God Almost Certainly Exists

Devans99

I know this is an old argument that has been with us for 1000s of years. Most memorably, St Thomas Aquinas recounted it as his 2nd of 5 ways to prove the existence of God. But I feel it is worth revisiting - it is almost certainly correct.

Infinite regresses come up when discussing the origin of the universe in terms of cause and effect - chains of cause and effect stretch backwards in time (a cause causes an effect and the effect in turn causes another effect and so on), the question is do these chains of cause and effect stretch back forever or is there an initial first cause?

If the chains of cause and effect stretch back forever, then there cannot be a first cause. The first cause would cause the 2nd cause - without the first cause, the second cause cannot be. Likewise, the nth cause would cause the nth+1 cause, so by mathematical induction, causality cannot exist at all if there is no first cause. But causality does exist, so there must be a first cause.

Illustrating this proof with an example from pool: The cue hits the white ball. The white ball hits the black ball. The black goes in the pocket. Would the black ball go in the pocket if the cue did not hit the white? No - we have removed the first element in a time ordered regress and found that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress cannot exist - infinite regresses are impossible.

Obviously this argument makes the assumption that the law of cause and effect holds universally. Causality is best explained as matter interacting with matter - either by collision or gravitational interaction. Newton's third law of motion is that whenever two objects interact, they exert equal and opposite forces on each other - this law governs causality (for matter collisions). The other main law governing causality is Newton’s second law - the mass of bodies causes a force on other bodies remotely via the force of gravity. So the often mentioned claim that causality is somehow an unscientific concept does not seem justifiable.

We also live our lives according to the law of cause and effect - so we have all consciously or sub-consciously accepted the axiom of causality.

So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time.

Gary M Washburn

What a load of drivel! Do you really think we understand what causality is well enough to draw conclusions from an Aristotelian meme? 1+1 only equals 2 if we go off half-cocked (as usual!) supposing we know what we mean by this fantasy! If everything is unique, and there is absolutely no adequate proof otherwise, god doesn't add up. Does god + god equal two gods? Sure? If A is A, 1+1 does not equal 2, but is merely a redundancy. Saying the same thing over and over, coming to the same asinine conclusion over and over again, may be something or other, but it sure as hell ain't philosophy. If I seem harsh, it's only because one gets tired of banging one's head against the same wall of conventional, sclerotic thinking. It may seem to all the world, and it does, that a proposition is a fixed value, but in fact it is, in its most vibrant sense, a characterization. The ontological fallacy always catches us. What is is not what was or will be, but a dramatic moment from which only what departs has any meaning for anything else. God is never such a departed moment, and therefore does not and never was or will be part of a real universe of time. The apple is red because it is not what redness is, and redness appears in the apple because it is not what the apple is. The god you suppose you have proven cannot pull off that trick!

Gary M Washburn

PS, I'm on borrowed WiFi, and may not be back for days.

Echarmion

So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time. — Devans99

But if cause and effect hold universally there cannot be a first cause, because that first cause would, by definition, be outside of cause an effect, and so it's no longer universal.

Devans99

But if cause and effect hold universally there cannot be a first cause, because that first cause would, by definition, be outside of cause an effect, and so it's no longer universal. — Echarmion

I imagine a wider universe somehow containing spacetime. Causality as we know it, dominates spacetime, but in the wider universe, causality as we know it may not apply, so an uncaused cause would be possible.

So as I see it, there is something permanent outside of spacetime (nothing is permanent within spacetime) and this permanent thing is the first cause. It is outside of causality but it is the root of causality - the tip of the pyramid of cause and effect.

Ciceronianus

Well, then, I suppose we should "almost certainly" believe in something uncaused. Whatever that may be.

Devans99

Well, then, I suppose we should "almost certainly" believe in something uncaused. Whatever that's supposed to mean — Ciceronianus the White

Being 'caused' implies that a cause, prior in time, caused and effect, subsequently in time.

Everything in time appears to have a cause.

So an 'uncaused cause' would clearly have to be external to time. For an uncaused cause, there is no 'before' or 'after', there is just IS - it is external to time. Something that exists permanently - outside of time - and so was never caused.

Echarmion

↪Devans99

But if it's outside the universe, then it could be anything - or nothing. If causality is not universal, it might be circular, or work in some other bizarre fashion. We just end up with a big unknown.

Ciceronianus

↪Devans99

Why assume such a thing (if we can even meaningfully speak of anything "outside the universe") would be anything like "God" as believed in by some of us humans?

Devans99

But if it's outside the universe, then it could be anything - or nothing. If causality is not universal, it might be circular, or work in some other bizarre fashion. We just end up with a big unknown. — Echarmion

It - the first cause - has to be something real (physical) and permanent:

- assume you can't get something from nothing (as per the law of conservation of energy)
- then the universe can never have been in a state of nothingness
- else nothingness would persist to today
- so something permanent must exist
- and nothing permanent can exist within spacetime
- so something real/physical exists outside spacetime
- and it somehow (we only have evidence for causation within time) caused spacetime

Devans99

Why assume such a thing (if we can even meaningfully speak of anything "outside the universe") would be anything like "God" as believed in by some of us humans? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes a fair point, I should clarify what I mean by God:

- not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient
- capable of independent action
- inteligent
- able to create spacetime
- benevolent
- timeless

So not exactly the God of christianity! It could be flying spaghetti monster (within the above limitations).

Echarmion

It - the first cause - has to be something real (physical) and permanent: — Devans99

If it's outside of spacetime it's not physical. If it's outside of cause and effect it's not physical. If it's outside of time it's not "permanent" in any traditional sense of the word.

Devans99

If it's outside of spacetime it's not physical. If it's outside of cause and effect it's not physical. If it's outside of time it's not "permanent" in any traditional sense of the word. — Echarmion

It seems that nothing can be permanent within spacetime, but something permanent must exist else there would be nothing at all.

The simplest model is to assume that 4d spacetime maps onto 4d space (eternalism). Then there is a wider universe that is physical and it contains spacetime.

Or the first cause must be able to cause something (eg the Big Bang) and to cause something you have to effect matter and to effect matter you have to be matter - so the first cause maybe material.

Ciceronianus

So not exactly the God of christianity! It could be flying spaghetti monster (within the above limitations). — Devans99

Yes. That's always been the problem with Aquinas' arguments "proving" the existence of God, and the problem with others trying to take advantage of them. As I recall, Aquinas would end his proofs with words to this effect: "And this we call God." Well no, we don't.

Devans99

Yes. That's always been the problem with Aquinas' arguments "proving" the existence of God, and the problem with others trying to take advantage of them. As I recall, Aquinas would end his proofs with words to this effect: "And this we call God." Well no, we don't. — Ciceronianus the White

I did credit Thomas for the idea in the OP!

I tend to think of the creator of the universe as God. I can appreciate that you have a different perspective.

Kenosha Kid

So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time. — Devans99

What Aquinus regurgitated was that there must either be a first cause or an infinite regress of causes. The failure of his logic was to suddenly shout "And this we call God" at the end like some kind of theological Tourette's syndrome.

"The inflationary model of the Big Bang theory posits a permanent and expanding metastable scalar field that, at any given point, has some finite probability of locally and spontaneously collapsing into a hot vacuum capable of polarising the fermionic field to create great quantities of matter.

And this we call God!"

Ciceronianus

the end like some kind of theological Tourette's syndrome. — Kenosha Kid

Very fitting, KK.

Devans99

What Aquinus regurgitated was that there must either be a first cause or an infinite regress of causes. The failure of his logic was to suddenly shout "And this we call God" at the end like some kind of theological Tourette's syndrome. — Kenosha Kid

I think we are splitting hairs here: the first cause must be capable of independent, intelligent, action and be capable of starting time. I call that God. I appreciate that you may wish to use a different definition of 'God'.

The inflationary model of the Big Bang theory posits a permanent and expanding metastable scalar field that, at any given point, has some finite probability of locally and spontaneously collapsing into a hot vacuum capable of polarising the fermionic field to create great quantities of matter. — Kenosha Kid

And where did it start? If its expanding, it has a start. It cannot have been strictly permanent if it's expanding - there are places it has not been to yet. You really are talking nonsense with that last paragraph!

Ciceronianus

I tend to think of the creator of the universe as God. I can appreciate that you have a different perspective. — Devans99

I tend to fall in the pantheism/panpsychism camp. But it's always annoyed me when Christian apologists, for example, refer to the famous proofs of God existence, which if anything merely relate to what is generally called "the god of the philosophers." Of the philosophers, yes. Of the Christians, no. That's not to say you fall into that error, as you evidently don't.

Devans99

I tend to fall in the pantheism/panpsychism camp. But it's always annoyed me when Christian apologists, for example, refer to the famous proofs of God existence, which if anything merely relate to what is generally called "the god of the philosophers." Of the philosophers, yes. Of the Christians, no. — Ciceronianus the White

Pantheism seems like a possibility. One problem is the speed of light - parts of the universe are moving apart at faster than the speed of light - so these regions are causally disconnected from each other. If the universe was a being, its head could not control its toes. So if pantheism is correct, the being - the universe itself - must be able to disobey the speed of light speed limit.

Panpsychism - a quark would need a mind of some sort? That mind would need a physical representation. That leads to an infinite regress of minds. So that cannot be right.

Kenosha Kid

I think we are splitting hairs here: the first cause must be capable of independent, intelligent, action and be capable of starting time. — Devans99

A creationist may not be able to abide the lack of an intelligent first cause. That does not necessitate an intelligent creator.

And where did it start? If its expanding, it has a start. It cannot have been strictly permanent if it's expanding - there are places it has not been to yet. You really are talking nonsense with that last paragraph! — Devans99

Yes, something can be infinite and expanding. The hypothesised inflaton field is such a thing and, unlike God, we can not only hypothesise it, but we can describe exactly how it creates universes if it exists. One-nil to inflatons.

One problem is the speed of light - parts of the universe are moving apart at faster than the speed of light - so this regions are causally disconnected from each other. — Devans99

You do realise this is the same inflationary model of the universe you just described as nonsense :rofl:

Aquinus' God btw was causal. When he hears of sodomy, he sends angels. When he tires of humanity, he sends floods. We must go back further, to God's first cause: a stone age human trying to make sense of a world he had not the technology or knowledge to rationalise.

Devans99

A creationist may not be able to abide the lack of an intelligent first cause. That does not necessitate an intelligent creator. — Kenosha Kid

The first cause must be able to cause something, so it must be capable of independent action, meaning it is self driven, therefore very likely intelligent. Plus the obviously signs of fine tuning for life in the universe point to intelligence, plus the enormous, suspicious looking explosion of the Big Bang seems like it would require intelligence to orchestrate.

Devans99

Yes, something can be infinite and expanding. The hypothesised inflaton field is such a thing and, unlike God, we can not only hypothesise it, but we can describe exactly how it creates universes if it exists. One-nil to inflatons — Kenosha Kid

If you say something will expand without end, you are describing the topology of future as some object without end - that is impossible - all objects require a non-zero length to exist and length=end-size so the length for something without end is UNDEFINED - IE not something that could actually exist.

Kenosha Kid

The first cause must be able to cause something, so it must be capable of independent action, meaning it is self driven, therefore very likely intelligent. — Devans99

Again, according to the creationist mindset which ascribes agency to anything it doesn't understand. There is still no reason why a first cause needs or even wants a intelligent causer.

Plus the obviously signs of fine tuning for life in the universe point to intelligence, plus the enormous, suspicious looking explosion of the Big Bang seems like it would require intelligence to orchestrate. — Devans99

Which is again a creationist's anthropocentric view: I am here, therefore it must all be for me. Meanwhile the universe seems quite ambivalent about us. I would actually agree that if the purpose of the universe was to create life, an intelligent creator would be likely. But since there's no evidence or reason for it other than to console the egos of some hairless apes, we need not consider it.

If you say something will expand without end, you are describing the topology of future as some object without end - that is impossible - all objects require a non-zero length to exist and length=end-size so the length for something without end is UNDEFINED - IE not something that could actually exist. — Devans99

You needn't even go that far. The universe could quite happily be infinite and expanding now. It is not the boundary of the universe that is expanding: every point is moving away from every adjacent point. If it was just that the universe was getting bigger, that would not explain the fact that every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy right now.

Devans99

There is still no reason why a first cause needs or even wants a intelligent causer — Kenosha Kid

The first cause must be able to cause something, so it is self-driven, which suggests intelligence.

Which is again a creationist's anthropocentric view: I am here, therefore it must all be for me. Meanwhile the universe seems quite ambivalent about us. I would actually agree that if the purpose of the universe was to create life, an intelligent creator would be likely. But since there's no evidence or reason for it other than to console the egos of some hairless apes, we need not consider it. — Kenosha Kid

Everything in the universe seems fine tuned for life. Just think about the atom - its an incredibly delicate balancing act - in most universes, matter would simply bounce of itself endlessly or clump together - our universe, we have the balancing act of atoms, and molecules - the absolutely necessary ingredients for life.

You needn't even go that far. The universe could quite happily be infinite and expanding now. It is not the boundary of the universe that is expanding: every point is moving away from every adjacent point. If it was just that the universe was getting bigger, that would not explain the fact that every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy right now. — Kenosha Kid

Nothing can go on forever, it would be without end. Then the length of the future would be end-start=UNDEFINED. Spacetime must have an end or it cannot logically exist. Probably a Big Crunch will happen.

A Seagull

So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time. — Devans99

So it follows that there must be something beyond our universe that 'caused' it to come into existence. But what that is is entirely unknown. To ascribe it to some story of an anthropomorphic god is really quite childish and naïve.

Devans99

So it follows that there must be something beyond our universe that 'caused' it to come into existence. But what that is is entirely unknown. To ascribe it to some story of an anthropomorphic god is really quite childish and naïve. — A Seagull

It appears that the first cause was intelligent. If you think of all forms of intelligent entities (man, animals, aliens, AI, gods), one thing they all would value is information - sensory perception in our case - is information.

So imagine an intelligent being all on its own - it would have the desire to create information - interest - and what could be better than create a whole universe of intelligent beings?

3017amen

Which is again a creationist's anthropocentric view: I am here, therefore it must all be for me. Meanwhile the universe seems quite ambivalent about us. I would actually agree that if the purpose of the universe was to create life, an intelligent creator would be likely. But since there's no evidence or reason for it other than to console the egos of some hairless apes, we need not consider it. — Kenosha Kid

What is your view (biocentric/ecocentric)? Cosmologically, do you have a theory about what was happening before the Big Bang ( a timeless first-cause)?

Or would you fall under, say, the Materialist/Reductionist camp-I'm just throwing that out? If so, what is your theory about how self-awareness evolved from a piece of wood?

Also, in an ethical way, how would you square objectification of men/women in a strictly materialistic sense (one of many questions of course, but since the objectification thread is active, it made me think of it...)? Meaning, I believe you have the burden of precluding conscious existence from the human condition/equation, no?

↪A Seagull

Do you have any opposing theories to anthropomorphic... ?

Kenosha Kid

The first cause must be able to cause something, so it is self-driven, which suggests intelligence. — Devans99

The inflation field can cause something and is self-driven. That's rather why I mentioned it.

Everything in the universe seems fine tuned for life. Just think about the atom - its an incredibly delicate balancing act - in most universes, matter would simply bounce of itself endlessly or clump together - our universe, we have the balancing act of atoms, and molecules - the absolutely necessary ingredients for life. — Devans99

Your body is fine-tuned as a walking bacterium habitat. Do you suppose you were created to house bacteria? The universe is as it is. Lots of things happen in it that have nothing to do with life: supernova, pulsars, neutrino oscillations, the quantum Hall effect, the Casimir effect, the orbit of Mercury, ad infinitum. Life is one of the things that can and did happen. There's no reason, beyond anthropocentrism, to suspect that the universe is specifically for life any more than it is specifically for pulsars. It's sheer arrogance, and a failure to even start to comprehend the scale of the universe, to think it's all about you and yours.

Nothing can go on forever, it would be without end. Then the length of the future would be end-start=UNDEFINED. Spacetime must have an end or it cannot logically exist. Probably a Big Crunch will happen. — Devans99

The accelerated expansion of the universe has rather ruled out a big crunch, which required gravity to overcome what was supposed at the time to be a linear or diminishing expansion. And there's no reason why it can't go on forever. The shape of the universe suggests that eternity is on the cards, a heat death most probably, but even if it does end, the inflaton field that might have created it can carry on and on and on.... In fact, quantum mechanics suggests it will do precisely that unless someone measured it or something.

Actually that's a better justification. If this is the only universe and if the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, someone must have observed the inflaton field in order for it to have collapse to a hot vacuum... and we call that someone God!

Frank Apisa

Whether there is at least one god...or that there are no gods...

...is an unknown. It is something that cannot be determined by logic or science.

The question of whether it is more likely that there is at least one god...or if it is more liekly that there are no gods...

...ALSO IS AN UNKNOWN...and cannot be determined by logic or science.

We would all be doing logic and science a favor by leaving them out of this discussion. There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with making a blind guess in either direction...and one of those guesses is probably correct. (Almost certainly correct.)

So make guesses...but don't suppose they are anything more than guesses.

Devans99

The inflation field can cause something and is self-driven — Kenosha Kid

The inflation field must have a start.

Your body is fine-tuned as a walking bacterium habitat. Do you suppose you were created to house bacteria? The universe is as it is. Lots of things happen in it that have nothing to do with life: supernova, pulsars, neutrino oscillations, the quantum Hall effect, the Casimir effect, the orbit of Mercury, ad infinitum. Life is one of the things that can and did happen. There's no reason, beyond anthropocentrism, to suspect that the universe is specifically for life any more than it is specifically for pulsars. It's sheer arrogance, and a failure to even start to comprehend the scale of the universe, to think it's all about you and yours. — Kenosha Kid

Supernovas and pulsars are a result of gravity which is a absolute requirement form life. The Casimir effect has an alternative explanation that does not involve or prove the existence of virtual particles. How would you (imagine yourself as God) go about creating life? Design or brute force? We are so complex that we can rule design out of the question - So God had no choice but to evolve rather than design us. So we are not perfect beings... we are the product of evolution ... which was God's doing.

The accelerated expansion of the universe has rather ruled out a big crunch, which required gravity to overcome what was supposed at the time to be a linear or diminishing expansion. And there's no reason why it can't go on forever. The shape of the universe suggests that eternity is on the cards, a heat death most probably, but even if it does end, the inflaton field that might have created it can carry on and on and on.... In fact, quantum mechanics suggests it will do precisely that unless someone measured it or something — Kenosha Kid

The astronomers can't even agree on the speed of the expansion of the universe, and the speed has changed in the past - so it could change - contract - in future. Nothing can go on forever because time can't go on forever. Saying something goes on forever means it goes on for a longer than finite period of time. But time passing is just adding one - it can never become greater than finite.

God Almost Certainly Exists

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions