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

[KingCoil]

KingCoil, I have tried my best to patiently consider your posts, and I do believe that I understand your argument, but it has some very definite shortcomings.

First, although scientists do refer to the universe’s beginning 13.8 bya, **[1] that does not mean that it began from nothing, [2] it may have a very natural and explainable cause, with no need of any divine intervention. **Having a beginning, does not imply a beginning from nothing.

Second, if there is ultimately some first cause, there appears to be [3] no logical reason that I can think of, that that first cause must involve a “thinking entity”. The natural laws seem quite capable of producing both consciousness and intelligence.

If there is some reason that you believe either of these objections to be in error, please explain why. If you could keep your explanations as clear and brief as possible, it would probably be of some help to both myself and others.

Originally Posted by KingCoil
By the way, some atheists also insist that they cannot be sure of anything at all outside the certainty of their own existence, that means they are not sure of the food that they are eating, that gets to their stomach, and not sure of the excrement from the food they have digested in their intestinal tract.

Thanks, Bodicula, for your reply.

On #1, I never said that the universe came from nothing, what I said is that from nothing Christian theologians mean from nothing as from some a pre-existing matter, but not from no causative agent at all; then I also said that I like to hypothesize that the cause, God, of the universe could have used His thinking for the ‘thing from which’ He created the universe, and that is what I might call the pre-existing ‘matter’ which is not the matter in the extant universe.

I really find it irksome to go into what I consider speculative questions, that is why I abstain from a lot of materials brought up by posters here; my concern is to start from the universe as it has a beginning, and examine the concept of God as the cause of the universe because scientists tell us it has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago; so, as everything with a beginning has a cause, it is logical from scientists’ finding to infer to the conclusion, by intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, that the universe has a cause which corresponds to God of the Christian faith – and very important, we will now from the realm of thinking in our mind, proceed to the objective actual real world of existing things and events in the universe to seek for the cause, God, using as a search guide the concept of God as the cause of the universe.

Do you have any questions to ask me in the above paragraph which I can answer so that you will understand my thinking?

On #2, can you do yourself a favor, and ask yourself for the cause of nature, since if you have ever read the founding fathers of the USA, they know about nature and nature’s God; okay, google “laws of nature and of nature’s God,” and tell me what you find.

Can you understand my thinking and verbal communication in the above paragraph? Please don’t think and talk in clichés, that is not thinking but rote memory channeling.

On #3, please learn this new lesson, never say that something could be the explanation rather than another thing, like the first cause need not be a thinking entity, unless you have a better alternative; what is your better alternative to the thinking entity? natural laws? Please look up with google “laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

On #4, didn’t you tell me several times that as a solipsist you are only certain of your own existence, and everything else not yourself, on belief, therefore no certainty; that is why, unless memory fails me, you are also not certain of the food you ingest into your stomach,and the excrement you expel from the digestion of the food in your stomach – you have no certainty of the food and of the excrement except on belief.

That is why I am asking people like you to not participate here, because participants here are talking from the certainty of the existence of the universe and the whole world of the universe outside themselves.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
You see, Candide, you are a quibbler, that is why I want you to repeat your concurrence in my word formulation of the statements from me that you are concurring on, in my word formulation of the statements.

Thanks for the brotherly correction.

Let us wait for Candide to comply to my demand on him to reply by repeating my two formulated statements and adding to each the prefix phrase, “Yes, I do…”

See whether he will comply or go into quibbling again.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

That is why I am asking people like you to not participate here, because participants here are talking from the certainty of the existence of the universe and the whole world of the universe outside themselves.

As you wish.

 

[CandideWest]

Thanks, Candide, for your reaction.

Let us go about this matter step by step.

To #1, why don’t you just answer in this manner:
Yes, I “do accept as facts that we are existing in the universe, that universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.”

To #2, why don’t you just answer in this manner:
Yes, I “do accept the fact that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.”

Because the way you have written this strongly suggests a misunderstanding of the way science works - as if science can prove things to be true as opposed to developing confidence based on evidence.

What I wrote in my reply accurately reflects the scientific position. The best information we have shows that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago.

It is POSSIBLE that this (the Big Bang theory) is incorrect, just like it is POSSIBLE that the theory of gravity is incorrect, that the theory of evolution is incorrect, that the germ theory of disease is incorrect… But given the massive amount of evidence for these theories it is very very UNLIKELY.

It’s important to understand that in science any position can only be accepted provisionally, because it’s always possible that new evidence comes to light which shows that our existing understanding is incorrect.

I do not want to encourage you to think of science in this incorrect manner by joining you in describing the scientific position inaccurately.

You see, Candide, you are a quibbler, that is why I want you to repeat your concurrence in my word formulation of the statements from me that you are concurring on, in my word formulation of the statements.

It’s seems to me that you are the one who is quibbling here. I have accurately described the scientific position regarding the beginning of the universe. I have agreed that as far as we can tell it began 13.8 billion years ago. But that isn’t sufficient for you, you want me to use a very particular and misleading statement for some reason.

Well, I’m afraid I’m not going to concur with you on that statement. I don’t suppose anyone who understands the scientific method would.

If your argument in some way depends on making a misleading statement regarding the scientific position, then I’m afraid your argument is not going anywhere.

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil

Thanks, Candide, for your reply.

I will just repeat my statements to which I wanted you to concur on verbatim, but you refuse.

Here are the statements again:

Let us go about this matter step by step.

To #1, why don’t you just answer in this manner:
Yes, I "do accept as facts that we are existing in the universe, that universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago."
To #2, why don’t you just answer in this manner:
Yes, I "do accept the fact that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago."

My approach in exchanging thoughts with folks is first to get them and me to concur on everything crucially vital, by which both sides will arrive at the same conclusion on the issue at hand.

The issue at hand here is how man can and does come to the existence of God from the concept of God, by way of the fact from scientists telling us that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Please then either revise my statements so that you and I can concur on them as revised by you, or produce your own statements in your own formulation.

Then we will work together to get to a version of the two statements, each pair one from my side and one from your side respectively, so as to come to concurrence on only one pair worked out by us both.

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

Thanks, Candide, for your reply.

I will just repeat my statements to which I wanted you to concur on verbatim, but you refuse.

Here are the statements again:

My approach in exchanging thoughts with folks is first to get them and me to concur on everything crucially vital, by which both sides will arrive at the same conclusion on the issue at hand.

The issue at hand here is how man can and does come to the existence of God from the concept of God, by way of the fact from scientists telling us that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Please then either revise my statements so that you and I can concur on them as revised by you, or produce your own statements in your own formulation.

Then we will work together to get to a version of the two statements, each pair one from my side and one from your side respectively, so as to come to concurrence on only one pair worked out by us both.

KingCoil

I have already done so

"The best information we have shows that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago. "

And again, as I’ve already stated, I believe that the universe did in fact start 13.8 billion years ago. In other words, I have accepted it (provisionally) as true.

 

[KingCoil]

I have already done so

"The best information we have shows that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago. "

And again, as I’ve already stated, I believe that the universe did in fact start 13.8 billion years ago. In other words, I have accepted it (provisionally) as true.

How about we put it this way:

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.

What do you say?

KingCoil

 

[polytropos]

How about we put it this way:

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.

What do you say?

Maybe it would help if you explained what you think is different between your three points here and what Candide said in post #126, and why whatever gap there might be must be bridged before you can move on.

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks for your suggestion.

Please be patient, unless you care to also concur or disagree with my three proposed statements for concurrence.

I always choose words which any literate person has already in his stock knowledge, if anyone wants to know what I mean, then just look up your stock knowledge, and ask me if that is what I mean.

Here, tell me what words you don’t understand below, but first look into your stock of English vocabulary and tell me, whether it means what you have in your stock.

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.

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.

And of course science.

KingCoil

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The following arguments depend on nothing but the existence of the universe were first proposed, in part, by pagans several hundred years before the birth of Christ.

In the words of Thomas Aquinas : " I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. "

Linus2nd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

It’s a fact that the scientific conclusions of the start of the Universe are provisional.

 

[polytropos]

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.

What obstacle do you think that poses to the continuance of discussion? If Candide regards your statements as provisionally true, then he is provisionally committed to whatever truths you manage to validly derive from them. If they turn out to be absolutely, and not just provisionally, true, then Candide should never have any reason to drop his provisional commitment to them. Therefore, if you want Candide to be committed to whatever conclusion you aim to draw, you should present your argument, and stop waffling.

 

[KingCoil]

I never use the word provisional in this thread, I don’t know or cannot recall ever using that word in my threads here.

Do you have that word in your stock knowledge of English vocabulary?

Anyway, please make ten sentences with the word provisional in them.

You and I are now into working together toward concurrence on the word provisional in regard to the universe having a beginning.

KingCoil

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s a fact that the scientific conclusions of the start of the Universe are provisional.

Well, yes, but is it a provisional conclusion only that the universe did have a start?

It seems fairly conclusive to me.

 

[polytropos]

I never use the word provisional in this thread, I don’t know or cannot recall ever using that word in my threads here.

I didn’t say you did. I said that Candide’s usage of it should not pose any problem to presenting your argument.

Do you have that word in your stock knowledge of English vocabulary?

“Provisional”? Yes, I do.

Anyway, please make ten sentences with the word provisional in them.

I don’t see why that would be necessary. If you need some examples, some can be found here.

 

[KingCoil]

Everyone, please work to come to common concurrence on the meaning of the word provisional, and its application in the scientific fact of the universe having a beginning.

Starting with the posters who use that word to tell us that the universe having a beginning is provisional.

Thanks for your cooperation.

I am very curious, is that word provisional used regularly by scientists in their scientific writing?

KingCoil

 

[polytropos]

Scientific theories, for [Popper], are not inductively inferred from experience, nor is scientific experimentation carried out with a view to verifying or finally establishing the truth of theories; rather, all knowledge is provisional, conjectural, hypothetical—we can never finally prove our scientific theories, we can merely (provisionally) confirm or (conclusively) refute them; hence at any given time we have to choose between the potentially infinite number of theories which will explain the set of phenomena under investigation. (emphasis in original)

Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Karl Popper

Popper was a philosopher of science, but the view he expresses is (somewhat) commonplace. Science sets up hypotheses and attempts either to confirm them with greater degrees of empirical support or to refute them. For that reason, science establishes what is “probably” true, ie. what the current data supports the most, but what in principle could be overturned by later data. (A lot of scientists “liked” Popper, but some philosophers have noted that they seem not to have understood him. Scientists have sometimes taken him to have argued that the generation and refutation of scientific theories is essentially a creative activity, but his results had more cynical implications.)

I don’t exactly agree with this view. Many scientific claims are provisional. (That much is undeniable. Pick any topic in science that remains undecided, for example the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. At most one interpretation can be correct, so results confirming other theories are of course provisional.) Science can, however, arrive at certainty in various cases. (Examples are Galileo’s discovery of of craters on the moon, William Harvey’s discovery of the function of the heart and circulation of blood, and Newton’s discovery of the refractive nature of light.)

It is also not necessarily the case that we can “conclusively” refute a scientific theory, owing to confirmational holism; which of several assumptions is being falsified by a particular result of an experiment ceases to be clear when a theory is sufficiently complex.

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Poly, for your reply.

You see, at the risk of being described as waffling, the work of coming to concurrence among disputing folks is a tedious task, but it is necessary because we want to get to concurrence on the existence of God from the existence of the universe having a beginning.

Here is what I did, I googled this entry *" provisional * " and this is what I got from google.

http://i62.tinypic.com/4gt0qs.jpg

See something interesting in this hit from google?

Provisional designation in astronomy - Wikipedia, the free …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_designation_in_astronomy‎Wikipedia
The provisional designation is usually superseded by a permanent designation once a
reliable orbit has been calculated. In the case of minor planets, so many …

Do scientists use the word provisional in their scientific writing to mean conditional?

Or what?

Anyway, what will happen to my “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God,” if I have to concur with Candide that the universe having a beginning is provisional from his part?

But we have got to come to concurrence on what exactly is the meaning of the word provisional and its application if at all by scientists in their scientific writing?

What do you say?

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

I just saw your last post after I had posted my post above.

You bring in Popper, whatever.

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?

Okay, tell me what are your reservation.

KingCoil

 

[polytropos]

Do scientists use the word provisional in their scientific writing to mean conditional?

They mean conditional upon future data.

Anyway, what will happen to my “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God,” if I have to concur with Candide that the universe having a beginning is provisional from his part?

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.