Proof of God, Continued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
621

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
When God causes something in the bible, he skips over the causal chain and is the direct cause of the action superseding natural law, which we term a miracle.
[/quote]

That is fine, but then there has to be a reason the God of the Bible can do this and nothing else can.
[/quote]
Agreed. And I cannot give you all the answers for certain. I can give some. If God is the Uncaused-cause he should have no problem trancending the causal chain. Because an Uncaused-cause cannot be compelled by anything outside itself to cause without any sort of cause, this demonstrates that it must have something of a will. I.E. The for the uncaused to cause and remain uncaused, it must ‘decide’ to do what it does.
Now this may be a point of contention so I am asking you what you think?
For an Uncaused-cause to exist, be uncaused and be causal what must it possess to do so? Or in other words, how can it cause, without being acted on in anyway by anything? Having something like a ‘will’ seems to me to be the only answer that would fit, but I am open to other ideas.

[quote]
Also, it appears to me that God is not entirely outside of the causal chain, especially within the context of scripture. Sodomites sin, God destroys Sodom. Onan pulls out, God kills Onan.

Were not the sins of the Sodomites and the sin of Onan the causes of God’s wrath? Was His wrath not contingent?[/quote]

Well philosophy can only tell us so much, and it won’t explain that. If God is the Uncaused-cause and the God of revelation than all of the above is possible while God remains perfectly with in his substance.

I don’t think his wrath is contingent per se because he had other options. He could not care, he could do nothing, he could have sent them roses, etc. God had a choice.
In the OT at that time, God revealed himself a certain way, for the sake of consistency, by manner of his own choice, he chose to maintain that consistency.
So in this sense it’s not so much that God was acted contingently on his anger as much as he acted on a manner of his own will.

We know more about God’s personality through revelation than through philosophy. Philosophy sets the case for God. Revelation takes over if you want to know more about Him, and that’s where faith comes in.

And don’t think some of the OT stories don’t bother me, they do. I think it’s good and right to question them. It’s the quest for understanding.
The myth that some new atheists have created as a strawman, is that if God is all omni-whatever and all loving, then he wouldn’t allow evil and nothing bad would ever happen. That’s pure myth, it’s certainly never been a Christian belief.

622

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Without being acted on either by an intrinsic law by which its compulsed or by something external it’s existence is caused.
[/quote]

I am not sure I understand this part. I am just talking about an elementary particle. If there was a singularity it would have been part of that but not the entire thing. The singularity is not a proven thing so I am not sure it makes sense to bring it up for a proof.[/quote]

Well, I didn’t entirely understand your question, so I answered only in part. Can you clarify what you are asking and if it’s something I can answer I will try?

623

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I imagine that if I were to ask why it–the universe–changes states, the answer might be something like “because the universe possibly causes itself to change states.”
[/quote]

I suppose. (Actually, all I can do is suppose here: For me to claim to “know” any of this would be, obviously, stupid.)

That would be the answer for God, correct? When God “does” something in the Bible, He is both the cause and the instrument of the doing?[/quote]

I don’t think God is necessarily the answer here. Actually I don’t think He is the answer to this. That posits a ‘God of Gaps’ theory, which for cosmology to be true, the God of the gaps must be untrue.
It’s not that I don’t believe God is the initial causer. It’s that I don’t necessarily believe that a singularity or the laws that guide it are necessarily the first thing that was caused.
Causation is the reason for the changing states, at what point of the causal chain that is, I don’t know.
When God causes something in the bible, he skips over the causal chain and is the direct cause of the action superseding natural law, which we term a miracle.
[/quote]

By the way, I think you misread my post. I wasn’t saying that God was the answer, I was saying that would be the same kind of answer for God. That is, just as God is alleged to cause Himself to change states, so would the universe, in this view, cause itself to change states.[/quote]

Ah, ok. Well, I answered this in part in my other post. We have the constraint that the Uncaused-cause cannot be compelled, acted on, or moved in anyway by anything external, or a constraining thing like a law. It therefore must have something like a ‘will’. God didn’t change states in as much as he willed something to happen.
The question is, given the constraints we have of a uncaused being. How can it cause without anything at all compelling it to do so? A will seems to be the best fit. God can choose to do what he wants without anything acting on him to do it.
Given the limitations, God cannot be caused to do anything, yet does cause something else, how can He do it and remain true to the nature of being an Uncaused-cause? If not will then what?

624

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

That would be the answer for God, correct? When God “does” something in the Bible, He is both the cause and the instrument of the doing?[/quote]

Correct! I’m not searching for anyone to say “I know” if they don’t. I’m content with people at least entertaining the possibility of eternal uncaused cause. Not immediately rejecting it as irrational.

Now, back to the particular view being expressed as a possibility. Does this mean I am un-caused? If we’re encompassing everything else as part of the part of the universe, why not me?[/quote]

If you exist for no reason and never came into being but always was then sure.[/quote]

Well, I was speaking with a particular argument in mind. If the universe is uncaused because everything is the universe (like laws and singularity), and I’m part of the universe…

I mean, if the universe is uncaused by the singularity because the singularity is simply a state of the universe…

And the laws/mechanics didn’t/don’t cause the universe, because they too will be considered as part of the universe…

Then why should I be considered caused? Why shouldn’t I be considered some micro-state of the universe, since I’m merely part of the universe?
[/quote]

Sure, I get it. If everything is a brute fact then you yourself could be also a brute fact.
The problem with brute facts is that the logic for them is circular. But tossing that aside, if everything is a brute fact, then you to can and are a brute fact and causation is merely an illusion and a grand lie.

625

[quote]
This would be circular, no? Then it is because it is. Then wouldn’t that be a cannot since it’s also absurd?[/quote]

Nope.
“it is because it is” is circular. But “if no contingent thing exists, then everything is non-contingent” is not.

The two propositions are not identical.

“if no contingent thing exists, then everything is non-contingent” is a mere affirmation. And it is a tautology : the conclusion will be true each and everytime the premisse is true.

“it is because it is” is an answer to a “why ?” question, and it begs the question. It’s indeed circular and it’s worthless as an explanation.

Actually, a “non-contingent universe” is quite similar to an “uncaused God”. You can affirm it, but you can’t question it without absurdity, nor explain it without circularity.
If the universe is non-contingent, you can’t ask “why does it exist ?”, for the very same reason you can’t ask “what caused God”, if God exists.

What many believers fail to realize is that the hypothesis of a contingent universe created by an unknowable God has no more explanatory power than the hypothesis of a non-contingent universe.

In both cases, the ultimate “why ?” is not only unanswerable, it’s not even “askable”, so to speak.

626

[quote]kamui wrote:

Great post. This reflects my view of the thing. What I usually say is: “Wherever we go, and whatever path we take, we will come to something that we cannot understand.” Understand meaning “fit into what we think we know about the world,” or “question.”

627

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
When God causes something in the bible, he skips over the causal chain and is the direct cause of the action superseding natural law, which we term a miracle.
[/quote]

That is fine, but then there has to be a reason the God of the Bible can do this and nothing else can.
[/quote]
Agreed. And I cannot give you all the answers for certain. I can give some. If God is the Uncaused-cause he should have no problem trancending the causal chain. Because an Uncaused-cause cannot be compelled by anything outside itself to cause without any sort of cause, this demonstrates that it must have something of a will. I.E. The for the uncaused to cause and remain uncaused, it must ‘decide’ to do what it does.
Now this may be a point of contention so I am asking you what you think?
For an Uncaused-cause to exist, be uncaused and be causal what must it possess to do so? Or in other words, how can it cause, without being acted on in anyway by anything? Having something like a ‘will’ seems to me to be the only answer that would fit, but I am open to other ideas.

This is a great post and I would like to respond re: whether God’s wrath is contingent. Not because I have a bone to pick, but simply because it interests me.

However, I’m got about 2 feet of snow to shovel, and then some of another kind of gift to buy, and then an hours-long chain of female orgasms to be the sustaining cause of. (Couldn’t resist.)

So, hopefully I will get to this some time soon.

628

[quote]kamui wrote:

I see. Ok

That would be correct if the universe were non-contingent. But we already know it is. Nothing about the definition of the universe make it absurd to ask “why”.

It kicks the can further down the road. It gives the universe explanatory power, it does not explain how or why God would have provided to conditions for it to exist. So correct, it doesn’t explain existence, but it gives a semblance of explanation to something that does exist.

629

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
When God causes something in the bible, he skips over the causal chain and is the direct cause of the action superseding natural law, which we term a miracle.
[/quote]

That is fine, but then there has to be a reason the God of the Bible can do this and nothing else can.
[/quote]
Agreed. And I cannot give you all the answers for certain. I can give some. If God is the Uncaused-cause he should have no problem trancending the causal chain. Because an Uncaused-cause cannot be compelled by anything outside itself to cause without any sort of cause, this demonstrates that it must have something of a will. I.E. The for the uncaused to cause and remain uncaused, it must ‘decide’ to do what it does.
Now this may be a point of contention so I am asking you what you think?
For an Uncaused-cause to exist, be uncaused and be causal what must it possess to do so? Or in other words, how can it cause, without being acted on in anyway by anything? Having something like a ‘will’ seems to me to be the only answer that would fit, but I am open to other ideas.

This is a great post and I would like to respond re: whether God’s wrath is contingent. Not because I have a bone to pick, but simply because it interests me.

However, I’m got about 2 feet of snow to shovel, and then some of another kind of gift to buy, and then an hours-long chain of female orgasms to be the sustaining cause of. (Couldn’t resist.)

So, hopefully I will get to this some time soon.

[/quote]
lol! Get to work buddy. Those women don’t wait forever. Respond when you like, it sounds like the potential for a great discussion.

630

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Without being acted on either by an intrinsic law by which its compulsed or by something external it’s existence is caused.
[/quote]

I am not sure I understand this part. I am just talking about an elementary particle. If there was a singularity it would have been part of that but not the entire thing. The singularity is not a proven thing so I am not sure it makes sense to bring it up for a proof.[/quote]

Well, I didn’t entirely understand your question, so I answered only in part. Can you clarify what you are asking and if it’s something I can answer I will try?[/quote]

Your original proof relies on showing X is not uncaused before addressing its “causedness”. So in this case

X = an elementary particle, building block of the universe

We know they exist so the next step in your proof is to state why they cannot be uncaused.

If you are still not understanding the above then what about X = a pencil. Is that uncaused, if not why? Otherwise just ignore this part

631

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Without being acted on either by an intrinsic law by which its compulsed or by something external it’s existence is caused.
[/quote]

I am not sure I understand this part. I am just talking about an elementary particle. If there was a singularity it would have been part of that but not the entire thing. The singularity is not a proven thing so I am not sure it makes sense to bring it up for a proof.[/quote]

Well, I didn’t entirely understand your question, so I answered only in part. Can you clarify what you are asking and if it’s something I can answer I will try?[/quote]

Your original proof relies on showing X is not uncaused before addressing its “causedness”. So in this case

X = an elementary particle, building block of the universe

We know they exist so the next step in your proof is to state why they cannot be uncaused.

If you are still not understanding the above then what about X = a pencil. Is that uncaused, if not why? Otherwise just ignore this part[/quote]

An elementary particle has charge and motion, on those two things(at least) it depends and is therefore contingent on them. Something that is contingent is not noncontingent.

632

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Without being acted on either by an intrinsic law by which its compulsed or by something external it’s existence is caused.
[/quote]

I am not sure I understand this part. I am just talking about an elementary particle. If there was a singularity it would have been part of that but not the entire thing. The singularity is not a proven thing so I am not sure it makes sense to bring it up for a proof.[/quote]

Well, I didn’t entirely understand your question, so I answered only in part. Can you clarify what you are asking and if it’s something I can answer I will try?[/quote]

Your original proof relies on showing X is not uncaused before addressing its “causedness”. So in this case

X = an elementary particle, building block of the universe

We know they exist so the next step in your proof is to state why they cannot be uncaused.

If you are still not understanding the above then what about X = a pencil. Is that uncaused, if not why? Otherwise just ignore this part[/quote]

An elementary particle has charge and motion, on those two things(at least) it depends and is therefore contingent on them. Something that is contingent is not noncontingent.[/quote]

I am not sure the above is accurate. Dr matt can probably clarify if he sees this.

Either way lets try this

X = the charge on an electron (its energy I guess you could say)

Why is this uncaused?

633

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Without being acted on either by an intrinsic law by which its compulsed or by something external it’s existence is caused.
[/quote]

I am not sure I understand this part. I am just talking about an elementary particle. If there was a singularity it would have been part of that but not the entire thing. The singularity is not a proven thing so I am not sure it makes sense to bring it up for a proof.[/quote]

Well, I didn’t entirely understand your question, so I answered only in part. Can you clarify what you are asking and if it’s something I can answer I will try?[/quote]

Your original proof relies on showing X is not uncaused before addressing its “causedness”. So in this case

X = an elementary particle, building block of the universe

We know they exist so the next step in your proof is to state why they cannot be uncaused.

If you are still not understanding the above then what about X = a pencil. Is that uncaused, if not why? Otherwise just ignore this part[/quote]

An elementary particle has charge and motion, on those two things(at least) it depends and is therefore contingent on them. Something that is contingent is not noncontingent.[/quote]

I am not sure the above is accurate. Dr matt can probably clarify if he sees this.

Either way lets try this

X = the charge on an electron (its energy I guess you could say)

Why is this uncaused?[/quote]

I suppose you want to walk me down the path of the causal chain until I get to ‘I don’t know’, so then you can say ‘How do you know that is not the Uncaused-cause?’
I know just a glossing of particle physics. I don’t have all the answers and I don’t know what caused what necessarily. The conclusion of the argument does not identify a particular thing per se, it does not call it something specific. It calls it a Necessary Being, or Uncaused-cause.
Now the only thing that fits that definition as we understand it, is God. You don’t want to fall into the opposite of the ‘God of gaps’ problem and plug in science where there is an unknown. And I don’t care to explain how the cosmological argument is not a ‘god of gaps’ argument. It isn’t, there is sufficient information on that on the internet.
The arguments determines that a necessary Being exists. It’s not likely that science can identify such a chain unless it dares to shed it’s empirical contingency and allow metaphysics to guide it. It muddies the waters of what science is, what philosophy is and what religion is.
These are the big questions, but in the end, answering them won’t change anybody’s mind. People changed when they are touched by something personally. While personal testimony is often suspect, and quite frankly some people are nuts, others are dishonest. But when it happens to you, then you know and it won’t matter what anybody else says at that point.

Truth of the matter is, I don’t think anybody is atheist, theist or agnostic because of science or philosophy or religion. They are what they are because of their experience and personal response to it. Shit nobody can prove to anybody.

634

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t have all the answers and I don’t know what caused what necessarily. The conclusion of the argument does not identify a particular thing per se, it does not call it something specific. It calls it a Necessary Being, or Uncaused-cause.
[/quote]

My problem was you can never get to the conclusion of your argument because it depends on knowing what you don’t know and can never possibly know. Assumption but not a proof.

[quote]pat wrote:
Truth of the matter is, I don’t think anybody is atheist, theist or agnostic because of science or philosophy or religion. They are what they are because of their experience and personal response to it. Shit nobody can prove to anybody.[/quote]

What is the title of this thread again? Could have ended it earlier as I think everyone can at least agree on this part.

635

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t have all the answers and I don’t know what caused what necessarily. The conclusion of the argument does not identify a particular thing per se, it does not call it something specific. It calls it a Necessary Being, or Uncaused-cause.
[/quote]

My problem was you can never get to the conclusion of your argument because it depends on knowing what you don’t know and can never possibly know. Assumption but not a proof.
[/quote]
And that’s where knowing the argument really, really well is extremely helpful. I am not talking about just hearing it or have some high level knowledge of it. I am talking about digging you heals into it. You don’t have to know everything about everything. You have to understand what is even possible and what is not. You take the guess work out of having to know everything about everything to know certain propositions are either true or false.
For instance, If I write an equation x+y=z, you don’t have to ever know what x, y or z are for the equation to always be true. That’s not saying the equation is or is not true. It’s saying if it’s true, it’s always true no matter what x and y represent.
In the case of the argument we know certain propositions are true. For instance we know contingency exists. We know an infinite regress is logically impossible. The truth of necessary propositions make the argument work, even if we do not know all the variables involved. We don’t have to know everything to know certain things are true.

[quote]

[quote]pat wrote:
Truth of the matter is, I don’t think anybody is atheist, theist or agnostic because of science or philosophy or religion. They are what they are because of their experience and personal response to it. Shit nobody can prove to anybody.[/quote]

What is the title of this thread again? Could have ended it earlier as I think everyone can at least agree on this part.[/quote]

This doesn’t end it either. It’s by asking the big questions, despite your opinion on the matter that helps you learn. It’s not enough to hold an opinion, you have to be able to justify it. Really the process is more important than the end. You learn by asking, by discussing, by researching, by arguing. Whether or not it leads one to change his mind isn’t as important as the fact that you learned much more about it. Progress does not come easy, but it won’t come at all if you don’t put in the work.

636

[quote]pat wrote:
For instance we know contingency exists.
[/quote]

How do you know this? Or is it just an assumption?

637

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
For instance we know contingency exists.
[/quote]

How do you know this? Or is it just an assumption?[/quote]

Shhhhh. Something as preeminent as epistemology doesn’t mean a thing to those who think they can deductively prove God’s existence.

638

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t have all the answers and I don’t know what caused what necessarily. The conclusion of the argument does not identify a particular thing per se, it does not call it something specific. It calls it a Necessary Being, or Uncaused-cause.
[/quote]

My problem was you can never get to the conclusion of your argument because it depends on knowing what you don’t know and can never possibly know. Assumption but not a proof.
[/quote]
And that’s where knowing the argument really, really well is extremely helpful. I am not talking about just hearing it or have some high level knowledge of it. I am talking about digging you heals into it. You don’t have to know everything about everything. You have to understand what is even possible and what is not. You take the guess work out of having to know everything about everything to know certain propositions are either true or false.
For instance, If I write an equation x+y=z, you don’t have to ever know what x, y or z are for the equation to always be true. That’s not saying the equation is or is not true. It’s saying if it’s true, it’s always true no matter what x and y represent.
In the case of the argument we know certain propositions are true. For instance we know contingency exists. We know an infinite regress is logically impossible. The truth of necessary propositions make the argument work, even if we do not know all the variables involved. We don’t have to know everything to know certain things are true.

[quote]

[quote]pat wrote:
Truth of the matter is, I don’t think anybody is atheist, theist or agnostic because of science or philosophy or religion. They are what they are because of their experience and personal response to it. Shit nobody can prove to anybody.[/quote]

What is the title of this thread again? Could have ended it earlier as I think everyone can at least agree on this part.[/quote]

This doesn’t end it either. It’s by asking the big questions, despite your opinion on the matter that helps you learn. It’s not enough to hold an opinion, you have to be able to justify it. Really the process is more important than the end. You learn by asking, by discussing, by researching, by arguing. Whether or not it leads one to change his mind isn’t as important as the fact that you learned much more about it. Progress does not come easy, but it won’t come at all if you don’t put in the work.[/quote]

Logic does not exist objectively, it is a social construction. Your approach ignores epistemology, ontology, and methodology.

639

[quote]
Logic does not exist objectively, it is a social construction.[/quote]

This is a false dichotomy and an absurd statement.

Construction, social or not, require materials and basic knowledge of physics.
No Taj Mahal without stones and gravity.
No -logy without concepts and logic.

640

[quote]kamui wrote:

Why does construction in the immaterial sense that I’m using it require physics?
Yes.
If that is so, it reinforces my point. Concepts are most certainly socially constructed, and the way many view logic is nothing short of reification.