What is your favorite proof for God?

[greylorn]

I, for one, would appreciate your concise definition of a singularity as opposed to what the TV offers. Assuming the big bang is correct, then would the point where it all started be this singularity?

It almost sounds like equating this singularity to God and asking how something immaterial became material to bring about all this energy (which I’ll assume must have existed on its own from the very beginning because it can’t be created).

That’s why I ask for clarification on the matter (no pun intended).

Instead of “concise,” I’m going for an explanation which any readers will understand. My concise explanations have a way of zinging over people’s heads.

A singularity is a mathematical statement which, when reduced, turns out to equal infinity. The most obvious example is: x/0 (any number divided by zero). Another example is the tangent of 90 degrees.

Physics students who write equations on exams which reduce to a singularity, get an F. When a singularity appears in an equation which attempts to describe a physical phenomenon, it means that the description is incorrect, or useless. However, this only applies to students of physics.

After one gets a Ph.D. in physics, one is allowed to write goofy equations which cannot be solved without producing infinity as a result. Since there is no one with enough authority to correct the tenured nits who do this, they get away with it.

Unfortunately, in order to conceal their incompetence (if it were ignorance, they could simply admit it) they extend the silliness, and make the claim that because their (incorrect) mathematical description leads to a singularity, the thing they are describing actually is a singularity.

That is how the notion of a “physical singularity” came into being. Of course, there is no such thing. Nevermind what Stephen Hawking says. There is no singularity at the center of a black hole. There is only a singularity when his mathematical descriptions of a black hole are applied to conditions at its center.

Here is a simpler example. Years ago I was given the job of getting a tiny computer to control a telescope automatically. This required solving pointing equations, just basic trigonometry. All worked fine, except that when the telescope was pointed directly overhead, perfectly vertical, the pointing equations blew up— meaning, their solution went to infinity.

Now any idiot could figure out that this did not mean that a vertical position could not be achieved. Therefore I did not walk into my boss’s office and declare that I’d just discovered a physical singularity. Instead, I used software tricks to work around the problem.

Physics has gotten increasingly dogmatic over the course of my lifetime, perhaps because its exposure on documentary channels has produced TV gurus, who, like any gurus, need to be always right. Were Hawking to honestly declare, “Since my equations reduce to a singularity at the center of a black hole, and we know that such things do not exist, I must rethink my math, or even more troublesome, my understanding of physics.”

That would be as likely as our president declaring that his economic policies are certain to bankrupt the nation.

Clearly, the Big Bang is not correct, because its precursor, the tiny micropea containing all the mass-energy in our universe, would have to be a physical singularity, which cannot exist. Therefore I’ll not presume that the Big Bang is a correct explanation for the beginnings of things.

Re: your second point. Given these considerations, I think that it would be really stupid to declare that God is a singularity. Religions have already done the equivalent by declaring Him to be a spirit, non-physical, and outside the constraints of logic or physical law. Why replace a bad idea with a worse one?

There is a perfectly valid description of the physics of God, derived from simple classical physics using common logic. No, it would not be appropriate to try to explain this on CAF without permission. I’m not ready to request that.

 

[greylorn]

Arguing physics with an amateur philosopher is as much fun as waltzing with someone in a wheelchair, so I’m just going to let your preliminary rants blow on past, like a gust of hydrogen sulfide.

It might be worth your noting that there is nothing wrong with not having a physics degree and experience in science. When I find myself educationally short on a subject of interest, rather than belittle those who have such an education, I learn from them.

Only after I learn what they have to say do I feel qualified to criticize them.

A few subsequent comments warrant a reply.

MindOverMatter2:

The soul is certainly experienced. But it is not empirically detectable; it is not a physical dimension that can be measured. It is assumed to exist based upon pre-scientific knowledge.

If the soul serves any function in the life of a human being, it must have a relationship to the human brain. Soul must be able to share what the brain is seeing and hearing, and extrapolate this information into thought. (If the soul cannot think, what good is it?)

Moreover, the soul must be able to control the brain, unless you want to believe that it is simply along for the ride and takes no part or responsibility in human actions.

Now, here comes the big surprise. The brain is physical! Anything which interacts with some component of the physical universe is, by definition, physical.

The soul is detected quite well by the physical brain. That is suitable empirical detection.
That we do not have exotic electromagnetic devices which are capable of its detection only means that we haven’t figured out such things yet.

People like you, whose religion-programmed minds live in the dark ages, are the cause of this failure, the warts on the posterior of progress in moving “spiritual” concepts into the world of physics.

The word physical is not synonymous with material, although dictionaries reflect this incorrect opinion. Only a small percentage of our universe is composed of matter. Other forms of energy comprise the rest of it.

No. God is not by definition physical, since God is not empirically detectable. God has no dimension; at least not the God that I believe in. The God you’re are talking about is not in my view God. It is just a physical being among other physical beings that just so happens to exist and chooses to manipulate physical things which already existed. It behaves according to physical processes and laws. Perhaps it is a very powerful being. But that is not what defines God in my view. Your so called God is not the cause of all potentially dimensional reality; it is not the root of all qualities, and it is not at all clear why such a being should necessarily exist. There is no scientific or logical reason to think that your God need exist.

You do not know squat about my God-concept, and are as qualified to express your opinions about it as your opinions about physics. Sorry. But the qualifications are attainable.

Also, I think that perhaps your God, as a quantifiable God with a definite physical dimension, is extremely vulnerable to Dawkins attack, his argument being that such a God, according to the laws of physics, would be far too complex to exist of its own accord and would require a simpler cause, given that intelligence is associated with physical complexity. Your argument would amount to an extremely complex physical being which has no reason for its own complexity. What say ye?

Au contraire! Dawkins does not understand my God concept (or much else) either. If he actually made the comment you mention, good! Then I have him by the short hairs.

My God has an extremely simple cause. At his inception, he was unaware of his existence and had yet to experience a “thought.”

And as for metaphysics, I still think, if you are truly interested, that you should go to the library and find a book. Also get a hold of Edward fessers book (A Beginners Guide to Aquinas). but I don’t think you are interested.

You are correct that I am not. I’ve read some Aquinas.

I learned many years ago to quit a book after discovering any of the following:

1. Two factual errors in the initial chapters.
2. Obfuscating verbiage.
3. Unjustified assumptions, or assumptions based upon belief, in a book which is supposedly relevant to real life.
4. Any logical error in the construction of an argument.
5. Using terms which are not properly defined.

I did not read very much Aquinas because he is guilty on all counts.

In any case, I do not read “beginner’s” books or “Idiot guides” to a serious subject. When it came time to learn about Darwinism, I read Darwin. When I finally decided at age 21 that it was time to learn what my religion was really all about, I read the Bible.

 

[JohnDamian]

greylorn:

For the benefit of other readers, and to gain even a little clarity in your own mind, list some of the “absolute metaphysical laws” to which you so knowingly allude.

Law of Noncontradiction; see Avicenna: Metaphysics 11-105

greylorn:

Because the human brain is physical, if it harbors a “soul,” that soul is, by definition, physical.

Only if the soul inheres within as a species to a genus; or a particular to a species. This is not claimed by competent Philosophers; see Duns Scotus: De Spiritualitate Et immortalitate Animae Humanae 1-3.

greylorn:

Likewise, atoms are physical. If God can create atoms and organize them into a universe, God, by definition, is physical.

There is no causal necessity elicited in such an act; as to a higher the genus of physical objects is differentiated; insofar as all that is required for the construction of the posterior is the capacity; which must not by necessity be encapsulated in the totality of the prior; see William of Ockham; Quaestiones in Lib. I Physicorum, Q. cxxxv.

greylorn:

I suspect that the real reason for your refusal to enlighten me is either that you’ve never read a metaphysics book that you would admit to reading, for fear of being regarded as a nitwit, or that you’ve never read any metaphysical book.

The lack of your opponent having read any books is irrelevant; especially as you have only read “about thirty or forty”, which is less than one would expect from one year of study.

greylorn:

Clearly, the Big Bang is not correct, because its precursor, the tiny micropea containing all the mass-energy in our universe, would have to be a physical singularity, which cannot exist. Therefore I’ll not presume that the Big Bang is a correct explanation for the beginnings of things.

Why?

greylorn:

I did not read very much Aquinas because he is guilty on all counts.

Theology is posterior to Philosophy, see Peter Damian; De Divina Omnipotenta

Of course there is assumptions in it.

greylorn:

Now, here comes the big surprise. The brain is physical! Anything which interacts with some component of the physical universe is, by definition, physical.

Incorrect. A object which interracts with another object only needs to have correlative causation; in as much as the causative effect of one object can extend to the next. Assuming physical commonality for physical interaction would be wrong.

See; Mayron; Conclusiones Conciliantes 1. For a further discussion on essences and generation; and more particularily see Maimonides; Dux Neutronum; also Avempace De Anima; and also Proclus Platonic Theology.

With the utmost charity; prayhaps these following two are connected:;

]
2. Obfuscating verbiage.

and

]
I do not read “beginner’s” books or “Idiot guides” to a serious subject.

]
There is a perfectly valid description of the physics of God, derived from simple classical physics using common logic. No, it would not be appropriate to try to explain this on CAF without permission. I’m not ready to request that.

If you would be so kind as to indulge me; that would be spiffing.

 

[Liraco]

There is a perfectly valid description of the physics of God, derived from simple classical physics using common logic. No, it would not be appropriate to try to explain this on CAF without permission. I’m not ready to request that.

I wonder why permission is required to describe the physics of God? Because it’s controversial, because it’d be a really long post, or something else?

Thank you for the description of a singularity which to me was concise and informative. It wasn’t a long rant that tries to make a point and then forgets what it was trying to say half way through.

Also, lol: “Au contraire! Dawkins does not understand my God concept (or much else) either.”

I am curious that you mention that your “god has a simple cause”. Because then one would ask about the cause of the previous cause. In other words, if God isn’t the uncaused Cause, does it all just go into an infinite loop of causes?

I second knowing your description if it were possible, and thank you for your time.

 

[greylorn]

Law of Noncontradiction; see Avicenna: Metaphysics 11-105

Only if the soul inheres within as a species to a genus; or a particular to a species. This is not claimed by competent Philosophers; see Duns Scotus: De Spiritualitate Et immortalitate Animae Humanae 1-3.

There is no causal necessity elicited in such an act; as to a higher the genus of physical objects is differentiated; insofar as all that is required for the construction of the posterior is the capacity; which must not by necessity be encapsulated in the totality of the prior; see William of Ockham; Quaestiones in Lib. I Physicorum, Q. cxxxv.

The lack of your opponent having read any books is irrelevant; especially as you have only read “about thirty or forty”, which is less than one would expect from one year of study.

Why?

Theology is posterior to Philosophy, see Peter Damian; De Divina Omnipotenta

Of course there is assumptions in it.

Incorrect. A object which interracts with another object only needs to have correlative causation; in as much as the causative effect of one object can extend to the next. Assuming physical commonality for physical interaction would be wrong.

See; Mayron; Conclusiones Conciliantes 1. For a further discussion on essences and generation; and more particularily see Maimonides; Dux Neutronum; also Avempace De Anima; and also Proclus Platonic Theology.

With the utmost charity; prayhaps these following two are connected:;

and

If you would be so kind as to indulge me; that would be spiffing.

Didn’t you mean, “spiffy?”

JD,
I’m surprised that you insinuated yourself into this conversation, because as I recall, our previous attempts at discourse were not profitable. The best I can do here is explain why.

My purpose on CAF can only be served by straight-up conversations. I’ve been guilty of some obfuscative remarks, but always in the context of a quid pro quo. Other than that I do not know Latin. Taking French in high school was a big mistake, and in college, Russian seemed potentially more useful. So throwing around Latin terms may impress some people, but all it says to me is that you are uninterested in an honest conversation.

So, since that is the only kind of conversation in which I am interested, let’s not have any conversation. Deal?

 

[greylorn]

I wonder why permission is required to describe the physics of God? Because it’s controversial, because it’d be a really long post, or something else?

All of the above. The “something else” is respect for the intent and focus of this forum. I am a guest here.

Thank you for the description of a singularity which to me was concise and informative. It wasn’t a long rant that tries to make a point and then forgets what it was trying to say half way through.

I needed that. Thank you. Should I ever fail in that respect, I’d welcome hearing about it from you, first.

Also, lol: “Au contraire! Dawkins does not understand my God concept (or much else) either.”

And I appreciate correspondents with a sense of humor.

I am curious that you mention that your “god has a simple cause”. Because then one would ask about the cause of the previous cause. In other words, if God isn’t the uncaused Cause, does it all just go into an infinite loop of causes?

This is a question I’ve discussed, pondered, argued, whined about and cried over. Out of it, all I can say is that I would kill to know the answer to your question. Seriously, although I do not believe it can come that way.

I believe (with Dawkins, purely by accident) that complex entities are the consequence of simpler things. The traditional God is a highly complex entity, as is the mystical precursor to the Big Bang. IMO both are too complex to have existed without some cause.

Because the Big Bang is an absurd concept which makes neither logical nor mathematical sense (fudge factors are required to make it work as an explanation for the known universe), I have rejected it as a rational explanation for the beginning. Its precursor cannot be defined, which suggests that it cannot have existed.

The God concept is more interesting, particularly since the evidence that biological life is the consequence of intelligent engineering has been hitting scientists over the head since the invention of the microscope. However, the God concept as defined by conventional religions is logically unworkable. So, I’ve thrown out the unworkable parts, and built some ideas upon the residue.

As defined, God is what a physicist might say is an “Entropy Zero” entity. He contains all possible knowledge and has the power to create a highly ordered universe which begins its existence very close to entropy zero, and in the process of producing stars, planets, and life forms, reaches entropy one— whereupon it stops doing anything.

By way of analogy, consider winding an old-fashioned watch to the maximum compression of its spring. That puts the watch at entropy zero. As it winds down, doing its job of ticking off increments of time, it approaches entropy one. If it is allowed to reach entropy one, it stops ticking.

Our observations of the universe are those of a ticking watch. The Big Bang concept is simply an attempt to define a scientifically acceptable “entropy zero” entity, a different version of God.

Now, to the point. Entropy Zero entities are inherently complex. Hypothesizing the pre-existence of such an entity is a very long stretch of logical possibility. (Note that the fundamental axioms of geometry and mathematics are extremely simple.) To resolve this problem, I’ve devised a way in which the existence of a complex entity (in effect, God) can arise from a simple Entropy One substance.

I cannot explain the existence of such a substance. However, if it truly existed at Entropy One, it may be logically impossible to explain its existence.

I’m thinking as I write (thank you for the excellent question) so this may need some clarification. When philosophers consider the origin of God, they are considering the origin of a complex entity. If God has an origin, His cause would seem to be (to most philosophers) to be an even more complex entity. Thus the etc, etc. which you’ve questioned arises, because we can always imagine a more complex or “more better” entity than the previous one.

However, if things (including God) arose from a substance which is completely, absolutely simple, it is not possible to invent something more simple from which an absolutely simple substance might arise. That, by itself, might stop the “etc. etc.” considerations.

What do you think?

I second knowing your description if it were possible, and thank you for your time.

I’m close to finishing a book which describes these ideas in a better context. A PM with a contact address will insure that you are apprised of its publication date. It’s been slowed down by a few days, since I must find a way to put the thoughts coming out of this conversation into it.

Thank you for honest and provocative questions.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

All of the above. The “something else” is respect for the intent and focus of this forum. I am a guest here.

You won’t explain it, because as soon as you do, it will fall apart.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Because the Big Bang is an absurd concept which makes neither logical

What’s the “Logical” problem exactly? What? It undermines physical explanations for the universe? That’s not a logical problem. Its a problem for anybody who believes that physical law is necessarily absolute and universal. But that’s just something you like to believe in, which is hypocritically dogmatic in itself. Its not science.

 

[Liraco]

When philosophers consider the origin of God, they are considering the origin of a complex entity. If God has an origin, His cause would seem to be (to most philosophers) to be an even more complex entity. Thus the etc, etc. which you’ve questioned arises, because we can always imagine a more complex or “more better” entity than the previous one.

However, if things (including God) arose from a substance which is completely, absolutely simple, it is not possible to invent something more simple from which an absolutely simple substance might arise. That, by itself, might stop the “etc. etc.” considerations.

What do you think?

Thank you for honest and provocative questions.

Glad you got something out of what seemed like a simple question, all the best with that book.

I find it interesting that we’re not so much discussing whether there is a God (you acknowledge the evident design in nature that “bright minds” like Dawkins don’t see), but rather we’re discussing His nature.

From your definitions I took that “God” is in essence a creature too because of complexity with a simpler something, the true uncaused cause, being the origin of this god and therefore everything else; unless I read you wrong.

To me, though God may well be complex in a way, He is not an “entity” in the sense of a being, a creature, something that has its cause elsewhere, He has no origin because He is the origin. His essence is this “simple” thing because He just is.

I believe, as the Church teaches, that God is being itself (“I am”) and that everything has its ultimate cause in Him. I won’t pretend to sound smart and paraphrase from someone much smarter than I.

If we can define God, then He is the first cause or uncaused cause, something that causes other things but is not itself caused. The creator, not the creature. If there is no first cause there can’t be second causes, they operate only if they’re caused by a first cause.
(There’s also the interesting contingency argument that follow after the argument of first cause that starts at 16:19, but this much is relevant to the discussion).

I think we’re at least agreeing that it’s illogical to accept the “infinite loop”, or the “etc etc” as you put it, and agree for the need of a beginning. That’s the first cause or the absolutely simple substance you propose.

As we read in God’s own words, He is. The alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. I don’t think of God’s origin because in my mind He is the origin, the “simpler something” at the beginning of it all. Anything less is not truly God, they are creatures, caused causes, dominoes falling which followed back will eventually point to the origin. So if I follow you correctly, what you think of as god (the complex entity) is a creature, but then the simplest substance would be by definition the true God.

If God is truly being itself, infinite with no beginning or end, then we can understand aspects of God but we have less chance of fully understanding a single aspect fully than the little boy trying to pour all the ocean into a little hole he made by the sea. (If you don’t know the reference, I can get that for you). You can’t fit infinity into a finite mind, so I accept the fact that I can’t know it all but strive to understand all which I can.

Perhaps what it all boils down to is whether we can agree or not on God being the first cause, the “simplest thing” despite all the apparent complexity. If not, what is the nature of this “simpler thing” that created god? And then, wouldn’t that be god because by definition God is the creator?

I apologize if this is overly wordy, repetitive or convoluted, I was sitting on this at work for quite a while trying to make at least some sense, but sometimes I lose track of what I write so it may be a bit disjointed. I’m no scientist but one does what one can.

And I appreciate correspondents with a sense of humor.

Funny is funny.

---

@MindOverMatter: I think he said he doesn’t see the big bang as a sufficient explanation because scientists need a “fudge factor” to make it all work out properly. He deems it illogical so he discards it.

Good proof however that no matter how much we think we know there’s even more we still don’t.

 

[Geremia]

I am actually going to change my answer to the 3rd of St. Thomas’s Five Ways because it is most applicable to those with a scientific/logical/mathematical mindset. (It doesn’t rely on final causality, and mathematics also doesn’t study final causes.)

 

[MindOverMatter2]

---

@MindOverMatter: I think he said he doesn’t see the big bang as a sufficient explanation because scientists need a “fudge factor” to make it all work out properly. He deems it illogical so he discards it.

What is this supposed fudge factor exactly?

 

[greylorn]

You won’t explain it, because as soon as you do, it will fall apart.

This may sound strange, but I would prefer that my theories are wrong, and that atheism is correct. It would mean that upon my death, I’m really dead, gone, and never to return to consciousness either within or without a body. Alas, atheism ignores too much evidence and cannot be correct.

It would not be fine with me if Catholicism turned out to be correct. Hell seems an unpleasant place to spend an eternity, for having figured things out for myself and gotten them all wrong.

Actually, the explanation which you predict will not be forthcoming, is nearly complete. Quite a few people, including several good minds from CAF, have already reviewed my book on its test platform, a website. They have been kind enough to point out a few technical flaws (since corrected), but judging from their comments, the overall logic hangs together well enough to give atheists, agnostics, doubters, and Catholics something worth their consideration.

I do hope that you too will read it. When it is published, I will request this forum’s permission to establish some kind of study group based upon it. If this is allowed, I hope you will join the fray. My point in this work is not to prove myself right, but to engage a wide ranging conversation which culminates in the demolishment of atheism as a viable belief system, and a true understanding of the forces and minds behind creation.

Thanks for your encouragement.

 

[greylorn]

What’s the “Logical” problem exactly? What? It undermines physical explanations for the universe? That’s not a logical problem. Its a problem for anybody who believes that physical law is necessarily absolute and universal. But that’s just something you like to believe in, which is hypocritically dogmatic in itself. Its not science.

In order for the big bang to occur, there had to be something physical which went poof.

Cosmology has found it impossible to define or model this thing, and have recently resorted to calling it a “physical singularity.” There are no such things.

Is that illogical enough for you?

 

[JohnDamian]

My point in this work is not to prove myself right, but to engage a wide ranging conversation which culminates in the demolishment of atheism as a viable belief system, and a true understanding of the forces and minds behind creation.

That is certainly an adventurous endevour. I hope you meet success in it. It would moreover be nice if CAF were to allow such a study group; for your claim certainly warrents investigation; might I ask what particular school/s of thought you are using to study the first principle/s?

 

[greylorn]

What is this supposed fudge factor exactly?

Around 2000 a couple of extraordinarily talented astrophysicists developed a mathematical model for the Big Bang. However, although it was regarded as theoretically sound, it did not work. To make it work, it was necessary to hypothesize a temporary change in the speed of light (c) during the first picoseconds after initiation, then change it back to its current value some seconds afterward. (Sorry, I do not recall the timing or the altered c value.)

Since the speed of light is a constant as revered in physics as the omnipotence of God is revered by the Church, they found another way to slip in into their theory sideways. The approved concept is now called inflation. It simply translates the effect of the change in c into a temporary increase in the rate of expansion. Matter is still limited by c, you see, but if c increases, matter can move faster.

These very bright people did not come up with a cause for the change in c, other than that their equations would not produce valid results without it.

We do this kind of thing, introduce fudge factors, all the time in science. Every engineer in NASA and rocket-based or large-cannon weapons design knows that Newton’s laws are just the first approximation of what happens when you light one of those machines up, because solving motion equations for the third derivative of space (first derivative of acceleration) is such an ugly problem.

Fudge factors are perfectly legitimate in engineering, because they are always tested. Introducing them into theoretical models which cannot possibly by tested is really stinky science.

I’m curious why you complain so vehemently about my ideas regarding physics and cosmology. The Big Bang theory is a nearly identical replacement for the God concept, lacking only intelligence. Why would a Catholic favor it? Have you gotten the notion that your purpose in life is just to be ornery?

 

[greylorn]

Glad you got something out of what seemed like a simple question, all the best with that book.

Reply 1 of 2

It was a simple, but good question. The answer is simpler from my perspective than yours, so I was trying to translate. Overdone, perhaps.

I find it interesting that we’re not so much discussing whether there is a God (you acknowledge the evident design in nature that “bright minds” like Dawkins don’t see), but rather we’re discussing His nature.

I find it interesting to find someone on CAF who recognizes what I’m talking about, and is perhaps willing to engage a serious discussion of what exactly are the properties of God.

From your definitions I took that “God” is in essence a creature too because of complexity with a simpler something, the true uncaused cause, being the origin of this god and therefore everything else; unless I read you wrong.

I do not regard God as a creature, although my theories require that he has an Origin. The term “creature” implies a product of intelligence. (The term was derived by Christians. Darwinists only use the word because of its commonality.) In the context of our conversation, I would not describe God as a creature. It is possible to come into existence without being deliberately created. So, yes, you read me wrong. That’s okay.

To me, though God may well be complex in a way, He is not an “entity” in the sense of a being, a creature, something that has its cause elsewhere, He has no origin because He is the origin. His essence is this “simple” thing because He just is.

Your penultimate sentence does not follow logically. But, you know that.

IMO God is decidedly NOT SIMPLE! He came into being simple, and without a measurable I.Q. That was a long, long time ago, before the invention of clocks.

When you made your first appearance on this planet, your mind was pretty much nonexistent. You were not conscious. Now you are. Getting here from there took some time, and is continuing. The level of consciousness and intelligence which you have today will seem like that of a nitwit in another 40 years.

Think of God as an entity who came into being knowing nothing, as a pure mind unfettered by knowledge but with the potential to acquire it.

I believe, as the Church teaches, that God is being itself (“I am”) and that everything has its ultimate cause in Him. I won’t pretend to sound smart and paraphrase from someone much smarter than I.

Here you make a big mistake. I checked out the URL. You are smarter than its writer.

 

[greylorn]

Reply 2 of 2 to Post #777

If we can define God, then He is the first cause or uncaused cause, something that causes other things but is not itself caused. The creator, not the creature. If there is no first cause there can’t be second causes, they operate only if they’re caused by a first cause.
(There’s also the interesting contingency argument that follow after the argument of first cause that starts at 16:19, but this much is relevant to the discussion).

I’ve not studied formal philosophy, remember, and notions like contingency and causal layering tend to make my brain go fuzzy. But simple logic suggests that the “then” clause in your first sentence does not logically follow the “if” clause.

You’ll really need to expand on that notion or trash it.

I think we’re at least agreeing that it’s illogical to accept the “infinite loop”, or the “etc etc” as you put it, and agree for the need of a beginning. That’s the first cause or the absolutely simple substance you propose.

Yes.

But I must confess that I’ve left something critical out of my discussions re: the beginnings of things, because I want to save it for the book. It’s a bit tricky to explain here anyhow. That you’ve gotten to the point where you could write the above paragraph is, IMO, “moving right along.” Before long, my book will fill in the blanks and we can develop this conversation more effectively.

As we read in God’s own words, He is. The alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. I don’t think of God’s origin because in my mind He is the origin, the “simpler something” at the beginning of it all. Anything less is not truly God, they are creatures, caused causes, dominoes falling which followed back will eventually point to the origin. So if I follow you correctly, what you think of as god (the complex entity) is a creature, but then the simplest substance would be by definition the true God.

Nope. As originally formed, the entity responsible for creation of the universe was in its simplest possible state of being— as unconscious as you before your birth. Like you, he learned some stuff and got smarter. Except he learned a lot more and got considerably smarter.

This concept cannot be reconciled with traditional (since Aquinas) beliefs in an omnipotent and omniscient Creator. It makes perfect sense in the context of physics, which is the source of its derivation.

What we genuinely know about the “words of God” you quoted above are that they were written by men. Other men declared them to be inspired by God. Even more men agreed with them, and thus a belief system is created.

The evidence is that all the words of all the gods which mankind has worshiped have been made up by men. All are different. All are interpreted differently. Meanings warp during translation. There is only one Bible certain to have been written by God: the physical universe. When I reference the laws of physics, I am doing my best to properly interpret the certain words of God.

If God is truly being itself, infinite with no beginning or end, then we can understand aspects of God but we have less chance of fully understanding a single aspect fully than the little boy trying to pour all the ocean into a little hole he made by the sea. (If you don’t know the reference, I can get that for you). You can’t fit infinity into a finite mind, so I accept the fact that I can’t know it all but strive to understand all which I can.

I went to the beach. As a little kid, I got beat up by other little kids for explaining the futility of their bucket brigade. But they only saw each bucketful disappearing into the little holes they’d made.

I don’t attempt to describe the Creator in meaningless terms, such as “being, itself.” I describe him (them, actually) in terms of our generalized knowledge of classical physics and the Laws of Thermodynamics. These three are the uncreated laws of physics, and like the principles of logic, are therefore universally applicable.

Perhaps what it all boils down to is whether we can agree or not on God being the first cause, the “simplest thing” despite all the apparent complexity. If not, what is the nature of this “simpler thing” that created god? And then, wouldn’t that be god because by definition God is the creator?

Later, you will understand why I’m inclined to regard God as the Third Cause of Creation (another new perspective— thank you!). Then you will understand why the simpler thing which brought God into being, cannot itself be God.

Consider the difference between substance and structure. Your body and brain are made of some substances, or stuff---- atoms of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, chlorine, etc. The atoms do not define you. It is their structuring into bones, flesh, eyeballs and brain which differentiates you from a small crate of rat dinner.

In simple form, my theories propose that God began as unstructured stuff, then proceeded from there to create Himself. That powerful ability is what makes Him God.

I apologize if this is overly wordy, repetitive or convoluted, I was sitting on this at work for quite a while trying to make at least some sense, but sometimes I lose track of what I write so it may be a bit disjointed. I’m no scientist but one does what one can.

Your questions are well considered and to the point. They encourage thought. You would make a fine scientist.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This may sound strange, but I would prefer that my theories are wrong, and that atheism is correct.

According to you this extremely complex intelligence you call God came in to existence via natural events. If you think that this is a credible idea, then surely you can accept the possibility that extremely less complex entities such as our selves could have also come in to existence via natural events? So why the need to postulate the existence of your so called intelligent designer? When compared to the complexity of your God, our existence is certainly more likely. Hence the big whole in your theory. Given this fact, I don’t think that leading atheist intellectuals will be losing much sleep over your theory.

Also; it seems evident to me that atheism would be true regardless of whether your theory was right or wrong. Your God is no more a God to me than a human being is a God to an AI-Robot. You God doesn’t really solve any of the issues that really matter in life. You are certainly welcome to postulate the existence of such a being, but this being is no more credible or relevant to me than the idea that a group of alien beings from a parallel universe creating life on earth. At the end of the day they are just other contingent beings in the universe who ultimately came in to existence by chance, and probably have no more understanding about what life ultimately amounts to than we do. Your God still doesn’t resolve the issue of objective nihilism. What about objective morality meaning and purpose? Your God has no relevance in terms of my spiritual needs. Such a being might as well just not exist at all.

It would not be fine with me if Catholicism turned out to be correct.

That’s not surprising to me. This is why you are trying so hard to substitute the Catholic God for your counterfeit version.

I do hope that you too will read it.

Moneys tight at the moment and probably will be for a long while. But if you are happy to be charitable I will gladly read it and make a critical analysis of it.

When it is published, I will request this forum’s permission to establish some kind of study group based upon it. If this is allowed, I hope you will join the fray. My point in this work is not to prove myself right, but to engage a wide ranging conversation which culminates in the demolishment of atheism as a viable belief system, and a true understanding of the forces and minds behind creation.

Good luck. I hope they will allow it. I don’t see why not.

God bless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In order for the big bang to occur, there had to be something physical which went poof.

Why would something physical have to cause the big bang? The singularity itself cannot by definition be physical.

Cosmology has found it impossible to define or model this thing, and have recently resorted to calling it a “physical singularity.” There are no such things.

I agree there is no such thing as a “physical” singularity, but nonetheless, this doesn’t change the fact that if you reverse the expansion of the universe you end up with a singularity; which marks the beginning of physical reality; space time and energy. Given that the universe is dynamic by nature of its expansion, this is good evidence in itself that the universe extends from a compact singular point, beyond which nothing physical exists.

Is that illogical enough for you?

You haven’t show any contradictions other than the fact that it doesn’t fit in with your paradigm, and thus it upsets you and, to my delight, many atheists too.

 

[greylorn]

That is certainly an adventurous endevour. I hope you meet success in it. It would moreover be nice if CAF were to allow such a study group; for your claim certainly warrents investigation; might I ask what particular school/s of thought you are using to study the first principle/s?

Perhaps the CAF might do that, with support from some members. I could find another venue, but it is oft’ said, “Once a Catholic, always…” And it could happen. While every religious organization will have members who prefer fixed and unchangeable thoughts, there are many within the Church who see a long-term value in reconciling beliefs with hard science.

You must have figured out that I’m not a “schools of thought” kind of guy, so was that a trick question? Whatever, it feels worth an answer. Here are what passes, for me, as my schools of thought.

1. 
   
   *]The “Do Something Different,” school. If people who are clearly smarter than me have gotten it wrong, they must have attended the wrong schools, however prestigious. So, I started my own.
   
   *]The Sherlock Holmes school. “When you have considered all possibilities and rejected those which are illogical or inconsistent with fact, whatever remains, however unaccustomed your mind finds it, is the correct answer.”
   
   (These two schools are located right across the street from one another.)
   
   *]The “Get It Done,” school. This school asks several questions for every idea its students discover.
   
   1. 
      
      *]Can we verify it— even at the kinda, sort of level?
      
      *]Will it make anything better?
      
      *]Will it fix a problem?
      
      *]Will it lead to new levels of understanding?
      
      *]Do you want to receive an award for discovering this idea at a gathering which does not allow the attendance of guys wearing comfortable pants and ladies wearing ecologically sensitive (minimal fabric) skirts?
      
      This school is located on the engineering section of the campus, exactly 13.8 minutes fast walk, even on a cold day or amid a rainstorm, from the others.
      
      *]The “School of Constructive Irrelevancy.” Engraved over its entrance in Cyrillic script is the profound question, “If a tree falls in the forest and lands on the head of a philosopher stupid enough to have stood in its path, and too slow to get out of the way, should anyone care?”
      
      This school is located off campus, on the other side of some railroad tracks, hidden in a quonset hut next to a used car lot and across the street from a peaceable tavern. There it quietly applies the teachings of the schools farther up the hill.