My proof for God. Critiques please

[wheels10]

No it isn’t. Can science tell me what woman I should marry, or what colour of tie brings out the blue in my eyes? Of course not.

That’s good to hear that you are open to other sources for answering your questions. Though using science to determine which woman to marry is probably not a bad idea. I’m kidding!

I’ll take your word for it.

The definition of Love from the Bible:

1 Corinthians, Chapter 13: “Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”

This is how God Loves us. Whenever we act this way toward another human being we are sharing God’s Love and we are doing God’s will. At least for me, when I witness this behavior, I know that it is something exceptionally Good, Holy and Pure.

 

[Moonstruck888]

That’s good to hear that you are open to other sources for answering your questions. Though using science to determine which woman to marry is probably not a bad idea. I’m kidding!

Believe me, I’ve tried…

 

[WmJackP]

So, what are some objections and/or critques for this proof? I’m all ears

I agree entirely. But what have you proven really? There is something and not nothing? Isn’t that really the bottom line? With that aspect of your proof, I entirely agree. But isn’t that obvious without your tortured syllogism? The implication you have for this argument–that there is a personal god–is something I can’t agree with, however. Here is why:

I could make the argument that an ant colony is complex, has burial chambers, birth chambers, a place where food is stored and constructed to facilitate drainage. Ergo there is a chief ant archetect. But that is a false conclusion built upon familiar experiences involving design from top down. There is also emergent design which arises out of individual and unplanned interactions. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”, the ant colony I just mentioned, evolution, are all such examples.

If you thought you had done so, I do not think you have proven a “personality” called “god”. I am afraid you have only estalished that something is different than nothing and if something pops into existence, then you would like to argue that it must have a personal cause. I think that something could just as easily be an emergent property of the laws of nature. Nothingness may be unstable, for all we know, and energy and matter might therefore be the emergent qualities which mathematics and physics require as a product.

I hope I make sense. I also hope I haven’t offended anyone.

 

[JohnDamian]

So, what are some objections and/or critques for this proof? I’m all ears

I agree entirely. But what have you proven really? There is something and not nothing? Isn’t that really the bottom line? With that aspect of your proof, I entirely agree. But isn’t that obvious without your tortured syllogism? The implication you have for this argument–that there is a personal god–is something I can’t agree with, however. Here is why:

I could make the argument that an ant colony is complex, has burial chambers, birth chambers, a place where food is stored and constructed to facilitate drainage. Ergo there is a chief ant archetect. But that is a false conclusion built upon familiar experiences involving design from top down. There is also emergent design which arises out of individual and unplanned interactions. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”, the ant colony I just mentioned, evolution, are all such examples.

If you thought you had done so, I do not think you have proven a “personality” called “god”. I am afraid you have only estalished that something is different than nothing and if something pops into existence, then you would like to argue that it must have a personal cause. I think that something could just as easily be an emergent property of the laws of nature. Nothingness may be unstable, for all we know, and energy and matter might therefore be the emergent qualities which mathematics and physics require as a product.

I hope I make sense. I also hope I haven’t offended anyone.

You are correct. Arguments in the variety of Cosmological arguments or other such arguments from Contingency only suffice in as much as to prove that there is a proximate and certain first cause, or a nessecary being/force.

They do little to shed light upon the nature of that cause itself, it could be summed up as; one can KNOW God exists, but one has to BELIEVE it is the Christian God.

Furthermore, you are correct in illustrating that diversity does not equate to complexity. Complexity is an abstractive distinction applied to objects, wheras diversity is what makes things really distinct by differentia of species, genus and so forth – however, to claim that a real diversity nessecitates an essentially ordered cause of consciousness is ungrounded; it is perfectly plausible to state that real diversity is a product of accidentally(using the Aristotelian term) ordered sequences.

The key is, with Cosmological arguments is that it is proved that God is, but not what God is, other than a first cause.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The key is, with Cosmological arguments is that it is proved that God is, but not what God is, other than a first cause.

In other words, once upon a time, many thousands of millions of years ago, “something” happened, and you have decided to label that event God?

 

[JohnDamian]

In other words, once upon a time, many thousands of millions of years ago, “something” happened, and you have decided to label that event God?

Well we do know that an eternal, nessecary thing caused the universe to exist.

Now, we can’t know that it’s God or such, but I only used that term because it seemed appropriate that an uncaused, eternal, powerful… creator that caused the universe to exist should be called God.

For all intents, it *could *be some phenomenae, or some mystical force or whatnot; it just so happens that it is a matter of belief that this creator is God. But to say this creator, or creative phenomanae does not exist would be demonstrably wrong.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Well we do know that an eternal, nessecary thing caused the universe to exist.

No we don’t. We know that the observable Universe was caused by an event that occured somewhere around 13.7 billion years ago. You believe it was eternal and necessary. Belief is not knowledge.

Beyond that, we know nothing about what caused it to exist.

How much cause could an uncaused cause cause if an uncaused cause could cause cause.

Now, we can’t know that it’s God or such, but I only used that term because it seemed appropriate that an uncaused, eternal, powerful… creator that caused the universe to exist should be called God.

Uncaused, eternal, powerful… We know none of these things. For all you and I know, Universes could appear in order like a row of falling dominoes.

For all intents, it *could *be some phenomenae, or some mystical force or whatnot; it just so happens that it is a matter of belief that this creator is God. But to say this creator, or creative phenomanae does not exist would be demonstrably wrong.

Then demonstrate.

 

[JohnDamian]

Then demonstrate.

The totality of contingent things cannot be caused by any thing within the totality of contingent things.

I know for a fact that at least one thing is a contingent thing. I will take as an example myself. I am contingent because I did not pop into being uncaused, nor did I exist forever (you can take my word for that - but neither did you for that matter).

Therefore there is at least one contingent thing. Me.

Therefore there is a totality of contingent things.

The totality of contingent things cannot be caused by anything within the totality of caused things for else the totality would be the cause of some thing within itself, which would need to be caused by itself, which would mean it was not contingent.

Therefore, at least one nessecary thing exists. It is essential for at least one nessecary thing to exist so that the totality of contingent things can come into being.

This nessecary thing would require that it be both potent enough to bring these things into being, but also nessecary enough to not require being brought into being itself. Thus, by conseuqence we have an uncaused cause. A creator of the universe who has always existed.

 

[Moonstruck888]

This nessecary thing would require that it be both potent enough to bring these things into being, but also nessecary enough to not require being brought into being itself. Thus, by conseuqence we have an uncaused cause. A creator of the universe who has always existed.

And if that creator is nothing more than a simple energy field with no reticular consciousness?

 

[JohnDamian]

And if that creator is nothing more than a simple energy field with no reticular consciousness?

That’s where the F word kicks in, and yes I mean Faith.

However, as an aside, an energy field is a contingent thing (it does not appear out of nothing), and it is unlikely that an “energy field” would spontaneously cause the universe to exist. To say it’s an energy field would be identical to me saying God is a little man on a white cloud – it would be a tad primative.

 

[Moonstruck888]

That’s where the F word kicks in, and yes I mean Faith.

However, as an aside, an energy field is a contingent thing (it does not appear out of nothing), and it is unlikely that an “energy field” would spontaneously cause the universe to exist. To say it’s an energy field would be identical to me saying God is a little man on a white cloud – it would be a tad primative.

Have you heard of symmetry breaking? It could just be that an energy field is precisely what caused the Universe to exist.

 

[JohnDamian]

Have you heard of symmetry breaking? It could just be that an energy field is precisely what caused the Universe to exist.

Symmetry Breaking requires an energy field to exist; what are you postulating - that energy can come into being ex-nihilo without any creator or generator, or exist without any cause whatsoever?!

Surely it is even more sensible to say that a man on a white cloud created the energy field than to say it created itself!!!

 

[Moonstruck888]

Symmetry Breaking requires an energy field to exist; what are you postulating - that energy can come into being ex-nihilo without any creator or generator, or exist without any cause whatsoever?!

Surely it is even more sensible to say that a man on a white cloud created the energy field than to say it created itself!!!

Thou shalt not create energy, nor shall ye destroy it.

Energy is eternal.

 

[glowingembers]

I would attack point 3:

1. Something had to create the universe

In modern physics there is an idea that the universe could have started spontaneously by passing from the state of “nothingness” under Planck scale (no time, space, energy) to a state of “something” above Planck scale (non-zero time, space, energy). Here is an article by physicist Victor Stenger where he describes such a model, with a reference to Alexander Vilenkin, who was probably the first who suggested this idea.

A Scenario for a Natural Origin of Our Universe

The premise in the Kalam argument that everything that started to exist has a cause doesn’t seem to be true in quantum mechanics where spontaneous (uncaused) things happen.

 

[JohnDamian]

The premise in the Kalam argument that everything that started to exist has a cause doesn’t seem to be true in quantum mechanics where spontaneous (uncaused) things happen.

Not that I am a fan of the Kalam argument, which is oversimplified and rather popularist… I must ask can you please give me an example of something that is uncaused that happens?

 

[glowingembers]

Not that I am a fan of the Kalam argument, which is oversimplified and rather popularist… I must ask can you please give me an example of something that is uncaused that happens?

Quantum tunneling. A particle small enough to be subject to quantum indeterminacy can spontaneously appear on the other side of a barrier simply because there is a non-zero probability that it appears there. A similar idea is used in Stenger’s article - that the universe tunnels spontaneously from a state of nothingness to a state of something, and Stenger also gives a calculation of the probability with which this can happen.

 

[JohnDamian]

Quantum tunneling. A particle small enough to be subject to quantum indeterminacy can spontaneously appear on the other side of a barrier simply because there is a non-zero probability that it appears there. A similar idea is used in Stenger’s article - that the universe tunnels spontaneously from a state of nothingness to a state of something, and Stenger also gives a calculation of the probability with which this can happen.

Isn’t Quantum tunneling just a particle transferring through a barrier? I don’t see how it in any way shows a particle appearing ex-nihilo.

 

[glowingembers]

Isn’t Quantum tunneling just a particle transferring through a barrier? I don’t see how it in any way shows a particle appearing ex-nihilo.

The problem is that in quantum tunneling the particle does not have enough energy to pass through the barrier. And still it can appear on the other side of the barrier. There is no identifiable cause for this “jump”, just a probability that the particle can appear in certain places, including behind the barrier.

 

[JohnDamian]

The problem is that in quantum tunneling the particle does not have enough energy to pass through the barrier. And still it can appear on the other side of the barrier. There is no identifiable cause for this “jump”, just a probability that the particle can appear in certain places, including behind the barrier.

We don’t see the particle appearing from nowhere however…

Just because we at present cannot define what is causing it to be able to change its position when it seems not to have enough energy does not mean it is acting randomly - however.

To argue that it is essentially doing that is to make the same mistake as people did before they understood about Germs; and to make all sorts of absurd claims about how diseases spread.

 

[momor]

The problem is that in quantum tunneling the particle does not have enough energy to pass through the barrier. And still it can appear on the other side of the barrier. There is no identifiable cause for this “jump”, just a probability that the particle can appear in certain places, including behind the barrier.

Nope. This is not something out of nothing. Something or Someone created matter and energy out of nothing.