Logical proofs for God

Fysh

Slow coach wrote:

Use your logic, man. (of course, if you do you'll find that God really does exist!!) :eek:

What? How does that work? I for one don't believe it's in any way logical to conclude that there is a God, and I'm not the only one.

With regard to the topic, I remember reading an interview with Douglas Adams on the matter where he said he usually described himself as a "radical atheist" to try and indicate that yes, he really had thought this through and read up on the subject and no, he didn't want to have some nice but misguided fools from the local parish try to convert him.

Pherekydes

Fysh wrote:

What? How does that work? I for one don't believe it's in any way logical to conclude that there is a God, and I'm not the only one.

Oh, well that's definitely it, then!

I, for one, don't believe it's in any way logical to conclude that there isn't a God, and I'm not the only one.

Fysh

Slow coach wrote:

Oh, well that's definitely it, then!

I, for one, don't believe it's in any way logical to conclude that there isn't a God, and I'm not the only one.

Well, quite. This was what I was driving at - I don't think it's possible to arrive at a definitive logical conclusion on the matter either way, therefore stating that using logic leads to believing in God is a bit daft.

I'd be interested to hear what your chain of logic that leads to God's irrefutable existence is, though.

elivsvonchiaing

Think before debating this, exactly what is meant by God should have been defined. Most people would call me an atheist - but I believe in the Spinoza idea of God: the Creator, the Law Maker (physical not moral), the armchair God that just sits back and observes creation and does not interfere in any way.

Most people who believe in "God" believe in an interfering god that will help them through interference! Interferance requested through prayer.

Elessar

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

Think before debating this, exactly what is meant by God should have been defined. Most people would call me an atheist - but I believe in the Spinoza idea of God: the Creator, the Law Maker (physical not moral), the armchair God that just sits back and observes creation and does not interfere in any way.

Most people who believe in "God" believe in an interfering god that will help them through interference! Interferance requested through prayer.

A valid question. I believe that God is supreme consciousness, the highest vibration, the Creator, All that Is. And that we are all God, individualised from the Him/It to express and experience ourselves in an infinite varieties through free choice and self-awareness.

I think it's best for God not to be called God, but perhaps "All that Is" or "the Source" or something to that effect, in order to avoid religious dogma.

As to the origional question, yes I believe laziness is responsible for the majority (read: not all) of people who choose atheism. Having been an atheist once myself, I relalised that I was basing it out of not-knowing all the "evidence" (for want of a better word) or arguments for, rather than against, the existence of a higher order to reailty. Having looked at this other side of the coin so to speak for several years and utilising my own thoughts and feelings about the nature of existence, I decided there was enough circumstantial evidence to persuade me that there is a Creator and life is about expression of self and (here) experience of physical life.

I know a lot of atheists atm and I know they are basing their beliefs on ignorance of all the arguments both for and against the existence of a Creator.

neuro-praxis

elivsvonchiaing: that's originally Aristotle's idea of the Unmoved Mover you're referring to, which Spinoza of course ripped off.

Manchegan said:

Since Galileo, science and religion have been shown to be mutually exclusive, each consisting of fundamentally different building blocks, and bolstering one with the other is doomed to failure. Looking to science to "prove/disprove" the existence of God is akin to forcing a square peg through a round hole.

If you do your research you will find

1) That Galileo loved the church, was a vocal church advocator and was friendly with a number of popes. His relationship with the Catholic Church broke down during the reformation but he remained loyal to the his catholic faith. That he was at odds with the church at all is a misconception. Read Rebuilding the Matrix by Denis Alexander for more on this.

2) We are not discussing looking to science to prove the existence of God, but to philosophy and logic. To scientifically prove something we must do so through experimentation, which is quite obviously not possible in the realm of ontological, cosmological or epistemological thought.

3) It is perfectly possible for science and religious belief to co-exist. I must ask you why you think they cannot exist together? Science is not the "new religion". SJ Gould, our primary source on the most recent and accurate account evolutionary theory, holds religious belief (well, held. He died not too long ago). What does that say? I fear that you are being sidetracked by an understandable prejudice against fundamentalist 7-day creationist Christians.

Fysh said:

Well, quite. This was what I was driving at - I don't think it's possible to arrive at a definitive logical conclusion on the matter either way, therefore stating that using logic leads to believing in God is a bit daft.

I'd be interested to hear what your chain of logic that leads to God's irrefutable existence is, though.

Let's then imagine that we are discussing the Unmoved Mover, which is effectively, the creator God. He/She/It did its work and is now sitting back.

Can we logically prove it exists?

I believe so. This is a (summation of) cosmological proof for the existence of God as proposed by Dr. Thomas AF Kelly.

Things whose existences are not necessary are mortal - that is to say, they come into existence and then they pass away. Contingency and temporailty therefore are two sides of the same coin.

If the expression "God exists" is always a contingent (possibly true, but possibly untrue) statement, what can we say?


I'll preface it with a proof that demonstrates that possibility is insufficient for actuality.

p = actual
not p = possible

[example - if a doctor says; "I am a doctor" they are stating actuality. To say "I could become a pilot/chef/helipcopter" is to state what is possible.]

To say that possibility is sufficient for actuality is to say that p = not p. [example, it is for the doctor to say "I am a pilot".]

To say p = not p is a very clear contraditiction, therefore we know that possibility is not sufficient for actuality.

Since we now know with certainty that possibility is insufficient for actuality, then we know that the possibility of a world is not enough for a world to exist. Possibilities of existence do not alter existence. And each event has a cause. Therefore, as we can see that the world is insufficient for its own existence, then there must be something outside of thw world and not identical to itself that caused its existence.

That which grants existence is unique: to provide that which it is to be. What God turns out to be is that which is identical to what it is to be.

Thus the ongoing existence of the world is dependent on the creator of the world for that very existence.

---

Refute at will!

neuro-praxis

PS - I may not be back to the thread for a while as I'm sitting a medieval literature exam on Monday morning.

elivsvonchiaing

neuro-praxis wrote:

that's originally Aristotle's idea of the Unmoved Mover you're referring to, which Spinoza of course ripped off.

As an Einstein fan was debating whether to attribute it to him - think he actually made Spinoza "famous" tbh. Glad I didn't Thought was wtf has heard of Spinoza? Luckily I had faith in the forum I was posting in! :cool:

Canis Lupus

I love all the big words ppl use in these arguments. I'm an atheist because god hasn't personally tapped me on the shoulder and said "boo" to me yet. I don't find my attitude lazy.

Excelsior

If Adams is a radical atheist, then I am a radical Christian. I don't think that sunday Christians damage my position or reflect poorly on my belief. I just think they are missing out on the actual, real, tangebile benefits of the Gospel.

elivsvonchiaing

Actually I found the gospels most anti-"We shall live forever" etc. I was more St Paul's writings that resurrected an idea that had been rejected by the Judaeans for 150 years!
I'm not into the xxx [yyy;hhh] sh!t; at a guess Matthew; Jesus asked of the widow who married the 7 brothers; - there is no such thing as man 'n wife in the kingfom of heaven! Say's it all imho - as sexual entities - you have to cast all that aside on your deathbed - hardly enticing - but better than 70 raisins :cool:

CiDeRmAn

All very interesting lads, still find the universe all around us to requires no God to function in any way.
God is a concept born of the fear of the unknown, gradually developing more and more complex as our questions about the world around us became more complex.
He has also been used as a tool to allow man to work within a moral framework while living in large social groups, it creates feelings of belonging,
God also engenders one with all the emotional support that your own parents give you or perhaps didn't but should have. Comfort, Hope for the future, the safety of unconditional love.
Its not hard to see that God as a tool is surprising handy.
But thats all he is.
God must give way to rationalism, the worlds questions have crumbled one by one as scientific thought explained away those traditionally only answered in the bible.
We know where we are from, we know where the unverse comes from. They are answered by evolution, genetics, physics.
Oh yeah and as to the guy Flew claiming that the complexity of life required intelligence to guide it in its development, thats up there with the flat earth theory, what a load of nonsense!
As to questions of "Why am I here?", and "What is our Purpose?" well those questios are looking a tad juvenile now in the light of psychology, anthroplogy and sociology.
The fundamental links between us and the rest of the creatures of this world are impossible to ignore, our emotions and drives are simply extensions of the things all life on earth craves, simply intellectualised, made more complex by our willingness to act against our Dna programming and act against the best interests of the group.
No God here I am afraid.
How many other cultures through out history believed in deities?
Look to the middle east, the records of all the civilisations that existed there are available, their belief systems point to an evolution of a god idea, we can see it as a development of a set of folk tales and myths, nothing more. Useful tool for the maintanence of a people in a harsh desert enviroment.
Anyway thats it for me.
I guess the above will seem like so much random flow of conciousness, but its on my mind.

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

Fysh said:

Let's then imagine that we are discussing the Unmoved Mover, which is effectively, the creator God. He/She/It did its work and is now sitting back.

Can we logically prove it exists?

I believe so. This is a (summation of) cosmological proof for the existence of God as proposed by Dr. Thomas AF Kelly.

Things whose existences are not necessary are mortal - that is to say, they come into existence and then they pass away. Contingency and temporailty therefore are two sides of the same coin.

If the expression "God exists" is always a contingent (possibly true, but possibly untrue) statement, what can we say?

I'll preface it with a proof that demonstrates that possibility is insufficient for actuality.

p = actual
not p = possible

[example - if a doctor says; "I am a doctor" they are stating actuality. To say "I could become a pilot/chef/helipcopter" is to state what is possible.]

To say that possibility is sufficient for actuality is to say that p = not p. [example, it is for the doctor to say "I am a pilot".]

To say p = not p is a very clear contraditiction, therefore we know that possibility is not sufficient for actuality.

Since we now know with certainty that possibility is insufficient for actuality, then we know that the possibility of a world is not enough for a world to exist. Possibilities of existence do not alter existence. And each event has a cause. Therefore, as we can see that the world is insufficient for its own existence, then there must be something outside of thw world and not identical to itself that caused its existence.

That which grants existence is unique: to provide that which it is to be. What God turns out to be is that which is identical to what it is to be.

Thus the ongoing existence of the world is dependent on the creator of the world for that very existence.

---

Refute at will!

Two things :

a)As far as I can tell, I can use the exact same argument, only switching in "god does not exist" or, if you prefer, "god cannot exist", in order to prove things the other way.

b)I've bolded your starting points because I disagree with them. I don't think that one can mathematically separate statements in such a way. If p is what is actual, surely not p would have to be all that is not actual? This will encompass what is possible, surely - but also what is physically impossible and therefore not actual as well?

As an interesting side note, the physicist in me would like to point out that "Since we now know with certainty that possibility is insufficient for actuality, then we know that the possibility of a world is not enough for a world to exist. Possibilities of existence do not alter existence." is technically at odds with what experiments on quantum theory suggest. I mention this more because, having noticed it, I wondered who this A F Kelly chap is, and whether he'd addressed the subject at all.

neuro-praxis

Disagreeing with syllogistic logic is probably a bad idea. It's like disagreeing that 1+1=2. You can't disagree with it and still be right.

Your idea that all that is not p encompasses all that is impossible is fine with me. It fits perfectly with what I have said. How does it nullify the equation? We have seen that what is actual is not equal to what is possible and what is impossible. Grand.

Dr. Thomas AF Kelly is the dean of philosophy at NUI Maynooth. An argument that refutes his has not to date been found.

And CiDeRmAn - you offered no refute of my arguments - only a series of unfounded opinions.

atheist

Did you hear about the Irish atheist?
He wished to god to believe in him!

Growing up these days you are exposed to so many different mythologies, celtic, Roman Catholic, Norse, Egyptian, Buffy the vampire slayer etc, that religion is diminished as an important impact on culture and behaviour.

In answer to the question, few put deep thought into their beliefs.

We are also hardwired to believe, the "God spot" discovered by brain surgeons.

So atheists are the rational ones able to reason beyond society's diktat.

neuro-praxis

Um...are you suggesting that my reasoned argument came from, I don't know, pressure from society or something?

Isn't anyone going to address the argument?

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

Disagreeing with syllogistic logic is probably a bad idea. It's like disagreeing that 1+1=2. You can't disagree with it and still be right.

Excuse me? You're telling me that disagreeing with a form of logic which utilises the mathematical form (which, despite the best efforts of the Langlands project, still cannot be proven to be one self-consistent structure with several subforms which can all be intertranslated without any form of corruption or information loss) to try and assume absolutelness whilst still incorporating linguistic elements makes me wrong? Convenient, that. What I disagree with is the notion that we have found a 100% correct way of interpreting human ideas in a form that can accept and not be affected by the myriad inconsistencies and problems inherent in the use of language for thinking. It is a useful tool and chiefly (imo at least) a way of easily finding inconsistencies and/or weak points in arguments.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Your idea that all that is not p encompasses all that is impossible is fine with me. It fits perfectly with what I have said. How does it nullify the equation? We have seen that what is actual is not equal to what is possible and what is impossible. Grand.

Well, it's down to semantics, isn't it. Not p would have to be extensibly defined as all that is possible but is not actual as well as all that is not impossible. Or, you could define it as all that is not actual. Now, having p defined as all that is actual makes defining not p as all that is not actual pretty much obvious. To try and then draw a conclusion from the fallacy of equating p to not p is to ignore that this fallacy is a part of the structure adopted from the mathematical form in the first place. A similar trick can be pulled in mathematics where you prove that a=b for any value of a or b - the problem being that in part of the proof, both have been divided b c which happens to be zero.

You define p as what is actual and not p as what is possible . You then go on to say that because p /= not p, possiblity does not equal actuality. But if not p is everything outside p, it must include anything that is not actual - including that which is impossible. Thus your logic compels you to also accept that impossibility does not equal actuality. Therefore, possibility or lack thereof have no actual influence on actuality. From there, it does not follow that some external entity is necessary for the world to exist.

A third point would be that, even in the case that I somehow accept this logical proof for the existence of a god - how do we then move to prove that the god who is sustaining the universe through a mechanism or mechanisms unknown is the same god described in one or more holy texts currently in vogue?

I'm with Terry Pratchett on this one : "Logic is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't always beat actual thought."

simu

I've split this thread in two as it has moved away from the original question.

Simu (philo mod)

dudara

It is no more possible to prove a God exists than it is possible to prove that a God doesn't exist.

There is so much time and effort wasted on this.

ferdi

loose your crutch and walk on your own two feet/

neuro-praxis

Fysh wrote:

Excuse me? You're telling me that disagreeing with a form of logic which utilises the mathematical form (which, despite the best efforts of the Langlands project, still cannot be proven to be one self-consistent structure with several subforms which can all be intertranslated without any form of corruption or information loss) to try and assume absolutelness whilst still incorporating linguistic elements makes me wrong? Convenient, that. What I disagree with is the notion that we have found a 100% correct way of interpreting human ideas in a form that can accept and not be affected by the myriad inconsistencies and problems inherent in the use of language for thinking. It is a useful tool and chiefly (imo at least) a way of easily finding inconsistencies and/or weak points in arguments.

Ah. Now you are moving into relativism. Your basic argument here seems to be that we cannot know anything to be true. If that is your standpoint, then we can't really go anywhere with that, can we? Or is it that you are saying that language is insufficient for expression of truth?

Well, let me ask you then, do you know that the statement "Language is insufficient for expression of truth" is actually true? If you do know it is true, then by what measure do you know it? Surely knowing that it is true nullifies your argument. And if you don't know it to be true - well then, it's moot, isn't it?

Just out of interest's sake, can you provide some examples of syllogistic logic where it is possible to reach a conclusion (logically) that is untrue?

Well, it's down to semantics, isn't it. Not p would have to be extensibly defined as all that is possible but is not actual as well as all that is not impossible. Or, you could define it as all that is not actual. Now, having p defined as all that is actual makes defining not p as all that is not actual pretty much obvious.

Now, do you mean formal semantics here, or the colloquial term semantics? If you mean formal, well then, yes of course it is down to semantics - semantics being concerned with the meaning of words! I agree with everything in the above paragraph.

To try and then draw a conclusion from the fallacy of equating p to not p is to ignore that this fallacy is a part of the structure adopted from the mathematical form in the first place. A similar trick can be pulled in mathematics where you prove that a=b for any value of a or b - the problem being that in part of the proof, both have been divided b c which happens to be zero.

But...I haven't drawn any conclusion, because the equation cannot go on when faced with a contradiction. We are not trying to prove that p is equal to not p here. What is being illustrated simply is that if possibility were sufficient for actuality, then there would be no need for first causes.

Let's try to re-do the illustration to your satisfaction, using English and not logic.

We've got actuality and we've got all other things - ie everything that not actuality implies.

Now is actuality, or let's call it, REALITY, sufficient so that it is ALSO all other things that are not actuality?

An examination of actuality would show that it does not encompass all possibilities. However, actuality, DOES encompass all impossibilities, thus making impossibility an element of actuality, as opposed to an element of all other things.

Now. If we can see that actuality DOES NOT EQUAL all other things, then it is true to say that possibility is not sufficient for actuality.

Do you disagree?

And, can you name a causeless event?

Your example of proving that a=b is not relevant. Where is the parallel? What is the similar trick?!

But if not p is everything outside p, it must include anything that is not actual - including that which is impossible. Thus your logic compels you to also accept that impossibility does not equal actuality. Therefore, possibility or lack thereof have no actual influence on actuality. From there, it does not follow that some external entity is necessary for the world to exist.

It is not from there that it is logical for an external entity is necessary for the world to exist.

It is from the realisation that all actuality must have a cause. The world is not self-actualising. If you can give an example of self actualisation I would be fascinated. If the world realised itself through sheer possibility then we woul dhave no use for logic or physics or metaphysics. If things were existing themselves into relaity out of sheer nothingness, then there would be no order in the chaos. Which there is.

A third point would be that, even in the case that I somehow accept this logical proof for the existence of a god - how do we then move to prove that the god who is sustaining the universe through a mechanism or mechanisms unknown is the same god described in one or more holy texts currently in vogue?

One does not move to prove that this creator God is sustaining the universe. If nothing is self-actualising, then it is obvious that the turning of the planet, the growth of anything (which we cannot affect) is being influenced by some force that we cannot point to.

And this realisation that existence is dependant on this outside influence does not mean that it is any of the gods that are worshipped by man.

That is moving from the realm of metaphysics into faith.

I will now return to my studies.

ferdi

neuro-praxis wrote:

Your basic argument here seems to be that we cannot know anything to be true. If that is your standpoint, then we can't really go anywhere with that, can we?

thats is, in fact, the case. arguments such as these serve only to fuel egos and flex intellectual/vocabularial muscle. we as limited human beings can never really ever make a proper stab at these questions, even if we like to think we can.

neuro-praxis

Is that TRUE, ferdi?

How did you measure the truth of that, if we don't know if anything is true or not?

DadaKopf

'True' could simply be a place-holder for something that is, in a particular place and time, considered 'coherent', and therefore provisionally binding until something threatens that coherence.

neuro-praxis

Or true could just remain what it is...consistent with actuality.#

Lots of contextually coherent statements are false.

ferdi

neuro-praxis wrote:

Is that TRUE, ferdi?

How did you measure the truth of that, if we don't know if anything is true or not?

obviously i dont know if its true, but i'm desplaying some humility in the face of this completely insermountable intellectual hurdle, its a refreshing change from all the self assured BS spewed on this thread so far.

neuro-praxis

Glad to hear you refresh yourself.

ferdi

some one has to, all the other arguments on here are quite stale at this stage.

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

Ah. Now you are moving into relativism. Your basic argument here seems to be that we cannot know anything to be true. If that is your standpoint, then we can't really go anywhere with that, can we? Or is it that you are saying that language is insufficient for expression of truth?

Well, let me ask you then, do you know that the statement "Language is insufficient for expression of truth" is actually true? If you do know it is true, then by what measure do you know it? Surely knowing that it is true nullifies your argument. And if you don't know it to be true - well then, it's moot, isn't it?

I am not stating that language is "insufficient" for the expression of truth, nor that it is sufficient for such a task. I am saying that language is a crude tool initially devised for simple communication and not really entirely adequate for the extended examination of complex metaphysical ideas. It's a tool, and a particularly versatile one at that. However, language has not been specifically developed in such a way as to allow unambiguous and decisive discussion of ideas, therefore it is not always possible to succesfully utilise it for such a purpose. I'll use it where possible, but I accept that it isn't perfect and bear it in mind when looking at arguments such as this.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Now, do you mean formal semantics here, or the colloquial term semantics? If you mean formal, well then, yes of course it is down to semantics - semantics being concerned with the meaning of words! I agree with everything in the above paragraph.

I was using it in the colloquial sense, insofar as my meaning was that this argument doesn't seem to be much better in terms of validity than Descartes' statement that God is perfect, which subsequently "proved" God to exist by stating that something which is perfect must exist. I have already expounded on the area where I thought the definitions were insufficiently specific to be considered valid for a deductive conclusion of any kind to be drawn.

neuro-praxis wrote:

But...I haven't drawn any conclusion, because the equation cannot go on when faced with a contradiction. We are not trying to prove that p is equal to not p here. What is being illustrated simply is that if possibility were sufficient for actuality, then there would be no need for first causes.

I know you aren't trying to prove that p = not p. But you are utilising the fact that p /= not p in your subsequent argument.

Regarding the statement that possibility is not sufficient for actuality; quantum throws a strange light on that one. In the case of two-slit diffraction (a beam of light illuminating a slide with two slits in it, which then creates an interference pattern on a subsequent screen) experiments have shown that even in cases where only one photon is emitted (and therefore, under the classical rules, should have gone through either one slit or the other and not shown any interference pattern) the interference pattern is still seen. Which is a physical example of a case where the possibility of an interference pattern, even without the classical requisites for it, is sufficient to create one. Meaning that the quantum model of the universe isn't necessarily compatible with simple statements on actuality and possibility.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Let's try to re-do the illustration to your satisfaction, using English and not logic.

We've got actuality and we've got all other things - ie everything that not actuality implies.

Now is actuality, or let's call it, REALITY, sufficient so that it is ALSO all other things that are not actuality?

An examination of actuality would show that it does not encompass all possibilities. However, actuality, DOES encompass all impossibilities, thus making impossibility an element of actuality, as opposed to an element of all other things.

I disagree. If something is impossible, how can it be actual? It cannot be materialised or actualised, as to do so would require it to be possible. Actuality is a subset of possibility; but impossibility is a mutually exclusive set to possibility. Therefore, if p is all that is actual or real, not p must not only include all not-actual possibilities, but all impossibilities. Thus, the validity of the statement that p is not equal to not p cannot conclude that possibility is insuficient for actuality, because it does not only involve things that are possible.

neuro-praxis wrote:

And, can you name a causeless event?

It is from the realisation that all actuality must have a cause. The world is not self-actualising. If you can give an example of self actualisation I would be fascinated. If the world realised itself through sheer possibility then we woul dhave no use for logic or physics or metaphysics. If things were existing themselves into relaity out of sheer nothingness, then there would be no order in the chaos. Which there is.

Actually, one of the current theories in physics that has yet to be dismissed is the multiverse theory - everything happens somewhere, determined solely by quantum probability. Another one is the notion of the infinite universe or multiverse - lacking any way of effectively describing how all this could have started (and whether that would require external influence), we instead question if it had to start at all, if it could not be permanent. After all, your statement that there was a starting point which was God who created all matter doesn't really have any more merit than me saying that there wasn't and He/She didn't. Once matter exists, it exists. Causality describes chains of events. Once something exists, it exists. It does not have to continually be recreated by external influence in order to carry on existing.

neuro-praxis wrote:

One does not move to prove that this creator God is sustaining the universe. If nothing is self-actualising, then it is obvious that the turning of the planet, the growth of anything (which we cannot affect) is being influenced by some force that we cannot point to.

But where is the evidence that things do not self-actualise? Outside of the original logical statement from Prof. Kelly, that is. If we are to accept that all things do not self-actualise but are maintained by some form of deity (rather than, say, going with what Occam's razor suggests and saying that a simpler explanation might be that our imperfect language has evidenced one of its many flaws when used in deductive reasoning, and that matter does not have to be "actualised" in order to carry on existing) then I have to point out that at this juncture your "logic" deviates from one of the accepted postulates of science, which is the conservation of energy (and matter, when you take account of special relativity).

Manchegan

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Can we logically prove it exists?

I believe so. This is a (summation of) cosmological proof for the existence of God as proposed by Dr. Thomas AF Kelly.

...


This Metaphysickal Logick is a poorly disguised refashioning of the Russel Paradox in which Russel demonstrates the limitations of naïve set theory: the condition of a set of sets that does not contain itself is inherently contradictory.

If you are looking to convince people that theism is the way to go, Pascal's Gambit is yer man - at least there's some incentive rather than basing a belief on a flaw in logic.

Memnoch

so essentially you're just trying to say that something must have created the universe for it could not create itself, and that something is god.

At the end this seems to be what your entire arguement boils down to.

Unfortunately this is a self-contradictory statement. The contradiction is so obvious off course that I won't bother pointing it out.

neuro-praxis

Brief response for the moment (the clock ticks towards my literature exam!):

Fysh:

I was not saying that something that is impossible is actual: I was saying that impossibility exists in the realm of actuality. Basically, the idea of impossibility must belong with actuality, because it cannot be in the realm of the possible if it is in fact, impossible. Anything that is impossible can only exist in the idea of concept and as such, it exists with actuality. It is an actual concept: it is an impossibility.

As for the realm of quantum physics: I can't comment because I haven't a clue. I'll take your word for it.

You ask where is the evidence that things do not self actualise. Look to physics. You cannot give an example of anything that has self-actualised. Whereas everything that I could possibly point to in the universe that exists was actualised not through itself but through an external entity not identical to itself.

Manchegan: can you demonstrate HOW exactly it is a "poorly disguised refashioning" of the Russel Paradox, as opposed to just stating that it is? Perhaps it is, but I cannot for the life of me see how it is!

Memnoch: if you are proposing the question If God created the universe then who created God? then we've got to start moving into the realm of temporality.

(By the way, there is no contradiction in the statement "God created the universe". You may find that this is not true - but there is no contradiction inherent.)

It is perfectly possible for a causeless event to occur in the realm of atemporailty. Unfortunately, we do not live in any such realm.

Manchegan

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Manchegan: can you demonstrate HOW exactly it is a "poorly disguised refashioning" of the Russel Paradox, as opposed to just stating that it is? Perhaps it is, but I cannot for the life of me see how it is!

The paradox demonstrates that concepts such as the Universal Set (the "all that is" vs. "all other things" in your argument) as allowed in naïve set theory are bogus constructs, logically inherently flawed. There's a reason you weren't taught ∞-times tables at school - because

∞ + 1 = ∞
∞ + 2 = ∞

Not very handy. To put it another way, when the Pope visited Ireland, a third of the population attended his "gig" at Phoenix Park. From this, it was calculated that the entire population of the world could fit in Louth - that is, until you consider people being born, dying, standing in hedges etc.

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

I was not saying that something that is impossible is actual: I was saying that impossibility exists in the realm of actuality. Basically, the idea of impossibility must belong with actuality, because it cannot be in the realm of the possible if it is in fact, impossible. Anything that is impossible can only exist in the idea of concept and as such, it exists with actuality. It is an actual concept: it is an impossibility.

But that cannot work - because by that exact same reasoning, something that is possible but not actual (ie not already part of p) is also part of actuality (by virtue of being a concept different to an impossible concept only in that it can be realised, in the right conditions). By your argument above, all non-realised possibilities are therefore part of actuality (since they exist as a concept).

Not to mention that, if you accept the notion of multiverse theory, the right conditions for a concept may well involve a universe with different fundamental constants, which would whittle down the list of things which are totally impossible.

neuro-praxis wrote:

You ask where is the evidence that things do not self actualise. Look to physics. You cannot give an example of anything that has self-actualised. Whereas everything that I could possibly point to in the universe that exists was actualised not through itself but through an external entity not identical to itself.

Um, what? Tell me some tangible physical way in which I can distinguish things that have been self-actualised from those that haven't, and I'll find you some proof one way or the other. What you are saying is basically that I should believe in something that we have no direct evidence for, because without it things would be different - but there is no way that we can ever test this by removing the deity in question. At which point, I have two things to say:

1) Read about Occam's Razor.

2) Referencing once again quantum physics (I'm not deliberately picking this because you don't know much about it, I just happen to have studied it in some depth) - contrary to what you have asserted, it is possible for matter to appear from (apparently) nowhere (although in effect it is still simply a case of conservation of energy). Read about Virtual Particles if you're interested. Another thing you might find interesting to read about is electron tunneling, although I can't find any easily-readable pages about it. Basically this is an aspect of quantum physics by which something which is classically impossible becomes possible for just long enough to happen. Rigid definitions of what is or is not possible do not match up to our current understanding of the universe, which further undermines the validity of using them as concepts or starting points in logical proofs.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Memnoch: if you are proposing the question If God created the universe then who created God? then we've got to start moving into the realm of temporality.

(By the way, there is no contradiction in the statement "God created the universe". You may find that this is not true - but there is no contradiction inherent.)

It is perfectly possible for a causeless event to occur in the realm of atemporailty. Unfortunately, we do not live in any such realm.

How do you know God does exist in such a realm? Again I direct you to Occam's Razor - it simply doesn't make sense to assume something which, by its nature, will never be known to you and can never be tested. And assuming that God exists outside our universe in a conveniently atemporal region where all the rules we know don't apply is such a case.

Quite outside the semantic contradiction of God creating the universe, given that the general definition of universe is "everything there is". Does God create himself? If so, how? How can he go from a state of nothingness to existence, if he is actively triggering the process? This is where any attempt to use physics starts to fall apart, and you have two options - depending on whether you have faith or not, you can accept it or not. But there's nothing like conclusive proof either way, unfortunately.

OfflerCrocGod

neuro-praxis wrote:

Isn't anyone going to address the argument?

Your argument is a load of horse ****. I've addressed it.

neuro-praxis

Ok, I'll have another stab! But it is necessary to bear on mind that we don't start from the same premise (I argue for the existence that some things are knowable and you don't seem to agree) so we're not on the same page at all to begin with.

But that cannot work - because by that exact same reasoning, something that is possible but not actual (ie not already part of p) is also part of actuality (by virtue of being a concept different to an impossible concept only in that it can be realised, in the right conditions). By your argument above, all non-realised possibilities are therefore part of actuality (since they exist as a concept).

But, if something is an impossibility, how can it exist as part of the category "possible"? I realise that this element of the argument has gotten into trouble, but neither you nor I are offering a satisfactory solution, it would seem. It cannot be reconciled if impossibility remains in the equation. I guess that this is because of something is impossible it cannot belong in the realm of actual and possible at all. Which was the original standpoint. Anyway.

Not to mention that, if you accept the notion of multiverse theory, the right conditions for a concept may well involve a universe with different fundamental constants, which would whittle down the list of things which are totally impossible.

But...we can accept that a multiverse is a possibility, but we have no proof that it is actuality. Surely you agree?

Tell me some tangible physical way in which I can distinguish things that have been self-actualised from those that haven't, and I'll find you some proof one way or the other.

Ok, you don't seem to understand the term "self-actualise". I will try to explain it. I think that when you understand what it means, you will have to concede to at least this point.

Allow me to point out some things that did not self-actualise. The sandwich you ate for lunch. You. Your language. The chair you are sitting on. The table your computer rests on. Your computer. The software on your computer. The electrons firing in your brain. The clothes that you are wearing.

Things do not make themselves. They require a first cause.

I consulted a friend about quantum physics. I inquired whether quantum physics had reason to believe that some entities are self-actualising. He said no. He described,as you did, some experiments carried out at a subatomic level that had produced confusing results - for example, the one where a single beam of light shone at a subatomic level onto two surfaces, and the beam dividing in order to hit them both (excuse the crude paraphrasing, he broke these ideas down for my simple head). However, such confusing results does not affect the reality that nothing exists that produced itself.

I have read Occam's Razor (of course I have). It is a theory that supports the idea that nothing makes itself. If the simplest solution is the most likely, then surely the simplest solution for the existence of the universe is that something outside of the universe and not identical to the universe created it. Because that, surely, is the obvious answer.

Thanks for the link to virtual particles, fascinating stuff.. I then read the link on quantum electrodynamics and then about the Landau Pole, which you had referenced earlier. Then I read up on perturbation theory, which was probably the clincher in terms of interest. I struggled with the equations, but the explanations were good. However, I fail to see how quantum theory proves anything in terms of your argument? If anything, it supports mine, as it concerned with the behaviour of subatomic particles, that is to say, their causes and effects. In fact, we only know that virtual particles exist because we can see their effects.

How do you know God does exist in such a realm? Again I direct you to Occam's Razor - it simply doesn't make sense to assume something which, by its nature, will never be known to you and can never be tested.

You could listen to your own advice re the multiverse here!

You're right, we don't know that an atemporal realm exists, but it's not a physical realm that I am proposing. Along with all ideas of an omnipotent creator, we need to acknowledge that it must logically function outside of the constraints of time. But that's for another argument. That is to examine McTaggert and Einstein and Hawking and various other folks on the issue of temporality, and as such, contingency.

Does God create himself? If so, how? How can he go from a state of nothingness to existence, if he is actively triggering the process? This is where any attempt to use physics starts to fall apart, and you have two options - depending on whether you have faith or not, you can accept it or not. But there's nothing like conclusive proof either way, unfortunately.

This is the argument as referred to above. We can have this one out too, but it's another day's work.

By the way, I presented a cosmological argument for the existence of God, and as such, it still stands. I did not present a scientific argument for the existence of God, which cannot and will not ever exist. (And that it was not scientific was actually the disclaimer.)

Anyway: thanks Fysh for the insights. Can I suggest some reading for you: have a glance at the Wikipedia stuff on metaphysics and branch out to a few of the links. That's basically what I've been working with here on this argument...metaphysics. It's a brain bender.

I'd like to continue it sometime Fysh but for now, I am mid-exams and need to return to my studies. I'll definitely pop by the thread but I can't afford to give it any significant time. This is after all, just the internet.

Thanks especially to all the default atheists who offered no arguments but lots of blinkered opinions and the occasional flame. It's good that you guys are so comfortable in your beliefs.

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

But, if something is an impossibility, how can it exist as part of the category "possible"? I realise that this element of the argument has gotten into trouble, but neither you nor I are offering a satisfactory solution, it would seem. It cannot be reconciled if impossibility remains in the equation. I guess that this is because of something is impossible it cannot belong in the realm of actual and possible at all. Which was the original standpoint. Anyway.

Well, put it this way. Possibility or impossibility is a determination of whether a concept can be realised into the actual world. It is, basically, a boolean variable which determines whether our universe will accept the physical manifestation of a certain idea. If you are talking about p being things that exist in the form of physical manifestations, then everything that is not p must include all things that do not exist as physical manifestations. This puts not p firmly into the realm of the conceptual, but does not make any distinction between those concepts that can be realised, and those that can't. Your alternative seems to suggest that impossible concepts are, by virtue of being unable to have physical manifestations, already part of the physically manifested universe. At least, that's how I've understood it.

neuro-praxis wrote:

But...we can accept that a multiverse is a possibility, but we have no proof that it is actuality. Surely you agree?

I do agree. My point was that trying to build a logical argument based on the concepts of possibility and impossibility, when physics has been making some startling discoveries regarding how these concepts work in our universe (or multiverse) is to open oneself up to falling at the first hurdle by having invalid definitions.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Ok, you don't seem to understand the term "self-actualise". I will try to explain it. I think that when you understand what it means, you will have to concede to at least this point.

Allow me to point out some things that did not self-actualise. The sandwich you ate for lunch. You. Your language. The chair you are sitting on. The table your computer rests on. Your computer. The software on your computer. The electrons firing in your brain. The clothes that you are wearing.

Things do not make themselves. They require a first cause.

I disagree. Actions require a first cause, in the classical conception of the universe - the deterministic view which for the macroscopic interpretation of the universe is a satisfactory model. What you seem to be missing here is that causality is derivative from the law of conservation of energy. If you were able to map the chain of events from the start of the universe to its end (and that's already assuming that the notion of a starting point even applies, since we don't have any real evidence that our universe isn't either infinite or semi-infinite), you would see that all energy transfers could be accounted for, and that existence as we know it and all its physical subtleties really boil down energy transfers, from entities in excited states to entities in more stable states. We may be heading for the heat death of the universe, or we may be heading for the big cruch. We may be heading for something else entirely that doesn't fit any of our models, but the one thing so far that has held true for all our observations is that the conservation of energy holds. It's a bit bendy in places (such as the creation of virtual particles) but it can be accounted for. This is what leads to the causality that's the core of your self-actualising arguments. Now, physicists don't know what came before. As I've indicated earlier, we don't even know if discussing the concept of before and after in terms of our universe/multiverse makes any sense; the idea may not map onto the reality in any way or form that can be understood by us. But calling it God is no better than calling it nothing - there's no proof other than word-play, and frankly a proof that ignores or bypasses looking at the universe is a pretty piss-poor one.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I consulted a friend about quantum physics. I inquired whether quantum physics had reason to believe that some entities are self-actualising. He said no. He described,as you did, some experiments carried out at a subatomic level that had produced confusing results - for example, the one where a single beam of light shone at a subatomic level onto two surfaces, and the beam dividing in order to hit them both (excuse the crude paraphrasing, he broke these ideas down for my simple head). However, such confusing results does not affect the reality that nothing exists that produced itself.

I have read Occam's Razor (of course I have). It is a theory that supports the idea that nothing makes itself. If the simplest solution is the most likely, then surely the simplest solution for the existence of the universe is that something outside of the universe and not identical to the universe created it. Because that, surely, is the obvious answer.

Rubbish! How is it "the obvious answer"? Have you peeked outside? Do you have access to the secrets of the universe that have somehow eluded the rest of us? Why, apart from anything else, are you making assumptions about there even being an outside of the universe when you have no proof of this? You're assuming that the universe (everything there is, I remind you) has limitations - that it's only infinite on the inside, for want of a better phrase, and can be understood on normal day-to-day terms by just ignoring its size and scale.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Thanks for the link to virtual particles, fascinating stuff.. I then read the link on quantum electrodynamics and then about the Landau Pole, which you had referenced earlier. Then I read up on perturbation theory, which was probably the clincher in terms of interest. I struggled with the equations, but the explanations were good. However, I fail to see how quantum theory proves anything in terms of your argument? If anything, it supports mine, as it concerned with the behaviour of subatomic particles, that is to say, their causes and effects. In fact, we only know that virtual particles exist because we can see their effects.

I referenced quantum theory to show that the concept of possibility or impossibility that we use in a classical-physics or day to day sense does not work in a quantum view of the world, which in turn influences our macroscopic world. The only point of it was to suggest that possibility and impossibility don't really apply as concepts, and probability is the way to think about things. You'll note that I did point out that virtual particles are still part of the conservation of enerty. Which is what it's all about, really.


We will now take a short commercial break, because the boards post size limit is stopping me from posting everything in one go.

Fysh

We now return to your regularly scheduled posting.

neuro-praxis wrote:

You're right, we don't know that an atemporal realm exists, but it's not a physical realm that I am proposing. Along with all ideas of an omnipotent creator, we need to acknowledge that it must logically function outside of the constraints of time. But that's for another argument. That is to examine McTaggert and Einstein and Hawking and various other folks on the issue of temporality, and as such, contingency.

Well, yes, but the validity of an idea depends on the number of assumptions required for its discussion, as per Occam. Now, if you're saying that my options are either:

a)accept that the universe may be infinite or apparently infinite in size and infinite or semi-infinite in temporal concerns, and that not only might we never know its origin but it may not even have one,

or

b)accept without proof that the universe is finite in size from at least one perspective and contained within a greater space (superverse?) in which the laws of our universe do not hold, and also accept that within this superverse there exists one or more entities who are directly responsible for the creation of our universe, and also accept that the nature of this superverse and relevant entity or entities are such that they may be either infinite or in fact entirely unaffected by temporal concerns,

then at this point, it should be clear that God is just being used as a name for what we don't know. It's a case of "Well how can that work?" - how about "Well, God did it." Basically, explanation b is taking all the things we don't understand, imagining a creature with wonderful powers (that just happen to allow it to resolve or explain those things we can't understand), putting it somewhere that we can't see, and calling it God. It's really no different than saying "I haven't the faintest idea", except that if you have faith you'll believe there really is a creator. Now, call me Doubting Thomas if you like, but I'll hang on for some sort of proof before I accept that kind of idea.

neuro-praxis wrote:

By the way, I presented a cosmological argument for the existence of God, and as such, it still stands. I did not present a scientific argument for the existence of God, which cannot and will not ever exist. (And that it was not scientific was actually the disclaimer.)

Excuse me? Cosmological? Cosmology is the science of studying the cosmos - the universe. It's a subset of science. Besides which, your argument contains an attempt at cleverly wording a physical idea in such a way that one accepts God as the explanation for what we don't know. Which, really, is what God has always been. It doesn't "still stand" because as I've repeatedly pointed out, your starting points are invalid - possibility and impossibility are both aspects of probability. And, since your argument relies on dividing the two up and then working from attempting to construct links between actuality and probability, it is fallible.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Anyway: thanks Fysh for the insights. Can I suggest some reading for you: have a glance at the Wikipedia stuff on metaphysics and branch out to a few of the links. That's basically what I've been working with here on this argument...metaphysics. It's a brain bender.

Glad you found what I linked to interesting, and I'll certainly take a look. I don't promise it'll change my mind tho.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Thanks especially to all the default atheists who offered no arguments but lots of blinkered opinions and the occasional flame. It's good that you guys are so comfortable in your beliefs.

In fairness, default or not, atheists are still a minority worldwide. Last time I heard any stats on the matter, it was something less than 10% of the world population who didn't believe in any kind of higher being or power. And it's not like you can really claim that there's nobody blinkered, intolerant or lazy about their beliefs amongst the many and varied ranks of the faithful now, is it. If anything, going by numbers alone, your lot far outranks ours.

There are lazy atheists, and there are dedicated atheists. Just because someone doesn't jump at the chance of arguing with a believer about why believing or not believing is stupid or whatever, doesn't mean that person is a lazy atheist - if you're in any way serious about not believing in any god, do you know how many times this argument can come up? Have you ever had people ringing your doorbell asking you to renounce religion? I've had people of various faiths rining my doorbell asking me if I have faith, and to be honest with you - after the first couple of times where it seemed amusing to upset them with questions, it really wasn't worth the hassle. The main reason I got into this thread was because Slow Coach mentioned that belief in God was logical and I asked him to demonstrate how. Some of us are just damn tired of this whole idea.

neuro-praxis

Brief comment: cosmological in relation to the metaphysical. It's a branch of philosophy.

GuanYin

neuro-praxis wrote:

But, if something is an impossibility, how can it exist as part of the category "possible"? I realise that this element of the argument has gotten into trouble, but neither you nor I are offering a satisfactory solution, it would seem. It cannot be reconciled if impossibility remains in the equation. I guess that this is because of something is impossible it cannot belong in the realm of actual and possible at all. Which was the original standpoint. Anyway.

She may have a point here. If something, say, "an act of event" is possible or impossible it is to say it may or may not occur.

Until it is tested, it remains theoretical, after which point, it is proven either possible (the event or acts exists) or impossible (the event or act doesn't exist).

Now, to imply that an impossible event is possible phase space just because the notion of it exists is reaching a little.

However, if you are stating that actual and possible can't fall under the same space and this is flawed.

For anything possible, is, by definition above, a subset of actual phase space, that is to say, it is an un-proved actuality.

So For all actual events P=Not P does indeed hold true, if P=Actual and not P=possible.

But...we can accept that a multiverse is a possibility, but we have no proof that it is actuality. Surely you agree?

Again you confuse theory and possibility. These are not interchangable terms.

Allow me to point out some things that did not self-actualise. The sandwich you ate for lunch. You. Your language. The chair you are sitting on. The table your computer rests on. Your computer. The software on your computer. The electrons firing in your brain. The clothes that you are wearing.

Things do not make themselves. They require a first cause.

No, the components for these events could be deemed to have self-actualised. Proteins making many of what you described above seem to fold and form on there own accord.

While a chair may not form itself, the material (the structure of the proteins that make wood for instance) that it may be made from did. You have taken the analogy to the end product level, of course nature doesn't randomly form a chair or table, but could it fluke the components that allow them to exist?
It has been readily shown that many proteins can form randomly without cause.

As far as sub-atomics go, again, we are working with a very incomplete knowledge base that has some HUGE assumptions. While physics is the foundation of science, I don't believe its quite able to contribute solid argument for or againt philosophical questions such as this.

By the way, I presented a cosmological argument for the existence of God, and as such, it still stands. I did not present a scientific argument for the existence of God, which cannot and will not ever exist. (And that it was not scientific was actually the disclaimer.)

How can you be sure no scientific argument for or against the existance of God will exist? How could you ever prove this?

Thanks especially to all the default atheists who offered no arguments but lots of blinkered opinions and the occasional flame. It's good that you guys are so comfortable in your beliefs.

It must also be nice to know that you're not alone in the world.

neuro-praxis

Fysh: actions are certainly considered first causes, but what is the first cause of the one who causes that action? And what is the first cause of the cause of the one who caused that action? And so on backwards ad infinitum. Do you see what I am getting at?

I am not suggesting that an impossible event could enter the realm of possible - I'm talking about the realm of what is actual.

And I am not suggesting that possible and actual cannot be in the same category, but it is necessary to separate them into two categories for the purposes of understanding the difference between what is and what is not, but could potentially be.

Until it is tested, it remains theoretical, after which point, it is proven either possible (the event or acts exists) or impossible (the event or act doesn't exist).

No, possibility is potentiality, not existence.
Impossibility is the lack of potentiality, and as such, can only exist in theory.

How can you be sure no scientific argument for or against the existance of God will exist? How could you ever prove this?

Because in order for something to be scientifically proven, it has to be done so through experimentation. How can we scientifically prove metaphysical theories?

It must also be nice to know that you're not alone in the world.

Perhaps someday you too can know that joy.

And now I bid you all adieu, no matter what else comes up here I will resist the temptation to reply. I have three more days of exams and I'll be damned if I mess them up because of my net addiction!

NinjaBart

yeah right you keep posting stuff like that but you still keep coming back.

transperson

formal logic based on a particular world veiw, while an affective tool and discriptive device, has pit falls and apparent internal inconsistances [eg russells paradox] and i do not accept that it can be used to prove if god,a source,bearded dude,ultimate reality actually exists. however intuitive knowledge i think might be out there.but having not experienced it myself i remain a sceptic, if an optimistic one.

so the whole arguement [logical proof for god]was from my view doomed before it started.

jst read this tread today it was frustrating to read as it is clear that the logical argument is nonsence but to express that in the terms used in the arguement is difficult and the arguementation of the defender can be used to throw the critic off, blinding him in a mass of confused concepts, wordplay, and assumptions.

so well done fysh for arguing the case. it can take time to show that rubbish is rubbish when it is disguised in the cloak of rationality.

GuanYin

neuro-praxis wrote:

And I am not suggesting that possible and actual cannot be in the same category, but it is necessary to separate them into two categories for the purposes of understanding the difference between what is and what is not, but could potentially be.

so just for the record, when you said this:

To say p = not p is a very clear contraditiction, therefore we know that possibility is not sufficient for actuality.

you meant that they can be in the same category? Wow you're use of english is pretty liberal or just plain fickle.

No, possibility is potentiality, not existence.
Impossibility is the lack of potentiality, and as such, can only exist in theory.

Wha? Is this you arguing with semantics again? Ok change the meaning it doesn't make your point any less wrong.

Because in order for something to be scientifically proven, it has to be done so through experimentation. How can we scientifically prove metaphysical theories?

Its quite conceited to believe that we're playing with all the evidence and means to examine the question right now. However, should sufficient evidence arise to eliminate the need for god as defined by the bible as creator of all, then I believe that could be a start.

Perhaps someday you too can know that joy.

I hope I never end up in such an intellectually isolated bubble, I wouldn't think life worth living.

And now I bid you all adieu, no matter what else comes up here I will resist the temptation to reply. I have three more days of exams and I'll be damned if I mess them up because of my net addiction!

Is that a revolving door you're leaving by then?

Memnoch

neuro-praxis wrote:

Memnoch: if you are proposing the question If God created the universe then who created God? then we've got to start moving into the realm of temporality.

no thats not really the question i'm proposing. The question i'm proposing, is that IF the basis for accepting the existance of a god is that THERE MUST BE a god to have created the universe, then that logic is self defeating.

Because you claim that the universe could not create itself. Therefore something must have created it, and that something must be god. This is self-contradictory. For if the universe requires god to create it, then god must require another god to create it, and that creater god must require ANOTHER god to create it, and so on and so forth, in an infinite string of gods.

The only way you can have a "starting point" is based on belief, not on actual scientific theory or logic. Its a very simple arguement, there is no need to try and complicate the issue with semantics.

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

Fysh: actions are certainly considered first causes, but what is the first cause of the one who causes that action? And what is the first cause of the cause of the one who caused that action? And so on backwards ad infinitum. Do you see what I am getting at?

Yep. And as I said, using God as an answer is just another way of saying "I don't know". Not to mention that, unless you start ascribing convenient qualities to God, you end up with a situation where you need a god to create the god who created the god who created the universe, ad nauseum. "Turtles all the way down", to paraphrase Terry Pratchett.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I am not suggesting that an impossible event could enter the realm of possible - I'm talking about the realm of what is actual.
<snipped>
Impossibility is the lack of potentiality, and as such, can only exist in theory.

You have previously suggested that impossible events are a part of the realm of the actual. Here you state they can only exist in theory. But all possibilities which have not been realised only exist in theory - otherwise they are part of the realm of the actual, and you seem to be discussing only those parts of possibility that do not overlap.

Considered as a Venn diagram, what you'd get is circle representing the actual - things that physically exist(call it A), contained in a bigger circle representing the possible - things that could physically exist (call it O, since you used P), and then you'd have another circle outside O representing the impossible - things that cannot physically exist (call it I). A, I, and O exist as concepts - what we're doing is splitting them according to certain aspects of those concepts. To take, as you've suggested, everything that is not A gives you all unrealised or unrealisable possibilities but no realised possibilities. Thus, since there are impossibilities as well as possibilities outside of A, one cannot say that the physical existence of something is related to its possibility, because there are some possible and impossible concepts that do not physically exist (not P from your definition),, but also some that do exist - so the only real conclusion that one should draw from the fact that there are possibilities which are not physically realised is that possibility is not necessarily sufficient for physical actuality.

It's still nothing like conclusive, though. I mean, you haven't demonstrated that actualisation is required - really what you're doing is using the problem inherent in a classically-deterministic universe (ie how did it start?) and saying that God must be the answer, the divine engine-starter. It's an answer, but certainly not the only one.

Crucifix

I don't get why our universe must be temporal (a caused event etc)?
I mean from a scientific point of view the universe will never cease to be (conservation laws yadda-yadda). So if it goes on for an infinite amount of time, couldn't it have been going on for an infinite amount of time?

carl_

transperson wrote:

jst read this tread today it was frustrating to read as it is clear that the logical argument is nonsence but to express that in the terms used in the arguement is difficult and the arguementation of the defender can be used to throw the critic off, blinding him in a mass of confused concepts, wordplay, and assumptions.

so well done fysh for arguing the case. it can take time to show that rubbish is rubbish when it is disguised in the cloak of rationality.

I agree. I was thinking of going through the 'proof' piece by piece but it looked like too much work.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Dr. Thomas AF Kelly is the dean of philosophy at NUI Maynooth. An argument that refutes his has not to date been found.

Has anyone bothered though?

as for Pascal.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Before entering into the criticisms of the Wager, it is only fair to note, as is less widely known, that the wager was never intended to be a basis or reason for faith. The wager is found in an apologetic (his Pensées) aimed at those who didn't consider the question of God worth considering. The wager had the express intention of showing the "happy agnostic" the value and probable necessity of considering the question of God.

bobsyouruncle

neuro-praxis wrote:

elivsvonchiaing: that's originally Aristotle's idea of the Unmoved Mover you're referring to, which Spinoza of course ripped off.

Manchegan said:

If you do your research you will find

1) That Galileo loved the church, was a vocal church advocator and was friendly with a number of popes. His relationship with the Catholic Church broke down during the reformation but he remained loyal to the his catholic faith. That he was at odds with the church at all is a misconception. Read Rebuilding the Matrix by Denis Alexander for more on this.

2) We are not discussing looking to science to prove the existence of God, but to philosophy and logic. To scientifically prove something we must do so through experimentation, which is quite obviously not possible in the realm of ontological, cosmological or epistemological thought.

3) It is perfectly possible for science and religious belief to co-exist. I must ask you why you think they cannot exist together? Science is not the "new religion". SJ Gould, our primary source on the most recent and accurate account evolutionary theory, holds religious belief (well, held. He died not too long ago). What does that say? I fear that you are being sidetracked by an understandable prejudice against fundamentalist 7-day creationist Christians.

Fysh said:

Let's then imagine that we are discussing the Unmoved Mover, which is effectively, the creator God. He/She/It did its work and is now sitting back.

Can we logically prove it exists?

I believe so. This is a (summation of) cosmological proof for the existence of God as proposed by Dr. Thomas AF Kelly.

Things whose existences are not necessary are mortal - that is to say, they come into existence and then they pass away. Contingency and temporailty therefore are two sides of the same coin.

If the expression "God exists" is always a contingent (possibly true, but possibly untrue) statement, what can we say?


I'll preface it with a proof that demonstrates that possibility is insufficient for actuality.

p = actual
not p = possible

[example - if a doctor says; "I am a doctor" they are stating actuality. To say "I could become a pilot/chef/helipcopter" is to state what is possible.]

To say that possibility is sufficient for actuality is to say that p = not p. [example, it is for the doctor to say "I am a pilot".]

To say p = not p is a very clear contraditiction, therefore we know that possibility is not sufficient for actuality.

Since we now know with certainty that possibility is insufficient for actuality, then we know that the possibility of a world is not enough for a world to exist. Possibilities of existence do not alter existence. And each event has a cause. Therefore, as we can see that the world is insufficient for its own existence, then there must be something outside of thw world and not identical to itself that caused its existence.

That which grants existence is unique: to provide that which it is to be. What God turns out to be is that which is identical to what it is to be.

Thus the ongoing existence of the world is dependent on the creator of the world for that very existence.

---

Refute at will!

I agree....

popinfresh

Here's the "LOGIC" I'd use for arguing for a god.

When arguing for the theory of evolution people completely ignore the implications the theory poses and instead focus on "Evolution happened, people who beleive in god say it didn't therefore there's no god".
What are these implications?? Well, the theory of evolution basically states that intelegent life (an arguable term to use, but I shall use it to refer to us) is a hugely elaborate chain reaction that stemmed from simple chemical reactions in some soup like formula a cupla billion years ago. One could say that we are a phenomenon created by the universe. This is where it starts to get interesting. We, as humans, are proof that intelegent beings can come into exisitance. However one must not over-look that inevitably, we are the result of an elaborate chemical reaction that OBEYED THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. I have no problem comprehending that such ultimate supreme being could have been created by similar chemical reactions at the time of the big-bang........


It p1sses me off when "intelectual" people seem so certain that there can't be a god. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, ffs!!!!

SkepticOne

"Here's the "LOGIC" I'd use for arguing for a god. " So, some people arguing against the existence of God use invalid reasoning. Therefore God exists.

Personally, I don't think evolution, if true, tilts things one way or the other. It does undermine some religious beliefs however, e.g. that the god directly designed each species as they exist today in a short space of time.

It is obviously still possible to have a number of conceptions of god, e.g.

1. A god that created matter/energy and the laws of physics.
2. A god that was created in the big bang (as per your post).
3. A god that is identical with the universe.

2 and 3 would probably be rejected by Christians, though.