Existence of God and the Five proofs?

[vz71]

See it is these simplistic definitions that get the layman in so much trouble discussing reality.

Oh the arrogence of the ‘educated’
Perhaps you are right. The fact that I exist does not necessarily qualify me as one that knows what is and is not real.

What would they say about the region of space inside the atom between the orbit of the inner most electron and the surface of the nucleus? What is fills that space? That is the type of truly empty space I am referring to and it represents the vast majority by volume of all space.

What about the

No matter where are what you are speaking of, it is still limited to creation. And outside of that, there is nothing.
Not atoms, no electrons, no sub-atomic anything. Nothing.

I find many have a rough time with this idea. Perhaps because it is a state that is so unlike anything we have ever encountered.

 

[michael_legna]

Part 1 of 2

cpayne:

Hi again, everyone. I know I bowed out a while back, but now I’m bowing back in.

You can’t - too late once you leave you can’t come back in.

cpayne:

Let’s say that something (S) comes into existence at point E. Before point E, S does not exist.

Anything that causes something to exist must itself exist; in other words, a non-existent cause cannot produce a really existing phenomenon. I would take this as axiomatic.

Yes, that might just be the problem. Aquinas and you may want this to be axiomatic (not needing proof), but that is because it is based on an experience of God’s creation and a language born of that experience which is lacking a real grasp of what goes on in high energy physics where the production and destruction of matter goes on.

To compound this problem, Aquinas then wants to assume this axiom as a premise and so he can later conclude that since he never saw anything that violated it there had to be a previous mover or creator. This is all well and good, and sound reasoning in a pre-Newtonian, mechanistic world view.

But when science starts to show that there are indeed environments where our language fails to be up to the challenge of describing the events that occur, we cannot simply demand to hold onto this axiom, which as an axiom has never been proven and arose simply out of our limited experiences. The problem shows itself in the fact that we are forced into one of two alternatives when presented with these events.

The first alternative is to hold fast to the axiom and thus declare that even though it looks like these events are self-causing, they are by definition not self-causing because of the axiom. We need to do this to hold onto the conclusion that God is the prime mover or first cause. But this means we are in effect turning the premise into the conclusion.

The second alternative is to claim that because of the axiom there must be something underneath this level of generation which we cannot see and that is the cause of these events and that somewhere deeper down God is the cause of all these levels. But then we fall into the trap of the creation we claim is to reveal God within it, is a creation we cannot see and thus cannot reveal anything to us.

cpayne:

If S causes itself to exist, that means at a point before point E, S would have to exist as the cause of its own coming into existence.

Only true if you accept the axiom, which is questionable now that we have a deeper understanding of the high energy environments associated with particle production and destruction.

cpayne:

In other words, at the point prior to point E, (S & ~S). S would have to exist as a cause in order to be the cause of its own coming into existence: again, leading to S & ~S. This cannot logically be true.

Only if you accept the axiom that for something to cause something else to exist must itself exist and that this axiom must be applicable to self generating events. Given Aquinas’ history with simple Newtonian environments it is a very acceptable axiom to allow to develop in our minds and language. But then so is the idea that a pole cannot be both shorter than (S) and longer than (~S) a barn, and be so in such a way that a pole could not both be inside a barn with the doors closed and yet still be measured to be longer than the barns internal dimensions.

In other words at some point in time E, (S & ~S). The pole would have to be S in order to be inside the barn, and at the same time ~S again, leading to S & ~S. This cannot logically be true.

But we know it is due to time dilation and Lorentz contraction.

End of Part 1

 

[michael_legna]

Part 2 of 2

cpayne:

Okay, why exempt God from this? It’s simply that there is no point E for God; there is never a point at which God does not exist or comes into existence. Something that exists either exists eternally or comes into existence. If it exists eternally and unchangingly, it requires no cause.

I agree, but we are trying to prove God from these arguments, and that requires that He is the only possible alternative to these arguments. In other words we have to prove through these arguments that nothing else could come into existence of be moved without something else causing it or causing it to move. But that sounds like the conclusion we are trying to reach is the same as the axiom we use to begin our argument. We cannot logically turn the antecedent into the consequence.

cpayne:

Now I would be the first to admit that, although I like reading the interaction between Michael and John, I am not up to that level of scientific literacy. However, if the science actually does lead to (S & ~S), I would reject it and say a different theory is called for. What do you all think?

But scientific theories are not accepted or rejected based on the axioms we have developed during our interactions with the macroscopic Newtonian world, otherwise tunneling diodes would never have been developed, where a particle of lower energy than the barrier it faces still manages to penetrate it (E and ~E) or a energy beam can be both a wave and a particle and no amount of observation can tell when it will be or won’t be either one and yet it behaves as both (W and ~W) (P and ~P). Scientific theories are accepted or rejected based on how successfully they predict the behavior of environments. If we do deny the theories then we deny our ability to properly observe nature (since we are constantly surprised by what it does next) and we cannot even dream of discussing causation and or the lack there of. We are left not only not able to observe, but we also miss out on having God revealed to us by His creation because of this inability to observe on anything but a cursory level.

End of Part 2

 

[Questioning_1]

Maybe my biggest concern is with motion.

Why does there have to be a mover behind everything? or anything?

I move myself nothing is moving me and nothing is moving the computer on my desk that i type on. The keys themselves are moved by my fingers but not the entity of “computer.”

I cannot fathom the concept of first causes. Is the proof from motion the same as cause or am I just mixing them up? Why can’t everything just cause themselves?

Thank you so far, because it is helping.

 

[michael_legna]

vz71:

Oh the arrogence of the ‘educated’
Perhaps you are right. The fact that I exist does not necessarily qualify me as one that knows what is and is not real.

I am sorry, but do you really feel you have an equal right to discuss the nature of lightning or the way in which the sun “burns” as the scientists do? Do you think your grasp on the realities of nature are equally accurate? That is the only point I am making when you provide a definition from a dictionary of common usage into a discussion of technical issues.

vz71:

No matter where are what you are speaking of, it is still limited to creation. And outside of that, there is nothing.
Not atoms, no electrons, no sub-atomic anything. Nothing.

But we are talking about the beginning events of creation. So something had to be outside of creation in that nothingness and when we find events that appear to be spontaneous any argument for God must be able to address them and just declaring they axiomatically cannot be self-generating or that there is nothing outside of creation does not qualify as a formal logical argument.

Yes, I believe that God created all these things. I just don’t accept Aquinas’ five points as PROVING it. For me it is a matter of faith, and these arguments are converging and convincing evidence. But they are not proofs.

vz71:

I find many have a rough time with this idea. Perhaps because it is a state that is so unlike anything we have ever encountered.

Yes, it is so unlike anything we have encountered that our common language and our thinking is not equipped to handle it. That is precisely why we cannot just declare things to be so, because they always have been in all our past experiences.

 

[punkforchrist]

Questioning?:

Why does there have to be a mover behind everything? or anything?

I move myself nothing is moving me and nothing is moving the computer on my desk that i type on. The keys themselves are moved by my fingers but not the entity of “computer.”

I think the key statement above is: “nothing is moving me”. When we reflect on our own motion (more accurately translated, “change”), we do ultimately rely on other movers. Without our parents, we would not be here. Just as a chicken “moves” its eggs by being the biological source of them, so too do we have a vast chain of movers, albeit a finite one.

Nothing is moving you in the sense that nothing outside of yourself compells you to type on your keyboard, but you are moved in the sense that without the past chain of movers that preceded you, you would have no ability to move anything. I think you are hinting at free will, which I agree with, but free will is still dependent on the one who enables you to have it.

Blessings

 

[punkforchrist]

Michael, I think for the most part we all agree that what are traditionally referred to as “proofs” for the existence of God do not provide absolute metaphysical certainty. There is almost nothing that can be proven in this sense. Instead, the word “proof” as you and others have suggested really means “sound argument”. In other words, belief in God is more rational than non-belief, even if it cannot be proven with rigorous absolute certainty, just like belief in the external world is more rational to its denial.

Those are my thoughts, at least.

Blessings

 

[michael_legna]

punkforchrist:

Michael, I think for the most part we all agree that what are traditionally referred to as “proofs” for the existence of God do not provide absolute metaphysical certainty. There is almost nothing that can be proven in this sense. Instead, the word “proof” as you and others have suggested really means “sound argument”. In other words, belief in God is more rational than non-belief, even if it cannot be proven with rigorous absolute certainty, just like belief in the external world is more rational to its denial.

Ok, but I am saying more than just that someone who denies proofs of any kind based on empirical evidence. The concept of skepticism applies to Aquinas’ proofs even back in his day, before we understood the misconceptions about how nature behaves that underlies his premise.

I am saying that there are specific issues with Aquinas’ proofs BECAUSE they rely on empirical observations (and our conclusions about the nature of the world around us, and they have those empirical observations wrong.

It all gets back to the issue of axioms I think (as one of the other posters zeroed in on). An axiom being a truth we accept as being obvious to the most casual and uninterested observer. Unfortunately we now know that nature cannot be fully understood by such a casual observer and in fact has aspects that only reveal themselves to the most diligent and trained investigations, so that these understandings can be included properly in our language, thinking and axioms.

 

[cpayne]

Dear ML, I still have problems with this stance. I go back to Churchland, whom I mentioned earlier. He has a similar position he argues with respect to people seeing a “red apple,” in which he says (paraphrased), “They think they are seeing a red apple when really they are seeing only photons reflecting certain wavelengths! Ha! the simpletons!” I think the problem is he can’t see the apple for the photons.

Similarly here. You concede that all our empirical macroscopic observations back up Aquinas, but then say something like, “But all of that is a misunderstanding, because if Aquinas had known of certain explanations of certain subatomic behaviors, he would have known that all of those observations are in fact incorrect!” So because of these subatomic behaviors, our notions of causality are now incorrect (and also, I might add, now [S & ~S] is supposed to be accepted as valid)? Empirical observation is only acceptable now if it occurs at the subatomic level, and everything else is “casual”?

 

[michael_legna]

cpayne:

You concede that all our empirical macroscopic observations back up Aquinas, but then say something like, “But all of that is a misunderstanding, because if Aquinas had known of certain explanations of certain subatomic behaviors, he would have known that all of those observations are in fact incorrect!”

No, not all the observations are incorrect, but there are enough incorrect observations, that the language and thought process we developed based on these misunderstandings end up being incorrect as well.

If we observe no unicorns for the vast portion of history (say the last 6000 years) we would most likely develop a deep seated conviction that there are no unicorns. We could even develop an axiom which people could freely use as a premise in arguments. But the minute we see our first unicorn we must be willing to, at the very least stop using the lack of unicorns as an axiom in arguments.

cpayne:

So because of these subatomic behaviors, our notions of causality are now incorrect

Exactly, just like seeing a unicorn would change our notion of the extent of the animal kingdom and any axioms based on it.

cpayne:

(and also, I might add, now [S & ~S] is supposed to be accepted as valid)?

In some cases yes, or at the very least not acceptable as an axiom which can be applied without any attempted support.

cpayne:

Empirical observation is only acceptable now if it occurs at the subatomic level, and everything else is “casual”?

No, but one cannot extend the principles derived from macroscopic empirical observations to all of nature if those principles are not support or are even contrary to the empirical observations made of the subatomic level. To do so is to deny the reality of those subatomic observations just to hold onto an axiom you have no other support for than your limited macroscopic experiences.

 

[vz71]

I am sorry, but do you really feel you have an equal right to discuss the nature of lightning or the way in which the sun “burns” as the scientists do? Do you think your grasp on the realities of nature are equally accurate? That is the only point I am making when you provide a definition from a dictionary of common usage into a discussion of technical issues.

You question my right to talk on a given topic??
On the basis that you do not believe the proper education is in place?
Tell you what…when you say something I am incapable of understanding, I’ll let you know.

But we are talking about the beginning events of creation. So something had to be outside of creation in that nothingness and when we find events that appear to be spontaneous any argument for God must be able to address them and just declaring they axiomatically cannot be self-generating or that there is nothing outside of creation does not qualify as a formal logical argument.

I see. You disbelieve the argument works because science claims that things can spontaneously appear within this universe.
This still leads us right back to “What happened before before the universe?”
God is still indicated. Something had to create it all, and that something must be greater then the creation.
Science lays claim on something spontaneously appearing; but where is this really a problem? Everything still is occurring within the confines of the universe. And within this context, it is just as proper to say there is some unseen cause as it would be to speculate on ‘spontaneous appearance’…actually moreso.

 

[cpayne]

No, not all the observations are incorrect, but there are enough incorrect observations, that the language and thought process we developed based on these misunderstandings end up being incorrect as well.

If we observe no unicorns for the vast portion of history (say the last 6000 years) we would most likely develop a deep seated conviction that there are no unicorns. We could even develop an axiom which people could freely use as a premise in arguments. But the minute we see our first unicorn we must be willing to, at the very least stop using the lack of unicorns as an axiom in arguments.

Exactly, just like seeing a unicorn would change our notion of the extent of the animal kingdom and any axioms based on it.

In some cases yes, or at the very least not acceptable as an axiom which can be applied without any attempted support.

No, but one cannot extend the principles derived from macroscopic empirical observations to all of nature if those principles are not support or are even contrary to the empirical observations made of the subatomic level. To do so is to deny the reality of those subatomic observations just to hold onto an axiom you have no other support for than your limited macroscopic experiences.

Well, I’m perfectly willing to see any number of unicorns, and to have my views on unicorns revised indefinitely. However, I would not be willing to say “It is the case that unicorns exist and it is also not the case that unicorns exist.”

At most, I would say “Some current observations indicate that unicorns exist and some current observations indicate that it is not the case that unicorns exist.” Which is not the same as (S & ~S). No sirree, no sir bob. :nope:

 

[michael_legna]

vz71:

You question my right to talk on a given topic??

I did not mean you specifically. I was using you in the general generic sense as in you representing the typical layman. The typical layman does not have a sufficient education or understanding to speak authoritatively on definitions of such things like electromagnetics and fusion, which underlie the phenomena of lightning and the sun “burning”.

I did not mean it as a slight against you specifically, it was a overall generalization about laymen speaking outside their area of expertise.

vz71:

I see. You disbelieve the argument works because science claims that things can spontaneously appear within this universe.

This still leads us right back to “What happened before before the universe?”

That is covered in the issue of deSitter space, which is in effect self generating in much the same way as the quantum fluctuation is.

vz71:

God is still indicated. Something had to create it all, and that something must be greater then the creation.

That is a premise - it is not a provable point. You assume it to be true based on our understanding of how nature is, but that understanding is based on our world view formed from a limited subset of events (only those in the macroscopic Newtonian world we interact with most commonly).

vz71:

Science lays claim on something spontaneously appearing; but where is this really a problem? Everything still is occurring within the confines of the universe.

This part explains the problem with the argument for a prime mover. The prime mover acts within the universe because those things moved are inside the universe.

vz71:

And within this context, it is just as proper to say there is some unseen cause as it would be to speculate on ‘spontaneous appearance’

Except it is not sufficient for a proof to claim to be as good an explanation as competing theories. A proof has to not only support its conclusion but rule out all others. And these are not speculations, they are scientific observations, the exact type of observations that we must require as we try to see God revealed through His creation.

vz71:

…actually more so.

Why is faith in an unseen cause more proper than accepting observations no matter how contrary they are to your previous limited experience?

 

[michael_legna]

cpayne:

Well, I’m perfectly willing to see any number of unicorns, and to have my views on unicorns revised indefinitely. However, I would not be willing to say “It is the case that unicorns exist and it is also not the case that unicorns exist.”

At most, I would say “Some current observations indicate that unicorns exist and some current observations indicate that it is not the case that unicorns exist.” Which is not the same as (S & ~S). No sirree, no sir bob. :nope:

You are mixing your ideas here.

The axiom that a cause must precede an effect is what is being revised. So it is not the existence of unicorns that has to be negated and co-exist with it original statement.

It is whatever axiom was developed from our lack of seeing unicorns that we would have to negate.

The principle is sound. We can see that if we propose a possible axiom arising from denying unicorns.

One such axiom might be Something with a single horn sticking out of its head is not a unicorn. (This axiom would be accepted without proof in the original system and we can label it S) But after the discovery of unicorns we would be in the position of knowing that ~S (somethings with one horn sticking out of its head is a unicorn) is valid. So we are now in a position of S and ~S.

In physics the wave particle duality is a very clear example of how something can be both S (a particle in this case) and ~S (a wave in this example). A lot of modern physics has posed problems for our antiquated view of causality, along with other fundamental properties. It is a problem not only for philosophers, but anyone who tries to base ideas on extensions of principles derived from a Newtonian view of the world.

 

[cpayne]

Well, you are right that I am mixed up at this point. I don’t see how not believing that one-horned animals are unicorns and then coming to believe that they are is the same as (S & ~S)—believing both propositions simultaneously, in other words.

On the wave/particle duality: I always understood this to mean that something acts as a wave when observed in one way, but acts as a particle when observed a different way. Is this not the case? If so, I would argue this still does not propose (S & ~S).

By the way, I apologize to anyone else reading who is probably extremely bored with this “law of noncontradiction” discussion.

 

[vz71]

This part explains the problem with the argument for a prime mover. The prime mover acts within the universe because those things moved are inside the universe.

And outside the universe.
And only one thing can exist inside and outside creation.

 

[michael_legna]

cpayne:

Well, you are right that I am mixed up at this point. I don’t see how not believing that one-horned animals are unicorns and then coming to believe that they are is the same as (S & ~S)—believing both propositions simultaneously, in other words.

It is not the coming to believe that is at issue here it is the error contained in the axiom. If before you had an axiom that said - If something has one horn in its head it cannot be a unicorn, then rhinos in that system would be S. Then when you later discovered unicorns they would satisfy ~S. You would then live in a world where both S and ~S (relative to the false axiom) would be true. Some one horned animals would be unicorns and some would be rhinos. It is not the coming to believe that is at issue here, it is the falsification of the axiom.

Now it is true that just as you are having trouble letting go of the axiom (since they are be definition deep seated beliefs) there would be people in the world described above who would refuse to accept ~S with regard to unicorns because they had not taken part in the observation of them.

cpayne:

On the wave/particle duality: I always understood this to mean that something acts as a wave when observed in one way, but acts as a particle when observed a different way. Is this not the case? If so, I would argue this still does not propose (S & ~S).

No, it is not the case. The point of Young’s double slit experiment is that both natures exist for the beam and only when we apply specific observational techniques can we see one or the other nature of the beam, but both natures are present when we are not affecting them by observation. If it were as you suggest, then we would be imparting one or the other of those natures on them by our observation. That in itself would be an act of creation, which is beyond us. Therefore both natures must be present at all times.

cpayne:

By the way, I apologize to anyone else reading who is probably extremely bored with this “law of noncontradiction” discussion.

They knew it would be boring when they wandered into the philosophy forum.

 

[michael_legna]

michael_legna:

This part explains the problem with the argument for a prime mover. The prime mover acts within the universe because those things moved are inside the universe.

vz71:

And outside the universe.

Is there motion outside the universe? How can there be with no space to move through? It becomes a meaningless concept.

vz71:

And only one thing can exist inside and outside creation.

How do you know this is limited to only one thing? That is the point of the argument - to prove by process of elimination (by calling on the inherent characteristics of nature) to show that only one thing is left to do all these things. But you cannot use the conclusion you seek in order to prop up the argument you are making. That is referred to as assuming the consequence. It is a fallacious form of argument.

 

[michael_legna]

cpayne,

I would like to present you two options (if you can think of another please present it).

Let us accept for the moment that modern science has observed quantum fluctuation as I described and cannot see any underlying cause for this.

We are left with two options

1. It is a self generating event.
2. We cannot see the underlying event that causes quantum fluctuation

Now before you pick here are the dangers associate with each.

If we pick number 1 we negate Aquinas’ proof as valid - but you already know that.

If we pick number 2 we deny the teaching of the Church that God is revealed through His creation because suddenly a significant aspect of His creation is unobservable and therefore cannot reveal anything to us.

I much prefer seeing Aquinas’ 5 points as converging and convincing arguments (as described in the Catechism) and therefore having to deny their rigor as proof, to the alternative of having to deny a teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[davidv]

cpayne,

I would like to present you two options (if you can think of another please present it).

Let us accept for the moment that modern science has observed quantum fluctuation as I described and cannot see any underlying cause for this.

We are left with two options

1. It is a self generating event.
2. We cannot see the underlying event that causes quantum fluctuation

Now before you pick here are the dangers associate with each.

If we pick number 1 we negate Aquinas’ proof as valid - but you already know that.

If we pick number 2 we deny the teaching of the Church that God is revealed through His creation because suddenly a significant aspect of His creation is unobservable and therefore cannot reveal anything to us.

God is infinite, therefore any aspect of creation that to us is not observable is totally consistent with this truth. We, finite beings, cannot not know the infinite in totality.

Edit: So picking #2 doesn’t do what you say.