What's up with cosmologists who don't believe in God?

[JDaniel]

Mgoforth:

When you get to the bottom of it, it is nothing other than personal preference, i.e., an arrogance that is presupposed by self-aggrandizement. Some people really do believe that we, hollow material things, consisting mostly of nothingness, are wholly responsible for all that we have convinced ourselves that we do and have. Everything is a gift from the Divine repository of the futurum exactums of every single finite being - long after we’re gone.

God bless,
jd

 

[WillP]

I don’t mean cosmologists on these forums…I don’t know if there are any.

I was watching a TV show the other night - I think it was “Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman”, because I’m a huge science nerd. The topic was: What’s at the edge of the Universe? Some of the answers given by the scientists they interviewed were pretty mind-blowing…we could all be living inside a “hologram” universe where reality only exists in two dimensions at the edge of expanding spacetime, or we could be living in one of an infinite number of universes, all connected in a “multiverse”. Apparently theoretical physics has moved beyond the Big Bang as the great unknown, and now there are branches of cosmology that speculate on what came before.

Don’t ask me how the theories work, math is definitely not my subject. But what I was wondering as I watched this show was, “What’s the point of studying all this?” I mean, it’s very cool, and of course there’s the innate human desire to learn as much as we can about the world we live in…but what do these guys really expect to find when it’s all said and done?

Suppose they can eventually discover the “theory” that explains the way everything works (which I don’t think is possible). But just suppose they can. What does that really prove? Many in the scientific community would say that it somehow proves that God doesn’t exist. Aren’t scientists out there smart enough to realize that you can’t EVER find out what the ultimate beginning of existence is through scientific measurements or theory? I think many non-scientists were happy enough to admit that the Big Band happened, but that it must have been God who made it go “Bang”.

It seems to make no difference whether the limits of our understanding is the Big Bang or the multiverse, or something else…doesn’t an honest, logical person have to admit eventually that there’s no way to see beyond THE beginning? We can’t measure God, and we can’t measure anything that came before time began…so what’s the ultimate payoff for cosmology?

Maybe I’m just rambling to myself…

That is certainly not rambling. Those are profound questions that I struggled with for decades. While I grew up RC I was convinced that science should demonstrate the existence of god. Now that I am much wiser, better read, more reflected and seasoned in my pursuit of these questions, I no longer believe that it is plausable to believe in a personal god which intervenes in human affairs. I remain convinced that the universe is rational and possesses a logical consistency. That consistence and rationality is both beautiful and deeply mysterious–but, more importantly, it is subject to study, reflection and probing by science.

I also fail to see any basis to endow this rationality with a personal aspect. The cosmos simply is…it exists in rational form and somewhere there is an ultimate principle or set of principles which is knowable. However, it possesses no moral component or any element requiring human obedience or submission. It does not respond to praise or prayer. It is unmoved by our acts of charity, our flaws, miscreancy, misbehavior, our acts of courage, justice or injustice. It simply is and is beautifully so.

As for religions and doctrines that are designed to pay homage to a personal version of this ultimate principle, I think that is both unproductive, and, creates a terrible distraction from more important quests that we could be engaged with. Religion can be explained on purely sociological basis.Many of these religious doctrines, thru out history, have also wrought great harm and caused more grief than good. Arguably Islam and Christianity served worthwhile purposes, inspiring the great expeditions to the New World, preserving the classical works of Rome and Greece during the dark ages (Christianity), creation of navigational and mathematical precepts (Islam). However, on balance, these are both virulent systems which infect a cuilture and ultimately turn totalatarian once power is achieved. We will be better off without them.

So I am all in favor of admiring wonders of nature, of the cosmos–but, it is to be understood not worshiped and organized religion is not, in any case, a productive guide for obtaining truth nor of achieving a proper ethos.

 

[prodigalson2011]

That is certainly not rambling. Those are profound questions that I struggled with for decades. While I grew up RC I was convinced that science should demonstrate the existence of god. Now that I am much wiser, better read, more reflected and seasoned in my pursuit of these questions, I no longer believe that it is plausable to believe in a personal god which intervenes in human affairs. I remain convinced that the universe is rational and possesses a logical consistency. That consistence and rationality is both beautiful and deeply mysterious–but, more importantly, it is subject to study, reflection and probing by science.

I also fail to see any basis to endow this rationality with a personal aspect. The cosmos simply is…it exists in rational form and somewhere there is an ultimate principle or set of principles which is knowable. However, it possesses no moral component or any element requiring human obedience or submission. It does not respond to praise or prayer. It is unmoved by our acts of charity, our flaws, miscreancy, misbehavior, our acts of courage, justice or injustice. It simply is and is beautifully so.

As for religions and doctrines that are designed to pay homage to a personal version of this ultimate principle, I think that is both unproductive, and, creates a terrible distraction from more important quests that we could be engaged with. Religion can be explained on purely sociological basis.Many of these religious doctrines, thru out history, have also wrought great harm and caused more grief than good. Arguably Islam and Christianity served worthwhile purposes, inspiring the great expeditions to the New World, preserving the classical works of Rome and Greece during the dark ages (Christianity), creation of navigational and mathematical precepts (Islam). However, on balance, these are both virulent systems which infect a cuilture and ultimately turn totalatarian once power is achieved. We will be better off without them.

So I am all in favor of admiring wonders of nature, of the cosmos–but, it is to be understood not worshiped and organized religion is not, in any case, a productive guide for obtaining truth nor of achieving a proper ethos.

To say that the universe is rational implies that it has a mind. I don’t think you believe the universe has a mind, but the question is why does it seem so? There is no scientific explanation for the rationality of reality. It is indeed beautiful and mysterious, and subject to study and reflection. But in the same way that studying “Hamlet” will yield no help in confirming the reality of Shakespeare, so studying the universe does not address the reality of God. You are left with the problem of an entirely intelligible system that in itself seems to lack any intrinsic rationality or consciousness. Is it not logical to entertain the possibility that it is the result of a creative, conscious force?

You say that there is no need to ascribe a personal aspect to the rationality of the universe. The problem is that rationality is a concept that can only be related to intellect. You also say that somewhere there is an ultimate principle or set of principles that explains everything. They might explain ALMOST everything, but they can’t explain certain things: namely themselves. To attempt to do so would be circular reasoning. Further, to assert that there is no moral component to the creative force of the universe is an assumption of faith on your part, just as much as the assertion that there is.

As for the issue of religious violence, I think humanity has amply demonstrated that it doesn’t need religion to do horrible things. Religion is secondary to the real cause of human evil: the sinful, selfish nature of human beings. Separating people from religion does not make them any better.

 

[mgoforth]

That is certainly not rambling. Those are profound questions that I struggled with for decades. While I grew up RC I was convinced that science should demonstrate the existence of god. Now that I am much wiser, better read, more reflected and seasoned in my pursuit of these questions, I no longer believe that it is plausable to believe in a personal god which intervenes in human affairs. I remain convinced that the universe is rational and possesses a logical consistency. That consistence and rationality is both beautiful and deeply mysterious–but, more importantly, it is subject to study, reflection and probing by science.

I also fail to see any basis to endow this rationality with a personal aspect. The cosmos simply is…it exists in rational form and somewhere there is an ultimate principle or set of principles which is knowable. However, it possesses no moral component or any element requiring human obedience or submission. It does not respond to praise or prayer. It is unmoved by our acts of charity, our flaws, miscreancy, misbehavior, our acts of courage, justice or injustice. It simply is and is beautifully so.

As for religions and doctrines that are designed to pay homage to a personal version of this ultimate principle, I think that is both unproductive, and, creates a terrible distraction from more important quests that we could be engaged with. Religion can be explained on purely sociological basis.Many of these religious doctrines, thru out history, have also wrought great harm and caused more grief than good. Arguably Islam and Christianity served worthwhile purposes, inspiring the great expeditions to the New World, preserving the classical works of Rome and Greece during the dark ages (Christianity), creation of navigational and mathematical precepts (Islam). However, on balance, these are both virulent systems which infect a cuilture and ultimately turn totalatarian once power is achieved. We will be better off without them.

So I am all in favor of admiring wonders of nature, of the cosmos–but, it is to be understood not worshiped and organized religion is not, in any case, a productive guide for obtaining truth nor of achieving a proper ethos.

So pantheism? None of this really begins to explain where it all came from…

 

[WillP]

So pantheism? None of this really begins to explain where it all came from…

You don’t seem to ask where god came from. Why then should you ask where my corresponding notion of an eternal rational reality came from?

Perhaps its origins of the universe are a quantum event. In which case there is no causal association to be made. Another way to look at it is that, within a context of nothingness, there is no timed sequence. Hence, where “it all came from” is a meaningless question, there being neither a “before” nor a “from”.Another way to look at it, if an underlying rational “cause” has to be assigned, then the the universe springs from the same rational basis as does the proposition that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

What has always puzzled me is the belief that an agent with intellect is the only means by which a rational universe can exist. The syllogism appears to be that a person (god) possesses an intellect, by which means, the agent then causes the universe. I suggest that this construct doesn’t adequately respond to the question. For one thing this explanation lacks parsimony. One must ask where god came from. In addition you endow the construct with all sorts of human qualities, like motives, desires, a need to be worshiped and placated, a williness to punish and reward.

Call my beliefs pantheistic if you feel as tho you need a label. I simply believe the issue is much more profound, much fuller of implications and much more aesthic in the manner by which I have reasoned than under your unnecessarily elaborate construction…

 

[mgoforth]

You don’t seem to ask where god came from. Why then should you ask where my corresponding notion of an eternal rational reality came from?

Perhaps its origins of the universe are a quantum event. In which case there is no causal association to be made. Another way to look at it is that, within a context of nothingness, there is no timed sequence. Hence, where “it all came from” is a meaningless question, there being neither a “before” nor a “from”.Another way to look at it, if an underlying rational “cause” has to be assigned, then the the universe springs from the same rational basis as does the proposition that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

What has always puzzled me is the belief that an agent with intellect is the only means by which a rational universe can exist. The syllogism appears to be that a person (god) possesses an intellect, by which means, the agent then causes the universe. I suggest that this construct doesn’t adequately respond to the question. For one thing this explanation lacks parsimony. One must ask where god came from. In addition you endow the construct with all sorts of human qualities, like motives, desires, a need to be worshiped and placated, a williness to punish and reward.

Call my beliefs pantheistic if you feel as tho you need a label. I simply believe the issue is much more profound, much fuller of implications and much more aesthic in the manner by which I have reasoned than under your unnecessarily elaborate construction…

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to make that a condescending question. I just wondered if pantheism was what you were talking about.

I don’t think God came from anywhere. He is outside of time and space, therefore He’s outside of when and where. To paraphrase your response, asking where God came from is a meaningless (but still a good) question.

I believe the only qualities which we can attribute to God are those that reflect His essential nature. Love is the most important of these. His motive for creation is love…wanting (but not needing) to share the gift of existence with His creatures. His chief desire is to have us know and love Him in return.

He has no such need to be worshiped…since worshiping God is acknowledging the ultimate Truth, it’s really in our best interest to worship Him. Doing otherwise is ignoring Truth. Therefore asking for and receiving worship is also an act of love for us on God’s part. He wants what’s best for us, and what’s best for us is Him.

Punishment and reward is one way to look at it, but why not say instead that those who recognize God as the source and ultimate form of existence itself will be granted a share in that true existence in Heaven. Those who don’t want to acknowledge the Truth will not be forced to do so, but the natural consequences are that they also won’t be forced to enter Heaven. I believe Hell can be seen as a merciful act, whereby God gives those creatures who don’t want to be with Him someplace to hide from His love. The trouble is, hiding from God’s love is painful because we were designed by and for that love.

 

[prodigalson2011]

If you’ll suffer my interjection again…

You don’t seem to ask where god came from. Why then should you ask where my corresponding notion of an eternal rational reality came from?

The difference between the two is this: as I said in a previous post, all rationality is ascribed either to a) a mind or b) the product of a mind, i.e. we can say that a person is rational or we can say that a system devised by a person is rational (a rational argument, a rational plan, etc.). Rationality assumes an intellect.

As God is assumed to be an intellectual being, the explanation does not need to go any further. To quote William Lane Craig, responding to the same objection from Richard Dawkins, “Philosophers of science recognize that in order to accept an explanation as the best explanation, you don’t have to have an explanation of the explanation… That leads immediately to an infinite regress. You’d need to have an explanation of the explanation of the explanation, and so on to infinity. You would never have an explanation of anything, which would destroy science, so that Dawkins’ principle, if adopted, would be completely destructive of science. That’s how inept this argument is.”

In the case of your proposal, you suggest an eternal rational reality, presumably devoid of cognition/awareness. Unlike God, who is understood as a being of pure intellect and reason, this claim does not stand on its own, as matter is neither intellectual nor rational. Positing a self-creating, unconscious rational universe is a bit like suggesting that rocks can think.

Perhaps its origins of the universe are a quantum event. In which case there is no causal association to be made. Another way to look at it is that, within a context of nothingness, there is no timed sequence. Hence, where “it all came from” is a meaningless question, there being neither a “before” nor a “from”.Another way to look at it, if an underlying rational “cause” has to be assigned, then the the universe springs from the same rational basis as does the proposition that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

I think it’s a bit too early in the game to propose that quantum events defy causality, though this is the norm in the quantum physics community. To quote Richard Feynman, "“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” It amounts, at this point, to little more than a declaration of bafflement. Besides, if it did turn out that quantum events were not subject to any type of causality, this would seem to beg the question of how such chaotic processes could produce and sustain a rational universe governed by causal laws. Indeed, it calls to mind the old adage of “a method to the madness.” The implication being, of course, that there is a plan behind it.

What has always puzzled me is the belief that an agent with intellect is the only means by which a rational universe can exist. The syllogism appears to be that a person (god) possesses an intellect, by which means, the agent then causes the universe. I suggest that this construct doesn’t adequately respond to the question. For one thing this explanation lacks parsimony. One must ask where god came from. In addition you endow the construct with all sorts of human qualities, like motives, desires, a need to be worshiped and placated, a williness to punish and reward.

This is because rationality is a product of awareness. If something is rational it is either itself aware or the product of something that is aware. If something that is aware is capable of producing rational constructs, it is an intellectual agent. It seems to me, in my humble opinion, that rational existence is contingent upon intellect/awareness and not the other way around.

If we are to play by your rules, then you must also ask where whatever “rational reality” you posit came from. And where that source came from. And where the source of that source came from. Eliminating God does not solve the problem.

Your last objection is a mischaracterization of the Christian understanding of God as well. In Christian theology, God is completely self-sufficient. He has no needs outside of Himself. The fact that He (or it, for the sake of discussion, if you’re more comfortable with a less anthropomorphized deity) gives life and existence is an act of love–a gift. Worship is not something God needs to be happy. It is something man needs to be happy. As David Foster Wallace, who was by no means a traditionally religious person, said, “…in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.”

Christians believe that failing to acknowledge and worship God leads to problems for humanity, which are not punishments from God, but consequences of creatures failing to act according to their true nature. In other words, just as a starving person will eat rotten food from a trashcan, so the person deprived of God will develop an excessive focus, or worship, upon the self, material goods or other persons, all of which are unhealthy.

Further, one could just as easily say that God has ascribed Godly qualities to man.

Call my beliefs pantheistic if you feel as tho you need a label. I simply believe the issue is much more profound, much fuller of implications and much more aesthic in the manner by which I have reasoned than under your unnecessarily elaborate construction…

How do you define profundity? What kind of implications do you think the issue is full of? Did you mean aesthetic, and if so, what did you mean by that? As I think I have successfully demonstrated, your reasoning leads only to an endless chain of questions and results in a suicide of rationality. There is nothing “unnecessarily elaborate” about theism. It’s really quite simple… yet ever so profound.

 

[WillP]

QUOTE.

                                "Rationality assumes an intellect."

I don’t think you can say that.Here is why:

1. 2 plus 2 equals four is rational but it is rational with or without any comprehension of it.
2. It takes a mind to appreciate a rational concept. I can show the equation for 2 plus 2 to my dog and he simply doesn’t get it. You, however, can appreciate the concept because you have a mind or at least a mind much different than a dog’s.
3. Nonetheless, the proposition of 2 plus 2 would be rational even if you and I weren’t here to comprehend it…

 

[prodigalson2011]

The equation 2 + 2=4 is the product of a rational mind. Atoms don’t do math. Intellects organize things into rational constructs. 2 + 2=4 is not a reality; it is a rational construct used to describe or organize realities which may be either physical or abstract. The fact that we can RECOGNIZE rational structures in the universe implies that they have already been “cognized” by something external to us.

Precisely. My contention is that not only does it take a mind to appreciate or recognize a rational concept, it takes a mind to construct one.

1. Nonetheless, the proposition of 2 plus 2 would be rational even if you and I weren’t here to comprehend it…

The proposition of 2 + 2 would not exist if there were no minds to comprehend it.

[/QUOTE]

 

[WillP]

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to make that a condescending question. I just wondered if pantheism was what you were talking about.

I didn’t mean toimply that you were condescending.

I don’t think God came from anywhere. He is outside of time and space, therefore He’s outside of when and where. To paraphrase your response, asking where God came from is a meaningless (but still a good) question.

Well, yes, being outside of time makes it meaningless to ask from where did something come, but, that it is a necessary question in this type of argument because people of faith are compelled to argue from the perspective that there must be an uncaused cause. The point I strive to make is that acknowleging that there is some ultimate principle which accounts for reality does not imply that there is a personal god imbued with the characteristics of the biblical diety.

I believe the only qualities which we can attribute to God are those that reflect His essential nature. Love is the most important of these. His motive for creation is love…wanting (but not needing) to share the gift of existence with His creatures. His chief desire is to have us know and love Him in return.

I am afraid that is a belief I can never accept and yet remain faithful to my own sense of honest reasoning. God desires something? Wants something? Being god isn’t complete?

My sense is that you are a very kind person and sincerely hold the beliefs that you do, but, I would be only be dishonest and betray my intellect if I accepted this montage of beliefs which, quite frankly, are not dissimilar to the pagan and mythological belief systems that should have been abandoned centuries ago. Christianity, Islam and other religions have some elements I can respect–living a decent life, being kind to one another, extending a helping hand, but, I think we’d be a lot better off in losing the ritualistic and silly stuff

He has no such need to be worshiped…since worshiping God is acknowledging the ultimate Truth, it’s really in our best interest to worship Him. Doing otherwise is ignoring Truth. Therefore asking for and receiving worship is also an act of love for us on God’s part. He wants what’s best for us, and what’s best for us is Him.

Punishment and reward is one way to look at it, but why not say instead that those who recognize God as the source and ultimate form of existence itself will be granted a share in that true existence in Heaven. Those who don’t want to acknowledge the Truth will not be forced to do so, but the natural consequences are that they also won’t be forced to enter Heaven. I believe Hell can be seen as a merciful act, whereby God gives those creatures who don’t want to be with Him someplace to hide from His love. The trouble is, hiding from God’s love is painful because we were designed by and for that love.

 

[mgoforth]

God desires something? Wants something? Being god isn’t complete?

Good questions…but what if being a creator is also one of God’s fundamental qualities? What if His existence is AS a creator? Does that mean that God needed to create us? No. It’s not a question of need, it’s just who He is. He IS a loving creator, therefore He created out of love.

 

[WillP]

The equation 2 + 2=4 is the product of a rational mind. Atoms don’t do math. Intellects organize things into rational constructs. 2 + 2=4 is not a reality; it is a rational construct used to describe or organize realities which may be either physical or abstract. The fact that we can RECOGNIZE rational structures in the universe implies that they have already been “cognized” by something external to us.

Is there no sound from the falling tree in the forest when noone is there to hear it? Seriously, however, I think I see your point. You are simply saying that there must be a being which perceives a “thing” in order for that thing to exist. Perhaps? Who really knows. I suppose you can argue that proposition based upon some of the quantum physics now being explored.

Altogether, however, the issue smacks too much of that scene from Oz where there is a wizard behind the curtain. Some people might say “Ahh hah! If there is a show, then some place behind the scene, there is a puppetmaster.”

But that argument raises a significant problem I think.Afterall, the Wizard is a complex being, and, once complxity is established, doesn’t that require reduction to simplier aspects?

Precisely. My contention is that not only does it take a mind to appreciate or recognize a rational concept, it takes a mind to construct one.

OK. That most assuredly is a quantum notion. Existence is a dance between perceiver and the perceived. But here is the problem---- your perceiver is a complex being. I might suggest that rather than a complex mind which beholds reality and thus brings it into existence, the consciousness (in the abstract) exists. Ther is a book I read sometime ago…i think it was entitled “The Conscious Universe”. You may find that fascinating as it makes the point much better than I ever could.

The proposition of 2 + 2 would not exist if there were no minds to comprehend it.

We, we’ve discussed this point as well as we can in posts.

 

[JDaniel]

You don’t seem to ask where god came from.

Will:

Not so. Man has always wondered and asked where God came from. It took man a little time to answer, that’s all. Since the printing press, there are now tomes of answers to that question.

Perhaps its origins of the universe are a quantum event.

One of the many theories of universe actualization that has been propounded by scientism.

In which case there is no causal association to be made.

Thus, it would be the only finite structure in existence without a beginning, not to mention, without a cause.

Another way to look at it is that, within a context of nothingness, there is no timed sequence. Hence, where “it all came from” is a meaningless question, there being neither a “before” nor a “from”.

While it is true that “in the context of nothingness, there is no sequence of time,” there had to have been sequence, per se, otherwise if anything existed, it would be maximal chaos. So, the question is certainly not “meaningless,” unless one is not a clear thinker.

Another way to look at it, if an underlying rational “cause” has to be assigned, then the the universe springs from the same rational basis as does the proposition that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Either there is rationality, or there isn’t. Rationality implies thinking, not a simplistic math formula.

What has always puzzled me is the belief that an agent with intellect is the only means by which a rational universe can exist. The syllogism appears to be that a person (god) possesses an intellect, by which means, the agent then causes the universe. I suggest that this construct doesn’t adequately respond to the question. For one thing this explanation lacks parsimony. One must ask where god came from. In addition you endow the construct with all sorts of human qualities, like motives, desires, a need to be worshiped and placated, a williness to punish and reward.

Absurd! It’s far more parsimonious than your proposition. Your proposition simply drops requisite, necessary factors from the full proposition, then tries to escape by saying, “Well, they just aren’t there.” Yours is the “inadequate response to the question.”

Call my beliefs pantheistic if you feel as tho you need a label. I simply believe the issue is much more profound,

Sure.

much fuller of implications and much more aesthic in the manner by which I have reasoned than under your unnecessarily elaborate construction…

As outright laughing might be considered inhospitable, I’ll simply bite my lip. Ouch!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The equation 2 + 2=4 is the product of a rational mind. Atoms don’t do math. Intellects organize things into rational constructs. 2 + 2=4 is not a reality; it is a rational construct used to describe or organize realities which may be either physical or abstract. The fact that we can RECOGNIZE rational structures in the universe implies that they have already been “cognized” by something external to us.

Precisely. My contention is that not only does it take a mind to appreciate or recognize a rational concept, it takes a mind to construct one.

The proposition of 2 + 2 would not exist if there were no minds to comprehend it.

Prodigalson:

You are precisely correct. Furthermore, if 2 + 2 = 4 was extant in the absence of any, or all, rational human minds, it would be further proof of an originating-rational Mind, capable of holding it as one of perhaps billions of exigencies as a futurum exactum, forever. As you know, we call that “God.”

God bless,
jd

 

[tomarin]

I don’t mean cosmologists on these forums…I don’t know if there are any.

I think the cosmologists’ answers would differ depending on what theological or spiritual convictions they brought to the table prior to being a cosmologist.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I think the cosmologists’ answers would differ depending on what theological or spiritual convictions they brought to the table prior to being a cosmologist.

Aye, it is a popular (and amusing) misconception that scientists are unbiased observers. I repeat it like a mantra: Metaphysics are unavoidable. As soon as the discussion leaves the realm of mechanics and moves to meaning (or lack thereof), the physical sciences have left the building. From there, it’s all philosophy.

 

[James224]

I didn’t see the Morgan Freeman program but there was a series on the history channel that mentioned the hologram theory.
Another episode talked about the mathmatical theory of the miltiverse. Some scientists reject the miltiverse theory because there is not and never can be any way to prove it.

What all these speculative theories fail to do is explain how it could all begin.
**There could not be an infinite past, and anything in the natural realm must exist in time. Therefore, the natural realm could not have existed through an infinite past. It had to start from nothing. **

Therefore, there had to be an eternal God to start it all.

You’re right on! This is precisely what Aquinas said in the Summa Contra Gentiles concerning the first proof for the existence of God. I just read it the other day.

 

[WillP]

Prodigalson:

You are precisely correct. Furthermore, if 2 + 2 = 4 was extant in the absence of any, or all, rational human minds, it would be further proof of an originating-rational Mind, capable of holding it as one of perhaps billions of exigencies as a futurum exactum, forever. As you know, we call that “God.”

God bless,
jd

Why don’t you, instead, call it simply a fact. Namely that 2 plus 2 equals 4 regardless of what minds there are. Why do you insist that there is a person behind the mask of reality. Why do you think, for that matter, that reality is a mask?

 

[tonyrey]

Why don’t you, instead, call it simply a fact. Namely that 2 plus 2 equals 4 regardless of what minds there are.

You are assuming that there are minds. According to materialists there are only brains which produce “isomorphisms of atomic particles”. All mathematical equations are mere illusions - like all other human concepts… Your scepticism isn’t radical enough!

 

[mgoforth]

I think the cosmologists’ answers would differ depending on what theological or spiritual convictions they brought to the table prior to being a cosmologist.

That’s quite true. I was thinking about this thread today, and I’ll admit that I did sort of generalize all cosmologists as atheists, materialists, etc… There could certainly be Christian cosmologists, and I just want to point out that I don’t see anything inherently wrong with this line of work. I’m really trying to understand what would make someone pursue a question that logic (as far as I can see) would say is unsolvable IF they don’t believe in God.