Philosophical Proofs For the Existence of God

[warpspeedpetey]

I can accept as a hypothesis that God requires no cause.

What I miss is a good reason to believe that such a thing actually exists

if you mean an existence as in ‘physical’, thats excluded by the inability of matter to create itself.

first cause cannot be physical, it therefore must necessarily be non-physical

you seem to be ignoring that.

I believe most physicists would say that space and time (or rather, spacetime, since they are really both the same thing) came into existance with the Big Bang.

So when considering what caused the Big Bang, we’re considering conditions utterly unlike anything that human beings have ever encountered - the complete absence of the spacetime in which we (as someone once put it) live and move and have our being, always have done, and always will do.

they research Quantum Mechanics, continually, though they are utterly alien to anything we know. yet they apply reason to the evidence and produce theory about the exact same pre BB phenomenon.

why is it ok when they do i, yet not ok when we do it?

Under these circumstances, I am not sure that our common notions of causality have any real meaning; perhaps it is as meaningless to ask what caused the Big Bang as it is to ask what happened before the Big Bang. I am not saying that this proves anything one way or the other, simply that I am skeptical that, without any empirical data to guide one’s speculation, pure cogitation about can tell you anything useful.

thats the problem, you dont seem to be making an argument based on anything more than not being sure,

further the basis for your ‘not sure’ seems to be that we know too little about the pre BB environment.

you arent presenting any evidence, or argument to doubt causality, your just not sure.

as every other part of the universe works causally you need a pretty good reason to doubt that the universe as a whole doesn’t need it. you are effectively saying that something came from nothing.

maybe a better analogy is this

‘every cell in my body needs oxygen to survive, but my body as a whole does not. because im not sure it does…’

how about

‘every plant in the jungle needs water, but the entire jungle can do without water, because im not sure it does…’

not a very sound reason to doubt causality in this one circumstance.

I am not making this up to explain away an awkard question to which I don’t like the answer. It’s an honestly held belief.

But, for the sake of argument, say I accept that something caused the universe, and that this cause, needs no cause, and is something outside the universe.

Again, I think it’s more likely that this cause, whatever it might be, would be more analagous to a natural process, than to a personality with a will.

we know that it cant be a natural process, because that simply assumes a set of laws by which a process can occur, ergo, it assumes a pre-existing universe.

and if not a pre-existing universe, than we wind up back at the random act.

And we do know, that in the physical universe, blind unguided processes can produce very complicated things indeed.

yet they happen based on certain laws, i.e. chemistry, physics, etc.

laws dependent on universal constants, ergo, once again, simply a pre-existing universe, what caused that universe?

So applying the rule of thumb that one should not multiply entities unnecessarily, I conclude that it is more probable that the cause of the universe is “just” an unguided, natural process, and not natural process plus a guiding entity with a will and a personhood (or three personhoods).

well, we just excluded any natural process, leaving only an entity or a random act. and we already know the odds on the random act.

 

[JDaniel]

I can accept as a hypothesis that God requires no cause.

What I miss is a good reason to believe that such a thing actually exists

Well, of course, that’s the question, isn’t it. There are, in fact, very good reasons to believe such a thing EXCEPT that some people, with the aid of selective science and unfounded assertions, have worked hard to turn those very good reasons into mere rumors. Too bad.

Unfortunately, some Christians have countered them with similar methods and similar results.

I believe most physicists would say that space and time (or rather, spacetime, since they are really both the same thing) came into existance with the Big Bang.

I’m not so sure space and time are the same thing. Space is the area in which things have room to move, and time is the measure of the motion of those things. I guess our science is now pretty sure that space began to be pushed out into the void at the closest instant after the start of the bang. Time, maybe not.

The singularity seems to be thought to be a p(name removed by moderator)oint containing super-compressed energy (no matter as yet). That’s interesting for two reasons: (1) because energy has mass, and (2) because energy is frequency, aka vibration, aka motion. Unless, it is potential energy, in a motionless state.

If one compresses a rubber ball, the energy to spring back to its original size is stored as potential energy in the rubber ball. Releasing the ball allows the energy to do the work of restoring the ball. That would, perhaps, provide an answer as to why the singularity was released somehow, and sprung forth with so much force and power that it ripped open the void and spewed out its contents, forming the matter of the universe, its shape and its current size. Unless, I am wrong.

So when considering what caused the Big Bang, we’re considering conditions utterly unlike anything that human beings have ever encountered - the complete absence of the spacetime in which we (as someone once put it) live and move and have our being, always have done, and always will do.

Obviously, part of your paraphrased quote is provably incorrect: the two enunciations of the word “always”.

Yes, we are “considering conditions utterly unlike anything that human beings have ever encountered.” That being stipulated to, does not mean that human beings cannot gather knowledge of how the world operates from what is before us.

Under these circumstances, I am not sure that our common notions of causality have any real meaning; perhaps it is as meaningless to ask what caused the Big Bang as it is to ask what happened before the Big Bang.

How can any subject as profound as our origins be “meaningless”?

Regarding “before the big Bang”, Christians have faith in the rumor of God being reality. So, much of our proof for God’s existence presuppose God. “Presupposition” does not invariably refute proof. If it did, then much of science would not be extant. For Christians, God is before the Big Bang.

I am not saying that this proves anything one way or the other, simply that I am skeptical that, without any empirical data to guide one’s speculation, pure cogitation about can tell you anything useful.

Using this logic, the “cogitation” of virtual particles can’t tell us anything useful.

I am not making this up to explain away an awkard question to which I don’t like the answer. It’s an honestly held belief.

I believe you.

But, for the sake of argument, say I accept that something caused the universe, and that this cause, needs no cause, and is something outside the universe.

Again, I think it’s more likely that this cause, whatever it might be, would be more analagous to a natural process, than to a personality with a will.

Why would that be “more likely”? You would have to say that a natural process “gathered up all of the existing energy in the void, somehow compressed it beyond anything science can even imagine possible, then, released it so that it could spew forth its contents. Additionally, this stream of occurances was almost infinitely random.”

And we do know, that in the physical universe, blind unguided processes can produce very complicated things indeed. So applying the rule of thumb that one should not multiply entities unnecessarily, I conclude that it is more probable that the cause of the universe is “just” an unguided, natural process, and not natural process plus a guiding entity with a will and a personhood (or three personhoods).

On these points we will forever disagree.

Hope that helps.

It does for me.

jd

 

[Nebogipfel]

if you mean an existence as in ‘physical’, thats excluded by the inability of matter to create itself.

first cause cannot be physical, it therefore must necessarily be non-physical

you seem to be ignoring that.

I mean “exists” as in “acutally has existence”, as opposed to “just being an hypothetical construct in the minds of metaphysicists”. Does or did the first cause acutally exist, as opposed to just being a hypothesis in the minds of metaphysicists? How can you actually tell?

I’m quite happy with the concept that a non-physical thing i.e. something that’s not matter, not energy, not subject to the normal constraints of space and time, might exist. I just lack a good reason to believe that they actually do.

How do you tell the difference between something that cannot be detected because it is by definition undectable, and something that cannot be detected, because it doesn’t exist?

they research Quantum Mechanics, continually, though they are utterly alien to anything we know. yet they apply reason to the evidence and produce theory about the exact same pre BB phenomenon.

why is it ok when they do i, yet not ok when we do it?

Because once scientists have cogitated far enough to form a hypothesis, they take the vital second step of rolling up their sleeves, opening up the observatory or firing up the particle accelerator and getting the empirical evidence that will confirm or refute their hypothesis.

If they don’t do this, they have only a hypothesis.

You’re not doing that. You’ve come up with a plausible, logically-consistent hypothesis, and then said, OK, that’s explained that then.

as every other part of the universe works causally you need a pretty good reason to doubt that the universe as a whole doesn’t need it. you are effectively saying that something came from nothing.

And given the lack of empirical evidence about conditions “before” the Big Bang, why is this any more or less irrational that saying that it came from a timeless, uncreated God?

every cell in my body needs oxygen to survive, but my body as a whole does not. because im not sure it does…’

how about

‘every plant in the jungle needs water, but the entire jungle can do without water, because im not sure it does…’

not a very sound reason to doubt causality in this one circumstance.

Except that we can establish empirically beyond reasonable doubt whether the jungle as a whole needs water or whether my body as a whole needs water. We cannot examine empirically the conditions that held before the big bang or hold “outside” the universe. Indeed, the concept of being “outside” the universe, while intuitively reasonable, may be meaningless.

Now it is true that particle physicists are pushing back the boundary of what we can see, and examining conditions which (they have reason to think) closely emulate the first fractions of a microsecond after the big bang. Maybe this will shed some light on the Bang itself, maybe it won’t. But until the data is in, anything else is just speculation.

 

[Nebogipfel]

a random act is mathematically as close to impossible as an event can be. literally 1 in infinity.

that does not mean that it MUST be caused by an independent actor.

please understand, that i am not saying it must be an independent actor, there is after all 1 chance in infinity that it was a random act.

So… what conclusion do you draw from this?

In a previsous thread, you wrote this:

what are the possible causes?

1. a random act.

1. a independent actor

if it was a random act, then the chances that we end up with the exact universe we have, out of an infinite or near infinite number of equally possible universes, is as close to impossible as you can get without actually being impossible.

an independent actor could simply have chosen to create the universe as such to achieve specific goals.

So do these two statements:
if it was a random act, then the chances that we end up with the exact universe we have, out of an infinite or near infinite number of equally possible universes, is as close to impossible as you can get without actually being impossible.*

and

An independent actor could simply have chose to create the universe such as to achieve specific goals

actually have any logical connection to each other at all? Are you saying that you infer the second from the first, or not?

 

[Nebogipfel]

How can any subject as profound as our origins be “meaningless”?

I’m not saying that enquiring into our origins is a meaningless endeavour, merely that asking questions like “what happened before the Big Bang?” or “what is outside the Universe?”, may be like asking “What is to the south of the South Pole?”.

Regarding “before the big Bang”, Christians have faith in the rumor of God being reality. So, much of our proof for God’s existence presuppose God. “Presupposition” does not invariably refute proof. If it did, then much of science would not be extant. For Christians, God is before the Big Bang.

Is that not a circular argument?

Using this logic, the “cogitation” of virtual particles can’t tell us anything useful.

It can let you form a hypothesis in which virtual particles play a part. But you must then take the step of going into the lab and trying to obtain the emprical data which would confirm or refute your hypothesis.

I believe you.

Thank you.

Why would that be “more likely”? You would have to say that a natural process “gathered up all of the existing energy in the void, somehow compressed it beyond anything science can even imagine possible, then, released it so that it could spew forth its contents. Additionally, this stream of occurances was almost infinitely random.”

I don’t see it as entirely unreasonable to hypothesize that a natural process could do something like that. That seems more likely to me than hypothesizing an entity with something like a personality, a will, and intentionality.

But it’s speculation. I’m happy to say I don’t know, but there are people working on it

On these points we will forever disagree.

I guess so.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So… what conclusion do you draw from this?

In a previsous thread, you wrote this:

So do these two statements:
if it was a random act, then the chances that we end up with the exact universe we have, out of an infinite or near infinite number of equally possible universes, is as close to impossible as you can get without actually being impossible.*

and

An independent actor could simply have chose to create the universe such as to achieve specific goals

actually have any logical connection to each other at all? Are you saying that you infer the second from the first, or not?

they are the two possible causes of the universe if we assume a non-physical first cause.

im not making any inferences here at all, of one from the other, its much simpler than that.

there are only 2 possible causes.

im really not understanding what has you confused. 2 options seems pretty simple.

maybe this will help

one possibility, the random act, is nearly mathematically impossible.

the other possibility, independent actor, has no such restrictions.

hows that?

 

[jkiernan56]

I can accept as a hypothesis that God requires no cause.

What I miss is a good reason to believe that such a thing actually exists

Thank you Neb.

Do you accept that something cannot come from nothing?
If yes, then reason would leave 2 possibilities -

1. The universe has always existed and there is an infinite sucession of cause/effects.

or

1. There is something NOT CAUSED that is the Primary Mover for all other cause/effects.

Now for me, there was a time in my life when I did not believe or trust that God existed. Because of a spiritual experience back in 1975, I absolutely KNOW that God does exist. Option 2 not only makes sense, but I know from experience it is absolutely TRUE

 

[1holycatholic]

Thank you Neb.

Do you accept that something cannot come from nothing?
If yes, then reason would leave 2 possibilities -

1. The universe has always existed and there is an infinite sucession of cause/effects.

or

1. There is something NOT CAUSED that is the Primary Mover for all other cause/effects.

Now for me, there was a time in my life when I did not believe or trust that God existed. Because of a spiritual experience back in 1975, I absolutely KNOW that God does exist. Option 2 not only makes sense, but I know from experience it is absolutely TRUE

Number one is problematic in two ways:

1. 
   *]Infinite past time entails a logical contradiction and is therefore nonsensical.
   *]With no first efficient cause there can be no intermediate efficient causes or an ultimate effect.

 

[jkiernan56]

Number one is problematic in two ways:

1. 
   *]Infinite past time entails a logical contradiction and is therefore nonsensical.
   *]With no first efficient cause there can be no intermediate efficient causes or an ultimate effect.

1. 
   1HolyCatholic - Can you expand on what you said? What you said sounds fascinating, but my instinct tells me there is alot more that can be said that would help to better understand what you said. I know I would appreciate it immensely.
   
   I absolutely know from experience that God exists. IYet i intrigues me to try to understand why it is illogical to think of infinite cause/effect progression. I know it isn’t real, but I don’t have the vocabulary to explain why yet.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1HolyCatholic - Can you expand on what you said? What you said sounds fascinating, but my instinct tells me there is alot more that can be said that would help to better understand what you said. I know I would appreciate it immensely.

I absolutely know from experience that God exists. IYet i intrigues me to try to understand why it is illogical to think of infinite cause/effect progression. I know it isn’t real, but I don’t have the vocabulary to explain why yet.

 

[1holycatholic]

1HolyCatholic - Can you expand on what you said? What you said sounds fascinating, but my instinct tells me there is alot more that can be said that would help to better understand what you said. I know I would appreciate it immensely.

I absolutely know from experience that God exists. IYet i intrigues me to try to understand why it is illogical to think of infinite cause/effect progression. I know it isn’t real, but I don’t have the vocabulary to explain why yet.

Number one is the mathematician David Hilbert’s Prohibition of Achieved Infinite Sequences. There are two parts:

1. *]Yesterday has been “achieved” as has all time that has passed.
   *]Counting to infinity is, by definition, unachievable. You can always add one more when counting.
   
   Infinite past time result in an achieved unachievable which is a contradiction.
   
   The necessity of a first efficient cause is explained in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Quinque Viae:
   The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
   It doesn’t matter if you have an infinite chain of efficient causes, there must be a first efficient cause.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Number one is the mathematician David Hilbert’s Prohibition of Achieved Infinite Sequences. There are two parts:

1. *]Yesterday has been “achieved” as has all time that has passed.
   *]Counting to infinity is, by definition, unachievable. You can always add one more when counting.
   
   Infinite past time result in an achieved unachievable which is a contradiction.

1. 
   excellent!
   

   The necessity of a first efficient cause is explained in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Quinque Viae:
   The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
   It doesn’t matter if you have an infinite chain of efficient causes, there must be a first efficient cause.

   or in other words, if there were infinite recession, than the effect of the universe wouldn’t be possible,
   
   am i getting that right?

 

[JDaniel]

excellent!

or in other words, if there were infinite recession, than the effect of the universe wouldn’t be possible,

am i getting that right?

Correct, because we would never have reached this point, where we are. Where we are is finite, not infinite. In infinity, where you can always add one more, or a dozen more, or a transfinite number more, that being the case how is it possible to get here, now? Infinity = forever expanding.

I can make sense out of logic. I just can’t make sense out of reality.

jd

 

[jkiernan56]

Number one is the mathematician David Hilbert’s Prohibition of Achieved Infinite Sequences. There are two parts:

1. *]Yesterday has been “achieved” as has all time that has passed.
   *]Counting to infinity is, by definition, unachievable. You can always add one more when counting.
   
   Infinite past time result in an achieved unachievable which is a contradiction.
   
   The necessity of a first efficient cause is explained in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Quinque Viae:
   The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
   It doesn’t matter if you have an infinite chain of efficient causes, there must be a first efficient cause.

1. 
   Thank you so much for all of that. Something that I am going to enjoy pondering

 

[Nebogipfel]

they are the two possible causes of the universe if we assume a non-physical first cause.

im not making any inferences here at all, of one from the other, its much simpler than that.

there are only 2 possible causes.

im really not understanding what has you confused. 2 options seems pretty simple.

maybe this will help

one possibility, the random act, is nearly mathematically impossible.

the other possibility, independent actor, has no such restrictions.

hows that?

That’s fine. What leads you, then, to choose the independent actor possibility over the random act possibility?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s fine. What leads you, then, to choose the independent actor possibility over the random act possibility?

one possibility, the random act, is nearly mathematically impossible.

the other possibility, independent actor, has no such restrictions.

the answer to that is in the post.

 

[jkiernan56]

That’s fine. What leads you, then, to choose the independent actor possibility over the random act possibility?

I met the person behind the curtain (as in the scene of the Wizard of Oz).
God lifted up the curtain and allowed me to experience His presence. It would be utter insanity to deny what I’ve experienced and know in my bones to be true.

GOD IS.

 

[Xuan]

I’ve been waiting for this point to be brought up, but I don’t think it has been, so I’ll bring it up. I’d like to make a comment about the “probability” line of reasoning that leads to the independent actor as the cause of the universe.

Using this line of reasoning, we can say:

The independent actor is unlimited, and thus able to cause any of an infinite number of universes, but it caused this one. The odds against that are infinity:1, same as the random odds.

Or we can say the independent actor is limited to only being able to cause this particular universe, and it did. The odds are 1:1. Bingo! We have our answer.

So, according to the line of reasoning presented in this thread, the independent actor that caused the universe is not unlimited, but apparently quite limited.

The point is that when we engage in gross speculation (and let’s face it, that’s what this thread is), seemingly logical arguments can lead almost anywhere. They aren’t reliable.

Note: I don’t post much because I don’t particularly like to argue, but this point hadn’t been addressed yet, so I thought I’d bring it up.

 

[Nebogipfel]

one possibility, the random act, is nearly mathematically impossible.

the other possibility, independent actor, has no such restrictions.

the answer to that is in the post.

OK, I just wanted to be sure. This is not, then, a logical argument, it’s an argument based on your feeling about how much improbability is too much improbability. As I have been trying to say all along, if we’re talking about an event after it has actually happened, whether it’s odds of one-in-ten, one-in-ten-billion, or one-in-infinity, then simply saying that it was too improbable to have been chance is not a logical argument.

It is, in fact, good old argument-from-improbability, as used by (among others) the dreaded protestant creationists.

 

[Nebogipfel]

I met the person behind the curtain (as in the scene of the Wizard of Oz).
God lifted up the curtain and allowed me to experience His presence. It would be utter insanity to deny what I’ve experienced and know in my bones to be true.

GOD IS.

I’m not going to argue with your experiences. However, if God exists, God has not seen fit to visit me with such an experience. For me, it is madness to try and make myself believe something which every critical facility I possess suggests is not, in fact, true.

Your mileage, clearly, may vary.