Leaning towards Skepticism

[Senyorico]

Proving the universe had the beginning doesn’t automatically mean that a deity created it, how would I convince my self to believe in God? Thank you for your help!

 

[leonhardprintz]

You might be interested to know that the demonstrations for God’s existence found in Classical Theology, are actually agnostic as to whether the universe had a beginning or not.

If you want a solid introduction to them I recommend Ed Feser’s brilliant works on that subject. The Last Superstition is good if you can stomach his attacks on atheists. Beyond that Scholastic Metaphysics is a good read as well. In general any modern commentary on the works of St. Aquinas will be good.

The arguments proceed more from what is needed in order to explain fundemental concepts like motion, and the division between many and one properties, which leads to a set of metaphysical principles that is used to argue in a deductive way for the existence of an entity worthy of being called God.

Typically the arguments then proceed to argue for corollary arguments about God, such as as omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, immateriality, changeless, etc…

 

[DMSP]

Well, first of all this might seem crazy for a non-christian, but you really can’t convince yourself to faith through intellectual arguments alone in a christian worldview.

But we do recognize that some arguments in natural fields of study are needed that’s why the field of apologetic exist so, I’ll try to give some argument

1. Materialism is self defeating
   If matter is all there are, then ultimately we are just a tiny speck of molecules that came to being by random chance. If we only came to being by chance, a product of natural selection then all our apparatus that we use to think is not designed to found out the truth but rather just because it is useful. If our entire thinking process is not designed to find the truth and only because it is useful, then how can we trust that any conclusion we came to is true rather than only happened to seem true because our brains by chance are wired that way? If we can’t trust any conclusion we reach then how can we trust the conclusion that there is no God?
2. The Universe begin to exist
   If you have conceded that the universe has a beginning then why wouldn’t there be a deity? If the universe is not eternal then at some point there would need to be an uncreated creator otherwise you would fall into an infinite regress of explanation. For example the universe begin due to the big bang, the big bang begins due to X, X begins due to Y and so on ad infinitum
3. Objective Moral
   Do you believe in objective moral standard? If no, then this argument won’t work. But if yes, then this is perhaps one of the strongest argument. If there is no God as a lawgiver where would objective moral standard came from? It cannot be evolutionary process because if matter is all there is then why does it matter? A person like hitler would have just act differently ‘a mutation’ so to say but you cannot say that he is evil. This does not mean that you cannot be moral without a belief in God rather that without God we would have no objective standard of good and evil

There are some other such as the fine tuning and ontological, but those are my favorites. Hope that helped. And as mentioned above there are several books dealing on the subjects.

 

[Bradskii]

1. Why would intelligence not be able to deternine facts (i.e. truthful statements about existence)?
2. That argument is, at best, an argument for deism. You would need to show, if that was the case, why the deity still exists.
3. Morality emerged via the evolutionary process. It allowed us to form groups and tribes which gave us a greater chance of survival.

 

[DMSP]

1. Why would intelligence not be able to deternine facts (i.e. truthful statements about existence)?

It’s not that intelligence can’t determine facts, but rather why should we have any trust at all in a product of random chance? After all, if matter is all there are meaning intelligent itself arise out of evolutionary process right? Therefore why should we even believe that our intelligent would lead us to any factual statement instead of making sense simply because our brain happened to evolve in a certain way that makes us think in a certain way by chance?

1. That argument is, at best, an argument for deism. You would need to show, if that was the case, why the deity still exists.

Well, the OP is mainly concerned in the existence of a creator. So yes this is mainly an argument for deism, I agree.

1. Morality emerged via the evolutionary process. It allowed us to form groups and tribes which gave us a greater chance of survival.

But that’s not objective standard of morality, if the only metric to determine morality is which one is more useful for the survival of the species, then you cannot even condemn hitler, or ISIS, etc. Because they could be a new subset of ‘morality’ that just emerge and the only arbiter that can judge them in naturalistic worldview would then only be nature through natural selection and even if they are then eliminated they are not evil, they just evolve differently, they are no more evil to us than neanderthals are to us as homo sapiens.

 

[Finn]

Morality emerged via the evolutionary process. It allowed us to form groups and tribes which gave us a greater chance of survival.

Do you consider this to be a complete & sufficient explanation for the existence of morality? Genuine query, not priming an argument.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Morality emerged via the evolutionary process. It allowed us to form groups and tribes which gave us a greater chance of survival.

Do you consider this to be a complete & sufficient explanation for the existence of morality? Genuine query, not priming an argument.

Not complete and sufficient. There are many aspects of morality that emerge from the influence of society itself rather than have evolved.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

1. Why would intelligence not be able to deternine facts (i.e. truthful statements about existence)?

It’s not that intelligence can’t determine facts, but rather why should we have any trust at all in a product of random chance? After all, if matter is all there are meaning intelligent itself arise out of evolutionary process right? Therefore why should we even believe that our intelligent would lead us to any factual statement instead of making sense simply because our brain happened to evolve in a certain way that makes us think in a certain way by chance?

1. That argument is, at best, an argument for deism. You would need to show, if that was the case, why the deity still exists.

Well, the OP is mainly concerned in the existence of a creator. So yes this is mainly an argument for deism, I agree.

1. Morality emerged via the evolutionary process. It allowed us to form groups and tribes which gave us a greater chance of survival.

But that’s not objective standard of morality, if the only metric to determine morality is which one is more useful for the survival of the species, then you cannot even condemn hitler, or ISIS, etc. Because they could be a new subset of ‘morality’ that just emerge and the only arbiter that can judge them in naturalistic worldview would then only be nature through natural selection and even if they are then eliminated they are not evil, they just evolve differently, they are no more evil to us than neanderthals are to us as homo sapiens.

We can test if we can determine the facts about any given matter. I thought that was an a priori position. Unless you want to argue for solipsism.

And just because people have different ideas on morality doesn’t make them all correct. There is no absolute morality, but if we can’t put forward an argument as to why Pol Pot or Hitler was wrong then we are in a lot of trouble.

I’m sure you could without any reference to theology whatsoever. If it’s only ‘because God says so’ then how do we know who has interpreted God’s will correctly?

 

[Shakuhachi]

Intellectually you can leave the question open. What you need is an encounter with God. And that is what the spiritual life is all about but you cant make it happen. You can only be open to it. So you must seek God and pray to God even though you might not completely believe in God. And also stretch your understanding of what God might be like and how God is present.

 

[DMSP]

That’s exactly my point, the priori position assumed that logic is designed to find the truth, pure materialism on the other hand should default to solipsism

Well in pure naturalism worldview why couldn’t Pol Pot or Hitler be right? Or at least that they are equally as right as Gandhi or Mother Theresa? After all they are just different product of biology and sociology right?

And yes you are right, you don’t need to refer to theology ‘God says so’ to make good moral decision and that no one can assume to interpret God on morality one hundred percent correctly.

In fact that is the Christian worldview every man and woman are equipped by God with the capability to make moral decision that we call conscience. This conscience would compel all people toward a universal moral standard, and that is why on general religions all across the board have similar view on universal moral, for example cowardice is never a virtue, nor lying, nor sloth, and so on and so forth. The conscience could be flawed because men have fallen and that is why God requires general and special revelations to reach humanity, now again because men are fallen you cannot claim to interpret those revelations with one hundred percent accuracy. But by agreeing in the existence of God as a universal moral standard the deists at the very least would have more grounded framework to be the arbiter of which morality is good or bad.

If you are asking which one has the specific revelations of God that is closer to the truth of the universe, that’s quite different from universal moral standard. I do believe that there are rooms for discussion but it is a bit off topic in this thread.

 

[Bradskii]

That’s exactly my point, the priori position assumed that logic is designed to find the truth, pure materialism on the other hand should default to solipsism

Well in pure naturalism worldview why couldn’t Pol Pot or Hitler be right? Or at least that they are equally as right as Gandhi or Mother Theresa? After all they are just different product of biology and sociology right?

And yes you are right, you don’t need to refer to theology ‘God says so’ to make good moral decision and that no one can assume to interpret God on morality one hundred percent correctly.

In fact that is the Christian worldview every man and woman are equipped by God with the capability to make moral decision that we call conscience. This conscience would compel all people toward a universal moral standard, and that is why on general religions all across the board have similar view on universal moral, for example cowardice is never a virtue, nor lying, nor sloth, and so on and so forth.

Hang on. You first state that you don’t need theology to determine right from wrong. But then in the next breath say that God has inbued us with a divinely ordained method of doing so. You are having your cake and eating it.

Look at someone’s propensity for cowardice or sloth. Let’s accept, in the first instance, that they are entirely natural and neither good or bad.

Could you not see any good reasons why they would be considered a bad thing? In themselves? Would you treat another person equally if he ran off whenever there was danger? Or if he sat around all day while the rest of you are building huts and hunting?

Surely you’d prefer the company of those willing to help out. As would everyone else. To the point where they would be excluded from the group. And back in the day when we were wandering around the African plains, that might well be a death sentence.

So those who had a genetically determined propensity for helping out lived long enough to pass on their genes. And those whose character was more cowardly and lazier didn’t.

So helping one’s fellow creatures became a good thing. Good for the group. And we called acting in a manner which exhibited those characteristics good moral behaviour.

It’s not a religious view that certain moral acts are considered good. It is universal. Which doesn’t mean that people will act according to these evolved tendencies all the time. But we recognise it when they don’t.

 

[DMSP]

Hang on. You first state that you don’t need theology to determine right from wrong. But then in the next breath say that God has inbued us with a divinely ordained method of doing so. You are having your cake and eating it.

That’s fair, the way I said it was confusing in retrospect. What I meant was that you don’t need a degree in theology or have ever opened the bible or any other scriptures from other religion, but you indeed as well as human would be able to determine it through conscience, and that would be in line with the christianity worldview. That conscience however would only be valid as a measure of morality if objective moral standard exist, and there would be no objective moral standard without the existence of God

Look at someone’s propensity for cowardice or sloth. Let’s accept, in the first instance, that they are entirely natural and neither good or bad.

Could you not see any good reasons why they would be considered a bad thing? In themselves? Would you treat another person equally if he ran off whenever there was danger? Or if he sat around all day while the rest of you are building huts and hunting?

Surely you’d prefer the company of those willing to help out. As would everyone else. To the point where they would be excluded from the group. And back in the day when we were wandering around the African plains, that might well be a death sentence.

So those who had a genetically determined propensity for helping out lived long enough to pass on their genes. And those whose character was more cowardly and lazier didn’t.

So helping one’s fellow creatures became a good thing. Good for the group. And we called acting in a manner which exhibited those characteristics good moral behaviour.

It’s not a religious view that certain moral acts are considered good. It is universal. Which doesn’t mean that people will act according to these evolved tendencies all the time. But we recognise it when they don’t.

Not in a naturalistic worldview no, you can say they are more useful but that’s not a moral judgement is it? That’s a judgement of utility. Like I said they are no more evil than neanderthals are more evil compared to homo sapiens.

But let’s say that utility is the measure of goodness, the question still remain. Why would the propagation of the species matter and therefore good in a naturalistic worldview? We are just a speck of dust in the vast universe eventually we would cease to exist so would our entire race, and even the universe would suffer from heat death. So why should anything matter enough for us to say this is useful therefore it’s good from a naturalistic worldview?

Why is herd mentality good? Who knows if the ideology of the terrorist or neo nazis are the more useful one after all they are still here, the natural selection has not rooted them out yet, maybe our morality is becoming obsolete under materialism all of this is possible, so even if evolution can give rise to ‘morality’, there is no objective moral standard in materialism

 

[Bradskii]

Hang on. You first state that you don’t need theology to determine right from wrong. But then in the next breath say that God has inbued us with a divinely ordained method of doing so. You are having your cake and eating it.

That’s fair, the way I said it was confusing in retrospect. What I meant was that you don’t need a degree in theology or have ever opened the bible or any other scriptures from other religion, but you indeed as well as human would be able to determine it through conscience, and that would be in line with the christianity worldview. That conscience however would only be valid as a measure of morality if objective moral standard exist, and there would be no objective moral standard without the existence of God

Look at someone’s propensity for cowardice or sloth. Let’s accept, in the first instance, that they are entirely natural and neither good or bad.

Could you not see any good reasons why they would be considered a bad thing? In themselves? Would you treat another person equally if he ran off whenever there was danger? Or if he sat around all day while the rest of you are building huts and hunting?

Surely you’d prefer the company of those willing to help out. As would everyone else. To the point where they would be excluded from the group. And back in the day when we were wandering around the African plains, that might well be a death sentence.

So those who had a genetically determined propensity for helping out lived long enough to pass on their genes. And those whose character was more cowardly and lazier didn’t.

So helping one’s fellow creatures became a good thing. Good for the group.

But let’s say that utility is the measure of goodness, the question still remain. Why would the propagation of the species matter and therefore good in a naturalist worldview.

Why is herd mentality good? Who knows if the ideology of the terrorist or neo nazis are the more useful one after all they are still here, the natural selection has not rooted them out yet, maybe our morality is becoming obsolete under materialism all of this is possible, so even if evolution can give rise to ‘morality’, there is no objective moral standard in materialism

I didn’t say that the acts are ‘good’ in themselves. We simply describe them as good because they result in the propogation of the species. And on the assumption that you would rather be alive than dead, that can be classed as a good thing.

And the herd mentailty was useful because being in a group is more beneficial in terms of survival than being an individual. We all tend towards groups. And no, there is no objective morality. It was never there for us to discover. It developed.

 

[PatK63]

It takes more faith to believe there is no God than it takes that He exist. If there is a watch doesn’t there have to be a watch maker?

 

[Dan_Defender]

Measurements show that the universe’s expansion is accelerating, and has been for billions of years. The laws of physics dictate that the universe should by now be slowing down or tearing itself apart. What holds it together are two things according to scientists: dark matter and dark energy. There is no explanation for either, they are ‘mysteries’. So if either you believe in God or not, you believe in ‘mysteries’.

 

[anon99031074]

If we only came to being by chance, a product of natural selection then all our apparatus that we use to think is not designed to found out the truth

If God is eternal, and therefore undesigned and without any externally assigned purpose, then nobody designed God’s mind with the intent of having it find the truth. How then can any conclusion from God’s mind be trusted?

If the universe is not eternal then at some point there would need to be an uncreated creator otherwise you would fall into an infinite regress of explanation

Does the universe exist eternally as an idea in God’s mind, or did it perhaps evolve gradually in his mind? Did it pop out of nothing in God’s mind as a flash of insight? Do all potential universes exist as ideas in the mind of God, like an infinite multiverse of different universes with different laws of physics? Does there need to be a creator God within the mind of God who created the idea of the universe in order for there not to be an infinite regress of causes within his mind? It seems to me that saying “God did it” solves nothing, as the same questions that apply to the current universe also seem to apply to the idea of the universe within the mind of God. Also, does this universe we live in exist solely as an idea in the mind of God, or did God create it outside of his mind in a separate realm? How would we know the difference?

If there is no God as a lawgiver where would objective moral standard came from?

In Milky Way road, there lives three people. John, Lisa and Fred. Fred is also God incarnate. John thinks bullying is bad. Lisa thinks it is harmless childs play and not morally wrong. Fred also thinks bullying is bad. Why is Fred right simply because he is also God? What makes his opinion about morals “objective”, and why should anyone listen to him?

Whether it ought to be called “objective” or “subjective” I don’t really know/care, but it seems to me that all sentient beings despise suffering, and so any behavior that causes them unnecessary suffering could be called bad, regardless of whether or not a divine being agrees. I also note that we live in an interconnected universe, and so my actions do not happen in isolation. Creating a world where people are selfish will ultimately also affect me. Therefore, solely being concerned about my personal suffering and not caring about others seems to be a recipe for suffering both for myself and others.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Proving the universe had the beginning doesn’t automatically mean that a deity created it…

Right.

The universe might have spontaneously popped into existence without any intentional prior cause.

Likewise it might suddenly disappear without a trace.

…but that would be a nightmare for physicists and the scientific method.
It’s not even a particularly “elegant” theory.

 

[DMSP]

If God is eternal, and therefore undesigned and without any externally assigned purpose, then nobody designed God’s mind with the intent of having it find the truth. How then can any conclusion from God’s mind be trusted?

That would be true if we are talking about the gods of polytheism, the sort of god that have a beginning. The God of the monotheistic religion, by definition is the greatest conceivable being and as such God is the source of all of reality and truth, the laws of logic can be trusted to make inferences because it is designed to find the truth, but the monotheistic God the uncreated sustainer of reality is the truth itself.

Does the universe exist eternally as an idea in God’s mind, or did it perhaps evolve gradually in his mind? Did it pop out of nothing in God’s mind as a flash of insight? Do all potential universes exist as ideas in the mind of God, like an infinite multiverse of different universes with different laws of physics? Does there need to be a creator God within the mind of God who created the idea of the universe in order for there not to be an infinite regress of causes within his mind? It seems to me that saying “God did it” solves nothing, as the same questions that apply to the current universe also seem to apply to the idea of the universe within the mind of God. Also, does this universe we live in exist solely as an idea in the mind of God, or did God create it outside of his mind in a separate realm? How would we know the difference?

I agree that the specifics of how creation came to be cannot be inferred from the cosmological argument just that the universe is created. But it does not matter whether the universe came to be through a sudden flash of inspiration or gradual only that it would have a uncreated self-sustaining cause. Because the problem of an infinite regression of events in regard to the universe is that then there would be an eternal past within the time axis, which by itself is a contradiction because if there is an infinite amount of past then we would never arrive in the present. The causal links need to end at some point at what Aristotle termed the unmoved mover.

The problem wouldn’t exist with God because the argument is not anything that exist hasa cause, but rather anything that begin to exist has a cause. The monotheistic God as a timeless being is outside of time and therefore does not need a cause

 

[DMSP]

In Milky Way road, there lives three people. John, Lisa and Fred. Fred is also God incarnate. John thinks bullying is bad. Lisa thinks it is harmless childs play and not morally wrong. Fred also thinks bullying is bad. Why is Fred right simply because he is also God? What makes his opinion about morals “objective”, and why should anyone listen to him?

Because Fred would be the designer of Lisa, and since we are talking about the monotheistic God, Fred would also then be the source of morality itself. And that’s the assertion God is the only feasible source of any objective morality, and therefore arguing with God on morality is self defeating because by definition Lisa would be arguing against the very thing that allows her to argue

Whether it ought to be called “objective” or “subjective” I don’t really know/care, but it seems to me that all sentient beings despise suffering, and so any behavior that causes them unnecessary suffering could be called bad, regardless of whether or not a divine being agrees. I also note that we live in an interconnected universe, and so my actions do not happen in isolation. Creating a world where people are selfish will ultimately also affect me. Therefore, solely being concerned about my personal suffering and not caring about others seems to be a recipe for suffering both for myself and others.

But why does it matter? Why should your suffering matters? In a naturalistic worldview those suffering are just the firings of neurons that give you sensation of pain, so why does it matter? Why would that be good compared to say a psycopath that doesn’t care about his suffering and others as long as he can derive sadistic pleasure by committing genocide? Why should anyone happiness matter more than this one psycopath? They’re all biological and sociological construct

 

[anon99031074]

The universe might have spontaneously popped into existence without any intentional prior cause.

Likewise it might suddenly disappear without a trace.

…but that would be a nightmare for physicists and the scientific method.
It’s not even a particularly “elegant” theory.

Did it begin to exist in the mind of God, or was it embedded as an idea in his mind from eternity? If it began, did it evolve or pop out of nothing? You have added a wrapper around “universe” called God, but as far as I can see, it solves nothing. Postulating God as the source of the universe raises a lot of questions, a lot of which I haven’t even begin to ask in this thread