While there are various proofs for God's existence, I've found this to be the simplest and therefore the most compelling. If you can refute this, let me know. Seriously, I believe this sums up the claim in Romans 1:19-20 and is undeniable. I'm sure others have expressed this argument, but here it is in my words:
For anything to exist, something must have always existed. Or to put it another way, if there was ever a point at which absolutely nothing existed, there could only be absolutely nothing now. So something exists eternally.
The physical world is decaying and will over time be completely cold and motionless, so the "eternal something" is not physical matter. If the physical world were eternal, it would have completely decayed "an eternity ago".
This "something" is self-existent, eternal, and transcends our physical/material order and is commonly and historically referred to as "God". Other names are "Prime Mover", "First Cause", "The One", etc.
To deny the existence of "God" as defined here is contrary to evidence and reason.
I recently presented this argument in this discussion on the Homeschool.com Forum . God as defined here is still a thousand miles from the God of the Bible, but this is the sure foundation that Romans 1 mentions. From here, the obvious action is for us creatures to seek out this eternal God and be thankful to Him for creating us. We should seek to know why He made us and if He has a further purpose for us. If we turn aside and worship created, non-eternal things it's obvious we are denying the Creator's special honor and should not be surprised to feel His wrath.
Romans 1:18-23
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
A search for God, grounded in thankfulness and "creaturely" humility, would not be properly satisfied until it finds the mercy of God through Jesus Christ. There are surely many distractions and selfish, sinful tendencies that can thwart a search for God. It is only by His mercy and the call of His Spirit that any of us are able to find and understand the mercy He offers us.
See Exit Strategy for more on why Jesus Christ is the only proper end to any true search for the "eternally powerful divine nature" who we are all inescapably aware of.
This does not prove the
This does not prove the existence of "God". What it does is raise an age old philosophical question "can you get something from nothing?". If you answer this with "no" then it is a simplistic leap (of faith?) to the idea of a creator. But what created the creator? Does "God" have a "God" (or creator)?
This logic is simply wrong - it requires that everything had a creator and we know that this cannot be true unless something has always existed. And if you accept that something has always existed then why not accept that the universe existed without God?
God, in this case, is simply a convenient mechanism by which we explain the existence of things. We do not, however, get to explain Gods existence using this logic do we?
Nothing from Nothing
"Something does not come from nothing" is a self-evident axiom.
My argument doesn't attempt to prove "who created God", but rather shows that God is uncreated, self-existent. In the Bible, God reveals His name as "I AM" - a claim of pure eternal existence. This is another reason I believe the Bible to be the true revelation of the self-existent, inescapable divine nature. (see the Bible passage here)
We know the physical universe in which we live is not eternal since it is decaying. Current scientific understanding is that it will all burn out some day. So it can't be eternal since it would have already burned out "an eternity ago". You can speculate about oscillating dimensions of reality, parallel universes, etc. but these are mere speculations. A person can stake their eternal destiny on such speculations if they wish. However, a more reasonable, scientific approach is to realize that entropy wins in the end, therefore the self-existent God must have created all we see, and He likely has some purpose in mind for His creation.
Something from nothing
Cosmologists don't say the Universe came from nothing.
Saying nothing at all about what's on the other side of a wall you can't see through isn't the same thing as saying there's nothing there.
Nobody knows how to see past the big bang, or at any rate not yet. We call everything we can see on this side of it "the Universe".
What's on the other side of it? Don't know.
If you want to argue that since there's nothing on the other side of it, the universe can't have come from nothing, so there must have been something on the other side of it, and then call that something God, go right ahead.
Just don't expect that line to get much respect from anyone who understands the phrase "argument from false premises".
The other side
I'm saying there must be something "on the other side of the wall" and it is necessarily eternal and non-physical. If it was physical, it would be on this side of the wall. If it was not eternal, then there was a "time" when it did not exist and would therefore nothing could ever exist.
The "other" side
[little side note to anyone who thinks I'm arguing God doesn't exist: showing how the Mark's argument doesn't prove God exists doesn't even begin, not even remotely, to prove that God doesn't exist].
The problem with this "before the bang" line of argument is that (a) we know for a fact that almost every premise in it is meaningless or false and (b) even if all the premises were true, it wouldn't support the conclusion.
Let's start with the second answer, because it's easiest to see: which God?
Why should what's on the other side of this wall be the Christian God? The Hindus call everything we can see "samsara", very roughly the world of illusion, and say Jesus was an avatar of Vishnu, one of the five major aspects of God. Your argument supports the Hindu worldview just as well as the Christian one. Also all the other religions that posit a beyond/above/outside reality, and, also, the atheist point of view: that we simply don't know what's past that veil and are going to have to wait until we know more.
Now for the premises.
Science has already been through a lot of revolutions. Over time, the model of the universe that science can describe and measure and predict accurately has changed _radically_. The really bemusing part is that none of these changes have really invalidated the old models, but rather have fitted them into an increasingly larger picture and made them more accurate in the edge cases.
I repeat: I believe in God.
Suppose your kid is a stargazer and starts young. Watching the sky for a night or two and asking the basic question -- "what has to be true in order for this to make sense?" -- will drive any thinking being to the notion that the Earrth is the center of the universe and all else revolves around it.
The thing is, that's good science. All but five of the maybe ten thousand dots in the sky we can see at altitude move, within the limits of one human's unaided observation _exactly_ as that notion predicts: it's very good. It wouldn't be good science to just throw out the geocentric model because of them.
But the moment you stop asking that question, or stop looking for more of "this" to make sense of, you've stopped doing science; you've stopped thinking; part of your mind has gone dark.
It took us many thousands of years to figure out what those five dots are, and how they fit. Five of ten thousand is 0.05%: the Earth-is-the-center theory still explains 99.95% of everything your kid, or you, can see without benefit of history. Thousands of years of that handful of people bothered quite literally to no end by that trifling fraction of the available evidence that doesn't fit.
People built that way are in the grip of the conviction that the universe makes sense in a way that words can explain, that if we keep looking for explanations, we'll find them; and in the grip of the desire to seek them. History says that faith and desire is rewarded: all the old questions except "why?" have been solved, along with a huge fraction of the ones we didn't even know enough to ask until very recently.
We, the human race, learned that our older description of the world is at one and the same time still good for everything it ever was and also subtly or blatantly wrong in every detail.
It was good practice. We've been through a few more rounds since then.
One of them took out our notion of time.
Very few people ever have to take into account the fact that the world isn't flat. People building long bridges have to. People navigating long distances (rather than just following a pre-marked path) have to. I can see for myself enough to convince me that it isn't flat -- looking at the Moon at night and knowing that its fully-lit face points at the Sun makes it easy to tell time within about half an hour; it's fun! -- but I've never, myself, been _forced_ to care. I believe the world isn't flat because it explains that and because people who successfully do things where it really matters say so.
So almost everyone could get by believing it's flat. No biggie: the people who have to care know better.
Even fewer people are _required_ to care that time isn't at all what it seems to be: it's really as different from its apparent linear progression as a flat earth with only one way "up" is from the reality, where "up" depends on where you're standing.
Some people _do_ have to care. You don't, I don't, but you can see things built by people who do just by going to the store. Just pick up any GPS receiver: they're built by people who know that your notion of time depends on where you are and how fast you're going compared to whoever else you care about. The guys who keep asking "what has to be true in order for this to make sense?" can measure the effects, and if they were wrong, your GPS receiver would lie to you about where you are, because it works by measuring how long it takes for signals to reach you from a selection of satellites -- which are all moving relative to each other and you. Relativity matters, and we can measure it, and it's real. These days, airplanes would crash if we didn't have that right.
Bridge-builders have to care that the earth isn't flat, but a more remote and seemingly absurd consequence, that people on the other side are "really" standing "upside down", is kind of academic. Nobody can see that effect like you can if you look at tall bridge towers carefully, and it's probably more appropriate to say that "up" is defined by which way gravity drags you than which way somebody else's feet are pointing.
"Up" doesn't mean at all what it seems to mean in the day-to-day world. It doesn't matter at all, you might think -- but some guy building inertial flight-control systems forgot that it's true nonetheless. Luckily, a test flight took the airplane across the equator, and only the test pilot was on board, rather a load of passengers, when the plane flipped upside down and refused to right itself.
GPS system designers have to care that time doesn't go the same speed everywhere, but a more remote and seemingly absurd consequence, that you can't even _sequence_ events the same way everywhere, is kind of academic. Nobody can see that effect like you can if you look at Mercury's orbit carefully, and it's probably more appropriate to say that "before" is defined by the history of the accelerations you've undergone than what somebody else's clock says.
"Before" doesn't mean at all what it seems to mean in the day-to-day world.
Now ask yourself: which way is "down" at the center of the earth?
Premises and certainty
Jim, Thanks for your comments,
re: point (2) as to why the Christian God, refer to my other article Exit Strategy. Again, that article is only sensible to those who have granted that God (or some equivalent super-being, etc.) exists.
Regarding false premises, I understand your argument, if I can rephrase it: To deny the possibility that the current material/physical universe was produced by unintelligent/undirected force(s) you have to prove that both of these statements are false:
(a)Such forces did previously exist and have ceased, leaving no evidence that they ever existed
(b)Such forces did previously exist or may still exist, but the evidence of their existence is not detectable by any known means.
Both of these are "negative" in the sense of "no evidence" or "non detectable evidence". To therefore attempt to disprove these is to commit the absence of evidence fallacy. I understand I cannot disprove these with mathematical certainty. Thus I continue to use the term "reasonable". We rarely have the benefit of choosing among mathematical certainties but must operate with evidence that we deem reliable. I deem the "God" hypothesis more reasonable than depending on either (a) or (b) - since this not only solves the origin/creation problem, but also other philosophical issues such as the definition of justice, the categorical imperative, etc.
Everyone has to decide this issue and they can depend on (a) or (b) but I think God is more reasonable. If a person makes all decisions based only on mathematical certainties, that person gets nowhere - indeed, they can "prove" they exist but little else - the universe and others remain completely inaccessible if this is the demanded burden of proof.
Premises and certainty
Even simpler: I think arguing that there is or isn't something before the big bang is like arguing that there is or isn't something below the center of the earth.
Before the beginning
Though I don't agree in the "big bang" as some postulate, I agree there is a "beginning" and Augustine wrestles here with the concept of "before the beginning". Quite interesting, see CHAPTER XIV and following particularly.
Proving god? Not with this argument.
Incorporating Aristotle's notion of a "prime mover" into Summa Theologica and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas famously formulated his version of the cosmological or "first cause" argument. According to this argument, the things which we see around us now are the products of a series of previous causes. But that series cannot go back in time forever. Thus there must be some first cause which was not itself caused by anything else. And that first uncaused cause is God. The argument can be put more formally as follows:
1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.
There are several problems with this argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes--multiple gods, say--or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?," you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question--"Why is there something rather than nothing?"--remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?
eternal, powerful, self-existent
Thanks for your comment. I believe my earlier reply titled "Nothing from Nothing" addressed your concerns about "if the universe is infinitely old" and "Why is there a God rather than nothing?"
Regarding your comment "There could multiple gods ...or ... an unintelligent, impersonal force." - I agree. My point is there is something eternal, powerful, and self-existent. In this case, it seems like the logical, reasonable thing for all of us to do is to spend our short lifetimes trying to figure out what this is and if there is something required of us. Surely an eternal, powerful, and self existent Being would not create all of us for no reason at all? That's possible, but not reasonable. A self-existent, eternal being is self-sufficient and not contingent on any "creature" - so could not create out of a "need" but for some other purpose. I explore these ideas further in my Exit Strategy article.
Even if this is true...
I disagree with you about this argument's validity, but here I'm only going to address a logical fallacy in it that appears even if you accept what you have stated. Even if this premise is true, what proof do we have to accept that the Abrahamic god is this uncreated being? It could easily be someone/thing else entirely. It could be that there is an entire pantheon of deities that govern the universe, or that there is a force, not an individual being, that controls the cosmos. The logic of what you have written does not show that your god is the author of the universe; at best, it allows for any religion to assert its own story as the truth, but this poses a problem when it comes to finding anything conclusive since all of these faiths' assertions are equally valid. At the very most, the argument can make an atheist into an agnostic, but not anything else.
Christianity is the reasonable solution
As stated, the "God" of the argument is not necessarily the Abrahamic God of the Bible. However, the certainty of this "God's" existence is meant to be only the starting foundation of a search for the true creator God (or "gods" or "force" etc.) - a search which reasonable people are compelled to begin and continue until the truth is found. The truth is attainable for all who seek and the most reasonable conclusion is that Christianity is the only true religion - my reasons are stated briefly in the Exit Strategy article. Other conclusions are certainly possible, but they are not as reasonable as Christianity. Christianity's distinction is that it is the only religion in which the creature's acceptance before God is completely based on God's mercy. All other religions have some element of earned acceptance. But if God is self-existent and transcendent, how can mere creatures attain to His standard and deserve acceptance? God's infinite greatness and perfection mean that finite, imperfect creatures only gain access to Him through His mercy. Thus, Christianity in which acceptance is 100% mercy based is the only reasonable religion. I agree this is not absolute proof, but is the most reasonable solution, thus the most compelling. I develop this more in Exit Strategy.
Exit Strategy objections
I have read the exit strategy article, and I still have to say that it does not present a reason to choose the Abrahamic god over any other form of higher being/force. The article just says that one would gravitate towards the one higher being of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam because of writings of antiquity without ever explaining why. The ancient texts of the middle east do provide interesting ideas, but they are not the first to present many of these notions. In fact, if one were to compare Lao Tzu's "Tao te Ching", which was written approximately 400-500 years prior to birth of Jesus, one would encounter a myriad of similarities between to the two teachers. (I'm currently home for the holidays, so I can't provide the references right now, but give me some time and I will deliver.) With the plethora of interchangeable concepts found in many religions, including Christianity, it hard for me to see why I would choose the Abrahamic god over the multitude of gods and cosmic forces. Even the death of a divine being to save mankind from its sins is not solely the property of Christianity, as the Hindu god Krishna, the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl, and many other god can attest with their stories.
Another thing that needs to be clarified is that not all religions are concerned with the idea of creation. Buddhism, for example, considers that question unanswerable and largely ignores the issue. Also, while Buddhism is preoccupied with the afterlife, it is not the aim of the religion to get people to a favorable plane of existence. In fact, it tries to have people attain enlightenment so that when they die, they will cease to be all together. Heaven to a Buddhist is merely another realm of suffering. What I'm trying to say here is that all extant religions do not share the same views concerning their aims, so it would be specious to try to compare them in such a simplistic manner. You may try to find characteristics that are distinctive to a particular religion, but in doing so, you risk incurring the danger of overlooking extremely important aspects of other religions that give them the same level of credence as your personal faith. I just want to say that I'm not trying to be antagonistic towards you or your faith; I'm merely adding needed points to the discussion to have a richer converation.
Well-expressed thoughts
Thanks for your well-expressed thoughts. I'm out of time for tonight but will return tomorrow or Wednesday to address the points you've raised. Meanwhile, enjoy your time at home this holiday season. -Mark
Exit Strategy clarifications
Some Guy's objections (paraphrased/summarized):
"The exit strategy article does not present a reason to choose the Abrahamic god over any other form of higher being/force. The article just says that one would gravitate towards the one higher being of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam because of writings of antiquity without ever explaining why. The ancient texts of the middle east do provide interesting ideas, but they are not the first to present many of these notions..." and "not all religions are concerned with the idea of creation" and "all extant religions do not share the same views concerning their aims, so it would be specious to try to compare them in such a simplistic manner"
Exit Strategy says "The seeker would logically be anxious to consider writings of antiquity that claim to give insight to the eternal. The various scriptures of various religions seem likely candidates to be this revelation." I mean here that all ancient writings should be considered, I didn't single out those of middle eastern origin.
Now as the seeker surveys the various texts, I am proposing that the one distinction of the true religion is that "access to the divine" would be based purely on God's mercy. I mean "access to the divine" to incorporate a variety of benefits such as eternal life, divine favor in this physical life, wisdom for one's earthly lifetime, an understanding of life's origin and purpose, etc. The Proving God article focuses on creation/origins and Exit Strategy focuses on the afterlife, but these were not meant to be an exhaustive list of religious concerns. Exit Strategy does reason that obtaining a favorable existence in the afterlife should be everyone's top concern, but indeed it's not the only concern.
Regarding the distinction of mercy, I mean that everyone should be aware of their great limitations and should expect that any efforts to work toward or earn "access to the divine" will always fall short. If God (my term for "the divine") is creator, He is infinitely greater than we are and our greatest efforts will always be inadequate. Now, all religions except one describe and command a way in which humans earn God's acceptance. I claim this is a fundamental flaw and proves these religions are false. Only Christianity claims that mankind is completely helpless and that God has mercy and provides access, through Jesus, for those who have ceased their own striving and simply fall at God's feet, helpless and trusting in none of their human righteousness. This is the only reasonable way in which "access to the divine" is opened, in which the infinite chasm between God and man is bridged.
Here are a few biblical texts that describe this better. Could you take a day or two to think about what I've said here, then get back to me if you have further questions or suggestions? We have holiday activities the next few days so my online activity will be intermittent. I appreciate the tone of your earlier comments and would enjoy further conversation. -Mark
Isaiah 66:1-2 Thus says the LORD, "Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD. "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word."
Luke 18:9-14 And Jesus also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, 'God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'"
"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted."
Romans 9:30-10:4 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them (Jews) is for their salvation. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Romans 10:9-13 if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; for "WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."
1 Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Requesting Further Clarification
I believe you made a number of leaps in your Exit Strategy to come to your conclusion, and those leaps do not seem to be fully thought out. It would seem that you started with your conclusion that your particular view was right and logical and then tried to claim all contradicting claims are therefor wrong, but you didn't do much to substantiate your original conclusions.
For example you say:
This is assuming that life after death is eternal. While this is a common theme in many of today's religions, there is no reason we should look past all other possible belief systems. Who is to say that a creator would even want to be known or interact with people? If it is the case that the creator does not have any interaction with the physical universe then it is quite likely that nobody got it right. If we are to start from a completely neutral standpoint then certainly we must start with the assumption that all possible philosophical belief systems are equally valid and then weed them out from there, not just the ones for which we currently have practicing religions.
I take issue with each part of this sentence. First off, there are many possible scenarios of origin which do not require a creator, and all of them are equally untestable. It is my impression that we can trace the universe back all the way to 1E-41 seconds after the Big Bang, at which point the laws of physics begin to break down. That point is the wall that we cannot yet see beyond, which leaves us with speculation. To make assumptions about an unobservable divine creator but then discount other hypotheses such as oscillating universes as "myths with a mathematical flair" is unreasonable and hypocritical.
These claims are unsubstantiated as well. As said before there could be a creator who has no intention of revealing itself to us, so why is it logical to assume we are dependent on that? You seem to be making the claim that since we could not understand the creator without this self-revelation then the creator must be revealed, but that ignores the possibility that we simply do not understand because said creator was never revealed.
Or none can be true.
This is another assumption. The creator could be just as fallible as we are. The creator could be some whimsical wizard that would be considered insane by any of our standards today. He could be completely self serving and contradicting. It seems here you're defining the god that you want to believe in, and then matching him to the god you already believe in.
Why must we assume that the creator has imposed such limits on how to get to him.? Perhaps he would select people at random. Perhaps he only selects the tallest people. Perhaps none or perhaps all. He may also not be infinitely greater than we are. Maybe just a little greater. Maybe thousands of times greater, but still not infinitely. Or maybe we're completely incomparable.
We can't just pick the mind of the creator based on what qualities we like the best and assume it to be right. If such a creator really exists how can we assume to know how he would select people? We certainly can't base this assumption off what we would do, because our minds could be completely different than his. Your model works for the Christian god, but if you are intending to show that a premise is true you cannot start with the assumption that it is true. My impression by the way you set up your article was that you intended to start from no assumptions about god and then prove the Christian god, not start with the assumption of the Christian god and prove him.
I hope you are not claiming that because Christianity is unique in this way it is therefor right. Perhaps I misunderstood you here, but it seems like you are saying that since Christianity is the only religion with feature X instead of feature Y then it has to be true. Surely you can see the error in reasoning there.
I do not believe you have proven this point, or even shown that accessing the divine is at all possible. Your arguments relied on too many assumptions from the start and ignored too many other possibilities.
Further clarification
Hi AE,
re: "there is no reason we should look past all other possible belief systems"
I have not exhausted all possible systems, but have reasonably concluded that the claims of the various beliefs that have had some staying power should be considered. To study "all possible systems" would by definition take many lifetimes.
re: "there are many possible scenarios of origin which do not require a creator, and all of them are equally untestable"
Agreed. The Proving God article and comment threads pursue this. Though all are "untestable" in a scientific sense, we should follow the most reasonable option.
re: "You seem to be making the claim that since we could not understand the creator without this self-revelation then the creator must be revealed, but that ignores the possibility that we simply do not understand because said creator was never revealed"
Again, I am considering belief systems that have some staying power - all include vast revelation.
re:"Or none can be true"
Agreed - but is that reasonable?
re:"The creator could be some whimsical wizard that would be considered insane by any of our standards today."
Possibly, but I am assuming the creation would reflect the creator. Since we value truth, goodness, beauty I assume these are reflections. Yes, it's an assumption, but I think quite reasonable. We can speculate about any arbitrary god, but then we aren't reasoning, we are being arbitrary.
re: "We certainly can't base this assumption off what we would do, because our minds could be completely different than his."
Could be yes, but what is reasonable?
re:"it seems like you are saying that since Christianity is the only religion with feature X instead of feature Y then it has to be true. Surely you can see the error in reasoning there."
I argue that "feature X" is essential and, again, I consider Christianity against not against all possible systems (an almost infinite set) but against those that have had some adherence and staying power. Therefore, I conclude that only Christianity is true.
Objective Criteria for "Reasonable"
What I wanted to get at is what objective criteria are you using for considering an idea reasonable.? I don't see why the idea of no gods is any less reasonable than the idea of one god, but apparently you do. Why so? We can't just assert that god is one way because that's the way we want him to be. You keep saying it's "reasonable", but what do you really mean by that?
I do understand that it's not possible to view all possible philosophical arguments, but I don't see how you went from that to just selecting one subset of arguments to consider without bothering to think that you may have overlooked the valid one. I like where you were going with the "creation reflects the creator" idea, but I think you have to anthropomophize your god in order to continue down that path, which is another huge assumption. And I agree that just throwing out unprovable conjectures as to what a creator may be is not reasoning, but my point there was that it's not something that can be reasoned. I think you've structured your beliefs in such a way that no matter what arguments I can come up with you can explain it away as "that's the way god wants it", and certainly that is not reasoning either.
You made a point of only considering systems which include vast revelation, and I think that's a good starting point. We could say that the ones with revelation are the ones most likely to matter if we get them right or wrong (if there was no revelation it would probably reflect a god that didn't care what we did anyway). But to do that we still have to assume that god is like us, shares our values, our reasoning and logic, etc.
In closing, I just wanted to say thanks for getting back to me right off. It looks like you got hit with a sudden (probably unexpected) surge of StumbleUpon users and had to re-visit a year-old article. Thanks for taking the time to address us!
Reasonable
AE, thanks for your kind expressions of appreciation. Here's my objective look at what I consider "reasonable".
re:"I don't see why the idea of no gods is any less reasonable than the idea of one god, but apparently you do. Why so?"
If you grant there is a self-existent, eternal "something" - you'd say it's something in the physical universe such as a force or combination thereof, etc. - I'd say it is God. The idea of God is more reasonable than some inanimate force since undirected forces cannot do any real work. Forces can do things, but the complexity of the physical universe indicates various forces at work in intricate fashion. Quantum forces, gravity, electromagnetism, etc. have real power but can't do much of any use unless directed. Indeed, undirected they tend to destroy complexity, not increase it.
So I say the self-existent, eternal something is directing forces and is therefore not itself composed of such forces. In that sense, it is transcendent. If transcendence is required, as I postulate here, then God is the more reasonable hypothesis than no-God.
re:"And I agree that just throwing out unprovable conjectures as to what a creator may be is not reasoning, but my point there was that it's not something that can be reasoned."
Given God exists, as I reasonably postulate here, it would then be reasonable to suppose that God has a purpose in creating. If He created creatures who long for purpose, perhaps He has a purpose as well. It's reasonable to suppose there are clues we can apprehend - though perhaps never fully comprehend. I think this is more reasonable than to assume God must be a complete "black box" beyond all human access.
Some considerations
Ah, cosmological arguments. The author of this site seems to present a somewhat original take on it. Personally I find modal versions more compelling than temporal ones. This seems to be an amalgamation. To sum up this argument as I see it:
1. Creatio ex nihilo is impossible.
2. Existence is necessary.
3. Everything physical (i.e. the universe) is contingent.
4. Therefore, the universe must have been caused by something external to itself. (Which is non-physical and necessary.)
5. Therefore, God exists.
Now, first of all kudos to the author for admitting that this supposed God is a long way off from the God of the Bible. However, I would go further than that and argue that this proves no God at all. Unless, of course, you arbitrarily assign the "God" label onto anything, which lies at the foundation of existence. In my opinion, anything deserving of the label must have certain godly characteristics. At the very least we should be talking about a person and not just some ineffable un-caused cause. The author has done nothing to support the conclusion offered in step 5. It simply does not follow from step 4.
As for steps 1 and 2, how do we know this? Is it an a priori claim or an empirical claim? If you argue the former, how do you justify that? If you argue the latter how do you know that the initial conditions of the universe were the same as they are now? What about quantum foam? Does that not provide ample empirical evidence to the contrary of your premises?
Step 3 seems to suffer from de re/de dicto confusion. Just because physical objects are empirically de re contingent does not necessarily support a claim to physicality sharing this contingency de dicto.
And at last to return to step 4, is the existence of something physically external even coherent? What does it mean to say that something non-physical exists? Is it the same category of existence as that of chairs or as that of ideals? Does the physical include space and time? Does it make sense to talk about non-spatial or atemporal existence?
As is evident, while I shall readily grant the argument a certain degree of validity depending on how much ambiguity is allowed. However, I do not consider it at all sound.
Sincerely,
Sketch Sepahi
Considerations considered
Sketch, thanks for your comments. Steps 1 and 2 are empirical claims. Regarding "quantum foam" and other theories, see my reply to another comment entitled "Eternal Matter?". Re: step 3, I am considering physical objects. Physicality is by definition objective. Lastly for step 4, many non-physical things exist, such as love, fear, and logic.
Considered considerations considered
If they are empirical claims, you have no guarantee that their veracity is justified as being applicable to the initial conditions at the beginning of the universe.
In regards to step 3, I am not sure what you mean when you say that physicality is objective. I do not see how that relates to my objection that you seem to extrapolate the physical as being de dicto contingent just because it happens to be empirically de re contingent. Objectivity has nothing to do with it.
And to step 4, are you saying that God has the same category of existence as love and fear? So you are saying God is an emotion? Does it make sense to say an emotion could be the cause of a physical-category object to exist? I don't know about you, but nothing physical has ever popped into existence from any of my emotions. Besides, the category of existence assigned to emotions is just an abstract concept for the result of a physical process. The abstract concept of emotions might not be physical, just as the abstract concept of a melody might not be physical, but emotions and melodies cannot exist without neural networks and musical instruments. In any case I shall readily grant you that God exists as an abstract concept. However, this does not say much, since this is also the case for Spongebob Squarepants and democracy. I thought you were trying to argue that God exists as something beyond the abstract conceptual category of existence.
Lastly, I do not think you realise that you are undermining your own argument by discounting "parallel universes, oscillating universes, etc." as being just unfounded speculations. Since your argument does in no way lend any credulity to anything but some ineffable un-caused cause, your very own argument might just as readiliy be lent to the support of these "myths with mathematical flair" as to your "myth with religious flair." You have provided us no discernible justification as to why we should prefer a religious ineffable un-caused cause over a mathematical ineffable un-caused cause.
Sincerely,
Sketch
Claims, Categories, Definition, Director
Hi Sketch, thanks for your comments. I'll do my best to address them:
re:If they are empirical claims, you have no guarantee that their veracity is justified as being applicable to the initial conditions at the beginning of the universe.
I should have said these (steps 1 and 2) are axiomatic. See Arthur's 2/13 comment.
re:In regards to step 3, I am not sure what you mean when you say that physicality is objective. I do not see how that relates to my objection that you seem to extrapolate the physical as being de dicto contingent just because it happens to be empirically de re contingent. Objectivity has nothing to do with it.
I mean "physical" can only describe an object or effect, such as a body, energy wave, etc. that is detectable to our senses. In that sense it is "objective". Here's the definition:
re:And to step 4, are you saying that God has the same category of existence as love and fear? So you are saying God is an emotion? Does it make sense to say an emotion could be the cause of a physical-category object to exist? ... I thought you were trying to argue that God exists as something beyond the abstract conceptual category of existence.
To answer your original objection to step 4 (What does it mean to say that something non-physical exists?) I had stated that love, fear, logic and non physical and that they exist. That does not mean that all non-physical things that exist are of the same category as emotions. Indeed I would never claim God is merely an emotion. I also am not claiming that God is "beyond the abstract conceptual category of existence". He does exist, yet is not physical.
re:Lastly, I do not think you realise that you are undermining your own argument by discounting "parallel universes, oscillating universes, etc." as being just unfounded speculations. Since your argument does in no way lend any credulity to anything but some ineffable un-caused cause, your very own argument might just as readiliy be lent to the support of these "myths with mathematical flair" as to your "myth with religious flair." You have provided us no discernible justification as to why we should prefer a religious ineffable un-caused cause over a mathematical ineffable un-caused cause.
I answered this earlier today in a reply to one of AE's comments about when your comment came in. The entire comment is here and the applicable section for your concern is:
If you grant there is a self-existent, eternal "something" - you'd say it's something in the physical universe such as a force or combination thereof, etc. - I'd say it is God. The idea of God is more reasonable than some inanimate force since undirected forces cannot do any real work. Forces can do things, but the complexity of the physical universe indicates various forces at work in intricate fashion. Quantum forces, gravity, electromagnetism, etc. have real power but can't do much of any use unless directed. Indeed, undirected they tend to destroy complexity, not increase it. So I say the self-existent, eternal something is directing forces and is therefore not itself composed of such forces. In that sense, it is transcendent. If transcendence is required, as I postulate here, then God is the more reasonable hypothesis than no-God.
Conceptual confusions
It seems to me as we are in the midst of very muddied waters. Your first claim upon being asked how you justified step 1 and 2 was that they should be accepted for empirical reasons and not on a priori grounds. Now you seem to want to backtrack into the realm of the latter. Mind you, this is fine by me but why the sudden change of heart?
Also I would submit to you that you have a faulty understanding of axioms and what the entail.
An axiom is merely an unproven supposition, which is granted for the sake of further inference in any given system. As such axioms are useful tools in ascertaining inter-relations within their given context but are at their heart devoid of any usefulness in demonstrating the veracity of the system itself. Axioms enable you to prove or disprove something within the context of the system, but are not compelling evidence for someone who questions the validity of the axioms themselves.
If I might be so bold as to lend you a helping hand, I think the case you are attempting to make is that the axioms - including the step 1 & 2 claims - are to be taken as a priori knowledge (not empirical) and should be conceded by virtue of reason alone. However, you would still need to explain exactly why you think these claims are justified a priori. What is it about them - what reason do you employ - to justify that they are self-evident? An appeal to the obviousness of the matter simply will not do. Obviously it is not that obvious to me, lest we would not be discussing it at all. While I shall readily grant that it is counter-intuitive that something would come from nothing and while I have a hard time wrapping my head around absolute nothingness, I still find no logical reason for the assertion that creatio ex nihilo must be impossible in any circumstances or that existence itself could not be contingent.
In regards to physicality, I would venture a guess that you must have misunderstood my objection. Yes, I know what the definition of physical is and I understand what you mean by "objective." What puzzles me is why you bring it up, since, as far as I can see, it has nothing to do with what I said.
In regards to 4. Now, to avoid further confusion, let us disambiguate existence for future reference. Most of us would agree that physical objects such as chairs, rocks, apples etc. have a category of existence, which is independent and external to us. (Unless you are an idealist, which you writings do not indicate so far.) Let us call this externally independent kind of existence Category 1 existence. C1 for short. Now, what I asked you (or at least what I attempted to ask you) was if it would even be coherent to assign C1 existence to something non-physical. Sure, you said and mentioned love, fear, and logic. However, while these might be said to exist, I would argue that we do not mean the same thing by "existence" at all in this context. Love, fear, logic, Spongebob Squarepants, and democracy are conceptual designators. Few people would claim that just because we can coherently talk about the existence of abstract concepts, this does not grant them any independent or external existence. Their existence is solely dependent on our conceptualisation. Let us call it C2 existence. Now, I would claim that something of C2 existence cannot possibly be said to be the cause of C1 existence. That would be a category mistake.
Not even atheists would deny God as having a C2 kind of existence but this is hardly a victory for the theist. Therefore, my challenge still stands. Can you even make coherent sense of something non-physical having C1 existence? So far you have only managed to mention C2 examples.
Lastly, I disagree with you that "undirected forces cannot do any real work." Now, all forces are aimed in some direction and must therefore be said to be directed. However, I interpret you as saying that some sort of intelligent intentionality is required. However, since you - as far as my humble capabilities allow me to discern - have yet to provide an argument for this being the case, all I can say is that I disagree with you. I see no reason as to why "blind" forces should not have in them the intrinsic potential to give rise to complexity. Yet again I would ask; is this an empirical claim of yours or an a priori claim? How do you justify it?
Disambiguating
Hi Sketch,
Forgive my confusion regarding axioms etc. Yes, I regard steps 1 and 2 as self-evident - more about that later.
re:Most of us would agree that physical objects such as chairs, rocks, apples etc. have a category of existence, which is independent and external to us. (Unless you are an idealist, which you writings do not indicate so far.) Let us call this externally independent kind of existence Category 1 existence. C1 for short. ...Can you even make coherent sense of something non-physical having C1 existence?
An example of this is logic, the law of non-contradiction for example. Logic is non-physical yet is external to us and independent of us. However, I am not saying God is simply "logic". Just answering your question.
re:Lastly, I disagree with you that "undirected forces cannot do any real work." Now, all forces are aimed in some direction and must therefore be said to be directed. However, I interpret you as saying that some sort of intelligent intentionality is required. However, since you - as far as my humble capabilities allow me to discern - have yet to provide an argument for this being the case, all I can say is that I disagree with you. I see no reason as to why "blind" forces should not have in them the intrinsic potential to give rise to complexity. Yet again I would ask; is this an empirical claim of yours or an a priori claim? How do you justify it?
Let me clarify "forces not directed by an external agent cannot do any real work". Yes, I am really saying intelligent intentionality is required. As to "why "blind" forces should not have in them the intrinsic potential to give rise to complexity" see my reply to Jim's recent comment.
Now back to the self-evidence of steps 1 and 2 - I think we should focus on the question of the self-evidence of step 1. If we can't agree here, we'll not likely make progress on the rest of the argument which I grant is "less obvious" that step 1. So let me restate my original "step 1" which I claim is self-evident:
For anything to exist, something must have always existed. Or to put it another way, if there was ever a point at which absolutely nothing existed, there could only be absolutely nothing now. So something exists eternally.
You disagree that this is self-evident. As I see it as self-evident, I will not and cannot prove it. I don't know how we get past this. Maybe you could give me an example of a claim you consider self-evident?
RE: rebuttal
The physical world IS eternal; matter can neither be created nor destroyed; ergo, the physical world is eternal.
Eternal matter?
One might argue that the constituents of matter (strings or whatever - we haven't determined that yet) are eternal. Or if you consider energy to be interchangeable with matter - which it is, as Dr. Einstein discovered. But most scientists consider that the "physical world" we inhabit is becoming more chaotic as a whole, as stars die, etc. Matter and energy are conserved, but they will become disorganized to a point there you no longer have a "world".
Of course, you could speculate about parallel universes, oscillating universes, etc. to get past this, but these are speculations unfounded in reason - myths with a mathematical flair.
Proving there is no "God"
We sometimes start at the wrong point. We need to start with what we know first. We can not start with an assumption.
The first thing we know is that "something" exists. What it is is not known at this point as we have not defined it. This is the Axiom of Existence Exists. IT IS.
The next thing is that we are aware of "it". This is Consciousness, which is the faculty of awareness. To be conscious is to be aware. If nothing yet exists we can not be conscious as we don't exist and we can not be conscious of "Nothing". A rock can exist and not have consciousness but a person or intelligence can not have consciousness without existence. This is the Axiom of Consciousness. I am, therefore I think. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. To be conscious of nothing is a contradiction as you can not be conscious without being something.
The third Axiom is the Law of Identity. Existence is Identity. Identity is not a separable feature you can not have an identity without existence. You can have an identity within existence, a is a, a rock is a rock, a tree is a tree etc. The law of Identity is the basis for all knowledge on which we build concepts of what existence is or is not. Identity in action is the Law of Causality which is it's corollary. Entities have Identity and entities cause actions, all in accordance with it's nature or identity. Cause and effect. Not all entities have causes but all actions are caused by entities. Some entities are eternal and have no cause. Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed but they can be changed. That they exist means they are eternal and uncaused, that they can be changed shows
Axioms require no proof as they are self validating. They have no contradictions. A concept formed in the conscious mind must be testable based on these axioms as the conscious mind must exist in order to form them. Any concept that is self contradictory or attempts to contradict these axioms is therefore false. Proof can not presuppose existence, or consciousness. Therefore to say "You can not prove existence" is an evasion of reality, yet reality can not ever evade you. "That bus does not exist, if I cross in front of it while moving towards me, I have faith I will not be struck". The reality is the bus still hits you even though you denied it's existence.
To have consciousness is to think. But thinking allows for incomplete concepts to be formed as well as complete. It allows for the arbitrary to be conceived. The arbitrary is not real. If it is real it is not arbitrary. To be is to be something and act accordingly. The Arbitrary is unprovable or unknowable. If it is unknowable it is not real. To be unknown is not the same thing. Something conceived can be testable to see if it is accordance with reality but it is not known until tested. To say something is unknowable, i.e. "God is unknowable" is to concede that it is not real .
To suppose that an entity existed before existence is a contradiction. To say that all things that exist must have a creator presupposes that the creator does not exist. If the creator exists it to must have a creator. That becomes an infinite regression and meaningless.
AS there is a primacy of Existence over both Consciousness and Identity You can not have an Uncaused Cause, or a Prime Mover. Eternity is forever, existence is eternal. There is exactly as much time of existence after today as there is before today, that is the definition of eternity. The big bang which is the expansion of the universe does not say nothing existed before that. It only states that there is a perceivable expansion of the universe that tends to show that the expansion may have started from a very small stage of being. It does not say Existence started here any more that saying the year one C.E. is the starting point of existence.
"Gods" or "God" or the supernatural are incomplete or Arbitrary concepts. Natural law is not imposed from the outside. Natural law is the Law of Identity. Who caused Causality? Who Created the universe (All of existence, universe, time, space, multi-dimensions, matter energy, eternity.) ? Existence Exists. There is no cause. It is.
Arthur
I agree
Hi Arthur, I agree with your axioms and distinctions between aximos and concepts and with all you say until the final paragraph:
Why do you say "Natural law is the Law of Identity"? Your axiom on identity is brief and irrefutable - why do you equate this with natural law? Isn't natural law typically understood to include more than identity?
You state that the universe is "all of existence". My term for the universe means that which is "expanding" and has a dimension. It is not axiomatic that this is all of existence.
Proving God
You say that the physical World is decaying and will become motionless. But it will still be there. So something physical stays. So no need to introduce something non physical. It just may be that matter has and always will exist.
Physical world
Hi Neil, by physical "world" I mean something resembling the physical structures and laws we see in effect now. You could say that something composed of energy, strings, quarks, whatever existed way back, that they were transformed into something like our universe, and that these structures are decomposing and will somehow someday the constituents will be retransformed into something like another "world".
There are various speculative proposals about what might transform and retransform these constituents. I conclude these are speculations less reasonable than the idea of god as discussed here. Everyone is entitled to speculate, but not all speculations are reasonable.