Dave Matthews Joe Hinman not sure what you said, and i’m not looking for arguments for the existence of god, i’m expecting you to show me proof of the existence of your particular god.[facebook][1]
Brian Bimmer Jørgensen
Apostolic Nsibambi Asuman, so why believe in your god , when you have no evidence for his existence?[facebook]
Atheists often use slogans like "Arguments are not evidence" "Claims are not evidence" "There's no evidence for god", so my question for you would be to percisely define evidence. What evidence would be sufficient to establish god existence?r/DebateAnAtheist
I am going to lay out a systematic look at the evidence that I use There is more I will just be lookig at the stufff I use.
The first and most basic sort of proof is the deductive argument, Here is an example of my version of the cosmlogocal argumemt whichI use all the time:
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.
Philosopher Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) put forth a modern formulation of the cosmological argument:
Philosopher Samuel Clarke put forth a modern formulation of the cosmological argument taking a slightly different path than Aquinas’s famous cosmological argument. But like Aquinas, Clarke adopts the premise that all beings that we encounter must have causes. Contrary to Aquinas, Clarke differentiates between contingent and necessary beings. The contrast he draws is such that if a being owes it’s existence to a cause then it is dependent; otherwise it is independent. Our experience shows us that there are chains of dependent beings, but, as Clarke points out, they must either (1) be caused by a necessary being or (2) be an aspect of an infinite continuation of contingent beings which, as Clarke explains, either begins with a necessary/independent being or is part of an infinite series which exhausts the possible logical origins for any continuation of beings.[2]"Samuel Clarke (1675–1729) was the most influential British metaphysician and theologian in the generation between Locke and Berkeley," [3]
William Rowe tried to strngthen the argument but concluded it was only as strog as the principle of sufficent reason.......[4]
Atheists used to argue with this and when thy did that they would question the big about necessety and contingency.I think we pulled that finaly becauseit;s part of logic. Now atheists on facebook jut don't even botherto argue they merely avoid it. They do actually claim that such argumets are not evidence.
1- "The only sufficient evidence would be for God to be directly shown to me." This suggests that experiencing a direct, personal encounter with God would be the most compelling evidence. However, this is impossible since most religious conceptions of God consider Him to be a transcendent, supernatural being beyond direct sensory perception. r/DebateAnAtheist[5]
My argumemt avoids the pit falls of Clareeke's becasueI don't argumemtall things need causessI just assert things exist then discus necesssity and contingecy/
Search instead for deductive logioc is proof
"Definition: Proof by Deduction. Proof by deduction (or deductive proof) starts from a known fact or definition and then proceeds in a series of logically justified steps until it reaches a final conclusion. Proof by deduction is the most common type of proof."
Lesson Explainer: Mathematical Logic and Proof - Nagwa
Nagwa
https://www.nagwa.com › explainers
Trascendental signifer argumemt:
The argument
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. OP's summed up in TS
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).
[6]Read more about this argument
Necessity and contingency lie at the base of our modern understanding of cause and effect. They come from scholastic notions of logic, but the distinction between the notion our modern notions of c/e and the scholastic ones in the middle ages is not that great. The scholastic had more levels of cause, efficient cause, final cause and several others. But one could everything we have done in modern science using the scholastic ideas of c/e.
Necessity doesn't mean has to exist. It doesn't mean God is necessary to the existence of the world (except in so far as if God exists then of closure God is necessary to the world as creator--without God there would be no world).The modal argument does not begin with the assumption that God has to exist. It begins with the assumption that there is a valid distinction between necessity and contingency, which there must be.It proceeds along the lines of hypothetical consequence that obtain from different scenarios of God's existence. It concludes that is necessary. But by "necessary" it means not contingent, or not dependent upon something else for its' existence.
This is often misconstrued by atheists and taken to mean the argument proceeds from God's existence as an assumed first premise. This is not the case, the first premise is either/or. Either God's existence is necessary or it is impossible. This allows for the possibility that there is no God. So the argument does not begin by "defining God into existence."
Necessity essentially not contingent, it also coneys the idea of he can;'t cease or fail to exist, stemming from his eternal nature
. Contingent means the opposite: that a thing is dependent upon a prior thing for existence, or that it could cease or fail to exist.
Impossible means logically impossible, something in the structure of the idea contradictions, such as square circles.
one of the sore spots that atheists get stuck on is the idea that God cannot be contingent. They will always leap to the conclusion that this is defining God into existence, because they don't understand the concept of God. God, by the nature of the concept, carriers certain parameters just as the existence of any human assumes humanity, or the existence of any tree assumes that the tree in question is a plant. To have to define that God is not contingent should not even come into it. The idea of God is that of eternal creator of all things. Thus God cannot cease to exits and cannot be dependent upon anything (or he wouldn't be the creator of all things). Atheists usually assume that all knowledge has to be empirical. they will argue this is defining God into existence. maybe God is contingent.
Argument:
Close to Hartshorne's version
1. God is either necessary or impossible.
2. God can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. God is not impossible.
5. God's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If God is necessary, then God exists.
7. Belief in God's existence is warranted
[7]read more
Argument from laws of nature
The argument:
1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against it's dependability.
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations.
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.
[8]Read all about it
NOTES
[1]Dana,"How can there be no evidence for god if atheists can't define evidence?"Debate an atheist, 2023, https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/17e5gk3/how_can_there_be_no_evidence_for_god_if_atheists/
[2]Student Written Essay, "Samuel Clarkes Cosmological Argument"UKEssay experts 37 August 2021, UKEssays. (November 2018). Samuel Clarkes Cosmological Argument. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/samuel-clarkes-cosmological-argument-its-critique-philosophy-essay.php?vref=1
[3]Stanford Ecyclopedia of Philosophy, Samuel Clarke, April 2003, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/clarke/
[4] UKEssays.op cit
[5]DebateAnAtheist, op cit
[6] https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html
[7]https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2010/08/modal-argument.html
[8]https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/05/argument-from-laws-of-nature.html
37 comments:
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.
Statement 2: Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently, or it exists as a brute fact.
Statement 4: Therefore, there exists at least thing that is not contingent. It may be a necessary thing or a brute fact.
Statement 6: The substrate of physical reality (from which the universe is spawned) exists as a brute fact.
Statement 7: Nothing in this argument proves the existence of God, or any other necessary thing.
So the question arises: what is this substrate of physical reality? You may be quick to reply "It is God." But if that's what you want to call it, you should be aware that it apparently has no intelligence, no intent, no ultimate goal. We observe that matter spawns from nothingness, and usually returns to nothingness, but not always. The James Webb telescope has revealed interesting information that appears to confirm the spawning of matter that can't be attributed to a single "big bang" event. And whatever happens in our universe (like the evolution of intelligent creatures) is strictly accidental. So is this substrate of physical reality what you call God? Perhaps. It seems to be what Einstein called God. But his God is nothing like your God. It is nature itself.
Statement 2: Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently, or it exists as a brute fact.
Statement 4: Therefore, there exists at least thing that is not contingent. It may be a necessary thing or a brute fact.
Statement 6: The substrate of physical reality (from which the universe is spawned) exists as a brute fact.
Statement 7: Nothing in this argument proves the existence of God, or any other necessary thing.
a thing is either necessary or contingent. Brute facticity does not change that. Brute facts tend to be contingent.
So the question arises: what is this substrate of physical reality? You may be quick to reply "It is God." But if that's what you want to call it, you should be aware that it apparently has no intelligence, no intent, no ultimate goal. We observe that matter spawns from nothingness, and usually returns to nothingness, but not always.
No we don't sorry no ever observes that, this is not a fact it's an assertion. No one ever observed real nothingness it's not something you can see.
The James Webb telescope has revealed interesting information that appears to confirm the spawning of matter that can't be attributed to a single "big bang" event. And whatever happens in our universe (like the evolution of intelligent creatures) is strictly accidental. So is this substrate of physical reality what you call God? Perhaps. It seems to be what Einstein called God. But his God is nothing like your God. It is nature itself.
that is not proof that it's coming from nothing.
"a thing is either necessary or contingent."
- According to you. It's not contingent if it has always been, and it's not necessary if it doesn't have to be. I think your ontology ignores physical reality.
"No we don't sorry no ever observes that, this is not a fact it's an assertion. No one ever observed real nothingness it's not something you can see."
- What we observe is that things come into existence where there wasn't anything there before. You may object that that's not really nothingness. Fine. Call it what you like. It is the substrate of physical reality.
"that is not proof that it's coming from nothing."
- I didn't say I was proving anything like you claimed to be proving God. I'm just telling you what we see. Something where there was nothing.
Joe: We all know atheists claim there's no evidence for God, It's their no 1 mantra.
i would say there is evidence, but it is very poor. The Bible is evidence, but it can be more readily explained other ways.
There is certainly not enough evidence to warrant certainty!
Joe: 1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.
Number 2 is a false dichotomy. Something could exist spontaneously. We see spontaneous events in quantum mechanics, so we have some sort of precedent.
Number 5 assumes the conclusion you want to arrive at. No reason to suppose a necessarily thing should be intelligent or conscious.
Pix
Pix always does such a wonderful job in exposing Christian apologist liars for what they are: frauds. Metacrapper never stood a chance in the first place. One of the biggest problems for Christians is the concept of an eternal heaven. Hpw would that even work? That would certainly become boring, uninteresting, and purposeless after awhile. From there shines lights from nihilism, which proves Christianity to be a contradiction because it posts life as having meaning.
im-skeptical said...
"a thing is either necessary or contingent."
- According to you. It's not contingent if it has always been, and it's not necessary if it doesn't have to be. I think your ontology ignores physical reality.
It's not contingent if it has always been, I essentially said that, I agree with it. The world we live in has not always been. The universe has not always been, God is the only thing I know that has always been.
Me:"No we don't sorry no ever observes that, this is not a fact it's an assertion. No one ever observed real nothingness it's not something you can see."
My friend Skep:- What we observe is that things come into existence where there wasn't anything there before. You may object that that's not really nothingness. Fine. Call it what you like. It is the substrate of physical reality.
I agree things come into existence. The entire material universe came into existence. That doesn't prove it came unbidden with no prior cause it doesn't prove it came from nothing. Even if we don't see what it came from no reason to think it came from real absolute nothing. Science doesn't think it did because they chalk it up to subatomic world
Me:"that is not proof that it's coming from nothing."
Him:- I didn't say I was proving anything like you claimed to be proving God. I'm just telling you what we see. Something where there was nothing.
I don't claim to prove God, I really think proof is that easy to come buy, it's mostly connected to thigs that are stipulated as true such as mathematics. And Whisky (Proof). I don't shoot for proving God exists but to warrant belief. Warrant to me means basically a good reason to think so.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: We all know atheists claim there's no evidence for God, It's their no 1 mantra.
i would say there is evidence, but it is very poor. The Bible is evidence, but it can be more readily explained other ways.
There is certainly not enough evidence to warrant certainty!
You may be missing the key element: experience of God's presence. The intellectual stuff offers' theoretical justification but the only empirical corroboration is the sense of God's presence. The 2oo studies prove that is real. It's not a trick of the mind it's not pathological it is a real thing. Whatever it is. There is a force or being or some reality such that we experience presence of something beyond ourselves. All of that only comes together when we assume it's God and respond accordingly.
Joe: 1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.
Number 2 is a false dichotomy. Something could exist spontaneously. We see spontaneous events in quantum mechanics, so we have some sort of precedent.
There is no proof of anything that just popped into existence, as I say, "unbidden." That is for no reason with no cause, we do not see that in subatomic particles. What we see is a thetical propaganda that defines what we are looking at in that way.
Number 5 assumes the conclusion you want to arrive at.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.' No it does not assume a conclusion I want to arraive atm it is the conclusion I have proven with the first four steps,
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
No reason to suppose a necessarily thing should be intelligent or conscious.
you have disproved any of the premieres there the conclusion is justified. you are trying to circumvent deductive reasoning.
Pix
George: Pix always does such a wonderful job in exposing Christian apologist liars for what they are: frauds.
what did I lie about?
Metacrapper never stood a chance in the first place. One of the biggest problems for Christians is the concept of an eternal heaven. Hpw would that even work? That would certainly become boring, uninteresting, and purposeless after awhile.
Hey no problem, you don't have to worry about heave you wont be there, the problem is I said nothing about heaven you can't reason your way out of a paper bag so rather than talk about what I said you talk about your all purpose excuse. It is lame, Sait Pete ad the boys will be laughing about that one for a couple of million years. He refused to go to heaven did he think hell would-be s great? Di you give up the Chance to know the power that created the universe the sum of all good and all truth for what? you can spend eternity with killers and rapists and child molesters, Iterating choice!
From there shines lights from nihilism, which proves Christianity to be a contradiction because it posts life as having meaning.
show me one Einstein
Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
"In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[2] as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons, W and Z fields which carry the weak force, and gluon fields which carry the strong force.{"[3]
Pagels, Heinz R. (2012). The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature. Courier Corp. pp. 274–278. ISBN 9780486287324.
That is what we are talking abut we speak of something from nothing, it's not real nothing, it's prior exiting particles which leads us to ask where did they come from?
Hey George, Heaven isn't some mindless place where people just float around for eternity.
Look up the book Heaven by Randy Alcorn (J.P. Holding talked about it). Heaven is a place where the people that made it will have work to do.
Also, what's wrong with meaning? This is why Mark Passio rips on Atheism so much. It creates a culture where people don't care about anything. The words "I don't care" is making this world into a prison.
Joe: You may be missing the key element: experience of God's presence. The intellectual stuff offers' theoretical justification but the only empirical corroboration is the sense of God's presence. The 2oo studies prove that is real. It's not a trick of the mind it's not pathological it is a real thing. Whatever it is. There is a force or being or some reality such that we experience presence of something beyond ourselves. All of that only comes together when we assume it's God and respond accordingly.
Fair comment, I did miss that, and I do agree it is evidence. However, again, I think it is evidence that can be explained other ways, so it is not convincing evidence.
Joe: There is no proof of anything that just popped into existence, as I say, "unbidden." That is for no reason with no cause, we do not see that in subatomic particles. What we see is a thetical propaganda that defines what we are looking at in that way.
There is also no proof of anything that is necessary. What we see is theist propaganda.
The reality is that we do not know.
Joe: 5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.' No it does not assume a conclusion I want to arraive atm it is the conclusion I have proven with the first four steps,
All you can deduce about your necessary thing is... that is is necessary. Unless you are broadening the definition of God wildly, that does not make the necessary thing necessarily God, who has certain characteristics such as intelligence and consciousness.
Pix
hey JAB good comments, thanks!
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: You may be missing the key element: experience of God's presence. The intellectual stuff offers' theoretical justification but the only empirical corroboration is the sense of God's presence. The 2oo studies prove that is real. It's not a trick of the mind it's not pathological it is a real thing. Whatever it is. There is a force or being or some reality such that we experience presence of something beyond ourselves. All of that only comes together when we assume it's God and respond accordingly.
Fair comment, I did miss that, and I do agree it is evidence. However, again, I think it is evidence that can be explained other ways, so it is not convincing evidence.
you need to read my first book the Trace of God.I dealt with that question extensively I think you can't explain the effects of RE through naturalistic observations or assumptions,
Joe: There is no proof of anything that just popped into existence, as I say, "unbidden." That is for no reason with no cause, we do not see that in subatomic particles. What we see is a thetical propaganda that defines what we are looking at in that way.
There is also no proof of anything that is necessary. What we see is theist propaganda.
Yes there is. It depends on what kind of necedity, We have to have necessities to have contingencies
The reality is that we do not know.
I know
Joe: 5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.' No it does not assume a conclusion I want to arraive atm it is the conclusion I have proven with the first four steps,
All you can deduce about your necessary thing is... that is is necessary. Unless you are broadening the definition of God wildly, that does not make the necessary thing necessarily God, who has certain characteristics such as intelligence and consciousness.
You do know when I say "God" I don't mean a big guy with a bread that sits on a throne. Saying that God has intelligence and consciousness is just another way of saying God knows and cares. That's reapable given what God has done in my life you just don't get it, God is in my life. He's still God meaning he; beyond my understanding. But he is a reality.
Joe: Yes there is. It depends on what kind of necedity,
So prove the existence of something that is necessary.
See if you can do it in a way that does not make your argument circular.
Joe: We have to have necessities to have contingencies
No we do not. We could have spontaneous things.
Joe: You do know when I say "God" I don't mean a big guy with a bread that sits on a throne.
I never said otherwise.
Joe: Saying that God has intelligence and consciousness is just another way of saying God knows and cares. That's reapable given what God has done in my life you just don't get it, God is in my life. He's still God meaning he; beyond my understanding. But he is a reality.
You are missing the point. Your logic jumps from something that is necessary to God. That jump is not justified by your argument. What you have is a somewhat dubious argument for a necessary thing that might be God. You assume the necessary thing is God because that is the conclusion you want to arrive at.
Pix
"The universe has not always been, God is the only thing I know that has always been."
- You don't really know that. But whatever it is that I call the substrate of physical reality has always been. It was there before the spawning of the universe (which includes space-time). Since time is part of our universe, there was never a time when that reality didn't exist. And as recent observations indicate, the spawning process is not a single event (the one and only big bang). So it really does appear that the spawning of universes is eternal. But that does not tell us that any kind of consciousness is involved.
"The entire material universe came into existence. That doesn't prove it came unbidden with no prior cause it doesn't prove it came from nothing."
- It comes from the so-called "quantum vacuum", or what I call the "substrate of physical reality". Do you know what 'vacuum' means? It is nothingness. We can argue endlessly about whether it is something or it is nothing. But that doesn't matter. It's what gives rise to the universe. Furthermore, the event that started the "big bang" is postulated to be a quantum event leading to cosmic inflation. And there is no triggering cause for quantum events. They happen spontaneously. So we can't say that there is any "cause" of the universe.
"I don't claim to prove God, I really think proof is that easy to come buy, it's mostly connected to thigs that are stipulated as true such as mathematics. And Whisky (Proof). I don't shoot for proving God exists but to warrant belief. Warrant to me means basically a good reason to think so."
- But what you presented was a logical syllogism, ending with the conclusion "Therefore God exists." If the logic is valid and the assumptions are sound, that purports to be "proof". And then you go on to present multiple such arguments, each of which is an attempt to prove the existence of God by logical means. So by saying you are not proving God, it appears that you are allowing for the possibility that your starting assumptions are subject to question. That is reasonable, and I congratulate you for that. And questioning those assumptions is what I am doing.
You have an email
Do you think Luke was traveling to Penny to Paul
Anonymous said...
Joe: Yes there is. It depends on what kind of necedity,
So prove the existence of something that is necessary.
See if you can do it in a way that does not make your argument circular.
Joe: We have to have necessities to have contingencies
No we do not. We could have spontaneous things.
Yes we do by definition, that's why it is called contingent it hangs upon the prior existence of something necessary to it's existence like cause and effect. The only absolute necessity is God. All other necessities are also contingencies in a snese because they have prior causes.
Joe: You do know when I say "God" I don't mean a big guy with a bread that sits on a throne.
I never said otherwise.
Ok
Joe: Saying that God has intelligence and consciousness is just another way of saying God knows and cares. That's reapable given what God has done in my life you just don't get it, God is in my life. He's still God meaning he; beyond my understanding. But he is a reality.
You are missing the point. Your logic jumps from something that is necessary to God. That jump is not justified by your argument. What you have is a somewhat dubious argument for a necessary thing that might be God. You assume the necessary thing is God because that is the conclusion you want to arrive at.
No speaking of God as an abstract concept weather true or not, conceptually God is the only totally necessary thing. So nothing I point to in nature will be absolute necessity. Given that I can to tons of necessary things. At that point it becomes an argumenta for final cause or first cause.
4:53 AM
im-skeptical said...
"The universe has not always been, God is the only thing I know that has always been."
- You don't really know that. But whatever it is that I call the substrate of physical reality has always been. It was there before the spawning of the universe (which includes space-time). Since time is part of our universe, there was never a time when that reality didn't exist.
That contradicts modern physics which defines time as beginning with the big bang.
there is no substrate that includes time, They don't talk about prior to Big Bang that is closed to our knowledge.
And as recent observations indicate, the spawning process is not a single event (the one and only big bang). So it really does appear that the spawning of universes is eternal. But that does not tell us that any kind of consciousness is involved.
That is totally theoretical. No empirical evidence backs it. The assumption is no God so it' not proof of no God it assumes no God because it writes God out of the script.
"The entire material universe came into existence. That doesn't prove it came unbidden with no prior cause it doesn't prove it came from nothing."
- It comes from the so-called "quantum vacuum", or what I call the "substrate of physical reality". Do you know what 'vacuum' means? It is nothingness.
No that is misleading because it's not nothing it's subatomic particles you still have to account for them, where did they come from? we don't have pictures it's all theory.
We can argue endlessly about whether it is something or it is nothing. But that doesn't matter. It's what gives rise to the universe. Furthermore, the event that started the "big bang" is postulated to be a quantum event leading to cosmic inflation. And there is no triggering cause for quantum events. They happen spontaneously. So we can't say that there is any "cause" of the universe.
You think the subatomic answers the questions and proves we don't need God it' Proves the opposite, the universe did not pop it was emergent from a flux we don't know hpw that came to be, logic suggests it's not something from noting it's not ICR.
"I don't claim to prove God, I really think proof is that easy to come buy, it's mostly connected to thigs that are stipulated as true such as mathematics. And Whisky (Proof). I don't shoot for proving God exists but to warrant belief. Warrant to me means basically a good reason to think so."
- But what you presented was a logical syllogism, ending with the conclusion "Therefore God exists." If the logic is valid and the assumptions are sound, that purports to be "proof". And then you go on to present multiple such arguments, each of which is an attempt to prove the existence of God by logical means. So by saying you are not proving God, it appears that you are allowing for the possibility that your starting assumptions are subject to question. That is reasonable, and I congratulate you for that. And questioning those assumptions is what I am doing.
there is always an epitemic gap,for example no emprical evidence, so it still tked faith
Joe: Yes we do by definition, that's why it is called contingent it hangs upon the prior existence of something necessary to it's existence like cause and effect. The only absolute necessity is God. All other necessities are also contingencies in a snese because they have prior causes.
A contingent thing could depend on a spontaneous thing, so no we do not have good reason to think there actually is a necessary thing.
Joe: No speaking of God as an abstract concept weather true or not, conceptually God is the only totally necessary thing. So nothing I point to in nature will be absolute necessity. Given that I can to tons of necessary things. At that point it becomes an argumenta for final cause or first cause.
This is just bad logic. If God exists, then he must be the necessary thing, but the reverse does not apply. If there is a necessary thing, it may or may not be God.
Joe: That contradicts modern physics which defines time as beginning with the big bang.
Modern physics only says the universe started to rapidly expand at the Big Bang. We do not know what happened, if anything, before the Big Bang because our models break down at that point (i.e. the approximations become wildly wrong).
Joe: there is no substrate that includes time,
Yes there is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Joe: They don't talk about prior to Big Bang that is closed to our knowledge.
Exactly!
Joe: That is totally theoretical. No empirical evidence backs it. The assumption is no God so it' not proof of no God it assumes no God because it writes God out of the script.
It does exactly what you are doing. You have no emprirical evidence. You assume God.
Joe: No that is misleading because it's not nothing it's subatomic particles you still have to account for them, where did they come from? we don't have pictures it's all theory.
It is sub-atomic particles appearing and disappear spontaneously.
Joe: You think the subatomic answers the questions and proves we don't need God it' Proves the opposite, the universe did not pop it was emergent from a flux we don't know hpw that came to be, logic suggests it's not something from noting it's not ICR.
Maybe the flux is the necessary thing.
Pix
Joe: Yes we do by definition, that's why it is called contingent it hangs upon the prior existence of something necessary to it's existence like cause and effect. The only absolute necessity is God. All other necessities are also contingencies in a snese because they have prior causes.
70you are trying make law of physics where one does not exist. Even spontaneous effects need causes,
A contingent thing could depend on a spontaneous thing, so no we do not have good reason to think there actually is a necessary thing.
spontaneous case is necessary to it's effects.
Joe: No speaking of God as an abstract concept weather true or not, conceptually God is the only totally necessary thing. So nothing I point to in nature will be absolute necessity. Given that I can point to tons of necessary things. At that point it becomes an argumenta for final cause or first cause.
This is just bad logic. If God exists, then he must be the necessary thing, but the reverse does not apply. If there is a necessary thing, it may or may not be God.
Your logic is ideology, theriacal things that exit can be theoretically necessary, everything must have a necessity upon which it is continent, o there must be one necessary thing that pins the whole,
Joe: That contradicts modern physics which defines time as beginning with the big bang.
Modern physics only says the universe started to rapidly expand at the Big Bang. We do not know what happened, if anything, before the Big Bang because our models break down at that point (i.e. the approximations become wildly wrong).
what they call thestandard modek says times beginswithteh bug bang.
Joe: there is no substrate that includes time,
Yes there is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Joe: They don't talk about prior to Big Bang that is closed to our knowledge.
google> "How do scientists explain the beginning of time?
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."
Exactly!
Joe: That is totally theoretical. No empirical evidence backs it. The assumption is no God so it' not proof of no God it assumes no God because it writes God out of the script.
It does exactly what you are doing. You have no emprirical evidence. You assume God.
Joe: No that is misleading because it's not nothing it's subatomic particles you still have to account for them, where did they come from? we don't have pictures it's all theory.
It is sub-atomic particles appearing and disappear spontaneously.
no the particle thatcombinedtimai ciurtuaparticles ncombien theyy do'tcease toexist.
Joe: You think the subatomic answers the questions and proves we don't need God it' Proves the opposite, the universe did not pop it was emergent from a flux we don't know hpw that came to be, logic suggests it's not something from noting it's not ICR.
Maybe the flux is the necessary thing.
maybe the flux is God
Joe: 70you are trying make law of physics where one does not exist.
Where is the law of physics that says God exists? Oh, right, you are making that one up, just like me.
You just do not like it when I do that.
Joe: Even spontaneous effects need causes,
No it does not. That is what spontaneous means.
Joe: spontaneous case is necessary to it's effects.
What does that mean? Any cause is necessary to its effects?
Joe: Your logic is ideology,
Just like you, Joe. Read your blog post!
Joe: theriacal things that exit can be theoretically necessary
Yes, theoretical things can be necessary. But that does not mean they actually exist.
Joe: everything must have a necessity upon which it is continent, o there must be one necessary thing that pins the whole,
Things could have a spontaneous thing upon which they are ultimately contingent.
Joe: what they call thestandard modek says times beginswithteh bug bang.
But it is just a model, and we know it is an approximation that fails in some circumstances.
Joe: no the particle thatcombinedtimai ciurtuaparticles ncombien theyy do'tcease toexist.
Sure, but they provide a precedent. We know that somethings happen spontaneously. That helps support the case that the universe happened spontaneously, even if it was via a very different process.
Joe: maybe the flux is God
Only if your broaden your definition of God so wide it no longer actually means anything.
Pix
"That contradicts modern physics which defines time as beginning with the big bang. "
- That's what I said (the universe includes space-time). Time and space began with the big bang. So there was never a time when the substrate didn't exist. Therefore, it is eternal.
"They don't talk about prior to Big Bang that is closed to our knowledge."
- Wrong. They do talk about what came before the big bang. But it can't be in temporal terms with respect to our own space-time. In other words, they can't talk about a time before the big bang, because there was no time. But they do talk about what might have happened before. It's hard to grasp because it defies our intuitive notion of time. But that's no different from you saying there was a God who created the universe, and that God must have been around before there was space-time.
"That is totally theoretical. No empirical evidence backs it. The assumption is no God so it' not proof of no God it assumes no God because it writes God out of the script."
- You aren't hearing what I said. I said nothing about proving or disproving God. I said there is no reason to think that the spawning of the universe was a purposeful act.
"No that is misleading because it's not nothing it's subatomic particles you still have to account for them, where did they come from? we don't have pictures it's all theory."
- Wrong. The word 'vacuum' does have meaning. And it's not subatomic particles. That happens to be what comes into existence where there were none before. This happens in a vacuum. And yes, that is what we observe.
"the universe did not pop it was emergent from a flux we don't know hpw that came to be"
- The 'flux' is a disturbance in the vacuum that gives rise to the existence of particles (and other quantum events). It has no cause. It is spontaneous. This vacuum is what I call the substrate of physical reality. This vacuum didn't "come to be". It was always there, just the same as you think God's existence is eternal. But the vacuum isn't a "thing" that had to be created. It is literally nothingness. It is what there is before anything is created. And nothingness is unstable, as your favorite astro-physicist Stenger has noted.
"maybe the flux is God"
- Maybe the flux is nature. It is purely random. It doesn't care about anything.
Anonymous said...
Joe: 70you are trying make law of physics where one does not exist.
Where is the law of physics that says God exists? Oh, right, you are making that one up, just like me.
We deduce God's existence from nature and from logic.
You just do not like it when I do that.
No one does I'k the one who is opem about it, I'm kidding of coures
Joe: Even spontaneous effects need causes,
No it does not. That is what spontaneous means.
No it can be used in different ways the way use it is contradicts what we know about cause/effect,
Joe: spontaneous case is necessary to it's effects.
What does that mean? Any cause is necessary to its effects?
Joe: Your logic is ideology,
Just like you, Joe. Read your blog post!
Joe: theriacal things that exit can be theoretically necessary
Yes, theoretical things can be necessary. But that does not mean they actually exist.
some do, there ust at least one necessary thing. I think we have lost the thread of the discussion, I want to deduce God from things we know exist such as laws of nature. But you think that means I'm making stuff up, you are making stuff up because you want to change those things from which I deduce God so I can't so we can' any more and so you wont have to do it..
Joe: everything must have a necessity upon which it is continent, o there must be one necessary thing that pins the whole,
Things could have a spontaneous thing upon which they are ultimately contingent.
Again spontaneous does not meab pop into existence of nothing with no cause.
Joe: what they call the standard model says time begins with the big bang.
But it is just a model, and we know it is an approximation that fails in some circumstances.
the only model with empirical backing, researchers in astro physics do it treat begging of time as some way out thig no one believes,they are quite serious about it.
Joe: no the particle thatcombinedtimai ciurtuaparticles ncombien theyy do'tcease toexist.
Sure, but they provide a precedent. We know that somethings happen spontaneously. That helps support the case that the universe happened spontaneously, even if it was via a very different process.
Joe: maybe the flux is God
Only if your broaden your definition of God so wide it no longer actually means anything.
Pix
God is more logical as an answer. nature has to have a cause that just puts us back at sqaute one again,
im-skeptical said...
"That contradicts modern physics which defines time as beginning with the big bang. "
- That's what I said (the universe includes space-time). Time and space began with the big bang. So there was never a time when the substrate didn't exist. Therefore, it is eternal.
Aside from the linguistic problem of time before time if you say space/time has a beginning by definition you are saying there is a point beyond which there is no space/time.It comes to exist it needs a cause.
"They don't talk about prior to Big Bang that is closed to our knowledge."
- Wrong. They do talk about what came before the big bang.
Yes some do I should have been clearer, Even though that is talked about as theoretical passivity most of the time they sort of just stick with the beging and don't try impose laws of regularity from beyond the beginning.
But it can't be in temporal terms with respect to our own space-time. In other words, they can't talk about a time before the big bang, because there was no time. But they do talk about what might have happened before.
It's hard to grasp because it defies our intuitive notion of time. But that's no different from you saying there was a God who created the universe, and that God must have been around before there was space-time.
agreed. they put it in special terms rather than temporal; not before the bigging but beyond event horizon.
"That is totally theoretical. No empirical evidence backs it. The assumption is no God so it' not proof of no God it assumes no God because it writes God out of the script."
- You aren't hearing what I said. I said nothing about proving or disproving God. I said there is no reason to think that the spawning of the universe was a purposeful act.
o yes there are several. There's no proof tht an accident could produce a universe. The FTA implies a purpose in creation. The regularity of physical law.
Joe: We deduce God's existence from nature and from logic.
Right, and I deduce a spontaneous event exactly the same way.
Joe: No it can be used in different ways the way use it is contradicts what we know about cause/effect,
Fairly obviously I am using it to mean something happening with no cause.
Joe: some do, there ust at least one necessary thing.
There might be, but we do not know there. There could be one spontaneous thing instead. We do not know.
Joe: I think we have lost the thread of the discussion, I want to deduce God from things we know exist such as laws of nature. But you think that means I'm making stuff up, you are making stuff up because you want to change those things from which I deduce God so I can't so we can' any more and so you wont have to do it..
You want to deduce God. That is clear.
Unfortunately, your logic fails to do that, because one other possibility that is just as valid is a spontaneous thing.
Joe: Again spontaneous does not meab pop into existence of nothing with no cause.
In the context of this argument, it means exactly that.
Joe: the only model with empirical backing, researchers in astro physics do it treat begging of time as some way out thig no one believes,they are quite serious about it.
There is also empirical proof that it is wrong! It is the best model we have, but we know it fails in some situations, and the Big Bang is one such situation.
Joe: Aside from the linguistic problem of time before time if you say space/time has a beginning by definition you are saying there is a point beyond which there is no space/time.It comes to exist it needs a cause.
Or it was spontaneous.
Joe: Yes some do I should have been clearer, Even though that is talked about as theoretical passivity most of the time they sort of just stick with the beging and don't try impose laws of regularity from beyond the beginning.
Joe, the whole point of your blog post was that there was something before the Big Bang!
Joe: o yes there are several. There's no proof tht an accident could produce a universe.
And no proof God could.
Joe: The FTA implies a purpose in creation.
Or a multiverse. Or something else even more bizarre. We just have no way to tell.
Joe: The regularity of physical law.
We have no idea why physical laws should be regular. To my mind, irregular physical laws would be more indicative of an intelligent being; they tend to more capricious.
Pix
"Aside from the linguistic problem of time before time if you say space/time has a beginning by definition you are saying there is a point beyond which there is no space/time."
- I did not say thee was a time before time - certainly not from our perspective. Einstein proved that time is a relative thing. Our only perspective is the inertial frame that we inhabit. But if you go outside that, you have a different perspective. If you're not part of our universe, you might have a perspective where you can see a series of events that includes the creation of our space-time.
"It comes to exist it needs a cause."
- Not necessarily. Quantum events have no apparent cause. They are spontaneous.
"agreed. they put it in special terms rather than temporal; not before the bigging but beyond event horizon."
- Yes - it's beyond our event horizon. But as I said, not necessarily beyond any possible event horizon.
"There's no proof tht an accident could produce a universe. The FTA implies a purpose in creation. The regularity of physical law."
- There's no proof that it can't. Furthermore, there's no evidence to support purposeful creation. Everything we observe is consistent with a lack of purpose. (You can disagree with that, if that's how your belief motivates you, but I'm talking about real objective evidence.) And I don't know what an FTA is, but regularity of physical law does nothing to make the case that nature is purposeful. It's a strange argument, because we often hear religious people (including you) claiming that miracles (violation of the regularity of physical laws) are evidence of God. It kind of sounds as if you are grasping at any reason to believe.
We have no idea why physical laws should be regular. To my mind, irregular physical laws would be more indicative of an intelligent being; they tend to more capricious.
Ridiculous, Thats like saying random chance is more in keeping with mined than orderliness that is absurd. You walk upon a junk yard with trash tossed pall mall ad you assert iti panned, You see a chess game yousay this gme works by random change
Blogger im-skeptical said...
"Aside from the linguistic problem of time before time if you say space/time has a beginning by definition you are saying there is a point beyond which there is no space/time."
- I did not say thee was a time before time - certainly not from our perspective.
that was not a criticism of you I was just introducing speaking of space/time in terms of physical space rather than temporally.
Einstein proved that time is a relative thing. Our only perspective is the inertial frame that we inhabit. But if you go outside that, you have a different perspective. If you're not part of our universe, you might have a perspective where you can see a series of events that includes the creation of our space-time.
that doesn't give us something from nothing
"It comes to exist it needs a cause."
- Not necessarily. Quantum events have no apparent cause. They are spontaneous.
quantum events need causes. that's what flux is
"agreed. they put it in special terms rather than temporal; not before the bigging but beyond event horizon."
- Yes - it's beyond our event horizon. But as I said, not necessarily beyond any possible event horizon.
That doesn't answer the issue it's conhecture.
"There's no proof tht an accident could produce a universe. The FTA implies a purpose in creation. The regularity of physical law."
- There's no proof that it can't. Furthermore, there's no evidence to support purposeful creation. Everything we observe is consistent with a lack of purpose.
Yes, fine tuning, orderliness those are predicts of mind.
(You can disagree with that, if that's how your belief motivates you, but I'm talking about real objective evidence.) And I don't know what an FTA is,FTA = fine tuning argument
but regularity of physical law does nothing to make the case that nature is purposeful.
Yes it dose. fine tuning doesn't work as a product of random chance, since odds are against life having life's an indication of a palmed universe.
It's a strange argument, because we often hear religious people (including you) claiming that miracles (violation of the regularity of physical laws) are evidence of God. It kind of sounds as if you are grasping at any reason to believe.
everything God does is bot a miracle. fine tuning is not a miracle. It's God influencing a natural process.
I'm a Christian struggling with my faith I've watched a video that bothered me can I ask you to respond to it please
Could you respond to this https://web.archive.org/web/20200327134453/http://palpatinesway.blogspot.com/2020/03/physics-apparently-refutes-bodily.html
"I was just introducing speaking of space/time in terms of physical space rather than temporally."
- They can't be separated. It's a package deal, because time is intimately related to space, and particularly, movement in space.
"that doesn't give us something from nothing"
- Quantum mechanics does: something where there was nothing. And you can insist the vacuum is something. But it's devoid of any detectable thing.
"quantum events need causes. that's what flux is"
- The vacuum flux is hypothetical. It's a disturbance in the vacuum that is postulated to explain quantum events. And it has no cause.
"That doesn't answer the issue it's conhecture."
- No more conjecture than saying God did it.
"fine tuning, orderliness those are predicts of mind."
- Nope. There is nothing fine tuned about our universe. And orderliness is a product of thermodynamics. To be a little more clear, nature seeks to dissipate energy (increase entropy). The end result is disorder. But the process of dissipating energy is assisted by localized entropy reduction. Orderly structures (localized low entropy) are natural energy dissipates. Think of stars. Biological structures are the same. They are energy dissipates.
"Yes it dose. fine tuning doesn't work as a product of random chance, since odds are against life having life's an indication of a palmed universe."
- That's a religious argument, that assumes a conscious designer. The odds of life forming are much greater than you are willing to believe.
"everything God does is bot a miracle. fine tuning is not a miracle. It's God influencing a natural process."
- So regularity is a sign of God. And irregularity is a sign of God. Got it. For you, anything can be seen as a sign of God.
Joe: Ridiculous, Thats like saying random chance is more in keeping with mined than orderliness that is absurd.
People are neither random nor ordered. If something is perfectly ordered, it is unlikely to me because a person is doing it. If something is random, it is unlikely to be because someone is doing it.
Joe: You walk upon a junk yard with trash tossed pall mall ad you assert iti panned, You see a chess game yousay this gme works by random change
We can see processes in nature that lead to perfect ordering, for example in crustal formation. We see things in nature that are random, such as radioactive decay.
Joe: quantum events need causes. that's what flux is
If that is the case, then the flux is necessary. But that is surely not God!
Pix
"It's God influencing a natural process."
- An additional thought: It it's influenced by God, you are implying that the laws of physics alone wouldn't produce the same result. Therefore, it must be a miracle of some kind. But there is absolutely no reason to think that's the case.
Post a Comment