The need for a new argument for God's existence

[SoylentGreen]

The same questions seem to be repeated continually, and these questions are grounded on the absence of any rational solutions to certain problems. The persistence of these questions suggests that all previous arguments (regardless of their source)I have fallen short of presenting answers to these problems. These problems are cosmological, not only theological in nature; and they are as follows:

How can one defend his/her belief in an ultimately original, unconditional, immaterial Being, also (I think very appropriately) defined as a Prime Mover, or First Cause?

How did God, as a Prime Mover, or First Cause, create a material universe from an immaterial essence, or out of what can be defined as ‘nothing,’ or otherwise, an ultimately simple (original) form? This is a legitimate philosophical/metaphysical problem that has not been resolved.

If God exists outside of space and time how can God relate to the universe conditioned by space, time?

Is God the originator of space-time?

How can those who believe in God’s existence defend their belief and show that their belief is not at odds with science, or at least, with what is generally accepted on scientific grounds? For instance: the astronomical evidence that proves the universe is expanding, and that it is some 14 or so billion years old?

Personally, I believe these cosmological problems pose legitimate questions for metaphysicians, and philosophers of all descriptions, including theologians, and if they do have answers, these answers would only go toward the defense of theism.

I pose these only as a follow up to an extended argument for God’s existence that I will present here that takes into account all these problems; however, considering the undeniable fact that forum members have their own particular beliefs, and or understanding, concerning the limits of human reason, there may be some initial objections to these problems, and I would be interested in hearing what these may be.

My hope is to inspire some reasonable, respectful, and intelligent debate in this regard, and to avoid any breech of the forum rules, most particularly the rule grounded on what Christians refer to as the Golden Rule, which would have God uppermost on their minds/hearts, along with the stipulation that we treat others as we would have them treat us.

My own argument is an argument, and this implies it is open to philosophical debate. I will not be presenting it in the attempt to overturn, debase, or tarnish, anyone else’s beliefs; but only to challenge them, and hopefully provide something more for their reflection. I’ll refer to my argument as the Causal Argument, and I’ll post the premise to my Causal Argument under the thread: Premise to the Causal Argument. But I’ll wait for some initial reaction to this proposal. Perhaps the proposal will be met with certain objections (reasonable objections, I might add). Anything that hints of an Ad hominem objection will be ignored on the simple grounds that ad hominem arguments are fallacious.

 

[jen197577]

You question to much and pray to little.

All those grand statements you make are just that. If you quietly went to God with these questions, earnestly asked and quieted down and listened, I believe God would tell you the answers through divine inspiration. Pray for wisdom instead of knowledge. There is a big difference.

blessings to you.

 

[georget]

 

[Mount_Carmel]

SoylentGreen - As the acaused Lord of Eternity, God is the initiator/instigator/prime mover of ALL THINGS AND ALL NATURAL LAWS, except those of His own being and nature.

Without God all things are nought, and would remain nought, including, time, substance and dimensions.

Without ‘I AM’, we are ‘I am not’.

 

[Seaborgium]

The same questions seem to be repeated continually, and these questions are grounded on the absence of any rational solutions to certain problems. The persistence of these questions suggests that all previous arguments (regardless of their source)I have fallen short of presenting answers to these problems. These problems are cosmological, not only theological in nature; and they are as follows:

How can one defend his/her belief in an ultimately original, unconditional, immaterial Being, also (I think very appropriately) defined as a Prime Mover, or First Cause?

How did God, as a Prime Mover, or First Cause, create a material universe from an immaterial essence, or out of what can be defined as ‘nothing,’ or otherwise, an ultimately simple (original) form? This is a legitimate philosophical/metaphysical problem that has not been resolved.

If God exists outside of space and time how can God relate to the universe conditioned by space, time?

Is God the originator of space-time?

How can those who believe in God’s existence defend their belief and show that their belief is not at odds with science, or at least, with what is generally accepted on scientific grounds? For instance: the astronomical evidence that proves the universe is expanding, and that it is some 14 or so billion years old?

Personally, I believe these cosmological problems pose legitimate questions for metaphysicians, and philosophers of all descriptions, including theologians, and if they do have answers, these answers would only go toward the defense of theism.

I pose these only as a follow up to an extended argument for God’s existence that I will present here that takes into account all these problems; however, considering the undeniable fact that forum members have their own particular beliefs, and or understanding, concerning the limits of human reason, there may be some initial objections to these problems, and I would be interested in hearing what these may be.

My hope is to inspire some reasonable, respectful, and intelligent debate in this regard, and to avoid any breech of the forum rules, most particularly the rule grounded on what Christians refer to as the Golden Rule, which would have God uppermost on their minds/hearts, along with the stipulation that we treat others as we would have them treat us.

My own argument is an argument, and this implies it is open to philosophical debate. I will not be presenting it in the attempt to overturn, debase, or tarnish, anyone else’s beliefs; but only to challenge them, and hopefully provide something more for their reflection. I’ll refer to my argument as the Causal Argument, and I’ll post the premise to my Causal Argument under the thread: Premise to the Causal Argument. But I’ll wait for some initial reaction to this proposal. Perhaps the proposal will be met with certain objections (reasonable objections, I might add). Anything that hints of an Ad hominem objection will be ignored on the simple grounds that ad hominem arguments are fallacious.

You won’t get faith this way. People who think arguments will determine their faith never win. God has either bestowed you with the grace or hasn’t.

 

[empther]

How did God, as a Prime Mover, or First Cause, create a material universe from an immaterial essence, or out of what can be defined as ‘nothing,’ or otherwise, an ultimately simple (original) form? This is a legitimate philosophical/metaphysical problem that has not been resolved. :hypno:

Nor will it ever be resolved. But it must be true because the universe could not have existed through an infinite past, had to have a start, and could not have started itself.
Therefore, there had to be a God.

That sums it all up.
We can’t know any more than that,** nor do we need to**. :bigyikes: :extrahappy:
It’s enough to know that there has to be an omnipotent God who created everything, or we wouldn’t be here worrying about it.

---

Nice to see you raising specific questions that can be answered, SG. Learned something from the last thread, hunh?

 

[hicetnunc]

The same questions seem to be repeated continually, and these questions are grounded on the absence of any rational solutions to certain problems. The persistence of these questions suggests that all previous arguments (regardless of their source)I have fallen short of presenting answers to these problems.

I would have to strongly disagree with this…

A great many of the objections to the cosmological argument and metaphysical arguments are widely misunderstood. A number of philosophers, such as Edward Feser, William Lane Craig and Robert Spitzer have shown a great many of the criticisms betray a lack of understanding of the arguments and are often problems raised by caricatures of arguments rather than the arguments themselves. There are a number of posts on here presently which similarly betray a lack of understanding of the work of philosophy on metaphysical arguments since Scholastic times. What we often find is not that there is any real “absence of rational solutions” to problems raised, but simply total unfamiliarity with those solutions. Let me give you a couple of cases in point: the recent post on the actus essendi and God (which I think you may be referring to) and the claim that there is no reply to be made to the seeming difficulty of God making something from nothing. Many of these problems have been addressed and answered by St Thomas Aquinas in the De Potentia Dei, and modern commentators, such as Robert Spitzer, have put a contemporary interpretation to them. Or the argument, which appears on this forum frequently, that an uncaused causer is not necessarily God or all-powerful or an intelligence, or that since God exists outside of time, he cannot interact with contingent and temporal being. All of these concerns have been addressed and, I would say, successfully defended by the likes of Aquinas, Feser, Craig, Plantinga and others. The problem is that the answers to many of these metaphysical problems are not understood or known by many people who challenge the basic premises of the arguments.

None of this is to say I have a problem with new arguments for the existence of God. If you have one, I think you should put it out there and get some feedback on it. Who knows, you may hit upon something of great value. But I would also caution against dismissing tried and tested arguments on the assumption that the objections to them have no valid answers.

 

[Ion]

The same questions seem to be repeated continually, and these questions are grounded on the absence of any rational solutions to certain problems. The persistence of these questions suggests that all previous arguments (regardless of their source)I have fallen short of presenting answers to these problems. These problems are cosmological, not only theological in nature; and they are as follows:

How can one defend his/her belief in an ultimately original, unconditional, immaterial Being, also (I think very appropriately) defined as a Prime Mover, or First Cause?

How did God, as a Prime Mover, or First Cause, create a material universe from an immaterial essence, or out of what can be defined as ‘nothing,’ or otherwise, an ultimately simple (original) form? This is a legitimate philosophical/metaphysical problem that has not been resolved.

If God exists outside of space and time how can God relate to the universe conditioned by space, time?

Is God the originator of space-time?

How can those who believe in God’s existence defend their belief and show that their belief is not at odds with science, or at least, with what is generally accepted on scientific grounds? For instance: the astronomical evidence that proves the universe is expanding, and that it is some 14 or so billion years old?

Personally, I believe these cosmological problems pose legitimate questions for metaphysicians, and philosophers of all descriptions, including theologians, and if they do have answers, these answers would only go toward the defense of theism.

I pose these only as a follow up to an extended argument for God’s existence that I will present here that takes into account all these problems; however, considering the undeniable fact that forum members have their own particular beliefs, and or understanding, concerning the limits of human reason, there may be some initial objections to these problems, and I would be interested in hearing what these may be.

My hope is to inspire some reasonable, respectful, and intelligent debate in this regard, and to avoid any breech of the forum rules, most particularly the rule grounded on what Christians refer to as the Golden Rule, which would have God uppermost on their minds/hearts, along with the stipulation that we treat others as we would have them treat us.

My own argument is an argument, and this implies it is open to philosophical debate. I will not be presenting it in the attempt to overturn, debase, or tarnish, anyone else’s beliefs; but only to challenge them, and hopefully provide something more for their reflection. I’ll refer to my argument as the Causal Argument, and I’ll post the premise to my Causal Argument under the thread: Premise to the Causal Argument. But I’ll wait for some initial reaction to this proposal. Perhaps the proposal will be met with certain objections (reasonable objections, I might add). Anything that hints of an Ad hominem objection will be ignored on the simple grounds that ad hominem arguments are fallacious.

I see matter as forms out of nothing. Materialists believe that matter exists in itself, has essence, and by chance there was a logical process that have produced us, complex structures; this logical process is necessary to be logical because we are rational beings.
If matter (then we) have no essence then is necessary an outward essence and cause of this universe. Quantum physics show the micro-universe as an universe of “miracles”; nothing like materialists imagined.

 

[SoylentGreen]

… these concerns have been addressed and, I would say, successfully defended by the likes of Aquinas, Feser, Craig, Plantinga and others. The problem is that the answers to many of these metaphysical problems are not understood or known by many people who challenge the basic premises of the arguments.

None of this is to say I have a problem with new arguments for the existence of God. If you have one, I think you should put it out there and get some feedback on it. Who knows, you may hit upon something of great value. But I would also caution against dismissing tried and tested arguments on the assumption that the objections to them have no valid answers.

My time is constrained; though if I did read up on these philosophers above I’m sure I would not find anything to contradict my own argument, and perhaps there would be some strong agreements. What I try and look for whenever I’m reading anything, philosophy, science, or anything else, is grounds for agreement; as opposed to disagreement, and I tend to lean toward the judgment that conflicting philosophical viewpoints are either a result of misunderstandings in semantics, or forming dogmatic conclusions based on such ideas as for instance: God’s immutability. I both understand God as a Being who is immutable, in the sense that God’s Being remains even if all else were to be wiped out of existence; and yet mutable in the sense that God can think, act, and judge, and also, create new things not before thought of. In other words, God is immutable as a Being who is Eternally existent, but also a Being that can change with respect to creativity, and this capacity to create. There is in the book of Acts for instance as well; the passage that states something to the effect that “eye has not seen or ear heard the things that God has prepared for those that love Him;” thus God is a Supreme Being with the capacity to plan and prepare creation, which requires God to be a Being whose thoughts undergo change in that manner. A conflict arises however if one sees this immutability as something all-encompassing, by applying this immutability to God’s thoughts. The concept of immutability needs qualification, and some people fail to qualify what they mean by this, and fall in to the conflict of logically explaining their belief in a God that does not undergo change.

Excuse my long winded approach here; but it is just a minor reflection of a particular problem caused by one word: immutability. Thus, when a complete argument is put forth, if we are lost with respect to the importance of just one such word, the grounds for possible misunderstanding and further conflict is that much more with respect to any extended argument. This however remains to be seen with respect to the argument I’ll present. I’ll put forth the premise later, perhaps today.

 

[SoylentGreen]

SoylentGreen - As the acaused Lord of Eternity, God is the initiator/instigator/prime mover of ALL THINGS AND ALL NATURAL LAWS, except those of His own being and nature.

Without God all things are nought, and would remain nought, including, time, substance and dimensions.

Without ‘I AM’, we are ‘I am not’.

I happen to agree fully. There is nothing in the argument that I will post that contradicts what you’ve said. It only confirms what you’ve stated.

 

[SoylentGreen]

You question to much and pray to little.

All those grand statements you make are just that. If you quietly went to God with these questions, earnestly asked and quieted down and listened, I believe God would tell you the answers through divine inspiration. Pray for wisdom instead of knowledge. There is a big difference.

blessings to you.

Ever since I was a teenager, some 40 plus years ago, I’ve been asking for God’s guidance through concentrated prayer and meditation; and I believe God has opened my mind and made it possible for me to understand the answers to the questions for which I’ve sought rational solutions, through the use of pure reason. The questions I pose are outside the scope of science, as they are cosmological in nature. Science can only take us so far, but science points us in the right direction; that’s as much as we should hope and expect; but it is for metaphysicians to take this direction and unravel the solutions to the most persistent of cosmological problems. There may as one poster here has stated, be qualified solutions to these very questions that have not yet been assimilated into the thinking of the vast majority of philosophers; but my intention is to put forth another argument. If the argument is intended toward the end of providing a rational, philosophical a priori proof in the existence of a Supreme Being, I think this should be looked upon as a positive thing for theists. Naturally, skepticism is always there, and this skepticism can be positive, in that it can prevent one from simply accepting something without sufficient reason, or proof, whether a rational proof, or a concrete proof. What I will put forth in my argument is a rational proof, grounded on pure reason, but I will show where this proof corresponds with all that we can know from both our personal experience, as well as what we can know scientifically.

 

[catholictiger]

The same questions seem to be repeated continually, and these questions are grounded on the absence of any rational solutions to certain problems. The persistence of these questions suggests that all previous arguments (regardless of their source)I have fallen short of presenting answers to these problems. These problems are cosmological, not only theological in nature; and they are as follows:

How can one defend his/her belief in an ultimately original, unconditional, immaterial Being, also (I think very appropriately) defined as a Prime Mover, or First Cause?

How did God, as a Prime Mover, or First Cause, create a material universe from an immaterial essence, or out of what can be defined as ‘nothing,’ or otherwise, an ultimately simple (original) form? This is a legitimate philosophical/metaphysical problem that has not been resolved.

If God exists outside of space and time how can God relate to the universe conditioned by space, time?

Is God the originator of space-time?

Note: edited to save space for my post

one simple problem with your reasoning in this. Note: I see what your getting at and how it applies to the scientific reductionist, its a good effort. But here is my objection with your reasoning why we need a new argument. You get way to caught up in the word how. How did the prime mover cause something material out of the immaterial. that is a good question to ask but it misses what these arguments were originally designed for. Let me try and explain why the arguments (mostly surrounding arguments like STA 5 ways)

the logical structure of his argument is as follows

1. Clearly Valid Premise (Example we can see that many things are contingent)
2. What if all were like the above premise (Assumes everything is Contingent)
3. follows with an absurdity (if everything is contingent there would be a point where nothing would be, and if this is the case nothing can ever be.
4. posits there must be something different then the premise (there must be something that is necessary)
5. posits that this new definition (necessary first cause, unmoved mover) is what we all call God.

This has nothing do with how things went down. What he is arguing is that it is logically necessary that some being that is, uncaused, necessary, unmoved, etc. exists in order for us to exist. The things that must exist are what we consider God to be in Christianity. So it is very reasonable to believe in the God of Christianity or in a God in general.

one VERY important thing to note, this is something atheists try to trip us up on, no philosophical argument will ever be able to prove the existence of God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, and the Father of Jesus who is God. This is where faith comes in.

All we can do is prove to the non-believer that the belief in a higher power that is eternal can’t not exist, is the ultimate reason we all have existence, etc. I’ve always heard atheists say how do you know that this God you argued to is your God, no reason alone can ever tell us this. Only by faith can we know that the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, etc. is the God of Abraham.

So no need to posit a new argument use the ones that have worked for centuries. Those who aren’t convinced by it have to be shown how their way of thinking should be changed. You will never be able to prove to a scientific reductionist that God exists without showing that reducing everything to science is flawed.

enough of my rant.

 

[SoylentGreen]

I see matter as forms out of nothing. Materialists believe that matter exists in itself, has essence, and by chance there was a logical process that have produced us, complex structures; this logical process is necessary to be logical because we are rational beings.
If matter (then we) have no essence then is necessary an outward essence and cause of this universe. Quantum physics show the micro-universe as an universe of “miracles”; nothing like materialists imagined.

Scientists can explain what happens, but they are limited in that they cannot explain why what happens, happens. For instance, yes matter exists, but where did matter come from? They can explain the changes matter undergoes, but they cannot explain the underlying principle that causes matter to undergo change. If we toss the universal concept of time into this problem, which is exactly the problem here, then the question is: what is the underlying cause of this universal process of change?

This is a metaphysical question. It is metaphysical because it goes beyond the scope of any question answerable by the empirical means of science. For scientists to answer this question they would need to forgo science and become metaphysicians.

 

[catholictiger]

one more thing you look like a new poster welcome to the forums

 

[SoylentGreen]

one more thing you look like a new poster welcome to the forums

Thanks; yes, I’m only a couple of week here. Hope to stay for a while.

 

[catholictiger]

Thanks; yes, I’m only a couple of week here. While I am not Catholic, my wife happens to be, and I drive her to St. Anthony’s and St. Jude’s for mass. I find nothing in the Catholic faith objectionable; I respect the faith, as well as my wife’s dedication to the Church. We were glued to the television when the convened to elect the new Pope.

good to hear

but back to the topic at hand

 

[empther]

From Solvent Green’s post 9

I both understand God as a Being who is immutable, in the sense that God’s Being remains even if all else were to be wiped out of existence; and yet mutable in the sense that God can think, act, and judge, and also,

**** create new things not before thought of.**** :bigyikes: :crying: :ehh:

In other words, God is immutable as a Being who is Eternally existent, but also a Being that can change with respect to creativity, and this capacity to create.
There is in the book of Acts for instance as well; the passage that states something to the effect that “eye has not seen or ear heard the things that God has prepared for those that love Him;” thus God is a Supreme Being with the capacity to plan and prepare creation, which requires God to be a Being whose thoughts undergo change in that manner.
A conflict arises however if one sees this immutability as something all-encompassing, by applying this immutability to God’s thoughts. The concept of immutability needs qualification

Here’s the qualification: God’s immutability is absolute.

He is infinitely omniscient. In no way does he change his thoughts.

When God “thinks”, it is in the same sense that we think when we remember something or see something, but he does not think in the sense of working things out.

When God “judges”, he doesn’t do it in the sense of considering the facts and reaching a conclusion like a human jury. He knew the conclusion from eternity.

He cannot think of something previously not thought of because he already has all possible thoughts. and had them from eternity… Likewise, his creativity cannot change. What is going to change it? There is nothing that can change his creativity, or anything else that can be said of him… He is omnipotent.

And…
“eye has not seen or ear heard the things that God has prepared for those that love Him;”
… only applies to human beings who are finite but not to the infinite God.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

I happen to agree fully. There is nothing in the argument that I will post that contradicts what you’ve said. It only confirms what you’ve stated.

In one sentence the situation comes down to - God is OF EVERYTHING, directly or indirectly, and in everything directly or indirectly.

Without the essence and reality of God there can be no other essence or reality.

Evil is an expression of His fallable creations being given/allowed free will - this goes for the fallen Angels as well.

 

[empther]

From Solvent Green’s post 12

What I will put forth in my argument is a rational proof, grounded on pure reason, but I will show where this proof corresponds with all that we can know from both our personal experience, as well as what we can know scientifically.

We already have proof of God as the cause of the universe from pure reason based on what we can know scientifically.

Everything in the universe changes. Change requires time. There cannot be an infinite past. Therefore, God created the universe.

catholictiger. Help me out here.