Is the existence of "God" possible?

[JMeganSnow]

This is essentially my argument.  I just don't buy the "God must exist outside of reality" argument.

There is no such argument from our camp; it is the argument of religionists not that he "must" exist outside reality, but that, in one form or another, he DOES.

[HaloNoble6]

Can God exist?

The existence of entities is constrained by the axiom "existence is identity," which means that to exist is to have identity. Furthermore, the identities of entities are constrained by the Law of Identity: they must be limited in qualities and limited in quantity.

Punch line: the identity of a postulated "entity" consisting of "infinite" qualities and/or "infinite" qualities does not, and cannot, qualify as a valid identity. Thus the postulated entity belonging to this kind of identity does not, and cannot, exist.

Now, do I need to read Aquinas to learn the Church's postulated identity of "God?" I think not. God, as postulated in most manifestations of mysticism, possesses an identity characterized by infinite qualities and/or infinite quantities.

Now, how in God's name (pun intended) could one use reason to arrive at the conclusion that such an entity exists?

[Crow]

I'm an Atheist, but I disagree with the Objectivist idea that "God" is contradictory because he exists, by definition, outside of reality.  I've never heard a theist say they believe that God exists outside of reality.

I have.

[MisterSwig]

As I understand the Objectivist argument for the existence of gods(s), the concept of the arbitrary, a concept that is neither true nor false is essential to the argument. I don't understand how an Objectivist could or should argue for its nonexistence. That would be an attempt to prove a negative, which is impossible.

Well, typically theists will offer some kind of definition of God. It is the definition that you can attack as being contrary to the facts of reality. You are not actually disproving a nonexistent God. You are pointing to the arbitrary and contradictory nature of their definition as such.

If, for example, someone says that God is the creator of the universe, then you have a definition there to work with, and you can logically attack the definition, exposing its disconnect from reality--its fantasy.

If someone says that God is a tree, then God is a tree. Woo hoo! You have a new name for a tree. But if God is a supernatural tree, then you have another fantastic definition that can be attacked as contrary to the facts.

If you can't even get a proper definition out of someone, then they have no ideas that you should be afraid of. Ignore them.

[jrs]

Objectivism correctly holds that Existence is primary, not Consciousness.

The concept of God is part of the contrary view that Consciousness is primary. In particular, it is God's Consciousness which is held to be primary.

Thus God should be defined as a Mind which makes existence exist by imagining it or by being aware of it. In other words, God creates things by thinking of them. If He ceased to think of them, then they would no longer exist.

So reality is like a kind of game of solitaire that God is playing with Himself.

[EC]

So reality is like a kind of game of solitaire that God is playing with Himself.

Hmmm...I wonder if He's winning?

[jrs]

The definition of God which I gave in my last message was partly inspired by descriptions of the Hindu god Brahma.

Since "Existence exists" is an axiom. It is redundant to suppose that Brahma has created Existence. So Occam's razor suggests that the we dispense with the idea of Brahma.

Furthermore, Brahma is a psychological projection of the mental state of a new-born child before he becomes aware that objects continue to exist even when he cannot see them.

I was hoping that one of you could find a way to disprove the existence of Brahma.

I do not think that the usual arguments against God based on attacking His omnipotence or omniscience will work.

Brahma is omnipotent in the sense that He does everything which is done and no force can stop Him from doing what He wants to do with Existence. However, He cannot or would not do anything to limit His own power and He does not create logical contradictions. So his omnipotence is limited in that sense.

Also He is omniscient with respect to Existence (in the present and the past). But there may be things which he does not know about Himself and about what He will do with Existence in the future. So the arguments that omniscience is self-contradictory do not apply.

If we define a miracle as an exception to the usual rules which Brahma applies to the game of Existence, then I think that He would not make miracles because that would be cheating.

Brahma is certainly good because Existence is good. But he is not omnibenevolent. He can and does create things which are evil and which He knows will be evil.

[TomL]

"Existence exists" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means existence has always existed and always will. It was never created; there has never been a time of non-existence, from which it must have been created. Ever. The universe is eternal, in both directions of time.

Also, Occam's Razor is false. To understand why, get Induction in Physics and Philosophy (I was there in both '02 and '03 ) or wait for the upcoming book.

One cannot "disprove" the existence of anything. You can only prove a positive, not a negative. You cannot "prove" that 1+1 != 3, you can only "validate" it. Please do equivocate "proof" with "validation", they are not the same thing.

Much as you'd like to to think that there is such a thing as "limited omnipotence" and "limited omniscience", you're only kidding yourself. What exactly does that mean? In any sense you care to define it, I have both of those properties. Any limits placed on "omnipotence" means that in some way, one is impotent. Any limits placed on "omniscience" mean that in some way, one is ignorant, which are precisely the conditions that "omnipotence" and "omniscience" are devised to reject. It is a sad contradiction you are trying to assert as true, and you can't get away with it here.

[jrs]

TomL:

You said "The universe is eternal, in both directions of time.".

Brahma is not supposed to have created the Universe at one time only. Rather He is creating (or re-creating) it continuously, because it could not exist for an instant without Him.

It seems plausible to me that the Universe began with the Big Bang about 14,000,000,000 years ago. Why is that not possible?

You said "Also, Occam's Razor is false.".

Yes. It is merely a heuristic, not a universal truth. That is why I said "suggests".

The assumption that "1 + 1 = 3" leads to a contradiction which destroys the mathematical system containing it. If that is not proof that it is absurd, then what is absurdity?

What do you consider to be the difference between proof and validation?

"omni" means "all", not "infinite to the point of contradiction".

Brahma (if He existed) has all power, because He does everything that is done.

Brahma has all knowledge (of the present and past of Existence) because they only occurred in His mind.

[TomL]

You misunderstand the concept "creation". One does not create something "continuously". The act of creating has a definite beginning and ending, and the product, i.e. the "creation" does not exist until the process of creation is completed. A bridge is not a bridge until you've finished building it. A book is not a book until the last page is written. And existence is not existence until it.. exists.

Even if there was a "big bang" event some large number of years ago, that doesn't mean that whatever existed at that time didn't exist. It means it existed in some other form. Nothingness cannot explode into somethingness.

Regardless of the absurdity of the equation "1+1=3", it still does not constitute a proof that "1+1 != 3". (!= meaning "does not equal). A proof requires that the conclusion be reduced through means of differentiation/integration to the perceptual level. You cannot reduce something which is false -- when you try, you wind up with something that cannot be perceived. It's like trying to prove that there is not purple-stripped radishes somewhere in Andromeda reading debating Platonic ethics. You simply can't see everything in Andromeda, so you can't prove they aren't there.

On the other hand, we can validate it by means of what we do know. We know that radishes do not debate, for one. And we know that Plato never went to Andromeda. These do not constitute proof, because for that you need direct perception.

There is no such supposed thing as "infinite to the point of contradiction" as apart from "all". Yes, "omni" means "all", which means that "omnipotence" means "all-powerful" which means "one who can do anything whatsoever". Omniscience means "all knowing" which means "one who knows everything". There is no other purpose for the terms. Anything less is not "omni".

"omni" means "all", not "infinite to the point of contradiction".

Brahma (if He existed) has all power, because He does everything that is done.

Brahma has all knowledge (of the present and past of Existence) because they only occurred in His mind.

[jrs]

TomL:

You said "Nothingness cannot explode into somethingness.".

Under present conditions, that is true. But the first moment of the Big Bang was extraordinary.

You said "A proof requires that the conclusion be reduced through means of differentiation/integration to the perceptual level.".

This is not what "proof" means to a mathematical logician (like me).

"not (1 + 1 = 3)" means "from (1 + 1 = 3) one can infer anything", which is true. And I could prove it, if you were willing to wade thru several pages of symbolic logic.

My previous impression was that when Objectivists say that "One cannot prove a negative." they were referring to Universal Negatives like "No Man is a Mollusk.". This supposedly on the grounds that one could not examine all men to check whether they were mollusks or not.

You said "We know that radishes do not debate, for one. ... These do not constitute proof, because for that you need direct perception.".

How do you "know" it, if not on the basis of perception?

You said "... anything whatsoever ... Anything less is not 'omni'.".

Objectivism correctly emphasizes the importance of context.

In particular, the meaning of "all" depends on the context. I am simply choosing a narrower context than the one which you want to use.

[HaloNoble6]

TomL:

You said "Nothingness cannot explode into somethingness.".

Under present conditions, that is true.  But the first moment of the Big Bang was extraordinary.

If by this you mean to imply that the big bang might contradict TomL's statement, I don't think that's accurate. The big bang does not itself imply the creation of something out of nothing: the big bang might be the only explosion, or the most recent one of many explosions, the universe has experienced.

[jrs]

Felipe:

Yes, there may have been something before the Big Bang, perhaps including other such explosions. In fact, I think that that is the most likely possibility.

But one should understand that the only law of physics which forbids creating something from nothing is conservation of energy.

Under present circumstances, the new matter would have positive energy as compared with the zero energy of the pre-existing void. This process is forbidden because it increases the total energy, violating the conservation law.

But it may be that the Universe as a whole has zero energy, since the positive energy of the matter and various force-fields could be canceled out by the one kind of energy which can be negative which is gravitational potential energy.

If that is the case, then the Universe could have appeared from nothing without violating conservation of energy or any other law of physics.

[jrs]

Yes, there may have been something before the Big Bang, perhaps including other such explosions.

I wrote that two months ago. Now I have a new idea about the Big Bang.

The amount of proper time (time as measured by stationary clocks) since the Big Bang is thought to be about 14 billion years. But recently, I have come to question whether proper time is the best measure of time.

If one chooses harmonic coordinates with respect to which the universe is spatially homogeneous and if we assume that the early universe is radiation-dominated, then the time coordinate will approach negative infinity as we approach the Big Bang (when everything is at the same place). Thus the Universe would have existed eternally i.e. for an infinite period of time (towards the past; I am not speaking of the future) and have been expanding always. In this case, it would not have any beginning to explain.

[HaloNoble6]

If that is the case, then the Universe could have appeared from nothing without violating conservation of energy or any other law of physics.

That there might be some "universal balance" of energy between total energy and gravitational potential energy does not necessarily admit the possibility of the creation of energy. Perhaps you can elaborate on this point.

The discussion on the nature of "proper time" is not very relevant to the philosophic issue of the eternal nature of the universe--it either always has and always will exist, or was magically created at some point, regardless of the "proper" scale we use.

[LaVache]

I would say "no", since he does not exist (and if something is not true, then it is not possible that it is true).

Yikes. This sounds a lot like the reasoning that led Plato to believe that people were born knowing everything and could only recall what they already knew.

Maybe I'm just not understanding your nature of can vs. does. I know that because god doesn't exist he obviously can not have done anything, like create things, and I know that no reorginization of matter and energy in the universe would lead to a being that could truly create things, and if that's what you mean then I follow you.

It sounds like you could reason from your statement, though, that because T.V. didn't exist in the Middle Ages that it simply can't exist. Which is different from saying that something can't exist because to do so would violate certain universal laws.

[Hal]

The question of whether God "could" exist isnt so much a metaphysical question as it is a linguistic question concerning our concept of God - it is asking whether the standard "God constructions" are actually coherent. The idea of unicorns makes sense in a way that the idea of square circles doesnt, even though neither exists. In a sense, we are asking whether God is more like a unicorn, or a square circle. This will depend entirely on which idea of God you're using - the Greek and Norse gods certainly make sense, whereas the standard Christian one doesnt.

Edited June 22, 2005 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

Maybe I'm just not understanding your nature of can vs. does. I know that because god doesn't exist he obviously can not have done anything, like create things, and I know that no reorginization of matter and energy in the universe would lead to a being that could truly create things, and if that's what you mean then I follow you.

Then you do apparently follow me. If X is untrue, then it is not possible that X is true. Although I would not think of this as being a matter of not knowing how to assemble god, rather that such a being contradicts the nature of existence. Mostly, I object to questions about "can", unless they are well founded, that is, aren't just a way of smuggling in arbitrary statements as "possible".

[DavidOdden]

This will depend entirely on which idea of God you're using - the Greek and Norse gods certainly make sense, whereas the standard Christian one doesnt.

I'm not sure that the Norse gods "make sense", since I'm not clear what their properties actually are. But since nobody actually is referring to Norse gods when they ask if "god exists", then questions about their possibility are irrelevant -- the question isn't about Norse gods. It's about something totally different, and something totally impossible, including Jewish Yaweh, Allah, Brahma or Ahura Mazda.

[jrs]

One does not create something "continuously". The act of creating has a definite beginning and ending, and the product, i.e. the "creation" does not exist until the process of creation is completed.

A spring creates a stream of water continuously.

If [the total energy of the Universe is zero] is the case, then the Universe could have appeared from nothing without violating conservation of energy or any other law of physics.

That there might be some "universal balance" of energy between total energy and gravitational potential energy does not necessarily admit the possibility of the creation of energy. Perhaps you can elaborate on this point.

If you create equal amounts of positive and negative energy, then you have not violated the conservation law. According to quantum theory, anything which is not forbidden by some law of physics can and will happen occasionally. However, some such events are less likely (the more complex ones) than others (the simple ones).

The appearance or disappearance of the whole universe would be an extremely unlikely and rare event.

The discussion on the nature of "proper time" is not very relevant to the philosophic issue of the eternal nature of the universe--it either always has and always will exist, or was magically created at some point, regardless of the "proper" scale we use.

No. The time scale is essential -- it is the difference between "always" and "at some point".

Suppose as you say the Universe is eternal, that is, it has existed, does exist, and will exist at every time t.

What does "every time" mean? t ε Reals.

Let t' = t/sqrt(1+t*t); then t' ε (-1,+1).

So relative to the new time coordinate t', the Universe has

both a beginning at t' = -1 and an end at t' = +1.

[Hal]

I'm not sure that the Norse gods "make sense", since I'm not clear what their properties actually are.

I vaguely recall some pretty awesome stories from when I read Norse myths as a kid. But Loki always seemed pretty contradictory so you might be right.

But since nobody actually is referring to Norse gods when they ask if "god exists"

They ask if its possible for a god to exist. The answer is yes - SOME gods are 'possible' (eg Greek ones), whereas others arent. If you were to define God by a definite description such as "the being which created the physical universe if such a being exists", then this God would be possible but arbitrary (note this isnt the same as creating 'existence', which is impossible. Ayn Rand stated that existence existing does not imply that a physical universe exists).

[HaloNoble6]

jrs you're getting into something that isn't necessary to philosophically understanding the universe. What I meant by "proper time scale" is whether you use some element's half life or radioactive decay or the setting of the sun or the traversal of the moon or whatever to reference your time scale. That the universe is eternal isn't changed by whether we use different units to measure time. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning of "proper time scale"; I took it to mean what reference of elapsed time do we use as our fundamental measure of time.

On energy, I don't think the conservation of energy principle is not applied to "two events which balance each other," but to each particular event. That one part of the universe "creates" positive energy while another part "creates" negative in equal amount, at the same time, doesn't somehow "conserve" energy. The non-creation of energy means that energy in any single process is not destroyed nor created, but changed in form. I've never heard of COE applied in this pseudo-balance way you speak of.

[LaVache]

Although I would not think of this as being a matter of not knowing how to assemble god, rather that such a being contradicts the nature of existence. Mostly, I object to questions about "can", unless they are well founded, that is, aren't just a way of smuggling in arbitrary statements as "possible".

Good. I totally see where you're coming from now .

I think that the knowing how to assemble god angle is just another way of showing how such a being would necessarily have to contradict the natures of reality and existence. It is obviously crude and oversimplified, but I think that it could still make sense to some people better than pointing directly to science. You'd have to explain that the knowing how to assemble god wouldn't be in the same sense as knowing how to assemble a bookshelf, but more like knowing how to assemble a human. While we can't make a Frankenstein monster we do know a lot about what humans are made of and how they physically work. In the case of god, we really have nothing, and that should at least set off some alarm bells for most people.

[LaVache]

On energy, I don't think the conservation of energy principle is not applied to "two events which balance each other," but to each particular event.  That one part of the universe "creates" positive energy while another part "creates" negative in equal amount, at the same time, doesn't somehow "conserve" energy.

He's not talking about two opposite sides of the universe, but a single event that creates positive and negative energy at the same time. It is known that an electron can be "created" if a positron also pops into existence at the same time. They are perfect opposites and balance each other out: COE is not violated. In most cases the two particles will attract each other and mutually destroy each other right after they appear, but in the case of this happening on the event horizon of a black hole; one of the particles may get sucked in while the other is free to go about its merry way.

[HaloNoble6]

But you've admited that is is a creation of energy nevertheless, albiet one that is self-balancing. This "balanced system of energy" came from nowehre, it didn't arise out of a shift from other energy.