Scientific argument for God's existence

[IWantGod]

Why? If such change doesn’t constitute a change in what it necessarily is, then why can’t it change.

Because the actualisation of potential involves the actualisation of that which was not actually real. A being that is necessarily real cannot become that which is not necessarily real. It’s a contradiction.

 

[IWantGod]

but if change is necessary for the first cause

Change involves the actualisation of that which is not necessarily real. If a thing is necessarily real then it is not potentially real.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

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.

But literally everything changes. It’s almost a definition of existence. There’s nowhere else to go following that statement.

 

[IWantGod]

It’s almost a definition of existence.

It certainly seems that way. But the application of reason doesn’t allow me to draw that conclusion.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It’s almost a definition of existence.

It certainly seems that way. But the application of reason doesn’t allow me to draw that conclusion.

There’s not a conclusion to be drawn. It’s a statement of fact. The only possible way for there to be no change would be for nothing to exist to change.

Something exists. Therefore there is change. There is change. Therefore something exists.

It’s idiomatic. It’s as basic a statement as one could make. What possible reason could you employ to refute that?

 

[IWantGod]

There’s not a conclusion to be drawn. It’s a statement of fact. The only possible way for there to be no change would be for nothing to exist to change.

No, the idea that change is a function of everything that is real is an assertion. It’s merely an activity of what you can sense. Since that idea leads to contradictions the only way out is to infer the existence of a necessary being and acknowledge the fact that anything that changes is merely a product of that being.

From there one can ask whether the existence of things that change are a natural by-product of that which is necessary, or the artefact of an intellect that is beyond our comprehension.

 

[lelinator]

Because the actualisation of potential involves the actualisation of that which was not actually real. A being that is necessarily real cannot become that which is not necessarily real. It’s a contradiction.

Now we get to the crux of your argument. But it involves an assumption. The argument goes as follows, things change, but they cannot change themselves, so they need a cause for their change. But this series of causes can’t be infinite, so your argument assumes that there must be something that doesn’t change, which is the source of the change in everything else.

But there’s an alternative to this argument, and that is that the first cause, rather than never changing, is constantly changing. And it’s this change in the first cause that gives rise to everything else. But just like our set of random numbers, a change in the first cause doesn’t constitute a change in its essence, because change is its essence.

So when you argue that the first cause can’t change, you’re making two assumptions. One, that the first cause can’t change. And two, that if it did change then that would constitute a change in what it necessarily is. I think that there’s a very good chance that you’re wrong, and that rather than never changing, the first cause is constantly changing. Change is quite possibly a necessary attribute of the first cause. But it doesn’t constitute a change in the essence of the first cause.

 

[IWantGod]

Now we get to the crux of your argument. But it involves an assumption. The argument goes as follows, things change, but they cannot change themselves, so they need a cause for their change. But this series of causes can’t be infinite, so your argument assumes that there must be something that doesn’t change, which is the source of the change in everything else.

No, actually my argument is…

1. A necessary reality cannot become or be something that is not a necessary reality.
2. That which is potential is not a necessary reality.
3. That which is changing therefore does not posses the nature of a necessary reality.

Conclusion. The idea of a being that is necessarily real cannot be applied to things that are changing which includes any scientifically reasonable theory or hypothesis of the universe.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

There’s not a conclusion to be drawn. It’s a statement of fact. The only possible way for there to be no change would be for nothing to exist to change.

No, the idea that change is a function of everything that is real is an assertion. It’s merely an activity of what you can sense.

The only way that there could be no change was if there was nothing to change or if existence was static. There is obviously something - we are discussing it. And existence is not static. Otherwise nothing would happen.

Even the most ardent solipsist would agree that she exists and that even formulating an idea constitutes change.

So you are now going to use physical matter to respond, resulting in a subtle change to existence.

QED?

 

[IWantGod]

And existence is not static.

The nature of the things you can sense is changing. To add anything more to that would be an assertion. You have to demonstrate that change is necessary, but i have demonstrated that such an argument leads to a contradiction. And since i do not accept contradictions i cannot accept the idea that the universe or anything that is changing necessarily exists. I therefore have no choice but to accept the existence of a necessary being that does not change in any way and is not potentially anything else but what it is, and that is in order to account for the existence of things that change since they do not exist necessarily.

What you choose to do with the information is up to you.

 

[lelinator]

1. A necessary reality cannot become or be something that is not a necessary reality.

But this may simply mean that change is a necessary reality, without which you have nothing.

1. That which is potential is not a necessary reality.

And I would maintain that potential is a necessary attribute of reality, because if nothing has the potential to exist, then nothing will exist. So you need that which is by its very nature actualizing potential…i.e changing.

1. That which is changing therefore does not posses the nature of a necessary reality.

I disagree, that which is changing possesses the one essential attribute of reality…change. Without change, you have nothing.

 

[IWantGod]

But this may simply mean that change is a necessary reality, without which you have nothing.

That’s impossible because that which is necessarily real cannot become that which is not necessarily real; and since change necessarily involves the actualization of that which is not necessarily real, change cannot be applied to that which is necessarily real.

To say that a being necessarily gives rise to an effect does not change the fact that the effect was not necessarily actual, because if it was necessarily actual it would never not exist.

Potential is not a real thing in and of its self, and so it is meaningless to describe it as something which necessarily exists.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

And existence is not static.

The nature of the things you can sense is changing.

What you say above means ‘things change’. Which was my point. Which you refuted. Reason would not allow you to accept it. What you said before was:

‘the idea that change is a function of everything that is real is an assertion’.

There you say it’s simply an assertion. Well, you just asserted it above in the first quote.

I think your argument is sliding all over the place. First off ‘things don’t change’. Then we get ‘the nature of things change’. And finally ‘it’s just an assertion that change is a function of everything’.

I was going to say that the discussion is going nowhere. But it appears to be going all over the place.

 

[IWantGod]

What you say above means ‘things change’. Which was my point. Which you refuted. Reason would not allow you to accept it. What you said before was:

You are asserting that change is ontologically necessary, meaning that there cannot possibly be a thing that does not change, since to exist is to necessarily change. It is that idea which i have refuted.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

What you say above means ‘things change’. Which was my point. Which you refuted. Reason would not allow you to accept it.

… there cannot possibly be a thing that does not change… It is that idea which i have refuted.

So we are back to the two options. If there is no change it means there is nothing to change so there is no existence. If there is something and it doesn’t change then existence is static.

Neither option represents reality. You are refuting reality.

 

[IWantGod]

If there is no change it means there is nothing to change so there is no existence.

Again, you are presupposing that change and being are the same thing, are necessarily identical. My argument proves that this is necessarily wrong, this is to say that it is not true that to exist is to necessarily change; it is only true that somethings are changing.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

If there is no change it means there is nothing to change so there is no existence.

Again, you are presupposing that change and being are the same thing, are necessarily identical.

You are putting words into my mouth. I have never presupposed anything of the sort. It’s akin to saying that matter and mass are identical. They are not. But if you have matter then it will posess mass.

Similarly, if something exists then it will change. Just as mass is a property of matter so is change a property of existence.

 

[IWantGod]

Similarly, if something exists then it will change.

That does not follow, and you are essentially asserting that no possible thing can exist unless it is changing. And my argument refutes that.

 

[lelinator]

That’s impossible because that which is necessarily real cannot become that which is not necessarily real; and since change necessarily involves the actualization of that which is not necessarily real, change cannot be applied to that which is necessarily real.

We simply disagree on that which is necessarily real. To me what’s necessarily real may simply be that which is constantly changing, but this change doesn’t constitute a change in what it is. Just as a set of random numbers may change, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a set of random numbers. You’re assuming that that which is necessarily real cannot change in any way at all. I’m proposing that it can change, so long as that change doesn’t constitute a change in what it is.

You’ve assumed that change isn’t possible in that which is necessarily real, I suggest that you’ve simply misapplied the concept of necessarily real. You think that you have indisputable reasons for doing so, I don’t.

 

[IWantGod]

You’ve assumed that change isn’t possible in that which is necessarily real,

I haven’t assumed it. It’s logically impossible for something that is necessarily real to potentially exist. The contradiction is obvious unless you change the meaning of necessary in the context of what it means to have existence, which is what you have resorted to.