Scientific argument for God's existence

[IWantGod]

Nope, I don’t admit that at all…it’s not a limited act of reality…it is reality.

The fact that you won’t admit it doesn’t tell my why you won’t. The conclusion is a necessary consequence of observing change.

 

[IWantGod]

So an eternally cyclic universe which needs no first cause or a cause external to itself would be acceptable to Aquinas?

Why not?..

A scientific hypothesis can only inference the possibility that there is no physical kind of cause external to a cyclical universe. Otherwise it’s not science.

In itself it does not mean that it’s fundamental nature does not depend for it’s existence on something else.

There is no possible theory you could give in principle that would justify the idea that physical reality is a necessary act of reality. In other-words you cannot prove it’s necessity by removing the possibility of a temporal cause. Just because it exists does not mean that it has to exist.

 

[lelinator]

The fact that you won’t admit it doesn’t tell my why you won’t. The inference is a necessary consequence of observing change.

Imagine a bouncing ball, such that its bouncing cannot be differentiated from its existence. If it stops bouncing, it stops existing. The two things, existence and change are inseparable.

Now imagine a cyclic universe for example. The cycles continue forever, to stop the cycle is impossible without completely eliminating all previous cycles. You’re proposing that change is separate from existence and thus needs a cause. I’m proposing that change is a necessary part of existence and thus needs no cause.

 

[Wozza]

There is no possible theory you could give in principle that would justify the idea that physical reality is a necessary act of reality. In other-words you cannot prove it’s necessity by removing the possibility of a temporal cause. Just because it exists does not mean that it has to exist.

No. It does not. But equally there is no proof that it did NOT have to exist.

We are talking options here. I’ll agree that yours might be true. In which case there would be an uncaused cause which might match your definition of God. But you won’t agree that my option could be acceptable. Because that would deny God.

 

[IWantGod]

Imagine a bouncing ball, such that its bouncing cannot be differentiated from its existence. If it stops bouncing, it stops existing. The two things, existence and change are inseparable.

Now imagine a cyclic universe for example. The cycles continue forever, to stop the cycle is impossible without completely eliminating all previous cycles. You’re proposing that change is separate from existence and thus needs a cause. I’m proposing that change is a necessary part of existence and thus needs no cause.

This does not show me that it’s existence is necessary, only that it needs to change in-order to exist. Your explanation only serves in showing me the obvious fact that physical reality is a limited expression of reality. It does not have the fullness of it’s reality, It’s nature is becoming.

 

[IWantGod]

Because that would deny God.

I would rather think that God existed. But that is not the reason why i reject the possibility of a necessary universe.

I reject it because it’s changing; it’s a fundamentally limited act of existence.

 

[lelinator]

There is no possible theory you could give in principle that would justify the idea that physical reality is a necessary act of reality.

This does not show me that it’s existence is necessary, only that it needs to change in-order to exist.

But there’s no argument that you can give to show that a first cause is necessary either. All such arguments begin with the observation that reality exists, and then attempt to explain why it exists.

Although to be precise, such arguments begin with the observation that “I” exist. And then from that follows the argument that reality must exist, and then the argument continues onward to the conclusion that a first cause must exist.

But all arguments necessarily begin with the fact that I exist.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Because that would deny God.

I would rather think that God existed. But that is not the reason why i reject the possibility of a necessary universe.

I reject it because it’s changing; it’s a fundamentally limited act of existence.

Again, you will need to explain that in terms of a cyclical universe if you could.

 

[IWantGod]

But there’s no argument that you can give to show that a first cause is necessary either.

We say that there is an “uncuased cause” (we say “first” only in a logical sense, not a temporal sense) because there cannot be a state of affairs where only contingent beings exist. A contingent being is a being that does not exist because of itself but because of something else. So we are taking about beings that can possibly not exist (evidenced by the fact that things or states of being begin to be actually real rather than possibly real). If there was a case where only contingent beings existed then it would be possible for there to be absolutely nothing. But out of nothing comes nothing, therefore there is no reason for contingent beings to exist. Thus there must be an uncaused-cause that doesn’t in anyway begin to exist; otherwise there would be absolutely nothing at all.

It doesn’t just possibly exist, it must exist, otherwise reality is fundamentally irrational.

 

[Wozza]

lelinator:

But there’s no argument that you can give to show that a first cause is necessary either.

We say that there is an “uncuased cause” (we say “first” only in a logical sense, not a temporal sense) because there cannot be a state of affairs where only contingent beings exist. A contingent being is a being that does not exist because of itself but because of something else. So we are taking about beings that can possibly not exist (evidenced by the fact that things or states of being begin to be actually real rather than possibly real). If there was a case where only contingent beings existed then it would be possible for there to be absolutely nothing. But out of nothing comes nothing, therefore there is no reason for contingent beings to exist. Thus there must be an uncaused-cause that doesn’t in anyway begin to exist; otherwise there would be absolutely nothing at all.

It doesn’t just possibly exist, it must exist, otherwise reality is fundamentally irrational.

Again, you will need to explain that in terms of a cyclical universe if you could.

 

[lelinator]

We say that there is an “ uncuased cause ” ( we say “first” only in a logical sense, not a temporal sense ) because there cannot be a state of affairs where only contingent beings exist.

I realize that we have gone over this again and again. But I simply cannot assent to your categorization of things as necessary and contingent. Yes, things change. So from a given perspective some things come into existence, and some things go out of existence. But that may simply be a function of a particular perspective. There may be perspectives in which nothing ever goes out of existence. I don’t know. And due to the fact that I don’t know, I cannot reach the conclusions that you do.

But you may also argue that not all things exist at all times, but there must be at least one thing that does exist at all times. But what I can’t conclude from this is that I can separate the parts from the whole, as if it’s possible for the parts not to exist, such that I can be left with just that one necessary bit. Again, I don’t know if the parts and the whole are separable from each other, thus I cannot conclude that the parts aren’t just as necessary as that one necessary bit is.

I also can’t conclude that change isn’t a fundamental component of existence. It may be that there’s nothing that exists, that doesn’t change. Your counterargument to this would be that if it changes then that would mean that some aspect of it wasn’t necessary. To which I would say…that’s not necessarily true? For example, a random set of numbers can change, and yet still be a random set of numbers. So a change in the parts of something doesn’t necessarily mean a change in its essence.

But the key point that I’m trying to make is that I don’t know, and so I can’t reach the conclusions that you seem absolutely certain of. I don’t know what’s necessary and what’s not, and I don’t know what the first cause was, and no amount of certainty on your part is going to change that.

Now if you could make an argument that I find sufficiently conclusive, then perhaps you can change my mind. But so far you haven’t been able to do it.

 

[IWantGod]

Yes, things change. So from a given perspective some things come into existence, and some things go out of existence.

But as soon as you admit to the above you cannot then say that these very same things are not changing because that would be a contradiction.

In past conversations you have attempted to bypass this by referring to quantum physics, but that has nothing to do with the fact that things do change and if it raises any questions at all it is to do with the possibility of a nature having a duality; a nature having two activities at the same time, having both the effect of a wave and a particle at the same time. It is not a universal principle you can apply to everything else. For example you cannot say that a thing exists and doesn’t exist at the same time. When discussing metaphysics we are dealing with a different category of truth, and in this particular case we are discussing what it means for a thing to be actual or to become actual, and there are necessary consequences to that conversation that cannot be ignored.

 

[lelinator]

But as soon as you admit to the above you cannot then say that these very same things are not changing because that would be a contradiction.

So things are changing, so what? As I said in my previous post, it may simply be intrinsic to the first cause that it changes, or that as part of its essence it gives rise to things that change. Such that either the first cause itself changes, or it necessarily gives rise to parts that change.

To which you would counter that it can’t consist of parts. But to consist of parts, and to necessarily give rise to parts are two different things. In which case the first cause gives rise to things not because it chooses to, but simply because it has to.

 

[IWantGod]

So things are changing, so what?

Because change necessarily involves an actualisation of potential-reality; the actualisation of that which was not actual, whether that involves a state, being, nature, or the emergence of a property.

A necessary being or nature is not potentially a being in any way shape or form, so it doesn’t make sense to say that change is intrinsic to the first cause.

An analogy; if to exist is to be a duck, then it follows necessarily that to exist is to necessarily be a duck. It cannot change into a horse or become something it is necessarily not, since it is not potentially anything other than what it necessarily is.

The same is true for a being that necessarily exists, it cannot become more than what it is in principle of the fact it is necessarily what it is. If it were to change, that would involve the actualisation of that which it necessarily is not (because a potential is not necessarily real for the simple fact that it is only potential), which would lead to a contradiction. Which is why we say It has no potential in it’s being, because it is already everything that it is; it lacks no reality.

 

[IWantGod]

Such that either the first cause itself changes,

If it is a things nature to exist, it cannot become a thing that is not that very same thing. It’s a contradiction.

 

[lelinator]

Because change necessarily involves an actualisation of potential-reality; the actualisation of that which was not actual , whether that involves a state, being, nature, or the emergence of a property.

Again I say, so what. It may be intrinsic to the first cause that it changes. It may be that the only difference between “nothing” and “something” is that “something” changes, and “nothing” doesn’t. To change requires a means of differentiating between two states. We perceive this differentiation as time and space. Absent time and space, there may simply be “nothing”. Not some mysterious supernatural being, but simply nothing. And since from nothing comes nothing, the existence of time and space may be absolutely necessary, because without them you have nothing.

An analogy; if to exist is to be a duck, then it follows necessarily that to exist is to necessarily be a duck. It cannot change into a horse or become something it is necessarily not, since it is not potentially anything other than what it necessarily is.

Following this analogy, then the first cause is simply that which gives rise to everything else. It has no choice in the matter. For to do anything else wouldn’t be in keeping with what it necessarily is. But this doesn’t mean that the first cause can’t change, because such change wouldn’t constitute a change in what it necessarily is, but rather the fulfillment of what it necessarily is.

There’s no reason to believe that the first cause has a choice in what it causes. Its only prerequisite is, that it’s the cause.

 

[IWantGod]

Again I say, so what.

Because you cannot apply the concept of change to something that necessarily exists.

I don’t know why you insist on ignoring this fact, but it follows necessarily.

If it is a things nature to exist, it cannot become a thing that is not that very same thing. It’s a contradiction.

 

[Wozza]

lelinator:

Again I say, so what.

Because you cannot apply the concept of change to something that necessarily exists.

I don’t know why you insist on ignoring this fact, but it follows necessarily.

If it is a things nature to exist, it cannot become a thing that is not that very same thing. It’s a contradiction.

I might ask again, how do you correlate any of this with a cyclical and infinitely recurring universe? That is, a universe that has no begining.

 

[IWantGod]

I might ask again, how do you correlate any of this with a cyclical and infinitely recurring universe? That is, a universe that has no begining.

It’s changing, therefore it does not possess the nature of that which necessarily exists.

The fact that it has no temporal beginning is irrelevant.

 

[lelinator]

Because you cannot apply the concept of change to something that necessarily exists.

Why? If such change doesn’t constitute a change in what it necessarily is, then why can’t it change. Just like a set of random numbers can change, and still be a set of random numbers. It may simply be that change is actually necessary for the first cause to be the first cause, but that change doesn’t constitute a change in what it necessarily is, but rather it’s the fulfillment of what it necessarily is, the source of existence. The source of time and space.

If it is a things nature to exist, it cannot become a thing that is not that very same thing. It’s a contradiction.

True, but if change is necessary for the first cause to be the first cause, then that change doesn’t constitute a change into what it is not, it’s simply a necessary attribute of what it is.