Philosophical Proofs For the Existence of God

[Nebogipfel]

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.

Actually, I was also thinking along those lines, but couldn’t quite formulate the argument lucidly.

If our universe is, in fact, the only one which can possibly exist, then it’s not surprising that it exists. Or suppose God just decided to create a universe but left it to chance what kind of universe was created…?

But, I agree, this is all complete speculation…

 

[Nebogipfel]

I didn’t assume anything. I asked a question. And its a question that science is incapable of answering.

And yes. The same question would apply to cats and red giant stars. We have an explanation for the Lego bricks, and in so far as its purpose, we know that human beings (an intelligence) willed them to exist.

But you are assuming the question has an answer, or at least, an answer other than that’s just the way it turned out.

That’s not a very aesthetic or intellectually pleasing answer, I know. But I don’t think the universe is obliged to worry about that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

how does that change the extreme improbability of a random act? it wouldn’t seem to. its still unreasonable to assume the all but mathematicfally impossible random act .

and yes odds of 1:infinity are too highly improbable, there is nothing less improbable, before you hit ‘impossible’. you seem to be limiting a logical argument to one that completely excludes a random act, i dont see a basis for that.

as i have always said, its not impossible its just as improbable as mathematically possible

As I have been trying to say all along, if we’re talking about an event after it has actually happened

 

[jkiernan56]

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.

No “may vary” here … My experience DOES vary with yours. My experience is not what makes it true.

One day you will know this truth for yourself whether you want to or not,
Only God has to exist.

 

[MindOverMatter]

But you are assuming the question has an answer, or at least, an answer other than that’s just the way it turned out.

That’s not a very aesthetic or intellectually pleasing answer, I know. But I don’t think the universe is obliged to worry about that.

I’m not assuming anything. Perhaps you find the idea of the universe needing no cause aesthetically pleasing. But logic doesn’t oblige me to agree or even consider it. I’m glad that you have admitted that you position is not intellectual.

 

[Nebogipfel]

I’m not assuming anything. Perhaps you find the idea of the universe needing no cause aesthetically pleasing. But logic doesn’t oblige me to agree or even consider it. I’m glad that you have admitted that you position is not intellectual.

Of course, I admit no such thing. But pursuing this any further is just a waste of good ASCII characters.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Here’s the problem with what you are saying. If one says that the odds are 1:infinity what Warpspeedpetey said would be logically correct, as infinity is not achievable. If something is not achievable, it is the same as saying that it is impossible. Remember, infinity is not a transfinite number. The largest transfinite number you could think of would be, by definition, finite, thus achievable. Very important difference.

jd

 

[Xuan]

Warpspeedpetey,

I haven’t used this enough to know how to do the quote thingy, so I’ll just respond like this.

Motive? It’s been a long long time since I’ve read any Aquinas, but I don’t remember his arguments saying anything about motive. It sounds like you’re trying to bolster his case instead of letting it sink or swim on its own.

Okay, let’s say the independent actor is a limited one, a motivated one, like humans and animals. Its motive could have been to simply take a wad of singularity and blow it up to see how long it would keep expanding, or it could have been to cause a universe that’s extremely hostile to human existence, except for a few little pockets. In either case, the odds are still 1:infinity that this particular universe would appear. In fact, we could go through an infinite number of motives and still come up with 1:infinity odds that this particular universe would appear. It’s a game of mental gymnastics that can go on and on without ever being resolved.

In regards to your question as to why it would only be able to cause this particular universe: Who knows why? But according to your reasoning, it must be the answer because the odds would be 1:1 that such an actor would cause this particular universe.

You indicated that you think this independent actor should have a mind. That, along with motive, would limit it to the realm of humans and animals.

Incidentally, I’m not adverse to the idea of an eternal entity that we could call causative. In fact, I think there probably is one. But Aquinas’ arguments certainly don’t prove it. In fact, I don’t think it can be proven. And if there is one, it’s so far superior the Christian God that the two aren’t even comparable

 

[MindOverMatter]

You indicated that you think this independent actor should have a mind. That, along with motive, would limit it to the realm of humans and animals.

That depends on what you mean by mind. God has something like a mind in respect of having a personal will. But having a will and a mind in respect of Gods nature, is not the same as how we experience mind as human beings in time and space. Gods will and mind is perfect and complete.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpspeedpetey,

I haven’t used this enough to know how to do the quote thingy, so I’ll just respond like this.

cool, highlight the text you wan to qoute and click on the text ballon button in between the hash marks and the pic of mountains, directly above this text box.

Motive? It’s been a long long time since I’ve read any Aquinas, but I don’t remember his arguments saying anything about motive. It sounds like you’re trying to bolster his case instead of letting it sink or swim on its own

.

im formulating my own interpretation. soory thats not clear, we tend to get assumptive about such things here, because we argue it so much:blush:

Okay, let’s say the independent actor is a limited one, a motivated one, like humans and animals. Its motive could have been to simply take a wad of singularity and blow it up to see how long it would keep expanding, or it could have been to cause a universe that’s extremely hostile to human existence, except for a few little pockets. In either case, the odds are still 1:infinity that this particular universe would appear. In fact, we could go through an infinite number of motives and still come up with 1:infinity odds that this particular universe would appear. It’s a game of mental gymnastics that can go on and on without ever being resolved.

if it has any possible motive than it is no different than a mindless random act.

In regards to your question as to why it would only be able to cause this particular universe: Who knows why? But according to your reasoning, it must be the answer because the odds would be 1:1 that such an actor would cause this particular universe.

i dont get this. i dont see how you are getting this from my reasoning.

You indicated that you think this independent actor should have a mind. That, along with motive, would limit it to the realm of humans and animals.

absolutly not. in this physical universe that would be the assumption, but we are talking about a non-physical first cause. that assumption cant be reasonably made, when there were no people or animals.

Incidentally, I’m not adverse to the idea of an eternal entity that we could call causative. In fact, I think there probably is one. But Aquinas’ arguments certainly don’t prove it. In fact, I don’t think it can be proven. And if there is one, it’s so far superior the Christian God that the two aren’t even comparable

ok, im competent with first cause, mindovermatter has a much broader understanding of aquinas’ other proofs. if you care to debate those, i suggest him.

though i do wonder what you think could be superior to a omniscient, omnipotent, Christain G-d? (now we are into theology here)

 

[Xuan]

warpspeedpetey
though i do wonder what you think could be superior to a omniscient, omnipotent, Christain G-d? (now we are into theology here)
Today 12:15 pm

I fumbled around with the quote thingy, but I didn’t see any picture of mountains. Anyway, here’s my response.You’re right, it’s probably theology, but it pertains to the breakdown of Aquinas’ “proofs.”

When you ask a Christian whether or not God is perfect, the answer will be a resounding “yes.” Of course, then they attach all sorts of human/animal attributes to him: personality, emotions, etc. And they pretend that even with all these limitations “he” is still perfect. And the next thing we hear is that God wants us to do this or God wants us to avoid doing that.

I would propose the following:

The perfect being has the maximum amount possible of happiness, contentment, satisfaction, etc. If it didn’t, there would be room for improvement, and it wouldn’t be perfect.

To “want” something to happen denotes that if it happens, the “wanter” expects to somehow be better off … feel better, be happier, be more pleased, whatever. Even if the “wanter” wants something altruistic, like “less suffering or starving in the world”, he/she will feel better knowing that he/she wants good for people, even if it will have absolutely no effect on him/her whatsoever. The knowledge that he/she wants “good” makes him/her feel better. Of course, if the “want” came to pass, then he/she would really feel good.

For this reason, the perfect being isn’t capable of wanting. It’s a contradiction in terms (like God being able to sin). Perfection already includes the maximum amount of happiness, satisfaction, contentment, etc. Perfection cannot “want.” Any being that “wants” is less than perfect. There is room for its condition to improve. This applies to your condition of the independent actor having a motive. To have a motive is to “want” a particular outcome.

When you take a being that is supposedly perfect and attach all kinds of limitations to it, especially the huge limitation of wanting, words like omnipotent and omniscient become little more than platitudes.

Aquinas’ arguments led to the Christian God, a very limited being. Such a being could not have caused the universe. The cause of the universe is the source of everything: good, bad, large, small, beautiful, ugly… everything. It has everything possible. It does not want. It cannot want.

Now you’re probably going to disagree with everything I’ve said, but the inescapable fact is that perfection cannot “want.” If it “wants,” it’s not perfect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey

though i do wonder what you think could be superior to a omniscient, omnipotent, Christain G-d? (now we are into theology here)
Today 12:15 pm

 

[Xuan]

That was my human attempt to explain something that humans can’t explain. But I can’t get past the idea that the ultimate being/entity, the source of everything that exists would be wanting. It sounds contradictory to me.

Anyway, that’s where I am right now. Good luck in your quest.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That was my human attempt to explain something that humans can’t explain. But I can’t get past the idea that the ultimate being/entity, the source of everything that exists would be wanting. It sounds contradictory to me.

Anyway, that’s where I am right now. Good luck in your quest.

i understand, the human brain doesn’t wrap very far around the concept of G-d, at least mine doesn’t.

did you finally find the qoute button?

and how do you pronounce your name, i want to say ‘juan’ or ‘wan’ with the w and long a sound, how would you say it?

 

[Xuan]

i understand, the human brain doesn’t wrap very far around the concept of G-d, at least mine doesn’t.

did you finally find the qoute button?

and how do you pronounce your name, i want to say ‘juan’ or ‘wan’ with the w and long a sound, how would you say it?

I’m still not sure I got the quote thing right.

It’s pronounced Zhuan. I’ve developed an affinity to southeast Asian culture ever since the Viet Nam war. They’re my favorite people in the world.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Now you’re probably going to disagree with everything I’ve said, but the inescapable fact is that perfection cannot “want.” If it “wants,” it’s not perfect.

I agree with this statement in so far as it pertains to some human being. But this is not the Christian God of Aquinian philosophy. You assume that God must “want” in order to bring about a specific end. Although i believe that every logically possible thing exists in respect of Gods nature, i do not agree that God need want anything for himself in order to have a plan or a will. The God of Christianity is also “perfect love”. Which is a selfless act. And to share existence is a selfless act. It is no wander then that intelligent entities such as human beings exist. God acts with the greatest good. Therefore, one cannot say that God is imperfect just because God has similar attributes that we find in our selves, or desires that we behave in a particular way; since such desire is for our good, not Gods. Also, analogy is unavoidable. When we speak of a personal God, we mean something like a person, but in reality God is infinitely greater then a mere human person. God is the perfect person. But we can only know this by way of analogy.

In any case. Is it really reasonable to think that the cause of all being is anything less then personal in Nature. An ultimate cause that is less then what it produces doesn’t really make sense to me.

 

[Xuan]

In any case. Is it really reasonable to think that the cause of all being is anything less then personal in Nature. An ultimate cause that is less then what it produces doesn’t really make sense to me.

It’s not less than personal. It’s far beyond personal, far beyond anything we can put a label on. We’re extremely limited in what we can conceive of. The cause of everything is so far beyond our mentality that to try to talk about it is like a little kid trying to talk about quantum mechanics.

 

[MindOverMatter]

It’s not less than personal. It’s far beyond personal.

I agree if you mean, far more then the nature of what we understand to be personal in our selves. However; that doesn’t mean that God is not personal; it means that God is the Greatest-Person. If God doesn’t have a “personal nature” then God is less then what God has produced; and thus is not perfect.

What we conclude logically about Gods perfection really depends on our conception of what perfection is. My conclusions are based on a conceptual and qualitative understanding of the hierarchy of being; this is what justifies me saying that something is greater in “quality” then something else. Its only with this understanding that we can meaningfully speak of “perfection”. Outside of these concepts, qualitative distinctions are subjective illusions like moral truth. It seems evident to my experience, that a “person” is qualitatively greater then an object, since a person knows; has knowledge of self. To say God is other then a person, rather then a perfect person, would be to degrade God to the nature of an object. This would mean that perfection is less then a person; which is absurd.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I agree if you mean, far more then the nature of what we understand to be personal in our selves. However; that doesn’t mean that God is not personal; it means that God is the Greatest-Person. If God doesn’t have a “personal nature” then God is less then what God has produced; and thus is not perfect.

What we conclude logically about Gods perfection really depends on our conception of what perfection is. My conclusions are based on a conceptual and qualitative understanding of the hierarchy of being; this is what justifies me saying that something is greater in “quality” then something else. Its only with this understanding that we can meaningfully speak of “perfection”. Outside of these concepts, qualitative distinctions are subjective illusions like moral truth. It seems evident to my experience, that a “person” is qualitatively greater then an object, since a person knows; has knowledge of self. To say God is other then a person, rather then a perfect person, would be to degrade God to the nature of an object. This would mean that perfection is less then a person; which is absurd.