thomas said that the weighter arguments were on the side of those who argued for a finite beginning of the universe.You keep saying that the big bang proves the universe is not eternal but it doesn’t. It can’t, the math breaks down. I think I’ve asked you before to cite the scientific paper which you think proves this, I even found an online copy of Lemaitre’s book for you.
Here is Lemaître, from catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847:, saying that the universe could be eternal according to his theory:
*In true Catholic spirit, Lemaître distinguishes between natural truth that “is proportional to the capacities of our intelligent nature” and supernatural truth that “never could have been reached by ourselves, and it was necessary that it would come down to us.” Lemaître always differentiated between religious and scientific “levels of cognition” or “orders of reasoning.” This can clearly be seen in his opposition to mixing physical and theological “levels” in the Big Bang hypothesis:
We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation*. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.
The wise Monsignor clearly pointed out that both the laws of physics and history did not exist before the Big Bang so the lack of knowledge about what came before isn’t a temporary phenomenon but intrinsic to our science. If one makes the assumption that God indeed created the universe with the Big Bang, one cannot prove this scientifically.
btw I also mentioned before that you keep spelling his name incorrectly, and you’re still doing it. It’s one word, Lemaître. Spelling it as Le Maître is kind of like spelling the German Theodor as The Odor
Thomas did teach that the universe, as far as its matter is concerned, will exist eternally into the future.
Linus2nd
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
Just because no one would be around to ask the question doesn’t mean such a state of being couldn’t exist.
M
mytruepower2
Guest
Occam’s razor only says that we shouldn’t multiply causes beyond necessity. It doesn’t say that we shouldn’t look for a basis for our beliefs, and the mere necessity of believing something is not a good basis for belief in it. Otherwise, it would be rational to believe almost anything without a good reason.
No, it does not, because my claim was not that the moral law needed to be created. Rather, my claim was that the moral law needed a basis for certain things being considered moral or immoral. This basis is provided by God’s existence, but certainly not by any other naturalistic explanation.
No, it doesn’t say that. Read it again. What it implies, rather, is that in order for a being to be maximally-great, it must exist in all possible worlds, if it exists at all. Remember, the premise was…
“4. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.”
M
mytruepower2
Guest
On the contrary, we start by knowing two things about the cause; first, that it has a necessary existence, and is therefore uncreated, and distinctly different from its creation. Second, that it caused the universe, and is therefore extremely powerful.
However, from these basic truths, I believe that it can be argued that the First Cause also possesses free will. After all, if the First Cause were an impersonal set of conditions, they would need to be both necessary and sufficient. If they were not necessary, they would require a cause. If they were insufficient, they would be unable to create the universe.
However, if the First Cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then that cause could never exist without its effect. The cause being beginningless, the effect would also be beginningless as well.
The only way to escape this conundrum of a eternal cause giving rise of a temporal effect is to say that the cause is a being, which possesses free will, and freely chooses to create a temporal effect.
So we’re left with the image of a necessary being, possessed of both free will and immense power, which created the universe, and I think that sufficiently conforms to our understanding of “God” to make the atheist position virtually indefensible.
Again, it’s only the fallacy of composition when you’re reasoning from parts to the whole, not when you’re reasoning that a certain kind of whole must have a certain kind of parts.
Further, the kind of whole I’m talking about is a -necessary- whole, and a necessary being can’t be composed of contingent parts, or it wouldn’t be fully necessary.
I drew this distinction, not because I believe it’s a question that people can sensibly ask, but because you incorrectly said one statement was the opposite of another statement. My intent here is to clarify this.
Then you’re not attempting to prove anything, which means that there’s still no good arguments against the existence of God, nor any good refutations of my arguments.
The purpose of philosophy, believe it or not, is not to continually reconstruct our entire theory of knowledge from the ground up. Rather, it’s to apply a correct theory of knowledge to the task of explaining what we can of the universe.
A correct theory of knowledge will begin with tautologies, and draw conclusions from these.
For one thing, the applicability of science. Inside the world, there are causes which have effects, and we can use science to chart these causes by their effects, or vice versa. However, if the universe were necessary, this would be untrue. Everything would happen only because it couldn’t happen otherwise, and so, in the end, any “causes” or “effects” that we seemed to see would really not be causes or effects, but just deterministic happenings that happened to resemble them. Therefore, while it might be fun to pursue science as a hobby, ultimately, we would have no basis for believing that anything causes anything else to happen, and therefore, no reason for believing the findings of scientific experimentation.
This is contrary to the evidence of our experiences. We have a great deal of evidence that cause and effect really exist, and no evidence that they do not. Therefore, it’s less rational to believe in a necessary universe on this basis alone.
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
Your first argument says “if our reasoning is dependable, then God exists.” This only follows if our reasoning is grounded in neural processes. Once, however, the immateriality of reason is established, this no longer follows.
I’ve proved to you in another thread that actions are not “good” just because we are going to get an eternal reward. Morality is self-defined, and would be the same without heaven. Thus, God’s existence is not needed to explain morality.
Saying that He exists in every possible world is equivalent to saying his existence is necessary.
The purpose of philosophy is both. How can you know what the correct theory of knowledge is without philosophy?
The only conclusions that can be drawn from tautologies are laws of mathematics and such. In order for real philosophy to take place, we must further assume:
*]Absolute truth exists.
*]The truth can be learned from philosophy.
*]Reason is to be trusted above all other sources of knowledge.
*]That a proposition is true is grounds enough for believing it.
*]Philosophy is worth doing.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**inocente
You keep saying that the big bang proves the universe is not eternal but it doesn’t. It can’t, the math breaks down. I think I’ve asked you before to cite the scientific paper which you think proves this,**
Since time began with the Big Bang, how can it be said the universe is eternal?
You keep saying that the big bang proves the universe is not eternal but it doesn’t. It can’t, the math breaks down. I think I’ve asked you before to cite the scientific paper which you think proves this,**
Since time began with the Big Bang, how can it be said the universe is eternal?
M
mytruepower2
Guest
No, my first argument had nothing to do with reason. It has to do with the dependability of our -senses,- not our rational faculties. Furthermore, whether our thoughts are processed by a physical or immaterial organ is irrelivent. The accuracy of our senses must still have a basis, in order for proper functionality to be adequately linked with “truth.”
Keep telling yourself that, hun.
Nothing can be self-defined, but even if it could be, there would still be no -basis- for believing that it was objective, and not just some idea that some guy came up with because he was bored.
Yes; a maximally-great being would have a necessary existence. That’s correct.
You’re assuming too much and extrapolating too little.
Absolute truth, for example, is -implied- by a tautology. Namely, X=X. Therefore, truth=truth. Truth, -by definition- is true.
Falsehoods are also falsehoods, and falsehoods are not truths. All of this information is derived from very simple tautologies, and from this follows the use of truthful approaches in seeking truth, and the exclusion of false approaches in seeking truth. On this, all of philosophy is based.
I
inocente
Guest
Our world need not be contingent on a necessary cause. The cause itself could be contingent on a necessary cause. There could be a list of contingent causes between us and the first cause, or the list could be empty, including no supposed first cause.
Also isn’t a necessary cause incompatible with free will, since it necessarily has to act as it does, whereas if it has a choice then the choice is contingent on something?
Which is fine, the world could have cycled through a series of incarnations of which we are unaware.
Don’t see that you’re proved anything at all. Three philosophers, an Eastern, a Western and a Post Enlightenment, walk into a bar and still disagree.
Don’t see how, for instance a cyclic world could necessarily cycle, have no choice but to cycle, yet go through every possible internal composition in successive cycles. Or, a Star Wars Force could be necessary yet blindly produce contingent effects.
Then that would be the scientific method.
Not sure what your argument is here. People debate free will vs. fatalism, whether the physical law could have been otherwise, why there is something rather than nothing, etc.
People debate it because we don’t know. What we do know, on the basis of experience, is that given certain conditions within a system, what happens next could not happen otherwise. We also know that in a real system it can be impossible, even in principle, to predict what happens next due to the butterfly effect etc.
Imho it’s better to form our beliefs on the basis of what we know rather than what we don’t know.
I
inocente
Guest
The big bang does not say that’s when time began, that’s a myth which Lemaître tried to stamp out, even warning his Pope not to say it, but the myth is alive and well, which is another reason why atheist scientists think we theists make it up as we go.Since time began with the Big Bang, how can it be said the universe is eternal?
The big bang theory says that the world was once very small, and the extreme compaction rubbed out any evidence of any previous state of the world. The compaction was so extreme that even our physics breaks down, so we have no possible way of knowing if the world existed previously. All we can say is that for us that’s when the clock started (or restarted). In Lemaître’s words:
We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations. - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Correct. I have frequently warned people against that conclusion - but no one listens to meThe big bang does not say that’s when time began, that’s a myth which Lemaître tried to stamp out, even warning his Pope not to say it, but the myth is alive and well, which is another reason why atheist scientists think we theists make it up as we go.
The big bang theory says that the world was once very small, and the extreme compaction rubbed out any evidence of any previous state of the world. The compaction was so extreme that even our physics breaks down, so we have no possible way of knowing if the world existed previously. All we can say is that for us that’s when the clock started (or restarted). In Lemaître’s words:
We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations. - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847
. And quantum mechanics does not mean that we live in a universe without time, we do not live in a universe of the " now. " Linus2nd
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
Is the thread about THIS universe?
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
Yes, it did, I’m pretty sure you put a slash between reason and senses. Besides, if it’s only about our senses, then one could just deny the reliability of the senses. And no, that’s not irrelevant, because if they formed by chance (ie. if they are physical and so are to be explained in the traditional atheistic way (evolution)) then they are presumably not reliable.
Yeah, some things are self-defined. Consider, for instance, the concept of truth. Can you define truth? No, you can’t, at least not in a non-recursive way. But everyone knows what truth is. It’s inherently self-defined.
Then the argument is circular. You’re saying that if it is possible for God to exists, then God’s existence is necessary. However, then premise you would need in order to reach that conclusion ontologically is “God exists in the actual world”, which is a disputed proposition.
What if that tautology is just your opinion?
No, philosophy is not based entirely on tautologies. You believe everything that philosophy can prove, it can prove using only tautologies, then prove that to me. Prove anything at all using just tautologies.
- Status