What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?

[Moonstruck888]

Actually, I honestly forgot your screen name for a second. I edited that. I sincerely apologize for that.

Okay… No harm done.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Because God is pure act, which we deduce from the syllogistic argument I posted earlier.

Anyway, now that misunderstanding is cleared up…

So God is pure act. What exactly is that supposed to explain? How come God is pure act, exempt from investigation and yet the big bang can’t just be pure act?

 

[awatkins69]

So God is pure act. What exactly is that supposed to explain? How come God is pure act, exempt from investigation and yet the big bang can’t just be pure act?

God is pure act. Since God is pure act He must have no potentiality. Otherwise that’s a contradiction in terms, to be pure act and to also have potentiality. Now, all matter is potentiality. Thus God cannot be matter, and would be exempt from empirical investigation, since that is the investigation of material things. God of course is not exempt from logical or philosophical investigation, which is why we’re having this dialogue.

The Big Bang isn’t a being per se. It was an event.

 

[Moonstruck888]

God is pure act. Since God is pure act He must have no potentiality. Otherwise that’s a contradiction in terms, to be pure act and to also have potentiality.

Why? With or without God, we are talking about a construct that is well beyond anything that human logic can hope to codify in any meaningful way. How do you know that energy hasn’t always existed and always will exist, abrogating any need for a first cause?

Now, all matter is potentiality. Thus God cannot be matter, and would be exempt from empirical investigation, since that is the investigation of material things. God of course is not exempt from logical or philosophical investigation, which is why we’re having this dialogue.

Matter is an emergent manifestation of spacetime. Every point in spacetime is potentially any particle at large with the appropriate energy foucssed into it. If energy has always existed, this talk of matter being potentiality is meaningless.

As far as God being rendered immune to requiring empirical explanation by virtue of being immaterial, I don’t see how an immaterial being could interact with material objects. In order to do so, God would require the ability to manipulate energy. That would require a physical presence of some description.

The Big Bang isn’t a being per se. It was an event.

I’ve already agreed with you on that point. That does not mean that it couldn’t be a pure act if God could be a pure act. Even if you can demonstrate that a pure act is necessary to explain the Universe, you still haven’t explained what that act might be.

 

[awatkins69]

Why? With or without God, we are talking about a construct that is well beyond anything that human logic can hope to codify in any meaningful way. How do you know that energy hasn’t always existed and always will exist, abrogating any need for a first cause?

Again, the existence of energy is contingent. We’ve look at this before. If you’re interested in what I mean the Wikipedia article shows the differences between the logical propositions quite well.

Matter is an emergent manifestation of spacetime. Every point in spacetime is potentially any particle at large with the appropriate energy foucssed into it. If energy has always existed, this talk of matter being potentiality is meaningless.

How does this make matter not potentiality? All matter has potentiality. If God is pure actuality, then God has no potentiality, and thus cannot be material.

As far as God being rendered immune to requiring empirical explanation by virtue of being immaterial, I don’t see how an immaterial being could interact with material objects. In order to do so, God would require the ability to manipulate energy. That would require a physical presence of some description.

It would be due to the fact that all contingent being derives its being from necessary being, God. So the physical universe derives its existence from God, but God is not identifiable with the universe itself. That’s pantheism.

I’ve already agreed with you on that point. That does not mean that it couldn’t be a pure act if God could be a pure act. Even if you can demonstrate that a pure act is necessary to explain the Universe, you still haven’t explained what that act might be.

God is not ***a ***pure act. God ***is ***pure act. It is God’s essence.

 

[tonyrey]

That is not an assumption, but a statement of fact. Unfortunately, it does not explain from whence came the Universe.

How do you know it is a fact? It raises the problem of induction highlighted by David Hume -who pointed out we have no guarantee that the future will always be similar to the past…

 

[Moonstruck888]

How do you know it is a fact? It raises the problem of induction highlighted by David Hume -who pointed out we have no guarantee that the future will always be similar to the past…

I know it’s a fact that energy hasn’t been created or destroyed in 13.7 thousand million years. Not once.

If it ever is in the future, you’d better be very quick about gloating before both of us near instantaneously cease to exist.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Again, the existence of energy is contingent. We’ve look at this before. If you’re interested in what I mean the Wikipedia article shows the differences between the logical propositions quite well.

True, but we decided that cleverly arranging some words falls short of the evidence needed to support such a claim. What experiments have you done to prove that your logical predictions are correct?

How does this make matter not potentiality? All matter has potentiality. If God is pure actuality, then God has no potentiality, and thus cannot be material.

I don’t really care for these distinctions. They’re verbal flim flammery. If God is pure actuality, then where is he? If he has no material presence then how does he interact with the material world?

It would be due to the fact that all contingent being derives its being from necessary being, God.

What means does God use to accomplish this?

So the physical universe derives its existence from God, but God is not identifiable with the universe itself. That’s pantheism.

Convenient and not at all convincing. If God interacts with the Universe there should be detectable physical manifestations of this interaction.

God is not a pure act. God is pure act. It is God’s essence.

Could you translate this into English at all?

 

[JohnDamian]

I know it’s a fact that energy hasn’t been created or destroyed in 13.7 thousand million years. Not once.

Is this the same knowlege of “observation” and “repetition” that led people to believe germs didn’t exist?

True, but we decided that cleverly arranging some words falls short of the evidence needed to support such a claim. What experiments have you done to prove that your logical predictions are correct?

The claim is an a posteriori claim; that means it is verified by experience. You imply yourself that you have never experienced energy being created (although you assume that because you have not seen it; it hasn’t happened – no black swan fallacy). We know that energy does not spontaneously occur; we know then that it is currently existing. We also know that it cannot have existed forever; so at some point it must have been created by some force/power/being.

What means does God use to accomplish this?

It is called an essentially ordered causal sequence. Take for example the closed system of the planet earth; every living thing(or at least most) on Earth is contingent upon the sun to come into existence; and to be perpetuated and sustained in existance. If the sun was not there; life would have simply never happened; or died out.

If God interacts with the Universe there should be detectable physical manifestations of this interaction.

Why?

Could you translate this into English at all?

It is held by theologians that God’s “whatness” or Quiddity is identical to his being. Most theologians (particularily Thomists) Believe this is the case in infinite beings.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Is this the same knowlege of “observation” and “repetition” that led people to believe germs didn’t exist?

Nope. The one that led them to discover that germs do exist. Without science, we still wouldn’t understand vector driven disease. Without science we wouldn’t ever understand vector driven disease.

The claim is an a posteriori claim; that means it is verified by experience. You imply yourself that you have never experienced energy being created (although you assume that because you have not seen it; it hasn’t happened – no black swan fallacy).

No. I assume because the Universe as we know it couldn’t operate without energy conservation that it holds true. Like I said, if energy ever starts being created or destroyed, we’ll almost instantaneously be annihilated.

We know that energy does not spontaneously occur; we know then that it is currently existing. We also know that it cannot have existed forever; so at some point it must have been created by some force/power/being.

We do not know that it cannot have existed forever. As a matter of fact, it’s very difficult to explain how it could not have existed forever.

It is called an essentially ordered causal sequence. Take for example the closed system of the planet earth;

The Earth is not a closed system.

every living thing(or at least most) on Earth is contingent upon the sun to come into existence; and to be perpetuated and sustained in existance. If the sun was not there; life would have simply never happened; or died out.

You just said the Earth was a closed system and now you’ve illustrated by logic that it is not. Also, you have utterly failed to illustrate the methods that God used to create the Universe. I’d like some specific details please.

Why?

Can you tell me how God would communicate with Jonah, impregnate Mary or kill Job’s wife and kids without interacting with the physical Universe in a detectable way?

It is held by theologians that God’s “whatness” or Quiddity is identical to his being. Most theologians (particularily Thomists) Believe this is the case in infinite beings.

Do they come across many infinite beings in their day to day lives, the Thomists? Again, this explains nothing. No investigation has been done. Without any details as to the processes that God uses to get things done and details of the structure of what God is, this is all just idle surmise.

 

[JohnDamian]

No. I assume because the Universe as we know it couldn’t operate without energy conservation that it holds true. Like I said, if energy ever starts being created or destroyed, we’ll almost instantaneously be annihilated.

Absolutely. If energy and matter were being created in present (or near past) then there would be problems. However; conservation of energy does not prohibit the creation of all matter and energy simulatneously in the past. Although it is clear that matter and energy are not being created now.

We do not know that it cannot have existed forever. As a matter of fact, it’s very difficult to explain how it could not have existed forever.

We know that an infinity cannot have been traversed. To say that it has would undermine mathematics.

The Earth is not a closed system.

I was trying not to digress into thought experiments; however you are correct in pointing this out - the Earth has asteroids; stars and God (I could not resist) interfering with it.

You just said the Earth was a closed system and now you’ve illustrated by logic that it is not. Also, you have utterly failed to illustrate the methods that God used to create the Universe. I’d like some specific details please.

The methods that God used to do something comes after we establish that he did.

Can you tell me how God would communicate with Jonah, impregnate Mary or kill Job’s wife and kids without interacting with the physical Universe in a detectable way?

It seems you answered your own question; evidently God acted in the world in a detectable way; Job’s kids were killed - this is a detectable interaction; (although his wife was not killed)

Do they come across many infinite beings in their day to day lives, the Thomists? Again, this explains nothing. No investigation has been done. Without any details as to the processes that God uses to get things done and details of the structure of what God is, this is all just idle surmise.

You mistake poking around with a magnifying glass in a labcoat as investigation. St Thomas; whilst philosophically lacking; his theological masterpiece of the Summa Theologica is a stunning three thousand page investigation into God. However; for specific investigation on God I shall refer you to the Critical Theology of Scotus specifically on God;

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

I would somehow think a work of this quality and logical soundness would be sensible to class as “idle surmise”.

 

[awatkins69]

I’m sorry if I’m not good at explaining things moonstruck. JohnDamian does a better job than I.

 

[greylorn]

In that case you are not justified in assuming:

“Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, ergo it must always have existed”.

Tony,
I hate to agree with Moonstruck out of general principles, but he has gotten lots of things right, including this one.

Conservation of energy is not only an effective working principle, it is theoretically elegant.

It also has another fundamentally interesting property that I realized while discussing this issue on CAF, which I’m saving for the book. It is a property that you might appreciate.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks to me that what is important to you and most every Catholic who cares to think about such issues, is the preservation of certain items of dogma. For example, the omnipotence and omniscience of God, and the belief that He created the universe from nothing.

I once was a devout Catholic. I cannot express the internal dismay I felt upon realizing the full implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Two of them limit God. I do not expect you to even approach any agreement with this at the moment, but here are some things to consider. And I trust that you will consider them, rather than simply react.

The ideas which men hold about the nature of the Creator were devised by men who had not looked through either a telescope or a microscope. They were good men who did their best with the tools and knowledge available. They invented ideas which they believed valuable and right. It is only a shame that after their time, other men came along and declared these ideas to be Absolute Truth, the Revealed Word of God.

I admit to the existence of only one Bible certain to have been written by God, and that is the physical universe itself. If God’s certain Bible contradicts the Bibles, Kuran’s, and various other writings of men, guess which one I, someone who believes in a created universe, chooses to trust?

Imagine that you had been raised agnostic, with the same education otherwise, and that you had a spiritual or mystical experience which compelled you to investigate the truth or falsity of atheism. You might investigate a number of religions, and without your previous indoctrination, have found things within each which made little sense.

Yet suppose you chose to believe that ours is a created universe, and sought to learn about the creator on your own. Might you not employ the same Bible as mine? If so, that Bible would teach you that energy, the stuff of the universe, cannot be created.

You might come to the conclusion that the creator did not manufacture the universe from nothing. Why should he, with this handy and malleable substance around that can be shaped into a variety of interesting and interactive forms?

 

[awatkins69]

Tony,
I hate to agree with Moonstruck out of general principles, but he has gotten lots of things right, including this one.

Conservation of energy is not only an effective working principle, it is theoretically elegant.

It also has another fundamentally interesting property that I realized while discussing this issue on CAF, which I’m saving for the book. It is a property that you might appreciate.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks to me that what is important to you and most every Catholic who cares to think about such issues, is the preservation of certain items of dogma. For example, the omnipotence and omniscience of God, and the belief that He created the universe from nothing.

I once was a devout Catholic. I cannot express the internal dismay I felt upon realizing the full implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Two of them limit God. I do not expect you to even approach any agreement with this at the moment, but here are some things to consider. And I trust that you will consider them, rather than simply react.

The ideas which men hold about the nature of the Creator were devised by men who had not looked through either a telescope or a microscope. They were good men who did their best with the tools and knowledge available. They invented ideas which they believed valuable and right. It is only a shame that after their time, other men came along and declared these ideas to be Absolute Truth, the Revealed Word of God.

I admit to the existence of only one Bible certain to have been written by God, and that is the physical universe itself. If God’s certain Bible contradicts the Bibles, Kuran’s, and various other writings of men, guess which one I, someone who believes in a created universe, chooses to trust?

Imagine that you had been raised agnostic, with the same education otherwise, and that you had a spiritual or mystical experience which compelled you to investigate the truth or falsity of atheism. You might investigate a number of religions, and without your previous indoctrination, have found things within each which made little sense.

Yet suppose you chose to believe that ours is a created universe, and sought to learn about the creator on your own. Might you not employ the same Bible as mine? If so, that Bible would teach you that energy, the stuff of the universe, cannot be created.

You might come to the conclusion that the creator did not manufacture the universe from nothing. Why should he, with this handy and malleable substance around that can be shaped into a variety of interesting and interactive forms?

Demi-urge much?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Tony,
I hate to agree with Moonstruck out of general principles, but he has gotten lots of things right, including this one.

Agreed. Having you agree with me is like finding myself on the same side of an argument as Kent Hovind.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I’m sorry if I’m not good at explaining things moonstruck. JohnDamian does a better job than I.

I wouldn’t have said so. He’s rude, boorish, childish and hostile, whereas you are someone approchable and easy to engage with.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Absolutely. If energy and matter were being created in present (or near past) then there would be problems. However; conservation of energy does not prohibit the creation of all matter and energy simulatneously in the past. Although it is clear that matter and energy are not being created now.

That is an extraordinary claim that would require some extraordinary evidence, to wit: You’d need to explain the method that was used to create all the energy of the Universe simultaneously and prove that method actually works.

We know that an infinity cannot have been traversed. To say that it has would undermine mathematics.

Why?

The methods that God used to do something comes after we establish that he did.

No, no, no.

Without understanding the methods God used, as you damned well know, we cannot establish that he did. This is a cop out of the most flagrant kind. After we discuss X, which is an unresolvable issue, we’ll get to Y, never.

I’m sorry, but that just isn’t good enough.

It seems you answered your own question; evidently God acted in the world in a detectable way; Job’s kids were killed - this is a detectable interaction; (although his wife was not killed)

So, you admit that if God is interacting with the world he can be detected?

If he’s not interacting with the world, why call him God?

You mistake poking around with a magnifying glass in a labcoat as investigation. St Thomas; whilst philosophically lacking; his theological masterpiece of the Summa Theologica is a stunning three thousand page investigation into God. However; for specific investigation on God I shall refer you to the Critical Theology of Scotus specifically on God;

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

I want quantitative data, not rambling thoughts.

I would somehow think a work of this quality and logical soundness would be sensible to class as “idle surmise”.

It is speculation, unratified by repeatable experiment.

 

[awatkins69]

I wouldn’t have said so. He’s rude, boorish, childish and hostile, whereas you are someone approchable and easy to engage with.

Hmm are you sure we’re talking about the same JohnDamian? It seems like anything of the sort is absent from his replies. In my opinion he’s just presenting replies to each point, and he’s able to articulate his position far better than I. If you listen to him I think you’d gain a whole lot. All the best.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Hmm are you sure we’re talking about the same JohnDamian? It seems like anything of the sort is absent from his replies. In my opinion he’s just presenting replies to each point, and he’s able to articulate his position far better than I. If you listen to him I think you’d gain a whole lot. All the best.

I’m talking about this John Damien, the Arthur Fonzerelli of theistic philosophy, and I can assure you that apart from possibly patience he has nothing to teach me.

Anyhow, if you wish to rate yourself lower than that upstart whelp, that’s none of my business.

 

[JohnDamian]

That is an extraordinary claim that would require some extraordinary evidence, to wit: You’d need to explain the method that was used to create all the energy of the Universe simultaneously and prove that method actually works.

I am afraid that as it is you who are making the positive claim of the extrapolation of an observed principle to the totality of reality itself is the one who needs evidence. My negation of your statements merely indicates that I do not believe that you have sufficient evidence to make the universal claim about the conservation of energy. This is particularily in light of the impossibility of numerical infinites.

Why?

Because infinity is not a number. We can never acheive infinity by adding one number to another; or multiplying one number by another; so then it is impossible for us to attain with numbers the figure “infinity”. Therefore this figure has no place in mathematics.

No, no, no.

Without understanding the methods God used, as you damned well know, we cannot establish that he did. This is a cop out of the most flagrant kind. After we discuss X, which is an unresolvable issue, we’ll get to Y, never.

I’m sorry, but that just isn’t good enough.

In all sciences; the verification of an act occuring comes before working out how that act happens. If in medicine a patient dies; the question “is he dead” logically comes before the question “how did he die?”. We cannot ask how something happens until we know what has happened - that would be absurd.

So, you admit that if God is interacting with the world he can be detected?

I merely admit that some of the acts that God has been claimed to have done (such as the Virgin Birth) are materially detectable. However; unlike yourself I do not extrapolate from this one act; this one sample to the whole of God’s actions. You would do well to be more academically precise when dealing with articles such as the “law” of Conservation of Energy.

If he’s not interacting with the world, why call him God?

Interacting with the world is not an essential characteristic of the Catholic understanding of God. God does not interact with the world necessarily; but so of his own volition. If God were to choose not to interact with the world; he would still be God.

I want quantitative data

Scientific data can only apply to entities and events that are numerically simplifiable or quantifiable. Your approach to asking for proof of God is very close minded; it is very arrogant to presuppose that quantatative data is able to verify all things; that would constitute a fallacy.

It is speculation, unratified by repeatable experiment.

You seem to be unaware of a posteriori reasoning. It is analytic and not speculative; and the investigation is simple to repeat - and the results are always the same - it is necessary for a single; timeless; necessary creator.

Hmm are you sure we’re talking about the same JohnDamian? It seems like anything of the sort is absent from his replies. In my opinion he’s just presenting replies to each point, and he’s able to articulate his position far better than I. If you listen to him I think you’d gain a whole lot.

Thanks.