Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Argument for the existence of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

My last post prefaced that the reference to walls was an analogy to your supposition that everything must come from something.

But the question was about an uncaused event. The Universe/Existence is not an event. Actions are caused by entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was drawing an analogy. Analogies are characterized by the source having some difference from the target, since if there were no difference, you wouldn't have an analogy to the situation but a repetition of what the situation is, and that's not helpful. My point was, it is not sufficient merely on the basis of the fact that a thing was not caused to be what it is, that you may thereby conclude that it came from nothing, and that this nothing is a thing. You cannot do it in the case of the universe, and you cannot do it in the case of a "first moment".

Edited by aleph_0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll assume you mean "prior to the first moment of time", since I'm not sure what "prior to time itself" would mean. In any case, if you would like to characterize the first moment of time as stillness, I can think of no objection--it seems as though the concepts might be equivalent--but I still see this as no objection to the notion of a first moment in time.

Just a technical comment: You can't say a moment of time consisted of universal stillness.

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The existence of god cannot be inductively proven nor deductively proven. Existence can be observed but not deductive proven--and I'd say it's an odd turn of phrase to say that you inductively prove its existence, but whatever. I know of no proof, inductive or deductive, for the existence or lack of existence of a first moment of time, and none has been given in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that time is based on a specific relationship of specific moving entities taken as a unit - no motion would be no time. This too, is induced.

Actually, that's a deduction.

"Motion" as the term is used in respect to time is broader than local motion. It is broader than spatial re-location. It includes any change of any quality also. So the bit about relationship isn't actually required.

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The existence of god cannot be inductively proven nor deductively proven. Existence can be observed but not deductive proven--and I'd say it's an odd turn of phrase to say that you inductively prove its existence, but whatever. I know of no proof, inductive or deductive, for the existence or lack of existence of a first moment of time, and none has been given in this thread.

From what I have grasped so far, logic does not provide a means of deductive proof for the the process of validation of objects. Validation in first level concepts, as well as axiomatic concepts, of which existence is an axiomatic concept, is done via evidence of the sense, it is induced directly from the cognitive evaluation of the percepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of no proof, inductive or deductive, for the existence or lack of existence of a first moment of time, and none has been given in this thread.

The only safe statement to be made on the subject is that we don't know whether time had a beginning or not. The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems indicate that time had a beginning, but they rely on general relativity in an uncomfortable way. Other speculations would suggest an eternal universe experiencing bangs and crunches, and thus no beginning point for time.

For those who object to the very idea of a beginning point for time because "it would mean something came from nothing," that is simply an incorrect framing of the claim. The very concept of "coming from" relies on the existence of time. Asking what "came before" that point is simply nonsensical; before means "prior in time." If time doesn't exist, there is no before. In trying to conceptualize this possibility, of a beginning point of time, I have found it helpful to draw an analogy to the North Pole. Consider the question, "What is north of the North Pole?" The answer, of course, is that there is no such point; Polar coordinates are only defined on the surface of the earth, and it does not make sense to attempt to include other points in this coordinate system. There is simply a northernmost point, from which all other points defined by the system are further south. Similarly, the beginning point of time, if it existed, would simply be the earliest point in history, from which all other points come later. To ask the question, "what came before that point?" is simply context-dropping (the context that the "point" that we are considering is precisely the earliest point where the concept of "before" applies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found it helpful to draw an analogy to the North Pole. Consider the question, "What is north of the North Pole?" The answer, of course, is that there is no such point

Drawing from your analogy, "What existed before existence?" (often poorly phrased as 'What caused the universe?'). The answer is, of course, is simply: "Existence exists."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have grasped so far, logic does not provide a means of deductive proof for the the process of validation of objects. Validation in first level concepts, as well as axiomatic concepts, of which existence is an axiomatic concept, is done via evidence of the sense, it is induced directly from the cognitive evaluation of the percepts.

I don't know what it means to validate an object. Is it like validating your parking? Deductive logic certainly does not, in itself, prove the existence of any object.

Why are we talking about deductive logic, anyway? I'm just talking about any proof or sound argument to the effect that there is a first moment of time.

The only safe statement to be made on the subject is that we don't know whether time had a beginning or not.

That's what I've been stating.

For those who object to the very idea of a beginning point for time because "it would mean something came from nothing," that is simply an incorrect framing of the claim.

My point too. Are we long lost siblings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would help to very clearly distinguish existence from time. An unchanging state of affairs has no time. Time doesn't pertain to that situation. As soon as something changes, time begins. So the beginning of time doesn't mean the beginning of existents.

Before time, there was stasis.

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deductive logic certainly does not, in itself, prove the existence of any object.

So, just how do you make your connection between the perceptual and the conceptual, i.e., the connection between existence and consciousness? What role does logic play, that you continue to appeal to the just the deductive side of logic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, just how do you make your connection between the perceptual and the conceptual, i.e., the connection between existence and consciousness? What role does logic play, that you continue to appeal to the just the deductive side of logic?

Our consciousness perceives existing objects... What exactly do you want here? And why do you say that I only appeal to deduction? If there were some physical evidence that suggested a first moment of time, or the contrary, that would be acceptable to me.

As for what role logic plays, I would hold that logic polices any beliefs we may hold on the basis of perception, and that it draws necessary conclusions on the basis of what is given.

[Edit: I should note that, in our previous conversation about the possibility of an infinite universe, I rejected an inductive argument. To elaborate, I reject it firstly because it seemed to go, "This is finite, this is finite, ... Everything we ever see is finite, therefore, everything is finite." The same kind of argument could run, "This is less than a million in quantity, this is less than a million in quantity... A human being can never see a thing that has quantity one million, the abstraction is too vast, therefore, everything is less than one million." Likewise an ancient Roman could argue, "This is not a kangaroo, this is not a kangaroo,... It is impossible for there to be kangaroos." These are clearly ridiculous. But moreover, even if it were to suggest in some weak sense, that everything is finite, I would still reject this as a proof of the impossibility of infinite quantities, since for that we would need to prove the impossibility deductivly, possibly while using some very minimal, uncontroversial premises about the nature of existence (Such premises as, perhaps, "Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time." This is obviously not meant in the sense that we can merge two objects, so that their matter is inter-woven in some space, but that no two objects which have no proper parts can overlap in space.).]

Edited by aleph_0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be wrong at any point in this, but from my understanding;

time is a measurement of events, events are finite and in general have causes and effects (caused by previous events and causing subsequent events), it is impossible that there is an infinite regress of actual events because if there was never a first (or beginning) there would never be any other subsequent events. Therefore there must be a beginning to "time" (IF we are defining time as a measurement of events/changes). I agree with Mindy though, that it's POSSIBLE that "before time" there was stasis. This doesn't change the fact that there had to be a beginning in the cause-effect chain.

**I'm not arguing here that there was a beginning to matter or to "existence", but that there was a beginning to events/motion/changes/etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reject it firstly because it seemed to go, "This is finite, this is finite, ... Everything we ever see is finite, therefore, everything is finite." The same kind of argument could run, "This is less than a million in quantity, this is less than a million in quantity... A human being can never see a thing that has quantity one million, the abstraction is too vast, therefore, everything is less than one million." Likewise an ancient Roman could argue, "This is not a kangaroo, this is not a kangaroo,... It is impossible for there to be kangaroos." These are clearly ridiculous. But moreover, even if it were to suggest in some weak sense, that everything is finite, I would still reject this as a proof of the impossibility of infinite quantities, since for that we would need to prove the impossibility deductivly, possibly while using some very minimal, uncontroversial premises about the nature of existence (Such premises as, perhaps, "Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time." This is obviously not meant in the sense that we can merge two objects, so that their matter is inter-woven in some space, but that no two objects which have no proper parts can overlap in space.).]

First ,the above is a false analogy."less than " is not equal to "no actual quantity".

You must object to the position then that, "everything we percieve is something in particular, therefore everything is something in particular",ie there are no existents without identity.

I reject "stasis" as well. There has always been a multiplicity of bounded entities (redundant I know)in motion. How could anything get moving otherwise?I see this again as unavoidable philosophically. Please don't quote current special science theories(which I see as bad philosophical foundations) in response cause I'm a foundationalist and my position is a philosophical one.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not an argument for God, but an argument for the existence of some un-caused event. An un-caused event is in contradiction with the law of cause and effect. So that means that everything must have a cause. This leads to a infinite regress of cause and effect, with infinity being in contradiction with law of identity.

However the final contradiction, the need for infinity only occurs if cause and effect is viewed in a linear way. As a line stretching out infinitely both forwards and backwards. Viewing it in a linear one dimensional way is the only way that creates this need for infinity. Viewing it as a circle for example resolves the problem. Law of conservation says that matter/energy can neither be destroyed or created. Universe/existence can neither have a beginning or an end. This makes me think of a circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be wrong at any point in this, but from my understanding;

time is a measurement of events,

What property of an event do you suppose time measures? Length measures a spatial dimension, temperature measures the heat. Surely time doesn't measure every property of an event, just some isolated one, namely its duration. Duration is not a property of any given object at any time, so an infinity of time does not imply an actual infinite quantity of any thing. Again, we revisit the point made earlier, that you seem to be reifying events and time, treating it like an object that is metaphysically indistinguishable from a rock, and this is a premise we all reject--so if you are to make your case in this way, you must first justify the premise that, by counting moments of time or measuring duration, you are counting objects rather than mere relations between objects which have no independent existence. Even understanding your claim as a claim that there must have been some point at which there was perfect stasis, your argument claims that there must have been such a point because changes must be finite--and so my rejection of this premise is the same. A change is not a physical entity, so what should be problematic about supposing that there is an infinity of them?

First ,the above is a false analogy."less than " is not equal to "no actual quantity".

You assume the very thing that is supposed to be proved, namely that infinity is not an actual quantity. Every argument offered so far, besides the original inductive argument, has suffered from this circularity, and it amazes me that people persist in committing this circularity after it has been pointed out. It is as if you are willing to give up on logic in order to hold on to the idea that quantities must be finite.

Besides this point, you need to understand how the analogy works. The argument made was of the form, "This is not a P, this is not a P, ... therefore nothing can possibly be a P." I pointed out that this is an invalid argument, by applying the same argument form to another particular subject, and demonstrating its ridiculousness. The argument form did not depend on the failure of P to be an actual quantity, so the fact that my analogy did not make use of something that was not an actual quality is irrelevant. Thus the analogy holds.

You must object to the position then that, "everything we percieve is something in particular, therefore everything is something in particular",ie there are no existents without identity.

I must not. I accept that everything is something in particular, and I do not accept the premise--for which nobody has been able to offer a non-circular and sound argument for--that infinity (or, aleph_0) is not a particular quantity.

This is not an argument for God, but an argument for the existence of some un-caused event.

That is only half of the argument. The other half of the argument is that this uncaused event entails the existence of a free will, which the original poster identifies with god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What property of an event do you suppose time measures? Length measures a spatial dimension, temperature measures the heat. Surely time doesn't measure every property of an event, just some isolated one, namely its duration. Duration is not a property of any given object at any time, so an infinity of time does not imply an actual infinite quantity of any thing. Again, we revisit the point made earlier, that you seem to be reifying events and time, treating it like an object that is metaphysically indistinguishable from a rock, and this is a premise we all reject--so if you are to make your case in this way, you must first justify the premise that, by counting moments of time or measuring duration, you are counting objects rather than mere relations between objects which have no independent existence. Even understanding your claim as a claim that there must have been some point at which there was perfect stasis, your argument claims that there must have been such a point because changes must be finite--and so my rejection of this premise is the same. A change is not a physical entity, so what should be problematic about supposing that there is an infinity of them?

I only began referring to "time" because it seemed as though everyone else had shifted to using that language and debating about the nature of time and it's relationship to cause and effect. Frankly, I'm not too interested in getting into strict definitions regarding time, etc.. unless they are obviously helpful in fleshing out this debate. I'm not sure yet whether they are or not.

I'd prefer to simply talk about the Law of Cause and Effect which contrary to what many think, does not say that everyTHING must have a cause but that every EFFECT must have a cause. I do not think that I am reifying cause and effect here... though I could be. I know that effects don't "exist" in the same way that a ball does. They are not physical objects. But surely neither of us wants to DENY cause and effect. So how can we talk about cause and effect without denying it while simultaneously not being guilty of reification?? Perhaps my language simply has not been specific enough. If so I apologize.

That is only half of the argument. The other half of the argument is that this uncaused event entails the existence of a free will, which the original poster identifies with god.

This is true...but I prefer to take one step of the argument at a time and start with the foundations. Just like when debating a skeptic, i'm not going to begin with ethics- i'm going to begin with the laws of logic because that is the fundamental level of our disagreement. In this argument, if there is no cause and effect, than there is obviously no uncaused cause worth debating about so we should probably stick with this for now.

Anyone who accepts this foundation is welcome to debate the further claims though.. Personally, I am very interested in working this foundation out since it is crucial to my goal in figuring out the answers to some of my questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Peikoff points out on page 16 of OPAR:

The law of causality does not state that every entity has a cause. Some of the things commonly referred to as "entities" do not come into being or pass away, but are eternal—e.g., the universe as a whole. The concept of "cause" is inapplicable to the universe; by definition, there is nothing outside the totality to act as a cause. The universe simply is; it is an irreducible primary.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it makes a difference whether we speak in terms of time or cause-and-effect. I deny that there must have been a first cause, or an uncaused cause, or anything like that. The first thing to say about this in response to your argument is that I (unlike other people on this forum) believe there is nothing inherently contradictory in the idea that there is an actual infinity of something. So right off the bat, I'm not satisfied with your argument. The second point is that, even if you accept what Ayn Rand said regarding infinity, this seems to only apply to an infinity of actually existing entities. A cause is not an actual, independent entity. Look back to my example of the ball breaking the glass. In counting the number of entities that exist at any one time in the scenario, there is only a ball and glass; not a ball, glass, a cause, and an effect. Cause and effect is a relationship between actual entities and not an entity itself. So even given the premises that Ayn Rand held, there is no reason to think that there have been finitely many causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actuall, Peikoff points out on page 16 of OPAR:

The law of causality does not state that every entity has a cause. Some of the things commonly referred to as "entities" do not come into being or pass away, but are eternal—e.g., the universe as a whole. The concept of "cause" is inapplicable to the universe; by definition, there is nothing outside the totality to act as a cause. The universe simply is; it is an irreducible primary.

Yes! Let's talk about that. haha. I agree that if we are referring to the universe as "the totality of all that exists" than there is nothing outside of it which could cause it. But WITHIN that category ("within the universe" or "within existence") there must exist a cause which is not also an effect..IF the Law of Cause and Effect is valid. Agree? Disagree???

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...