Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Argument for the existence of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

...

Yes, I do assume that the universe had a beginning, as the Big Bang model suggests. It also seems logical: If the universe never began, then it always was. If it always was, then it is infinitely old. If it is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed—one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before—in order for the present day to arrive. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point—for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point—or any point before it.

So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite. In other words, the universe began to exist. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

I think it is called "Zeno's Paradox," [yes, indeed it is] but let me ask, Avila, is it possible to move something, such as oneself, traveling in a car, walking, etc., from point A to point B if the distance between A and B is finite?

The idea of "Zeno's Paradox" was, at least one of his paradoxes, that it is impossible, in theory, to walk across a room because in order to do so one would have to first walk half-way across the room. But to do that, one would first have to walk half-way of that half-way, etc., on and on, infinitely dividing the distance one would first have to cross into halves. Before long, one realizes that it is impossible to walk across a room. But yet one can walk across a room. A conflict between theory and fact?

So, is it possible to cross a room or not? What about all of those infinite half-way distances? How is it possible to cross an finite distance and yet have to also cross an infinite number of half-distances?

The same issue applies to your theory with respect to whether there has been an infinite amount of time for existence to exist, or a finite amount of time and therefore a beginning, which you say is necessary in order for us to actually have reached today.

Existence, the universe, is eternal. (That's not to say that its current state is eternal.) Existence is not in time — time exists within existence, time being a measure of motion presupposes motion, motion presupposes existents that are in motion.

Eternal is not the same as infinite — there is no infinite distance or time. Infinite is a potentiality, not an actuality. Existence, an actuality, exists; existence Is. There's no beginning and no end to existence (even though there are beginnings and endings for existents; we are born, live and eventually die, for instance) and yet here we are, today, posting to this forum.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it isn't simply the complexity: it's the interconnected-ness of the whole.

Well, to be fair, I meant for that to considered as well, and that doesn't change what I was trying to say. A watch has interconnected parts as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Necessity presupposes existence, but that does not address the question of whether any existent is, in fact, necessary. Take yourself, for example: you exist now, but are finite, limited, and changing. You can certainly not exist -- it is 100% for sure that someday you will not. You are not "necessary", in the philosophical sense (if you were, you wouldn't die, and since everything would depend upon you as necessary, you would need to be infinite and have always existed).

Yes, I do assume that the universe had a beginning, as the Big Bang model suggests. It also seems logical: If the universe never began, then it always was. If it always was, then it is infinitely old. If it is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed—one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before—in order for the present day to arrive. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point—for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point—or any point before it.

So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite. In other words, the universe began to exist. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

Your formulation and usage of terms having to do with infinity, eternal, time, necessity and logic are providing you with the correspondingly commensurate level of clarity.

In addition to the use of an invalid concept rendering an argument or explanation null and void, a partial or vague grasp of valid concepts will lead you to mistaken and erroneous conclusions. Floating abstractions often lead to the fallacy of the stolen concepts.

You enter into this arena requesting a refutation of your position. It would seem more prudent to ascertain what is necessary to validate a position in general, in order to judge for yourself how it may or not comply with that criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Well, to be fair, I meant for that to considered as well, and that doesn't change what I was trying to say. A watch has interconnected parts as well.

And requires a watchmaker...

A professor I knew at Fordham, who taught metaphysics, put it this way:

Since the parts make sense only within the whole, and neither the whole nor the parts can explain their own existence, then such a system as our world requires a unifying efficient cause to posit it in existence as a unified whole.

Any such cause must be an intelligent cause, one that brings the system into being according to a unifying idea. For the unity of the whole—and of each one of the overarching, cosmic—wide, physical laws uniting elements under themselves—is what determines and correlates the parts. Hence it must be somehow actually present as an effective organizing factor. But the unity, the wholeness, of the whole transcends any one part, and therefore cannot be contained in any one part. To be actually present all at once as a whole this unity can only be the unity of an organizing unifying idea. For only an idea can hold together many different elements at once without destroying or fusing their distinctness. That is almost the definition of an idea. Since the actual parts are spread out over space and time, the only way they can be together at once as an intelligible unity is within an idea. Hence the system of the world as a whole must live first within the unity of an idea.

Now a real idea cannot actually exist and be effectively operative save in a real mind, which has the creative power to bring such a system into real existence. Hence the sufficient reason for our ordered world—system must ultimately be a creative ordering Mind. A cosmic—wide order requires a cosmic—wide Orderer, which can only be a Mind.

Such an ordering Mind must be independent of the system itself, that is, transcendent; not dependent on the system for its own existence and operation. For if it were dependent on—or part of—the system, it would have to presuppose the latter as already existing in order to operate, and would thus have to both precede and follow itself. But this is absurd. Hence it must exist and be able to operate prior to and independent of the system.

Thus our material universe necessarily requires, as the sufficient reason for its actual existence as an operating whole, a Transcendent Creative Mind.

Now, I know that you will dismiss all of this, but again -- the atheist and the Judeo-Christian tradition reach differing PHILOSOPHICAL interpretations of observable data. It's not a scientific question. The atheist position is not more rational, nor is it based on hard science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the parts make sense only within the whole, and neither the whole nor the parts can explain their own existence, then such a system as our world requires a unifying efficient cause to posit it in existence as a unified whole.

And so you are back to page 1, committing the fallacy of the stolen concept with respect to your attempted application of the concept "effect" to existence, a concept on which "effect" depends. It is no different from positing souls/spirits/ideas apart from brains - they are all commit the same fallacy.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so you are back to page 1, committing the fallacy of the stolen concept with respect to your attempted application of the concept "effect" to existence, a concept on which "effect" depends. It is no different from positing souls/spirits/ideas apart from brains - they are all commit the same fallacy.

I'm not the original poster. And I tire of the mantra of "stolen concept", so I'm simply not going to engage your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in other words, you will pretend that the conceptual faculty does not work in any particular manner, in order to avoid having to use concepts in the contexts for which they are valid. You do not require any evidence to conclude that "effect" is a property that can be assigned to "existence" - the mere fact that those two words can both be used together in a grammatically-correct sentence is sufficient evidence to form that conclusion, in your mind. Words can have whatever meaning you want them to have, and can be used in whatever context you like, in order to support your predetermined conclusion. And colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the parts make sense only within the whole, and neither the whole nor the parts can explain their own existence, then such a system as our world requires a unifying efficient cause to posit it in existence as a unified whole.

Its also dubious to try and "explain" existence. Provide some empirical evidence or science (or perhaps contrasting existence with non existence, whatever that is) and I might pay attention, but these purely rationalistic attempts dont make your case any more than quoting Chomsky would make you a communist. As of right now all I hear is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth......."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And requires a watchmaker...

But that does NOT necessarily carry over to non-man made things. It is merely an assumption to think it does. That man-made things require man as a creator does not logically translate to non-man made things requiring a creator as well.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Its also dubious to try and "explain" existence."

But that's what philosophers have been doing for thousands of years. You can decide that you aren't interested in the questions of the origins of the universe and why existence exists, but they remain interesting questions and philosophers will continue to speculate about them.

"Provide some empirical evidence or science"

But that is precisely the point I was making when I commented on this thread: these are philosophical questions, and science can't answer them.

As of right now all I hear is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth......."

I think you hear that because that's what you want to hear. The argument that Jacob has been engaged in (where is he now, by the way? Did he get kicked off?) does not use that phrase as a starting point or premise. Aquinas starts with observable data. And that, again, is my point: the atheist and the follower of the Judeo-Christian tradition simply arrive at differing philosophical interpretations of the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't look at the basis of the concepts that you use to formulate your question, the resulting rationalization can seem plausible, no doubt.

If you grasp what it takes to formulate the axiomatic concepts of "existence", "identity" and "consciousness", then the context of the application of the "watchmaker" being switched from the man-made to the metaphysically given becomes the distinguishing characteristic, rendering the concept of "origins" the "stolen concept" you prefer not to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's what philosophers have been doing for thousands of years.

Appeal to tradition.

You can decide that you aren't interested in the questions of the origins of the universe and why existence exists

Straw man.

Did he get kicked off?

No. He left.

the atheist and the follower of the Judeo-Christian tradition simply arrive at differing philosophical interpretations of the data.

There is only one correct interpretation - that one which does not attempt to apply the evidence of certain data (referents to the concept of "effect") outside of their valid context (existence).

It is no different from a scientist who erroneously attempts to apply the results of his very limited study beyond the scope of the study, to a much broader context - he arrives at false conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Appeal to tradition."

You state this as if I have presented some argument that is refuted by your assertion. I have simply made the observation that atheists and some (not all) theists arrive at different conclusions about existence, etc., based on the same observable data.

But your comment does warrant a closer look: "Appeal to traditon" -- just what does that dismissal mean? If the proper study of Man is Man, as Alexander Pope asserted, then what Man has believed, thought about, questioned, acted upon -- all of these are important to understanding the animal Man. It is not irrelevant that philosophers for thousands of years have contemplated certain questions. There is much to be gained in the understanding of what is reality by the study of what Man has always considered important. To dismiss this is to posit a different, hypothetical Man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An appeal to tradition simply means:

This argument is correct because this is the manner we have always presented argument as long as we can remember.

If the proper study of man is determined by the way we have always studied it, it assumes the proper method of study is to do it the way it has traditionally been done.

If there is a proper method of study, is there also an improper method of study?

Is there a science studies the proper methods of study and distinguishes them from improper methods of study? If so, which science would it be?

And to follow up on that question with the question that Plasmatic asked in post #685, just what do you think or believe science to be?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But your comment does warrant a closer look: "Appeal to traditon" -- just what does that dismissal mean? If the proper study of Man is Man, as Alexander Pope asserted, then what Man has believed, thought about, questioned, acted upon -- all of these are important to understanding the animal Man.

Agreed. So what can we learn from the fact that certain specific men (philosophers and theologians of the past) have argued for the existence of a creator of existence?

1. That man potentially desires to construct rationale to support preconceived beliefs.

2. That in order to even analyze the validity of the original question, it is vital to build a solid, objective foundation for metaphysics and concept-formation. This is necessary to understand how the concepts used in the question are formed, in order to determine whether those concepts are being properly utilized - i.e., within the contexts of the sensual evidence that gives rise to those concepts (the referents).

Given that all the referents for the concepts of "cause" and "effect" involve existents, one can only properly apply those concepts to interactions among existents. To attempt to apply them beyond that context is similar to committing the sort of scientific error I mentioned earlier. Rand generally calls this context-dropping, and specifically the fallacy of the "stolen concept".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So what can we learn from the fact that certain specific men (philosophers and theologians of the past) have argued for the existence of a creator of existence?"

That isn't what I stated. I said that certain questions -- the origins of the universe, origins of life, etc. -- were important questions for Man, as evidenced by the fact that they have occupied philosophers for centuries.

"That man potentially desires to construct rationale to support preconceived beliefs."

You are presuming that the beliefs are preconceived -- that is your preconception. Aquinas, as I've mentioned before, does not start with the premise that God exists, but constructs his arguments based on observation of the world.

"That in order to even analyze the validity of the original question, it is vital to build a solid, objective foundation for metaphysics and concept-formation."

Sure, though I don't think you understand what my original position (not really a question) was to begin with, based on what you've written. But anyway: Our knowledge originates in sense perception. To use Thomas Aquinas again: ""Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all of our knowledge originates from the sense." However, we possess a natural ability to abstract ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, we possess a natural ability to abstract ideas.

I certainly would not refer to the ability to abstract ideas as natural. We certainly have the capacity to abstract ideas, but the ability to abstract an idea has to be developed in order to ensure proper formulation, and avoid improper formulation, to ensure those ideas are used properly and avoid improper usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I certainly would not refer to the ability to abstract ideas as natural. We certainly have the capacity to abstract ideas, but the ability to abstract an idea has to be developed in order to ensure proper formulation, and avoid improper formulation, to ensure those ideas are used properly and avoid improper usage."

I agree. However, I stand by what I said: the ABILITY to abstract ideas is natural -- that is, it is natural to Man. It is an attribute of rational Man. Of course it needs to be developed, but that doesn't mean it's unnatural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To use Thomas Aquinas again: ""Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all of our knowledge originates from the sense." However, we possess a natural ability to abstract ideas. [my bold]

That is an interesting and curious "however."

You quote and, I take it, agree with Aquinas that "all of our knowledge originates from the sense"; however you also state, as a seeming exception, that "we possess a natural ability to abstract ideas."

What do you mean by "all of our knowledge originates from the sense"?

And what do you means by our "ability to abstract ideas"?

If you are making a distinction between our ability to gain knowledge, all of which knowledge "originates from the sense," and our "ability to abstract ideas," what is that distinction?

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I stand by what I said: the ABILITY to abstract ideas is natural -- that is, it is natural to Man.

I would certainly agree that the capability to abstract ideas is natural to man, but ability carries with it overtones of developed skill, proficiency, competence in performing a particular task.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I would certainly agree that the capability to abstract ideas is natural to man, but ability carries with it overtones of developed skill, proficiency, competence in performing a particular task."

Ok, whatever works for you. We aren't in disagreement (at least on this one item).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You quote and, I take it, agree with Aquinas that "all of our knowledge originates from the sense"; however you also state, as a seeming exception, that "we possess a natural ability to abstract ideas."

An "exception"? I don't see that at all. The abstraction of ideas flows from the rational faculty of observation -- let me try to illusrate this by a simple example: You see a footprint on a sandy beach. Your previous sense-perception observations (or at least the testimony of those whose opionions you regard as credible)leads you to conclude that actual footprints are left by actual beings who leave footprints. The observation of the natural world leads you to rationally conclude -- though without direct observation -- that an entity has passed by on this sandy beach. You might even be able to discern some attributes of the being who left the prints, even though you never observed the entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...