Science, Philosophy & The existence Of God

[Benadam]

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.

 

[Ulrich]

I am a physicist and think what you are disputing about cannot be answered philosophically. It can only be answered scientifically. There are cosmologists who think about what has been before the big bang. I read some months ago an article about a new unified theory which concludes on an universe before the big bang. However this has still to be proven. Up to then, I prefer to believe that there was no physical universe before the big bang. With philosophy one can say and refute anything, dont lose your time with it.

PS: I’m somewhat disappointed that up to now nobody refers to my analogy above. If you look closer to it you will see that It isnt so offtopic…

 

[Oreoracle]

How can a changing inert event create a principle?

I don’t know. However, I’d be willing to bet that you couldn’t answer if I asked “How could God create a principle?” You can sit there and say “God did it” all day, but until you can explain how God did it, your repeated assertions will always end up sounding less than impressive. That’s just my advice…

Well, unless the universe can explain its own existence from its fundamental nature of change, then it cannot be posited as a necessary being.
I don’t see how your conception of God explains his existence. All you’re saying is “God is above explanations.”

Each event exists because there is change. What caused the change?

Each entity exists because there is change as well. Is God not an entity?

And why stop with the universe? You seem to think the positing of God is arbitrary.

Why stop with God? When you say that everything has to be caused, but then exempt one entity from this law without offering any adequate explanation (see: special pleading), you are arbitrarily creating your own personal braking point.

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.

I thought we were assuming the existence of the universe (choosing to trust our senses…) for the sake of the discussion. If we’re making no assumptions in this debate, why postulate anything?

 

[Oreoracle]

That’s a catch 22. You have to prove self-existence impossible.

If I’m not mistaken, you guys are the ones asserting God as the necessary, self-sufficient being. The onus is on you to prove that something can maintain its own existence by itself, like God supposedly does. This is fairly difficult when you are assuming that everything is contingent and must be caused. In fact, it’s impossible.

There is not a shred of evidence to support a reason to think matter is self-existent. That’s why philosophical reasoning admits self-existence.

The only hook to hang your hat is that a self-existent entity can’t be known. That may or may not be true being subjective and dependent on the absolute freedom only a self-existent entity could exercise.

I’m afraid I don’t know what it is you’re criticizing.

 

[Benadam]

I am a physicist and think what you are disputing about cannot be answered philosophically. It can only be answered scientifically. There are cosmologists who think about what has been before the big bang. I read some months ago an article about a new unified theory which concludes on an universe before the big bang. However this has still to be proven. Up to then, I prefer to believe that there was no physical universe before the big bang. With philosophy one can say and refute anything, dont lose your time with it.

PS: I’m somewhat disappointed that up to now nobody refers to my analogy above. If you look closer to it you will see that It isnt so offtopic…

Ulrich, I think philosophically the universe ‘before’ would be like a newly discovered land, that stretches the horizon and the big bang an event that no longer marks the dawn.

 

[Benadam]

If I’m not mistaken, you guys are the ones asserting God as the necessary, self-sufficient being.

 

[Oreoracle]

The onus switches to you since the alternative is a universe that is self existent unless you wish to prove nothing exists. that’s the catch and the substance of my critique.

Bogus. I don’t have to take a position on the matter anymore than you have to choose your favorite flavor of ice cream. Heck, you don’t even have to eat ice cream!

I’m perfectly content with saying, “I don’t know.” It’s true for all of us, my friend, whether you like it or not.

 

[JesuisSean]

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

Thus by your logic, an idea must be both Conceptually and Realistically possible, if usefulness is to be considered.

With this being the case, you must create a God all by yourself before you can agree that an original God exists or not. But, on the grand scale of all reality, there is room for only one God, only room for one entirety of reality, etc.

Therefore using arguments, concerning whether or not something is Realistically possible, serves no purpose other than blowing any further progress in understanding out the window by completely changing the subject altogether. This is unwise and unproductive.

The point about multiple divisions present within a one, in this case being a one foot ruler, was meant to get a point across, not to trigger a silly argument.

 

[Oreoracle]

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

I don’t. I was proposing the theory to make a point.

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?

Maybe it did collapse upon itself. Maybe the balance was off for the first several billion times the universe attempted to form. Maybe it has already formed as it has now, produced life, and then collapsed since then. There is no reason to think there was only one time the universe attempted to expand. Knowing this makes the probability argument much less impressive, if it is impressive at all.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

Maybe it did collapse upon itself. Maybe the balance was off for the first several billion times the universe attempted to form. Maybe it has already formed as it has now, produced life, and then collapsed since then. There is no reason to think there was only one time the universe attempted to expand. Knowing this makes the probability argument much less impressive, if it is impressive at all.

Lot of maybes there. There is no scientific evidence that the universe ever collapsed. There ***is ***scientific evidence that it was born, it has lived, and it is going to die (universal entropy). It is generally believed by astronomers that a Big Crunch is improbable. Why is it that the existence of a Creator who designed the universe to be born, to live, and to die is for some so improbable? And so far as we humans are concerned, that ought to make more sense, because the fate of the universe existentially parallels our own birth, our own life, and our own death.

When God created the universe, no one says He did so as a scientific project, but as One who intends to create a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. Science tells us that even as we speak the galaxies are moving away from each other at accelerating velocities, and that someday, if we were still around, we could look into the night sky and see no stars, but rather universal darkness. But that is not the grim end to our story. From that universal darkness we have been rescued by the Light that shines in the darkness, even when there are many who do not grasp it … or wish to.

 

[JDaniel]

Thus by your logic, an idea must be both Conceptually and Realistically possible, if usefulness is to be considered.

Yes I do. If something is to be considered validly useful, it should not violate the rules of logic and the rules of abstraction. With all due respect, the conception - alone - of a single object out there in the universe, all by itself, that is in motion, tells us little that could be considered useful. Especially in light of the fact that motion is relative. Likewise, while there may possibly be useful mathematical concepts that can be made by postulating an actual infinity, one must not confuse a conception with a realism.

With this being the case, you must create a God all by yourself before you can agree that an original God exists or not. But, on the grand scale of all reality, there is room for only one God, only room for one entirety of reality, etc.

I cannot respond to this as I have no idea what you mean by it, and, I have no idea how you deduced what you deduced. Please help me understand it.

Therefore using arguments, concerning whether or not something is Realistically possible, serves no purpose other than blowing any further progress in understanding out the window by completely changing the subject altogether. This is unwise and unproductive.

Thus, I must make myself OK with the concept of a pink elephant in order to be productive? You are accusing me of “changing the subject”. How so?

The point about multiple divisions present within a one, in this case being a one foot ruler, was meant to get a point across, not to trigger a silly argument.

OK. Maybe I am dense. Please tell me what your point was.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don’t know. However, I’d be willing to bet that you couldn’t answer if I asked “How could God create a principle?” You can sit there and say “God did it” all day, but until you can explain how God did it, your repeated assertions will always end up sounding less than impressive. That’s just my advice…

Its irrelevant. The point that you are proposing as an alternative makes no logical sense whatsoever. Your charge against God is a matter of knowledge. If there was a reasonable alternative, then you might have a point. There is not, and you have not provided one. You cannot say that God is less plausible just because i don’t know how God causes the universe. My arguement is based on the necessity of an explanation that is consistent with being; as in, it is the only explanation where one isn’t forced to believe what we know to be conceptually impossible, that the Universe popped out of absolute nothingness by itself and created its own laws and principles. The theistic concept is more authoritative on the fact that it is founded upon being; entities coming from other entities until one reaches a perfect, timeless and absolute entity. I mean, you are free to believe in nothing if you like, but please don’t down play God as if your concept is more reasonable. It is not. To me, its more plausible that a perfect will and intellect created the universe, the laws of physics, the particularity of chemistry and biology, the qualities and the irreducible meaning inherent in nature, not to mention the personal beings that have feelings, morality, emotions, dreams and aspirations and have the ability to interact willingly with physical events. That seems to me be a more substantial explanation, rather then some arbitrary event that has no explanation of where it came from, except to say that it came out of nothing by itself.

Not once have i seen you justified why some natural event is more plausible as an explanation, and i have shown you why in principle it is impossible logically speaking for something to cause its self in to existence (given that nothing doesn’t exist). On the other hand i do not know that God cannot will the Universe in to existence. If God is a perfect absolute being, and is the basis of all physical principles, then i see no reason why God cannot cause things in to being by his will and mind alone. Its suffices to say that its the only consistent foundation for existence, since nature alone is impotent in this regard.

I don’t see how your conception of God explains his existence. All you’re saying is “God is above explanations.”

No i didn’t. In fact i have said on many occasions on many threads in many posts that God is “existence” by nature. God is a timeless, transcendent and perfect being. God is absolute being and pure actuality.

You cannot cause Existence. Existence causes beings. The Universe is not existence by nature of being. The Universe participates in existence. The Universe began to exist, and proceeds in existence “potentially”; every event in its chain of being is a potential event. The Universe is forever an incomplete being, by itself. It participates in existence, it is contingent on existence, and by that fact it is not itself existence; because potentiality cannot infinitely precede absolute being. There must be a transcendent unmoved mover, which is absolute being itself, and is as such that things come to be because of it. The Universe cannot, by definition of its being, fit the description. The fact that it changes is proof of that.

Each entity exists because there is change as well. Is God not an entity?

What is the basis for this assertion?
Each entity comes to exist because there is a perfect unchanging being/existence, that cannot pass out of existence or be caused in to existence, and neither does it change. It simply is. This being caused the universe, space/time/energy/matter.

Why stop with God? When you say that everything has to be caused, but then exempt one entity from this law without offering any adequate explanation (see: special pleading), you are arbitrarily creating your own personal braking point.

Nope, i just explained above, and i have also gone in to more greater detail on other threads. In fact lots of different people have refuted this thousands of times. If your really interested, you can go find them.

I thought we were assuming the existence of the universe (choosing to trust our senses…) for the sake of the discussion. If we’re making no assumptions in this debate, why postulate anything?

Its not an assumption for the sake of an arguement. To believe in the Universe is a reasonable belief; but its a belief with out scientific evidence. You cannot use science as an authority on whats logical, science itself relies upon logical axioms. All we have at our disposal is logic, faith and experience, and we can either follow it where it leads us or ignore it. I am following logic where it leads us. Its seems to me you have some conceptual prejudices about God that are not in themselves disproofs of the reasonableness of God, but are rather just prejudices about a certain kind of cause. If you were not entertaining a prejudice agenda you would have no problem seeing that a perfectly intelligent absolute being is more reasonable then an entity coming out of nothing or changing from a state of nothingness or lack of being. I would like to think that i am wrong about you, but i just cannot believe that you would have a problem choosing God as the more reasonable choice.

Peace.

 

[Oreoracle]

MoM, I’ve responded in your “8 Steps to the Existence of God” thread, in case you’re interested.

Its irrelevant.

Then your question–“How can a changing inert event (the Big Bang) create a principle?”–is equally irrelevant. And my alternative proposition, which you claim makes no sense, happens to be preferable to yours when we apply Occam’s Razor (I’m not saying that’s a disproof). It should also be mentioned again that there is evidence of the universe, but none for God. Therefore, I think it’s a bit more reasonable to assign the attribute of self-sufficiency to the universe than to God…if we must assign such an attribute, that is. Other than that, it’s pretty much parallel to your own proposition of God.

The point that you are proposing as an alternative makes no logical sense whatsoever. Your charge against God is a matter of knowledge. If there was a reasonable alternative, then you might have a point.

The validity of an argument is in no way dependent on the validity of other arguments.

You and Benadam seem to be of the opinion that we must take sides…that we must support some theory pertaining to the origin of the universe. I don’t see any obligation to support a theory or to take sides in this matter. If all available theories are inadequate, there is no onus on anyone to choose to support whatever theory they deem most plausible. Again, I’m content with saying, “I don’t know.” Some people don’t feel this way, but in my experience, doubt is more honest than certainty will ever be.

There is not, and you have not provided one. You cannot say that God is less plausible just because i don’t know how God causes the universe. My arguement is based on the necessity of an explanation that is consistent with being; as in, it is the only explanation where one isn’t forced to believe what we know to be conceptually impossible, that the Universe popped out of absolute nothingness by itself and created its own laws and principles.

So it’s more reasonable to believe a being always existed, having never been caused, and that it magically created principles (creating things, by the way, would be impossible without causality to begin with) so that it may enjoy the spiritual progression of hairless monkeys? Give me a break… Again, if you don’t know how God created principles and maintained his own existence, I can always assert that the matter present during the Big Bang did the exact same thing. This proposition includes all the significant elements of your own theory, without God. Therefore, if you think my proposition is ridiculous, it reflects the opinion you must have of your own.

To be continued…

 

[Benadam]

Bogus. I don’t have to take a position on the matter anymore than you have to choose your favorite flavor of ice cream. Heck, you don’t even have to eat ice cream!

I’m perfectly content with saying, “I don’t know.” It’s true for all of us, my friend, whether you like it or not.

There is evidence produced by the science of philosphical reasoning that ‘something’ that is not contained in the universe is self-existent. There is no evidence that the universe is self-existent.

 

[Oreoracle]

There is evidence produced by the science of philosphical reasoning that ‘something’ that is not contained in the universe is self-existent. There is no evidence that the universe is self-existent.

Since the universe is defined as “everything that physically exists” it’s nonsense to say that this something is not contained within it. But since you’ll say that God is not physical, the onus will be on you to prove that non-physical things exist. Good luck with finding observable evidence to support that idea.

Anyway, I think it would be rather arrogant of someone to believe they have a better idea of what this self-existent ‘something’ is than any other person. This is essentially a guessing game, as selecting religions has always been. This is why I prefer not to take sides. That, and I don’t believe that knowing the origin of the universe would be relevant to my life.

 

[Benadam]

Since the universe is defined as “everything that physically exists” it’s nonsense to say that this something is not contained within it. But since you’ll say that God is not physical, the onus will be on you to prove that non-physical things exist. Good luck with finding observable evidence to support that idea.

Anyway, I think it would be rather arrogant of someone to believe they have a better idea of what this self-existent ‘something’ is than any other person. This is essentially a guessing game, as selecting religions has always been. This is why I prefer not to take sides. That, and I don’t believe that knowing the origin of the universe would be relevant to my life.

I stand corrected. I need to refine my statement. Change the word ‘something’ with the word ‘entity’. There is a ‘best’ guess produced by the science of philosophy. That constitutes a side that is favored by the sciences.

This is why I prefer not to take sides. That, and I don’t believe that knowing the origin of the universe would be relevant to my life.

Therein lies the problem. Your position that there is knowledge that is irrelevent is not in accord with the art of philosophical thought. Philo = love sophia=knowledge

 

[Oreoracle]

Therein lies the problem. Your position that there is knowledge that is irrelevent is not in accord with the art of philosophical thought. Philo = love sophia=knowledge

Even Socrates admitted to not being a philosopher in the strictest sense of the word. Nobody is interested in everything, that’s just the way it is.

 

[Benadam]

Even Socrates admitted to not being a philosopher in the strictest sense of the word. Nobody is interested in everything, that’s just the way it is.

But… Knowledge that is interesting to particular persons has no bearing on whether or not it is necessary or important to know.

 

[Ulrich]

Correct me if I am wrong: there is one agnostic in this forum and all others are catholic trying to explain to this agnostic why there is a god. In my opinion you are all fixed on the big bang which is not sufficiently known to cut short the question. This is why I suggested watching instead the creation, how it is structured. If you do this you will observe that there is a structure that cannot be formed by chance. So I try it again:

1. 
   *]The universe is a 4-dimensional possibly spherically curved space. Earth’s surface is a 2-dimensional spherically curved space.
   
   *]The early universe was hot and rapidly growing. The early earth was formed of hot liquid stone growing rapidly by accretion.
   
   *]After sufficient cooling, electrons combined with protons so that hydrogen formed. Hydrogen is an image of water as main compound of it. Water is transparent, that is it lets light travel freely. Similarly, light could travel freely when hydrogen was formed. However there was still not much visible light in the universe at this stage: darkness reigned. After the early earth cooled down, it released water vapor, which formed a dense cloud layer: darkness was over earth’s surface. After more cooling, the water droplets combined with each other and the primitive ocean formed. This way earth’s surface became transparent.
   
   *]The gravitational collapse of hydrogen formed the first stars and the universe became enlighted. After more cooling, the cloud layer surrounding earth’s surface disappeared gradually allowing the stars and the sun to shine on earth’s surface. There is light on earth.
   
   *]The universe is expanding, that is the galaxies, the main centers of matter, scatter from each other. On earth’s surface, the ocean is an image of space and the continents an image of matter, which are also scattering through continental drift.
   
   Do you guys see any analogy between these five steps of the formation of the universe and the earth seen from its surface? If not, go to historycycles.tripod.com. If yes, my question to the agnostic in this forum is: how can this analogy be explained by chance?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

*This is why I prefer not to take sides. That, and I don’t believe that knowing the origin of the universe would be relevant to my life. *

But if you could establish that the universe never had a beginning, that it always existed, I think that would suddenly be very relevant to your life, because then you could say that the universe was a necessary being, so why go elsewhere to look for a necessary Being?

Since you can’t do that, you dismiss the Big Bang as irrelevant?