Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can "God" be found through reason?

Rate this topic


AqAd

Recommended Posts

Did you get this from Confucious? Or Zen? :)

I didn't get it from either. Just conversations with friends. Why are you banging your head on a wall? I didn't say that I believed them, I just said that it was an interesting concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't get it from either. Just conversations with friends. Why are you banging your head on a wall? I didn't say that I believed them, I just said that it was an interesting concept.

That you find anything "interesting" in it is the reason why. And I know you didn't really get it from those philosophies because they are godless(and no I'm not going to define godless :D ) But the sentence structure is similar to what you would get from them and so is the purpose: to halt proper thinking before you start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[That you find anything "interesting" in it is the reason why. And I know you didn't really get it from those philosophies because they are godless(and no I'm not going to define godless :) ) But the sentence structure is similar to what you would get from them and so is the purpose: to halt proper thinking before you start.

On the other hand, that's not how they see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, that's not how they see it.

Well it's irrelevent how they "see it". What is relevent is what happens to be true in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No, what is arbitrary is the assertion that existence is the equivalent of the footprints, but that god is not.

Nor have I said that existence came into existence on its own. Rather, existence was never out of 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.
If God IS existence, and if existence is contingent, then god is contingent. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

The universe, like any other object, might not have existed. It didn't have to exist. It's existence is not necessary.
Necessary for what? The term necessary implies a relationship between two or more things. The question, “Is an egg necessary?“ has no meaning and cannot be answered. The question, “Is an egg necessary to make an omelet?” does have meaning and can be answered.

Existence, however, is everything. There is nothing else for existence to have a relationship to. With respect to existence, there is no possible “for what?“ Thus the term necessary is utterly meaningless in relation to existence.

You, yourself, do not have within yourself a sufficient reason for your own existence.
Why would you say this? The reason I exist is because my parents chose to create me and raise me until I could take over, after which I chose to continue existing for the achievement of my own happiness. No other reason for my existence is required.

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.
I just explained my existence without reference to any non-contingent beings.

By the way, an explanation must add information or improve our understanding of something by reference to something we already understand. For instance, I can explain the working of an internal combustion engine by describing its parts, how they move, the properties of the fuel etc. Such would constitute a proper explanation.

If, instead, I stated, “Well, it works somehow”, that would not be accepted as an explanation, for I have added nothing to our understanding; we know nothing new about the working of the engine than before.

The whole notion of god as an explanation for anything is the same sort of silliness. The statement that “god explains the existence of something” is the exact equivalent of “something explains the existence of something”. Neither statement explains anything.

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.
There are several errors here. In the first place, the possible and the inevitable are two different things. Second, there is no evidence that matter can cease to exist.

There is, however, a more fundamental error here. It involves a confusion of imagination and possibility.

Now if this were true,
But it isn’t true, so none of the rest of this argument matters.

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 confusion at the root of this argument involves the concept of the possible. Aquinas equates the possible with the imaginable. He is saying, in effect, “Since I can imagine that things that exist do not have to exist, it must be a possibility that at some time they did not exist.”

Imagining something does not make it a possibility. One can equally imagine that it is impossible for existence not to exist. Non-existence does not exist, no matter how much one imagines otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA,

I must not be making myself clear---I'll try again. You write: "No, what is arbitrary is the assertion that existence is the equivalent of the footprints, but that god is not." But that is not my assertion at all: in my analogy, the footprints are the universe. God is the maker of the footprints: God IS existence.

"Nor have I said that existence came into existence on its own. Rather, existence was never out of existence." I never said that you said that, and you're right, existence has never been out of existence. But you seem to be equating "existence" with "universe".

"If God IS existence, and if existence is contingent, then god is contingent. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C." Right, but existence itself (God) is not contingent. Perhaps this confusion is another result of equating "universe" with "existence".

Your questions regarding the term "necessary" show a misunderstanding of how the term is used in philosophical arguments. You are near understanding, though, when you write, "Existence, however, is everything. There is nothing else for existence to have a relationship to." God is existence itself, so what you say makes sense in regards to God. It does not make sense in regards to the universe, because the universe is finite and contingent. Or, to try to use my analogy again: if footprints exist, it is logically unavoidable (that is, it is "necessary"), for the footprints to have had a foot make them. However, the footprints aren't logically unavoidable (necessary): the maker of the footprints doesn't have to walk on the beach---he exists whether he walks on the beach or not.

And you misunderstood when I wrote, "You, yourself, do not have within yourself a sufficient reason for your own existence." All I am saying with that statement is that you can't cause yourself to exist, which you admit by saying that your parents chose to create you.

You state, "The statement that “god explains the existence of something” is the exact equivalent of “something explains the existence of something”. I didn't make that statement, nor would I: it puts the cart before the horse. Rather, observations of the universe show us that contingent entities cannot cause themselves to come into existence; logic tells us that something must account for the existence of the universe. And, as Aquinas puts it, "this we call God". I think you're getting caught up in the name "God", and not seeing it for what it is in Aquinas' demonstrations: a name attached to concepts (unmoved mover, uncaused cause, etc) that are logically derived from observation and reason.

Another statement you made in response to something I didn't say is, "Second, there is no evidence that matter can cease to exist." I never said that there was, nor do I have a logical problem with your statement: infinity in effects IS possible---that is, a chain of effects (something causes something which causes something else...) can go on indefinitely. However, this is not true of causes: you cannot have infinite regress of causes, as the chain of effects must be attached to some cause: there can be no effects without a cause. So, while matter may very well last forever, it still cannot have caused itself to come into existence in the first place.

You stated, "He is saying, in effect, “Since I can imagine that things that exist do not have to exist, it must be a possibility that at some time they did not exist.” "

No, I think you are misunderstanding what Aquinas is saying here: this has nothing to do with imagination at all. Let me try to put this in layman's terms: he is not equating the imaginable with the possible, he is pointing out, by observation, that there are entities (yourself, for one) for whom it is possible not to exist. Someday, you will not exist (your constituent parts will still exist; i.e. the water in you will evaporate into something else, but YOU, the totality of you, will not exist). Nor can you cause yourself to be. Thus, in philosopher's terms, you are "possible", not "necessary".

Cole,

I'll try to get a few of your questions answered: I may not get to them all in this post.

You stated "I'm arguing that matter is eternal, and in fact can't be caused by anything to come into existence." Which means that you are arguing that the universe is eternal---this is consisitent with what others here have already said. However, there are problems here, namely:

1) an actual infinite cannot exist;

2) a beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite;

Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist;

1) A beginningless series of events in time cannot exist

2) The universe exists;

Therefore the universe is not a beginningless series of events in time

1) The universe is not a beginningless series of events in time

2) The universe is a series of events in time

Therefore the universe is not beginningless

Therefore the universe began, and is not eternal.

You wrote (in answer to my statement that I didn't know how God created the world): "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."

Well, people are attempting to "clear it up". Obviously, various theories have been proposed: Big Bang, etc. However, it might take science a while to determine this with any certainty, and Aquinas' arguments do not rely upon knowing that information. Aquinas proceeds from observable data first and proceeds with logic; he is not attempting to argue for the existence of God by theorizing about how the universe was created.

You stated "If that's the case, and since everything that exists requires a cause, then God also requires a cause." No, every finite entity requires a cause. An infinite entity (logically there can only be one) is another matter: God is his own cause. Again, I think you're getting too caught up in the term "God", and not seeing it as simply a term for a logical necessity. The logical necessity comes first, based on observation. The name comes later.

"Prove that the universe is contingent." Everything that we can see is finite and contingent. The universe is finite, and has a beginning. Since it cannot cause itself to be (which would require existing before it existed in order to act as a cause of its own existence), it is contingent.

You have me very confused when you write, "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." To begin with, I never posited that that there was any such dichotomy, false or otherwise! I agree with you: they are simply two different forms of reasoning. The dichotomy was not of my making.

It's late, and I'll have to answer your other questions another time. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA,

I must not be making myself clear---I'll try again. You write: "No, what is arbitrary is the assertion that existence is the equivalent of the footprints, but that god is not." But that is not my assertion at all: in my analogy, the footprints are the universe. God is the maker of the footprints: God IS existence.

You are merely substituting one arbitrary assertion for another. Instead of arbitrarily claiming that existence is the equivalent of the footprint while god is not, you have switched to the equally arbitrary assertion that the universe is the equivalent of the footprint and that god is existence and neither is contingent.

"Nor have I said that existence came into existence on its own. Rather, existence was never out of existence."  I never said that you said that, and you're right, existence has never been out of existence. But you seem to be equating "existence" with "universe".

"If God IS existence, and if existence is contingent, then god is contingent. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C."  Right, but existence itself (God) is not contingent. Perhaps this confusion is another result of equating "universe" with "existence".

Conflating the terms god and existence changes nothing. This is the same old arbitrary assertion repackaged. You want to classify everything that exists into two categories: those that are contingent and those that are not. Then, you call the contingent category the universe and the other category god, or, now, you also call it existence.

But it does not matter how many terms we introduce: everything, the universe, existence, all things, etc -- it is totally arbitrary to classify some as contingent and the rest as god. It remains a collection of arbitrary assertions.

Your questions regarding the term "necessary" show a misunderstanding of how the term is used in philosophical arguments. You are near understanding, though, when you write, "Existence, however, is everything. There is nothing else for existence to have a relationship to."  God is existence itself, so what you say makes sense in regards to God. It does not make sense in regards to the universe, because the universe is finite and contingent.
More of the same arbitrary assertions. You claim that I misunderstand how to use the term necessary philosophically -- yet that is all you make: an unsupported, unexplained claim.

Or, to try to use my analogy again: if footprints exist, it is logically unavoidable (that is, it is "necessary"), for the footprints to have had a foot make them. However, the footprints aren't logically unavoidable (necessary): the maker of the footprints doesn't have to walk on the beach---he exists whether he walks on the beach or not.
First you said the existence of the footprint was proof of the existence of someone who left them. You said I was labeling such a claim as arbitrary when in fact it was common sense. Now you say that the footprints do not prove anything? No cause is necessary?

And you misunderstood when I wrote, "You, yourself, do not have within yourself a sufficient reason for your own existence." All I am saying with that statement is that you can't cause yourself to exist, which you admit by saying that your parents chose to create you.
But that is not all you said. You said one cannot explain the existence of contingent beings without reference to a non-contingent being.

You state, "The statement that “god explains the existence of something” is the exact equivalent of “something explains the existence of something”.  I didn't make that statement, nor would I: it puts the cart before the horse. Rather, observations of the universe show us that contingent entities cannot cause themselves to come into existence; logic tells us that something must account for the existence of the universe.
Logic tells us that since we have never observed matter coming into existence out of non-existence, it must have always existed. Logic does not tell us to assume without proof and against all observations that such a leap from non-existence into existence is possible and that god can do it.

And, as Aquinas puts it, "this we call God". I think you're getting caught up in the name "God", and not seeing it for what it is in Aquinas' demonstrations: a name attached to concepts (unmoved mover, uncaused cause, etc) that are logically derived from observation and reason.

Another statement you made in response to something I didn't say is, "Second, there is no evidence that matter can cease to exist." I never said that there was, nor do I have a logical problem with your statement: infinity in effects IS possible---that is, a chain of effects (something causes something which causes something else...) can go on indefinitely. However, this is not true of causes: you cannot have infinite regress of causes, as the chain of effects must be attached to some cause: there can be no effects without a cause. So, while matter may very well last forever, it still cannot have caused itself to come into existence in the first place.

If "matter may very well last forever", it did not have to come into existence in the first place. It has always existed. It is eternal. It has always been around.

Don't you see that you proceed from an unsupported premise -- that everything had to have a beginning -- and you interpret all evidence based on that premise.

You stated, "He is saying, in effect, “Since I can imagine that things that exist do not have to exist, it must be a possibility that at some time they did not exist.” "

No, I think you are misunderstanding what Aquinas is saying here: this has nothing to do with imagination at all. Let me try to put this in layman's terms: he is not equating the imaginable with the possible, he is pointing out, by observation, that there are entities (yourself, for one) for whom it is possible not to exist. Someday, you will not exist (your constituent parts will still exist; i.e. the water in you will evaporate into something else, but YOU, the totality of you, will not exist). Nor can you cause yourself to be. Thus, in philosopher's terms, you are "possible", not "necessary".

Here are Aquinas words:

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. (emphasis added)

What do you call the expression in bold if not imagination? Speculation? Same thing. He is conjuring an alleged possibility out of thin air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated "I'm arguing that matter is eternal, and in fact can't be caused by anything to come into existence." Which means that you are arguing that the universe is eternal---this is consisitent with what others here have already said. However, there are problems here, namely:

1) an actual infinite cannot exist;

2) a beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite;

Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist;

I am sure that Cole will have his own response. However, I wish to point out that there is a distinction, a BIG distinction, between an infinite entity and an endless series of events.

The law of identity tells us that everything that exists is something, something specific and limited. The notion of an entity of, say, infinite size, is a logical contradiction since it would not be any specific size. So, we can reject the notion of an infinitely big entity; likewise, we can reject the notion of an entity with any infinite characteristics.

However, a "beginningless" series of events is not an entity. Such a series of events does not constitute the existence of infinity. Not all of the events exist simultaneously, hence we are not postulating the existence of infinity. We are postulating an open-ended series of events, with no limitations as to a beginning or ending.

The obvious analogy is numbers. There is no such thing as an infinite number, but there is also no limit to how small they can be or how large they can be -- they form an open-ended progression.

Thus, there is nothing contradictory in the notion of an eternal universe, for it does not require the existence of infinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA,

You stated, "Thus, there is nothing contradictory in the notion of an eternal universe, for it does not require the existence of infinity."

If the universe is actually eternal, then an actually infinite amount of time must already have expired, so your proposition fails to avoid the absurdities of positing an existent actual infinite.

What's more, it runs afoul of another basic principle: an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition. In other words, it is impossible to complete an actual infinite series by "passing through" each member of the series. But this is exactly what would have to have happened if the universe extended into the infinite past.

You mention the analogy with numbers, but as I pointed out in another post, infinite regress is acceptable in mathematics but not in time: real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of finite entities moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past. In contrast, positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers. A better use of mathematics as an analogy would be to be point out that it makes no intuitive sense to propose that one can actually finish counting to infinity, since no matter what number one reaches, one can simply add one more. In the same way, an actual infinite number of moments is being added to each passing second without increasing the cardinality of the set of those moments---which is absurd. In other words, no greater a number of seconds will have elapsed one million years from now as have elapsed up to the current point in time.

For another illustration: take Bertrand Russell's "Tristram Shandy" example, a man who writes his autobiography so slowly that it takes him one year just to record the events of a single day of his life. Now, if Tristram could write for an actually infinite amount of time, it would follow that Shandy could actually complete his autobiography, since the number of days and the number of years would stand in a one-to-one correspondence, and both would be infinite. But this, too, is plainly absurd, since it is self-evident that Tristram would just get farther and farther behind with each passing day, until, at some point in the infinitely distant future, he would be infinitely far behind.

Furthermore, if an actually infinite number of moments has passed, then it has passed at every point in the past, no matter how far back you go. And if that's true, then Tristram should have completed his writing at every point in the past, which would mean that you would never be able to observe him finishing his book, since he would already have finished.

Anyway, this is just a long-winded way of observing that a beginningless universe entails the existence of an actually infinite number of past moments of time, which is impossible. Therefore, the universe has a beginning. Which means, there must be a cause, because the universe could not cause itself to come into existence (which would entail the impossible: namely, it would have to exist before it existed in order to cause its own existence).

Edited by AqAd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA,

You stated, "Thus, there is nothing contradictory in the notion of an eternal universe, for it does not require the existence of infinity."

If the universe is actually eternal, then an actually infinite amount of time must already have expired, so your proposition fails to avoid the absurdities of positing an existent actual infinite.

Not at all; you are making unwarranted assumptions about the nature of time. This is similar to Xeno's paradox where he "proves" that since a particular moment of time is "infinitely divisible" that objects cannot actually move, because it would require an infinite series of fractional moments for it to cover any distance, and hence that it would take an infinite amount of time to move any distance. (I think I remembered that correctly).

The task of philosophers is not to begin in a vacuum, but to look outward at reality. Discovering and describing the precise mechanism by which time functions is a job for the special sciences. So please refrain from making arbitrary assertions that NO ONE can prove at this point.

What's more, it runs afoul of another basic principle: an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition. In other words, it is impossible to complete an actual infinite series by "passing through" each member of the series. But this is exactly what would have to have happened if the universe extended into the infinite past.

An actual infinite cannot be formed PERIOD, because infinity has no identity.

You mention the analogy with numbers, but as I pointed out in another post,  infinite regress is acceptable in mathematics but not in time: real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of finite entities moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past.

What? On what are you basing this assertion that the future is caused by the past? Actions of entitites in the future are caused by actions of entities in the past; this is part of causalty. The "future" and the "past" are entity-less abstractions, they cannot cause nor be caused, act nor be acted upon. All actions are actions OF ENTITIES.

In contrast, positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers. A better use of mathematics as an analogy would be to be point out that it makes no intuitive sense to propose that one can actually finish counting to infinity, since no matter what number one reaches, one can simply add one more. In the same way, an actual infinite number of moments is being added to each passing second without increasing the cardinality of the set of those moments---which is absurd. In other words, no greater a number of seconds will have elapsed one million years from now as have elapsed up to the current point in time.

Read my comment above. You are equating passing time with the accumulation of sand in the bottom part of an hourglass. Time PASSES, it does not ACCUMULATE.

For another illustration: take Bertrand Russell's "Tristram Shandy" . . .

Bertrand Russell is a terrible rationalist who believes you can begin philosophizing taking ANYTHING as a primary, which you can't. Philosophy is based on REALITY, not on whatever one wishes to take as a starting point.

Anyway, this is just a long-winded way of observing that a beginningless universe entails the existence of an actually infinite number of past moments of time, which is impossible. Therefore, the universe has a beginning. Which means, there must be a cause, because the universe could not cause itself to come into existence (which would entail the impossible: namely, it would have to exist before it existed in order to cause its own existence).

You also are assuming that moments of time continue to exist after they have passed. The actual physical part of existence (which you are improperly terming the "universe") may have "begun" in a different form altogether (the Big Bang theory) however, whatever existed BEFORE the Big Bang existed, and if something exists, then there is existence. In fact, if GOD exists, then there is existence, unless god doesn't exist, and how can something that doesn't exist cause anything? It's absurd. Declaring that existence is contingent, and specifically, that it is contingent on a consciousness, which could not exist because without an existence it wouldn't be able to be conscious of anything, is equally absurd.

Instead of flailing about in the deepest swamps of physics and rationalization, it might be good if you were to approach your problems logically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) an actual infinite cannot exist;

2) a beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite;

Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist;

1) A beginningless series of events in time cannot exist

2) The universe exists;

Therefore the universe is not a beginningless series of events in time

1) The universe is not a beginningless series of events in time

2) The universe is a series of events in time

Therefore the universe is not beginningless

Therefore the universe began, and is not eternal.

I made bold the premise that I disagree with. It seems to beg the question. I don't see why the universe itself is a "series of events" (or, "series of effects".) To define it as such implies necessary causality, but that is what is up for debate. If the universe is eternal, then its existence is not an effect that required a cause.

How about this, off the top of my head;

1) Matter cannot be created.

2) Matter is the substance of the universe.

3) Therefore, God cannot have created the universe.

An infinite entity (logically there can only be one) is another matter: God is his own cause.

How can there logically even be one infinite entity?

Again, I think you're getting too caught up in the term "God", and not seeing it as simply a term for a logical necessity. The logical necessity comes first, based on observation. The name comes later.

No I'm not. When I say that the cause of an effect cannot be outside of existence, I don't mean "God isn't real so therefore he couldn't have caused anything." I am refering to your separation of "universe" and "existence".

What entity is categorized in "existence" that isn't categorized in "universe"? Obviously you think that God is, but this is circular. In order for God to be an entity in existence but seperate from the universe, he must be infinite and causeless. But in order for God to be infinite and causeless, he must be defined as being the only entity existing in existence but seperate from the universe. And around and around. What was your original reason, tabula rasa, for separating "God" from "universe" at the beginning of formulating this line of reasoning?

Everything that we can see is finite and contingent. The universe is finite, and has a beginning. Since it cannot cause itself to be (which would require existing before it existed in order to act as a cause of its own existence), it is contingent.

That's not proving anything- it's just re-stating your claim. In order for the universe to be contigent and have a beginning, there must have been a time when the universe didn't exist. What evidence have you seen that would lead you to believe that the universe is not eternal?

To begin with, I never posited that that there was any such dichotomy, false or otherwise! I agree with you: they are simply two different forms of reasoning. The dichotomy was not of my making.

Oh, I know you didn't. I just meant that I thought you might be interested in looking into the Objectivist viewpoint on the a priori/a posteriori false-dichotomy. I stopped using the terms after I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA,

You stated, "Thus, there is nothing contradictory in the notion of an eternal universe, for it does not require the existence of infinity."

If the universe is actually eternal, then an actually infinite amount of time must already have expired, so your proposition fails to avoid the absurdities of positing an existent actual infinite.

What's more, it runs afoul of another basic principle: an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition. In other words, it is impossible to complete an actual infinite series by "passing through" each member of the series. But this is exactly what would have to have happened if the universe extended into the infinite past.

You mention the analogy with numbers, but as I pointed out in another post,  infinite regress is acceptable in mathematics but not in time: real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of finite entities moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past. In contrast, positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers. A better use of mathematics as an analogy would be to be point out that it makes no intuitive sense to propose that one can actually finish counting to infinity, since no matter what number one reaches, one can simply add one more. In the same way, an actual infinite number of moments is being added to each passing second without increasing the cardinality of the set of those moments---which is absurd. In other words, no greater a number of seconds will have elapsed one million years from now as have elapsed up to the current point in time.

For another illustration: take Bertrand Russell's "Tristram Shandy" example, a man who writes his autobiography so slowly that it takes him one year just to record the events of a single day of his life. Now, if Tristram could write for an actually infinite amount of time, it would follow that Shandy could actually complete his autobiography, since the number of days and the number of years would stand in a one-to-one correspondence, and both would be infinite. But this, too, is plainly absurd, since it is self-evident that Tristram would just get farther and farther behind with each passing day, until, at some point in the infinitely distant future, he would be infinitely far behind.

Furthermore, if an actually infinite number of moments has passed, then it has passed at every point in the past, no matter how far back you go. And if that's true, then Tristram should have completed his writing at every point in the past, which would mean that you would never be able to observe him finishing his book, since he would already have finished. 

Anyway, this is just a long-winded way of observing that a beginningless universe entails the existence of an actually infinite number of past moments of time, which is impossible. Therefore, the universe has a beginning. Which means, there must be a cause, because the universe could not cause itself to come into existence (which would entail the impossible: namely, it would have to exist before it existed in order to cause its own existence).

AdAq, previously I pointed out an essay that would answer your problem with the universe being both finite and eternal at the same time (no infinities!). You have obviously chosen to ignore it. The concept of number doesn't apply to the universe. To do so would steal the concept of quantity. To have a number you must have a quantity, but to have a quantity you must have bounds. The universe is unbounded though so "infinity" or any other concept of number cannot apply to it. Therefore the universe is both finite and unbounded, not infinite. The universe is defined as all that exists. There is NOTHING else. This is not a hard concept here. There is no "existing non-existence" where any god can hide. You call the concept of infinity absurd, which it is, and then proceed to define your "god" as infinite. You don't see the absurdity in that nonsense? The universe has always existed, and will always exist. The universe is eternal. The universe is finite, and unbounded without implying an absurd infinity. The universe is uncaused. The universe, simply put, is, because it is all that exists, and existence exists, and it is all that has ever and will ever exist. Period. There's nothing to logically argue about here without drawing on the arbitrary as your first premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it apply to then?

It applies to quantity. Read Alex's essay that I previously linked to, he can explain it better than I can, and it clears up all this mess that's written in this thread. Warning, it is very abstract, and it may take reading it a few times to completely understand, but trust me it is worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quantity of what? The quantity of something outside of the universe?

Quantity of anything. Quantity as an abstract concept. Of course the quantity has to be within the universe. But the concept cannot apply to the universe itself. Whenever we speak of a quantity there has to be bounds involved,i.e, between here and there, or from point x in time to point z in time, etc. But the universe itself is unbounded so the concept of quantity and therefore the of a concept a number to represent that quantity cannot exist for the univere itself. You can keep going and going with out coming to the "end", a bound, for the universe. There is no bound. The universe is boundless is both space and time. Therefore without any bounds quantity or therefore any number (especially infinity) cannot be applied to the universe as a whole. Time and space are relational concepts between existent within the universe, and cannot therefore not apply to the universe itself, just its constituents. The universe is not "in time", its eternal. And it's not "in space", it's boundless. And the universe has no size, it's "asizal".

With apologies to Alex and Dr. Binswanger if I haven't explained their respective ideas with 100% accuracy.

Edited by Rational_One
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) An actual infinite cannot exist.

2) God is infinite.

Therefore, God does not exist.

Based on AqAds' premises, the logical conlusion would seem to be that he is an atheist.

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) An actual infinite cannot exist.

2) God is infinite.

Therefore, God does not exist.

Based on AqAds' premises, the logical conlusion would seem to be that he is an atheist.

This is a good one!!!

However, AqAd will simply change his definition of god to be finite, not infinite. God, to him, is whatever he has to be to escape the most recent argument.

No offense intended, AqAd. But in my experience, those who traffic in arbitrary assertions master the ability to continuously redefine the assertion to keep it outside the realm of proof, while remaining oblivious to the fact that this also puts it outside the realm of rational consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bold Standard,

Here is the Achilles' heel in your formulation: God is not an actual infinite.

An "actual infinite" in the sense in which I was using the term is simply what it sounds like: a set of an infinite number of things that actually exists, which is what you are saying the universe is. More abstractly, transfinite math utilizes actual infinites as parts of its formalism, which is nonetheless just a mathematical model which is not supposed (or wasn't supposed by Cantor and other mathematical luminaries) to have any ontological significance.

Without going into the vagaries of transfinite math, the basic idea is that there is a hierachy of infinite sets, the first of which is the set of natural numbers, the cardinality of which is called aleph-null, the number for all sets that stand in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers, like the prime and rational numbers.

Now, we know that these actual infinites can't exist because of the numerous absurdities that would follow, like Hilbert's Hotel (named after the prominent mathematician David Hilbert). Imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests. You arrive and ask for a room. After being informed that the hotel is full, the hotelier nonetheless says, "no problem", and just puts the guy in room 1 into room 2, from room 2 into room 3, and so on to infinity, leaving you with an extra room into which you are placed by the manager. This same process can be repeated as many times as you please, each time leaving you with the same number of occupants as before.

It gets worse: imagine now that everyone in the odd-numbered rooms left, so that only rooms {2,4,6,8...} remained full - if there could be such a thing as actual infinites, then there would be no fewer people in the hotel than there were before the odds left...

There are many, many more such examples, each more absurd than the last, and all of which militate against the existence of an actual infinite. Your definition of the universe is such an actual infinite: the understanding of God as uncaused cause, unmoved mover, etc. does not involve these absurdities as God is not understood to be an actual infinite.

RationalOne,

You stated, in regards to the Silverman essay, "You have obviously chosen to ignore it". This is the sort of comment that I have come across quite frequently while on this site, the sort that is beginning to convince me that the people here on this forum are largely high-school or college-aged children. Yes, I have read the essay. I didn't agree with the conclusions, for a number of reasons, which would take more time to explain than is probably worth doing in this forum. For you to assume that I "have chosen to ignore it" bespeaks of either your omniscience (since you claim the ability to read my mind and motives), or your childishness in presenting your ideas while arguing against others. I seriously doubt the former; the latter is usually the result of either simple immaturity independent of the validity of your argument, or immaturity coupled with an invalid argument. The same can be said for the comments of JMeganSnow, who laughabley concludes her comments with, "Instead of flailing about in the deepest swamps of physics and rationalization, it might be good if you were to approach your problems logically". If you are unable to discuss ideas without ad hominem arguments, perhaps it would be best not to discuss them at all until you mature.

I will try to address some of the other posters' comments when I have more time.

Edited by AqAd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can guarantee Alex's ideas are a million times more rational than yours, and the reason you choose not to deal with them is because it seems you must not have the mental capacity too. It seems you have no answer to reason and observable facts of existence with out ignoring valid arguments and resorting to arbitrary and absurd conclusions. What I presented to you is the Objectivist position. Are you interested in Objectivism or in trying to convince Objectivists of the existence of a non-exixtent entity via irrational arguments? If so any Objectivist that accepts your nonsense should never have claimed to be an Objectivist to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you interested in Objectivism or in trying to convince Objectivists of the existence of a non-exixtent entity via irrational arguments?

Echo? (holds hand to hear)

His whole approach is the "pick-and-choose" mentality of evasion. He wants to pick and choose which facts of reality, in the range of a particular argument to acknowledge or avoid -- never putting it all together in one cohesive whole. He picks "facts" 1, 2, 3... oh fact 4 contradicts that? <Blank out>.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AqAd:

Universe is only a name for the summation of all existents. It is only an abstract concept--not an actual concrete entity to have been caused. Like the term society, universe is merely a name for a collection of individual existents. It happens to be the ultimate collection of existents. And thus, it is routinely confused with an actual moving entity that might have a cause.

You have claimed that God caused the universe. But this statement makes no sense, unless you mean that God caused every single existent. And if that is what you mean, then God cannot be included in the ultimate set of existents; he cannot exist at all, because he cannot cause himself to exist. Thus, he is an uncaused nothing. A zero. His purported existence contradicts his non-existent nature.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, most people use the word "agnostic" to refer to something that is irrational. They use it to imply that there exists a middle ground between theism and atheism. When in reality, there can be no middle ground. Everybody is either a theist or an atheist. This may sound like a surprising claim at first, but think about it.

But I'd like to stress a point that agnosticism is a concept that holds the question of the existence of god open, pending the arrival of more evidence. Therefore, an agnostic is not exactly a skeptic who the claims that certainty or knowledge is impossible. Agnostics lack a belief in god without actively denying god's existence.

Are you saying that an objectivist is forced to recognize that god does not exist? What if a person is comfortable in agnoticism simply bcuz the existence or non-existence of a god is irrelevant to him, that he neither affirms nor denies a god's existence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...