Science, Philosophy & The existence Of God

[MindOverMatter]

This is a continuation of a debate…

To say that something can’t be infallible all the time, assumes some legitimacy yet allows room for error. But according to your own position, Science is completely invalid in regards to knowing truth because we can never know if objective reality is real. Science thus becomes a mere tautology, unless one is willing to have a reasonable faith in objective reality. But then we must admit that, ultimately we acquire knowledge through faith and inference. In which case one is reasonable in having faith based beliefs that are supported by reason and probability based on experience so long as they are consistent with other forms of knowledge that make up our world view. Thus metaphysics cannot be shoved to the side as invalid unless it can be shown to be inconsistent in some way.

Are you willing to admit this in a court of law?

I’ll assume that you’re genuinely interested in my opinion and that you aren’t going to mindlessly bash me as though I’m a militant atheist and materialist anymore. I don’t know if that’s a safe assumption, though.

Well yes, I think it’s reasonable to assume there are objects around us even though we can’t provide any air-tight proof of such. But I think most will agree that it’s one thing to trust one’s senses and that it’s quite another to postulate the existence of unobservable, infinitely complex intelligent beings to cover up the gaps in our understanding of the universe. That is, unless you’ve trained your mind to think this is reasonable.

1. I agree that when it comes to knowledge, the arbitrary description or postulation of immaterial entities is unwarranted. Neither is it the right of the philosopher to postulate theories about phenomenon that can in principle can be understood by the scientific method. However this is not what the “Theistic-Philosopher” is doing. The philosopher postulates entities or multiplies them only in the event that such a postulation is consistent with logical or reasonable axioms. Also they make theories that are reflective of their ligitimate field of knowledge. We make reasonable or necessary inferences, based on presupposed axioms just like science does. However we do not make inferences about objects that are in principle the soul object of the sciences.

There are entities in scientific theories that haven’t or cannot be observed in the same sense that the universe can be with naked eye or with some kind of scope. Yet it is reasonable for the scientist to infer certain entities because they make sense of what we can be observe. In this case, we do not reject scientific theories on the basis that we cannot prove that our universe “necessarily” exists outside of our minds. Such an act would be an unwarranted prejudice. But neither is the scientific method the only valid means of knowledge. The Scientific method is the king principle of knowledge only in its field of investigation. When it comes to “ultimates” or qualities that cannot in principle be measured or understood by the scientific method, a strict systematic philosophy is a legitimate means of acquiring knowledge. It is important to understand the legitimate boundaries of science and philosophy in respect of knowledge.

2. Its reasonable to think that things have some kind of cause (exists for a reason) and do not pop out of nothing (Nothing doesn’t exist), since this is what we observe in every aspect of our being (that things have some kind of causal explanation in their being) as far as we know, and there are no logical reasons to believe otherwise. If one demands that such a possibility, such as something coming out of nothing, must be taken in to account, then it is the responsibility of that person to prove that its a possibility. This is true also of the illegitimate use of brute facts. Thus its reasonable to ask what caused the universe.

3. Unless it can be shown to be necessarily otherwise, it is reasonable to postulate other kinds of realities or transcendent realities, if physics becomes inconsistent in explaining its own existence.

4. Physics, along with all the laws and irreducible meaning that is found in the universe is in principle unable to explain itself, and neither is it of the character that it can. This is not due to knowledge, but it is rather due to the kind of being we are trying to explain. This fact has been shown to be true numerous times in many threads. Please read them if you need to, as they are not going to be repeated again here.

5. If we are forced to explain physics, then we must postulate a timeless, transcendent, creator. Not only this; we must postulate a being that is being in itself (existence) and is thus a necessary being by nature, and is not that which changes or begins. This has been show to be logically consistent, and is shown in detail on the thread “8 Steps To The Existence Of God”.

 

[Matthias123]

But I think most will agree that it’s one thing to trust one’s senses and that it’s quite another to postulate the existence of unobservable, infinitely complex intelligent beings to cover up the gaps in our understanding of the universe.

We have profound reason to believe that the naturalistic view of reality is only part of the whole of objective reality.

Take an actually infinite number for instance. An actually infinite number cannot exist in the real world. (Don’t pull up Zeno’s paradox that is a potentially infinite number.)

Now if an “actual infinity” doesn’t actually exist, how are we able to know the concept of “actual infinity” if it doesn’t exist? How are we able to use the concept to solve problems in mathematics?

This is one of the problems with the intellect composing of just a material organ. We are not only able to not only know what actually exists, but we are able to know what potentially exists. This ability cannot come out of actually existing material mater.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Before Einstein discovered relativity he had a philosophical conviction that the universe was infinite and eternal. This was not a scientific proposition because there is no way one can prove the eternity or infinity of the universe. But this was for Einstein an assumption with which he was comfortable, since he had rejected Judaism.

However, when he computed his theory of relativity, the math in his theory suggested a finite universe. He therefore introduced a fudge factor to make the math work out so that his theory was consistent with an eternal universe. This was dishonest mathematics enlisted in the service of a philosophical assumption to which Einstein was wed.

But along comes George LeMaitre, a mathematician who exposes Einstein’s error; the result of which is that when the fudge factor is thrown out, the universe becomes finite and created in time. LeMaitre was able to see through Einstein’s self deception because LeMaitre was a Catholic priest whose religious assumption was that the universe was created; and thus LeMaitre is considered the grandfather of the Big Bang theory.

What we see here is how prejudices get in the way of logical thinking. What we also see is an amazing instance in which a religious prejudice was able to pave the way to correct a scientific and philosophical prejudice.

You will, of course, never hear about LeMaitre in high school or college science textbooks. Though from a certain point of view Einstein might have resented LeMaitre for exposing “the greatest blunder of my career,” he eventually came to recognize that LeMaitre was onto something, and so Einstein nominated LeMaitre for a prestigious scientific award, the Francqui Prize, which he won.

To say the least, an impressive case of science, philosophy, and religion meeting at the crossroads of civilization.

“Let there be light!”

 

[Benadam]

Confused a bit.

Reading this stuff, trying to wrap my mind around it. I want to ask.

Couldn’t the unmoved characteristic be based on being all movement? So God is unmoveable and infinite movement? Changeless and infinite change? A characteristic exclusive to the creator of all that is?

I guess what I’m saying is; the change we see as conflicting with changelessness really demonstrates it as true.

Something minor I wanted to address from another poster.

What we see here is how prejudices get in the way of logical thinking. What we also see is an amazing instance in which a religious prejudice was able to pave the way to correct a scientific and philosophical prejudice.

I don’t think it could be said that religious prejudice paved in this instance. LeMaitre corrected the Pope about saying the theory proved Genesis. LeMaitre told him to stop doing that because the math was just a current best explanation nothing more.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Confused a bit.
Reading this stuff, trying to wrap my mind around it. I want to ask.

Couldn’t the unmoved characteristic be based on being all movement? So God is unmoveable and infinite movement? Changeless and infinite change? A characteristic exclusive to the creator of all that is?

I guess what I’m saying is; the change we see as conflicting with changelessness really demonstrates it as true.

An unmoved-mover, means a being that is at the root of all change but isn’t itself changing. It is a being whose very being is a timeless perfect act.

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Are you sure that you posted on the right thread?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5515571#post55155

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Benadam

• LeMaitre corrected the Pope about saying the theory proved Genesis. LeMaitre told him to stop doing that because the math was just a current best explanation nothing more.*

---

At that time it was the best explanation but not a certain one. He was trying to prevent the pope from assuming something to be scientifically proven that was not. However, the story does not end there. After Pius’s death, and just before the death of LeMaitre (1966), more empirical data started rolling in to substantiate the math. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, for example, with their radio telescope heard the sound of the Big Bang still echoing everywhere in the universe. Right now hardly any serious astronomer can deny the Big Bang, that the universe had a start, and the start was about 13 billion years ago.

This has proven to be, and is still, a huge thorn in the side of traditional atheism, which had always banked on the philosophical presumption that the universe was infinite and eternal, and there was therefore no need for a creation moment, nor for a Creator.

 

[Benadam]

An unmoved-mover, means a being that is at the root of all change but isn’t itself changing. It is a being whose very being is a timeless perfect act.

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Are you sure that you posted on the right thread?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5515571#post55155

oops

 

[Benadam]

Benadam

LeMaitre corrected the Pope about saying the theory proved Genesis. LeMaitre told him to stop doing that because the math was just a current best explanation nothing more.

---

At that time it was the best explanation but not a certain one. He was trying to prevent the pope from assuming something to be scientifically proven that was not. However, the story does not end there. After Pius’s death, and just before the death of LeMaitre (1966), more empirical data started rolling in to substantiate the math. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, for example, with their radio telescope heard the sound of the Big Bang still echoing everywhere in the universe. Right now hardly any serious astronomer can deny the Big Bang, that the universe had a start, and the start was about 13 billion years ago.

This has proven to be, and is still, a huge thorn in the side of traditional atheism, which had always banked on the philosophical presumption that the universe was infinite and eternal, and there was therefore no need for a creation moment, nor for a Creator.

Thanks Charlemagne II

 

[Oreoracle]

1. I agree that when it comes to knowledge, the arbitrary description or postulation of immaterial entities is unwarranted. Neither is it the right of the philosopher to postulate theories about phenomenon that can in principle can be understood by the scientific method. However this is not what the “Theistic-Philosopher” is doing. The philosopher postulates entities or multiplies them only in the event that such a postulation is consistent with logical or reasonable axioms. Also they make theories that are reflective of their ligitimate field of knowledge. We make reasonable or necessary inferences, based on presupposed axioms just like science does. However we do not make inferences about objects that are in principle the soul object of the sciences.

Very well. Let’s see if you can prove to me that the entity known as God is necessary.

The Scientific method is the king principle of knowledge only in its field of investigation. When it comes to “ultimates” or qualities that cannot in principle be measured or understood by the scientific method, a strict systematic philosophy is a legitimate means of acquiring knowledge. It is important to understand the legitimate boundaries of science and philosophy in respect of knowledge.

 

[Oreoracle]

We have profound reason to believe that the naturalistic view of reality is only part of the whole of objective reality.

I never denied that.

Now if an “actual infinity” doesn’t actually exist, how are we able to know the concept of “actual infinity” if it doesn’t exist?

While we can define “actual infinity,” I don’t see how we can understand it in any meaningful sense. You can’t imagine an actual infinity of any object. If we can’t rebuild a concept in our minds that we just defined with words, it seems naive to believe we fully understand what’s been said about the concept.

This is one of the problems with the intellect composing of just a material organ. We are not only able to not only know what actually exists, but we are able to know what potentially exists. This ability cannot come out of actually existing material mater.

I don’t know enough about the brain to agree or disagree. But since I haven’t asserted anything materialistic, your point seems moot.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I never denied that.
While we can define “actual infinity,” I don’t see how we can understand it in any meaningful sense. You can’t imagine an actual infinity of any object. If we can’t rebuild a concept in our minds that we just defined with words, it seems naive to believe we fully understand what’s been said about the concept.

We can’t imagine it, no. But we can know what it is, in so far as we can know what it isn’t. An actual infinity is an entity that is unbounded in every sense, at least in so far as that fact is not contradictory. Or one can say that it is something which has no kind of mathematical dimensional to it, in the sense of size shape or number; it is none of those things, for they all imply some kind of limit–they are all potentially infinite. So, we can know what it isn’t, and by knowing what it isn’t, we do have some understanding of what it is. An actual infinity is in fact “Pure Being”.

See you tomorrow.

 

[JDaniel]

Confused a bit.

Reading this stuff, trying to wrap my mind around it. I want to ask.

Couldn’t the unmoved characteristic be based on being all movement? So God is unmoveable and infinite movement? Changeless and infinite change? A characteristic exclusive to the creator of all that is?

I guess what I’m saying is; the change we see as conflicting with changelessness really demonstrates it as true.

No, it cant:

First, motion is the act of that which is in potency precisely because it is in potency. The beginning of motion is potency; the end of motion is act. This definition represents the action that is occurring when, for example, my hand is moved across the front of my body from my body’s left to my body’s right. On the left, it is in potency to be on the right. On the right, it is in act, i.e., it is actualized there. If God is in motion, He would consist of potencies in potency. Remember, He would consist of all potencies, more than just this simple example of local motion, He would be in potency to every kind of motion there is. He would never be actualized. He would forever be restless.

But, God cannot be restless. He cannot consist of potencies. He cannot consist of privation(s). He must be in act. He must be actualized. Everything of Him must be in actuality. Potencies and privations are imperfections of His being. They are imperfections of His Godly substance, so to speak. Therefore, He would not be God. He would be some being less than God. Therefore, God cannot be subject to motion. God cannot lack anything. God cannot not exist.

Secondly, the motion we experience in the universe must have a beginning. It must have a first mover that is itself unmoved. If it did not, the motion of beings would not ever take place. The “chain” of movers would be a constantly growing thing of secondary movers that would never reach a terminus - or, first mover. This is what is meant by saying that we cannot have an infinite regress to a first mover. In other words, there cannot be a regress up the gradient to that first impetus, or cause, of motion as it would mean that the end of the gradient, the cause, would never be reached, and, therefore, never exist. As St. Thomas says, to take away the mover, or cause, is to take away “act”, or “effect”.

To be both changeless and infinite change is to consist of two contraries. In other words, it would mean that He consisted of contradiction. His being would then be potency and act existing simultaneously. He would be in being and not in being simultaneously. He would be simultaneously in existence and non-existence.

Sorry. I went a little long. I wanted to see where this would take me, as I thought it through, as it is the classical refutation of the concept of God as mutable being.

jd

 

[JesuisSean]

Take a one foot ruler. It can be marked in divisions. In fact an infinite number of divisions are possible. Here we have an infinity residing within a finite. This applies to all infinities. All infinities reside within a finite of some kind.

For instance, if you have a static environment, a 4 dimensional Space-Time environment, and all objects within this environment each share a common fixed magnitude of motion, you could travel at what seems to be an infinite speed even though you are traveling at a fixed magnitude of finite motion. It all depends upon your direction of travel.

If you are traveling across only a Space dimension of the 4 dimensional Space-Time environment, you will not be moving across Time, thus whatever distance you travel, it will have been done in zero time as seen from your point of view at the end of the trip. Meanwhile, those who ARE moving across time, will see you moving at the finite fixed magnitude of motion that is simply across Space only.

If you analyze this structural concept, you will end up with equations that are identical to equations such as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity Addition equation. What a coincidence.

We move across this static 4 dimensional Space-Time environment, but as a result of this, we are confined to the present time. Thus there is a point of intersection between our limited reality, and the static 4 dimensional Space-Time environment itself.

Thus the static environment, the 4 dimensional Space-Time environment, plays a roll in the laws of physics. Thus if interactions of particles is governed from the 4 dimensional Space-Time side of reality, the entire path of each particle is taken into account, not just where the particle is at one point in time as we see it.

And so if you did an experiment, such as the famous two slit light experiment, and just let the experiment run as is, the light particles will seem to behave as though they were waves. The light particles spin and as the result of this they create corkscrew shaped paths across space, thus what we have here is complete wave-like shaped paths interfering with other complete wave-like shaped paths.

However, if we place photon detectors at the two slits, they detect present time events and thus bring real time events into the experiment, and so the event is no longer being governed from the 4 dimensional Space-Time side of reality. Thus the light particles now only interfere with each other if they try to be at a same place at the same point in time, thus the wave like outcome of the experiment that we had beforehand, collapses and the particles of light now behave like particles only.

What does this means. It means the other side exists, and God exists is on that other side.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

Would you also agree that it’s reasonable to ask what caused whatever caused the universe, i.e., should we ask what designed (or otherwise* created**) the designer?*

It would appear you are familiar with Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian.” Anyway, he asked the very same question.

A distinction needs to be made between two words that have very different meanings, but appear to be confused as having the same meaning: Creation versus Causation.

Would it be reasonable to assume that creation is not the same as causality?
Everything in the universe that we know is caused by something that existed prior to it. We understand causality because we are ourselves caused, and are constantly engaged in causal relationships. But the Creator of the universe is likewise the creator of the principle of causality. So why would the Creator (prime mover, designer, etc.) necessarily be subject to the principle of causality, having been the Creator of it?

Would it be reasonable to ask who caused the Creator when there would be no causality without the Creator?

 

[JDaniel]

Take a one foot ruler. It can be marked in divisions. In fact an infinite number of divisions are possible. Here we have an infinity residing within a finite. This applies to all infinities. All infinities reside within a finite of some kind.

Conceptually, I agree. Realistically, I disagree. There are several unsolvable realistic problems with your conjecture:

(1) Even if someone started the process you envision, and it was carried on at the deaths of each predecessor, by another human being, they would never reach the number “Infinity”. Why does the mathematician use the shorthand, “[1,2,3,4,…n]” to stand in the place of writing a real infinity? By the way, long before those people could ever reach the number “Infinity”, the universe would most likely have long since succumbed to full entropy.

(2) We have no technology available to make an infinite number of “markings”. Odds are, any progress towards the invention of such a technology would only have us racing even faster towards entropy with little progress.

(3) If it was even possible, and you could mark an infinite number of divisions on your ruler, and you were pretty sure you had, in fact, reached that magic number, what would prevent you from making more and more marks?

Actual infinity does not exist. Potential infinity does. They are not the same.

jd

 

[Benadam]

No, it cant:

First, motion is the act of that which is in potency precisely because it is in potency. The beginning of motion is potency; the end of motion is act. This definition represents the action that is occurring when, for example, my hand is moved across the front of my body from my body’s left to my body’s right. On the left, it is in potency to be on the right. On the right, it is in act, i.e., it is actualized there. If God is in motion, He would consist of potencies in potency. Remember, He would consist of all potencies, more than just this simple example of local motion, He would be in potency to every kind of motion there is. He would never be actualized. He would forever be restless.

But, God cannot be restless. He cannot consist of potencies. He cannot consist of privation(s). He must be in act. He must be actualized. Everything of Him must be in actuality. Potencies and privations are imperfections of His being. They are imperfections of His Godly substance, so to speak. Therefore, He would not be God. He would be some being less than God. Therefore, God cannot be subject to motion. God cannot lack anything. God cannot not exist.

Secondly, the motion we experience in the universe must have a beginning. It must have a first mover that is itself unmoved. If it did not, the motion of beings would not ever take place. The “chain” of movers would be a constantly growing thing of secondary movers that would never reach a terminus - or, first mover. This is what is meant by saying that we cannot have an infinite regress to a first mover. In other words, there cannot be a regress up the gradient to that first impetus, or cause, of motion as it would mean that the end of the gradient, the cause, would never be reached, and, therefore, never exist. As St. Thomas says, to take away the mover, or cause, is to take away “act”, or “effect”.

To be both changeless and infinite change is to consist of two contraries. In other words, it would mean that He consisted of contradiction. His being would then be potency and act existing simultaneously. He would be in being and not in being simultaneously. He would be simultaneously in existence and non-existence.

Sorry. I went a little long. I wanted to see where this would take me, as I thought it through, as it is the classical refutation of the concept of God as mutable being.

jd

Thank you for educating me on that

 

[Oreoracle]

It would appear you are familiar with Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian.” Anyway, he asked the very same question.

I’ve heard of it, but I haven’t read it.

But the Creator of the universe is likewise the creator of the principle of causality. So why would the Creator (prime mover, designer, etc.) necessarily be subject to the principle of causality, having been the Creator of it?

So the Creator crafted the logical and physical laws that we enjoy today? It would be interesting for you to describe the Creator before he created the law of identity. Then we could say that God = tuna fish! It makes perfect sense without the identity property!

In all seriousness, I see a few problems here. For one, we can’t call something a principle or a law if it is known that even one entity is not subject to what the law/principle describes. In other words, if we know God isn’t caused, there is no principle of causality. God is merely foisting that necessity on other entities. Secondly, why can’t I just say that the matter present during the big bang didn’t need to be caused, since it created the principle of causality? Why postulate that God, an unknown, hypothetical being, is the necessary being when you can say that the universe itself is the necessary being? We have evidence for one, but not the other.

 

[Ulrich]

This is somewhat offtopic but I’m wondering what you think about the following analogy between the formation of the universe and the planet earth:

Formation of the universe:

1. 
   *]four-dimensional, possibly spherically curved space
   *]hot and rapidly expanding early universe
   *]electrons combine with protons (hydrogen forms) and universe becomes transparent after sufficient cooling
   *]stars and galaxies form through gravitational forces: the universe becomes illuminated
   *]expanding universe and scattering galaxies
   
   Formation of the earth seen from its surface:
   1. 
      *]two-dimensional spherically curved space
      *]rapidly growing Earth consisting of hot liquid stone in stage of accretion
      *]the steam in the atmosphere condenses (water droplets combine) by cooling down and the primitive ocean forms such that the surface becomes transparent
      *]the primitive continent forms through tectonic forces and the cloud layer gradually disappears letting appear the celestial bodies: there is light on Earth
      *]scattering continents (continental drift)
      
      Compare each steps and you will find the analogies. Why is this possible although the times, dimensions and processes of both formations are completely different?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

oreoracle

Why postulate that God, an unknown, hypothetical being, is the necessary being when you can say that the universe itself is the necessary being? We have evidence for one, but not the other.

Good question.

But what evidence do you have the the universe is a necessary being?

If the universe was created, as the Big Bang suggests, might it have been just as possible that it should not exist? If the gravitational pull of the Bang had been slightly larger than it was, the universe might have been prevented from expanding and collapsed upon itself. How did the universe know exactly how much gravitational pull was necessary to allow the expansion if the universe had no mind to calibrate such a pull?

But a creator God could calibrate, and it is reasonable to infer that He did when He created the principle of causality and all that causality entails, including not only the expansion of the universe but the eventual evolution of life in that universe.

 

[MindOverMatter]

In all seriousness, I see a few problems here. For one, we can’t call something a principle or a law if it is known that even one entity is not subject to what the law/principle describes.

By your interpretation we can’t call nature “natural” either, if in fact its really synthetic. But so what? When we speak of nature we usually imply a physical being; but anything that exists has a nature of some sort, but there are those natures which have a created nature. The term nature does not necessarily mean the most natural order of being, as in to mean that which is the root of all beings. The sciences assume methodological naturalism, and so deal with nature in this manner as an investigative principle concerning their particular level of investigation, but thats not logically binding to the philosophers investigation. In any case, is your interpretation of nature really what one means by the natural order or law in the first place? For one, Natural Law cannot be the ultimate reality, because it would mean that natural laws come out of nothing; but not only that, it would also mean that laws necessarily exist apart from that which is created by them, which is the universe. This implies that physical laws are necessarily transcendent of any existence which is assumed to be physical. Do i need to say that doesn’t make any sense? It would be more reasonable to say that “existence” exists before natural laws exist, and therefore exists before physical reality, “before” being meant in the sense of an existential hierarchy of being, rather then that of time. Secondly, the principle of causality, in respect of natural events, does not mean that causality will happen. It merely means that it can happen provided something is put into motion to the extent that it produces an effect.

In other words, if we know God isn’t caused, there is no principle of causality.

This assumes that inorder for things to be principles, they must be existentially absolute. However, there is no reason to believe this. A principle can exist if God created it, or because it flows naturally from Gods being, to be a principle of a particular order of being; assuming one is talking about the laws of “physical causality”, rather then the ability to cause or create in general. Otherwise, why should physical principles exist full stop if they cannot create themselves?

God is merely foisting that necessity on other entities.

Correct. i see no inherent contradiction in that.

Secondly, why can’t I just say that the matter present during the big bang didn’t need to be caused, since it created the principle of causality?

How can a changing inert event create a principle? In other words you are suggesting the Big-Bang came from nothing by itself; it came out of something which does not exist prior to an event called the Big-Bang. Thats not reasonable to believe. I don’t see this as plausible.

Why postulate that God, an unknown, hypothetical being, is the necessary being when you can say that the universe itself is the necessary being?

Well, unless the universe can explain its own existence from its fundamental nature of change, then it cannot be posited as a necessary being. Each event exists because there is change. What caused the change? And why stop with the universe? You seem to think the positing of God is arbitrary.

We have evidence for one, but not the other.

At worst, we have no more evidence for God then we have for the Universe. Like i said before, we do not know that the universe exists outside our minds.

Why do i have to keep repeating this?