Can "God" be found through reason?

[Styles2112]

When I quote a specific statement and then follow that quotation with a response, you can assume that my response is in regard to the quote.

I meant; quote me from when I slammed anybody for using the word "believe."

Ahh...sorry about that. I was not suggesting that you had. I was suggesting that others had.

Yes, humans have volition and are able to choose to act irrationality.

Morality is not subjective. The fact that a person "sees a higher value" in acting for the ultimate benefit of somebody else instead of himself doesn't mean that doing so will make him happy, simply because he thinks it should.

Can you elaborate on that theory?

But, doesn't that fall under the introspect of happiness? If it were to TRULY make him happy to sacrifice himself, isn't that his prerogative?

The theory (more idea that popped into my head) is that, rarely are things given to us without reason. Thus, there has to be some reason that we HAVE the ability to destroy ourselves, that which animals (other than ourselves) don't have.

[TomL]

Your posts reveal a misunderstanding of Aquinas' "five ways", in varying aspects.

It would help if you would stop evading the questions which are put to you and start answering them, instead of dancing around them and beating us over the head with your ridiculous "five ways" drivel yet again.

The question has been asked. Is God supernatural, or not? Answer with a simple "yes", or "no". There are no other options to you if you wish to continue discussing this.

[AqAd]

TomL,

Why are you accusing me of evading questions? If I haven't answered a question that has been asked, it's because I have been asked a number of questions and it's difficult, with limited time, to answer them all.

My only point in this discussion was to point out that the belief in the existence of God does not rely upon faith, at least as far as Thomistic Catholicism is concerned.

The answer to your question is yes, at the level of Aquinas' proofs.

Why are you so rude? Why do you refer to Aquinas' proofs as "drivel"? Are you mature enough to disagree with another without insulting their intelligence? I have asked a question regarding the perception of the eternity of the universe within Objectivism, but have received no answer, yet I'm not so bellicose as to assume this must mean that the question is being "evaded". Is there anyone on this forum with the intelligence and maturity to carry on a conversation without resorting to ad hominem arguments? This appears to be a hangout for college and high-school children who are unsure of their positions.

[AisA]

Cole, TomL, et al:

Your posts reveal a misunderstanding of Aquinas' "five ways", in varying aspects. I'll try to explain the argument more clearly, and would also add that this is merely one particular argument: there have been at least two dozen very different sorts of attempts to prove the existence of God. Aquinas does not address all of them.

You have not responded to the points made in posts 165 and 166. The notion that there must be a cause for the universe, but not for god, is completely unsupported and unsupportable -- in other words, one must take it on faith.

Thus, the "five ways" is not a proof based on reason at all.

.

[AqAd]

AisA,

You are misunderstanding one of the basic premises: the argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause. God, as a concept, is the "uncaused cause", "unmoved mover", etc. The existence of an uncaused cause is both necessary (otherwise we have infinite regress, which is acceptable in mathematics but not in time: real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of real beings moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past. Positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers) and supportable, to use your term. It is supportable because a cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause, no effect. But since we see effects, there must be a cause.

Again, I am not evading any questions. I don't have the time right now, and will not be back until late this evening, but when I do I will address the posts you mention.

[EC]

AisA,

You are misunderstanding one of the basic premises: the argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause. God, as a concept, is the "uncaused cause", "unmoved mover", etc. The existence of an uncaused cause is both necessary (otherwise we have infinite regress, which is acceptable in mathematics but not in time: real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of real beings moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past. Positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers) and supportable, to use your term. It is supportable because a cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause, no effect. But since we see effects, there must be a cause.

Again, I am not evading any questions. I don't have the time right now, and will not be back until late this evening, but when I do I will address the posts you mention.

Don't you see that you're making an unsupported statement that the Universe, existence as such, must be "caused". And then you arbitrarily attribute that cause to an arbitrary god without apparently noticing the contradiction. In other words, if everything supposedly needs a "first cause" as you assume, why doesn't your arbitrary concept of god need a cause himself to remove the supposed "infinite regress" you're so worried about? And if you answer that god does not need a "cause" because he simply is, why can't this also be true of existence, i.e., the universe itself. Why then can't you just say existence exists, and drop the unneeded arbitrary concept of god?

[AisA]

AisA,

You are misunderstanding one of the basic premises: the argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause.

The argument divides everything, except god, into three categories: things in motion, things that are dependent and things that are imperfect. It declares, with no support, that all such things must be caused. God is then declared to be something that does not fit into one of those categories and hence requires no cause.

I can, with equal validity, declare god to be imperfect, thus requiring a cause, and I can identify that cause as perfect, motionless, eternal, uncaused gremlins living on Alpha Centauri.

You could then, with equal validity, declare my gremlins to be imperfect, and announce that the real perfect, motionless, eternal, uncaused being is your mother-in-law.

All such claims are equally supported and equally valid.

The existence of an uncaused cause is both necessary (otherwise we have infinite regress,

Here we see another unsupported premise: that the universe must have had a beginning -- whereas god is arbitrarily assumed to be eternal. As Eric asks, why is it okay for god to be eternal, but not the universe?

which is acceptable in mathematics but not in time: real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of real beings moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past. Positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers) and supportable, to use your term.  It is supportable because a cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause, no effect. But since we see effects, there must be a cause.

At the end, you have done nothing here except re-word the same old assertion. First, you assert that the universe is something that requires a cause, while god does not. Then you attempt to defend that by asserting that the universe is an effect, while god is not.

Both are unsupported, arbitrary assertions.

Eric is correct -- just drop the concept of god and accept the fact that existence exists, always has and always will.

[AqAd]

AisA, RationalOne,

I will have to be brief here, as I have to leave shortly and won't be back until late today. I will then try to answer some questions from previous posts which I have not answered, which someone had pointed out to me. But I'll try to address these most recent posts first:

RationalOne, you say, "Don't you see that you're making an unsupported statement that the Universe, existence as such, must be "caused." This is essentially the same objection that AisA is raising, though in different words, so that in answering this I may be able to answer his objections as well.

I can see that some fundamental problems with definitions must be cleared away: RationalOne seems, in the above statement, to suggest that "universe" and "existence" are synonymous. They are not: the universe is finite, whereas "existence" is not a "thing" per se. The universe is finite, and finite entities have causes. Thus the assertion that the universe is caused. To argue against this, you need to provide evidence of a finite entity having no cause.

AisA, my assertion that the universe must have had a beginning is supported by the fact that it is finite. Finite entities have beginnings. This is simply the same as above, though stated in terms of "beginning" instead of "causes".

Also, you state that "The argument divides everything, except god, into three categories: things in motion, things that are dependent and things that are imperfect". No, I gave those as examples---the list was not meant to be taken as closed. Indeed, these three divisions are, in a broader sense, simply further illustrations of "causes". Again, to argue against this you need to show evidence of a finite entity that has no cause---now THAT is not supported!

Your assertion that "I can, with equal validity, declare god to be imperfect, thus requiring a cause, and I can identify that cause as perfect, motionless, eternal, uncaused gremlins living on Alpha Centauri".

You are attaching too much importance to the label, "God", which is what Aquinas is trying to address by ending his arguments with the statement, "And this is what everyone calls God". To repeat Aquinas, "Now the names given to God are derived from his effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from his effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God". Since your declared "god" is imperfect, then it is finite, which takes it out of the running for the "uncaused cause". If your gremlins are "living" on Alpha Centauri, then they are obviously finite for two reasons: since they are in the plural, there must be a limit between where one gremlin stops and another begins. If they only "live" in a specific place, then that too implies finitude. The same is true for the mother-in-law as the uncaused cause: the mother-in-law is finite, and thus caused. Thus, your statement, "All such claims are equally supported and equally valid" is false. Your assertion falls apart because you are using the term "God" arbitrarily, without regard for the meaning of what the word signifies.

The universe is not eternal because it is finite. That is the answer to the question, "As Eric asks, why is it okay for god to be eternal, but not the universe"? I don't see the relevance of the term "OK" however: that is a merely a subjective judgement: the universe is finite whether anyone thinks that's OK or not.

You ask that I "accept the fact that existence exists, always has and always will". I do accept that---existence is eternal. I see no conflict here.

I really must go, but hopefully I will have an opportunity tonight to respond to the other posts.

[EC]

AdAq-- the universe is defined as everything that exists. You are correct in saying everything that exists is finite. But, that does not negate somehow as you claim that the universe is eternal. Nor does it imply that the universe is "infinite", which is what I think you're trying to apply to your concept of god. The universe is both finite and unbounded in any dimention, either time or space. This is because the universe does not exist "in time" or "in space", these are relational concepts that can only exist between existents within the universe. By the way, I think you are still evading the questions involving your concept of god. Are you implying that since all finite beings must have a "cause" that your concept of god is "infinite"? If you are you should understand infinity is not really an existing thing and therefore nothing, even your concept of god, can logically be defined by it.

[AisA]

AisA, RationalOne,

To argue against this, you need to provide evidence of a finite entity having no cause.

The universe is a finite entity with no cause. It has always existed and always will.

The universe is not eternal because it is finite.

Why can only the infinite be eternal?

The two statements above are merely new attempts to justify the same unsupported assertion: namely, that the universe must have a cause, but god does not.

In your last post, you attempted to support this by asserting that the universe is an effect and therefore requires a cause, but god is not an effect and therefore requires no cause. I pointed out that this is also an unsupported, arbitrary assertion.

So now you switch to the equally arbitrary, and equally unsupported, assertion that the universe is not eternal and therefore must have a cause, but god is eternal and therefore does not have to have a cause.

Do you see a pattern here? You are defining the universe as: that which must have a cause. You define god as: that which does not have a cause. You provide no support for either notion.

The assertion that the universe must have a cause, but god does not, is utterly arbitrary -- there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Formulating additional arbitrary assertions changes nothing.

[TomL]

Don't you see that you're making an unsupported statement that the Universe, existence as such, must be "caused". And then you arbitrarily attribute that cause to an arbitrary god without apparently noticing the contradiction. In other words, if everything supposedly needs a "first cause" as you assume, why doesn't your arbitrary concept of god need a cause himself to remove the supposed "infinite regress" you're so worried about? And if you answer that god does not need a "cause" because he simply is, why can't this also be true of existence, i.e., the universe itself. Why then can't you just say existence exists, and drop the unneeded arbitrary concept of god?

What he said.

Let me try to break this down into a simple deductive equation. The premises used will be YOUR premises. The conclusion is the conclusion you are FAILING to make from them. Or if you are, you are evading it.

Premise 1: God exists.

Premise 2: Existence cannot exist without cause.

Add the two together and:

Conclusion: God cannot exist without a cause.

The conclusion is inconsistent with your other conclusion that God created existence. How can something exist to create.. exitence? It had to exist first, in which case existence already existed, didn't it! If existence didn't exist, then it couldn't have "existed". Nothing can exist prior to "existence".

Are we done yet?

[EC]

AdAq-- you might also want to check out this essay by Alex titled The Unbounded, Finite Universe @ http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/U...nded_Finite.htm It doesn't deal explicitly deal with the issue of god, but I think if you read it and understand it's meaning you may be able to see some of the errors in your's and Aquina's respective thinking on this issue. You might also want to read Introdution to Objectivist Epistemology since you seemed to be a little confused on the issue of concept formation and what a valid concept consists of. Another book that might be of service to you would be Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, especially the sections dealing with arbitrary concepts.

[TomL]

The answer to your question is yes, at the level of Aquinas' proofs.

Nice qualification. What the hell does that mean anyway, "at the leve of Aquinas' proofs." Isn't that just a convenient phrase that means really nothing that gives you an "out" if I happen to catch you in a contradiction?

Your premises:

1) God exists

2) God is supernatural

Make up your mind. Either he exists, or he is supernatural. You can't have it both ways. To "exist" means to exist in reality. An existant (that is something that exists) exists in the universe, i.e. reality, i.e. nature. The "supernatural" is only said to be such because by doing so, it is exempt from the laws of nature i.e. the laws of reality i.e. the laws of existance. Therefore, something cannot both exist, and not exist. To exist outside of nature is a contradiction in terms.

Even if you could possibly conceive of such a thing, by the fact of it being SUPERnatural, that is, beyond the laws of nature, then you cannot possibly use reason to deduce its existence -- because reason IS in nature, and is bound by its rules, and can only be used to observe, classify, and conclude about things which DO exist in nature.

[AqAd]

AisA, RationalOne, et al:

Since someone had mentioned that I had not answered the questions in posts #165 and #166, I will address those before I go further:

Post #165 asks, "Considering these assumptions, what justification is there for making the leap to thinking this "god" in #3 is: conscious, volitional, or Christian?"

The God shown in Aquinas' proofs is not shown to be the Christian God. That is beyond the scope of his proofs. That the God shown is conscious can be ascertained by the act of creating a very ordered universe governed by precise laws; that the God shown is volitional is also shown by the act of creating---the finiteness of the universe prompts the question, why this and not something else? I realize that you disagree with the existence of God; however, you should be able to recognize that if God exists, then consciousness and volition are reasonable attributes to be deduced by us by the act of creating.

Post #166 doesn't pose any questions---did I miss something?

It's late, and I won't be able to get to the other questions until later. I will say, though, that unless and until TomL can rid himself of his immature inability to express himself without sneering, I won't trouble myself to address his posts. So, TomL, re-write your post like a mature adult if you want answers to your questions. I'm not interested in exchanges with ill-mannered children.

RationalOne and AisA, I'll try to address your posts tomorrow when I have the opportunity. Thank you for the link---I'll read it. Oh, and I have read OPAR and IOE, but I must admit that was some years ago.

[TomL]

That the God shown is conscious can be ascertained by the act of creating a very ordered universe governed by precise laws

A synonym for the way in which you have used "ascertained" is: "imagined". Stick it in there and tell me it isn't true, and then explain why.

that the God shown is volitional is also shown by the act of creating

I don't think you know what "volitition" means.

the finiteness of the universe prompts the question, why this and not something else?

The universe is infinite, the contents of it are finite. And no, it doesn't "prompt" any such question. One can again, imagine such a question, but there really is nothing in reality to suggest that such a question be asked -- only man's imagination can do so.

I realize that you disagree with the existence of God; however, you should be able to recognize that if God exists, then consciousness and volition are reasonable attributes to be deduced by us by the act of creating.

Beavers make damns. Radiation from the sun makes clouds. The rotation of the earth around the sun makes the seasons. Are these things volitional? Are are you now suggesting that since God "must" have made life, that he also "must" have made all inanimate matter in the universe? By what means do you make -that- leap of logic?

It's late, and I won't be able to get to the other questions until later. I will say, though, that unless and until TomL can rid himself of his immature inability to express himself without sneering, I won't trouble myself to address his posts. So, TomL, re-write your post like a mature adult if you want answers to your questions. I'm not interested in exchanges with ill-mannered children.

Name-flinging doesn't negate the fact of your repeated evasions, and only underscores the measures to which you will go to continue doing so.

Over the last 3 weeks, I have actually berated other Objectivists on this forum for deriding people too quickly. But those people were honestly interested in understanding Objectivism. You only seem to be here in an attempt to convince Objectivists that God exists, and it's getting annoying.

[AqAd]

RationalOne and AisA,

I'll try to respond to as many of your comments as possible. I don't have much time to spend at the computer, and so I may not get to all of them.

AisA, regarding your statement, "The universe is a finite entity with no cause. It has always existed and always will": with all due respect, there is a flaw in the logic shown here, a flaw that I'm beginning to see running through most of these posts. Let me try to illustrate this as best I can with a summation of your comments:

1-God (uncaused cause) does not exist.

2-the universe exists.

3- the universe can be shown by empirical data to be finite. Unfortunately for our theory, all of our observations (empirical data) of finite entities shows that finite entities are contingent and caused.

4-since God (uncaused cause) does not exist, there can be no uncaused cause for the universe. Thus, it caused itself.

5-since this is a contradiction to our empirical data (nothing finite causes itself to be), we maintain that the universe is eternal.

However, this does not correspond to what we know of the universe (recent observations support the "Big Bang" theory) and indeed present more logical problems.

The problem with your logic is that you are beginning, not ending, your thought process with an unproven premise (God does not exist). This is to say, you are building your foundation on your faith in the non-existence of God. Your objection to the existence of God is, essentially, the second objection in Aquinas' third article (this is hardly a new objection!). That objection only claims to show that the existence of God is an unnecessary hypothesis; it does not prove that God cannot possibly exist. It is therefore a shaky ground upon which to build an argument. Aquinas' argument, in contrast, is built upon empirical data (observations of the natural world around us).

Instead of summarizing Aquinas, I'll just give you his reply:

"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. "

I'll try to address your other questions later.

[Cole]

You only seem to be here in an attempt to convince Objectivists that God exists, and it's getting annoying.

Well, I did ask him for his reasons for believing in God, since he said that they were based in reason instead of faith.

Thankfully, the format of these forums allows you to ignore threads or users who you think are annoying.

[AisA]

RationalOne and AisA,

I'll try to respond to as many of your comments as possible. I don't have much time to spend at the computer, and so I may not get to all of them.

AisA, regarding your statement, "The universe is a finite entity with no cause. It has always existed and always will": with all due respect, there is a flaw in the logic shown here, a flaw that I'm beginning to see running through most of these posts. Let me try to illustrate this as best I can with a summation of your comments:

1-God (uncaused cause) does not exist.

No, I make no statement about the truth or falsehood of the proposition, "god exists and is an uncaused cause." I hold that this proposition is arbitrary, which makes it neither true nor false, but definitely invalid and inadmissable.

An arbitrary proposition is one for which no evidence or proof can exist either way. By postulating the existence of god, you are postulating the existence of an entity outstide the scope of man's awareness.

We can know nothing about that which is outside the scope of our awareness. We cannot know whether it exists or not, whether it is possible or impossible.

Thus, we can never establish the relationship of the proposition to reality. We cannot say that it is true, i.e. that it corresponds to reality because we cannot know its relation to reality, and we cannot say that it is false, for the same reason: we cannot know its relationship to reality.

An arbitray proposition, such as the assertion that god exists, is to be dismissed as an empty assertion. One is under no obligation to disprove it -- it is outside the realm of proof.

2-the universe exists.

3- the universe can be shown by empirical data to be finite. Unfortunately for our theory, all of our observations (empirical data) of finite entities shows that finite entities are contingent and caused.

4-since God (uncaused cause) does not exist, there can be no uncaused cause for the universe. Thus, it caused itself.

5-since this is a contradiction to our empirical data (nothing finite causes itself to be), we maintain that the universe is eternal.

No, I start with the observation that existence exists. And I do not believe that the universe "caused itself". I reject the assertion that the universe must have a cause because there is no reason to believe such a thing and a very good reason not to.

However, this does not correspond to what we know of the universe (recent observations support the "Big Bang" theory) and indeed present more logical problems.

Recent observations contradict the "Big Bang" theory. They also contradict the "expanding universe" notion.

The notion that existence had a beginning would mean that it emerged from non-existence. It would mean that something leapt into existence from nothing. Since this is a contradiction, I reject it and accept that existence has always existed.

The problem with your logic is that you are beginning, not ending, your thought process with an unproven premise (God does not exist). This is to say, you are building your foundation on your faith in the non-existence of God.

Nothing that I have written above involves faith.

Your objection to the existence of God is, essentially, the second objection in Aquinas' third article (this is hardly a new objection!). That objection only claims to show that the existence of God is an unnecessary hypothesis; it does not prove that God cannot possibly exist.

There can be no such thing as proof that something does not exist.

What is proof? It is evidence, data, facts, which indicate that something exists or happened. That which does not exist, will not give rise to any evidence, it will not manifest itself in reality in any manner whatsoever. That which does not exist will not create any effects or traces on reality at all. Thus, there can never be evidence of non-existence.

Nor does the lack of evidence of non-existence constitute proof of the existence of something. An absence cannot be cited as evidence of a presence. A lack of information cannot be cited as information about something elsle. An absence of facts cannot be interpreted as proof of the existence of anything.

These are all the reasons why one cannot prove a negative, and why the burden of proof rests on the positive assertion. My inability to prove that god does not exist is evidence of nothing because such proof is impossible.

For instance, can you prove that you are not a murderer? Can you prove where you have been every moment of your adult life, i.e. can you provide an alibi for all of that time? Can you prove you have never had access to something that could be used as a murder weapon, like a gun or a knife or a baseball bat or a car? Can you prove that you have never had a motive for murder, that you have never had a moment of hatred for another person?

Of course not. So, would we justified in reaching any conclusion about the fact that you cannot prove you are not a murderer, i.e. that you cannot prove a negative? No. We can draw no conclusion whatsoever.

It is therefore a shaky ground upon which to build an argument. Aquinas' argument, in contrast, is built upon empirical data (observations of the natural world around us).

Instead of summarizing Aquinas, I'll just give you his reply:

"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. "

With all due respect to Aquinas, there are no observations that support the notion of existence created from non-existence. There are no causal relationships that suggests that non-existence can cause existence.

[EC]

What AisA said above. But seriously, the reason that he even had to go through all of that proves my point that you (AgAd) do not understand the definition of an arbitrary concept. And the assertion that your still making that the universe must be "caused" proves that you either have not read or completely understood the material I recommended in my prior post. Sorry to be blunt, but it is what it is.

[Cole]

AqAd, I have some questions for you that I haven't seen brought up yet;

1) My understanding of Catholicism is that it professes that God cannot be directly knowable by humans. Do you, using the nature of God to justify your belief in him, disagree that the nature of God cannot be directly knowable by humans? It would seem that this would be necessary in order to not be contradictory.

2) Your conclusion that God fills the role of a causeless causer is premised by negative attributes. You state only what God is not (he is not caused, he does not have potential, etc.) instead of attributing positive attributes to him (what he is). The only positive trait- that of being the ultimate causer/mover- depends entirely on the premises of his negative attributes. These negative attributes are necessary to set him apart from all other beings and prove that he is the only being that could fill such a role. It seems futile to describe a being using only negative attributes, because it offers no distinction from non-existence. Non-existence is causeless. Non-existence lacks potential. You offer no attributes that seperate God from merely not existing.

3) As a sort of combination of the above two questions; Wouldn't you need to have direct knowledge of God's nature in order to know which attributes he does not have? Does this knowledge contradict Catholicism?

4) In order for your argument to be true, "universe" must be seperate from "God." The totality of the universe (everything that exists) must be dependant on something outside of itself for its cause. Therefore, the entire universe must be dependant on the only thing outside of itself, God, for its cause. But is everything in the universe really dependant on something outside of itself? What does the existence of matter depend on?

5) The notion that God is a causeless causer doesn't sound logical. How did he create the universe out of nothing? If everything must have a cause, why didn't God need a cause? You point out the absurdity in the idea that anything can exist without an original cause, but then go on to, for some reason, exempt the idea of God as being absurd for the same reason. If it's possible for God to exist eternally and causelessly then why isn't it also possible for the universe to exist eternally and causelessly?

Quoting Nathaniel Branden may be frowned upon around here, but this is very relevant;

"Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause 'outside' of existence or 'anterior' to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not 'god' - is the First Cause."

[AqAd]

Again, I'm pressed for time (sorry, I simply don't have a lot of time available), but I will answer some of Cole's questions as they can be answered rather quickly.

Cole,

No, Catholicism maintains that the existence of God can be known by human reason. Here's a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 36), which is about as official as it gets: "the Church holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." And yes, I disagree that the nature of God cannot be knowable by humans. Specifically, we can use a posteriori reasoning: this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. Let me illustrate it this way: we see footprints on a beach. Looking at the footprints, we may be able to ascertain some knowledge about who made them: the size and shape of the feet gives us some knowledge of some of the footprint maker's attributes---species, for example. If they are human footprints, we can probably determine gender (if they are large, or small; wearing high heels; etc.) and age. We have no direct knowledge of the footprint maker, but we use our reason to determine attributes. To put the arguments presented against Aquinas in my analogy would be to say that the idea that the footprints are caused is arbitrary; that the footprints came into existence on their own; that the footprints have always been there. This violates common sense.

You state: "Your conclusion that God fills the role of a causeless causer is premised by negative attributes. You state only what God is not (he is not caused, he does not have potential, etc.) instead of attributing positive attributes to him (what he is)." That's true of the "uncaused cause" argument, but not necessarily of other arguments. For example, the argument of degrees of perfection: Real degrees of real perfections presuppose the existence of that perfection itself.

You state: "In order for your argument to be true, "universe" must be seperate from "God." Yes, that's correct. The universe is the footprint, to use my analogy above.

You ask, "But is everything in the universe really dependant on something outside of itself? What does the existence of matter depend on?" Matter cannot cause itself to come into existence.

In answer to your questions, "How did he create the universe out of nothing? If everything must have a cause, why didn't God need a cause?": The answer to the first is, I don't know. As for the second, the answer is that God IS existence. The universe exists, but it is contingent. The universe, like any other object, might not have existed. It didn't have to exist. It's existence is not necessary. You, yourself, do not have within yourself a sufficient reason for your own existence. Thus, to explain the existence of anything, there must be at least one non-contingent being--i.e. a being for whom existence is a necessity required by its nature. That pretty much is the argument from contingency. Aquinas' third argument, which expands on this, is as follows: "The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

Hope that helps.

[Styles2112]

I know many people that define "God" as energy. Both Kinetic and Potential. For the people that define it like that, it would seem to work better in the grand scheme of things.

[Cole]

Part One

No, Catholicism maintains that the existence of God can be known by human reason. Here's a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 36), which is about as official as it gets: "the Church holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."

Ok, that settles that then.

Specifically, we can use a posteriori reasoning: this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us.

You may want to look into the Objectivist position on the a priori/a posteriori dichotomy if you're interested in the subject. To put it simply; it's a false dichotomy, and the terms only represent differing levels of abstraction.

When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause.

I'll agree with that, so long as the Law of Causality is held in it's proper relationship with the Law of Identity.

Let me illustrate it this way: we see footprints on a beach. Looking at the footprints, we may be able to ascertain some knowledge about who made them: the size and shape of the feet gives us some knowledge of some of the footprint maker's attributes---species, for example. If they are human footprints, we can probably determine gender (if they are large, or small; wearing high heels; etc.) and age. We have no direct knowledge of the footprint maker, but we use our reason to determine attributes. To put the arguments presented against Aquinas in my analogy would be to say that the idea that the footprints are caused is arbitrary; that the footprints came into existence on their own; that the footprints have always been there. This violates common sense.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not arguing that causality doesn't exist- it certainly does. I'm also not arguing that the form of the universe doesn't change- it certainly does. My argument is not that, if an entity exists, then it has existed eternally. I'm saying that existence is eternal. Effects have causes, but the causes must exist. You can't have a cause from non-existence. I'll use your example to illustrate my point-in-response;

If we see a footprint in the sand, we can assess its cause based on its identity. The identity of footprints is that they are made by the feet of living organisms. Therefore, based on the footprint's identity, we can at least conclude that it was necessarily caused by the foot of a living organism (and we can refine our conclusion by analysing the identity of the extra attributes). So, when this process is applied to matter- the substance of the universe- we take into account the identity of matter. The identity of matter is that it can never be created nor destroyed. Therefore, I argue that the existence of matter is eternal- and you argue that it was somehow created (contrary to its identity) by a supernatural being.

Who's argument "violates common sense"?

That's true of the "uncaused cause" argument, but not necessarily of other arguments. For example, the argument of degrees of perfection: Real degrees of real perfections presuppose the existence of that perfection itself.

Can you prove that God is perfect without ultimately resorting to God's perfection as a premise?

You state: "In order for your argument to be true, "universe" must be seperate from "God." Yes, that's correct. The universe is the footprint, to use my analogy above.

God and the universe are seperate, yet God is existence. What is your definition of "universe," if not "all that exists"?

[Cole]

Part Two

Matter cannot cause itself to come into existence.

That's exactly right. I'm not arguing that matter can cause itself to come into existence. I'm arguing that matter is eternal, and in fact can't be caused by anything to come into existence.

Why do you acknowledge that matter cannot be its own casual agent, yet believe that a supernatural being is somehow able to act as a casual agent to matter?

The answer to the first is, I don't know.

That's the answer I had expected. It's an important position to clear up if you're going to claim that the universe is not eternal and that God created it.

As for the second, the answer is that God IS existence.

If that's the case, and since everything that exists requires a cause, then God also requires a cause. If God is causeless and eternal than existence is causeless and eternal, and your whole argument fails.

The universe exists, but it is contingent.

Prove that the universe is contingent.

I completely disagree, by the way, but I'll wait for you to fulfill your burden of proof first.

The universe, like any other object, might not have existed. It didn't have to exist. It's existence is not necessary.

That's an arbitrary claim. You haven't linked the claim to any facts of reality. An arbitrary notion that something "might" or "might not" is meaningless.

You, yourself, do not have within yourself a sufficient reason for your own existence. Thus, to explain the existence of anything, there must be at least one non-contingent being--i.e. a being for whom existence is a necessity required by its nature. That pretty much is the argument from contingency. Aquinas' third argument, which expands on this, is as follows: "The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

The Contingency Argument is based on a flawed conceptualization of "universe." It considers the universe as something that, in its total, needed a cause. You can't have a cause from outside of existence. The cause of an effect must exist. When you have no evidence of matter being created or destroyed, then on what basis do you claim that the universe is contingent? Certainly not one backed by science.

[EC]

I know many people that define "God" as energy.  Both Kinetic and Potential.  For the people that define it like that, it would seem to work better in the grand scheme of things.

Did you get this from Confucious? Or Zen?