For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[itinerant1]

No, i am simply pointing out that you are making claims that you cannot verify.

If by “verify” you mean empirical verification, then that is not a valid criticism of the argument. Empirical verification is the method of natural sciences, and that particular kind of verification is not relevant to the demonstration in question since the natural sciences are limited to the phenomenal aspects of natural things.

It would be category error to apply empiriological methodology to an ultimate explanation or cause of motion since the natural sciences are properly limited to the explanation of proximate causes.

Natural science treats only of the quantifiable aspects of matter and motion. It is not within the scope and competency of science to explain the existence of things, motion itself, or causality in itself. Furthermore, scientific method does not investigate the determinations of being such as essence and existence, substantial matter and form, act and potency.

Empirical experience is the argument’s starting point, but not its terminus.

 

[larkin31]

I am well aware that you have made no claim regarding the origin of the universe.

However, your claim that the origin of the universe is unknown is a creedal assertion; a variation of the agnostic mantra which says “I do not know, therefore you do not know.”

Nonetheles, the argument from motion shows that I do know more than your dogmatic position will allow.

This is dressed-up god-of-the-gaps.

 

[itinerant1]

This is dressed-up god-of-the-gaps.

The issue is still the argument from motion, and your post does not address the argument.

 

[AlbertBall]

If by “verify” you mean empirical verification, then that is not a valid criticism of the argument. Empirical verification is the method of natural sciences, and that particular kind of verification is not relevant to the demonstration in question since the natural sciences are limited to the phenomenal aspects of natural things.

It would be category error to apply empiriological methodology to an ultimate explanation or cause of motion since the natural sciences are properly limited to the explanation of proximate causes.

Natural science treats only of the quantifiable aspects of matter and motion. It is not within the scope and competency of science to explain the existence of things, motion itself, or causality in itself. Furthermore, scientific method does not investigate the determinations of being such as essence and existence, substantial matter and form, act and potency.

Empirical experience is the argument’s starting point, but not its terminus.

I didn’t say empirical, all i am asking for is verification. For i do not see how you can form conclusions about something that we know literally nothing about. It is a complete unknown. So how have you verified your beliefs?

 

[AlbertBall]

This is dressed-up god-of-the-gaps.

It also shows the inability to separate belief and knowledge.

 

[itinerant1]

I didn’t say empirical, all i am asking for is verification. For i do not see how you can form conclusions about something that we know literally nothing about. It is a complete unknown. So how have you verified your beliefs?

If you are not erroneously looking for “emprical” verification, then your use of the term “verification” remains vague and undefined and thus it has no logical import in the discussion.

In addition, you are still not addressing directly the argument and its logical steps. And that is one reason why you fail to understand how the conclusion is arrived at in a way that is both valid and true.

 

[larkin31]

The issue is still the argument from motion, and your post does not address the argument.

I already did.

The motion argument is an oversimplification, and I addressed its assumptions.

 

[AlbertBall]

If you are not erroneously looking for “emprical” verification, then your use of the term “verification” remains vague and undefined and thus it has no logical import in the discussion.

In addition, you are still not addressing directly the argument and its logical steps. And that is one reason why you fail to understand how the conclusion is arrived at in a way that is both valid and true.

“In addition, you are still not addressing”

That is ALL i have been doing.

“the argument and its logical steps”

Ok as simply as i can… I do not see a logical step when you start to make assertions about the unknown. How can you make ANY logical step when you are referring to that of which we have NO knowledge?

 

[itinerant1]

And now we get back to me asking you how you have verified that what applies to this universe, applies to that which is before the inflation of space-time, where the as far as we are aware the laws of physics break down. However that is beside the point, you are now making claims about the unknown, until you can verify those claims they remain but speculation.

I already answered this kind of objection. The argument does not involve regressing back in time. It pertains, rather, to any moment in the universe, a universe that is presumed to be infinite.

By way of an analogy, the argument’s motion is to be understood “vertically” rather than on an “horizontal” time line regressing to the past. Do you recall that post?

 

[itinerant1]

“In addition, you are still not addressing”

That is ALL i have been doing.

“the argument and its logical steps”

Ok as simply as i can… I do not see a logical step when you start to make assertions about the unknown. How can you make ANY logical step when you are referring to that of which we have NO knowledge?

The argument demonstrates that we can have some, albeit a very limited knowledge…and that knowledge is that there must exist what is called an unmoved mover.

This is why when you assert that I am “referring to that of which we have NO knowledge” I can only respond that you are not grasping the logic of the argument.

[/RIGHT]

 

[AlbertBall]

The argument demonstrates that we can have some, albeit a very limited knowledge…and that knowledge is that there must exist what is called an unmoved mover.

This is why when you assert that I am “referring to that of which we have NO knowledge” I can only respond that you are not grasping the logic of the argument.

[/RIGHT]

But you are arriving at the unmoved mover by asserting laws that for all we know are specific to this universe. While i can agree with cause and effect back to the point of the inflation of space time, when you go beyond that point the laws of physics as we now them break down. Indeed the laws of the universe break down. Therefore you can’t apply those laws to before that point, therefore you cannot arrive at the unmoved mover.

 

[larkin31]

But you are arriving at the unmoved mover by asserting laws that for all we know are specific to this universe. While i can agree with cause and effect back to the point of the inflation of space time, when you go beyond that point the laws of physics as we now them break down. Indeed the laws of the universe break down. Therefore you can’t apply those laws to before that point, therefore you cannot arrive at the unmoved mover.

precisely

It is dressed up God-of-the-gaps: “We dunno, therefor it is God”

 

[Fran65]

How do you know that ‘the laws of the universe break down’? What is your empirical evidence for that statement? How have you verified it?

Of course the interesting thing about this statement is that it admits of the supernatural outside the universe!

If you are talking about having an uncaused cause which is what you imply, then you have admitted that God - as the uncaused cause (nothing more yet!) exists.

Saying that the universe just ‘poofed’ itself into existence really is absurd and as unscientific as it gets. Science being determinist by its very nature. Remember, no matter how far back you go - universe after universe, or how far you travel through the multiverse, as a self professed scientist you have got to come up with a physical cause that was not itself caused. You’ve heard of infinite regression haven’t you?

 

[itinerant1]

But you are arriving at the unmoved mover by asserting laws that for all we know are specific to this universe. While i can agree with cause and effect back to the point of the inflation of space time, when you go beyond that point the laws of physics as we now them break down. Indeed the laws of the universe break down. Therefore you can’t apply those laws to before that point, therefore you cannot arrive at the unmoved mover.

Wow! You completely ignored my post in which I stated, once again, that the argument from motion is not an argument that involves going back in time. Hence, inflation of space time and the laws of physics breaking down are irrelevant to the issue.

Since your response is based on a mis-characterization of the argument, you have committed a straw-man fallacy. You need to do better than that to argue against an unmoved mover.

 

[itinerant1]

I have 20 more arguments ready and waiting, but it looks like we won’t be getting past this particular argument any time soon.

 

[AlbertBall]

How do you know that ‘the laws of the universe break down’? What is your empirical evidence for that statement? How have you verified it?

Of course the interesting thing about this statement is that it admits of the supernatural outside the universe!

If you are talking about having an uncaused cause which is what you imply, then you have admitted that God - as the uncaused cause (nothing more yet!) exists.

Saying that the universe just ‘poofed’ itself into existence really is absurd and as unscientific as it gets. Science being determinist by its very nature. Remember, no matter how far back you go - universe after universe, or how far you travel through the multiverse, as a self professed scientist you have got to come up with a physical cause that was not itself caused. You’ve heard of infinite regression haven’t you?

I have never claimed anything just poofed into existence, to quote potholer “that is no better a theory than goddidit”

If you go back through the thread all you will ever see me say about the origin of the
universe is one thing… at this point in time it is an unknown.

Oh and you will need to ask a physicist to verify that one for you, however I’m pretty sure the mathematical laws do not compute before Planck’s time.

 

[Churchwilprevai]

I have never claimed anything just poofed into existence, to quote potholer “that is no better a theory than goddidit”

If you go back through the thread all you will ever see me say about the origin of the
universe is one thing… at this point in time it is an unknown.

Oh and you will need to ask a physicist to verify that one for you, however I’m pretty sure the mathematical laws do not compute before Planck’s time.

Man is too complex for science. God was at the beginning and will be at the end.

 

[AlbertBall]

Wow! You completely ignored my post in which I stated, once again, that the argument from motion is not an argument that involves going back in time. Hence, inflation of space time and the laws of physics breaking down are irrelevant to the issue.

Since your response is based on a mis-characterization of the argument, you have committed a straw-man fallacy. You need to do better than that to argue against an unmoved mover.

“Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand.”

So we are indeed going back in time, the furthest back we can go is to the origin of the big bang, what happened before that point is an unknown, and as i have been explaining to you, you cannot apply the laws of this universe to be fore that point.

You then said…
“Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing—and this all men know as God.”

Which basically boils down to this… ‘i think something must have caused the universe, and not matter what that is i am going to call that thing god.’

So at this point i would ask that you define ‘god’ for if you are just going to say something caused the universe and no matter what it is i am calling it god, then i guess i must believe in the same god as you, for i too believe it is fair to assume the something caused our universe. However you have catholic as your religion, but god as you define it does not match in any way, shape, or form the god of the bible.

 

[larkin31]

“Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand.”

So we are indeed going back in time, the furthest back we can go is to the origin of the big bang, what happened before that point is an unknown, and as i have been explaining to you, you cannot apply the laws of this universe to be fore that point.

You then said…
“Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing—and this all men know as God.”

Which basically boils down to this… ‘i think something must have caused the universe, and not matter what that is i am going to call that thing god.’

So at this point i would ask that you define ‘god’ for if you are just going to say something caused the universe and no matter what it is i am calling it god, then i guess i must believe in the same god as you, for i too believe it is fair to assume the something caused our universe. However you have catholic as your religion, but god as you define it does not match in any way, shape, or form the god of the bible.

He states that he is not involving time but then he uses the term “first” in his argument.

Clearly, this is simply a dressed-up god-of-the-gaps position.

 

[AlbertBall]

He states that he is not involving time but then he uses the term “first” in his argument.

Clearly, this is simply a dressed-up god-of-the-gaps position.

Agreed, it simply boils down to the fact that we do not understand the origins of the universe… therefore goddidit.