Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Argument for the existence of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Because causal factors always operate through existents. Literal nonexistence, nothingness, has no causal efficacy. Take a Christian who holds that the universe as we know it today was created by a conscious God. God is the existent to which he appeals in order to explain the universe. Where did God come from? Well, he is eternal, uncaused. Or take a quantum mechanics researcher who posits that the universe as we know it popped out of a quantum fluctuation. In that case, the existent to which he is appealing is the quantum-mechanical nature and features of the 'wider universe', out of which popped this present universe. Where did that QM structure come from? Well, that's just the way it is. Maybe we can also explain that structure, but however we explain it, it will be through the causal processes of yet another existent. In any case, whatever it is that you appeal to to explain the creation of this universe, that thing is also part of existence as such.

We agree here. However, you haven't explained why these questions are invalid. They are philosophical questions, to be sure, but I don't see what makes them "invalid". There's something in that use of the term that is disquieting, a kind of self-censorship (as if certain questions and thought patterns MUST NOT be allowed).

which works through definite causal processes to interact with and change (or in this case create) the world outside itself

Yes, of course -- the physical processes we observe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We agree here. However, you haven't explained why these questions are invalid. They are philosophical questions, to be sure, but I don't see what makes them "invalid". There's something in that use of the term that is disquieting, a kind of self-censorship (as if certain questions and thought patterns MUST NOT be allowed).

I don't mean anything like that by 'invalid.' The question does have a superficial plausibility and should be addressed head-on by philosophers. What I mean is that the proper way to address it is to point out the flaws in the conception of the question itself; in short, that it divorces causality from the causal agents themselves. The idea of causation simply does not apply to existence as a whole, as the question tries to apply it.

Consider the question, "How should the social product of America's economy be divided among its citizens?" The proper response to this question is not to attempt to answer it, but to illustrate that it assumes the aggregate social product is unowned and can be divided any which way, when in actuality every material value comes into being already attached to a person (its creator). There is no 'social product' over and above the individual creations that are already owned. Thus, the question is invalid, or improperly conceived. This label is not an attempt to censor the question, rather it represents the only appropriate response to such a question.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean anything like that by 'invalid.' The question does have a superficial plausibility and should be addressed head-on by philosophers

Thanks for the clarification.

hat I mean is that the proper way to address it is to point out the flaws in the conception of the question itself; in short, that it divorces causality from the causal agents themselves.

Yes, you're correct in that the Judeo-Christian concept of God as the Uncaused Being means that God is eternal and uncaused. In the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist. But without an uncaused final cause, nothing could begin to exist, and so nothing could exist right now.

As I mentioned before, the atheist and the Judeo-Christian worldviews are differing philosophical interpretations of our observations of the material universe.

By the way, the example you gave of a quantum mechanics researcher who posits that the universe as we know it popped out of a quantum fluctuation -- would you agree that the term "universe" has been misused in this case? I always took "universe" to mean, "all that there is".

Thank you for being polite and not resorting to sneers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avila said:

The existence of God is a question of philosophy, not of science.

Objectivism considers philosophy a science.

Quote

Where did the universe (existence) come from" is also an invalid question.

No, it's not an "invalid" question. It is one that has intrigued scientists for centuries.

It is invalid like the question, "Why dont you sell square-circles in your store?". Existence cannot come from non-existence, the only alternative.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the example you gave of a quantum mechanics researcher who posits that the universe as we know it popped out of a quantum fluctuation -- would you agree that the term "universe" has been misused in this case? I always took "universe" to mean, "all that there is".

Yes, if by universe we mean "all that there is," then the term has been misused by the QM guy, because his explanation requires a superstructure of some kind in which quantum fluctuations happen. However, I'm not certain the physics world regularly uses 'universe' to denote all that there is. For example, when physicists theorize about multiple universes, they are obviously not using the term to mean all that exists (not to imply that they aren't way off the reservation, just illustrating usage of the term :)).

Thank you for being polite and not resorting to sneers.

No problem.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you're correct in that the Judeo-Christian concept of God as the Uncaused Being means that God is eternal and uncaused. In the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist. But without an uncaused final cause, nothing could begin to exist, and so nothing could exist right now.

I disagree that this is a necessary tenet of atheism. In fact, for exactly the reasons Dante has given, I think existence itself is an example of something without a cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that this is a necessary tenet of atheism. In fact, for exactly the reasons Dante has given, I think existence itself is an example of something without a cause.

Essentially, the Objectivist simply replaces the concept "God" with the concept of "existence". (In other words, simply removing the word "supreme" from Supreme Being, and being left with "being" on its own). Which is why, as Dante says, the Objectivist simply stops there, as his eternal existent is existence. To go beyond and ask how non-conscious, vague, "existence" gives rise to the complexity of our material universe with its physical laws is "out-of-bounds" for Objectivists. So I can see how, for Objectivists, certain questions are invalid. That does not mean they are invalid questions for other philosophies, and indeed they have been valid questions for philosophers for millennia.

What I am reacting to is the idea, advanced here implicitly and in other threads explicitly, that any and all belief in God as the Uncaused Cause, or Unmoved Mover, etc., represents complete irrationality, as if modern science has completely made the concept of "God" irrelevant. My point is that the atheist worldview, and the Judeo-Christian worldview, are differing philosophical interpretations of what we observe in our world. Obviously they can't both be right: one of those worldviews is in error. But science is not going to provide the definitive answer, as it is not equipped to answer what is essentially a philosophical question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snipped>To go beyond and ask how non-conscious, vague, "existence" gives rise to the complexity of our material universe with its physical laws is "out-of-bounds" for Objectivists.

<snipped>But science is not going to provide the definitive answer, as it is not equipped to answer what is essentially a philosophical question.

Objectivism considers philosophy a science.

Granted, most of existence is not conscious. But to describe something as vague, and then follow it up by describing it as the complexity of the material universe with physical laws.

Is existence some vague undefined ambigous blob?

Can existence be aprehended and understood, its constituent parts identified as specific things with causal relationships serving as the basis for identifying physical laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, most of existence is not conscious. But to describe something as vague, and then follow it up by describing it as the complexity of the material universe with physical laws.

Is existence some vague undefined ambigous blob?

Can existence be aprehended and understood, its constituent parts identified as specific things with causal relationships serving as the basis for identifying physical laws?

Sorry, I don't think I was being clear enough when I used the terms "vague" and "non-conscious" in trying to explain my difficulties with the concept of "existence exists" being a satisfactory explanation for the existence of the universe. Let me try to explain my difficulties, and please understand that I am not trying to be inflammatory. "Existence" is simply the state or condition of being, and it is self-evident that existents (entities that exist) exist. But knowing that, and asserting that (which I have no problem with) does not explain WHY or HOW these existents came into being. But there is something in the use of the phrase "existence exists" as used by Objectivists that suggests a metaphysical, causal, and final sort of explanation - as if saying "everything that is, is, and that's all folks" explains it all. That's why I used the terms "vague" and "non-conscious": sometimes the use here of the term "existence" implies an entity (because entities exist -- therefore, "existence" itself seems to be some kind of entity, which strikes me as a rather vague and troublesome concept), but one with no consciousness and no volition.

The problem I have is with this concept (that "existence exists" explains anything) is the observable physical "laws" we all can see: This world presents as a very ordered system of many active component elements. It does not appear to be simply a hodge-podge of random accidents (and please know that I do not deny evolution). The natural properties of elements are ordered to interact with each other in stable, reciprocal relationships (physical "laws"). For example, every hydrogen atom combines with every oxygen atom in the proportion of 2:1 (which implies that every oxygen atom is reciprocally ordered to combine with every hydrogen atom in the proportion of 1:2). So it is with the chemical valences of all the basic elements. And all particles with mass are ordered to move toward every other according to the fixed proportions of the law of gravity.

This strikes me as an interconnected, interlocking, dynamic system, in which the active nature of each component is, (or at least could rationally be said to be), defined by its relation with others, and so presupposes the others for its own intelligibility and ability to act.

This is why I find the concept "existence exists" as an explanation for anything so unsatisfactory. It strikes me as a dead-end concept: there appears to be no "valid" avenue to explore the very intriguing questions of just why things are the way they are, and why they exist at all. Or, at the very least, the "accepted" avenues don't include the concept of a volitional uncaused cause (God). This is held to be irrational, and is sneered at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The axiomtic concept existence exists is not an explaination. It is the fact that is at the base of all facts. An explaination is comprised of words i.e. concepts, which are man-made devices. If a word used in an explaination is invalid, the explaination is invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, you're correct in that the Judeo-Christian concept of God as the Uncaused Being means that God is eternal and uncaused. In the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being.

1.

But there is a difference between "all things need a present cause outside of themselves", when you are speaking of 'all' in the context of all individual entities, and in the sense you talk about latter.

On my table there is a pencil, a pen, and a computer. Every one of them has a cause. Therefore, you could say that all of them have a cause. Or that the group of them has a cause. It is clear. But what if you ask "what is the cause of 'a pencil, a pen and a computer'"? What is the single cause of all three? Can there be something that is a cause of them all? And what is the cause of the group of "a pencil, a pen and a computer"? Are groups caused? There is a difference between "all" when it signifies merely all individual things and "all" as some totality.

I think you can see it is absurd in the small-scale example I gave. What you do with the universe is the same error, only on a bigger scale.

2.

IF it is true that every entity has a cause, than the opposite of what you say is definitely true - the universe is eternal, and there is no uncaused cause. The argumentation of "everything has a cause" leads to the conclusion that there is no uncaused cause in the most literal, straightforward way that can be.

Everything has a cause.

An uncaused cause would be _something_.

_something_ is part of everything.

An uncaused cause would have a cause.

oops...

Edited by samr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have is with this concept (that "existence exists" explains anything) is the observable physical "laws" we all can see: This world presents as a very ordered system of many active component elements. It does not appear to be simply a hodge-podge of random accidents (and please know that I do not deny evolution).

Keep in mind, I'm not ascribing to any "everything just happened randomly" type of theory, but I offer for you consideration the following. However big the universe happens to be, however many stars and planets there happen to be, as far as we have observed so far, this is only one that is this "complex". Given that there is an awful lot of planets out there, and given that in an "infinite" (or near infinite) universe a multitude of possibilities can happen, why can it not be possible that this complex system we live in "just happened" and that be consistent with whatever odds are necessary to consider given all the other multitudes and multitudes of places that are "simple" and it didn't happen?

Where I differ from you is that I don't see the need to ascribe a "creator" or a force behind complexity SIMPLY for the sake that something is complex. I think that one of the reasons people do it is because they ascribe their observation of human "complex" inventions to natural occurences (i.e. the ever-present "watch" argument). There is no logical link that dictates that just because a watch was invented and made by an intelligent entity (a human), that all things not made by human intelligent entities must necessarily have been "made" by some other intelligent entity.

I tried to be as clear as I could relaying my thoughts on this; hopefully clear enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The axiomtic concept existence exists is not an explaination. It is the fact that is at the base of all facts. An explaination is comprised of words i.e. concepts, which are man-made devices. If a word used in an explaination is invalid, the explaination is invalid.

Ok, I understand -- it's not meant to be an explanation. But it does not -- or ought not -- preclude enquiries in search of an explanation. It is not an answer, then, to any argument made for the existence or non-existence of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I understand -- it's not meant to be an explanation. But it does not -- or ought not -- preclude enquiries in search of an explanation. It is not an answer, then, to any argument made for the existence or non-existence of God.

An argument [explaination] is comprised of words i.e. concepts, which are man-made devices. If a word used in an argument [explaination] is invalid, the argument [explaination] is invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I understand -- it's not meant to be an explanation. But it does not -- or ought not -- preclude enquiries in search of an explanation.

But it is a reminder: "Why does existence exist?" Answer - there is no metaphysical alternative.

Avila

It is not an answer, then, to any argument made for the existence or non-existence of God.

This is why I ask always for the theist to define "god". Then the concept of "creator" pops up and we're back to existence exist. Objectivist see the question of "the origin of existence" as a logical contradiction. This is what Analytic philosophers have a problem with. "X is one or more things which x is". Oism is a normative epistemology, that means definitions are either valid or invalid depending on the proper reduction of the referents to perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it is a reminder: "Why does existence exist?" Answer - there is no metaphysical alternative.

I disagree -- the universe is not necessary; that is, it could also not have come into existence. It doesn't have to be.

Edited by Avila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree -- the universe is not necessary; that is, it could also not have come into existence. It doesn't have to be.

Ayn Rand addresses that in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology in the chapter on Axiomatic Concepts where she states:

It may be said that existence can be differentiated from non-existence; but non-existence is not a fact, it is the absence of a fact, it is a derivative concept pertaining to a relationship, i.e., a concept which can be formed or grasped only in relation to some existent that has ceased to exist.

In essence, you would be appealing to an absence of a fact as the basis or foundation of your assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I differ from you is that I don't see the need to ascribe a "creator" or a force behind complexity SIMPLY for the sake that something is complex. I think that one of the reasons people do it is because they ascribe their observation of human "complex" inventions to natural occurences (i.e. the ever-present "watch" argument). There is no logical link that dictates that just because a watch was invented and made by an intelligent entity (a human), that all things not made by human intelligent entities must necessarily have been "made" by some other intelligent entity.

I understand what you're saying, and agree that there could be a tendency to anthropomorphize observed complexity. But it isn't simply the complexity: it's the interconnected-ness of the whole. Science shows that our world is not merely an aggregate of many separate, unrelated laws, but rather a tightly interlocking whole, where relationship to the whole structures and determines the parts. No component part or active element can be self—sufficient or self—explanatory. For any part presupposes all the other parts—the whole system already in place—to match its own relational properties. It can't act unless the others are there to interact reciprocally with it. Any one part could be self—sufficient only if it were the cause of the whole rest of the system—which is impossible, since no part can act except in collaboration with the others. That is complexity, yes, but much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I That is complexity, yes, but much more.

It is simply identity.

Theist: "Look! Science shows us everything is something in particular and acts and interacts according to it nature"

Oist: We don't need special science to tell us that. It couldn't be otherwise. To embrace otherwise is to accept a contradiction.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Necessity presupposes existence. Also you are assuming the position that it did "come into existence".

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.

Edited by Avila
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).

"As far as metaphysical reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no “facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise” as against “facts which must be.” There are only: facts which are. . . . Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so. Metaphysically, all facts are inherent in the identities of the entities that exist; i.e., all facts are “necessary.” In this sense, to be is to be “necessary.” The concept of “necessity,” in a metaphysical context, is superfluous." Leonard Peikoff, “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,”

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 108–109

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...