Beyond The God Debate

Jake

The God debate is built upon a number of assumptions which seem to require inspection. Let's tackle the issue of existence first.

The God debate typically asks, does a god exist, or not? We can observe that it's typically assumed without the least bit of questioning (for evidence see the infinite number of God debate threads on any philosophy forum) that the only possible answers to this question are yes or no.

Here's an interesting observation from science which may cause us to rethink this simplistic yes/no paradigm at the heart of the God debate.

According to this Nova documentary regarding the nature of space (at about minute 7:00)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSqWfu8aupI

(also available on Amazon Prime and PBS)

...If you removed all the space inside the atoms that make up the Empire State building you'd be left with a very heavy lump about the size of a grain of rice.

That is, the Empire State building, like all matter, consists overwhelmingly of what we typically define as nothing.

Does the Empire State building exist? In our everyday experience at human scale the practical sensible answer is obviously yes. But if we look closer at what physics tells us a more accurate answer seems to be that 99.99% of Empire State building doesn't exist according to our definition of existence.

Does the space which makes up most of the Empire State building exist? This isn't a simple yes/no question because while science has assigned characteristics to space, space seems to have none of the properties we typically use to define existence, such as weight, mass, form, color and shape etc.

So what we can learn using only observation of reality led by scientific experts is that the question of existence is no where near as simple as almost all God debates assume it to be. Most of reality can not be neatly filed in to either an "exists" or "doesn't exist" box.

What's happening instead is that commentators on all sides of the God debate are taking an either/or assumption which is entirely sensible and useful in our everyday life at human scale, and crudely attempting to apply that simplistic paradigm to the God concept, a collection of theories regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, a profoundly different scale. This process might be compared to the long held belief that the Earth must be at the center of all reality because that's what it looks like from our human scale perspective.

What's particularly interesting is that this sloppy error of 1) assuming that gods can only exist or not exist and 2) ignoring very basic facts about the nature of reality which can be learned on Netflix, is not just performed by ego crazed cocky college sophomores on philosophy forums, but also by many of the most famous and influential thought leaders on all sides of the question. This suggests the problem is not merely a lack of education or maturity but rather some form of profound bias built in to the human condition.

Participants in the God debate are typically so eager to sell their preferred answer that they almost always rush blindly past the crucial issue of whether whether the question being asked is a useful question which can generate meaningful answers. What we should be asking is whether the simplistic nature of the "does God exist?" question has been made valid by by being built upon what has been learned from observation of reality by experts.

If space, the overwhelming vast majority of reality, can not be clearly said to either exist or not exist, what is the logical basis for the nearly universally shared assumption that a God would have to either exist or not exist, yes or no, one or the other?

There is no such logical basis, revealing that in the vast majority of cases the God debate is not a function of reason.

And so perhaps a few members of philosophy forums may wish to explore beyond the predictably unproductive patterns of the God debate.

To be continued...

Jake

Here's another example of how assumptions which are practical, useful and essentially true at human scale can fall apart when we shift the focus to the most fundamental nature of all reality, the scope of the God debate.

For some background let's refer to another science documentary from Nova, from the same Fabric Of The Cosmos series referenced in the opening post. This show is called the Illusion Of Time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qu9XaF2K10

This is a great documentary well worth watching in full, but for the purposes of this post I'll refer to only one of the concepts presented, the fact that time runs at different speeds in different situations. I chose variable time speed to focus on here because this seems to have been proven, whereas some of the other fascinating concepts about time presented in the documentary seem to be only interesting theories.

It's been proven that time runs at different rates depending on the observer's relationship to large masses such as planets, and the observer's movement through space. So for example time runs at a different rate at the top of a mountain than it does at sea level. In fact, this time speed difference has to be programmed in to GPS satellites in order for them to generate accurate location data.

At human scale variable time speed can typically be safely ignored because the time speed difference between the top of a mountain and sea level is measured in billionths of a second, a number of little practical value in our everyday lives. However, as the GPS satellite example illustrates as we move on to larger scales variable time speed becomes an ever larger factor.

At human scale we experience time as a reliable fixed measure, which is reasonable and practical because at human scale that's very close to the case. But what science is teaching us is that what seems an obvious given in our everyday human scale experience can not be automatically assumed to be binding on everything everywhere.

Variable time speed seems relevant to the God debate because it further illustrates a pattern of assumptions that often attempt to impose facts that are reasonable at human scale on to the immeasurably larger scale addressed by God theories.

Jake

Here's another often unexamined assumption at the heart of the God debate, and another example of the attempt to impose human scale concepts upon all of reality.

Theists usually define God as being some kind of super intelligence, whereas atheists are more likely to perceive reality as being a function of the random collision of mechanical forces, that is, not intelligent. Is the heart of reality intelligent? Or not intelligent? While competing answers to this question battle each other for centuries, the quality of the question itself is most often ignored.

Our understanding of intelligence arises from our experience at human scale, and it is a useful concept within that realm. As example, if one is comparing humans and donkeys our concept of intelligence can be a relevant guide in such a comparison.

We should however keep in mind that everything we know about intelligence has been developed on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies, in one of what may be many universes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Mgqyj0fa4

That is, our concept of intelligence arises from an indescribably small sample of reality. And yet, in the God debate this human scale concept of intelligence is so often casually assumed without questioning to be relevant to competing proposals about the fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

Asking whether reality is intelligent may be no more useful than asking whether reality wears sneakers, whether reality brushes it teeth, whether reality types on forums etc. That is, any attempt to impose human scale concepts upon all of reality may be so inherently flawed as to doom any further discussion from the start.

So what we can observe again is that an unwillingness to inspect and challenge the quality of the question being asked can so easily lead to enormous effort being invested in a centuries long competing answers contest which is reasonably labeled essentially meaningless.

Vince

↪Jake

I don't think we're made of space, it's more like we are made of matter that occupies space at a certain time. Regardless, I believe space exists.

Jake

Hi Vince,

It's not my purpose to debate physics, for I'm clearly not qualified to do so. My point is only that space can not be clearly said to exist or not exist. It's reasonable to say space exists, but then it's also reasonable to say that space has none of the properties we typically use to define existence.

What I'm attempting to point out is that while the God debate typically assumes existence is a simple yes/no question, the existence of the overwhelming majority of reality (space) does not appear to be at all a simple yes/no question.

The larger point is that if it's true that the yes/no question at the heart of the God debate is inherently flawed then all the competing answers being argued about may be essentially meaningless, that is, a complete waste of time.

Personally, I find this a very interesting possibility. Those on all sides of the issue who have married their personal identity to one of the competing answers may not feel the same way.

Vince

↪Jake

Hi Jake,

I understand that my remark is besides the point. I like your example about intelligence better than the one about space.
The problem I have with the god debate is that I believe that there are too many definitions of god, usually full of contradictions. If I had not been told by others about the concept of god, I would have never thought of it.

The larger point is that if it's true that the yes/no question at the heart of the God debate is inherently flawed then all the competing answers being argued about may be essentially meaningless, that is, a complete waste of time. — Jake

Couldn't that apply to a lot of other questions as well?

Wayfarer

In my years of debates on forums, I have come to the view that most of what is written about this topic is a consequence of cultural dynamics rather than philosophy, per se.

Western culture was for many centuries under the thumb of the powerful institution of the Church; in early Europe, the Church was practically the only institution apart from the various monarchies. And Western religion in particular put a premium on 'right belief' - ortho-doxa. It was imperative that you adhered to the orthodox understanding, and those who were deemed a threat to it, were dealt with very harshly; something which was also the cause of tremendous political and civil upheavals and wars. So in my view, that is one of the principle factors underlying the emergence of 'this secular age'. It was felt to be essential to define a philosophy which excluded reference to divinity, as a matter of principle. This was, for example written into the Articles of the Royal Society, which was the first scientific society.

That's where, in my opinion, the 'yes/no' question you're referring to originates. The general drift is, if you answer 'yes', then that is understood to entail many other beliefs, many of which seem deeply entangled with what are nowadays felt to be outmoded or superseded beliefs from an earlier period of culture. So it's felt to be easier to answer 'no' and then to proceed as if the natural domain, the empirical, observable universe, is real, and try to ascertain its governing principles by scientific method; to flesh out, or reverse-engineer, the foundations, purely on the basis of observation and mathematical reasoning:

In science, our goal is to describe everything we observe or measure in the Universe through natural, physical explanations alone ¹. — Ethan Siegel

But the problem is, as you accurately observe, that science itself has now cast considerable doubt on how cut-and-dried the naturalistic answer actually is. There are huge debates boiling in physics and cosmology about the nature of matter, of the 'standard model', the Big Bang (which is an inherently mystical idea to begin with!), parallel universes, and so on. So once you move past the formulaic, stereotyped 'god vs atheist' frame of reference, all kinds of possibilities become available, but they're a bit arcane for popular consumption; finding reference points and new frames of reference becomes the challenge. But an interesting challenge it is!

Jake

I understand that my remark is besides the point. — Vince

I didn't mean to imply that, and thank you for your contribution.

Couldn't that apply to a lot of other questions as well? — Vince

Yes, of course, agreed.

Jake

So in my view, that is one of the principle factors underlying the emergence of 'this secular age'. It was felt to be essential to define a philosophy which excluded reference to divinity, as a matter of principle. — Wayfarer

But we don't want excluding reference to divinity to become yet another dogma, right? We don't want yet another system of thought built upon unquestioning belief in unproven authorities, unexamined assumptions etc. We don't want to replicate some of the worst aspects of religion under a different colored flag and then delude ourselves in to thinking we've made a revolutionary change. At least this is my view.

So it's felt to be easier to answer 'no' and then to proceed as if the natural domain, the empirical, observable universe, is real, and try to ascertain its governing principles by scientific method; to flesh out, or reverse-engineer, the foundations, purely on the basis of observation and mathematical reasoning: — Wayfarer

Simpler and easier for sure, but not especially useful if we willfully ignore inconvenient observations of reality, such as I'm attempting to point to above.

I hear what you're saying about the history, that seems a good explanation of how we got here. And prior to the discoveries of 20th century what you describe was an arguably reasonable process. But 100 years after Einstein it seems to no longer make sense to assume existence is a yes or no question. It is reasonable and practical to use that yes/no paradigm in our everyday lives, but God proposals address a far larger realm than that.

In any case, what I hope to accomplish is to invite members to shift some of their focus from the competing answers to the question being asked. If it is true that the question has the fatal flaw of bearing little resemblance to reality, then it's at least possible we may be able to sweep all the competing answers off the table in one efficient movement. To me, just one vote, exploring that possibility seems far more interesting than recycling the competing answers contest for the billionth time.

Jake

But the problem is, as you accurately observe, that science itself has now cast considerable doubt on how cut-and-dried the naturalistic answer actually is. There are huge debates boiling in physics and cosmology about the nature of matter, of the 'standard model', the Big Bang (which is an inherently mystical idea to begin with!), parallel universes, and so on. So once you move past the formulaic, stereotyped 'god vs atheist' frame of reference, all kinds of possibilities become available, but they're a bit arcane for popular consumption; finding reference points and new frames of reference becomes the challenge. But an interesting challenge it is! — Wayfarer

Yes to all of this, agreed.

What I liked about the documentaries linked to above is they seem to do a pretty good job of explaining some of these bizarre new insights in a manner that is pretty accessible to anyone with a sincere interest.

Shamshir

I believe the issue of 'The God Debate' lies with perspective.

When one attempts to debate God, perspectively, one debates God relatively. - as one would debate an object.
Instead one should ponder the whole; when one does this, the answers become apparent.

When one substitutes 'God' for 'everything' - it is apparent that everything exists, is omnipotent, omnipresent and so forth. Yet, man wishes 'God' to be a man; to be a thing. And that is the issue.
God should be the whole, not a part.

Jake

God should be the whole, not a part. — Shamshir

I'm very sympathetic to this view, with the exception that at the moment one uses any noun such as God, one has created a "thing" presumed to be separate from all other things, for that is the function of nouns. Language almost forces us to create divisions which, in my view as well, are mostly illusory.

Wayfarer

But we don't want excluding reference to divinity to become yet another dogma, right? — Jake

But that is what has happened, on a very deep level. Post-enlightenment philosophy constructed a meticulous model out of 'anything but God'. The French philosophes, the Scottish Enlightenment, Marxism, and many other cultural streams came together to try and define a coherent worldview without reference to the idea of anything holy or divine ¹. It's a deep issue, for that reason - it underlies a lot of debate, without being fully articulated, as it forms the basis for what we understand as normative judgement. So, a lot of the dynamics of the debate are in some ways unstated or assumed, because they're, in effect, an aspect of the collective psyche, not a matter of individual choice.

at the moment one uses any noun such as God, one has created a "thing" presumed to be separate from all other things, for that is the function of nouns. — Jake

With the crucial caveat, that in a liturgical or soteriological setting, the invocation of the name of God is itself transformative ('the holy name'). But in another sense, I agree, in that names in profane usage are precisely 'objectifying', or reifying, 'making into a thing'. Whereas a proper sacramental relationship is defined in terms of 'I-thou' (pace Martin Buber) - again, a relationship with a real being or power, not simply an abstract philosophical concept.

Which leads to another underlying dynamic, which is that in the pre-modern world, the Universe was intuitively felt to be alive, as it was a creation or emanation of the God or Gods. So the human stance was intuitively different in that man was related to the Cosmos (hence, imago dei). This again was not something necessarily conscious or articulated, in that this too was kind of an underlying feeling, an 'arche' in some sense.

Whereas the overwhelming feeling of modernity is that of exile, otherness, separation, being cast out into a meaningless universe as a result of chance - a theme underlying a lot of 20th Century literature and drama. It is the plight of modernity.

But 100 years after Einstein it seems to no longer make sense to assume existence is a 'yes' or 'no' question. — Jake

Again, this is a consequence of the way in which the whole issue was posed by Christian orthodoxy: that God exists, and you either believe it (yes = saved) or don't (no = damned). So it's understandable to wish to side-step the entire dilemma!

It's also interesting to contrast this with the formulation of the Buddhist 'middle way' principle:

In Mahayana Buddhism, the Madhyamaka ("Middle Way") school portrays a "middle way" position between metaphysical claims that things ultimately either exist or do not exist. Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā deconstructs the usage of terms describing reality ('the way things are'), leading to the insight into śūnyatā (emptiness). It contains only one reference to a sutta, the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta from the Samyutta Nikaya:

"Everything exists": That is one extreme.
"Everything doesn't exist": That is a second extreme.
Avoiding these two extremes,
The Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the Middle.

Wikipedia

Which is considerably more nuanced than monotheism.

Shamshir

↪Jake

Certainly, not merely nouns, but words and language as a whole is a distinction from what it is applied to; which is to say, describes.

Now, I will stray for a bit in saying that every monologue is a dialogue, for every monologue is one relating not to oneself, but a reflection. While it is to me, incomprehensible, when I attempt to think of it - I view monologue as mute; silent. To attempt to explain it, I would symbolise monologue through self-awareness; which whilst constantly active, is silent. Now that may be evidently contradictive, but I would view it thus: It is not contradictive, as everything has already been said and done; much like how a song and a movie are complete before they may be played.

The reason I brought that up, is to suggest that language is like the playing of the song and the movie and words are like any one frame of the song or the movie.

One cannot describe a song or a movie by a single frame; nor does a single frame constitute either, unless that single frame is all there is - the whole.

But as you know, God is viewed and referenced to as a frame but not as the frame that is all there is.
As if that was the view of God, calling it God would be pointless; literally pointless.
But like how a sentence, a word, a letter is a point somewhere - so the word God.

I think, should one preach, one should preach meaning - not words.

The God debate typically asks, does a god exist, or not? We can observe that it's typically assumed without the least bit of questioning (for evidence see the infinite number of God debate threads on any philosophy forum) that the only possible answers to this question are yes or no. — Jake

Not true. There are plenty who answer, "Don't know", or who at least consider that to be a third alternative.

That is, the Empire State building, like all matter, consists overwhelmingly of what we typically define as nothing.

Does the Empire State building exist? In our everyday experience at human scale the practical sensible answer is obviously yes. But if we look closer at what physics tells us a more accurate answer seems to be that 99.99% of Empire State building doesn't exist according to our definition of existence. — Jake

This is where the distinction between science talk and ordinary language is useful. Ordinary language takes priority in my book, so, although I don't disagree with good science, I don't take that to be a justification for going around saying that the the Empire State building doesn't exist. That's rightly seen as a ridiculous thing to go around saying. It exists.

The question, "Does God exist?", is probably best met with another question, namely, "First, what are you talking about?".

Merkwurdichliebe

This is where the distinction between science talk and ordinary language is useful. Ordinary language takes priority in my book — S

This is a question I've always pondered, maybe you can help me. What is the best criterion for assessing what constitutes ordinary language?

I'm ignorant, just asking.

This is a question I've always pondered, maybe you can help me. What is the best criterion for assessing what constitutes ordinary language?

I'm ignorant, just asking. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's how people ordinarily talk. This can be observed, and most of us pick it up to the extent that by our age, it is easily identifiable. We know that we don't ordinarily talk of existence in a way which leads to seemingly absurd consequences, like that the Empire State building doesn't exist.

Merkwurdichliebe

↪S

Yes, there are extreme examples that are obvious, but I'm talking about the more subtle examples that aren't so clearly weird. On the other hand, attributing ordinary language to a matter of common sense puts too much emphasis on subjectivity. I am asking what criterion we can use, which will account for the subtle examples that lie in the grey area between ordinary and weird, yet, while reigning in the arbitrary subjective determinations.

hachit

↪Jake

The God debate is built upon a number of assumptions which seem to require inspection.

Some may, I don't. I make one assumption and it is that God exists. Then I follow it is its conclusion I haven't found any contradiction yet.

Deleteduserrc

It's how people ordinarily talk. This can be observed, and most of us pick it up to the extent that by our age, it is easily identifiable. We know that we don't ordinarily talk of existence in a way which leads to seemingly absurd consequences, like that the Empire State building doesn't exist. — S

It's very clear. So, for instance, people prior to the enlightenment wouldn't talk of 'human rights' (clearly language on holiday) and so forth. A necessary, but not sufficient, condition of true OLP thought is that everything it says you already agree with (that's why an 'olp' philosopher circa , idk, 1340 would correctly mock people who didn't believe in God.) A sufficient, but not necessary, condition is that there're Terry Pratchett or Kurt Vonnegut style barbs about how things are absurd and we live in a society.

I like sushi

The question is about “questions”.

You could’ve spoken of the “existence” of “numbers” or “tables”. The meaning of the terms posed must, imo, be set out prior to further questioning. The meaning is limited by how the term functions in both plain speech and as a “configuration” of various ideas and practical applications.

This is the reason I insist on people stating what they mean by “God” before I can say anything else - most of the time this is met with accusations of “reductionism” and/or “word play”.

In the ethical sense the best I’ve heard is equivalent to Anselm’s definition (sorry, may have been someone else in the rough historical vicinity not him?) which is to say that “God” is the highest known “good”. This has it’s own embedded questions (which is also a key feature to concepts of a God; that of questioning and endless discovery) as we are constantly reevaluating what is “better”. This is likely why some more religious folks fail to grasp that religion doesn’t own “morality”.

As for “going beyond” this is somewhat esoteric in its formation. We “play” with ideas for the sake of it and occasionally stumble across something of practical application and use - not necessarily in a physicalist sense as we can orientate aspects of our sense of being that are not fully consumed with a “physicalist” outlook; such as “love” and “justice”.

In these sense “god” is a phenomenon of multiple forms, and life is a phenomenon of many aspects with the concept of “god” being the proposition of meaning existing where we cannot currently observe any. To talk of “god” is merely ONE expression of a universal human phenomenon; that is to “exist” in whatever way/form/idea we “exist”. We must necessarily attach ourselves to one more unified idea than another in order to differentiate “being”. It seems to me this ‘distance between’ tells us more in its silence than any word articulation - for this reason I can most certainly sympathise with the frustration I see in myself and others when trying to shed our light of understanding hoping to light the way for others and ourselves.

Participants in the God debate are typically so eager to sell their preferred answer that they almost always rush blindly past the crucial issue of whether whether the question being asked is a useful question which can generate meaningful answers. — Jake

People will defend their grounding to the death because they’d likely die without. I really think the concept of the Axis Mundi is important in this regard. We cannot see the world other than how we see it. To have this torn away from us is going to cause resistance and/or death (metaphorically if not literally). We don’t really have an endless openness to the possibilities at our feet. We’re blinded, and sighted, by what we do and don’t see; this is also empirically verified in the neuroscientific data we’ve accumulated (neural priming) and apparent in psychological fixedness long before the empirical data gave a more physical substance to this knowledge.

As to meaningful and meaningless answers, we can spin this on its head and ask if one-hundred meaningless questions are worth knowing more than one meaningful answer? Therein is the confusion of language and the component of word play ready to greedily take on any phrase and destroy it: meaning we could say that knowing one-hundred meaningless/fruitless questions is of value negatively so it is ‘meaningful’ in that sense. The underlying article, as far as I can see - and as I’ve hopefully outlined prior to the above quote - is that the question of the question is one that avoids askance (quite obviously) by its very nature. Maybe we shouldn’t be viewing the ‘question’ as a ‘question’ ... but that is just another question and to break the cycle is not something logically tangible. In such realms fools, geniuses, madmen and shamans dance their silent dances - for them the question is ignored.

Devans99

What we should be asking is whether the simplistic nature of the "does God exist?" question has been made valid by by being built upon what has been learned from observation of reality by experts. — Jake

This is the reason I insist on people stating what they mean by “God” before I can say anything else - most of the time this is met with accusations of “reductionism” and/or “word play”. — I like sushi

The question 'Does God exist?' requires a definition of God which is not always provided with the 'proof of God'. It is not a meaningful question without that definition.

Depending on the exact definition of God used, 'Does God exist?' may or may not be addressable with logic and science. For example, St Anselm’s definition as the GCB does not lead to any logical proof in my opinion (the GCB does not have to exist in reality despite what St Anselm says).

Defining God with all sorts of additional, far fetched attributes (like the 3Os) also makes proof of God a non-scientific / non-logical proposition.

For a logical proof of God, it is best to be quite strict and spartan with the definition used. For example, if you restrict the definition to 'the first cause', then it is possible to make a reasonable argument:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

The God debate typically asks, does a god exist, or not? We can observe that it's typically assumed without the least bit of questioning (for evidence see the infinite number of God debate threads on any philosophy forum) that the only possible answers to this question are yes or no. — Jake

I usually answer the 'Does God exist?' question with a probability God (according to a particular definition) exists. I don't see how anyone, theist/atheist/other, can arrive at yes/no as an answer with certainty.

I like sushi

↪Devans99

Considering there may be no actual “first cause” we’re cannot running under one, or more, assumptions no matter what we do.

Logic is generally a guide not a soothsayer. Meaning we can establish many logical arguments, but they’re always open to the questioning of inference ... hence why I decided to focus on the concept of “question” more than meaning. All questions assume at least the ‘ghost’ of a meaning, but the question as a activity is much more mysterious to me because it is so ‘obvious’ yet evades capture.

Devans99

Considering there may be no actual “first cause” we’re cannot running under one, or more, assumptions no matter what we do. — I like sushi

It is logically impossible for anything to exist without a first cause.

Logic is generally a guide not a soothsayer. Meaning we can establish many logical arguments, but they’re always open to the questioning of inference ... — I like sushi

It's the axioms that are usually attacked. For example, all that is needed to show there is a first cause is causality (actually you can even show there is a first cause without causality) so causality often gets attacked.

I like sushi

It is logically impossible for anything to exist without a first cause. — Devans99

Is it then logical for something to be a “first cause” if it cannot be caused? Such argumentation is called a contradiction. Just in case this isn’t clear you could argue about where a circle begins and ends ... it would be a thankless task and regardless where you propose the point the circle begins to be I’d likely not be massively convinced (unless you said “at the centre” or “at the circumference”)

Your second reply makes just as much logical sense as the first.

Devans99

Is it then logical for something to be a “first cause” if it cannot be caused? — I like sushi

The first cause is timeless - beyond causality. It has 'always' existed. It was not created. This is the only way to avoid an infinite regress of time stretching back forever. It's the only way the universe can be.

I like sushi

↪Devans99

Another contradiction. If it is the “first cause” yet “outside of causality” then it cannot be “the first cause” because that would require attachment to causation.

I’ll stop there. Someone else may be able to see more eye-to-eye with you.

Devans99

↪I like sushi

If you are outside causality, you can still create causality, IE create time.

I like sushi

↪Devans99

see here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/282657

I think you’d appreciate what is being discussed there maybe? It’s not theological, but it touches on a rather similar theme in regards to time. See you there, if not have fun here.

Possibility

↪Devans99

The term ‘first cause’ is unhelpful. As sushi pointed out, there cannot be a first cause that is also timeless. Your understanding of a timeless cause of causality itself is flawed - you’re still thinking about it from inside time.

A timeless cause would have to always be the underlying cause of every action and interaction - not just the initial ‘something from (apparently) nothing’.

Devans99

↪Possibility

There has to be a first cause that is also timeless - something has to have permanent existence and that something has to create time.

Aquinas's Argument From Necessary Being expresses this nicely, paraphrased below:

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’.
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (an infinite regress; it would have no start so could not be), so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.

See here for more reasons why there must be a timeless first cause:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

(sorry for going off topic)

Beyond The God Debate

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions