How do I respond to this argument?

[Needtostop]

“i dont understand why you think your god is real. you’re saying its impossible for the universe to have existed always but its perfectly possible for an all powerful all knowing being that apparently is everywhere at once to always exist? doesnt quite add up to me.”

 

[fred_conty]

In a sense this argument is right. God knew everything from all eternity although everything was/is not brought into existence. But everything has a potential existence in thought in
God. But God only brought certain creatures into existence. And this is what would be called creation in time.

Just a thought.

 

[hicetnunc]

“i dont understand why you think your god is real. you’re saying its impossible for the universe to have existed always but its perfectly possible for an all powerful all knowing being that apparently is everywhere at once to always exist? doesnt quite add up to me.”

You might explain to the questioner the difference between contingent and necessary being. Contingent things are those things which do not contain within themselves the reason for the own existence. Necessary things do contain within themselves the reason for their own existence. A circle for example is necessarily round; the roundness is contained within the very definition of the circle. Circles do not derive their roundness from outside causes, like triangles. But swimming pools are not necessarily round; any round swimming pool therefore is round because of some external reason. The roundness of a swimming pool is contingent; the roundness of a circle is necessary.

We can apply this distinction to the universe. The universe does not contain within itself the reason for its own existence, and therefore we must look for further causes to explain the universe. But existence itself, from which all things derive existence, contains within itself the reason for its own existence. God, St Thomas tells us, is “ipsum esse subsistens”: that is, the source of His own existence. If there was no source of existence, nothing would exist.

You might also like to do a search in these forums under ‘cosmological argument’ or ‘arguments for the existence of God’ since there are literally hundreds of posts on this topic, though I am very happy to discuss it further with you here too if you like.

Good luck!

 

[Sair]

We can apply this distinction to the universe. The universe does not contain within itself the reason for its own existence, and therefore we must look for further causes to explain the universe. But existence itself, from which all things derive existence, contains within itself the reason for its own existence.

This presupposes that the universe requires a reason to exist beyond simply existing. And even if further causes are required to explain the existence of the universe as we know it (since by itself, ‘universe’ as a technical term actually encompasses everything that exists) then there is no reason to suppose this cause had any of the characteristics normally ascribed to the theistic concept of god.

In drawing a distinction between contingent and necessary beings, I have never seen an explanation as to why gods can be necessary beings whilst other contenders for the “ultimate” cause of the universe can’t. It’s self-evident that existence is necessary before any qualities or properties can obtain, but if god is equated with existence itself, then god cannot be defined as a distinct entity with any separate qualities from other things that exist, and is thus not the personal god of Classical Theism. If god is not equivalent to existence, then it is not the case that god contains his own reason for existence. In any case, the claim, “God contains within himself the reason of his own existence” is just a form of words designed to sidestep the question of where this all-powerful, intelligent, creative yet bodiless, brainless and incongruously ‘simple’ mind came from.

 

[Needtostop]

You might explain to the questioner the difference between contingent and necessary being. Contingent things are those things which do not contain within themselves the reason for the own existence. Necessary things do contain within themselves the reason for their own existence. A circle for example is necessarily round; the roundness is contained within the very definition of the circle. Circles do not derive their roundness from outside causes, like triangles. But swimming pools are not necessarily round; any round swimming pool therefore is round because of some external reason. The roundness of a swimming pool is contingent; the roundness of a circle is necessary.

We can apply this distinction to the universe. The universe does not contain within itself the reason for its own existence, and therefore we must look for further causes to explain the universe. But existence itself, from which all things derive existence, contains within itself the reason for its own existence. God, St Thomas tells us, is “ipsum esse subsistens”: that is, the source of His own existence. If there was no source of existence, nothing would exist.

You might also like to do a search in these forums under ‘cosmological argument’ or ‘arguments for the existence of God’ since there are literally hundreds of posts on this topic, though I am very happy to discuss it further with you here too if you like.

Good luck!

This is a great argument. I’ll try telling him this.

 

[stephe1987]

It’s quite sad how many people these days (especially intelligent, educated people) don’t understand even the most simple things that were taught to and understood by small children just 100-150 years ago.

Only things which BEGIN TO EXIST need to have a cause. God exists both inside and outside of time; He has always existed, even before time began so nothing brought Him into existence.

The Universe did have a beginning, so it does need to have a cause. It’s just whether or not a person believes God did it, and some people are Deists who believe that some kind of god started the universe, but it’s not a personal god and whoever or whatever started the universe doesn’t care about humans anyway. And some people just say they don’t know what caused it, but it wasn’t God (which makes no sense… if you don’t know what caused it then how can you know it wasn’t God?) and are atheists.

 

[andremiguel]

“i dont understand why you think your god is real. you’re saying its impossible for the universe to have existed always but its perfectly possible for an all powerful all knowing being that apparently is everywhere at once to always exist? doesnt quite add up to me.”

The argument would be like this: do you tell me that man went to the moon and that elephant cannot go to the moon? That does not make sense to me.

The Universe and God and so apart much more than an ant an a Blue Whale…

 

[St_Francis]

This presupposes that the universe requires a reason to exist beyond simply existing. And even if further causes are required to explain the existence of the universe as we know it (since by itself, ‘universe’ as a technical term actually encompasses everything that exists) then there is no reason to suppose this cause had any of the characteristics normally ascribed to the theistic concept of god.

In drawing a distinction between contingent and necessary beings, I have never seen an explanation as to why gods can be necessary beings whilst other contenders for the “ultimate” cause of the universe can’t. It’s self-evident that existence is necessary before any qualities or properties can obtain, but if god is equated with existence itself, then god cannot be defined as a distinct entity with any separate qualities from other things that exist, and is thus not the personal god of Classical Theism. If god is not equivalent to existence, then it is not the case that god contains his own reason for existence. In any case, the claim, “God contains within himself the reason of his own existence” is just a form of words designed to sidestep the question of where this all-powerful, intelligent, creative yet bodiless, brainless and incongruously ‘simple’ mind came from.

When I first heard this type of argument, I thought it was a trick, explaining God by what was already assumed, but then I read a more Aristotian explanation, where we started with no argument and moved up to A Being.

WRT this argument, we see that things around us are contingent. However, in order to arrive at the existence of these contingent things, we must postulate a non-contingent Being who is outside of all this contingent stuff. As one moves along in thinking, that non-contingent Being is discovered to have other attributes.

And that is our natural knowledge of the Being who created the contingent world.

With the knowledge that is revealed to us by God, we understand that God is the same as the creating Being we find through natural knowledge.

When we consider that the creating Being created time and matter, we see that the Being has no need of a source, because things which have a need of source are not the eternal norm; they are only within the time&matter world, not the world outside of time and matter. We are just so accustomed to things having a source that it’s hard to grasp that.

 

[tonyrey]

“i dont understand why you think your god is real. you’re saying its impossible for the universe to have existed always but its perfectly possible for an all powerful all knowing being that apparently is everywhere at once to always exist? doesnt quite add up to me.”

“I don’t understand why you think your blind Goddess is real. You’re saying it’s impossible for the universe to have been created by the Supreme Being but it’s perfectly possible for an irrational, purposeless, all-powerful force that has emerged out of a void and knows absolutely nothing to be the source of all truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. It doesn’t quite add up to me.”

 

[Sair]

The Universe did have a beginning, so it does need to have a cause. It’s just whether or not a person believes God did it, and some people are Deists who believe that some kind of god started the universe, but it’s not a personal god and whoever or whatever started the universe doesn’t care about humans anyway. And some people just say they don’t know what caused it, but it wasn’t God (which makes no sense… if you don’t know what caused it then how can you know it wasn’t God?) and are atheists.

Yet according to the laws of thermodynamics, at least, energy can be neither created nor destroyed - only transferred. So here we have an immediate candidate for a nonpersonal cause of the state of the universe as we know it.

Thus far, it seems that the choice between deism or atheism is largely a matter of personal preference. Deism, unprovable and unfalsifiable as it is, inhabits the middle ground between being unable to account for the existence of the universe in the absence of an active creator, and being unable to reconcile the personal god of theism with the conditions of the universe and the life we experience in our own tiny part of it.

In that sense, it’s a legitimate question as to how one can know - or at least be philosophically confident (which is quite a different thing to certain knowledge) that the cause of the universe wasn’t a deistic god. The short answer is that we can’t know, given the supposed characteristics of such a being, which is morally neutral, disinterested in human affairs and may not even remain extant, even if it did exist at the moment the universe as we know it came into existence.

The theistic concept of god, on the other hand, claims much more - that the creator of the universe was and is a person, with a functioning mind and a creative inclination, as well as a benevolent and loving nature, who takes a particular and intimate interest in the affairs of one particular species amongst his entire creation. Is it really any wonder that people doubt this?

 

[Sair]

And that is our natural knowledge of the Being who created the contingent world.

With the knowledge that is revealed to us by God, we understand that God is the same as the creating Being we find through natural knowledge.

When we consider that the creating Being created time and matter, we see that the Being has no need of a source, because things which have a need of source are not the eternal norm; they are only within the time&matter world, not the world outside of time and matter. We are just so accustomed to things having a source that it’s hard to grasp that.

This seems like a claim to revelation rather than any kind of natural knowledge. There is always the danger, of course - a danger of which the formulators and practitioners of the scientific method were and are well aware, and take steps to circumvent - that our “natural knowledge” is a result of personal prejudice or anthropocentric perspective. We are, indeed, accustomed to things having a source, but that is because we, ourselves, create things, with intent. When we suppose that the universe, as an extant entity, had to have a creator, we may well be projecting from our own limited experience of made things that are the result of creative intent. It actually doesn’t follow that every extant entity requires direct or intentional creation.

 

[Durus]

In a sense this argument is right. God knew everything from all eternity although everything was/is not brought into existence. But everything has a potential existence in thought in
God. But God only brought certain creatures into existence. And this is what would be called creation in time.

Just a thought.

What evidence do Christians have that they are certain that this is true?

 

[fred_conty]

This is a philosopy thread and so from philosophy we know this, that is logic.

I guess the basic question is to prove it is true. But this has been done with logic.

If there is something wrong with the logic then that needs to be pointed out and discussed.

I have assumed that a person has reached the point where they know that God knows all.

Best wishes.

 

[hicetnunc]

Thank you Sair for your thoughtful reply and great points. Please allow me to respond drawing on my understanding of Aquinas.

This presupposes that the universe requires a reason to exist beyond simply existing.

As Aristotle points out, the very nature of the question “why” necessitates an answer. Maybe there is no specific or definitive answer; maybe, as Russell says, the universe is just there, a brute fact, requiring no further explanation at all. If that is the case, then that in itself is the answer to our question “Why”. But if this is the answer to the question then some case should be made to justify it instead of simply asserting it as though this answer were self-evident.

And even if further causes are required to explain the existence of the universe as we know it…then there is no reason to suppose this cause had any of the characteristics normally ascribed to the theistic concept of god.

I would agree with you that beyond necessity and immutability, cosmological and metaphysical/causal arguments for the existence of God do not provide us with a complete “description” of God as understood by classical theism. But the point of such arguments, as Aquinas explains, is not to assert the full range of doctrine about God, but to show that belief in God as a necessary, immutable being is not unjustified. That God is a Trinity, for example, requires faith and revelation; that a necessary being answering to the name “God” exists does not if the argument succeeds.

(since by itself, ‘universe’ as a technical term actually encompasses everything that exists)

In order to know this, you would have to know everything that exists to say that the universe is the sum totality of existing things. If, on the other hand, you are simply using the word ‘universe’ to mean everything that is actually (or potentially) existing, then this definition is simply another word for ‘everything’ and would therefore include God or gods, if indeed He/they exist.

In drawing a distinction between contingent and necessary beings, I have never seen an explanation as to why gods can be necessary beings whilst other contenders for the “ultimate” cause of the universe can’t.

Then may I suggest the following treatments of the question by Aquinas who does indeed offer an explanation to this very question: Summa Contra Gentiles Book 1 chapter 42.8; Summa Theologica, questions 14 and 19; Book 5 of the Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, in which he explains at length the nature of and relationship between necessary and contingent being and is quite a thoroughgoing answer to your question.

Also, might I suggest that there is perhaps a confusion here over the way in which the name “God” is being used. “God” is not being applied as an a priori premise, but is rather the name to the posterior conclusion. In other words, we are not starting with the assumption that God exists, then restricting all necessary possible causes to that definition. Rather, the argument asserts that there must be a necessary cause of the universe. The name we give to this necessary cause is God, after the fact. So any of your contenders which fit the bill will have this name, since the name God is equivalent to “the necessary cause of the universe”. You may then want to argue that there could be all kinds of causes that are not compatible with the Judeo-Christian concept of God, but I am quite confident that you will find an answer to these objections in the above passages.

If you would like to exchange further thoughts about this, I am very happy to do so. Please feel free to send me a message too, if you would like me to send you articles and or further citations.

Best wishes Sair…

Steve

 

[cc42]

If this has already been said then forgive me.

God is a changeless being. The universe changes. God doesn’t have parts. The universe does. God doesn’t need anything outside of Himself. The universe is contigent. Acting like God and the universe are somehow synonymous is failing to understand what we mean by God.

 

[JDaniel]

“i dont understand why you think your god is real. you’re saying its impossible for the universe to have existed always but its perfectly possible for an all powerful all knowing being that apparently is everywhere at once to always exist? doesnt quite add up to me.”

NTS:

Think it through.

What does “finite” mean? Do finite things have beginnings? Do finite things have physical ends?

Is the universe finite? Is there such a thing as “actual,” i.e., physical infinity? Can you define “infinity?” Can you show us an Infinity?

If a being is finite, when and where would it have begun? When and where would it end?

If a being is infinite, when and where would it have begun? When and where would it end?

God bless,
jd

 

[Needtostop]

Thanks everyone for the replies. You gave me many helpful arguments.

 

[cc42]

Sair:

I am wondering what you think of this argument

All things exist in either a state of potential change or actualized change. But a being in a potential state has to be caused in order to reach an actualized state by something outside of itself in order to reach an actualized state, except if everything is in some potential state all change must ultimately lead back to something already in a fully actualized state. This changeless and fully actualized being we call God.

 

[WillP]

You might explain to the questioner the difference between contingent and necessary being. Contingent things are those things which do not contain within themselves the reason for the own existence. Necessary things do contain within themselves the reason for their own existence. A circle for example is necessarily round; the roundness is contained within the very definition of the circle. Circles do not derive their roundness from outside causes, like triangles. But swimming pools are not necessarily round; any round swimming pool therefore is round because of some external reason. The roundness of a swimming pool is contingent; the roundness of a circle is necessary.

We can apply this distinction to the universe. The universe does not contain within itself the reason for its own existence, and therefore we must look for further causes to explain the universe. But existence itself, from which all things derive existence, contains within itself the reason for its own existence. God, St Thomas tells us, is “ipsum esse subsistens”: that is, the source of His own existence. If there was no source of existence, nothing would exist.

You might also like to do a search in these forums under ‘cosmological argument’ or ‘arguments for the existence of God’ since there are literally hundreds of posts on this topic, though I am very happy to discuss it further with you here too if you like.

Good luck!

1. Don’t you have the problem of defining something (namely “god”) in terms which could also aptly apply to something else (namely, the universe). If the universe doesn’t contain the reason within itself for its own existence, then how can you say God does? I realize you claim that God is a necessary being, but, why could it not be that the universe (or the stuff shich comprises the universe) be necessary in itself?
2. In the end, what you call “God” is simply the ultimate cause “with a personality”. I submit that the ultimate cause need not be a “person”. For one thingi it is much too anthromorphic, and, for another, it defies parsimonious principles (the ultimate cause, after all should be “simple” not “complex”) and finally, its is much too much like what the pagans used to do by personifying the thunder, the wind, and all aspects of nature.
3. I also think it is counter intuitive to accept the notion that the ultimate principle of the universe requires worship, has a plan for redemption or keeps a score of who’s been to Mass and tithes 10 percent to the Church, or, who is influenced or placated by prayers and devotion. Again this smacks of the pagan practices which Christianity came to replace in the third or fourth century.

 

[sw85]

“i dont understand why you think your god is real. you’re saying its impossible for the universe to have existed always but its perfectly possible for an all powerful all knowing being that apparently is everywhere at once to always exist? doesnt quite add up to me.”

Tell him to read up on his natural theology. A useful summary can be found in the opening chapter or two of Edward Feser’s Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide.