Do you believe in God?

[PearlSeeker]

I believe, also, that within the universe there are multiple events that are 'uncaused'. That destroys most of the 'first cause' arguments for the existence of some 'God'.

Wich "first cause" arguments are still in tact?

Maybe those that are based on atemporal causation (sustaining cause). Aquinas’ 2nd way:

P1. We observe efficient causation.​

P2. Nothing can cause itself.​

P3. There is a logical order to sustaining causes: the first cause, then intermediate causes, then an ultimate effect.​

P4. If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A doesn’t exist neither does B.​

C1. There must be a first sustaining cause, otherwise P1 would be false as there would be no further sustaining causes or effects.​

C2. As there is a first cause, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.​

C3. The first cause must itself be uncaused. That thing we call God.​

​

Aquinas’ first two ways treat the relationship between cause and effect as ontologically real but not temporal, although they are consistent with a temporal understanding of cause and effect. They point to the logical implications of there being sustaining causes. This is why especially Aquinas’ 2nd way is called a cosmological argument from ‘atemporal causation’.​

​

The first and second way attempt to show God must exist as the first mover or causer. The word ‘first’ in the concept of a first cause or first mover is not meant to indicate it being ‘first’ in time, but ontologically first in the sense that motion and causation are ontologically dependent on it.​

The Cosmological argument

Presentation of the cosmological argument and discussion of its criticisms. For students and the general reader.

alevelphilosophyandreligion.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wich "first cause" arguments are still in tact?

Maybe those that are based on atemporal causation (sustaining cause). Aquinas’ 2nd way:

P1. We observe efficient causation.​

P2. Nothing can cause itself.​

P3. There is a logical order to sustaining causes: the first cause, then intermediate causes, then an ultimate effect.​

P4. If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A doesn’t exist neither does B.​

C1. There must be a first sustaining cause, otherwise P1 would be false as there would be no further sustaining causes or effects.​

C2. As there is a first cause, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.​

C3. The first cause must itself be uncaused. That thing we call God.​

​

Aquinas’ first two ways treat the relationship between cause and effect as ontologically real but not temporal, although they are consistent with a temporal understanding of cause and effect. They point to the logical implications of there being sustaining causes. This is why especially Aquinas’ 2nd way is called a cosmological argument from ‘atemporal causation’.​

​

The first and second way attempt to show God must exist as the first mover or causer. The word ‘first’ in the concept of a first cause or first mover is not meant to indicate it being ‘first’ in time, but ontologically first in the sense that motion and causation are ontologically dependent on it.​

The Cosmological argument

Presentation of the cosmological argument and discussion of its criticisms. For students and the general reader.

alevelphilosophyandreligion.com

How do you now that P2 is true in regards to the induction problem. The same for P3 and P4.
The hidden premise is that it holds for all cases, if if we don't know that, because we haven't observed all cases.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I also believe things have properties that are then described by natural laws. These laws lead to increasing complexity over time, especially in small, heated systems like the Earth. This destroys most of the arguments from design.

For example the grand canyon is a work of art formed by the "artist" of erosion. The universe may well turn out to be every bit as natural as the grand canyon. Thus assuming there is some intelligent artist at work as opposed to a blind process of things unfolding according to their properties would simply be a case of assuming the conclusion in my view.

Something can be designed as self-evolving. Evolving according to predefined guidelines. See for example how AI works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Something can be designed as self-evolving. Evolving according to predefined guidelines. See for example how AI works.

Yeah, that is designed by humans, so we therefore know that the universe is desgned by humans as self-evolving.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yeah, that is designed by humans, so we therefore know that the universe is desgned by humans as self-evolving.

No, that was just an example showing that it's possible to design something self-evolving. We don't know yet if universe is also some kind of programmed reality and who designed it.

 

[Polymath257]

How it works perhaps, because evidently the earth for instance has a very strong pull to it so things stay on the ground like grass, but does anyone know how the power or force really came about?

You are asking for a mechanism for what we believe is a fundamental force. In other words, there is no deeper explanation (although you are certainly free to look for one--but that will simply push the issue back a stage).

I'd also point out that gravity is what keeps the Earth in orbit around the sun, the moon in orbit around the Earth, the moons of Jupiter in orbit around Jupiter, etc.

Comparatively, the force of gravity from the Earth isn't all that strong. The acceleration is about 9.8 m/s^2 on the Earth. At the 'surface' of the sun it is about 275 m/s^2. For the 'surface' of Jupiter, it is about 25m/s^2.

I realize about gravity that there is an attraction between certain objects, such as a person falling from a tree, or better yet, an apple falling from a tree. And when humans leave the realm of gravitational pull surrounding the earth and they go in a spaceship they start floating around.

Not quite true. Gravity holds between *every* pair of massive objects. If you are on the moon, the gravity of the moon will keep you on the moon.

The reason astronauts 'float around' is because they are in orbit. They are moving fast enough to the side that the curvature of the Earth matches their fall. There is still gravity: it is, in fact, what keeps the orbit (relatively) stable.

 

[Polymath257]

What is time? An astronomer explains and other sources agree that time is emergent and that it does not exist outside the universe. It's interesting to me that the statement that God is eternal implies that if you believe God exists then God is outside the universe.

I'm not sure what is meant by the word 'emergent' in this context. Time is one of the four-dimensional geometric aspects of the universe--just like space (which is three of the dimensions).

I'm also not sure how to interpret the word 'eternal' in this context. My default definition is 'for all time'. if you use another, please specify it.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm curious -- On what basis do you know that we actually don't know that the universe had a beginning?

Well, if there was anything before the Big bang (which is a possibility in quantum gravity), then time may go back infinitely far and the universe as well. In that case, it had no beginning.

We don't know. It is one of the many possibilities.

 

[Polymath257]

The polar analogy works because it describes a point on the two dimensional boundary of a three dimensional object. The electro-magnetic field generated by the poles mostly exists beyond this boundary. And while there is no South of the South Pole on the two dimensional surface of the globe, space “below” the South Pole exists once we recognise an additional spatial dimension; so it may only be within the limitations of the four dimensional manifold we currently conceive of, that space and time don’t extend beyond the limits of the universe (should we ever confirm what it’s temporal limits are).

Yes, but the analogy is between the two dimensional surface of the Earth and four dimensional spacetime. In the second case, there is no reason to think there is any 'outside'.

As for accident vs intent, we know that the effect of a limb falling from the tree has a cause (or web of causation). So ‘intent’ in the context of the origin of the universe, is a question of first causes. An ‘accidental’ Big Bang is one in which the low entropy specialness of the early universe would have to have occurred randomly, and while only “back of the envelope” efforts - by Penrose for example - can be undertaken to calculate the probability of that happening, it still seems an utterly insignificant probability. That’s one reason, I think, that some astronomers entertain various multi-verse hypotheses; because in the context of an infinity of universes, statistical near-impossibilities become not impossible but inevitable.

Nope. Multiverses arise naturally when attempting to model quantum gravity. In fact, they show up in quantum theory fairly naturally in any case. That is actually the *only* reason they are taken seriously at all.

But I notice that by pushing the intent for the tree falling in the forest back to the Big Bang, you are implicitly assuming there was an intent at that point that intended that tree to fall at that time and place. That, to me, seems highly unlikely for a number of different reasons. Primarily, the existence of an 'intent' implies a complex consciousness, which in turn implies a very complex substrate to support that consciousness. So the explanatory power is greatly diminished.

But really I accept that there are no strong arguments for God from physics. We are far more likely to apprehend God through poetry than through science; He communicates with us using the language of the heart, not the head. That said, there is a poetic beauty in what we can glimpse of the narrative of the universe; stellar nurseries, galaxies, black holes, supernovas - what a work of art they constitute. And where there is a work of art, there has to be an artist.

And that seems to me to encourage confirmation bias. Sure, it is nice and even moving emotionally. But that is not a reason to think it is anything more than in our heads.

 

[Polymath257]

No, that was just an example showing that it's possible to design something self-evolving. We don't know yet if universe is also some kind of programmed reality and who designed it.

Who, if anyone, that is.

 

[Kathryn]

... says the person who thinks she knows about stuff beyond the bounds of knowledge.

LOL no I definitely do not, nor do I know how you even came to that conclusion.

 

[YoursTrue]

On basis what scientists have published so far. Here is an example that sums up what we know:

Did The Universe Have A Beginning?

Yes, the Big Bang is real, but what about what came before?

www.forbes.com

So scientists cannot conclude, based on what they surmise and examine, if the universe had a beginning. Maybe it did; maybe it didn't. I believe rather what the Bible says, in that it had a beginning. How it worked, how "God did it" is not explained in the Bible. I am convinced, however, that it had a beginning. However it happened. Similarly, I am convinced that the earth had a beginning. Thank you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So scientists cannot conclude, based on what they surmise and examine, if the universe had a beginning. Maybe it did; maybe it didn't. I believe rather what the Bible says, in that it had a beginning. How it worked, how "God did it" is not explained in the Bible. I am convinced, however, that it had a beginning. However it happened. Similarly, I am convinced that the earth had a beginning. Thank you.

So I go with I dont know one way or another, because believning it as it is indpendent of your mind won't make it so.
But if believeing like that worked then it would also work for other humans than you.
So I believe you are evil. I am convinced of it, so it is a fact. Thank you.

Do you understand the limit of your belief? So unless you can show that you are special, I am not goint to believe, that you are that. I know I am not speical and you haven't convinced me that you are special. so I don't believe you are specal. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are asking for a mechanism for what we believe is a fundamental force. In other words, there is no deeper explanation (although you are certainly free to look for one--but that will simply push the issue back a stage).

And, of course, as someone pointed out here about the origin of the universe, IF it had a beginning, scientists do not know. (right now.) Maybe they will know IF the universe had a beginning in the future.

 

[PearlSeeker]

How do you now that P2 is true in regards to the induction problem. The same for P3 and P4.
The hidden premise is that it holds for all cases, if if we don't know that, because we haven't observed all cases.

All premises are about existence of something that existence of something depends on. We don't trace things backward in time but "downward" to its "ground".

... what is in question here is not what events in the past led to what exists here and now, but rather what it is that keeps the things that exist, here and now, in existence here and now. Your mother gave birth to you, but she’s not what’s sustaining you in being here and now; what’s doing that is going to be something like the current state of the cells of your body, which is in turn sustained by what’s going on at the molecular level, and the atomic level, along with gravitation, the weak and strong forces, and so forth... (E. Feser: The Last Superstition)​

​

Maybe in this regard grounding is a less confusing term than causation.

Consider an ordinary physical object, such as a table, and the atoms it is made of. Without the atoms, the table would not exist. The table's existence depends on the existence of the atoms. This kind of dependence is called "grounding" to distinguish it from other kinds of dependence, such as the dependence of an effect on its cause. It is sometimes called metaphysical or ontological dependence. Grounding can be characterized as a relation between a ground and a grounded entity. The ground exists on a more fundamental level than the grounded entity, in the sense that the grounded entity depends for its existence or its properties on its ground. (Wiki)​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All premises are about existence of something that existence of something depends on. We don't trace things backward in time but "downward" to its "ground".

... what is in question here is not what events in the past led to what exists here and now, but rather what it is that keeps the things that exist, here and now, in existence here and now. Your mother gave birth to you, but she’s not what’s sustaining you in being here and now; what’s doing that is going to be something like the current state of the cells of your body, which is in turn sustained by what’s going on at the molecular level, and the atomic level, along with gravitation, the weak and strong forces, and so forth... (E. Feser: The Last Superstition)​

​

Maybe in this regard grounding is a less confusing term than causation.

Consider an ordinary physical object, such as a table, and the atoms it is made of. Without the atoms, the table would not exist. The table's existence depends on the existence of the atoms. This kind of dependence is called "grounding" to distinguish it from other kinds of dependence, such as the dependence of an effect on its cause. It is sometimes called metaphysical or ontological dependence. (Wiki)​

Ahh, so it is that one. Well, it runs into the evil demon by Descartes as the first real version of the problem of knowing what the world is indepedent of the mind.

Remember I am a skeptic, and the presumption in that arguement is that we can know that the world is independent of the mind.
So you have to start there. How do you know about the world as independent of your mind?

 

[sun rise]

If God is far beyond your mind how would you know anything about him? also how would you know what he likes or does not like.

God as Avatar incarnates and becomes fully human as well as fully God. A very very few humans become fully God. If the ego becomes worn out enough the intuitive human heart starts coming to the fore. Among those few are even fewer that become well known such as St. Francis of Assisi, Ramakrishna Paramhamsa and Rumi. They leave behind stories that we can use.

One example of an answer is a story about a man and his son who are going to visit someone but only have one donkey. The son, being young, tells his father to ride. After a while some complain that it should be the opposite so they switch. Soon others complain about a young son riding while the older father walks. They meet a "saintly person" (read that as a perfected one who offers this:

The saintly person replied, "The reason that all this is happening is because you want to please the people of the world. But this is not possible because each person has their own ideas. Even though you did what they wanted, you are now confused and ashamed. They found you cruel and foolish. This is your weakness, because really you are neither. But if you continue to listen to the people as you travel from one village to the next, you will never be able to get to your destination. Then you really would be foolish. Do not listen anymore to their chatter, but listen to God within you. He will guide you properly....

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am convinced, however, that it had a beginning. However it happened..

So am I.
The 'big-bang' is still the prevalent theory..

The very early universe​

The first picosecond (10−12 seconds) of cosmic time includes the Planck epoch, during which currently established laws of physics may not have applied; the emergence in stages of the four known fundamental interactions or forces—first gravitation, and later the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions; and the accelerated expansion of the universe due to cosmic inflation.
- Wikipedia -

..so all these theoretical calculations(based on laws of physics) about time, fly out of the window.

 

[sun rise]

I'm not sure what is meant by the word 'emergent' in this context. Time is one of the four-dimensional geometric aspects of the universe--just like space (which is three of the dimensions).

I'm also not sure how to interpret the word 'eternal' in this context. My default definition is 'for all time'. if you use another, please specify it.

I'm using "emergent" in the sense that physicists use it. This is beyond what I know but if you're interested What does it mean that space-time is emergent?

 

[sun rise]

Nope. Multiverses arise naturally when attempting to model quantum gravity. In fact, they show up in quantum theory fairly naturally in any case. That is actually the *only* reason they are taken seriously at all.

I find articles such as this interesting The quantum experiment that could help find evidence of the multiverse