How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God

[polytropos]

Tell you what, do you concur with me on all my three statements?

1. It is a scientific fact that we exist.
2. It is a scientific fact that the universe exists.
3. It is a scientific fact that the universe has a beginning.

You have reservations about statement #3?

Well, as I stated, I don’t agree fully with Popper. I think some of our scientific findings are provisional and others are proper demonstrations. Consequently, I do not regard “scientific fact” as a rubber stamp for certainty, nor do I regard it as a rubber stamp for provision. Either stance is bad epistemology.

That we and the universe exist are pre-scientific facts (and therefore scientific facts trivially). I hold that the universe began in time as an article of faith. I do not think the scientific data currently constitutes a demonstration (though it is likely), which is to say that it is provisional. (The premise perhaps has some promise by way of a grim reaper argument, although it’s tough to say, as such an argument turns on such matters as the nature of space-time, whether time is discrete, etc.)

Edit: For those interested, a grim reaper version of kalam is fleshed out in a bit more detail here. I haven’t read this paper yet, however.

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Poly, for your reply.

Well, as I stated, I don’t agree fully with Popper. I think some of our scientific findings are provisional and others are proper demonstrations. Consequently, I do not regard “scientific fact” as a rubber stamp for certainty, nor do I regard it as a rubber stamp for provision. Either stance is bad epistemology.

That we and the universe exist are pre-scientific facts (and therefore scientific facts trivially). I hold that the universe began in time as an article of faith. I do not think the scientific data currently constitutes a demonstration (though it is likely), which is to say that it is provisional. (The premise perhaps has some promise by way of a grim reaper argument, although it’s tough to say, as such an argument turns on such matters as the nature of space-time, whether time is discrete, etc.)

Edit: For those interested, a grim reaper version of kalam is fleshed out in a bit more detail here. I haven’t read this paper yet, however.

Provisional in regard to the dating of the beginning, but not to the fact of the beginning.

I think that is the way it is applied, the word provisional, by scientists who use that word; we have to read the particular instance of a scientific phenomenon that a scientist is talking about and using the word in connection with that phenomenon.

We cannot bring up the article of faith that the universe has a beginning, because from my part I am into bringing in science as the evidence for the existence of God – not into an article of faith.

#132​

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Do you notice that I don’t make any reservation about my statement being provisional, I want folks to stick to facts not provisional utterances.

In the meantime God is the cause of the universe provisionally, that I should concur on?

The point that I am into is that science is the evidence to the existence of God, and I don’t think we can have a provisional evidence, because in which case atheists can already tell us to wait until the evidence is no longer provisional but permanent: so in the meantime God’s proof is put in the refrigerator’s shelf?

Anyway, let us hear from atheist Candide what he understands by provisional, applying it to the what I call the scientific fact of the universe having a beginning.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

Forgive me for intruding, but I just wanted to say.

Although reason might bring man to God as the ultimate explanation for the existence of everything, it can and it does in fact a better job bringing man to the idea that:

1. Things have always existed, period.

2. Or everything existing came from nothing, including God IF He does exist.

I find these words to be very enlightening, seeing as how it was KingCoil who said them.

 

[CandideWest]

How about we put it this way:

1. It is a scientific fact that we exist.

This isn’t really a scientific issue, but a philosophical one. As Descartes said “I think therefore I am”. From that we each can conclude that we ourselves exist.

If you want the scientific view on the issue then, yes, scientifically we have to provisionally accept that we exist.

1. It is a scientific fact that the universe exists.

Again, yes scientifically we must provisionally accept that the universe exists.

Of course some evidence could come to light that we are in fact in the matrix and none of this is real. And at that point the scientific position would change. But thus far that hasn’t happened.

1. It is a scientific fact that the universe has a beginning.

As I have said already, the best information that we have shows that the universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. So we provisionally accept that to be true.

What do you say?

I think you are still trying to get me to make inaccurate claims about what science says about the universe.

As I said, in the realm of science we can only ever accept ANY proposition as provisionally true. Because there is always the possibility that new evidence will come to light which will overturn our current understanding.

Also, are we any closer to you actually presenting your argument here? We seem to be regressing further and further backwards in order to get you a proper understanding of science rather than moving towards you writing out your argument.

Does your argument in fact depend on science making some claim of certainty on an issue? Is that why you are working so hard to try to get some statement on which you can claim scientific certainty? If so, then I’m afraid your argument is going nowhere so you might as well just let us know so we can move on.

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Bodycula, for your seemingly flattering words.

Forgive me for intruding, but I just wanted to say.

Although reason might bring man to God as the ultimate explanation for the existence of everything, it can and it does in fact a better job bringing man to the idea that:

1. Things have always existed, period.

2. Or everything existing came from nothing, including God IF He does exist.

I find these words to be very enlightening, seeing as how it was KingCoil who said them.

The fact is that I don’t recall saying the words in red above.

But I do have something quite close to the idea in those red words.

Namely:

Existence itself the fact points to the existence of a creator operator of existence.

So that in the big circle of existence there is the existence of God as creator of all the rest of existence that is not self-subsisting.

How do I explain that?

First, in existence there are things that are subject to change, first and foremost is the change from non-existence to existence, thus they have a beginning, wherefore they did not put themselves into existence but depended on others to put them into existence: the chain of causality of dependent existence on non-dependent or self-subsisting existence cannot go into infinite regress, there has got to be a beginning where the dependent existence things got started from the primal self-subsisting entity, to get the chain started.

That self-subsistent entity is what in the Christian faith we call God: hence in Gen. 1: 1 we read that “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,” and in the first line of the Apostles’ Creed Christians recite or proclaim, "I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

Bodicula, I really can’t understand why you have to embrace solipsism, and I said that solipsists and those atheists like solipsists who are not certain of anything outside their own existence need not participate in this thread, not that I can stop you, but I take back my word: please continue to participate in the topic of this thread, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

You see, Buddhists maintain that the self does not exist, and they mean they themselves don’t exist; I think they are irrational, crazy; and in fact I read from them that they don’t believe in logic.

Just the same they live according to logic and can participate in exchange of thoughts with non-Buddhists to talk about current issues like same sex marriage.

It takes all kinds.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Candide, for your reply.

You have reservations about my three statements:

1. It is a scientific fact that we exist.
2. It is a scientific fact that the universe exists.
3. It is a scientific fact that the universe has a beginning.

Will you concur with me to realize that we have to now at this point work together to concur on what is a scientific fact, starting with what is a fact, then what is a scientific fact?

What do you say?

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

Thanks, Candide, for your reply.

You have reservations about my three statements:

1. It is a scientific fact that we exist.
2. It is a scientific fact that the universe exists.
3. It is a scientific fact that the universe has a beginning.

Will you concur with me to realize that we have to now at this point work together to concur on what is a scientific fact, starting with what is a fact, then what is a scientific fact?

What do you say?

KingCoil

No, I don’t agree. There is no need to get tangled in pointless questions about what “facts” are etc. such discussions are almost certain to devolve into endless arguments over semantics.

Not withstanding your misunderstanding of the scientific method, we both believe that:

1. We exist
2. The universe exists
3. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

So why don’t you simply proceed from there?

 

[Partinobodycula]

… I take back my word: please continue to participate in the topic of this thread

Thank you.

Bodicula, I really can’t understand why you have to embrace solipsism

In an odd way the discussion in this thread has shown why I have to embrace solipsism. Although I don’t really “embrace” solipsism, as much as I simply accept it. For as others have pointed out, I can only “provisionally” know things to be true. You have valiantly tried to get others to accept with certainty that the universe began 13.8 bya, but they stubbornly refuse to acquiesce, because they know that there is always that little bit of doubt. No matter how certain they are, no matter how certain science is, we can never be absolutely sure.

That is why I’m a solipsist, because all that I can be absolutely certain of, is that I am. It seems illogical. It seems irrational. But it’s true, and that’s why I’m a solipsist.

But it doesn’t stop me from being a Christian also, I simply accept, that one is born of logic, and the other is born of faith.

 

[polytropos]

Provisional in regard to the dating of the beginning, but not to the fact of the beginning.

I think that is the way it is applied, the word provisional, by scientists who use that word; we have to read the particular instance of a scientific phenomenon that a scientist is talking about and using the word in connection with that phenomenon.

Perhaps you can give an example of a published scientist using the term provisional in that way to the exclusion of other. But otherwise, no, I don’t think that is the way that scientists use the word provisional since they obviously use the term in other ways (ie. in quantum mechanics).

We cannot bring up the article of faith that the universe has a beginning, because from my part I am into bringing in science as the evidence for the existence of God – not into an article of faith.

I didn’t say you should believe it. I said that is why I believe the universe had a beginning in time.

In the meantime God is the cause of the universe provisionally, that I should concur on?

No. As I’ve argued twice now, with no apparent recognition let alone response on your part, the discussion may proceed without you conceding that the universe’s beginning is provisional, and without Candide conceding that the universe’s beginning is more-than-provisional. The point is irrelevant to the substance of the discussion.

The point that I am into is that science is the evidence to the existence of God, and I don’t think we can have a provisional evidence, because in which case atheists can already tell us to wait until the evidence is no longer provisional but permanent: so in the meantime God’s proof is put in the refrigerator’s shelf?

If you can get an atheist to discard the results of science in order to avoid your conclusion, then you seem to have done about as much as you can.

You would be open to raise an ad hominem argument that, say, young earth creationists could reject atheistic arguments about the age of the earth on the same basis, that science is provisional.

 

[ffg]

Great thread, interesting read.

I’ve always thought it interesting that for some folks God does not exist because ‘there is no proof’. Obviously, a debatable point, but for the sake of discussion, we’ll keep the debate out and walk through some logic associated with such a POV ‘there is no proof’ which obviously lends itself to a concept rather than existence of God.

Is it necessary for a God to prove himself?

If yes, would be the answer from someone, I would be interested in the frequency of ‘proof’ from and for oneself to those that do not know about them.

Or would they not feel they need to prove themselves to those that do not know them, but God must?

Which if logic brings one to say ‘no, of course God would not have to prove himself, if he exists’, then If he exists, and has chosen to share this information, then there must be proof somewhere in our nature, in time.

So it’s possible that it’s not that ‘there is no proof’, it’s just that the individual hasn’t found it yet, if they are really looking.

One could then logic that a true hunt would include an honest evaluation of Faith, Hope, Love*. Since a ‘scientific only’ approach to finding God would minimize that which you are seeking to prove, and never get you to a conclusion anyway.

*Love would be assuming a God who loves. Which would seem normal for a God who creates. To love that which he has made.

 

[CandideWest]

No. As I’ve argued twice now, with no apparent recognition let alone response on your part, the discussion may proceed without you conceding that the universe’s beginning is provisional, and without Candide conceding that the universe’s beginning is more-than-provisional. The point is irrelevant to the substance of the discussion.

Entirely agree with this, if the argument is valid and sound, and leads to the conclusion that some god exists from the proposition that the universe had a beginning, then I’d be forced to accept the conclusion that some god exists (obviously pending there being evidence that the universe didn’t have a beginning).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

They mean conditional upon future data.

As I explained in post #132, you have to do no such thing. You may continue believing that the beginning of the universe is more than provisional. You present your argument. If it is sound, then as long as your premises are held to be true, the conclusion should be held to be true. If you are correct that the beginning of the universe is a more-than-provisional scientific fact, then it should not be overturned by future scientific research, and Candide will (though continuing to hold it as provisional) be committed to your conclusion.

Neither of you has to adopt or drop the word for the conversation to continue. This is why I describe you as waffling.

Here’s the rub.

Atheists pretty much have to take the universe having a start as provisional. The Big Bang sent shock waves through the atheist community, because until the Big Bang was discovered atheists were comfortable with the assumption that the universe is eternal and uncreated … thus God was unnecessary to create it. Since thwe Big Bang scientists have been searching for a way to nullify a start to the universe with such notions as the Big Crunch (which you don’t hear about anymore) and the the Multiverse, which nobody can possibly prove. (Yes, Candide, there are some things that science cannot prove, not even provisionally.)

Aquinas dealt a death blow to the influence of Siger of Brabant when he insisted that a thing cannot be true in theology but false in science (Siger’s corrupt notion). So those of us who have it as a matter of faith that the universe was truly created, have no problem with whether or not science can only provisionally prove the universe had to have a start. We know that any attempt to prove a Big Crunch or a Multiverse is doomed from the start.

 

[CandideWest]

Great thread, interesting read.

I’ve always thought it interesting that for some folks God does not exist because ‘there is no proof’. Obviously, a debatable point, but for the sake of discussion, we’ll keep the debate out and walk through some logic associated with such a POV ‘there is no proof’ which obviously lends itself to a concept rather than existence of God.

Can’t really help you there. I’ve never met someone who demanded “proof” of a god prior to belief. Proof is for alcohol and maths. We don’t in reality often require proof for most things that we believe, what we do tend to require is evidence.

Thus far I have found no evidence for the existence of any gods and no rational justification for believing in one. In the absence of those things I simply reject all the god claims with which I have been presented.

So it’s possible that it’s not that ‘there is no proof’, it’s just that the individual hasn’t found it yet, if they are really looking.

I agree that’s possible (replacing the word “proof” for “evidence” in the above). So in this position the rational response is to not believe in any god concept until some evidence is made available. It is not rational to simply accept the god claim of the family / religion / culture in which you were raised pending evidence to the contrary.

One could then logic that a true hunt would include an honest evaluation of Faith, Hope, Love*. Since a ‘scientific only’ approach to finding God would minimize that which you are seeking to prove, and never get you to a conclusion anyway.

Ok, faith is the excuse people give for believing something in the absence of any actual rational justification or evidence for that belief.

Hope is what we wish to be true - wishful thinking.

Love is a deep and exceptionally strong emotion.

None of these as far as I can tell is a route to determine the truth or falsehood of any claim. If you have some method to determine the truth of a claim using any or all of these then I’d be very interested to hear it.

 

[polytropos]

Atheists pretty much have to take the universe having a start as provisional. The Big Bang sent shock waves through the atheist community, because until the Big Bang was discovered atheists were comfortable with the assumption that the universe is eternal and uncreated … thus God was unnecessary to create it.

I agree that the Enlightenment dream was a universe infinite in time and expanse, and that science has not delivered that. But I don’t think that the provisional nature of Big Bang cosmology is the only thing that atheists have to hold on to, since there are atheists who respond to the kalam cosmological argument by saying something like, “Even if the universe had a beginning, it may not have had a cause. It could just be there.”

Or they might question whether, if the universe has a cause, the cause is God. Something like Aquinas’s Five Ways, which do not argue from a beginning of the universe, have stronger philosophical tools for arguing that the cause of the universe is not just a remote cause but an immediate sustainer which is powerful, absolutely simple, good, etc.

Consider this: God exists, and God created a lesser being, which itself caused the Big Bang. Is this possible? If not, why not? I don’t see how something like the kalam argument does not rule this possibility out (at least insofar that it appeals to the scientific premise of the universe beginning in time at the Big Bang; if a theoretical argument could be made for the finitude of the universe and the need for an eternal, ie. outside time, being, then it would account for this case, with some metaphysical work).

 

[CandideWest]

Setting us up for another of your joke discussions Charlemagne?

See here’s the problem with wasting people’s time with attempts at comedy, it discourages them from wanting to talk to you in future.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt though, just in case your misunderstandings in your post are genuine.

Here’s the rub.

Atheists pretty much have to take the universe having a start as provisional…

No, it’s the nature of the scientific method which requires that conclusions are only accepted provisionally. Atheism itself in no way depends on the origin of the universe, it is an entirely rational position based purely on the absence of evidence of some god.

So even though I fully believe that the universe began some 13.8 billion years ago I have no problem whatsoever in not believing in the existence of any gods.

(Yes, Candide, there are some things that science cannot prove, not even provisionally.)

Yes, science cannot PROVE anything. We reach the point where we assent (provisionally) to belief in some proposition because there is sufficient EVIDENCE that it is true.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree that the Enlightenment dream was a universe infinite in time and expanse, and that science has not delivered that. But I don’t think that the provisional nature of Big Bang cosmology is the only thing that atheists have to hold on to, since there are atheists who respond to the kalam cosmological argument by saying something like, “Even if the universe had a beginning, it may not have had a cause. It could just be there.”

Or they might question whether, if the universe has a cause, the cause is God. Something like Aquinas’s Five Ways, which do not argue from a beginning of the universe, have stronger philosophical tools for arguing that the cause of the universe is not just a remote cause but an immediate sustainer which is powerful, absolutely simple, good, etc.

Consider this: God exists, and God created a lesser being, which itself caused the Big Bang. Is this possible? If not, why not? I don’t see how something like the kalam argument does not rule this possibility out (at least insofar that it appeals to the scientific premise of the universe beginning in time at the Big Bang; if a theoretical argument could be made for the finitude of the universe and the need for an eternal, ie. outside time, being, then it would account for this case, with some metaphysical work).

Thomas argues that no lesser being could have been given the power to create ( S.T. Ques 45, art 6 ). Also, if the universe is and was eternall, God would have been and is now eternally creating. Fesser discusses this in his latest blog post.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

Thomas argues that no lesser being could have been given the power to create ( S.T. Ques 45, art 6 ).

I agree, I shouldn’t have said “create.” I should have said: what in the kalam argument rules out the possibility that God created some state of the universe which resulted in the singularity of the Big Bang but cannot be observed by us? The state prior to the Big Bang would not be “creating”.

(But, I should add: This is the Thomist response, and it is made on behalf of someone with a stronger metaphysical apparatus than that of someone defending the kalam argument. Someone like Bill Craig could not respond, I don’t think, that no lesser being could have been given the power to create.)

Also, if the universe is and was eternall, God would have been and is now eternally creating. Fesser discusses this in his latest blog post.

Hm, which part of his post do you have in mind? The only mention of the word “eternal” I find is the following:

Now the Western classical theist will say that the divine first cause of things must be eternal or outside of time and thus does not act successively. Rather, he causes the world of intermittent things in a single timeless act.

God performs a single, eternal creative act. So God eternally creates either way, though that which he creates is not necessarily eternal* (by Christian creed, is most definitely not eternal).

*I shouldn’t really be using “eternal” in this way. Created things cannot be eternal because only God is eternal in the outside time sense. But created things can, metaphysically speaking, exist through an infinite past, according to Aquinas. An infinite past is not “eternal” since it is still “in time.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

" …Yes, science cannot PROVE anything. We reach the point where we assent (provisionally) to belief in some proposition because there is sufficient EVIDENCE that it is true. "

Bravely said, like " whistling in the dark. "

It was Adolf Hitler who said " … people will believe a bigger lie, rather than a small one, if boldly said and said often enough…" ( paraphrased in the idom of the Third Reich ). Those who have a mind or who think they have one should read Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways ( my post # 130 above ). There is absolutely no proof that the universe is its own sufficient cause for existing - that is the big lie, and for a couple of decades now, that is the montra of demogagic scientism, peddled by slick talking pied pipers, modern snake oil salesman.

Linus2nd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Those who have a mind or who think they have one should read Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways ( my post # 130 above ). There is absolutely no proof that the universe is its own sufficient cause for existing - that is the big lie, and for a couple of decades now, that is the montra of demogagic scientism,

I read through it a bit earlier. Thought about asking a few questions but it’s going on 30 hours since I last slept, so I may re-read it once I have a rested mind.

I will ask this though, what is meany by “efficient case”? What would be an example of a cause that is not efficient? I get the feeling this is not related to the power to work ratio that I most strongly associate with “efficiency.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree, I shouldn’t have said “create.” I should have said: what in the kalam argument rules out the possibility that God created some state of the universe which resulted in the singularity of the Big Bang but cannot be observed by us? The state prior to the Big Bang would not be “creating”.

(But, I should add: This is the Thomist response, and it is made on behalf of someone with a stronger metaphysical apparatus than that of someone defending the kalam argument. Someone like Bill Craig could not respond, I don’t think, that no lesser being could have been given the power to create.)

Hm, which part of his post do you have in mind? The only mention of the word “eternal” I find is the following:

God performs a single, eternal creative act. So God eternally creates either way, though that which he creates is not necessarily eternal* (by Christian creed, is most definitely not eternal).

*I shouldn’t really be using “eternal” in this way. Created things cannot be eternal because only God is eternal in the outside time sense. But created things can, metaphysically speaking, exist through an infinite past, according to Aquinas. An infinite past is not “eternal” since it is still “in time.”

Well I got the referrence wrong, it was the one you gave me the other day ( and I can’t find it now ) and I thought it was his most recent. Will look for it.

Linus2nd