The concept of God and Cosmology
Posted: November 16th, 2022, 11:00 am
Greetings Philosophers!
This particular OP thesis is more of a fact-finding poll to see where other's fit into the general scope of so-called belief systems. I will offer two brief videos (no more than 5-minutes a piece) for a brief synopsis of cosmological 'concepts' in which to parse, argue or just consider. Generally, in cosmology, when one turns to logico-deductive reasoning, the simple syllogism which posits a 'logical' response to the synthetic judgement of 'all events must have a cause' is thus:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Firstly, you may wonder, what Darwinian survival advantages are there, in positing such a proposition and making such a statement(s) to begin with? And why do we care? Well, here are no biological survival advantages. Instead, there are real-world purposeful or pragmatic quality-of-life implications (qualitative distinctions) to such human ability to wonder about stuff (intrinsic/innate sense of wonderment and curiosity; technological advancements, critiquing of existing things, products, services, people, love/hate, purpose, etc. etc.). Right?
Similarly, advancing the idea of what might follow from such judgements is a cosmological concept of a God who started it all off. A prime mover that combines both the matter narrative and information narratives (quantities and qualities of things respectively) which in-turn breaths fire into their existence, otherwise known as the 'Hawking' equation's. A final cause that combines both the laws of physics and the genetic codes of biology as we know them. As such, the BB (or Multiverse, etc.) fits into this notion of a super-natural thing that causes something to exist, and not nothing. A cause that effects life.
Accordingly, because there is something and not nothing, Multiverse further implies that all things are on the table, and all things are logically possible. As such, Multiverse theories posit that if something exists, everything exists. Meaning, we could be in just a bubble or baby universe (one of many) where there is a sense of eternal existence as we understand eternity to be (see video). And that notion makes the arguments over the nature of time yet even more intriguing (what does it mean for there to exist eternal time v. temporal time), another argument.
In short, no matter which theory is the 'correct' one, to posit the concept of a God still holds, and/or is logically necessary or logically possible as a final cause. Otherwise, considering all of the qualitative properties of existing things, the information narratives, self-directed, self-organized propagation of the species, etc. (which includes the corresponding mysteries of the emergence of conscious existence), what are the explanations that provide for a better understanding of all life forms?
Here's the 101's:
This particular OP thesis is more of a fact-finding poll to see where other's fit into the general scope of so-called belief systems. I will offer two brief videos (no more than 5-minutes a piece) for a brief synopsis of cosmological 'concepts' in which to parse, argue or just consider. Generally, in cosmology, when one turns to logico-deductive reasoning, the simple syllogism which posits a 'logical' response to the synthetic judgement of 'all events must have a cause' is thus:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Firstly, you may wonder, what Darwinian survival advantages are there, in positing such a proposition and making such a statement(s) to begin with? And why do we care? Well, here are no biological survival advantages. Instead, there are real-world purposeful or pragmatic quality-of-life implications (qualitative distinctions) to such human ability to wonder about stuff (intrinsic/innate sense of wonderment and curiosity; technological advancements, critiquing of existing things, products, services, people, love/hate, purpose, etc. etc.). Right?
Similarly, advancing the idea of what might follow from such judgements is a cosmological concept of a God who started it all off. A prime mover that combines both the matter narrative and information narratives (quantities and qualities of things respectively) which in-turn breaths fire into their existence, otherwise known as the 'Hawking' equation's. A final cause that combines both the laws of physics and the genetic codes of biology as we know them. As such, the BB (or Multiverse, etc.) fits into this notion of a super-natural thing that causes something to exist, and not nothing. A cause that effects life.
Accordingly, because there is something and not nothing, Multiverse further implies that all things are on the table, and all things are logically possible. As such, Multiverse theories posit that if something exists, everything exists. Meaning, we could be in just a bubble or baby universe (one of many) where there is a sense of eternal existence as we understand eternity to be (see video). And that notion makes the arguments over the nature of time yet even more intriguing (what does it mean for there to exist eternal time v. temporal time), another argument.
In short, no matter which theory is the 'correct' one, to posit the concept of a God still holds, and/or is logically necessary or logically possible as a final cause. Otherwise, considering all of the qualitative properties of existing things, the information narratives, self-directed, self-organized propagation of the species, etc. (which includes the corresponding mysteries of the emergence of conscious existence), what are the explanations that provide for a better understanding of all life forms?
Here's the 101's:
