Argument for the existence of God

Metaphysics and Epistemology
21

Plasmatic and Mindy, I think Jacob answered your questions already with his 4th point. I am not sure why you are asking him to repeat it.

His points 1,2 and 3 state the same thing you are saying, that if there is an uncaused cause it could be the universe. He goes on to argue why he thinks it is god in his 4th point.

THANK YOU! lol.

It almost seems as though people are not even reading what i’ve said- despite the fact that I have gone to extreme efforts to clarify what I am trying to say and what I am not trying to say. Thank you. again. haha.

To everyone else who has replied thus far, could you please point out WHERE in the argument you disagree (at what point is my “logic” not logical?) and try and explain why? Ex: “I accept that there must be an uncaused cause (points 1-3) but not that it is a person (point 4) because …”

or “I do not accept that there must be an uncaused cause (point 3) because I believe that there can be an infinite regress of causes (against point 2)”…

This would be much more helpful than reciting something that we all probably all agree on already anyways but which does not seem to pertain to the argument in an obvious way.

22
  1. The Law of Cause and Effect does not state that “EVERYTHING must have a cause”..that is obviously self-destructive.

I don’t see why, depending on what you count as a “thing”. What is “self-destructive” about it? I take it you mean either self-contradictory or leading to an infinite regress, when you say “self-destructive”, but I’m not sure what is so bad about an infinite regress in certain contexts. Clearly we cannot have an infinite regress when we talk about reason because man’s mind is limited. If reasons for action or belief were infinitely supported by other antecedent reasons, then no person would ever have any reason and the term would be meaningless. In the case of time, however, I see no reductio ad absurdum in supposing that time regresses infinitely into the past (and future).

  1. As Rand, Diana, and many others rightly conclude, an ACTUAL infinite regress is impossible. I’m not saying that it’s just hard to imagine an infinite regress. I’m saying that logically, it is impossible. There cannot be an actual infinite regress of causation.

If this is what they say, I would be interested to see a quote from Ayn Rand, but that’s mere curiosity. In any case, without some additional argument, I don’t accept this premise.

  1. Therefore there must be something that is an uncaused cause (a cause that is not also an effect); something that is self-sustaining/self-sufficient (NOT self-caused…that is also irrational!).

I’ll make a subtle point, but here is the only thing that I take to fit loosely what you are talking about: The fact that the universe exists is something that does not need justification. This is, in some sense, a bottom-line beyond which any reasoning makes no sense. We cannot talk about the cause for the fact of existence, and so in some sense this is uncaused–but this point makes no claim about time, and still recognizes the possibility of an infinite past.

  1. The uncaused cause began the chain of causation. Whether you want to say it “created other things” or “acted” or “exploded” or whatever, it “caused” an effect or multiple effects.

In the limited sense of an “uncaused” existence that I described above, this does not follow, so I still reject the thought that there was any kind of “act” involved.

However, if this thing is uncaused, what was the cause of it’s acting/ causing or having an effect?p

By the very notion of the fact that it is uncaused, this implies that nothing caused it to do anything. This means that no kind of willpower could have caused the universe to act, since presumably this willpower would be a thing which causes the universe to act, contradicting the supposition that it is uncaused. To this you might reply that willpower isn’t really a thing in the universe, but at this point I think, “Then what’s the difference between this statement, and saying that the willpower just doesn’t exist at all?”

Now if you just mean, by “will”, the act of doing something which is not at all caused or incited by any antecedent facts, then this might be called an act of will, but there is no reason to think that it was a conscious will, i.e. that this quote-unquote “willing act” is anything like the willpower that humans disputably possess, since there is nothing to suggest that this act of “will” was guided by reason or conscious act.

Why did it cause an effect rather than remain static?

This is the question of, why is the universe the way that it is, rather than some other way? As Ayn Rand herself stated, and I agree with her: This question deserves the same answer that the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Namely, all reason is based on the fact of existence, and not just any existence but this existence. We cannot step outside of reality in order to answer questions about reality. The existence, and the form of existence, of the universe is primitive, from which other questions may be answered.

Hope this has helped clarify, or at least provided some new thoughts.

23

I am trying to stress that there must be an existent/entity which is uncaused and which caused the entirety of all subsequent effects. I did not say that this cause was not an entity. In fact, since I am trying to argue that it exists, I am arguing that it IS an entity/existent. I am not asserting that existence as existence is an effect. I am simply recognizing that all existents but one can and do fall into either category of cause or effect and that there must be one existent that does not fall in the category of an effect-- thus being uncaused.

Does that help clarify what I’m saying?

The whole question is malformed. Entities don’t fall into categories of “cause” or “effect”. Entities are neither causes nor effects. “Cause” and “effect” are abstract concepts derived from observing the interaction of entities. As I said, you are reifying “cause” and “effect”.

24

I will try and reply soon…i believe I may have some questions..

In the mean time though, could somebody explain to me how to do the QUOTE thing? haha. I tried clicking the “MultiQuote” button on the bottom left of the post, but it didn’t do anything.

I would like to use it so that my replies aren’t too jumbled or confusing.

Thanks.

25

To use the multiquote feature, click the button corresponding to the message(s) you would like to quote in your response. You can even browse to other pages in the thread, and you can even browse to other threads, and the multiquote feature will keep tracking you. When you finally click “Add Reply” at the bottom of any thread, you will be taken to a new text editor box, and the quotations will already appear in the editor with “quote tags” around each message you’ve decided to quote. If you want to insert extra quote tags, you can simply put text around the string of symbols [q u o t e] and [/ q u o t e], where all spaces are omitted.

To play with this, in order to see how it works, see what happens when you post the following text, removing the appropriate spaces:

This is a [q u o t e] quote [/ q u o t e]

Note that you can always post something and then edit it within a few minutes of having posted it, so in order to keep the forum tidy, please edit out your experiments with the quote tags and only leave your response.

1 Like
26

If this is what they say, I would be interested to see a quote from Ayn Rand, but that’s mere curiosity. In any case, without some additional argument, I don’t accept this premise.

Ayn Rand discussed “infinity” on pages 148-149 of ITOE. “There is a use of [the concept] “infinity” which is valid, as Aristotle observed, and that is the mathematical use. It is valid only when used to indicate a potentiality, never an actuality.”

As for time, it refers to the change of one thing against the change of another. A planet moves in the sky from night to night, then repeats a pattern. A nucleus decays, providing a count that serves as a clock for rapid, microscopic processes.

It has no meaning outside of things that change.

27

Right, I thought that might be the passage referred to. I find it a little indirect since she speaks of actual quantities being finite, which might imply that she’s speaking of quantities at a time, and so this would not have bearing on the question of whether time can fail to have a beginning point.

28

Right, I thought that might be the passage referred to. I find it a little indirect since she speaks of actual quantities being finite, which might imply that she’s speaking of quantities at a time, and so this would not have bearing on the question of whether time can fail to have a beginning point.

She viewed time as a change in relationship among things. (pages 256-260)

“Infinity”–in the metaphysical sense–means something not limited by ANYTHING. But this isn’t compatible with the Law of Identity.

When you’re talking about the sum of everything, I think it’s best to exempt it from the concept of “time”. There is no “master clock” at that scale.

29

Without getting into another argument about the (lack of a) relationship between identity and infinity, this is similar to what I was saying.

30

If this is what they say, I would be interested to see a quote from Ayn Rand, but that’s mere curiosity. In any case, without some additional argument, I don’t accept this premise.

The only reference I can find about ‘infinite regress’ from Ayn Rand is in The Art of Nonfiction, Chapt. 10 where she states: If whenever you feel you can do better, you thus start rewriting the whole chapter, you would be caught in an infinite regress, because you always learn from the process of writing.

Peikoff makes two references, one regarding a “creator”, the other in the context of ‘definitions’.

31
  1. The uncaused cause began the chain of causation… if this thing is uncaused, what was the cause of it’s acting/ causing or having an effect? Why did it cause an effect rather than remain static? It could not have done so accidentally for this implies that something outside of it acted upon it (caused it). This would say that the uncaused cause was caused to act (Law of Non-Contradiction). It also could not be some arbitrary “part” inside of it that acted upon the whole for we run into the same problem of an infinite regress of causation that is inward rather than outward. The only possibility is that the Uncaused Cause acted wholly of it’s own accord in it’s causation of effects. It must have purposefully caused/acted. It must have chosen to act. And therefore it must have all the faculties necessary for choice; consciousness (mind), preference (affections), and volition (will).

This is where I disagree with you. I agree that it cannot be that our “uncaused cause” was affected from the outside, nor that it is divisible and was set into motion by one of its components (which would then simply become the sole uncaused cause). However, those are not the only options apart from a sentient first cause.

You argue that volition is the only possible conclusion, but volition is only one possible aspect of an entity. As a normally-functioning human being, I have volition. It is part of my nature. However, there are also many other aspects of my nature, and they also affect the way that I behave. Volition can explain my actions, but so can other aspects of my nature, as in a myoclonic jerk. So far with your argument, you have argued that it must be an inherent part of the nature of the uncaused entity which causes it to begin the chain. I agree. However, I do not agree with your further jump that the only possible characteristic capable of this is volition. In fact, we have learned a great deal about the nature of the universe from the fields of quantum mechanics, and it has been suggested that the quantum nature of the universe is precisely what set off the Big Bang. Now here is a contending theory, which names the universe as the first cause, which also does not rely on either an outside influence or the influence of a single component of the entity. It explains the origin of cause-and-effect chains through the quantum nature of the universe, much as you would like to explain the origin of those chains through the volitional nature of God.

32

THANK YOU! lol.

It almost seems as though people are not even reading what i’ve said- despite the fact that I have gone to extreme efforts to clarify what I am trying to say and what I am not trying to say. Thank you. again. haha.

To everyone else who has replied thus far, could you please point out WHERE in the argument you disagree (at what point is my “logic” not logical?) and try and explain why? Ex: “I accept that there must be an uncaused cause (points 1-3) but not that it is a person (point 4) because …”

or “I do not accept that there must be an uncaused cause (point 3) because I believe that there can be an infinite regress of causes (against point 2)”…

This would be much more helpful than reciting something that we all probably all agree on already anyways but which does not seem to pertain to the argument in an obvious way.

You asked for help with this issue. You need to take pains to understand what people are writing. If you just wanted to debate, to defend your position, you would have had a little more leeway to damn the torpedos.

Mindy

33

I don’t see why, depending on what you count as a “thing”. What is “self-destructive” about it? I take it you mean either self-contradictory or leading to an infinite regress, when you say “self-destructive”, but I’m not sure what is so bad about an infinite regress in certain contexts. Clearly we cannot have an infinite regress when we talk about reason because man’s mind is limited. If reasons for action or belief were infinitely supported by other antecedent reasons, then no person would ever have any reason and the term would be meaningless. In the case of time, however, I see no reductio ad absurdum in supposing that time regresses infinitely into the past (and future).

Your screen-name references infinity(Cantor) right?

34

I don’t see why, depending on what you count as a “thing”. What is “self-destructive” about it? I take it you mean either self-contradictory or leading to an infinite regress, when you say “self-destructive”

Both. I’ll try to elaborate further on your objection here in an upcoming general post..

By the very notion of the fact that it is uncaused, this implies that nothing caused it to do anything. This means that no kind of willpower could have caused the universe to act, since presumably this willpower would be a thing which causes the universe to act, contradicting the supposition that it is uncaused. To this you might reply that willpower isn’t really a thing in the universe, but at this point I think, “Then what’s the difference between this statement, and saying that the willpower just doesn’t exist at all?”

Now if you just mean, by “will”, the act of doing something which is not at all caused or incited by any antecedent facts, then this might be called an act of will, but there is no reason to think that it was a conscious will, i.e. that this quote-unquote “willing act” is anything like the willpower that humans disputably possess, since there is nothing to suggest that this act of “will” was guided by reason or conscious act.

That is what I mean by will. I mean that the first cause had to be an act of will by nature of the fact that it is uncaused by anything else. It had to be a choice/decision/act of volition that was freely carried out. Concerning the possibility of it not being guided by reason/consciousness; perhaps we have different ideas of “will” or “volition”. It seems to me that volition is simply the active corollary of consciousness and preference. Volition is that which acts upon the preferred desire based upon a consciousness which conceives of options. Or the other way, a consciousness conceives of option, preference favors one option over others, and volition is simply the faculty that carries out the sum. Perhaps I am wrong about that though?

This is the question of, why is the universe the way that it is, rather than some other way? As Ayn Rand herself stated, and I agree with her: This question deserves the same answer that the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Namely, all reason is based on the fact of existence, and not just any existence but this existence. We cannot step outside of reality in order to answer questions about reality. The existence, and the form of existence, of the universe is primitive, from which other questions may be answered.

I think what I mean is different from what you think I mean… What I mean is that I am convinced that there must be an uncaused cause and that it’s original action/“causing” could not have been caused by any other thing. So, when I ask that question, it is sort of a rhetorical restatement of that conviction. I am supposing (for the sake of argument) that Matter is the “ultimate” thing which is eternal and has no beginning, and then pointing out that it cannot be unconscious matter because there would be no way for it to act or begin the chain of causation.. it would have remained static and no cause or effect would have ever taken place.

ps- Thank you for your help with the quotes. I hope I did it accurately. I suppose I will find out in a second.

35

You asked for help with this issue. You need to take pains to understand what people are writing. If you just wanted to debate, to defend your position, you would have had a little more leeway to damn the torpedos.

Mindy

I very much want to understand what people are writing… however, it seemed that much of it was contained in one of my posts already and therefore it confuses me as to why it would be restated and used against me in the discussion. I had already stated that up to a point I was “ok” with the “ultimate thing” being the Universe or Matter in general, but that after considering other implications (my point 4) that it did not seem likely. And I tried to stress in my posts that I was laboring to avoid the irrational leap of “I don’t know, therefore it must be God!”. And yet it seemed like I was being accused of just that.

On a side note, it seems that if my sole purpose was debate/defending my position, that I should welcome the strongest torpedoes rather than damn them in order to prove the superiority of my position.

As it is though, I care very little about “boasting rights” or anything of the sort. I do care very much about being right (being convinced of what is true) which means I DO welcome the strongest arguments against my position-- but in order for me to be convinced by those arguments (which is the whole point of this), they need to have a clear and obvious connection to my position AND they need to be understandable to me. “torpedoes” are very much unhelpful in such a situation. I suppose the only thing they can accomplish is applause from others.

36

**Concerning the Impossibility of an Infinite Regress in causation:

The main argument I heard from Diana concerning this went somewhat as follows:

“The Theist says ‘here we have the billionth cause and if there were never a first, there could not be a billionth. There is a billionth and therefore there must be a first’.. but in ascribing a numerical value the Theist has already assumed there is a first. He is committing circular reasoning here because the only way to identify this caused as the billionth is to assume that there is a first AND that you know when it was”

However, that seems silly. I doubt any Theist is claiming that this cause is actually the billionth. The point is that there cannot be a middle without a beginning. There is a middle; there must be a beginning.

If every effect has a cause, and if effects exist, there must exist a cause that was not also an effect. That might be the most succinct way I can put it.

**Concerning “Things”/ “Existence” not “needing a cause/reason”:

I understand that some would contend that “things are not caused. events are”. While I’m not sure if I am fully convinced of this, it does not necessarily change the nature of this argument. Regardless of what falls into the category of cause & effect (whether matter, events, motion, whatever), there still must be a cause which is not an effect (or an ultimate cause or uncaused cause). I think I would like to figure out the distinction there and I would like to better understand what you mean and don’t mean when you say “existence exists”…however, it seems like I should save that for another thread in order not to jumble things too much on here.

37

This is where I disagree with you. I agree that it cannot be that our “uncaused cause” was affected from the outside, nor that it is divisible and was set into motion by one of its components (which would then simply become the sole uncaused cause). However, those are not the only options apart from a sentient first cause.

You argue that volition is the only possible conclusion, but volition is only one possible aspect of an entity. As a normally-functioning human being, I have volition. It is part of my nature. However, there are also many other aspects of my nature, and they also affect the way that I behave. Volition can explain my actions, but so can other aspects of my nature, as in a myoclonic jerk. So far with your argument, you have argued that it must be an inherent part of the nature of the uncaused entity which causes it to begin the chain. I agree. However, I do not agree with your further jump that the only possible characteristic capable of this is volition. In fact, we have learned a great deal about the nature of the universe from the fields of quantum mechanics, and it has been suggested that the quantum nature of the universe is precisely what set off the Big Bang. Now here is a contending theory, which names the universe as the first cause, which also does not rely on either an outside influence or the influence of a single component of the entity. It explains the origin of cause-and-effect chains through the quantum nature of the universe, much as you would like to explain the origin of those chains through the volitional nature of God.

Thank you for stating your agreement where there is any. It’s helpful to meet on common ground and go from there. I don’t know what a “myoclonic jerk” is, but I’m assuming that it is an involuntary action caused by chemical reactions in the body or something like that- and wouldn’t that fall into the category of “component parts” which you say could not be the ultimate cause???

Concerning quantum mechanics I must admit that I am not very familiar with that issue at all. In fact, I am somewhat adverse to it because the only people who have talked to me about it have done so in an attempt to overthrow or disprove the Laws of Logic. In fact I think they were saying that things were happening without a cause (“popping in and out of existence”) and that therefore they had proved that the law of cause and effect is flawed. However, this seems like a dangerous blind leap. The inability to see a cause is not proof that there is not a cause. It seems these people have lost their ability to reason and have forgotten the definitions of the words they are using.

But like I said, I haven’t done any first hand studying so I could have just been interacting with a bunch of dunces. haha.

Could you share a little about quantum mechanics and the relationship to this question of causation??

38

I very much want to understand what people are writing… however, it seemed that much of it was contained in one of my posts already and therefore it confuses me as to why it would be restated and used against me in the discussion. I had already stated that up to a point I was “ok” with the “ultimate thing” being the Universe or Matter in general, but that after considering other implications (my point 4) that it did not seem likely. And I tried to stress in my posts that I was laboring to avoid the irrational leap of “I don’t know, therefore it must be God!”. And yet it seemed like I was being accused of just that.

On a side note, it seems that if my sole purpose was debate/defending my position, that I should welcome the strongest torpedoes rather than damn them in order to prove the superiority of my position.

As it is though, I care very little about “boasting rights” or anything of the sort. I do care very much about being right (being convinced of what is true) which means I DO welcome the strongest arguments against my position-- but in order for me to be convinced by those arguments (which is the whole point of this), they need to have a clear and obvious connection to my position AND they need to be understandable to me. “torpedoes” are very much unhelpful in such a situation. I suppose the only thing they can accomplish is applause from others.

I am not psychologizing you. I am noticing that you do not address some of the significant problems put to you. The torpedoes of which I speak are not personal attacks, they are logical points that would “sink” your position. But we can’t simply claim such results.

When you say, for example, that there is no way for mere matter to act on its own, you are making a huge claim. Have you even tried to support it? Do you really think crystals grow because God wills them to? Gravity operates because God feels that way? Do radioactive materials decay because God frowns on them? No, matterial things interact. They interact from the beginning and always, by their natures.

Your supposition that the “uncaused cause” causes events through volition was soundly refuted by a poster who noted you were supposing a consciousness conscious of nothing but itself, which is a contradiction. If you answered that argument, I missed it.

But the whole idea that an uncaused cause needs something else in order to cause its effects, that it needs volition, is contradictory. You have identified it as a cause. If that is its nature, it causes effects just by being. Why posit volition?

Most of all, do point out where you answered the accusation that your exempting God from being “caused” is arbitrary. If God can be uncaused, why can’t the Universe be so? We know the Universe exists. Parsimony would prohibit positing a further entity…

Mindy

p.s. I went back to re-read your main post and its responses, and your first lengthy response to those. I wanted to be sure I hadn’t over-stated my point. I find I under-stated it. There have been many good objections made which you did not respond to. What you claimed was a response was re-statement of your position.

39

That is what I mean by will. I mean that the first cause had to be an act of will by nature of the fact that it is uncaused by anything else.

If, by “will”, you mean nothing other than an uncaused cause, then what about this concept implies the possession of consciousness?

I grant that, if humans have free will (in any interesting sense of “will”), it must not be caused by external factors. However, that does not imply that every uncaused event is thereby an act of will like that of human will–unless you have a further argument to this effect.

The problem seems to be that you start off by defining “will” in some terms which do not necessarily involve a conscious entity. You then proceed in your proof, now using “will” to imply the existence of a consciousness. So it would be better not to confuse the issue with use of the term “will”. This would be like me saying, “By the word ‘will’, I just mean a rock. And there is clearly a rock, therefore there is clearly a will which is a rock, and therefore rocks have willpower.” This is obviously an ill-formed argument, owing to my having started the proof using one definition of “will” and ended it using another. Just try to argue the case, starting from the assumption of an uncaused beginning, and concluding in the fact that this uncaused event implies the existence of a consciousness. Since you use the word “will” to just mean “an uncaused event”, you shouldn’t need the word “will” in the first place.

I think what I mean is different from what you think I mean… What I mean is that I am convinced that there must be an uncaused cause and that it’s original action/“causing” could not have been caused by any other thing. So, when I ask that question, it is sort of a rhetorical restatement of that conviction. I am supposing (for the sake of argument) that Matter is the “ultimate” thing which is eternal and has no beginning, and then pointing out that it cannot be unconscious matter because there would be no way for it to act or begin the chain of causation.. it would have remained static and no cause or effect would have ever taken place.

But my point was that it is nonsense to claim that, if the universe did not have a will power, it would have remained static, because we cannot talk about reasons for why the universe is the way that it is. This is, as I’ve claimed, tantamount to giving reasons for why there is something rather than nothing. Such reasons are impossible, and claims about why the universe is the way that it is are just as impossible. The universe just is; and the universe just is the way that it is. There are no intelligible questions or reasons antecedent to these facts.

**Concerning the Impossibility of an Infinite Regress in causation:

The main argument I heard from Diana concerning this went somewhat as follows:

“The Theist says ‘here we have the billionth cause and if there were never a first, there could not be a billionth. There is a billionth and therefore there must be a first’.. but in ascribing a numerical value the Theist has already assumed there is a first. He is committing circular reasoning here because the only way to identify this caused as the billionth is to assume that there is a first AND that you know when it was”

However, that seems silly. I doubt any Theist is claiming that this cause is actually the billionth. The point is that there cannot be a middle without a beginning. There is a middle; there must be a beginning.

If every effect has a cause, and if effects exist, there must exist a cause that was not also an effect. That might be the most succinct way I can put it.

I cannot see the relevance of the quote, nor do I see the force of your argument. Firstly, I do not believe there is a problem with thinking that there are infinitely many things in existence, contrary to what most people on this forum seem to believe. But even if we assume that there are only finitely many things in existence at any one time, that does not mean that there cannot exist infinitely many times at which each of these things exist. The only sense in which “effects exist” is in the sense that an event occurred in virtue of certain facts just before the event. For instance, when I say that the effect of the ball was the breaking of the class, I am not saying that there is a ball, and some glass, and an effect. I’m just saying there is a ball, and some glass, and at one time the ball was headed toward the glass, and at another time the ball passed through the glass. But there are only two objects–the ball and the glass–in this conversation, not three–the ball, the glass, and the effect. I don’t accept that counting effects is a way of counting things that exist in the universe (in the way same way that a ball exists in the universe).

So I’m afraid that I still don’t accept that there must be a first point in time, or a beginning of the universe.

40

However, that does not imply that every uncaused event is thereby an act of will like that of human will–unless you have a further argument to this effect.

What in the universe is an uncaused event? Some linguistic hocus pocus?