The Universe and Invoking God(s)

[KrazyGlue]

It was you who made the claim that only science concludes truth.

Really? Quote me where I said this.

Why is it atheists never take God arguments and refute them.

You made the claim, so find a particular God argument and show why it's faulty.

I'm making the claim that they're unfalsifiable! So how am I supposed to prove they're faulty? The whole point of my argument is that doing such a thing is impossible!

And secondly, name a prominent God argument that conflicts with God.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this. Could you clarify please?

 

[Deleted member]

It was you who made the claim that only science concludes truth.

Why is it atheists never take God arguments and refute them.

You made the claim, so find a particular God argument and show why it's faulty.

And secondly, name a prominent God argument that conflicts with God.

I asked this before (but I think it got lost in the sea of other posts), but could you explain your argument for the existence of god? It is very difficult to argue for or against these claims if we don't know what they are.

 

[Dre89]

Well how can you say God arguments are faulty if you don't even know what they are?

People here have been saying like theists assume God exists first then make up the premises, or that theists change their notion of God to accommodate science, yet they haven't even read God arguments.

I'm trying to think of the last thread where I argued for God. I know Mewter made a graph of my argument, so I'll see if he still has it.

If need be, I can re-state it, but not right now because I don't have the tome at the moment.

The point is, if people are going to make claims about God arguments, they should know them. Unless people take specific God arguments and dissect them, their criticisms mean nothing in the framework of the debate.

 

[Deleted member]

Well how can you say God arguments are faulty if you don't even know what they are?

People here have been saying like theists assume God exists first then make up the premises, or that theists change their notion of God to accommodate science, yet they haven't even read God arguments.

I'm trying to think of the last thread where I argued for God. I know Mewter made a graph of my argument, so I'll see if he still has it.

If need be, I can re-state it, but not right now because I don't have the tome at the moment.

The point is, if people are going to make claims about God arguments, they should know them. Unless people take specific God arguments and dissect them, their criticisms mean nothing in the framework of the debate.

I definitely agree with this, especially the last paragraph. If we don't have any theist (or deist) arguments to work with then really we don't even have a discussion here.

Atheism by definition is stating that there is a lack of evidence, so really there's not much that any atheist (or agnostic) can say until god arguments are presented.

 

[Dre89]

Really? Quote me where I said this.


I'm making the claim that they're unfalsifiable! So how am I supposed to prove they're faulty? The whole point of my argument is that doing such a thing is impossible!

You're implying the fact that they're unfalsifiable comprimises their merit.

They can be falsified by logic, just like the claim "a pink unicorn could create the universe, but nothing else could" can be refuted by logic.

Are you saying that the premise which validates science as a methodology is unfalsifiable?

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this. Could you clarify please?

You say that theists change their notion of God to make them immune from science. I'm asking you to provide an argument made by a prominent theist that has conflicted with science.

 

[KrazyGlue]

You're implying the fact that they're unfalsifiable comprimises their merit.

They can be falsified by logic, just like the claim "a pink unicorn could create the universe, but nothing else could" can be refuted by logic.

Are you saying that the premise which validates science as a methodology is unfalsifiable?

This is kind of branching in to two different debates. So here's my response to each side of this.

1. Things can't be purely figured out through reason. It follows that God cannot be proven to exist.

2. The concept of "God" changes from person to person, and anyone can change their definition of God until no logic applies to it. Honestly, how could anyone possibly use logic to argue against someone who says "God is a non-physical being outside of space and time, and is not subject to the laws of science"? How can you possibly make a logical argument about something that is beyond any human knowledge or comprehension?

You say that theists change their notion of God to make them immune from science. I'm asking you to provide an argument made by a prominent theist that has conflicted with science.

Well, if you're talking about God specifically, I'm sure there have been many prominent theists who have argued that God has a physical body, which you yourself find to be faulty, if I recall correctly.

If you're talking about metaphysics in general, a classic example is when Aristotle wrote in his book which was titled Metaphysics that the earth was the center of the universe. A couple thousand years later, Copernicus used science to disprove that.

 

[Dre89]

1. Then you've lost science. If pure reason can't conclude truths, then it couldn't conclude science is a valid methodology for deducing truth.

2. Attacking straw mans doesn't change the fact intelligent notions of theism have been around for centuries, before science was prominent.

And are you sure that was in his metaphysics? That sounds like it would be in his physics, his metaphysics was the part after the physics, hence why it's called metaphysics.

 

[KrazyGlue]

1. Then you've lost science. If pure reason can't conclude truths, then it couldn't conclude science is a valid methodology for deducing truth.

We went over this in the other thread. The observation part of science is a necessary component. Nothing can be scientifically concluded without the physical aspect of observation.

2. Attacking straw mans doesn't change the fact intelligent notions of theism have been around for centuries, before science was prominent.

Isn't that what you're saying though? Aren't you saying God is a non-physical being that is outside space-time and is not subject to the laws of science?

And are you sure that was in his metaphysics? That sounds like it would be in his physics, his metaphysics was the part after the physics, hence why it's called metaphysics.

Wikipedia says:

Aristotle also had some scientific blind spots. He posited a geocentric cosmology that we may discern in selections of the Metaphysics, which was widely accepted up until the 16th century. From the 3rd century to the 16th century, the dominant view held that the Earth was the center of the universe (geocentrism).

 

[Deleted member]

A lot of the talk here seems to suggest that the reason why people don't believe in god is because of science. This most definitely not the case for most people.

The reason why people don't believe in god is because they believe that there is a lack of evidence for god's existence. Science has nothing to do with that.

All science has done (in this field) is fill in the gaps, which some people (I don't think anybody here) have filled with god. Those gaps include evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang. All those do is rebut the god of the gaps arguments.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

A lot of the talk here seems to suggest that the reason why people don't believe in god is because of science. This most definitely not the case for most people.

The reason why people don't believe in god is because they believe that there is a lack of evidence for god's existence. Science has nothing to do with that.

All science has done (in this field) is fill in the gaps, which some people (I don't think anybody here) have filled with god. Those gaps include evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang. All those do is rebut the god of the gaps arguments.

And don't forget, the god of the gaps arguments are fallacious. The fact that we don't know something, doesn't mean that god must have been involved.

 

[KrazyGlue]

No, all I'm saying is that it's impossible to conduct a good debate based on a concept so abstract that it's beyond any human understanding or comprehension.

 

[gm jack]

It expand on KrazyGlue's last post, the point is in order for something to be able to argued for logically, you have to be able to set clear goals in order to prove or disprove something in an evidence based fashion. With the whole "outside of time and space" argument, it moves the "goalposts" to an area that isn't just hard to hit, but by definition impossible.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

And to add to that, he's not even affected by causality. So he's powerless. Whatever he is, I wouldn't call him a god.

 

[Deleted member]

On a somewhat related note, I see no reason to refer to god as a "he" either.

 

[Dre89]

Krazy the point is, the premise that assumes observation concludes truth comes from pure reason.

Wiki is wrong there, because it was his physics that was accepted up until the 16th century.

Bob- Name a respected theist who argues for God simply because science can't explain something.

And for those saying there's no evidence of God, there's no physical evidence, but asking for physcal evidence of something non physical is stupid.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob- Name a respected theist who argues for God simply because science can't explain something.

I doesn't matter, God of the gaps arguments are fallacious, and some people try to use such arguments. It doesn't matter.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Krazy the point is, the premise that assumes observation concludes truth comes from pure reason.

So?

To quote myself: "The whole point I'm making is that you need observation to make scientific discoveries. You can't just use reason. Observation requires you to physically sense something, such as through sight. Now, you can use reason to determine how to interpret your observation, but you have to have something other than reason to observe something! I don't care what the foundational principle is, all I care about is that physical observation of something is required. And without that physical, sensory observation, science is not possible."

Wiki is wrong there, because it was his physics that was accepted up until the 16th century.

See, THIS is where you need sources. Now you're claiming a fact without sourcing it.

And for those saying there's no evidence of God, there's no physical evidence, but asking for physcal evidence of something non physical is stupid.

There's not just no physical evidence, there's no evidence whatsoever. It's impossible to even apply logic to such a concept.

 

[Sucumbio]

Perhaps the real question to answer is what evidence would suffice for an atheist to change their mind.

 

[Reaver197]

Found this wonderful little program from the BBC called What Happened Before the Big Bang. Figured it would provide some grist and provide new ideas to entertain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg&p=E3A1CAF34C3F5F6D&index=1&feature=BF

Also, the idea of "observation providing truth only comes from pure reason" isn't true. You can test the idea of whether purely reasoning out theories leads to a greater degree of accuracy of predictions versus those that depend upon observations.

Nonetheless, the idea of there being "pure reason" employed only by us humans is an illusory ideal. Our very brains and the reasoning contained by them are informed and shaped by our experiences and observations, whether we are consciously aware of it or not.

Edit: I came across another great Horizon spot by BBC on Science and Religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQjYm3niI2E&feature=related

 

[KrazyGlue]

Perhaps the real question to answer is what evidence would suffice for an atheist to change their mind.

Well, you see, this becomes a paradox. The current way Dre is defining God, there is no logical argument to be made by either side, so an atheist will not be convinced. And as soon as the concept of God becomes something that can be logically debated (i.e. inside space-time and therefore subject to science), He can be pretty much ruled out as far as current scientific knowledge goes. So, my question is: can you possibly make a logical argument that God exists?

Now, keep in mind, I'm agnostic, not atheist. This is not meant as a loaded question or anything. I honestly don't know if God exists or not; hell, maybe there is some being outside of space-time that isn't subject to science. But at the same time, I think you also can't make a logical argument that He does exist.

 

[Dre89]

Well if God is in space and time then He's not God then.

It would completely eliminate the reason why intelligent theists believe in God.

You're talking as if theists just assumed God exists, then define Him in a way that makes it immune to refutation.

I really hope you don't think that.

Intelligent theists believe in God because they feel He is necessary for the existence of the universe.

For example, the cosmological argument proposes that something self-necessary, something that has nothing prior to it, must be the first cause, and considering that all physical things a re contingent, something beyond physical must be the first cause.

Thomas Aquians would state God is that which unifies being.

So saying that God is contingent and within space and time shows a misunderstanding of why theists believe in God in the first place.

And you guys are missing the point about logic validating science. I don't care if you think using observation is no longer pure reason, that's irrelevant. The point is, you only use observation because of a prior premise, the premise that observation concludes truth, which comes from reason. That's why you can't say "only that which is empirically verifiable is true", because you can't empirically verify that statement.

What that shows is that truths outside of observation can be concluded. The idea that truth can be concluded with observation, was a truth that was concluded without observation.

That's why I love when atheists say "you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is true", when-
1. Theists don't do that, atheists just say that because they haven't studied theology and just go on misconceptions to make arguments easier for them.
2. It's actually the atheists who apply that fallacy, when they say only that hwich is emprically verifiable can be concluded to be true, and their reason for believing that is because it can be emprically verifiable.

 

[Sucumbio]

2. It's actually the atheists who apply that fallacy, when they say only that hwich is emprically verifiable can be concluded to be true, and their reason for believing that is because it can be emprically verifiable.

That's idiotic, and you know it. That's like saying drivers in cars only drive cars because when they're driving cars, they're driving cars. ><


truth

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. ( often initial capital letter ) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic . fidelity or constancy.

What you're referring to is Philosophical Truth, which is completely different.

"Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth." -Charles Sanders Peirce

He was a founder of modern Pragmatic Theory.

oh look at @ me y'all I'm talking philosophy AND using sources!

 

[KrazyGlue]

oh look at @ me y'all I'm talking philosophy AND using sources!

BLASPHEMY!

Well if God is in space and time then He's not God then.

It would completely eliminate the reason why intelligent theists believe in God.

Agreed.

You're talking as if theists just assumed God exists, then define Him in a way that makes it immune to refutation.

You're talking as if that isn't exactly what the vast majority of theists do.

Intelligent theists believe in God because they feel He is necessary for the existence of the universe.

For example, the cosmological argument proposes that something self-necessary, something that has nothing prior to it, must be the first cause, and considering that all physical things a re contingent, something beyond physical must be the first cause.

The cosmological argument is faulty. Here's Aristotle's reasoning for why there must be an unmoved mover:

1. There exists movement in the world.
2. Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3. If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.

However, Aristotle has already hit a problem by the time he gets to number 2. Things in motion do not have to be set in motion by something else. For example:

Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying it is easily dismissed by the laws of conservation of mass and energy and the laws governing molecular physics. He quotes one of many examples — "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku, these particles could move forever, without beginning or end, thus denying the key second premise of the argument above. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.

And with point 2 down, points 3-6 fall apart.

Additionally, there's the question of: Why doesn't the first cause have to have a cause?

Even if there was a first cause, it wouldn't have to be God.

And even if all this reasoning was valid and did show that the first cause would have to be God, it's all based off the principle of causality, which is only based off of our current scientific knowledge and may not apply to every part of the universe.

And you guys are missing the point about logic validating science. I don't care if you think using observation is no longer pure reason, that's irrelevant. The point is, you only use observation because of a prior premise, the premise that observation concludes truth, which comes from reason. That's why you can't say "only that which is empirically verifiable is true", because you can't empirically verify that statement.

What that shows is that truths outside of observation can be concluded. The idea that truth can be concluded with observation, was a truth that was concluded without observation.

No... we concluded that observations could deduce truths when we observed that our observations were right. Basically, we observe things, then use reason to say "Hey, that observation was right! We can use that information and continue to observe things to deduce truths." But reason by itself doesn't conclude anything without observation.

Also, what Reaver said:

Also, the idea of "observation providing truth only comes from pure reason" isn't true. You can test the idea of whether purely reasoning out theories leads to a greater degree of accuracy of predictions versus those that depend upon observations.

Nonetheless, the idea of there being "pure reason" employed only by us humans is an illusory ideal. Our very brains and the reasoning contained by them are informed and shaped by our experiences and observations, whether we are consciously aware of it or not.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well if God is in space and time then He's not God then.

At the same time, if he's not in space and time, he's powerless and can't do anything. He cannot causally create anything, and if he can't do that, there is no reason to call him a god.

For example, the cosmological argument proposes that something self-necessary, something that has nothing prior to it, must be the first cause, and considering that all physical things a re contingent, something beyond physical must be the first cause.

But how does something immaterial interact with the physical? As soon as it does anything, it manifests itself in a physical form in one way or another. If it pushes, it becomes a force, if it creates, it becomes energy/matter, etc. So how can it interact with the physical without being physical?

So saying that God is contingent and within space and time shows a misunderstanding of why theists believe in God in the first place.

See top.

And you guys are missing the point about logic validating science. I don't care if you think using observation is no longer pure reason, that's irrelevant. The point is, you only use observation because of a prior premise, the premise that observation concludes truth, which comes from reason. That's why you can't say "only that which is empirically verifiable is true", because you can't empirically verify that statement.

What that shows is that truths outside of observation can be concluded. The idea that truth can be concluded with observation, was a truth that was concluded without observation.

You probably can empirically verify that statement. You can put all other methods of finding truth to the test, and see which works the best. The reason we know that empirical verification is necessary, is that without it, we don't get anywhere. It's as simple as that. We don't end up with devices that work, from pure reason. We can't develop vaccines with pure reason. The fact is, that empirical verification in conjunction with sound logic seems to work the best.

That's why I love when atheists say "you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is true", when-
1. Theists don't do that, atheists just say that because they haven't studied theology and just go on misconceptions to make arguments easier for them.
2. It's actually the atheists who apply that fallacy, when they say only that hwich is emprically verifiable can be concluded to be true, and their reason for believing that is because it can be emprically verifiable

1. Depends who you ask. This is something Jaswa quoted:

There is no need for more evidence because the Holy Bible itself is historical evidence.

2. For god's sake, atheists have never actually said that. The reason we believe that empirical verification is the way to go, is because it works the best. Pure reason doesn't produce benefits to humanity in the way science does.

 

[Dre89]

You guys are still missing the point about empirical verification. I even checked this with my lecturers. How do you know that empirical methodology concludes truth? Empirical methodology encompasses a hypothesis, controlled variables, repetitive testing for consistency etc. , all those notions precedes empirical verification, because they are what constitute empirical verififcation.

How do you know that the collaboration of those notions concludes truth? If you say you observed that they were right, then that observation also assumed that the collaboration of those notions works.

Krazy- That was one of the few good atheist (atheist in argument that is, I know you said you were an agnostic) posts so far. However, even if a lot of theists just assume God exists first, then make premises around that, it makes no difference, because the highest levels of theism don't, so attacking the off-the-street theists would be a straw-man. Just like how there are people who are atheists for silly reasons.

Secondly, Aristotle means something different when he says "movement". I can't really explain it, but I just remember learning in class that he had a different definition of it lol.

Also, you presneted only a fraction Aristotle's metaphysics (which is understandable, it would be impossible to read and understand all of it). But my point is, his notion of God and being is more extensive and sophisticated than your post portrays.

Also, the cosmological argument isn't based off just our current understanding of causality. People like Thomas Aquinas say that God is that which causes being, and unites it. So even if our current understanding of causality is faulty, Aquinas' metaphyscis is prior to anyone that science can tell us.

This is why I don't care when people like Alt (what happened to that guy?) threw No Boundary Proposal at me. It doesn't matter what structure time, space, or causality have, the reality is they have a structure, and that's all that matters

The main thing you have to remember as well is that we're reading simplified notions of their arguments. Theistic arguments are far more extensive. For example, in another part of his works, Aquinas does a huge write-up of his second way, which is far more complex.

Bob- I don't see how being non-physical means He would be powerless. He caused the physical world, so and considering He is omnipotent, I'm pretty sure the world being physical wouldn't get in His way. The non-physical, or divine, preceded the physical.

 

[Reaver197]

The whole point of empiricism, and the empirical methodology from that, is that you use observation (via your senses) and experience to gain knowledge. The more rigorous methodology that you described, and that science tries to employ, is simply to ensure a higher level of accuracy.

The thing about the empiricism is that it is essentially how the human brain works anyway, irregardless of what notions we may have about its ability to be logically and rationally coherent. From the moment we are born, certain structures and systems of neurons in the brain are activated and strengthened (or not activated and weakened) in response to the stimuli we receive from our environment.

Of course, the basic structure of the brain, and the neurons that make it up, are also, in a way, born of “observations” or “experience” of the environments and species that predated us. Those structures or uses that were highly inimical to properly survive or produce an accurate enough picture of the world to function would see themselves die out. The brain is empirical by nature, both in its constituents and how it operates.

To conclude or assert the inability of empiricism to deduce truths is to essentially question how the human mind works, which would leave all our arguments and ideas in a rut. I think by just us existing to the degree of success we currently enjoy (though, who can say for how much longer?), shows at least some truth-discerning virtue in empiricism, if truth means an accurate understanding of the world we inhabit.

Logic and rationality aren’t things that jump fully-formed and perfect into our heads either. Our ability to rationalize is honed and built up by the experiences (including, for better or worse, trusted authority figures) we have and are exposed to. This obviously leads to bumps and imperfections in the ideas we hold and the subsequent logic we employ from them.

Take, for example, children who believe in, say, Santa Claus. For them, the logical impossibility of a man able to visit billions of homes in the span of 8 hours or so does not register, since they have not had the experience and exposure to the just how many people live in the world, how large the world is, the speed one would need to travel, and the affect such speed would have on a person (plus innumerable other facts and issues). To them, it seems logically palatable to have a jolly man carrying every person’s presents visiting them all during one night.

Same can be said of people’s perceptions of falling objects. Before exposure to Galileo’s experiments (and the moon videos corroborating them), most people would feel that, intrinsically, heavier objects fall faster than light objects. While in most everyday experience, that may seem true, due to air resistance, it is not. Ironically enough, it’s people’s general observation and exposure to such a phenomena on Earth that leads their logical pathways astray. It shows the lesson that we cannot assume what we think of as logical and normal from our usual vantage point to be accurate, true, or logically consistent.

Taking into account that inherently the human brain operates mostly on emotional and visceral reactions rather than what we think of being rational and logical, it leaves a lot of chance that people have developed ideas and theories that may feel logical, but are not actually. Like the presuppositions of gods being necessary, or that they have attributes like omnipotence or anything like that.

Unfortunately, humans tend to use rationality to, instead of informing and questioning our positions, to justify and solidify them. So, you have to be careful of the fact that maybe the conjectures of all the theists about gods or what not could be more of trying to rationalize out a passed down devotion to an idea, or being a misinterpretation of the world from their limited vantage point, rather than being truth.

 

[Sucumbio]

You guys are still missing the point about empirical verification. I even checked this with my lecturers. How do you know that empirical methodology concludes truth? Empirical methodology encompasses a hypothesis, controlled variables, repetitive testing for consistency etc. , all those notions precedes empirical verification, because they are what constitute empirical verififcation.

How do you know that the collaboration of those notions concludes truth? If you say you observed that they were right, then that observation also assumed that the collaboration of those notions works.

I can't believe I'm actually discussing this.

If I pour tea into my cup and then say "I have a cup of tea" I have just stated a fact. Is it also true? Yes. How do I know? Because I know it was tea that I made, I know it was a cup that I had, and I know that I poured the tea into the cup, thus the two combined to form .... get ready for it.... A CUP OF TEA!

Fact IS Truth for all intents and purposes. The only time Truth is NOT Fact is when you're looking for a different kind of Truth, such as a Philosophical Truth. Empirical evidence deals only in factual truth (oh how mind numbing it is to resort to redundancy to prove a point. I'm going to go now and shoot myself in the face with a canon loaded with Webster's dictionaries.)

 

[KrazyGlue]

You guys are still missing the point about empirical verification. I even checked this with my lecturers. How do you know that empirical methodology concludes truth? Empirical methodology encompasses a hypothesis, controlled variables, repetitive testing for consistency etc. , all those notions precedes empirical verification, because they are what constitute empirical verififcation.

How do you know that the collaboration of those notions concludes truth? If you say you observed that they were right, then that observation also assumed that the collaboration of those notions works.

Reaver did a good job on this point, so I'll leave it to him.

Krazy- That was one of the few good atheist (atheist in argument that is, I know you said you were an agnostic) posts so far. However, even if a lot of theists just assume God exists first, then make premises around that, it makes no difference, because the highest levels of theism don't, so attacking the off-the-street theists would be a straw-man. Just like how there are people who are atheists for silly reasons.

Thanks, and fair enough.

Secondly, Aristotle means something different when he says "movement". I can't really explain it, but I just remember learning in class that he had a different definition of it lol.

Also, you presneted only a fraction Aristotle's metaphysics (which is understandable, it would be impossible to read and understand all of it). But my point is, his notion of God and being is more extensive and sophisticated than your post portrays.

Fair enough. If you find something else in the book that dismantles the premise of my argument, let me know.

Also, the cosmological argument isn't based off just our current understanding of causality. People like Thomas Aquinas say that God is that which causes being, and unites it. So even if our current understanding of causality is faulty, Aquinas' metaphyscis is prior to anyone that science can tell us.

Eh, well I don't know Aquinas' work all that well; would you mind enlightening me on the logic behind the idea that God causes being and unites it?

The main thing you have to remember as well is that we're reading simplified notions of their arguments. Theistic arguments are far more extensive. For example, in another part of his works, Aquinas does a huge write-up of his second way, which is far more complex.

Yeah, I know, but there's no real way to work around that. I'm obviously not going to take some 1000 page tome and go through each point.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob- I don't see how being non-physical means He would be powerless. He caused the physical world, so and considering He is omnipotent, I'm pretty sure the world being physical wouldn't get in His way. The non-physical, or divine, preceded the physical.

But, how can he do anything without a physical manifestation of him? That's my question. If you're to influence the physical world, you've got to somewhere along the line, have a physical manifestation of yourself. Whether it be a force, an energy, a gravitational field, or whatever. To say he is non-physical in his entirety would be wrong. Therefore, he cannot be self-neccessary, as he is physical and therefore contingent. He can't be the original cause.

 

[Mewter]

Sorry about hi-jacking this thread, but I guess this question is somewhat relevant and it's excusable given the lack of posting in this thread over the last couple of days:

Assuming:
A god is omniscient (assuming omniscience includes precise knowledge of future outcomes)
It cannot lie

Scenario:
It appears to you and tells you what you will do in 7 seconds
You decide not to do it and do something completely different

So what would the consequence of this scenario mean? Would it mean that the said god is not omniscient and that total omniscience and free will existing are incompatible, or what?

*If this results in a paradox, would that mean that the god just cannot participate in this action? Would inability to do so violate its omnipotence?*

What are your takes on this?

*Edits have asterisks*

 

[jaswa]

Sorry about hi-jacking this thread, but I guess this question is somewhat relevant and it's excusable given the lack of posting in this thread over the last couple of days:

Assuming:
A god is omniscient (assuming omniscience includes precise knowledge of future outcomes)
It cannot lie

Scenario:
It appears to you and tells you what you will do in 7 seconds
You decide not to do it and do something completely different

So what would the consequence of this scenario mean? Would it mean that the said god is not omniscient and that total omniscience and free will existing are incompatible, or what?
What are your takes on this?

Dude, just make a new thread on the Problem of Evil - you'll be starting up too many questions with this.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

On the subject of omniscience, if a being is able to see into the future, it would render such a being powerless. Such a being can only do, and will only do, what he sees himself doing in the future; he has no choices. This would mean that omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

 

[Dre89]

Bob- There's a difference between saying God is physical, and saying that God can transcend the physical world. Just because I have the ability to swim doesn't mean my biology is aquatic by nature.

Jaswa- I don't think that's problem of evil. But Mewter should start a problem of evil thread anyway, that's my biggest strength in philosopy (biggest strnegth doesn't equate to objectively knowledgeable though).

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob- There's a difference between saying God is physical, and saying that God can transcend the physical world. Just because I have the ability to swim doesn't mean my biology is aquatic by nature.

Still, when you enter the water, you leave ripples. That would be your manifestation in the water.

God, to influence the physical world, would have to have a physical manifestation of himself. There is no way around it. To do so would be a breach of physics.

 

[Dre89]

Not exactly.

The Son in the Trinity is suppsoed to represent God's act in the world, or God acting in the world. The fact that merely 1/3 of His nature is merely the potency to act in the physical world means He is not a physical being.

If He truly was a physical being, He'd have a physical manifestation floating around somewhere, and preserving this phycal manifestation would be essentiall to preserving the nature of God as a whole, which isn't the case.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Not exactly.

The Son in the Trinity is suppsoed to represent God's act in the world, or God acting in the world. The fact that merely 1/3 of His nature is merely the potency to act in the physical world means He is not a physical being.

If He truly was a physical being, He'd have a physical manifestation floating around somewhere, and preserving this phycal manifestation would be essentiall to preserving the nature of God as a whole, which isn't the case.

Yeah. That's exactly what I've been saying. He may not be a physical being, but he has to have a physical manifestation of himself. This means that he is contingent, at least in part, and thus couldn't have been the prior cause.

 

[Dre89]

No He doesn't have to have a physical manifestation of Himself.

The Son is a consequence of God instantiating creation, which was never necessary in the first place. Considering that God's nature would have been defined prior to creation God would not posses a contingent aspect to His nature, because contingent natures only came later, and not out of necessity.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

No He doesn't have to have a physical manifestation of Himself.

The Son is a consequence of God instantiating creation, which was never necessary in the first place. Considering that God's nature would have been defined prior to creation God would not posses a contingent aspect to His nature, because contingent natures only came later, and not out of necessity.

However, if there is a part of God that is not necessary, ie. the Son, then God cannot be simple. He as described in the Trinity, is in three forms, that is not as simple as possible. You could say that a singularity is more simple, being only a zero-dimentional point with mass only, (the universe has no overall charge or spin, if I recall correctly), if that. There are some that argue that the universe has a total of 0 energy. [1]. Due to the equivalence of matter and energy, as described in Special Relativity, the total mass of the universe in the beginning would be 0. So, the universe doesn't actually need anything to create it. If nothing is more simple than God, and the universe could have come from nothing, Occam's razor would suggest that the universe probably came out of nowhere.

 

[Dre89]

You're point about the complexity was valid until you started bringing science into the picture. The first cause will always be prior toscience, whether there is a God or not.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You're point about the complexity was valid until you started bringing science into the picture. The first cause will always be prior toscience, whether there is a God or not.

What? Science is a construct in our minds. But that doesn't mean it can't apply to everything. I am not making a scientific point, I'm only using science to validate my claims.