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

[Linusthe2nd]

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.”

An efficient cause would be any cause out side the object moved or changed, but not the Final Cause, which is the reason for which the other causes act. Nothing acts or moves or is moved unless it has an end in view ( i.e. the final cause ).

An example of an efficient cause would be a boy who throws a ball, the apparatus and conditions which provide the process of electrolysis by which water is broken down into H2 and O, the male and female who meet and produce an offspring, God who makes something happen directly and who is always maintaining everything in existence.

Get some rest man.

Linus2nd

 

[Partinobodycula]

KingCoil, if you recall, in another one of your threads, “God is known by intelligent thinking on logic and facts.” you objected rather strongly to my use of the term “absolute certainty”, even suggesting, that at least for the matter of discussion, we do away with it, substituting the term “personal certainty” instead. What you were arguing, in a way, was that I could only be “provisionally” certain, of anything, and only God could be absolutely certain.

This is what others are trying to tell you now. They can’t be absolutely certain that the universe began 13.8 bya. They can be provisionally certain, but that’s as far as they can go, and you should be perfectly happy with that. They’re not God, they can’t know things absolutely. So if you can get them to accept that provisionally the universe began 13.8 bya, that’s the most that you can honestly expect of them.

So if your argument for the existence of God depends upon people being absolutely certain of anything, then it’s destined to fail, for such absolute certainty is only an illusion.

 

[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.”

Here it is, I was looking on the wrong thread: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/first-without-second.html

Thomas discussed this possibility in the " Opuscula " On the Eternity of the World, which you can read here : dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEternitateMundi.htm.

It is forbidden for non-believers to read, it might endanger their faith

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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 see that, as usual, you could not start that post without an *ad hominem *to set the stage.

Oh well, I guess you need to be left alone.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]What you were arguing, in a way, was that I could only be “provisionally” certain, of anything, and only God could be absolutely certain.

This is what others are trying to tell you now. They can’t be absolutely certain that the universe began 13.8 bya. They can be provisionally certain, but that’s as far as they can go, and you should be perfectly happy with that…]

Quite right. As the estimate for the age of the universe has evolved over time.

From KingCoil’s other thread “Re: Experimenting on God (or religion) – silly, concur first on the concept of God.” I had mentioned some of the previous estimates for the age of the Universe and the earth.

• 1760 Earth was estimated to be 75,000 years old based on estimates of crust cooling
• 1831 - Earth estimated to be 240 million years old based on fossil evidence
• 1897 - Earth estimated to be between 20 - 400 million years old based on based on information of heat conduction and radiation
• 1901 - Earth estimated to be between 90 and 100 million years old based on ocean salinity levels
• 1905 - 1907 - Earth estimated to be 4.3 billion years old
• 1929 - Hubble estimates galaxies were together about 2 billion years ago based on the red shift of stars.
• 1947 - George Gamow estimates universe to have formed 2 - 3 billion years ago based on Hubble’s observations
• 1952 - Estimates of the formation of galactic clusters between 1 to 10 billion years ago
• 1999 - NASA estimates (observable) universe formed about 12 billion years ago
• 2001 - 12.5 billion years based on radioactive measurements
• 2002-12-13 billion based on cooling of white dwarf stars
• 2003 - 13.7 billion based on cosmic background radiation
• 2012-2013 - 13.798 ± 0.037 based on WMAP and other data

I’m not disputing the present numbers, but based on history I can see why it may be thought to be possible for current estimates to change. Until that day the current estimate can be treated as correct (provisionally true).

However, I don’t expect the exact numbers to have an impact on what ever the argument may be. If the James Webb is launched in 2018 and it’s discovered the Universe existed 15-20 billion years ago instead of 13.8 people would still be able to use the Kalam Cosmological to argue their stance. The 13.8 billion figure is as far as I can tell not necessary and superfluous to the argument.

 

[ffg]

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for the response.

It’s so funny how opposite people can be in thought.

It’s always been a mystery to me how people could defend not believing in God on the basis of what are theories created by humans.

To me it takes more faith to believe in human theories, considering all the evidence against human perfection.

That’s not to say humans can’t figure things out, but to assume they are the top of a pecking order when they can’t stop tripping over their own feet takes a great deal of faith.

I think it would be important for us to at least be on the same page with this example, if possible -

There is no way for you to know my name, unless I tell you it is Mike. Then you go and tell your friend that you met someone named Mike…

And they believed you because you were trustworthy.

Reasonably, God would tell a trustworthy person He is here.

With regard to faith, hope, love. Do we want to consider a quick jot of maybe accurate definition, a good evaluation? Or is it a good example of not understanding the three, which is understandable. I’ll drop this one rather than analyze as it would certainly route away from the subject (which hurts because I just deleted the analysis of course).

Take care,

 

[KingCoil]

…]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Bodicula, I really can’t understand why you have to embrace solipsism

You know, Bodicula, the reason why I asked people like you to not participate in this thread is because you do not have certainty of the whole world aside from yourself, and I do have certainty as also other posters who do not adhere to solipsism.

Do you remember that in that thread from me also about experimenting on God, etc., I tell you that there is no such thing as absolute certainty, mankind has only what I call personal certainty, which personal certainty is validated for the whole of mankind by all humans mutually or communally ascertaining themselves that they are all existing and to each other existing and also the whole world outside themselves, by the test of using a sledge hammer to hit each one his own nose and also the nose of his neighbors.

You see, it is impossible to exchange thoughts with you and people solipsists like yourself, because you claim what I call the privilege of faith, like Buddhists, which by your own dispensation entitles you to not think and talk logic.

My #1 principle of ascertaining the existence of things, ourselves and the whole world outside ourselves, is what I call the psychology and epistemology of "intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

So, I will not anymore interact with you, but you can continue to post in this thread even though the way I see it, you are a deviant from the topic of this thread.

And also everyone who claims the privilege of faith by which they dispense themselves from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

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.

Stick around, ffg, one day I will have to start a thread on what it is to prove something to exist in the objective actual world of existing things and events in the totality of existence, which totality of existence includes the universe studied by scientists who tell us already that the universe has a beginning.

I am happy to hear you say that this thread is a great thread, interesting read.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

…]

Originally Posted by ffg
Great thread, interesting read.

So, one day we two, you Candide and me or I KingCoil, must work together to concur on what it is to prove the existence of something, and what is evidence in relation to proof, and what is the target of evidence, and how evidence operates to get to hit its target.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

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).

"Even if the universe had a beginning, it may not have had a cause. It could just be there."

That means something with a beginning has no need for a cause: how can logically a universe having a beginning and is just being there without a cause?

That is not according to the psychology and epistemology of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Anyway, atheists might to be logical at least, saying that the universe is just there, no need to talk about beginning, i.e., it is just eternal, and it just changes, from a point whatever to the extant form it has changed into.

Well, then we must ask atheists what parts of the universe are eternal?

The scientific fact is that atheists are dogmatic: by scientific fact I mean in this regard an attitude that can be observed and experimented on, or at least observed and observed as to reach the certainty that atheists will behave a certain way, i.e. dogmatically: when they want to be stubborn instead of thinking and talking intelligently grounding themselves in logic and in facts.

What I want to do here is first, no dogmas, and second, to engage in intelligent thinking founded on logic and facts: and my observation is that honest genuine scientists do think intelligently grounding themselves in logic and in facts – honestly, grounding themselves in logic and in facts: that is why they infer from facts they have observed in the universe, and then by logic and mathematics which is also logic infer to the beginning of the universe, that is wherefore a scientific fact, that the universe has a beginning, because it is founded upon the observations and logical inference done by scientists using the method of scientific investigations.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

…]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne III
Here’s the rub.

Conclusions? Don’t you mean explanations?

But the facts being explained provisionally are still facts and scientific at that, because they are founded on observations and if possible at all, experimentations; if not, then on further observations, to establish the facts scientifically, that is why I call them scientific facts because they are ascertained by observations and if possible also experimentations.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The scientific fact is that atheists are dogmatic: by scientific fact I mean in this regard an attitude that can be observed and experimented on, or at least observed and observed as to reach the certainty that atheists will behave a certain way, i.e. dogmatically: when they want to be stubborn instead of thinking and talking intelligently grounding themselves in logic and in facts.

I think the word you are looking for is “Scientism.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

“Scientism is a term used to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society. An individual who subscribes to scientism is referred to as a scientismist. The term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam and Tzvetan Todorov to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable”

 

[KingCoil]

An efficient cause would be any cause out side the object moved or changed, but not the Final Cause, which is the reason for which the other causes act. Nothing acts or moves or is moved unless it has an end in view ( i.e. the final cause ).

An example of an efficient cause would be a boy who throws a ball, the apparatus and conditions which provide the process of electrolysis by which water is broken down into H2 and O, the male and female who meet and produce an offspring, God who makes something happen directly and who is always maintaining everything in existence.

Get some rest man.

Linus2nd

The distinction is not between the efficient cause and the in-efficient cause, but between the efficient cause and the non-efficient causes, which non-efficient causes are still causes, and they are the material cause, the formal cause, and the final cause Aristotle ].

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

KingCoil, if you recall, in another one of your threads, “God is known by intelligent thinking on logic and facts.” you objected rather strongly to my use of the term “absolute certainty”, even suggesting, that at least for the matter of discussion, we do away with it, substituting the term “personal certainty” instead. What you were arguing, in a way, was that I could only be “provisionally” certain, of anything, and only God could be absolutely certain.

This is what others are trying to tell you now. They can’t be absolutely certain that the universe began 13.8 bya. They can be provisionally certain, but that’s as far as they can go, and you should be perfectly happy with that. They’re not God, they can’t know things absolutely. So if you can get them to accept that provisionally the universe began 13.8 bya, that’s the most that you can honestly expect of them.

So if your argument for the existence of God depends upon people being absolutely certain of anything, then it’s destined to fail, for such absolute certainty is only an illusion.

Please, Bodicula, don’t play shallow word games.

Personal is not provisional.

Provisional means yes temporary, personal means in regard to persons like human persons.

So the certainty that I want you to keep in contact with is personal certainty, not absolute certainty because that does not exist, considering that absolute means no relation not relative to ] to anything at all, then it does not relate to us but to an absolute being of which we are not.

Now, do me a favor, search for my use anywhere here of the term ‘absolute certainty.’

At most I use only the word certainty without ever qualifying it as absolute.

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

So, one day we two, you Candide and me or I KingCoil, must work together to concur on what it is to prove the existence of something,

As I said, it you want proof you should deal either I maths or alcohol. Science deals in evidence.

and what is evidence in relation to proof, and what is the target of evidence, and how evidence operates to get to hit its target.

KingCoil

The objective of evidence is to provide us with confidence that our understanding is either correct or incorrect. There is no relationship to proof, as no matter how much evidence you gather in favour of a particular theory it is always possible that a new piece of evidence could come along which could discredit it.

For example, it’s always possible that we find some fossilised rabbit from the pre-Cambrian period and we’d have to throw out our understanding of the development of life on earth.

Conclusions? Don’t you mean explanations?

No, scientists draw conclusions based on evidence. These conclusions sometimes fit together into models which provide explanations. After multiple rounds of predictions in which the model provides accurate predictions it may graduate to be called a theory. Ie the Big Bang theory.

But the facts being explained provisionally are still facts and scientific at that, because they are founded on observations and if possible at all, experimentations; if not, then on further observations, to establish the facts scientifically, that is why I call them scientific facts because they are ascertained by observations and if possible also experimentations.

No, observations are just that, observations. We don’t observe that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. We observe vast amounts of complex data which understood in the context of the physical laws of the universe and other conditions that we know to exist give us a high degree of confidence that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

Again, is there any chance of actually seeing your argument here? We seem to be in agreement that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago. So what’s next?

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Thanks, Candide, for your reply.

For the time being we will shelf 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.

And give attention to your statements:

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

However, when we get to the bridge, then we will or I will ask you in particular about the scientific fact that the universe has a beginning.

See next post.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Candide, here is my argument taken from your exposition of my argument earlier in that thread on experimenting on God.

1.The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.
2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.
3. Something cannot be caused by nothing
4. Something cannot cause itself
5. Given 2. , 3. and 4. the universe must have been caused by something other than itself.

Courtesy of Candide, see, Experimenting on God… post #31.

For the time being we will keep to your statements:

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

So, what do you say about my argument as presented above taken from your exposition on my argument?

KingCoil

 

[polytropos]

"Even if the universe had a beginning, it may not have had a cause. It could just be there."

That means something with a beginning has no need for a cause: how can logically a universe having a beginning and is just being there without a cause?

That is not according to the psychology and epistemology of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Well, this goes back to the question I asked (receiving no answer) in post #2: you say that to say that something begins without a cause is a violation of logic. What is the violation of logic? Can you show me the contradiction symbolically?

I agree with the point. But it’s not logic; it’s a metaphysical principle.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Quite right. As the estimate for the age of the universe has evolved over time.

From KingCoil’s other thread “Re: Experimenting on God (or religion) – silly, concur first on the concept of God.” I had mentioned some of the previous estimates for the age of the Universe and the earth.

However, I don’t expect the exact numbers to have an impact on what ever the argument may be. If the James Webb is launched in 2018 and it’s discovered the Universe existed 15-20 billion years ago instead of 13.8 people would still be able to use the Kalam Cosmological to argue their stance. The 13.8 billion figure is as far as I can tell not necessary and superfluous to the argument.

The Kalam argument was viewed as seriously flawed by Thomas Aquinas. Certainly, if we knew absolutley, by science, that the world had an absolute beginning, the existence of God would automatically follow. However, even for an eternally existing world, it still follows of necessity - but the argument is much more difficult. That is why only superior minds can truly comprehend Thomas’ five ways.

Linus2nd

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
"Even if the universe had a beginning, it may not have had a cause. It could just be there."