Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is the existence of "God" possible?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Only observeable phenomena exsist in a logical and rational universe. To accept otherwise is to accept that you live in a chaotic world of the unknown, where reality is based on individual perception instead of one defining truth.

[bold added for emphasis.]

I am not sure what you mean when you say that "reality is based on ... one defining truth." How can reality be based on a truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Reality is based on the truth that "exsistence exsists".

I think you are reversing the relationship between truth and reality. "Existence exists" is a true statement, but it is true because it correctly identifies reality, rather than it being real because it is true.

Your formulation implies subjectivism; it implies that reality conforms to whatever we identify as truths. But of course, reality does no such thing. Another way of putting it: Your formulation means that truth is the standard of reality, but reality is the standard of truth.

Reality is the fundamental. Truth (or falsehood) is a consequence of reality.

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are reversing the relationship between truth and reality. "Existence exists" is a true statement, but it is true because it correctly identifies reality, rather than it being real because it is true.

Your formulation implies subjectivism; it implies that reality conforms to whatever we identify as truths. But of course, reality does no such thing. Another way of putting it: Your formulation means that truth is the standard of reality, but reality is the standard of truth.

Reality is the fundamental. Truth (or falsehood) is a consequence of reality.

Does that make sense?

Yes, now I understand what you mean. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will have to forgive me if my logical lexicon is a bit lacking. I am new here. In any case, I have a great sympathy for Objectivism, but I have difficulty with the atheism it requires. If I were to make an argument for God, it would be this:

Definition: God(s) is the creator of physical space and the source of its energy. God(s) has a consciousness. God(s) is bound by time, but not by space. The nature of God(s) can be ascertained by the observation of nature, as what one creates always reflects its creator. Therefore, God prefers strength over weakness, because the strong prosper and the weak perish, all circumstances being equal. God is private, in that it does not cause physical phenomenon that make its existence clear to our physical senses. God does not exist outside of reality, as to do so would make It unreal. Rather, god exists outside of the physical universe, though it is certainly possible that god also exists within physical reality as well. Given that Objectivism is, by and large, true, other than its stance on athiesm, it can be said that God is an Objectivist! God set up an existence for us, the only other known consciousnesses extant, in which Objectivism is the superior philosophy.

Evidence: Structure exists in the universe. Structure implies a conscious source. One can assume with great surety that if one finds a watch, there must be a watchmaker. That watch did not come into existence by a series of random events. Seeing as structure preexists man, and, presumably, preexists life, one can therefore assume that a consciousness also preexisted man and life.

One interesting example, though not a proof of consciousness per se, is in the big bang itself. The predominant theory is that the universe expanded as an explosion of energy from a singularity. Given this, one may ask oneself how, then, did the universe differentiate into discrete structures? A singularity, necessarily, can have no internal spacial differences, being without dimension. Therefore, something else must have existed other than the big bang in order to produce the spatial irregularities. As the big bang created the physical universe, this other must have existed outside of the physical universe.

There are energies and objects that exist that we can only infer the existence of from their effects on the environment around them, rather than perceiving them directly. Nonetheless, the existence of such things as quarks and black holes is not doubted by the larger portion of the scientific community. So it is with god. Despite the fact that one cannot perceive it directly at any particular time, one can infer its existence from its effects.

As for the argument that god cannot exist because we cannot percieve it, I would point out that until relatively recently, we could not perceive individual cells, either. As has been pointed out, however, reality exists even without our awareness of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how that matters, in terms of addressing the argument.

It matters because generally when people play devil's advocate, they know of information that challenges or refutes the argument they are presenting, but are testing if other people can reason through it.

So, are you presenting an intellectually honest argument for a god, or do you know of problems in the argument you presented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It matters because generally when people play devil's advocate, they know of information that challenges or refutes the argument they are presenting, but are testing if other people can reason through it.

So, are you presenting an intellectually honest argument for a god, or do you know of problems in the argument you presented?

It is an honest argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence: Structure exists in the universe. Structure implies a conscious source. One can assume with great surety that if one finds a watch, there must be a watchmaker. That watch did not come into existence by a series of random events. Seeing as structure preexists man, and, presumably, preexists life, one can therefore assume that a consciousness also preexisted man and life.

If one finds a god, must that god have a creator as well? According to this logic, the answer should be yes. There could never be a "first" anything, because it would have had to have been preceeded by something else. What existed before god? Who or what created god?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one finds a god, must that god have a creator as well? According to this logic, the answer should be yes. There could never be a "first" anything, because it would have had to have been preceeded by something else. What existed before god? Who or what created god?

Only objects within the physical universe are subject to causation. In a physical universe, each phenomenon necessarily implies an event that precipitated it. However, a being not bound by physics need not have a cause. Again, this really leads to an argument that god exists, at least in part, outside of the physical universe, as is already necessitated by its creating it.

As for the case of a god, or really a representation or avatar of a god, manifesting in the physical universe, this would have to be created. Existing within the physical universe, it must be bound by causality, but it is a tool of God, not God itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only objects within the physical universe are subject to causation. In a physical universe, each phenomenon necessarily implies an event that precipitated it. However, a being not bound by physics need not have a cause.

So, where is your evidence that there exists a place not bound by physics? What evidence do you have a non-physical plane? What evidence do you have to support that some being exists in it? Stating that the universe, which exist in a physical plane, must have been created by a being that exists outside of the physical plane does not make it so. Particularly when you use an analogy of a being that does exist in a physical plane, a watchmaker, creating something else that exists in a physical plane, a watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, where is your evidence that there exists a place not bound by physics? What evidence do you have a non-physical plane? What evidence do you have to support that some being exists in it? Stating that the universe, which exist in a physical plane, must have been created by a being that exists outside of the physical plane does not make it so. Particularly when you use an analogy of a being that does exist in a physical plane, a watchmaker, creating something else that exists in a physical plane, a watch.

I say that god must exist outside of the physical plane because, as stated in my big bang point, in order to exert an influence on a universe being expanded from a singularity, and therefore necessarily uniform and symmetrical in all directions, one must be outside that universe. No separate physical beings could exist within the physical universe at that time, and all beings within the physical universe are physical beings. Therefore, god must be a non-physical being separate from the physical universe.

All objects within the physical universe must have a cause, and this includes the universe itself. If the big bang is the cause of the universe, what caused the big bang? In order for the universe to be created, there must be something other than the universe, that, unlike the universe, is without cause. Nothing in the universe has an infinite series of causes. At this point, most things have an incalculably long series of causes, but these causes all have an origin: the big bang. The big bang is an end to causation, the first physical event.

The example of the watchmaker, a being within the physical plane creating an object also within the physical plane is only meant to show that functional structure implies a designer. The universe has a functional structure, so it implies that someone or something designed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say that god must exist outside of the physical plane because, as stated in my big bang point, in order to exert an influence on a universe being expanded from a singularity,

I asked for evidence, not further explanation of theory. Making assertions is not evidence. Making a series of statements which include "it must be this way" does not mean that it is evidence.

Where is your evidence that there exists a non-physical plane (or any plane) that is not bound by physics?

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

god must be a non-physical beingseparate from the physical universe.

(emphasis mine) What is a being and how can it be non-physical? How are you able to define it without using the words "is" and "it," which apply to entities, which are physical?

The example of the watchmaker, a being within the physical plane creating an object also within the physical plane is only meant to show that functional structure implies a designer. The universe has a functional structure, so it implies that someone or something designed it.

Functional structure does not imply a designer. The idea (I won't say concept because I'm not comfortable I would use that word properly) "design" makes sense only in contrast with that occurring naturally. You look at a watch and know it is designed because you know that gears and bands and glass faces don't occur naturally. Also, as RC already discussed, the God/design issue is twofold: either

1. everything has a designer, which applies to God's God's God ad infinitum, or

2. something(s) exists which does not have a designer, in which case why would you be uncomfortable with the idea that nature (which you know exists) has just always existed in some physical form, but comfortable applying that same idea to "God" (which you do not know exists--at least, not without some serious epistemological funny business)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked for evidence, not further explanation of theory. Making assertions is not evidence. Making a series of statements which include "it must be this way" does not mean that it is evidence.

Where is your evidence that there exists a non-physical plane (or any plane) that is not bound by physics?

God is like a black hole. We cannot observe a black hole directly. As a singularity, there is no possible physical device, according to our current understanding of physics, that would allow us to observe it directly. In the sense that it is without dimension, it is like God. Nonetheless, scientists assert the existence of black holes based on their effects. Likewise, I assert the existence of God based on God's effects. God cannot be directly perceived, but God's influence can be. Where is your evidence for Ayn Rand? Can you point to her? No, she is dead. Only her writings and images remain, in other words, effects of her existence. The universe is God's Atlas Shrugged. Its existence necessitates its author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likewise, I assert the existence of God based on God's effects. God cannot be directly perceived, but God's influence can be. Where is your evidence for Ayn Rand? Can you point to her? No, she is dead. Only her writings and images remain, in other words, effects of her existence. The universe is God's Atlas Shrugged. Its existence necessitates its author.

What are God's "effects" and "influence"?

As for Ayn Rand evidence, it's interesting that you would question the existence of a well-known person who died less than 25 years ago, but not the existence of something that supposedly "exists" outside the physical realm.

As for you, I'd suggest a bit more caution with your analogies. Atlas Shrugged means a lot to a lot of people on this site, including myself. You are our guest, and as our forum rules clearly indicate, this is not the site for spreading religion. We'll entertain honest discussion on the subject to a degree, of course. I'm not saying I'm going to kick you off at this moment, I'm just suggesting that you remember where you are, particularly when you equate "God" and Atlas Shrugged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is like a black hole.

Black hole THEORY has nothing to do with this discussion. The big bang THEORY has nothing to do with this discussion.

Likewise, I assert the existence of God based on God's effects.
So in other words, you have no evidence. Why can't you just say that, and accept that you are taking the existence of a god on faith?

Where is your evidence for Ayn Rand? Can you point to her? No, she is dead. Only her writings and images remain, in other words, effects of her existence.

Okay, it's pretty hard to take you at all seriously now.

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black hole THEORY has nothing to do with this discussion. The big bang THEORY has nothing to do with this discussion.

So in other words, you have no evidence. Why can't you just say that, and accept that you are taking the existence of a god on faith?

Okay, it's pretty hard to take you at all seriously now.

I was not honestly questioning the existence of Ayn Rand, but pointing out that one may infer that something existed based on the evidence of their existence, without being able to actually see that something.

As for the THEORY label, you are quite correct. These things are theories. But a scientific theory is a model of reality based on a preponderance of evidence, not merely a guess. A guess is a hypothesis in science.

Also, please do note that I am not espousing any particular religion here, merely the existence of God. There is no claim of knowledge as to what version of god is most accurate, other than what was found in my definition.

If a person's fingerprints or DNA is found at a crime scene, is this not evidence? Just because no one witnessed his crime, does that mean that his role in the crime cannot be proven? Why do you insist that there is no evidence? I have presented evidence. The best explanations yet made for observable physical phenomena, such as the existence of the universe, cannot be true without outside intervention. What is an intervening, outside, large-scale universe-affecting consciousness but God?

You keep saying that I have no evidence. I do, and have stated it. Please try addressing my points rather than simply discounting it. If your position is that we cannot draw conclusions from logical necessity, just say so, and this therefore ridiculous conversation will end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep saying that I have no evidence.

That's because you don't. I have no need to address that which isn't evidence. Your argument is the same as many Christians. Simply put it goes like this; Things exist, that they exist must be the work of god, therefore there's a god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is like a black hole. We cannot observe a black hole directly.
One difference is that you can't present evidence based on the effect of god. Supposing that black holes really do exist, then we would be able to do things that experimentally test the existence of such a thing, which is impossible with god.

There are a lot of problems in your "definition" of god. I take it that what you mean is that there exists a being, which has those properties that you gave, and the purpose of giving a definition is to identify that being as opposed to, say, me. I am quite puzzled at the idea that "god" is bound by time -- that isn't something that I've ever heard a god-believer say. I don't know what you mean by "bound by space". I'm not bound by space, either; do you mean that god's extent is universal (i.e. that his physical presence encompasses all locations where there is matter)? You are also claiming that god cannot be physically detected, which means that he does not interact with the physical universe (not to imply that there is any other kind). Now if you are just saying that he cannot be seen, because he does not absorb any visible light wavelengths, then all you need to do is get a UV light or whatever. The problem is that if god is exlcuded from the universe, then he can't have any effect on the universe, so you could not even have indirect evidence that it exists. Like a black hole, you could push a star into it and watch it disappear, spewing off x-rays.

As for your specific evidence, structure does not not exist. The universe exists, and it has a definite nature, which we can grasp in terms of the concept "structure". The alternative would be that the universe has no nature, that it is all random chaos, that there is no existence, and thus no universe. Objectivism holds that the fact of existence is axiomatic; it would be nonsensical to deny existence. The fact of existence need not be explained by anything else, i.e. god cannot be axiomatic. God is totally unnecessary to explain the fact that existence has a nature -- without a nature, you have no existence.

Simply positing a dichotomy between the physical universe and a parallel non-physical universe does not make the argument. You claim that all things in the physical universe require a cause and yet you don't require that of the non-physical universe. Why? Simple consistency demands that you impose the same requirement on all universes that you are positing. In addition to positing god, you also require another arbitrary evity, the non-physical universe. The burden of proof on you grows, since now you also have to prove that there exists a non-physical universe. Even if you could prove that, you would still have to prove that there is a god in that universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of problems in your "definition" of god. I take it that what you mean is that there exists a being, which has those properties that you gave, and the purpose of giving a definition is to identify that being as opposed to, say, me. I am quite puzzled at the idea that "god" is bound by time -- that isn't something that I've ever heard a god-believer say.

What I meant by saying that god is bound by time, perhaps a bad use of language on my part, is that god must be capable of change, or it could not respond to change or have any awareness whatsoever. Therefore, as time is a measure of change, god must exist in time.

I don't know what you mean by "bound by space". I'm not bound by space, either; do you mean that god's extent is universal (i.e. that his physical presence encompasses all locations where there is matter)? You are also claiming that god cannot be physically detected, which means that he does not interact with the physical universe (not to imply that there is any other kind). Now if you are just saying that he cannot be seen, because he does not absorb any visible light wavelengths, then all you need to do is get a UV light or whatever. The problem is that if god is exlcuded from the universe, then he can't have any effect on the universe, so you could not even have indirect evidence that it exists. Like a black hole, you could push a star into it and watch it disappear, spewing off x-rays.

God can interact with the physical universe, it is just not required to do so as are you and I. God has set up laws of physics that allow the universe to run on its own most of the time. God merely provides tweaks, such as differentiating the expanding primordial universe and structuring life along certain pathways, but this influence is subtle.

As for your specific evidence, structure does not not exist. The universe exists, and it has a definite nature, which we can grasp in terms of the concept "structure". The alternative would be that the universe has no nature, that it is all random chaos, that there is no existence, and thus no universe. Objectivism holds that the fact of existence is axiomatic; it would be nonsensical to deny existence. The fact of existence need not be explained by anything else, i.e. god cannot be axiomatic. God is totally unnecessary to explain the fact that existence has a nature -- without a nature, you have no existence.

I do not see how you can argue that structure does not exist. Even if you wish to define structure only as functional structure, such as that found in a bicycle, structure exists. Functional structure, from an Objectivist perspective, would be any structure that is of benefit to man. A structure that can be assumed to be created by an intelligence is a structure that, if one were to take all the raw materials of and place them together, would not arise spontaneously. A bicycle will never assemble itself, even if the individual components (i.e. wheels, tires, handlebars, etc.) are pre-made and put in a pile, much less if you simply have chunks of metal, rubber, and plastic. The hand is vastly more complex than a bicycle, and in fact has a functional structure far more useful to us than a bicycle, but athiests claim that it arose spontaneously.

Simply positing a dichotomy between the physical universe and a parallel non-physical universe does not make the argument. You claim that all things in the physical universe require a cause and yet you don't require that of the non-physical universe. Why? Simple consistency demands that you impose the same requirement on all universes that you are positing. In addition to positing god, you also require another arbitrary evity, the non-physical universe. The burden of proof on you grows, since now you also have to prove that there exists a non-physical universe. Even if you could prove that, you would still have to prove that there is a god in that universe.

Why must all universes have the same logic? Not to mention the fact that I never posited a non-physical universe. In fact, I said the opposite, that god exists without dimension. God does not require a medium. As far as I know, this universe is the only one there is.

Thus the proof of god is in the necessity of god. I am proposing that reality as we know it could not exist without the intervention

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a person's fingerprints or DNA is found at a crime scene, is this not evidence? Just because no one witnessed his crime, does that mean that his role in the crime cannot be proven? Why do you insist that there is no evidence? I have presented evidence. The best explanations yet made for observable physical phenomena, such as the existence of the universe, cannot be true without outside intervention.
You are conflating the man-made and the metaphysical.

The discovery of a man-made item like a watch or a fingerprint does indeed imply the existence of a human being. We know this because we have observed that humans have fingerprints and humans make watches -- and neither occurs in nature without human intervention.

However, that line of reasoning does not hold for all of existence that is not man-made, which is referred to as the metaphysical. We may point to a watch and say, "Aha, we know that there must be a watchmaker because watches do not exist in nature." But you cannot point to the solar system and say, "Aha, we know there must be a solar system maker because solar systems do not exist in nature."

The metaphysical simply exists. There are no observed facts to support the notion that its existence requires a creator. There is nothing to support the notion that the existence of the universe is a "phenomena" that must be "explained". Such a notion is wholly arbitrary. Are you familiar with the concept of "arbitrary"?

As has been pointed out by others, if it were true that the existence of something necessarily requires an explanation, i.e. a creator, then that would apply to god as well. After all, one can assume with great surety that if one finds a god, there must be a godmaker. Right?

But to escape this problem, you choose to arbitrarily define god as somehow exempt from your own rule. Why?

You keep saying that I have no evidence. I do, and have stated it. Please try addressing my points rather than simply discounting it. If your position is that we cannot draw conclusions from logical necessity, just say so, and this therefore ridiculous conversation will end.
It is you who must explain why the existence of the universe creates the "logical necessity" of believing that god brought it into existence, but god's existence creates no such "logical necessity".

You will not get past this problem until you grasp the fact that existence does not require an explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see how you can argue that structure does not exist.
I'm saying that structure exists as a concept, meaning that structure is created by a conceptual consciousness. There is something that is "out there" which isn't structure, namely entities. Entities have a nature. I don't care about functional structure as opposed to, what, disfunctional structure? but the point is that "structure" is a high-level abstraction results from a consciousness grasping the nature of entities. How is this discussion of bicycles germane? You need to point to some of this supposed "structure" that you think proves that god exists. Are you claiming that there really are bicycles floating in outer space, which can only be explained by assuming that god littered the interplanetary spaces with bikes? There are no bikes in space. Now, what is it that you claim is out there that is the analog of a bike in outer space?
Thus the proof of god is in the necessity of god. I am proposing that reality as we know it could not exist without the intervention
Okay, gotcha. Here's paid put to that argument. The disproof of god is in the superfluity of god. I am proposing that reality as it exists (which we understand in part) could easily exist without any intervention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this is undoubtedly not what you were thinking, and personally I don't put much stock in this, but to play devil's advocate (this is a departure from a thought experiment commonly used to illustrate the curvature of spacetime):

Let's say there's a two dimensional universe, inhabited by two dimensional beings. As far as they know, everything in their universe behaves through a cause-effect relationship which they understand. Because they do not exist in three dimensions, they don't believe there to be three dimensions at all. However, because their existence is simply a plane in a three dimensional existence, objects from outside this plane can enter their universe without any sort of cause (as far as their universe is concerned).

Let's imagine that a sphere were to travel through the two dimensional plane universe. Inhabitants of the universe would observe a circle growing and shrinking spontaneously, without any logical cause. In fact, there would have been no supernatural occurence here. This would simply be a case where the two dimensional beings were unable to properly conceive of the greater existence in which their partial existence resided.

Now, imagine a four dimensional round object passing through our universe. It would appear as a sphere growing and shrinking spontaneously, with no apparent cause. This wouldn't be an irrational occurence in the bigger picture, but in our fragmentary universe, we would consider it supernatural. One argument for God could be that He isn't even conscious, but that there is in fact some fourth dimension (other than time) which we can not observe, but can interact with our three dimensional fragment. Thus, certain occurences within the big picture could cause phenomenon in our universe which would not have been caused by anything in our universe. One could even argue that the existence of matter in our universe is a phenomenon caused by some fourth dimension event.

Now, this theory has a huge flaw, in that there's no reason to really believe in this fourth dimension except this: We consider spacetime to be a valid concept without any grounding in three dimensional reality, and the idea of "curvature" in spacetime would imply the ability to transcend three dimensional existence and travel directly through spacetime. Keep in mind that I have displayed on many occasions, including on this board, that I don't understand spacetime very well. If my thinking is correct, however, there should be some way to transcend three dimensional existence, or in other words, actually travel straight through spacetime without being subject to the three dimensional irregularity it is subject to.

Now say thank you, neverone :(

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...