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

[KingCoil]

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

That is why I modesty aside will do one better than Aquinas.

First, we distinguish between the realm of thinking in the mind and the realm of objective actual, factual, real existing things and events in the universe, or even more grand in the totality of existence whatsoever.

Second, in the realm of thinking and up to step 3th in the realm of thinking, we get to work to concur on the most decisive feature of God, by which feature God deserves our attention and our deference and our yes subservience.

Third, we see clearly that the most decisive feature of God is that He is the creator of heaven and earth, or the universe, or in the totality of existence, everything with a beginning.

Fourth, now that we have come to concurrence in the realm of thinking in our minds, we proceed to locate God in the realm of the objective actual, factual, real existing things and events in the universe, at least in the universe if not also in the grand totality of existence altogether.

Fifth, we encounter and ascertain that everything in the universe has a beginning, and scientists tell us the universe itself has a beginning.

Sixth, on logic that everything with a beginning has a cause, we infer that everything in the universe has a cause, and the universe itself has a cause.

Seventh, we identify that cause as God in the Christian faith, which God is proclaimed in Gen. 1:1 as follows: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,” and Christians proclaim in the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.”

Eighth, we infer on logic that God is of a substance that is of a peculiar nature by which He encompasses the whole universe and He penetrates all particles, fields, forces, laws, whatsoever else making up the composition of the universe, and He operates it continuously everywhere.

Ninth, we tell God, “You are great, oh God, congratulations!”

What do you guys here say?

KingCoil

 

[polytropos]

To [iv]:
I regret that I don’t have the time to attempt to show you the contradiction symbolically, namely, the contradiction (you mean?) between something with a beginning and it has no cause.

By saying that you don’t have the time, you seem to be implying that you have done it before or know how to go about it. Is it very complicated? If it is very complicated and you decline to show it, why should you expect someone skeptical of it to believe you?

Or perhaps you know of another philosopher, to whose work you can refer, so I can see the derivation.

To :
Please reproduce with the link to my post what words from me you are referring to, and what question you are referring to in your post, with also the link to your post – reproduce verbatim my words and your words and the links to our posts.
As I said, post #2. But that’s ok, I can fetch it for you:
polytropos;11835651:

KingCoil;11835532:

1. The logic, anything with a beginning has a cause outside itself.

When you say that your second premise is “the logic,” what do you mean? That it is derived from a tautology? That it is an analytic truth? That it is self-evident?
I do not have a post of yours to link to, because you never responded to me.

To [ii] and [iii]:
What words did I say (give link to my post, and verbatim reproduction of my words) stating what something is a violation of logic.

You have indicated that it is “logically” a problem for something which begins to lack a cause:

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.

To [v]:
What point from me are you agreeing with me on, reproduce my words verbatim and the link.

I am agreeing with you that that which begins to exist has a cause. (You have said that throughout the topic, first in your OP. I won’t bother to link.) I am wondering what you mean by saying that it is logic; it would seem to me that that implies that it is a tautology, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

To [vi]:
What words from me is not logic, reproduce my words and the link, please.

I explained this above.

To [vii]:
What or which metaphysical principle are you referring to, which is not logic?

That that which begins to exist has a cause.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is why I modesty aside will do one better than Aquinas.

First, we distinguish between the realm of thinking in the mind and the realm of objective actual, factual, real existing things and events in the universe, or even more grand in the totality of existence whatsoever.

Second, in the realm of thinking and up to step 3th in the realm of thinking, we get to work to concur on the most decisive feature of God, by which feature God deserves our attention and our deference and our yes subservience.

Third, we see clearly that the most decisive feature of God is that He is the creator of heaven and earth, or the universe, or in the totality of existence, everything with a beginning.

Fourth, now that we have come to concurrence in the realm of thinking in our minds, we proceed to locate God in the realm of the objective actual, factual, real existing things and events in the universe, at least in the universe if not also in the grand totality of existence altogether.

Fifth, we encounter and ascertain that everything in the universe has a beginning, and scientists tell us the universe itself has a beginning.

Sixth, on logic that everything with a beginning has a cause, we infer that everything in the universe has a cause, and the universe itself has a cause.

Seventh, we identify that cause as God in the Christian faith, which God is proclaimed in Gen. 1:1 as follows: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,” and Christians proclaim in the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.”

Eighth, we infer on logic that God is of a substance that is of a peculiar nature by which He encompasses the whole universe and He penetrates all particles, fields, forces, laws, whatsoever else making up the composition of the universe, and He operates it continuously everywhere.

Ninth, we tell God, “You are great, oh God, congratulations!”

What do you guys here say?

KingCoil

What I have to say would be impolitic. I would suggect you give up philosophy.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

There is no " inefficient " cause in Aristotle or in any other philosophy, even in those I despise. Every cause, which is a cause, other than material, formal, and final causes, is, by definition, an efficient cause. Because without it, nothing would be moved, changed, or created.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

That is why I modesty aside will do one better than Aquinas.
…]
What do you guys here say?

We’re 180-odd posts in, and what you have done is present basically the kalam cosmological argument. Little attempt has been made to defend either of its premises, besides muttering the words “science” and “logic.”

Forgive me if I stick with Aquinas.

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Poly, thanks for your reaction.

I confess that I would not be able to show by mathematical notations, if that is what you want from me, the task whatever, you want me to display to you.

I think what is important to you is that I am into a tautology, over whatever is in your mind in regard to my thoughts.

Please present in words what is the tautology I have committed, and we will discuss how it is a tautology if at all, okay?

For the rest, I will just beg for your indulgence to accept no comments from me.

See, if you have any idea how to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God, which is the topic of this thread; or if for you it is impossible, then give me your reasoning with intelligent thinking grounding yourself on logic and facts.

Best regards,
KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear guys here, my idea in this thread as in all my threads everywhere is to get to do our own thinking and do our own verbal expression of our thinking.

If you want to go into an authority or a writer held in great esteem past or contemporary, then you start a thread on something like the idea of falsifiability etc. in whomever, and posters can discuss what is the final definite understanding of the message of the authority whomever on falsifiability.

When you bring in an authority here or a writer of some repute, we might if not most probably end up discussing what is exactly the thinking of that person, instead of doing our own modesty aside some different thinking.

What I like to read from you people here all of us including myself is your our own thinking over issues ourselves, and writing about them to expound our views.

If you know about the ideas of some authority or writer of worth, then you appropriate what you are convinced to be his positions whatever, just mention that person to give him due credit; and since you have appropriated his ideas as your own, expound them as your very own in your own way of thinking and writing – no need to any further bring forth excerpts from him.

I regret mentioning Aristotle and Aquinas.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
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].

I will just budge in inconspicuously with a last word here, namely, I am not saying that Aristotle has a class of causes which are called in-efficient causes; I am just into what I suspect of someone here mentioning vaguely or inquiring it seems about the opposite of efficient cause – I could have gotten his mind wrongly.

My exposure to Aristotle is summed up with his statement that women have lesser teeth than men – but that could have been a reading from a corrupt manuscript.

No further mention of authorities or writers of esteem from yours truly.

Okay, everyone, let us all go into the topic of this thread, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

I am waiting for Candide to say what is wrong with my argument on the existence of God from the evidence of the universe having a beginning.

KingCoil

 

[polytropos]

I confess that I would not be able to show by mathematical notations, if that is what you want from me, the task whatever, you want me to display to you.

OK.

I think what is important to you is that I am into a tautology, over whatever is in your mind in regard to my thoughts.

I did not say it was a tautology. You have repeatedly called your premise that that which begins to exist has a cause “the logic.” I was inquiring as to what you mean by this, and what sort of logical fact you judged it to be.

 

[Partinobodycula]

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.

Being a solipsist does not make it impossible for me to have a rational discussion about the nature of things which others assume to be real. Neither does it make me incapable of following a logical line of reasoning. I will admit however that it does make it impossible for you to ultimately prove that your line of reasoning applies to what may be nothing more than an illusion of my own making. Thus your logic, even if sound, would not be sufficient to overcome the one true absolute,…that the only thing that I can know with absolute certainty, is that I am.

So I can understand your reluctance to converse with me, as it is doomed from the outset to fail. However if your logic is indeed sound, even if inapplicable, it would be a remarkable achievement. So don’t assume that a discussion with me is pointless, even though it may be aggravatingly difficult. I have found that when discussing my solipsism with others, that even if I fail to persuade them, I will gain in my ability to present my arguments more clearly in the future, and thus no discussion is ever truly pointless if I am open to learning from it.

So let’s see if we can follow a simplified version of your line of reasoning. One not unlike those proposed by many others before you.

1. Anything that has a beginning must have a cause outside of itself.

I’m absolutely in agreement with this one.

1. There can’t be an infinite regression of causes, therefore there must be a first cause.

Okay, now I have a problem. If there can’t be an infinite regression of causes, then what do you propose is the upper limit? Is it a hundred, a thousand, a million, a billion, or is the assumption that there must be an ultimate first cause based simply on the fact that we’re incapable of conceiving of the alternative?

This is the first inconsistency that I can see in your line of reasoning. There may be others, but perhaps it might be best if we deal with them in order. So why do you assume, or what is your logical reasoning , behind your assertion that there must be a first cause?

Thanks,
Partinobodycular

 

[thecone137]

1. There can’t be an infinite regression of causes, therefore there must be a first cause.

Reframing this statement to “Based off the lack of evidence or real life examples of infinite regressions, there probably is a first cause” would seem more convincing.

 

[CandideWest]

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.

That would be pretty strange indeed. I don’t believe in any gods based on the lack of evidence or rational justification for belief.

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

But we do at least have good evidence that people exist, so that helps.

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.

How would that require faith? Bearing in mind it is how things appear to be, and the alternative seems to be assuming the existence of some other known being / beings for which we as yet have no evidence.

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.

Right, and that’s reasonable because the claim is inconsequential. Accepting your claim of being called mike aligns with everything I already understand about the universe. So I can choose to accept that on the basis of minimal evidence.

On the other hand, if you tell me that you are a dog, then I would require a lot more evidence because dogs being able to write posts on websites does not align with everything I understand about the universe.

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

I agree it would seem odd that some god would hide his existence from from so many people.

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,

No worries and thanks for the reply. If you have some approach which can be used to identify truth using faith, hope or love by the way, I’d be happy to hear it over PM if you’d rather not post it here (which is understandable as it’s off topic).

 

[CandideWest]

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.

Ok, no worries.

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.

Er, you seem to have just copy and pasted what I presented as an example of a valid (but unsound) argument showing that the universe was caused by something other than itself.

As I said in that post, to make this sound, you would need to achieve the following :

Firstly demonstrate that 2. Is exclusive (note an argument from ignorance like “well I can’t think of any other options, can you?” Is not adequate to achieve this)

Secondly, you’d need to demonstrate that 3. is correct. And before you come out with “we don’t have any examples of something being caused to exist by nothing” firstly this doesn’t help as we have never witnessed a nothing to determine what nothing can do. Secondly we don’t actually have any examples of something being caused to exist by something either. It’s all just things changing to being one thing to being another, no cases of things coming into being.

Thirdly, you’d need to demonstrate that 4. is true. That is things cannot be self creating, cyclical or that inverse causality cannot apply etc. None of these things seem intuitive to us humans, but given how unreliable human intuition is at telling us what is and isn’t possible we can’t go by that. So you’ve got a serious challenge here too.

So, there you go, if that’s the argument you want to make then those are the things you’ll need to support. I wish you the very best of luck.

Incidentally, it’s worth noting even once you have achieved the above you will only have reached the point of having demonstrated that “something else” caused the universe. So we’ll still be a long way from saying that some god was that “something else”.

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.

No worries

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

KingCoil

Well you’ve got a LONG way to go, but well done for writing out the construction of your argument. Now we’ll have to see whether each premise is true.

 

[polytropos]

1. There can’t be an infinite regression of causes, therefore there must be a first cause.

Okay, now I have a problem. If there can’t be an infinite regression of causes, then what do you propose is the upper limit? Is it a hundred, a thousand, a million, a billion, or is the assumption that there must be an ultimate first cause based simply on the fact that we’re incapable of conceiving of the alternative?

I think your objection here gets the quantifiers backwards. To say that an infinite regression of causes is impossible does not imply that “there is some maximum number N such that every causal regression is less than N in length”. It implies that “for every causal regression, there is some number N that exceeds the number of causes in the regression”. In other words, N can vary from regression to regression; it might even be the case that we cannot pick some N such that all regressions are shorter than it. All that would be required is that every particular causal regression is itself finite in length.

This is the first inconsistency that I can see in your line of reasoning. There may be others, but perhaps it might be best if we deal with them in order. So why do you assume, or what is your logical reasoning , behind your assertion that there must be a first cause?

Generally, claims to the impossibility of infinite regresses stem from the fact that the regresses are vicious, ie. that the existence/action of each element depends on the existence/action of the previous element. If this were not so, it would be consistent to say that the regress is infinite. But if it is so, then without some first element, the regression is ungrounded.

Temporal regresses tend not to exhibit such dependence. However, one might try to construct a different argument (an example of which I linked to earlier).

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Poly, for your post.

Originally Posted by KingCoil
I confess that I would not be able to show by mathematical notations, if that is what you want from me, the task whatever, you want me to display to you.

…your premise that that which begins to exist has a cause "the logic."

By bringing in the word logic frequently, I am saying it is not logical as opposed to illogical in usual understanding of the word.

So, I say it is not logic to state that “The universe having a beginning, need not have a cause, it is just there,” that is not logic, meaning it is not a logical utterance, understanding logical as opposed to illogical.

In brief, what is logic or logical in my frequent use of the word is broadly my saying, according to my great principle of using the brain to solve problems or discover facts or invent things and speculate on things and or ideas, the principle as follows:
Intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts,
it is not logic, not logical.

You notice what you might call a tautology: that I am talking about what for me is logic or logical, and then bringing up the word logic in stating what to myself is the great principle of using my brain.

The norm in a good definition is that the word to be defined should not be employed in the wording of the definition, for example, definition of creature – creature is created by a creator.

Would you like to talk about how I am not into a tautology at all in the instant case where I ask you if you notice and will say that I am into a tautology? that will be a most absorbing undertaking; but I tell you, no it is no instance of a tautology.

Now, in re logic vs metaphysics, if a sentence is not according to a principle of metaphysics, for me it is not logic.

Is that what you want to point out, playing the distinction between the discipline of logic and the discipline of metaphysics, in say philosophy manuals?

That is why I want to get Candide to concur on every word and its concept that I seem to notice he brings in to – charity aside – to quibble on the issue.

I dare say that is a vice in the non-intelligent and dishonest way of communication if it is communication at all.

It is nitpicking in aid of confounding an issue.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Bodicula, for your post.

Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
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.

 

[KingCoil]

• Continuation ]*

Dear Bodicula, I always remind or inform Candide that he thinks he is so smart in manipulation of words and concepts, to argue to anything at all which he wants to hoodwink folks to swallow from him, by his un-intelligent dishonest thinking not grounded in logic and facts – but he is not being intelligent, not in honest intelligence, but into the perversity of verbal sleight of hands with his brain cells to deceive folks.

Charity aside, forgive me.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Candide, for your reply.

…]

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

You are putting words in my mouth, I haven’t said, “well I can’t think of any other options, can you?”

So, let us concur for the time being to put that clause from you in the shelf, okay?

On the concurrence for the time being from me and thus from us both that you can think up alternatives other than the three you already bring up, please present them, one at a time, start with just one in your next post.

KingCoil

 

[polytropos]

By bringing in the word logic frequently, I am saying it is **not **logical as opposed to illogical in usual understanding of the word.

In your OP you said that the second premise was “the logic.” Do you mean now to say that you are using logic there to mean not logical? Or is that a typo? Did you misread what I was referring to?

In brief, what is logic or logical in my frequent use of the word is broadly my saying, according to my great principle of using the brain to solve problems or discover facts or invent things and speculate on things and or ideas, the principle as follows:
Intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts,
it is not logic, not logical.

I have to confess, I have no idea what you are talking about. When someone talks about “logic,” I tend to think of formal logic, ie. valid rules of inference, the propositional calculus, etc.

You notice what you might call a tautology: that I am talking about what for me is logic or logical, and then bringing up the word logic in stating what to myself is the great principle of using my brain.
…]
Would you like to talk about how I am not into a tautology at all in the instant case where I ask you if you notice and will say that I am into a tautology? that will be a most absorbing undertaking; but I tell you, no it is no instance of a tautology.

To repeat: I did not say that it was a tautology. I took your calling your second premise in your OP “the logic” to imply that you thought it was some sort of “logical truth.” I inquired as to what sort of logical truth you meant, for there are several (tautologies, self-evident principles, synthetic a priori statements, etc.).

You still haven’t told me what it is.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Atheists here, I like to ask you what do you have for information of the concept of God in the Christian faith, as also in the Judaic faith and in the Islamic faith?

You see, if you do not have any information about the concept of God in these religions, then it is forgive me for saying so, useless or nonsensical on your part to proclaim endlessly that you just do not believe in the existence of God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever else.

I have decided not to any further reply to posters in my earlier thread on experimenting with God, etc., forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11832752&postcount=46: because some posters there are getting to be un-intelligent in their thinking, not grounding themselves in logic and in facts, and I find them to be now in the state and stage of going into doggerel instead of genuine constructive posting.

But I will just put in a last post there again about how the transit is made from the fact of the universe according to scientists having a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago to the existence of God as the cause outside of the universe, namely, God is the cause of the universe.

Here as follows is how the transit is made:

1. The fact, from scientists, the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.
2. The logic, anything with a beginning has a cause outside itself.
3. The transit, Premise 1 is included within the circumference of the circle that is Premise 2, namely, it is one of the anything that has a beginning.
4. The conclusion, therefore: the universe has need of a cause outside itself to have come into existence.

If folks cannot see the transit there, then I fear they are beyond rational thinking i.e. intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Anyway, dear atheists here or anyone not seeing the logic of how we must concur on the concept of God before we can with us knowers of God, know God at all, and from your part who deny God to exist, know what God you are denying to exist: otherwise you are not being logical, for how can you hit the correct target of God in denying God to exist, if you do not have at all any information of the concept of God, in particular the concept of God in the three Abrahamic faiths – Christianity, Islam, Judaism.

I invite you to work with me to arrive the concurrence on the correct information of the concept of God in these three Abrahamic faiths.

You see, dear atheists and atheists’ colleagues, I have this psychological and also epistemological principle that we can and do come to the existence of God by intelligent thinking grounding ourselves on logic and facts, and from the concept of God, we do by that psychological and epistemological principle come to the existence of God, from the concept of God.

That concept, namely, by which we know God in relation to the universe and man, as first and foremost, cause of the universe, which universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

If you are not an atheist or a colleague of atheists, meaning you are sympathetic to their advocacy of there being no God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever else, you are also invited to I mean for us to work together to come to concurrence on the concept of God in the three Abrahamic faiths, of course not exclusively, but just for having a scope limit to our exchange we will concentrate on these three faiths in regard to the concept of God, for there are other faiths which have the concept of God, as first and foremost the cause of the universe.

Let us see if we can have a productive undertaking, employing intelligent thinking grounding ourselves in logic and in facts.

KingCoil

O.K., you can’t go from a concept to a really existing thing, God or a Sphinx. Concepts do not necessarily exist.

Linus2nd