Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello Philosophers!

I was inspired by some discussion in other threads (about metaphysics and its first principles of existence/being, etc.), and have flushed a few insight's. And while this statement may also have some disparaging implications, there seems to be an aversion to metaphysical phenomena (physical and meta-physical things existing) particularly as it relates to the A-theist belief system (the 'concept' that there is no God).

Consider the question: what does it mean for something to exist (what is physical reality)? Whether its the laws of the universe or consciousness itself (subjective and objective phenomena/physical and non-physical) we know that there are both concrete objects and non-concrete 'things' that exist
( i.e., gravity/QFT, the Will, etc.). And if one were to consider that the former laws of nature themselves are pure objective truths (a priori), meaning truths that no matter what any one person thinks or feels about them are universally true (mathematics) and unchanging, what then would be an analogous proposition to the logical possibility of a God's existence? Does that somehow imply 'the concept' that God is a mathematician?

With that said, let's also assume that most Atheists consider all of life as 'logical' and that there is no paradox, contradiction, indeterminacy, logically impossible existing things, (no finitude) and so on that 'logically' or 'objectively' exist in the universe. Of course, that on its face would be false (and a self-refuting paradox), but for the sake of argument, let's assume it's objectively true. Let's further assume (lots of assumption's here) that every thing in life is unchanging and mathematically true (logical). And considering that mathematical truths (objective truths) which exist and are also metaphysical in nature, translates to a 'language' of analytical propositions, does the ontological or cosmological God exist as some kind of 'pure truth'? If God exists analytically, what would that mean?

Here's the classic Ontological argument that proves God's existence using 'pure reason' or purely analytical propositions:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.



And another (Cosmological):

1.Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2.There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3.Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4.This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5.This necessary being is God.[19]

And finally:

1.Something can be produced.
2.It is produced by itself, something or another.
3.Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing.
4.Not by itself, because an effect never causes itself.
5.Therefore, by another A.
6.If A is first then we have reached the conclusion.
7.If A is not first, then we return to 2).
8.From 3) and 4), we produce another- B. The ascending series is either infinite or finite.
9.An infinite series is not possible.
10.Therefore, God exists.

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.



Philosophical Question: is the foregoing another example(s) of logical necessity? And if so, is the notion of a necessary Being absurd? And, if it's absurd, why?

[LuckyR]

Well I'll give you this much, regardless of whether gods exist, humans will invent the concept of gods.

Of course gods cannot be "proven" to exist by typing on a computer and hitting "send". Why theists persist in trying to prove the unprovable baffles me. Don't feel bad, gods aren't supposed to be provable, they're gods, after all.

[Sy Borg]

I see no reason to twist and bend scientific ideas to fit the mythology of the Iron Age in the Middle East. There are many other mythologies one could draw from. Why not those?

I note #3: "Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing".

In physicist, Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing, he posits that what we assume to have been "nothingness" before the big bang was not truly nothingness. That is, the universe was replete with virtual particles, basically particles that pop in and out of existence immediately. It is posited that, under certain conditions, one of these virtual particles kept expanding instead of disappearing.

There is no need for a deity imagined by ancient Abrahamics any more than Hinduism's multiple gods. These are not real entities but representations of qualities either noticed or imagined by ancient people.

Who knows? Maybe the god of the universe exists as per the OP? Maybe the Milky Way is a god, or a demigod? Maybe the solar system? Or Gaia. Maybe they all exist, layers of gods? However, I am yet to see convincing logical proofs for any. If God exists, it appears most likely that it would be entirely subjective.

[Sculptor1]

I see no reason to twist and bend scientific ideas to fit the mythology of the Iron Age in the Middle East. There are many other mythologies one could draw from. Why not those?

We are not justified in drawing anything from any mythologies, because all you would be doing is cherry pikcing things that seem viable, but which would just to coincidental parallels.

I note #3: "Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing".

In physicist, Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing, he posits that what we assume to have been "nothingness" before the big bang was not truly nothingness. That is, the universe was replete with virtual particles, basically particles that pop in and out of existence immediately. It is posited that, under certain conditions, one of these virtual particles kept expanding instead of disappearing.

There is no need for a deity imagined by ancient Abrahamics any more than Hinduism's multiple gods. These are not real entities but representations of qualities either noticed or imagined by ancient people.

Who knows? Maybe the god of the universe exists as per the OP? Maybe the Milky Way is a god, or a demigod? Maybe the solar system? Or Gaia. Maybe they all exist, layers of gods? However, I am yet to see convincing logical proofs for any. If God exists, it appears most likely that it would be entirely subjective.

Especially when it is obvious that it is turtles all the way down, and always was.

[AverageBozo]

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

#2 is flat out wrong. The universe has always been here.

[AverageBozo]

1.Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2.There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3.Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4.This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5.This necessary being is God.[19]

Please explain #4.

[3017Metaphysician]

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

#2 is flat out wrong. The universe has always been here.

Hi AB! Thanks for your contribution. I hope to engage in some fruitful dialogue. What would be problematic (aside from the philosophical notion of why there is something and not nothing) is trying to prove, using logic, that the BB is wrong, correct?

[3017Metaphysician]

1.Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2.There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3.Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4.This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5.This necessary being is God.[19]

Please explain #4.

AB!

Sure. Generally speaking, you can have either a regressive tower of turtles, or one super-turtle. Explanation number #4 incorporates the concept of the super-turtle (God) that, as Stephen Hawking said "...breathes fire into the equations…". I think he was the Atheist who developed the BB theory...which BTW the theory says nothing about how or where the Singularity came from.

Anyway, the Ontological/Cosmological arguments support the idea of logically necessary truths. Are you familiar with how logically necessary truths are apperceived using a priori analytical propositions? It's kind of like saying 'there is at least one true proposition', right?

[3017Metaphysician]

Well I'll give you this much, regardless of whether gods exist, humans will invent the concept of gods.

Of course gods cannot be "proven" to exist by typing on a computer and hitting "send". Why theists persist in trying to prove the unprovable baffles me. Don't feel bad, gods aren't supposed to be provable, they're gods, after all.

LR!

Sure, I get what you're saying. Likewise, it baffles many who alternatively take the A-theist position. It must have something to do with things that are transcendent of pure reason... .

And I agree, the concept of God, ironically enough, also seems to transcend that notion of human reason....as it should be, right?

[3017Metaphysician]

I see no reason to twist and bend scientific ideas to fit the mythology of the Iron Age in the Middle East. There are many other mythologies one could draw from. Why not those?

I note #3: "Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing".

In physicist, Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing, he posits that what we assume to have been "nothingness" before the big bang was not truly nothingness. That is, the universe was replete with virtual particles, basically particles that pop in and out of existence immediately. It is posited that, under certain conditions, one of these virtual particles kept expanding instead of disappearing.

There is no need for a deity imagined by ancient Abrahamics any more than Hinduism's multiple gods. These are not real entities but representations of qualities either noticed or imagined by ancient people.

Who knows? Maybe the god of the universe exists as per the OP? Maybe the Milky Way is a god, or a demigod? Maybe the solar system? Or Gaia. Maybe they all exist, layers of gods? However, I am yet to see convincing logical proofs for any. If God exists, it appears most likely that it would be entirely subjective.

SB!

Indeed. New theories have posited a universe with no beginning, which in turn suggests some sense of eternal time that might exist. Meaning, in layman's terms, our universe could be a spin-off 'bubble universe' from some other form of space-time.

And so with respect to causation, whether it is BB or an ever expanding 'model of eternity', one is still primarily left with choices of logical necessity or infinite regress. And as mentioned in part from the OP, the A-theist has to reconcile the paradox of his general belief (system) in pure reason (a super-turtle/God) as a logically necessary cause, or somehow prove that the universe has an infinite series of causes (and explain the nature of those causes) within the confines of rational explanation including biological life forms, consciousness and the like. If it's the latter, then the 'logic paradox' rears its head, on many levels.

I suppose there is always a third option, but that generally involves arbitrariness and/or complete chaos, which would also be problematic since the universe is particularly (somehow) fine-tuned for its existence, particularly viz biological life forms. And apparently one little miss-step along the way would have precluded the development of same.

And so, philosophically, what are you thinking, is logical necessity, necessary?

[AverageBozo]

3017

Good responses to all of the above.

[Sy Borg]

I see no reason to twist and bend scientific ideas to fit the mythology of the Iron Age in the Middle East. There are many other mythologies one could draw from. Why not those?

I note #3: "Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing".

In physicist, Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing, he posits that what we assume to have been "nothingness" before the big bang was not truly nothingness. That is, the universe was replete with virtual particles, basically particles that pop in and out of existence immediately. It is posited that, under certain conditions, one of these virtual particles kept expanding instead of disappearing.

There is no need for a deity imagined by ancient Abrahamics any more than Hinduism's multiple gods. These are not real entities but representations of qualities either noticed or imagined by ancient people.

Who knows? Maybe the god of the universe exists as per the OP? Maybe the Milky Way is a god, or a demigod? Maybe the solar system? Or Gaia. Maybe they all exist, layers of gods? However, I am yet to see convincing logical proofs for any. If God exists, it appears most likely that it would be entirely subjective.

SB!

Indeed. New theories have posited a universe with no beginning, which in turn suggests some sense of eternal time that might exist. Meaning, in layman's terms, our universe could be a spin-off 'bubble universe' from some other form of space-time.

And so with respect to causation, whether it is BB or an ever expanding 'model of eternity', one is still primarily left with choices of logical necessity or infinite regress. And as mentioned in part from the OP, the A-theist has to reconcile the paradox of his general belief (system) in pure reason (a super-turtle/God) as a logically necessary cause, or somehow prove that the universe has an infinite series of causes (and explain the nature of those causes) within the confines of rational explanation including biological life forms, consciousness and the like. If it's the latter, then the 'logic paradox' rears its head, on many levels.

I suppose there is always a third option, but that generally involves arbitrariness and/or complete chaos, which would also be problematic since the universe is particularly (somehow) fine-tuned for its existence, particularly viz biological life forms. And apparently one little miss-step along the way would have precluded the development of same.

And so, philosophically, what are you thinking, is logical necessity, necessary?

The infinite regress problem is not prevented by theistic belief; that just pushes the regress back one step. If everything stops at God, why not stop at the cosmic foam (pre BB state) or dark energy?

Complete chaos works when coupled with the anthropic principle. If the universe was not capable of producing life, then there would be no life to ask the question. Further, I do not think the universe is fine tuned for life. It seems rather more fine-tuned for vast voids, giant gas clouds and concentrations of plasma. Scientists have not yet found more efficacious combinations of the constants of nature, but that does not discount the possibility of universes being more conducive to life than this one.

Further, when we consider the fine tuning problem, I note that our bodies seem fine tuned to do what they do too. So the universe may be a living system in ways we don't yet understand. Even if it a kind of giant organism, would that make it God? Most organisms aren't that bright.

Obviously, I don't know the answer, but I think we can do better in trying to understand reality than attributing all to a Middle Eastern Iron Age deity that had been foisted upon us in the west by Constantine's hallucinations.

[PoeticUniverse]

is the notion of a necessary Being absurd? And, if it's absurd, why?

Absurd!

The notion of ‘God’ implies a Fundamental Person-Being with a system of Brain and Mind who can think, plan, design, create, and implement a universe with life on Earth, along with whatever else there needs to be to constitute a Person, perhaps along with an Emotional System for love and caring.

You cannot have this ‘God’ as Fundamental because:

Its system would have to have parts that precede it that would have be even more Fundamental. Highly evolved aliens don’t count.

Appeals to ‘super’, ‘magic’ or ‘infinite’ not only don’t help because they make the larger system even less Fundamental, but also because they are ‘just said’ to be to a ‘special’ realm.

Supposed distinct realms from the physical realm would just roll along independently on their own due to their distinctness, unable to interact with our distinct realm of the physical.

Quantum Field Theory is already the most successful in all of science and its quantum field would be the Eternal Existent as partless and thus truly Fundamental.

Existence has no alternative, given that nonexistence has no being as a source and that there is indeed something, and as such the existence of something is mandatory, there not being any choice, option, or alternative to it. It’s a given; no magic is required; ‘God’ is not required.

We see simpler entities in the past, these having led to the composites and to the great complexities of the present. Turn around and look to the right direction of the future for higher modes of being to become. Now it’s right in front of your nose.

The universe and life is full of non-intelligent design. See Dawkins.

Cosmic and biological evolution went so slowly and took so long because this is exactly how nature alone would do it.

Great near extinctions continue to wipe out life; we may be going into one now. Life on Earth was always precarious.

There was no ‘Divine Inspiration’ to the Bible’s books of Genesis because they are the polar opposite in their Creationism lack of Cosmic evolution and lack of biological evolution in the instant production of Man, plus more wrongs.

Life didn’t come from a Higher Life but from lessor life; thus that supposed golden template of infinite regress can be thrown out of the window onto the trash heap.

Faith doesn’t grant its wishes but leaves them only as hopes. Enjoy the comfort of the fantasy fairy-tale and ignore its shortcoming and paradoxes unveiled.

‘God’ hasn’t been established. It would be too generous to even give it a ‘maybe’. Preachers who wish to retain their flocks have to dishonestly state ‘God’ as if it’s true. They wouldn’t even say ‘perhaps’. It turned into Carl Sagan’s “demon haunted world”.

The Church as a source got many things wrong that we all know about, such as evil spirits causing physical ills and even sins as mental ills, and more that those like Galileo showed.

‘God’s invention of Man as intended and his reinvention via Noah failed, the paradox being that ‘God’ threw Man out of Eden and will destroy Man as in the Book of Revelation, this man-made ‘God’ not even able to take responsibility for his own design going astray. So it is that we can out think this silly ‘God’ that most believe in who is mean.

QFT and the will as the brain have all been explained in my threads, and so can gravity be explained even beyond Einstein’s high level, at the quantum level, too.

The Big Bang banged from something that could not be ‘Nothing’ and that would be the QFT fluctuations. Plus, there’s no reason why there couldn’t have been other Bangs, given the one here, in the QFT multiverse, some good enough to provide for some kind of life.

See my other threads for more about the Earth’s and the universe’s going on.

Aside from the trivial definition of ‘free will’ being that without coercion the will is free to operate, and the useless definition of the harmful random will equaling ‘freedom’, the deeper notion of ‘free’ as being original and free of the brain’s will is of a currency never being able to be stated and cashed in on, leaving ‘determined’ to continue to be the opposite of ‘undetermined’. Our fixed will means no ‘God’ granting freedom. Our successive and hopefully better fixed wills from learning and experiences wvwr have to do as they have become up to the time of usage.

The Theity idea is dead, yet it might be still thought that a Deity idea instead cannot be touched as an aloof Great Scientist who just set the universe in motion at the Big Bang after foreseeing it all, although it came out the same as nature would do, but the supposed Deity can be gotten rid of because a complexity cannot be First and Fundamental. It doesn’t help to then declare it to be infinite, for that only makes the problem of begging the question infinitely worse.

Nor is the universe’s life here on Earth free of the barbaric qualities that only evolution could have brought forth. The Deity falls. RIP. ‘God’ added nothing; it is just an unnecessary step trying to gain meaning and purpose that would only turn out to be restrictive. Look for better scientists and higher modes of being in the more complex future, not in the simplistic past. Turn completely around from the polar opposite religious viewpoint that couldn’t even be more wrong. The universe’s doing are purely natural and physical. It doesn’t operate as ‘God’-like. See my thread.

Diversional type responses won’t be attended to.

[LuckyR]

Well I'll give you this much, regardless of whether gods exist, humans will invent the concept of gods.

Of course gods cannot be "proven" to exist by typing on a computer and hitting "send". Why theists persist in trying to prove the unprovable baffles me. Don't feel bad, gods aren't supposed to be provable, they're gods, after all.

LR!

Sure, I get what you're saying. Likewise, it baffles many who alternatively take the A-theist position. It must have something to do with things that are transcendent of pure reason... .

And I agree, the concept of God, ironically enough, also seems to transcend that notion of human reason....as it should be, right?

There is nothing wrong with an atheist not believing in gods, just as it is OK for a theist believing in them. However just as it is impossible for a theist to prove a god's existence, it is impossible for an atheist to try to prove gods don't exist.

[3017Metaphysician]

Well I'll give you this much, regardless of whether gods exist, humans will invent the concept of gods.

Of course gods cannot be "proven" to exist by typing on a computer and hitting "send". Why theists persist in trying to prove the unprovable baffles me. Don't feel bad, gods aren't supposed to be provable, they're gods, after all.

LR!

Sure, I get what you're saying. Likewise, it baffles many who alternatively take the A-theist position. It must have something to do with things that are transcendent of pure reason... .

And I agree, the concept of God, ironically enough, also seems to transcend that notion of human reason....as it should be, right?

There is nothing wrong with an atheist not believing in gods, just as it is OK for a theist believing in them. However just as it is impossible for a theist to prove a god's existence, it is impossible for an atheist to try to prove gods don't exist.

LR!

Sure, but there are more problems associated with that belief (system) than not... . With respect to the OP, the A-theist uses logic to arrive at their so-called cosmological conclusion, and that logic relates to contingency and causation which in turn, relates to logically necessary truths (a priori) that exist (like mathematical truths) in an attempt to explain same. And so positing purely objective kinds of rationale or truths to the A-theist, the question (one of many) remains for them to reconcile:

Philosophical Question: is the foregoing another example(s) of logical necessity? And if so, is the notion of a necessary Being absurd? And, if it's absurd, why?

Please share your thoughts if you can.