God, Logic, And Reason.

[stevil]

if it was an accumulaton of energy that would violate thermodynamics.... energy always goes from high to low.

With gravity, everything eventually accumulates in the same place.

[stevil]

i dont know why wed say big bang likely reqiured a cause. it's true that the world we know always has causes for effects.... but the only other alternatives are to either say there's an infinite chain, which is as i said just as unseen as uncaused causes..... or to say thermodynamcs isn't true

But the claim is that god is uncaused. Unless we are going to fall into the logical fallacy of special pleading, we cannot say that something else cannot be uncaused, such as energy. Instead of god being the cause, energy is the cause.
If you ask how did energy get there, then I ask how did god get there.

As far as we know, based on the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If this is the case then the total sum of all energy in existence will always be the same. It won't go from high to low. The dispersement of that energy changes though. Within a black hole it is extremely dense, within empty space it is low. But gravity enables energy to accumulate. So does electro magnetic forces, which sometimes repel.

Can energy be caused? We have no idea.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i can admit the arguments im posing are indicating something supernatural.... something that violates teh world as we know it. eg the universe began to exist. we should always look for a natural explanation.
it's like when things appear to be a miracle, we should always look for a natural explanation.

 

(i guess the world beginning to exist isnt necessarily supernatural but violating thermodynamics and cause and effect rules is

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont think itd be special pleading cause big bang looks to have no cause or "just occurred", unknown causation apparent uncaused cause. and energy goes high to low and theres only so much of it. we are running out. something must have caused it to be that way. there must be a beginning that has no explanation per thermodynamics.... unknown causation apparent uncaused cause

it's nothing that we know that would be the cause or uncaused cause.... it's not like we're saying energy is the uncaused cause, id admit that thatd be special pleading. were saying it aint energy and it aint anything else that we can figure out that doesnt violate our law or that cant be negated. for example an nfinite chain can be negated by thermodynaucs and the big bang just occurring observation

i will also admit your point about gravity is starting to sound less like speculation amd more like something we should truly consider.
but these are altervative theories. the main theories are that the big bang appears to have no cause and thermdynamics says we go high low and there must be a beginning that wouldnt be know according to the theory.

your ideas of gravity are gettimg into almost violating thermodynaics. could be true, but we only go with the safest bet

 

maybe we could agree it's merely an unknown uncaused cause and not a supernatural uncaused cause.... but anyways.

good debate.

Edited February 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[stevil]

back n the argument of necessity. what more could really be asked for for it to be proven? sure it's not proven in terms of all possibilities being ruled out.

Thus it isn't an argument out of necessity. It is an argument which touches on people's predisposition towards a desired goal of proving god's existence. If you disguard viable alternatives in order to choose one "optimistic" conclusion, then you are invoking faith and belief.
A person that keeps the door open to the alternatives is not using faith or believe, they are merely remaining open minded. But as far as I understand it (from my poor understanding of Christianity) is that the open minded person (the unbeliever) will not go to heaven because belief is a requirement.

it seems like u are insisting all speculations and theoriesmust be ruled out, but id insist that's asking for way too much.

I just like to keep an open mind to things. If there are two opposing theories and neither can be ruled out then we can't say for certainty which one is true and on the flipside we can't say for certainty which one is false. This is probably why I am a weak atheist as opposed to a strong atheist. However, when arguments come claiming "conclusion from necessity" I just feel that is an extremely difficult claim to prove, as to prove from necessity a claim must know all other potential possibilities and must know that all these other possibilities are impossible. This is exactly the claim the Cosmological arguments make. Edited February 17, 2013 by stevil

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thus it isn't an argument out of necessity. It is an argument which touches on people's predisposition towards a desired goal of proving god's existence. If you disguard viable alternatives in order to choose one "optimistic" conclusion, then you are invoking faith and belief.
A person that keeps the door open to the alternatives is not using faith or believe, they are merely remaining open minded. But as far as I understand it (from my poor understanding of Christianity) is that the open minded person (the unbeliever) will not go to heaven because belief is a requirement.I just like to keep an open mind to things. If there are two opposing theories and neither can be ruled out then we can't say for certainty which one is true and on the flipside we can't say for certainty which one is false. This is probably why I am a weak atheist as opposed to a strong atheist. However, when arguments come claiming "conclusion from necessity" I just feel that is an extremely difficult claim to prove, as to prove from necessity a claim must know all other potential possibilities and must know that all these other possibilities are impossible. This is exactly the claim the Cosmological arguments make.

 

well id say you are trying to insist that "necessity" means proving there are no other possibilities. it could mean that we are simply sticking with science.... we prove what isnt true and go from there. we have best theories available and that's it. gravity as a univeral constant seems to be true so that's what we conclude

"why sit around saying we dont really know that gravity is a unversal
constant... when everything indicates that thats the case? we can
acknowledge that we could always be proven wrong in theory.... but for
iall intents and purposes gravity is a univseral constant.

 

in fact. u may have heard it. they say in science nothing is
ever proven true. we just prove wrong the null hypothesis. all we can
show is what isn't true.

if this is sufficent for proof generally.... why isnt the case here? given the big bang and thermodynaimcs etc.

"

"well id say you are trying to insist that "necessity" means proving there are no other possibilities."

 

id also say this is like proving a negative... which is known to be something a person cant do. "prove God isnt true" etc etc. "prove the multiverse isnt true"  "prove other tehroies are untrue that show gravity isnt a univseral constant"

you are the one expecting this before claiming something is necessary.... why expect that?

 

id also say... if u argue that that is what they were saying with teh cosmo argument, it's like a stawman. u r saying they are claiming somehting is the case where itd be absurd theyd be claiming it, and that's the only way ud be right that they are wrong

Edited February 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

""your ideas of gravity are gettimg into almost violating thermodynaics. could be true, but we only go with the safest bet"

this is prob what physisists do, teasing out contradictions. looking for that elusive grand unified theory. ill also admit the fact that we havent shown a unifed theory and that there are these issues shows that we should be careful before rushng to "proving God" and such

 

but it does seem to be an unknown cause at worst per proving God..... and a supernatural cause at best

Edited February 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

""

"well id say you are trying to insist that "necessity" means proving there are no other possibilities."

 

id also say this is like proving a negative... which is known to be
something a person cant do. "prove God isnt true" etc etc. "prove the
multiverse isnt true"  "prove other tehroies are untrue that show
gravity isnt a univseral constant"

you are the one expecting this before claiming something is necessary.... why expect that?

""

 

why expect it before claiming something is proven, that is.

[stevil]

why expect it before claiming something is proven, that is.

That is what they are doing with the cosmological argument.

They are not looking for direct proof of god, (I assume they take this approach because the belief is that god is unobservable), so instead they are trying to state that reality is impossible without the necessity of god, making it much stronger than a mere assumption or belief.
But they fail because us humans just don’t know everything about reality, thus we can’t rule out all other possibilities.
The cosmological argument simplifies material existence by simply calling it “the universe” thus they blur the lines of when material existence began. They know scientists will agree that the big bang had a beginning, and they know many people consider the big bang as the beginning of our universe. I think most theist assume there is only one universe and thus the big bang marked the beginning of material existence, but I doubt many scientists would agree with this. So there is confusion here with regards to the use of the term “universe”. Thus a theist might look at the cosmological argument and think it is reasonable proof of god out of necessity while a non theists looks at the same argument and doesn’t think it is reasonable proof of a god.

The various forms of the cosmological argument focus on different aspects.
The impossibility of an actual infinity (kallam)
The impossibility of an essentially ordered infinite regress (Aquinas)


Again, I just think it is incorrect to try and prove the existence of a god, if take for granted that can’t prove it directly then I would suggest that we cannot prove it via necessity because we don’t know everything. What’s wrong with sticking to faith and belief? Why do you need to search for proof?

[dairygirl4u2c]

""

dairygirl4u2c, on 17 Feb 2013 - 15:16, said:

why expect it before claiming something is proven, that is.

That is what they are doing with the cosmological argument.""

no what i meant was why does a person have to negate every possibility before he can say something is proven, or by extension shown by "necessity".
really necessity means proven, it's interhchangeable. there's levels to proven as there would be to necessity.

i admit most who argue the cosmo argument wouldnt even consider alt theroies. but a person could feasibly hold the tehory in a more scientific way.

 

and, as i said, ""u are asking us to prove a negative... which is known to be
something a person cant do. "prove God isnt true" etc etc. "prove the
multiverse isnt true"  "prove other tehroies are untrue that show
gravity isnt a univseral constant" etc

also i think the below post i made addresses your main points, i present some logic premises etc.

i do see your points though.

as to whether it could be said to be proven etc we may have to agree to disagree. part of me thimks we dont disagree tho, more like coming at it from different angles but hitting the same things

===========================

stevil, on 17 Feb 2013 - 13:59, said:

Thus
it isn't an argument out of necessity. It is an argument which touches
on people's predisposition towards a desired goal of proving god's
existence. If you disguard viable alternatives in order to choose one
"optimistic" conclusion, then you are invoking faith and belief.

A person that keeps the door open to the alternatives is not using faith
or believe, they are merely remaining open minded. But as far as I
understand it (from my poor understanding of Christianity) is that the
open minded person (the unbeliever) will not go to heaven because belief
is a requirement.I just like to keep an open mind to things. If there
are two opposing theories and neither can be ruled out then we can't say
for certainty which one is true and on the flipside we can't say for
certainty which one is false. This is probably why I am a weak atheist
as opposed to a strong atheist. However, when arguments come claiming
"conclusion from necessity" I just feel that is an extremely difficult
claim to prove, as to prove from necessity a claim must know all other
potential possibilities and must know that all these other possibilities
are impossible. This is exactly the claim the Cosmological arguments
make.

 

well id say you are trying to insist that "necessity" means proving
there are no other possibilities. it could mean that we are simply
sticking with science.... we prove what isnt true and go from there. we
have best theories available and that's it. gravity as a univeral
constant seems to be true so that's what we conclude


"why sit around saying we dont really know that gravity is a unversal

constant... when everything indicates that thats the case? we can

acknowledge that we could always be proven wrong in theory.... but for

iall intents and purposes gravity is a univseral constant.


 

in fact. u may have heard it. they say in science nothing is

ever proven true. we just prove wrong the null hypothesis. all we can

show is what isn't true.

if this is sufficent for proof generally.... why isnt the case here? given the big bang and thermodynaimcs etc.

"

"well id say you are trying to insist that "necessity" means proving there are no other possibilities."

 

id also say this is like proving a negative... which is known to be
something a person cant do. "prove God isnt true" etc etc. "prove the
multiverse isnt true"  "prove other tehroies are untrue that show
gravity isnt a univseral constant"

you are the one expecting this before claiming something is necessary.... why expect that?

 

id also say... if u argue that that is what they were saying with teh
cosmo argument, it's like a stawman. u r saying they are claiming
somehting is the case where itd be absurd theyd be claiming it, and
that's the only way ud be right that they are wrong
=================================================

[Anomaly]

""

dairygirl4u2c, on 17 Feb 2013 - 15:16, said:

id also say this is like proving a negative... which is known to be
something a person cant do. "prove God isnt true" etc etc. "prove the
multiverse isnt true"  "prove other tehroies are untrue that show
gravity isnt a univseral constant"

you are the one expecting this before claiming something is necessary.... why expect that?

 

id also say... if u argue that that is what they were saying with teh
cosmo argument, it's like a stawman. u r saying they are claiming
somehting is the case where itd be absurd theyd be claiming it, and
that's the only way ud be right that they are wrong
=================================================

 

 

lm&ao. 

[stevil]

I tried to send you a Private Message but forwhatever reason it seems the forum moderators don't allow you to use the messaging system. So I will make my message public instead.


Hello DairyGirl

I just wanted to say that I enjoyed our recent discussion.
Sometimes people just want to fight, want to win arguments. I have been finding it difficult to talk openly to some (on this forum) but you have been willing to openly explore a topic, consider alternative viewpoint or opinions.
I found it very refreshing.

Thank you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes it was a good debate that got a lot fleshed out.

a topic that just seems to develop more and more even when ya think it's hashed

[Socrates]

I've heard it argued both that God can be discovered through reasoning of the natural world, and that God is so far above our reason and logic that it's doesn't matter if it seems illogical for God to exist, he still does.

 

This troubles me.  I believe that God can be reasoned to exist. However, God is indeed above our ways and as scripture says, unfathomable.  How do we reconcile these apparently contradicting ideas? Should we have faith and not waste our time reasoning his existence? Why did God give us reasoning and logic if we cannot use it to discover him?  Or is he reachable (to a certain extent) through reason?

 

(Trying to generally cut back on posting here for Lent, but thought I'd address this briefly.)

 

The ideas that God's existence and some of His attributes can be known by reason and that He cannot be completely comprehended by human reason are actually not contradictory at all.

 

The Catholic understanding is that God's existence and attributes can be known through human reason, and that belief in God is not irrational or contrary to reason.  However, God is also infinite, and thus cannot be completely grasped or understood by our finite human intellects.

 

To use an analogy (and like all analogies concerning God, it is weak and imperfect, so don't try to take it too far): If we come across an amazing piece of architecture or machinery, we can conclude using our reason that it was designed by a brilliant architect or engineer, and we can know some of the attributes of the architect or engineer.  It does not follow from that however, that by just studying the building or machine and using reason, we can know absolutely everything there is to know about said architect or engineer.

 

The idea that belief in God is illogical or irrational has never been part of orthodox Catholic theology.

 

The idea that human reason cannot completely understand or comprehend the nature of God concerns the impossibility of our finite, limited human minds being able to completely grasp the infinite.  A God we could completely understand wouldn't be much of a God.

 

What remains to be demonstrated logically, however, is that this prime mover must necessarily be our God.

 

So what exactly would the prime mover be?  Philosophically, it can be rationally deduced that the ultimate Being must be limitless, infinite, one, simple, etc. (the attributes of God).  (You can check out St. Thomas Aquinas's proofs for detail.)  

Any thing that is dependent on other things, conditions, fields, etc. for its existence (as is any kind of material thing), because it is dependent on the existence of other things for its existence, by definition could not be the first cause of all existence.

 

If you're really interested in these issues, I'd highly recommend reading New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, by Robert J. Spitzer.  It has two sections, the first on physics and the second on philosophy.  The first part concerns modern physics, and how findings in physics point towards the universe having a definitive beginning, and much better support the idea of its creation by an intelligent immaterial cause (aka God) than they do the various oscillating universe and multiverse theories.  Much of the philosophical section is rooted in Aquinas and classical proofs for God, but modified to be better understood by modern thinkers.  Definitely not easy, breezy reading, would well worth it, and much more intellectually rigorous than most current books on the theism vs. atheism debate. 

[stevil]

If you're really interested in these issues, I'd highly recommend reading New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, by Robert J. Spitzer.  It has two sections, the first on physics and the second on philosophy.  The first part concerns modern physics, and how findings in physics point towards the universe having a definitive beginning, and much better support the idea of its creation by an intelligent immaterial cause (aka God) than they do the various oscillating universe and multiverse theories.

Interesting, I'll have to give this a read.
My initial thoughts are that most physicists are atheists, despite most of society being theists, thus it seems that a strong understanding of physics does not point to a creator god.
It seems that most people who tout that science points to god are actually people whom don't have a strong understanding of physics.

But of course I need to read the book to hear what it says