The priniciple of Causality, Logic & Scientific Observation.

[MindOverMatter]

I have pin pointed some major discrepancies in the logic of some of the Atheist debaters on this forum. Some of the debaters i have identified as dogmatic Naturalists that would rather believe in anything but God so long as it conformed to a caricature of naturalism. I say caricature, because many of the arguments i see them make, severely contradicts their own philosophical positions. The fact of the matter is, they will never admit the existence of God on the basis of logical proof; and so i leave them in Gods hands. But that aside, this thread is not really for them, though i have no problem with them posting their ideas.

What i am really interested in is the other Atheists that would be interested in faith but are finding it difficult to understand why the proofs of Aquinas work, even in the light of modern science; especially the argument from change and motion.
Hopefully warp-speed-petey will join the debate and who ever else that is interested in defended Aquinas. That would be most appreciated.

On this thread in particular, i am not going to focus too much on Aquinas’s arguments; but rather i want to expose the glorious foundations of his genius proofs.

I am going to defend two major contentions.

1. **Out of nothing comes nothing.
   **
   It is logically impossible.
2. **Anything that begins to exist cannot be the cause of it’s self, or move from potency to act without a preceding cause. **

It is logically impossible

If you cannot refute these positions logically, then one is forced to admit logically that one must transcend physical reality altogether in order to find the ultimate cause.

Try not to stray from the two main arguments unless you absolutely have to.

Enjoy.

P.s, if you promise not to belittle our faith, i will try my best not to belittle yours.

 

[MegaTherion]

MindOverMatter claims to have put me on ignore. So for the benefit of other readers:

Out of nothing comes nothing.

That is interesting – the only idea about origins that actually posits “something came from nothing” is the religious creatio ex nihilo.

The explanation “God did it” asserts that something did come from nothing – by magic (i.e. by some mysterious process that we know nothing about).

It’s a non-explanation.

Meanwhile, the Big Bang theory does not posit the universe coming from nothing. The Big Bang is simply the expansion of the universe into its current state.

Anything that begins to exist cannot be the cause of it’s self, or move from potency to act without a preceding cause.

The problem is that we’re trying to discern what came before the Big Bang – and before Planck time (roughly the first ten seconds of the universe’s existence), we don’t know anything about what the natural “rules” or “laws” were. Until we have a theory of quantum gravity, it’s impossible to say anything for sure.

At any rate, I think it’s likely the “thing” which preceded the universe in its current form – quantum state or not, some natural thing – always existed.

We know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so there is a factual basis for saying that the universe (in some form) always existed.

What caused it to expand into its current form? We don’t know.

Have any evidence to suggest what it was? If you do, there’ll be a nobel prize waiting for you.

 

[reggieM]

That is interesting – the only idea about origins that actually posits “something came from nothing” is the religious creatio ex nihilo.

The explanation “God did it” asserts that something did come from nothing – by magic (i.e. by some mysterious process that we know nothing about).

God is not nothing but rather the source of all being. So, the term creatio ex nihilo is only referring to pre-existing matter. The creation of all things emerged from the mind and will of God. So again, the source is not nothing.

At any rate, I think it’s likely the “thing” which preceded the universe in its current form – quantum state or not, some natural thing – always existed.

What, precisely, is the likelihood you’re referring to here (“it’s likely”)? What is the percent probability that the something “always existed”? How did you calculate that?

An infinite set cannot “become” something, since it takes an infinite amount of time for it to become that thing. Nothing can be added to an infinite set for the same reason. A “thing” with no beginning has already reached the termination of it’s “completeness”. It cannot “suddenly one day” become a Big Bang, since there was an infinite amount of time before that “one day” happened and therefore that day never could appear. A “thing” that has existed for an infinite amount of time has already exhausted every possiblity for itself. One clear possiblity is that the “thing” ceased to exist. If that was a possiblity (no matter what the odds), then it already happened because in an infinite string, every possiblity must be realized (or else it is not a possibility). Thus, the “thing” would have already ceased to exist by now.

 

[The_Stig]

I’m impressed that we have an atheist consistent enough to follow his 19th century forebears and posit an eternal universe.

Of course, an eternal universe that undergoes an infinite series of expansions and contractions is no weirder and has less tangible proof than healings at Lourdes.

 

[MegaTherion]

What, precisely, is the likelihood you’re referring to here (“it’s likely”)? What is the percent probability that the something “always existed”? How did you calculate that?

I’m claiming that a quantum state existed, something that we know does exist.

I’m claiming matter always existed – something that we know exists and that, according to the first law of thermodynamics, cannot be created or destroyed.

In short, I am claiming that something existed of which we at least have observable examples. The other side of this debate is claiming that something existed of which no one has any observable examples.

The advantage, in any argument, is to the side that has evidence.

“Likely” simply means “more likely” than explanations that invoke things we don’t have evidence of.

An infinite set cannot “become” something, since it takes an infinite amount of time for it to become that thing.

I am not claiming that an infinite amount of time passed before the Big Bang.

Time is a property of the universe – a property of the expanding universe in its current form. Before the Big Bang, there was probably no time (and hence “Before the Big Bang” is a contradiction in terms…hard to wrap one’s mind around, but so is quantum mechanics in general).

I don’t assert that the quantum state out of which the universe arose was “infinite,” either. I don’t think we have enough information to say that.

 

[MegaTherion]

IOf course, an eternal universe that undergoes an infinite series of expansions and contractions is no weirder and has less tangible proof than healings at Lourdes.

Well, here’s the thing. I’m not coming out here claiming, “This is the origin of the universe, and I know it and am convinced of it.”

I didn’t say that. I also don’t accept it as absolutely true. I don’t think we have enough evidence to say much about the origins of the universe.

I’m responding to the claim that a god must exist because we know so little about the origins of the universe.

I’m merely pointing out that it is possible that the universe in some form always existed – and since that hypothesis does not rely on things we have no proof of (spirits and such), it is more likely than a hypothesis that relies on things we have no proof of (spirits and such).

I don’t think we have enough information to claim that universe went through multiple cycles of expanding and contracting (though it is possible).

I do know that just because we don’t know everything, that doesn’t make the “Magic Man Did It” answer any more likely.

 

[The_Stig]

Unless the Magic Man has been causing mathematically highly highly highly unlikely things to happen for billions of years, then it’s a simple leap to blame the universe on Him too.

Pure science insists on much more tenuous connections every day.

 

[Nebogipfel]

God is not nothing but rather the source of all being. So, the term creatio ex nihilo is only referring to pre-existing matter. The creation of all things emerged from the mind and will of God. So again, the source is not nothing.

Right. So where did God come from?

 

[Nebogipfel]

I think I would second most of what MegaTheron has already said, but I should expand on my oneliner above.

The OP’s two statements are that nothing comes from nothing and no existing thing can be the cause of its own existence.

That’s a reasonable position to hold, except why should it not also apply to God?

If God is by definition uncreated, why can’t the universe be “uncreated”? Or if God is “outside” the cosmos of time and space as we know them, why is it unreasonable to speak of quantum states or vacuum fluctuations being outside or “preceeding” time and space as we know them? (I’ve heard it said that asking what happened “before” the Big Bang is like asking what is south of the south pole).

The difference is that we have pretty strong objective evidence that quatum states and vacuum fluctuations actually exist, whereas no such evidence exists for an intelligent, cosmos-creating, self-aware agency.

Phenomena like radioactive decay and quantum tunelling would seem to imply that things can happen without a physical cause.

As far as the ontological argument is concerned - proving the actual existence of things on purely logical grounds is always going to be a bit like claiming that the Titanic was logically unsinkable, or that all swans must logically be white

Observed reality can make a mess of arguments based on pure logic, which is why, I think, MindOverMatter observes that people who reach the conclusion of atheism on the grounds of taking a sceptical, reason-based view of the world remain unconvinced by the arguments of Aquinas.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

MindOverMatter claims to have put me on ignore. So for the benefit of other readers:

That is interesting – the only idea about origins that actually posits “something came from nothing” is the religious creatio ex nihilo.

The explanation “God did it” asserts that something did come from nothing – by magic (i.e. by some mysterious process that we know nothing about).

It’s a non-explanation.

Aquinas, in light of the modern understanding of physics, which they did not have 800 years ago, may be interpreted as saying that ‘nothing physical can come from nothing’

leaving as the only possible first cause nothing except the non-physical.

in other words the only possible cause of the physical universe must necessarily be a non-physical cause.

id say that is an unassailable position, because we arent saying that something came from nothing, but rather that something, the universe, must necessarily come from a non-physical cause.

therefore something that does not act in accord with any of the principles of physics that all physical bodies normally obey, must be the cause of those physical bodies, because anything that acted according to the laws of physics, would necessarily be a physical body itself.

unless one can identify a physical body that is self creative, i think thats a good explanation.

Meanwhile, the Big Bang theory does not posit the universe coming from nothing. The Big Bang is simply the expansion of the universe into its current state.

The problem is that we’re trying to discern what came before the Big Bang – and before Planck time (roughly the first ten seconds of the universe’s existence), we don’t know anything about what the natural “rules” or “laws” were. Until we have a theory of quantum gravity, it’s impossible to say anything for sure.

first ‘planck time’ is the time it takes light to travel approximately this distance, in a vacuum 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 6 meters, or roughly 5.391 24(27) x 10-44 s. that is no where near ten seconds

second, we know that the math goes to infinite values around 1x10(-35) seconds after the beginning of the expansion. funny that we have been claiming that exact quality for G-d for thousands of years. though its not proof, its a heck of a coincidence.

furhter a quantum theory of gravity does not allow phhysical matter to be self creating, so why would it mattter in this?

At any rate, I think it’s likely the “thing” which preceded the universe in its current form – quantum state or not, some natural thing – always existed.

why would you think that the ‘thing’ that preceded the universe always existed? that violates all the laws of physics if that ‘thing’ is a physical body. if its not then a physical body, welcome to theism

We know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so there is a factual basis for saying that the universe (in some form) always existed.

we know of no physical process by which the laws of conservation may be denied, that said, we know that the first cause must necesarily be non-physical in nature

therefore the laws of conservation, which apply to physical bodies, are irrelevant to the creation of the universe.

Have any evidence to suggest what it was? If you do, there’ll be a nobel prize waiting for you.

im just waiting on the nomination!

 

[1holycatholic]

I think I would second most of what MegaTheron has already said, but I should expand on my oneliner above.

The OP’s two statements are that nothing comes from nothing and no existing thing can be the cause of its own existence.

That’s a reasonable position to hold, except why should it not also apply to God?

It seems like you’re parroting John Allen Paulos’’ regurgitation of Bertrand Russell’s butchery of the argument from causality.

“Either everything has a cause, or there’s something that doesn’t,”

Hume, Russell, Paulos (and others) have uncritically perpetuated this straw man. No credible metaphysician has ever articulated the argument from causality that way. It violates the principle of sufficient reason (not to be confused with the rationalist principle of sufficient reason).

W. Norris Clarke writes:

• *]Every being must have a sufficient reason (i.e. the adequate grounding of its intelligibility) for its own real existence), either (1) in itself, or (2) in another. Otherwise it would be totally unintelligible, which is radically meaningless, not acceptable as an explanation for our real world.
  *]But if (1), then its existence is self-sufficient or self-explanatory, and no further questions need to be asked. If (2), then it must have sufficient reason in another, something else in the order of real being. This sufficient reason in another is called its efficient cause, i.e., that which is responsible by its action for the real existence of another (either in whole or in part). Since such a cause must be “outside” the being whose existence it explains, it is called the extrinsic cause of the latter.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

An infinite set cannot “become” something, since it takes an infinite amount of time for it to become that thing. Nothing can be added to an infinite set for the same reason. A “thing” with no beginning has already reached the termination of it’s “completeness”. It cannot “suddenly one day” become a Big Bang, since there was an infinite amount of time before that “one day” happened and therefore that day never could appear. A “thing” that has existed for an infinite amount of time has already exhausted every possiblity for itself. One clear possiblity is that the “thing” ceased to exist. If that was a possiblity (no matter what the odds), then it already happened because in an infinite string, every possiblity must be realized (or else it is not a possibility). Thus, the “thing” would have already ceased to exist by now.

if you dont mind reggie i like the way this is argued, and i plan to steal it

 

[reggieM]

if you dont mind reggie i like the way this is argued, and i plan to steal it

I’m glad you can use it. I actually borrowed some of that from one of your posts so I owe it back to you. The other part I got from a medieval logician whose opponents found it irrefutable back then – and I think it still is now.

 

[cerad]

warpspeed:

therefore something that does not act in accord with any of the principles of physics that all physical bodies normally obey, must be the cause of those physical bodies, because anything that acted according to the laws of physics, would necessarily be a physical body itself.

So you are endorsing M-Theory? The notion that other universes exists and that they in turn may create additional universes? Or are you talking about how black holes might be the source of additional universes?

 

[reggieM]

If God is by definition uncreated, why can’t the universe be “uncreated”? Or if God is “outside” the cosmos of time and space as we know them, why is it unreasonable to speak of quantum states or vacuum fluctuations being outside or “preceeding” time and space as we know them?

warpspeedpetey answered this already by explaining the difference between the physical nature of the universe and the non-physical nature of God.

If the proposal is that the universe is non-physical, infinite, existing outside of time and possessing radically different properties than the known universe possesses, then as mentioned, this is an argument for the existence of God.

(I’ve heard it said that asking what happened “before” the Big Bang is like asking what is south of the south pole).

I think your position is built on faith in something incomprehensible. We cannot speak of “scientific evidence” regarding “things” that are outside of time and beyond scientific measurement.

The difference is that we have pretty strong objective evidence that quatum states and vacuum fluctuations actually exist, whereas no such evidence exists for an intelligent, cosmos-creating, self-aware agency.

We have evidence that self-aware, creative, intelligence exists. We can see aspects of the universe that are analogous to what we know can only be created by intelligence. The act of creation - bringing something (prime matter) out of nothing - requires a decision or act of will. The same is true in the creation of natural laws. We see natural laws that exist and this is evidence that there is a law-maker.

Observed reality can make a mess of arguments based on pure logic, which is why, I think, MindOverMatter observes that people who reach the conclusion of atheism on the grounds of taking a sceptical, reason-based view of the world remain unconvinced by the arguments of Aquinas.

That could be the reason why people reach the conclusion of atheism, but personally I think it has more to do with false assumptions and lack of self-evalution.

Scepticism and a “reason-based view” should first be applied to oneself. Why does a person accept that “reason” is the only, or even most-correct means one can use to correctly understand the universe? This cannot be proven by science and it is an assumption. Beyond that, if scepticism is applied to one’s own views, one should see that human reason is incapable of doing many things. Even the capabilities of human reason cannot be explained by natural, evolutionary processes.

Just as pure logic is not an adequate tool for understanding all of reality, so also human reason has definite limits. The claims that human reason is capable of understanding the nature and origin of the universe, given that human reason supposedly is the product of natural laws and that the pre-Big Bang universe is outside of the laws of nature, should be met with scepticism but very often is not. Instead a conclusion of atheism is reached based on the findings of reason which are accepted by faith (without scepticism).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m claiming that a quantum state existed, something that we know does exist.

rather than the loose use of ‘quantum state’ i assume you mean a quantum system, as in the physical particles that constitute the larger particles such as muons, neutrons, atoms, etc.

or you mean the mathematical possibility of their sudden appearance in a vacuum. as in virtual particles

either way that is simply presupposing the existence of something with no cause either the physical bodies themselves, or a scalar field from which they may appear.

same argument, different words

I’m claiming matter always existed – something that we know exists and that, according to the first law of thermodynamics, cannot be created or destroyed.

as reggie said, matter always existing is a problem

1. an infinite number of days would pass before the BB, so you could never reach that event.
2. something always existing would exhaust all iyts possibilities including the possibility it ceased to exist.

3 we see the creation of matter in the BB. we have an observable phenomenon of the creation of matter. hydrogen didnt just blow out of some singularity. you probably mean the *conservation of energy *

In short, I am claiming that something existed of which we at least have observable examples.

so you have an observable example of matter which has always existed? neat trick that.

The other side of this debate is claiming that something existed of which no one has any observable examples

.

no, we are claiming that, as matter cannot cause itself, it must necessarily have a non-physical first cause

The advantage, in any argument, is to the side that has evidence.

as there is evidence of the creation of matter is in the BB, i suppose that the idea of ‘matter always existing’ is not really evidentially supported. yet we got there long before the observation of an expanding universe, by logic.

evidence is only good in the interpretation.

I am not claiming that an infinite amount of time passed before the Big Bang.

but thats exactly what ‘matter always existing’ means.

you cant say that without invoking time. if your argument for always existing matter were true than the BB is only a change in formation, not in substance, time should be as valid pre BB as post BB. unless you can think of a reason time should suddenly start at the BB but matter did not.

 

[cerad]

reggieM:

Just as pure logic is not an adequate tool for understanding all of reality, so also human reason has definite limits. The claims that human reason is capable of understanding the nature and origin of the universe, given that human reason supposedly is the product of natural laws and that the pre-Big Bang universe is outside of the laws of nature, should be met with scepticism but very often is not. Instead a conclusion of atheism is reached based on the findings of reason which are accepted by faith (without scepticism).

I think you will find that most atheists are squarely in the “don’t know but lots of people are working on it” category. You would think that by now people would have realized the futility of the God of the Gap approach to science.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, here’s the thing. I’m not coming out here claiming, “This is the origin of the universe, and I know it and am convinced of it.”

I didn’t say that. I also don’t accept it as absolutely true. I don’t think we have enough evidence to say much about the origins of the universe.

I’m responding to the claim that a god must exist because we know so little about the origins of the universe.

God of the gaps is not the claim.

since matter is not able to self create, we know that a non-physical first cause *must necessarily *exist.

the claim is actually that we know there is a G-d because the universe exists.

I’m merely pointing out that it is possible that the universe in some form always existed –

except its not possible, its even opposed to the observational evidence of the BB.

1. you cant get there from here timewise.
2. something always existing exhausts all possibilities, including its ceasing to exist.
3. the evidence of the BB shows it to be false. hydrogen doesnt just pop out of nowhere

that idea is just an attempt to circumvent the need for a cause, yet, in this physical universe the nature of every single physical body with in it is to need a cause.

why should the whole of the system be immune from the laws that its parts are?

I don’t think we have enough information to claim that universe went through multiple cycles of expanding and contracting (though it is possible).

are you now proposing perpetual motion? last i knew that absolutely was not possible.

I do know that just because we don’t know everything, that doesn’t make the “Magic Man Did It” answer any more likely.

you can denigrate theism by applying such labels as magic. yet the basic logic that physical matter cannot cause itself necessitating a non-physical cause, holds true.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Right. So where did God come from?

G-d, being non-physical, is not subject to the laws of physics and causality as we know them.

asking where G-d came from pre-supposes that G-d needs a cause like physical matter needs a cause.

there is no reason to make these presuppositions, in fact if G-d were subject to these physical laws than we should expect that He be physical and therefore incapable of being the first cause.

therefore G-d cannot be subject to these presuppositions, and be first cause.

so unless we have some empirical evidence of the physical nature of G-d, i.e. you see Him at the mall.

asking from where G-d comes is meaningless

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think I would second most of what MegaTheron has already said, but I should expand on my oneliner above.

The OP’s two statements are that nothing comes from nothing and no existing thing can be the cause of its own existence.

That’s a reasonable position to hold, except why should it not also apply to God?

as above, He could not be subject to physical laws and still be first cause.

If God is by definition uncreated, why can’t the universe be “uncreated”?

because nothing physical can create itself. G-d is the non-physical first cause to the observable physical universe.

Or if God is “outside” the cosmos of time and space as we know them, why is it unreasonable to speak of quantum states or vacuum fluctuations being outside or “preceeding” time and space as we know them? (I’ve heard it said that asking what happened “before” the Big Bang is like asking what is south of the south pole).

because those quantum systems and vacuum, are physical things, quantum as in physical bodies, and vacuum as in a ‘space’ empty of objects, and as such are incapable of self creation.

they too would need a non-physical cause in order to exist.

The difference is that we have pretty strong objective evidence that quatum states and vacuum fluctuations actually exist, whereas no such evidence exists for an intelligent, cosmos-creating, self-aware agency.

actually you dont have any evidence of these things, in fact the very nature of virtual particles eliminate the possiblity of their observation. even hawking admits the lack of evidence.

Phenomena like radioactive decay and quantum tunelling would seem to imply that things can happen without a physical cause.

dont confuse, we dont understand the mechanism with actual randomness. thats just ‘science of the gaps’

As far as the ontological argument is concerned - proving the actual existence of things on purely logical grounds is always going to be a bit like claiming that the Titanic was logically unsinkable, or that all swans must logically be white

any logic that said the titanic was unsinkable or that all swans are white is easily dismissed as using qualities that are not necessary

its bad reasoning, or stinkin’ thinkin’

Observed reality can make a mess of arguments based on pure logic, which is why, I think, MindOverMatter observes that people who reach the conclusion of atheism on the grounds of taking a sceptical, reason-based view of the world remain unconvinced by the arguments of Aquinas.

pure logic and observed reality never disagree, if they do the fault is usually in the interpretation of the fobservationall evidence, not in the mathematics of logic. or at least thats my opinion.

frankly the excuses for atheism are easily refuted.

thats why we dont understand the resistance from people who claim to be rationalists.

we are rationalists and we belive in G-d because that is where the evidence leads.