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

[ThinkingSapien]

The interesting thing about this discussion and all similar discussions is that the reader is asked to decide on the validity of two redically irreconcilable conclusions.

1. There is a Christian God which causes the existence of the universe …]
2. There is no cause of the universe. …]

I think that’s a false dichotomy. For example among the “caused universe” hypothesis the Christian God is a possibility, but it is among hypothesis for beings and objects that don’t match the properties of the Christian God; some are considered sentient, some are not. (some deistic god-concepts include a “god” that is not necessarily sentient). Had the above said “the universe is caused by a god or not caused by a god” then I might be able to agree. Though the god-concepts that some have produced have been wildly different.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Please forgive the length of this post and the following one also, but I just couldn’t present it as a couple of simple soundbites. I will do my best to keep them clear and concise. But thanks in advance if you actually make it all the way through both of the following posts.

I have decided to go ahead and give an overview as to why I’m a solipsist, and why it is pertinent to this thread. Earlier in this thread the discussion centered around one specific point, the possible causes of the universe, as posited by the following:

1. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.

The point was raised that there may be other possible alternatives as well. Solipsism offers just such an alternative, although it may actually fall into one of the three listed categories, it none-the-less offers an alternative that needs to be considered. Specifically, that the universe was in some manner, caused by me. Solipsism doesn’t presume to know what may have caused “me” however. It considers the answer to this question to simply be unknowable in any absolute manner. Thus for a solipsist, the existence of “God” is still an open question. As is the question of where existence ultimately came from.

I should point out that I am speaking of soft solipsism as opposed to hard solipsism. Soft solipsism simply asserts that there is no way to know if the world around me is real, or merely an illusion created by my own conscious mind. The entire solipsistic philosophy can be condensed into one simple theme, “I don’t know”. All that I can ever know for certain, is that I am. “I” consisting of thoughts, emotions, and perceptions that make up the whole of my conscious experience.

I will attempt to explain in the following post how the solipsistic worldview is consistent with the physical reality that appears to exist around me. If anyone has any followup questions please feel free to ask.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think that’s a false dichotomy. For example among the “caused universe” hypothesis the Christian God is a possibility, but it is among hypothesis for beings and objects that don’t match the properties of the Christian God; some are considered sentient, some are not. (some deistic god-concepts include a “god” that is not necessarily sentient). Had the above said “the universe is caused by a god or not caused by a god” then I might be able to agree. Though the god-concepts that some have produced have been wildly different.

No, the choices are stark and clear. Any Being meeting that criteria, would be, by definition, the God of Christianity- as far as Christians are concerned. Others, of course, would attempt to claim Him for their own. But He would certainly possess many qualities of the Christian God - one, spirit, all perfect, living, eternal, etc. Anyway, that would be a different argument.

Linus2nd

 

[Partinobodycula]

Let me begin by laying some groundwork. Science as we currently understand it asserts that underlying the visible world that we consciously perceive, is a quantum world, for which the most that can be ascribed to it, is a probability of it existing in any particular state. Upon observation the real world that we perceive emerges from the quantum world that we can’t. Debate continues as to the nature of this quantum world, and to what constitutes an observer, and furthermore to what actually occurs at the point of observation. Some like Hugh Everett theorize that every possible outcome of an observation actually occurs. This is known as the Many-Worlds Interpretation. But regardless of whether Everett is correct, or some other interpretation is correct, the evidence seems to show, that until observed, reality can only be described by the combined probability of all of the possible states, none of which can preferentially be said to exist, or not exist. Until observed, the possibilities for any particular outcome are practically infinite, and equally real. The quantum world, is a world of what’s possible.

So assuming for a minute that this underlying quantum nature of reality is an actual description of the world around us, how does what we perceive to be reality ultimately emerge from that quantum quasi-reality?

The answer to this question is unknown, but cosmology and classical physics tells us that the universe came into existence some 13.8 bya, in what we refer to as the big bang. From this initial state fundamental particles emerged, followed by molecules, and matter, and stars, and planets, and life, and intelligence, and consciousness, and us. It appears to be a perfectly logical evolutionary process. We’re rational beings, we want the world to make sense, and indeed it certainly appears to, at least for the most part, and as for what doesn’t, well we’re still working on that. But bit by bit we’ll figure it out.

Still, that doesn’t explain how reality, with its big bang, emerged from a quantum state in the first place. Physics would simply say that the quantum world interacts with the real world, and this forces the quantum world to collapse, or decohere, into the real world that we perceive. This is a simple, extremely fast, and inevitable process. But therein lies a problem. Which came first? The quantum world, or the real world?

If the quantum world existed first, then there must have been something that caused that initial piece of realty to emerge from what was before that, simply a world of quantum probabilities. There needed to be a first cause. Once you have the initial first cause, the rest of quantum physics naturally follows. The quantum world interacts with the real world, and reality emerges. But what caused that very first piece of reality to emerge? Was it simply some threshold level of complexity that caused the quantum world to collapse into the real world? But what would constitute the necessary level of complexity to cause that initial collapse? Perhaps, and I emphasize perhaps, the necessary level of complexity was the point at which consciousness emerges, and it’s consciousness that forces reality to emerge. Like a speck of dust causes a raindrop to form around it. Consciousness may have emerged from a quantum state, and then naturally caused reality to form around it. The infinitely complex quantum world became conscious, and from this consciousness, emerged everything around it, from stars, and planets, to you.

So just maybe, my consciousness emerged from a quantum reality, and then imposed upon it a coherent, logical, temporally consistent reality in which it had context. Not necessarily that this process is something which consciousness is in control of, but rather that it may be a process that just naturally occurs. Consciousness may emerge from a quantum state, and then a logically consistent reality may just naturally emerge around it. Of course the consciousness still has to deal with the question of where it came from? A question that it can never ultimately answer, but continually tries.

Maybe the universe didn’t begin at the big bang at all. Perhaps it simply began with the emergence of consciousness, and then expanded outward in a never ending quest to form a logical, and coherent explanation for what it is, and where it came from. But this is an answer that it can never find.

At this point I must reiterate, I don’t know. I simply assert this as a possibility. And that it is why solipsism is pertinent to this thread, because in a way, the cause of the universe, may be me. If you’re attempting to logically prove the existence of God, the solipsistic argument must be included. You must prove that reality doesn’t exist only in my mind. Hopefully I have shown that consciousness as the source of reality is at least possible. But like every other theory, there’s just no way to prove if it’s right.

If you have had the patience to struggle through this entire post. I commend you. I do tend to be repetitive at times.

 

[KingCoil]

Sorry you think so. We obviously come to the discussion with a different background than your own, so we have a different thought process from yours.

Your original syllogism is as follows:

" 1. The fact, from scientists, the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

1. The logic, anything with a beginning has a cause outside itself.
2. 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.
3. 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. "

I disagree with point 1, science has not demonstrated this point with absolute certainty. And I have pointed out to you that philosophy cannot demonstrate it either. That is why I pointed out to you the value of Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways. These establish the necessity of a Being who possesses some attributes that can only apply to the Christian God. That is the " bridge " between a Cause of all that is and the God of Reveltion. And Thomas has explained that this Cause would be necessarily, eternally creating all that exists. And then, when God gives man His Revelation, we make the necessary connection between Him and the God of philosophy.

And I disagree with 2 because 1 has not been establisted by either science or philosophy, and can be known only by Faith. As Thomas has pointed out in many places, if science and/or philosophy established definitely that the universe had an absolute beginning in time, it would be simple to establish that the God of Christianity existed. In that event, only the insane would deny His existence. In that event, most present day atheists would immediately become believers - only the insane would continue to maintain that He did not exist.

Now I think it is time you consider what I and others have been saying. You can start with On the Eternity of the World by T.A. here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEternitateMundi.htm

And then you can read the Five Ways here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/summa/FP/FP002.html#FPQ2A3THEP1

Of course man has always had a vague notion of God, which was given to man by God at the beginning ( Genesis ), which remained as a dim recollection handed on from generation to generation, which morphed into a sort of " totem, " a dim but real " concept " of something existing bigger than himself, but having no specific outlines. And this would account for the " gods " of the pagans, which was fleshed out in the Philosophies of the Greeks, especially Plato and Aristotle. And it was the last which T.A. immediately recognized as the God of Genesis and Christianity.

The answers to the rest of your many questions should flow reasonably from this. I don’t have time to go into all that. But again I would urge you to read Edward Feser, especially his Aquinas and his newest book coming out in May, and take a good hard look at his blogspot…

I really have no disagreement with the remainder of your post, except where you give way t frustration. Yes, the Christian God is the Creator and Director of all that is and He exists outside of the universe which he created in time from nothing. And this is the God of Plato,Aristotle and Thomas, the God of Philosophy, the God whom the earlier pagans knew as a dim totem.

Linus2nd

First, I love to discuss with you about absolute certainty, what is your understanding of absolute certainty, where is it to be detected in the universe and by whom.

Second, I don’t see any statement from you where you tell the whole world how you transit from your concept of God to the existence of God in objective reality in the universe.

You owe it to yourself to tell readers and me what is your understanding of the term absolute certainty, as you are the party mentioning this term, so please you start with your expatiation on what it is and where it is to be found in the universe and by whom.

About transit from the concept of God to th existence of God in the universe, II have said that as follows (attend to the words in bold):

1. The fact, from scientists, the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

1. 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.

1. 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. "

And I must commend you for your civility.

I will not react to posts which do not address me i.e. my posts directly.

And I do not talk with humans whom I call satanic obstructionists.

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

I was trying to find out if there was a possible point of agreement but I can find none. We all have hard choices to make, you and I have made radically different cooices. And while I admire your adamant self-assurance, that does not substitute for either reality or truth. And you could say the same for mine. Who is right? Each man and woman will have to decide for themselves, it requires serious and perhaps prolonged self-examination.

Linus2nd

Agreed, looks like we have that point of agreement after all.

Of course it works. Of course I would expect you to reject it all. You are adamant that nothing I said works. I am just as adamant that your rebuttle doesn’t work. I guess the reader will have to decide for themselves. But I would advise the reader not to decide on the basis of what anyone here has said but to dive into the sources ( and for myself I would advise a deep dive into Edward Feser, his works, and his blogspot and then the works of St. Thomas Aquinas himself, especially the Summa Theologiae and his Commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics found here: dhspriory.org/thomas/ ).

Again, definitely agree with reading into the source material. I used the Summa to get my grasp of it, I can’t claim to have done a “deep dive” into Feser, I found him a little… Awkward I guess, would be the best feel I had from him.

For anyone who’s interested but doesn’t have the willpower or desire to go directly to the Summa and work things out for yourself (which I would recommend if you’re sufficiently interested) there’s a nice easy break down of what the 5 ways are in simple terms along with some of the problems with them here.

wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Thomas_Aquinas

No, the choices are stark and clear. Any Being meeting that criteria, would be, by definition, the God of Christianity- as far as Christians are concerned. Others, of course, would attempt to claim Him for their own. But He would certainly possess many qualities of the Christian God - one, spirit, all perfect, living, eternal, etc. Anyway, that would be a different argument.

So what you’ve said here is essentially that there is a genuine dichotomy between “God created the universe” and “there is no cause to the universe”. This only works if the definition of “God” you are using is as follows:

“God is whatever caused the universe”

And accept that this might be a quantum fluctuation, or Brahma, or universe creating pixies, or Allah, or Baiame… Etc and potentially have absolutely nothing to do with the bible, or Jesus etc then your position is supportable.

The problem comes when conflating this god “whatever caused the universe” with some self aware being or even worse a specific self aware being like the Christian God.

This is actually a remarkably common mistake, to demonstrate that some “thing” must exist using logic. Redefine that “thing” as “God”, then claim to have shown that your personal concept of “God” along with a whole stack of additional attributes (which were NOT included in the original “thing”) must therefore exist. Obviously a major failure in reasoning.

 

[Sochi]

“God is whatever caused the universe”

And accept that this might be a quantum fluctuation, or Brahma, or universe creating pixies, or Allah, or Baiame… Etc and potentially have absolutely nothing to do with the bible, or Jesus etc then your position is supportable.

The problem comes when conflating this god “whatever caused the universe” with some self aware being or even worse a specific self aware being like the Christian God.

This is actually a remarkably common mistake, to demonstrate that some “thing” must exist using logic. Redefine that “thing” as “God”, then claim to have shown that your personal concept of “God” along with a whole stack of additional attributes (which were NOT included in the original “thing”) must therefore exist. Obviously a major failure in reasoning.

Yep.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

First, I love to discuss with you about absolute certainty, what is your understanding of absolute certainty, where is it to be detected in the universe and by whom.

Second, I don’t see any statement from you where you tell the whole world how you transit from your concept of God to the existence of God in objective reality in the universe.

You owe it to yourself to tell readers and me what is your understanding of the term absolute certainty, as you are the party mentioning this term, so please you start with your expatiation on what it is and where it is to be found in the universe and by whom.

About transit from the concept of God to th existence of God in the universe, II have said that as follows (attend to the words in bold):

And I must commend you for your civility.

I will not react to posts which do not address me i.e. my posts directly.

And I do not talk with humans whom I call satanic obstructionists.

KingCoil

Nothing mysterious about " absolute certainty, " change it to " no certainty " or " little certainty " or simply " doesn’t know. " Makes no difference to me.

Nothing mysterious about my arguments since they have been given by St. Thomas.

I’m sure you really don’t regard me as an " obstructionislt " of any species, so I’ll let that ride.

We are just on different wave lengths, I guess.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Agreed, looks like we have that point of agreement after all.

Again, definitely agree with reading into the source material. I used the Summa to get my grasp of it, I can’t claim to have done a “deep dive” into Feser, I found him a little… Awkward I guess, would be the best feel I had from him.

For anyone who’s interested but doesn’t have the willpower or desire to go directly to the Summa and work things out for yourself (which I would recommend if you’re sufficiently interested) there’s a nice easy break down of what the 5 ways are in simple terms along with some of the problems with them here.

wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Thomas_Aquinas

And of course I would urge the reader to read Edward Feser, research his blogspot thoroughly, and get his new book coming out in May, Then go to Thomas Aquinas himself, but he is quite difficult, but not so difficult as Arisltotle. Feser has the further advantage in that he was once an atheist himslef and was converted through Thomas, at least partially…

So what you’ve said here is essentially that there is a genuine dichotomy between “God created the universe” and “there is no cause to the universe”. This only works if the definition of “God” you are using is as follows:

“God is whatever caused the universe”

Essentially, yes.

And accept that this might be a quantum fluctuation, or Brahma, or universe creating pixies, or Allah, or Baiame… Etc and potentially have absolutely nothing to do with the bible, or Jesus etc then your position is supportable.

So the God who created the universe is guilty by association, eh? But it is the atheists who are making the association, you might say, it is right out of the atheist play book.

My argument is that the universe can only exist because it exists eternally by the power of a Being, completely outside the universe but able to act upon it and guide it to its proper end. Or that it had an absolute beginning through the power of that God. And this Being is One, Simple, Intelligent, Living, Uncaused, Eternal, Loving, All Powerful, all of which Thomas adequately argues in the Summa Theologiae. Not at all like the other creatures you mentioned.

Either that or you are left with a universe that causes itself and guides itself. Intellectually unsatisfying, to say the least. I’m surprised that intelligent people suggest it could be so.
You know I can understand people being angry with God or even hating Him, but for an intelligent person to say with a straight face that he doesn’t exist, just blows my mind. I put these people in the same category as those who say that the world doesn’t exist, or that they themselves don’t exist!.

The problem comes when conflating this god “whatever caused the universe” with some self aware being or even worse a specific self aware being like the Christian God.

Careful, your prejudices are showing.

This is actually a remarkably common mistake, to demonstrate that some “thing” must exist using logic. Redefine that “thing” as “God”, then claim to have shown that your personal concept of “God” along with a whole stack of additional attributes (which were NOT included in the original “thing”) must therefore exist. Obviously a major failure in reasoning.

I’m surprised to see you say that. You said you had read the Summa Theologiae. Well you certainly didn’t read it very well. You have put the cart before the horse. It was actually Aristotle who arrived at that Being, in a fashion. Thomas merely perfected his arguments and added a couple of his own. And it just turns out that such a Being would have many of the attributes of the Christian God. Aristotle went so far as to say, such a God was worthy of worship - whatever the pagans meant by that.

And of course I expect you to continue to demean logic or, at least, to deny its applicability to philosophy. Seems very prejudiced to me.

Ah well, " Thank you Father for having revealed this to the little ones…"

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yep.

Nope. Have you read my posts, have you read Aquinas, or are you just " clapping your hands? " Or are you merely voting the party line and damn the consequences? Are you a mere " camp follower? "

So it makes every kind of sense to you that the universe exists without cause?
Amazing!!

Linus2nd

 

[CandideWest]

Essentially, yes.

Ok, so you have agreed that in order for your dichotomy to work then your definition of “God” must be:

“Whatever caused the universe”

Great, keep that in mind.

So the God who created the universe is guilty by association, eh? But it is the atheists who are making the association, you might say, it is right out of the atheist play book.

No, you’ve misunderstood. I said that if you take the above definition the you have to accept that your “God” MIGHT BE a quantum fluctuation etc. Not that it must be.

My argument is that the universe can only exist because it exists eternally by the power of a Being, completely outside the universe but able to act upon it and guide it to its proper end. Or that it had an absolute beginning through the power of that God. And this Being is One, Simple, Intelligent, Living, Uncaused, Eternal, Loving, All Powerful, all of which Thomas adequately argues in the Summa Theologiae. Not at all like the other creatures you mentioned.

And there’s the problem, see now you’ve added a whole load of other characteristics to your definition of “God” (which was "whatever caused the universe). Which makes the dichotomy invalid. So you’re now back to having “God” as only one of the potential causes of the universe as per ThinkingSapiens post.

I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways, you cannot both define “God” as “whatever caused the universe” in order to set up a dichotomy against the universe being uncaused AND then claim that “God” also has a whole load of other characteristics which are not required in potential causes of the universe (ie intelligent, loving etc).

Careful, your prejudices are showing.

Prejudices? No prejudice at all, to be honest I’m rather surprised that you’ve gone on to make the very same logical error that I pointed out that many people make.

I’m surprised to see you say that. You said you had read the Summa Theologiae. Well you certainly didn’t read it very well. You have put the cart before the horse. It was actually Aristotle who arrived at that Being, in a fashion. Thomas merely perfected his arguments and added a couple of his own. And it just turns out that such a Being would have many of the attributes of the Christian God. Aristotle went so far as to say, such a God was worthy of worship - whatever the pagans meant by that.

Well I certainly haven’t read the whole thing if that’s what you mean. But I spent plenty of time on it.

If you really think the argument is a convincing one for the Christian God then here’s what should be a quite straightforward question. How do you show that the cause of the universe MUST be an self aware being?

Obviously this is an absolute bare minimum before we hope to get close to demonstrating that the Christian God (or any other god) is the only one which meets the criteria for being creator.

 

[KingCoil]

Nothing mysterious about " absolute certainty, " change it to " no certainty " or " little certainty " or simply " doesn’t know. " Makes no difference to me.

Nothing mysterious about my arguments since they have been given by St. Thomas.

I’m sure you really don’t regard me as an " obstructionislt " of any species, so I’ll let that ride.

We are just on different wave lengths, I guess.

Linus2nd

You are not answering my request to you on what you understand by absolute certainty.

For you say: “I disagree with point 1, science has not demonstrated this point with absolute certainty.”

I never say anything about science demonstrating anything with absolute certainty.

I am into scientists telling us that the universe has a beginning.

So, tell me with what kind of certainty are scientists telling us that the universe has a beginning.

Please don’t bring in St. Thomas, use your own brain to do your own thinking, also abstain from bringing in contempory authorities, just do your own thinking if you have any, instead of putting forth in front of yourself your authorities.

If you have appropriated the thinking of authorities as your very own, then speak as from your own authority because they are now your own.

Obviously you want us to go into discussing or debating on what is the understanding of the authorities you bring in, into our disquisition on the topic of this thread, which is on how to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

Tell you what, as you have a brain, then you are intelligent, wherefore do intelligent thinking on logic and facts, and tell me is the universe for you eternal or not, that was what you brought up earlier with a contortionistic statement like, “there is no reason to suppose that the universe has not always existed.”

Let us not go deep deep deep into your abysmal snobbish learning, let us concentrate on facts and on intelligent thinking founded on facts and yes logic.

Okay, be precise and concise, you hold that the universe has a beginning or not?

If not, then you hold that the universe has always existed, yes or no?

Don’t engage please, in fuzzy vacillating nonsense.

**I can concur with you on either position from you, namely, that the universe has a beginning, or that the universe has always existed i.e. eternal.
**

Dear readers here, don’t be overwhelmed by his deep deep deep abysmal snobbish learning, when he has no brain skeleton to do his own thinking, grounded on his own intelligence working on facts guided by logic, but must do all kinds of name-dropping.

The topic is “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

First, we have the concept of God in our mind, then we go forth into the universe to look for God as per the concept in our mind, that is the transit from the mind to the universe.

Either way Linus2 wants to make of the universe, with a beginning or always having existed i.e. eternal, that is all right with me.

So, Linus2, be precise and concise, what is it going to be, universe with a beginning or universe always having existed i.e. eternal.

You are to my observation and continuous experimentation by exchanging words with you, into sliding quickly into the morass of a satanic obstructionist.

Don’t please don’t bring in so many materials to display your deep deep deep abysmal snobbish learning to confound the readers, you don’t impress me at all.

Just react to these words from me:

** Okay, be precise and concise, you hold that the universe has a beginning or not?

If not, then you hold that the universe has always existed, yes or no.

Don’t engage please, in fuzzy vacillating nonsense.**

Lastly, don’t go please don’t go into contortionistic utterances like, “There is no reason to suppose from science nor from philosophy that I [you] don’t always have a brain.”

Hahahahaha!

KingCoil

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well kids, I’ve had enough of this " sand box, " have fun and don’t stub your toes or get sand in your eyes.

Linus2nd

 

[Sochi]

Well kids, I’ve had enough of this " sand box, " have fun and don’t stub your toes or get sand in your eyes.

Linus2nd

What! Are you guys still here???

 

[KingCoil]

Well kids, I’ve had enough of this " sand box, " have fun and don’t stub your toes or get sand in your eyes.

Linus2nd

You see, Linus2, you are a typical deep deep deep abysmal learned snob, and you will now withdraw into your shell like a snail or turtle, rather than continue the dialog on very plain and clear and precise concise language.

Here, dear readers, is the request made to him is to pick one choice, whether he espouses that the universe has a beginning, or he espouses that the universe has always existed.

The fact is that he did say in his contortionist speech, “there is no reason to suppose that the universe has not always existed.”

That is a categorical declaratory statement.

So, readers, he is now running away from his words.

Tell you what, Linus2, you can just now come forth and declare, “I take back those words,” and we can continue with our exchange, on how to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

I want you to bring yourself down to the universe, to terra firma, to transit from the realm of concepts in the mind to the realm of objects in real factual concrete existence of the universe, and we two will search for God, in accordance with the concept of God first and foremost in the Christian faith as the creator i.e. cause of the universe, which universe has in fact a beginning.

Or, if you prefer you can state that the universe having a beginning is a matter of faith and not of facts and logic, in which case you can march away from this thread on the what I call privilege of faith: because this thread is not into faith statements, like some posters here are into – and when I notice that with them I shun them like the plague.

My purpose in forums is to show to people that the existence of God is a fact that is susceptible to access by human reasoning, intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Don’t bring in the fallacy from your part of nursing your hurt sense of self-pomposity, so that you owe it to yourself to avoid plain and clear and precise and concise language.

I really abhor people who talk in negative format in particular in double negative, like “there is no reason to suppose that the universe has not always existed.”

There is already a give-away-that you are up to tergiversation.

I seem to realize that there are a lot of posters here who are actively i.e. factually into satanic obstuctionism or at least into juniors reluctanism.

Dear Linus2, I am most sincerely keen to hear from you what exactly you mean to convey to readers with your statement, “there is no reason to suppose that the universe has not always existed.”

At least do that as a favor to ordinary people who talk plain, clear, precise concise language.

At once when I read that statement from you, I understood it to mean, “there is reason to suppose that the universe has always existed.”

What are the possible other ways of writing that statement so that you can tell me that it means either one or all of them, except the one I understand it to mean when I take way the no and the not.

That will be your last word and testament before you finally take your leave from my presence, but I am not sure I will get anything plain clear precise and concise from you.

KingCoil

 

[polytropos]

wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Thomas_Aquinas

I realize that this is not a topic on Aquinas’s Five Ways, but this is a pretty sad treatment thereof.

If nothing moves without a prior mover, then God must need a prior mover, as well…] In fact, as stated, the argument is clearly self-contradictory.

The premise “nothing moves without a prior mover” is consistent with a thing being an unmoved mover, ie. that which moves other things without moving itself.

This misunderstanding might be chalked up to poor translation and lack of metaphysical background. “to move” in Aquinas’s terminology means “to change” or “to be reduced from potency to act”. So the premise can be more fully spelled out “nothing is reduced from potency to act except by something else in act”. So to say that God is “a mover” means that God reduces other things from potency to act, not that God is moved, ie. that God is reduced from potency to act.

Who created God?

This objection seems similarly confused. No one created God, but since the argument does not premise that everything is created, there is no difficulty here. Aquinas’s First Way argues that infinite series of changeable movers (ie. movers which can be reduced from potency to act) are not sufficient for the change observed in the universe, and that there therefore must be a purely actual being. In other words, Aquinas is arguing that there must be an exception to the idea that everything must be caused, in order to coherently account for change.

Which god? The word “God” carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being. If the ultimate cause of our universe turns out to be, say, a random quantum fluctuation, then that would be “God” by Aquinas’s definition, but to call this phenomenon “God” would be very misleading.

This objection is doubly misconceived. First, it ignores that Aquinas does not take himself to have demonstrated that the existence of the Christian God in the First Way, as is evident from the fact that he spends hundreds of subsequent pages in the Summa arguing about the divine attributes. Secondly, the objector does not seem to recognize any of the metaphysical justifications for thinking that the unmoved mover is not just “the ultimate cause of our universe” but specifically a purely actual being, a being which cannot change. For that reason, fundamental particles etc. do not fit the bill. (A “quantum fluctuation” is not even an entity in its own right, let alone an entity without potency.) For similar reasons, various other parody objections don’t fit the bill either–it could not be Zeus, who came into existence; the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with its physical noodly appendages; a team of pixies, with their multiplicity; the universe (or multiverse, for that matter), with its mutability.

I would actually disagree with KingCoil’s general thrust throughout this thread that we must have an agreed-upon concept of God prior to any sort of argument. Aquinas’s theology is constructive. We all do have ostensive concepts, of course. But Aquinas begins from sensible experience, argues that a purely actual being must exist, and then goes on to claim that such an entity would be unchangeable, immaterial, one, simple, omnipotent, good, intelligent, etc.

Two bodies at rest will start to move towards each other due to gravity. They can be each other’s first mover.

Wittgenstein is here appropriate:

At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena. (6.371)

So people stop short at natural laws as something unassailable, as did the ancients at God and Fate.

And they are both right and wrong. But the ancients were clearer, in so far as they recognized one clear terminus, whereas the modern system makes it appear as though everything were explained. (6.372)

The idea that by appealing to gravity–an acausal mathematical abstraction of the way that bodies “interact”–one has sufficiently explained or accounted for their motion is simply false.

Pairs of virtual particles are created (and annihilated) all of the time, out of literally nothing.

Pairs of virtual particles are not created “out of literally nothing,” since, as the illustrious Krauss reminds us, “nothing is something.” (We can substitute in using Krauss’s identity statement to obtain: Pairs of virtual particles are created out of literally something!)

More exotically, if time were circular (i.e., if time repeated every so often, so that the year 1 were also the year ten trillion and one), then every motion could have a prior cause without infinite regress.

Well, the author is here right that this doesn’t seem to be the case. But unfortunately the question of time’s circularity does not bear on Aquinas’s First Way. The author seems to be reading it as the kalam cosmological argument, as though Aquinas is arguing against an infinite temporal regress stretching into the past. But Aquinas’s argument is meant to apply to the state of the world hic et nunc.

Even if there is an infinite regress of causes, so what? The human mind is uncomfortable with the concept of infinity, but reality has no obligation to make us comfortable.

Once again, the objector seems to have attacked the wrong argument. It is not infinity that Aquinas finds problematic. He actually does not think there is anything (philosophically) wrong about an infinite series per accidens (extending backwards in time). It is the lack of groundedness of the series which is at issue.

(Technically speaking, the number of causes is not even an issue. There might be infinitely many elements in the causal chain, and causal chains might even loop back on themselves, etc.)

 

[polytropos]

(Feser has written a lot of good blog posts on the proper way to look at causal series, primary vs. secondary movers/causality, etc. Here, here, and here, for instance, though they presuppose some background in Aristotelian metaphysics. Oderberg has a pretty good self-contained article on the cosmological argument, for those interested.)

 

[CandideWest]

I realize that this is not a topic on Aquinas’s Five Ways, but this is a pretty sad treatment thereof.

I won’t reply to all your points in detail as similar things have been covered elsewhere, at length. So if anyone doesn’t know they can easily look them up.

…
This objection is doubly misconceived. First, it ignores that Aquinas does not take himself to have demonstrated that the existence of the Christian God in the First Way, as is evident from the fact that he spends hundreds of subsequent pages in the Summa arguing about the divine attributes.

Alas that he didn’t simply state his assumptions. That would have made it much simpler to show his gaps. For example, could you answer the question I asked Linus - how do you show that the cause of the universe MUST be a self aware being?

…

For similar reasons, various other parody objections don’t fit the bill either–it could not be Zeus, who came into existence; the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with its physical noodly appendages; a team of pixies, with their multiplicity; the universe (or multiverse, for that matter), with its mutability.

None of your statements above close out these possibilities.

I don’t need to believe that Zeus or any other gods had a beginning. I could believe they’d always existed but still been gods other than the Christian one.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t have physical noodly appendages, you’ve misunderstood the concept there.

A team of pixies isn’t a problem under Aquinas’ ways as long as none of them preceded the others (ie they were either all uncaused or caused each other mutually from eternity).

And the multiverse is only mutable from a perspective within time. Just as the concept of god can do things within time without changing itself. The multiverse includes all space and time, so looking at in changing with time is incorrect.

So your objections all fail.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Just a point of clarification. I think everyone here knows where I stand on the creation of the universe - except King who cannot seem to understand the difference between a philosophical argument and a position taken and accepted as a matter of Faith.

I firmly believe and accept the God of Christianity, who exists eternally outside the universe, created the universe and all that is in it, both the spiritual and the material, in time out of nothing. I also am firmly convinced, along with St. Thomas, Augustine, and a host of philosophers and theologians, that it cannot be demonstrated or proven by science or philosophy that the universe has not existed eternally. I am futher convinced that Thomas has demonstrated satisfactorially that, even if the universe has existed eternally, it has been and is being eternally created by God, in time, out of nothing.

I hope every one here understands now where I stand, though I am convinced that my earlier posts made this distinction clear.

Peace to all.

Linus2nd

 

[Partinobodycula]

As mostly reasonable people, we should be able to agree on at least one thing, when it comes to the question of where reality as we know it came from, none of us really knows. We may each have our own personal beliefs, theories, and proofs, but if we’re being brutally honest with ourselves, then we have to admit that what we have is a small degree of knowledge, mixed with varying degrees of faith. Faith may be an admirable thing, but if history has taught us anything, it’s that faith isn’t always an infallible thing. Even when inspired by the divine, it’s still we imperfect humans that seem obliged to try to justify it, even if we lack the capacity to do so.

Perhaps the more pertinent question is, how steadfast and vehement should we be in defense of our beliefs? Reason would suggest that I should be at least as steadfast in defense of my beliefs, as you are in defense of yours.

Or alternately, the correct question may be, which is more important, the willingness to defend your beliefs, or the willingness to question your beliefs? The warrior in me says that I should defend. But the scholar in me says that I should question. Which is correct?