Arguments for God

[Octavious]

Religion changing over the years isn't super compelling to me as a reason to doubt the idea behind it when things such as philosophy/morality/politics have changed and developed over the years too.

It was never my intention to propose it as a reason to doubt the existence of God

It might help if I clarify my terms.
Existence is everything. That includes the potential multiverse. This includes a potential god. This includes potential quantum soup.

I agree the word universe usually means our observable universe which is likely not all of existence. Thats why I use the word existence for stuff like this.

Ah, ok. The whole general mish mash of everything both in our universe and possible distant parallel universes (not that distance has any meaning outside of our universe) and those universes that may come before and may come after (not that time has any meaning outside of our universe). Science doesn't provide much in the way of suggestions for how existence began, if it did begin, or indeed how much of it there is. We have a nice explanation of how our particular universe started out and made its way to where we are now, but offers no clue as to why. There is plenty of room for God in the theories of astrophysics.

But just because there's room for God doesn't mean that God is there. I see nothing here that is particularly pro or anti God.

[orathaic]

I like this. I am in awe of it as the Universe.

But, I don't need to call it other names. I don't need to "conceptualise it as God". It is already a marvel as it is.

I'd like to add to this, I discovered this concept on my own at about the age of 16 (well while reading something else) and only probably a decade later found out that Spinoza had beaten me to it by about 400 years.

But here is my take (because I find reading Spinoza rather hard, explaining him harder). We have two approaches in science, reductionism and holism. Reductionist thought has brought us very far, reducing systems to the simplest components to understand why things work the way they do, from atoms, to subatomic particles to quantum fields.

But as with all things, there are limits. We can reduce a proton to it's three constituent quark and the virtual gluons which bind them together (aside: virtual particles for things which are created from nothing) but when we try to reduce further to an individual quark, well it doesn't work.you put enough energy in to seperate a quark from its bound partner(s) they do indeed seperate, but you get more quarks - the energy you put in transforms into new quarks so the one you were trying to seperate is still bound to a new partner (like the ends of a sausage, you can seperate two ends, but you will still have two ends on the new piece)

You can't reduce quarks to understand them better, you can only look at as part of a whole bound system (gluons and all). The more useful view is thinking in terms of holism.Like an Ant colony.the individual ant will die, where the whole thrives.

But both views of an ant colony are true. Individual ants reduced to simplest components is valid and useful for certain situations, and considering the whole colony is useful in other circumstances.

Thus Pantheism is taking a holistic view of the Universe. Whether you find it useful or not, or more useful than other concepts of God, or indeed the denial of God (atheistic me before I was 16) is down to your perspective. But the reductive vs holistic view are both complimentary. Both True.

I am capable of more than I was at 16, before I could see the holistic view.

[Jamiet99uk]

If you remove time, then there is no cause for anything. There's only existence and non-existence.

But what we do know right now is that there is currently existence which means our two options are

Non-existence -> Existence

or

∞ Existence ∞


That logically cannot be the answer because something can not make an eternal thing begin to exist or it wouldn't be eternal.

But that is why out of the two options Non-Existence to Existence makes less sense because for Existence to come from Non-Existence something has to happen which means time has to be a component of this "nothing", which makes it not nothing making it impossible.

I don't see any logical contradictions with assuming an eternal existence.

Then what if the universe has always existed?

If we define the universe as existence then yes, that would be logically consistent.
But only if it doesn't infinitely regress back in time which means a part had to be outside of time

Great!

So we're done here.

There is no requirement for the universe to have been created.

The universe might always have existed.

Thus there is no "cosmological" argument for "God" to exist.

Good. Glad we could bottom that out.

[Jamiet99uk]

I like this. I am in awe of it as the Universe.

But, I don't need to call it other names. I don't need to "conceptualise it as God". It is already a marvel as it is.

I'd like to add to this, I discovered this concept on my own at about the age of 16 (well while reading something else) and only probably a decade later found out that Spinoza had beaten me to it by about 400 years.

But here is my take (because I find reading Spinoza rather hard, explaining him harder). We have two approaches in science, reductionism and holism. Reductionist thought has brought us very far, reducing systems to the simplest components to understand why things work the way they do, from atoms, to subatomic particles to quantum fields.

But as with all things, there are limits. We can reduce a proton to it's three constituent quark and the virtual gluons which bind them together (aside: virtual particles for things which are created from nothing) but when we try to reduce further to an individual quark, well it doesn't work.you put enough energy in to seperate a quark from its bound partner(s) they do indeed seperate, but you get more quarks - the energy you put in transforms into new quarks so the one you were trying to seperate is still bound to a new partner (like the ends of a sausage, you can seperate two ends, but you will still have two ends on the new piece)

You can't reduce quarks to understand them better, you can only look at as part of a whole bound system (gluons and all). The more useful view is thinking in terms of holism.Like an Ant colony.the individual ant will die, where the whole thrives.

But both views of an ant colony are true. Individual ants reduced to simplest components is valid and useful for certain situations, and considering the whole colony is useful in other circumstances.

Thus Pantheism is taking a holistic view of the Universe. Whether you find it useful or not, or more useful than other concepts of God, or indeed the denial of God (atheistic me before I was 16) is down to your perspective. But the reductive vs holistic view are both complimentary. Both True.

I am capable of more than I was at 16, before I could see the holistic view.

I can be shown the existence of quarks, and gluons, and whatever other particles.

I cannot be shown God.

[Fluminator]

Isn't this all just a mental masturbation exercise?

Even if this higher being exists, if I can't provably interact with it or use the assumption of its existence to predict the future then it is irrelevant.

Even if such an entity exists, I argue it is the height of hubris to believe that said entity cares about the actions of individual beings on a tiny planet in a vast universe where those individual beings have only been sentient for an incredibly small fraction of the universe's existence.

Of course there are plenty of reasons why humans invented the concept of God. If believing in this loving God that cares about your individual actions gives your life meaning and makes you happy, then that is wonderful. Just don't force this belief on anyone else.

Philosophy in general is mental masturbation.
None of this has anything to do with the Kalam Cosmological argument though.

I wouldn't say philosophy in general is mental masturbation. Science was once defined as natural philosophy. Philosophy is a much better way of defining morality than religion.

What is there to say about the Kalam Cosmological argument though? There isn't anything there. Essentially it just makes a list of assertions (e.g. the universe began to exist at some point - there is no evidence that it didn't always exist, the big bang could be a cycle)...and if you accept these assertions, therefore God.

The only reason why this argument "began to exist" is because if someone can get you to accept these assertions, it isn't that big a leap to asserting this God is the Christian one or the Muslim one.

Going to clarify to make sure we're on the same page that I'm using the term existence which includes all hypothetical existences including god-like entities.
So I agree the big bang is probably a cycle. I do believe existence has always existed. It's the alternative where it started from nothing that it logically breaks down (explained why I think so earlier.)

Also I'm not trying to show evidence for God quite yet. I'm still on the "eternal existence" which could mean a lot of things other than God.
Again, the specific religious God is outside the scope of this argument.

[Fluminator]

CosmicSkeptic does a decent takedown of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P28hy8JRYUk

His debate/discussion with William Lane Craig on the Kalam-Cosmological is honestly the main reason this thread was triggered.

[Fluminator]

Religion changing over the years isn't super compelling to me as a reason to doubt the idea behind it when things such as philosophy/morality/politics have changed and developed over the years too.

It was never my intention to propose it as a reason to doubt the existence of God

It might help if I clarify my terms.
Existence is everything. That includes the potential multiverse. This includes a potential god. This includes potential quantum soup.

I agree the word universe usually means our observable universe which is likely not all of existence. Thats why I use the word existence for stuff like this.

Ah, ok. The whole general mish mash of everything both in our universe and possible distant parallel universes (not that distance has any meaning outside of our universe) and those universes that may come before and may come after (not that time has any meaning outside of our universe). Science doesn't provide much in the way of suggestions for how existence began, if it did begin, or indeed how much of it there is. We have a nice explanation of how our particular universe started out and made its way to where we are now, but offers no clue as to why. There is plenty of room for God in the theories of astrophysics.

But just because there's room for God doesn't mean that God is there. I see nothing here that is particularly pro or anti God.

That is fair! I think our universe is a very small part of all of existence. There's definitely a lot of room for a lot of wild stuff we don't understand. But just going off logic it does feel like there has to be something eternal (whether that be god or something else) or logic as we understand it breaks down.

[Fluminator]

Then what if the universe has always existed?

If we define the universe as existence then yes, that would be logically consistent.
But only if it doesn't infinitely regress back in time which means a part had to be outside of time

Great!

So we're done here.

There is no requirement for the universe to have been created.

The universe might always have existed.

Thus there is no "cosmological" argument for "God" to exist.

Good. Glad we could bottom that out.

I'm not talking about the universe as in big bang onward. I'm talking about all of existence. I think existence has always existed. And then the question becomes what are the qualities of this existence that has always existed.

[orathaic]

If we define the universe as existence then yes, that would be logically consistent.
But only if it doesn't infinitely regress back in time which means a part had to be outside of time

Great!

So we're done here.

There is no requirement for the universe to have been created.

The universe might always have existed.

Thus there is no "cosmological" argument for "God" to exist.

Good. Glad we could bottom that out.

I'm not talking about the universe as in big bang onward. I'm talking about all of existence. I think existence has always existed. And then the question becomes what are the qualities of this existence that has always existed.

I don't think that is required for a universe. I think time itself began with the big bang and always doesn't have a meaning before the start of time.

We don't understand singularities, and while there is room for a cause, I don't think it is necessary. Virtual particles create themselves all the time.saying their is a quantum field from which they become excited and then returns to the ground state of doesn't change the fact that they spontaneously create themselves.

And if things can spontaneously create themselves, there is no reason the Universe (from the big bang onwards) can't be one of those things.

[orathaic]

I can be shown the existence of quarks, and gluons, and whatever other particles.

I cannot be shown God.

God is the mountains, God is the sun, God is the quarks and every quantum field. I can show you all of these things.

But you can't use the reductionist view of individual quantum fields to explain human consciousness, or black hole formation, or cosmological evolution, or the beautiful complexity we see when we look at the whole. You need cell biology to understand life, the fact that you can reduce it to molecular biology doesn't make the other view(s) less valid.

[Octavious]

God is the mountains, God is the sun, God is the quarks and every quantum field. I can show you all of these things.

Which is all good stuff. God is glorious, magnificent, beautiful and terrible and all that. But what I have to ask, as it seems somewhat crucial from the perspective humanity, is this. Is the God you perceive conscious and does He care about us?

[Jamiet99uk]

If we define the universe as existence then yes, that would be logically consistent.
But only if it doesn't infinitely regress back in time which means a part had to be outside of time

Great!

So we're done here.

There is no requirement for the universe to have been created.

The universe might always have existed.

Thus there is no "cosmological" argument for "God" to exist.

Good. Glad we could bottom that out.

I'm not talking about the universe as in big bang onward. I'm talking about all of existence. I think existence has always existed. And then the question becomes what are the qualities of this existence that has always existed.

Well, I don't think it's qualities are that of some kind of entity that resembles a man and made the Earth in 7 days and created Eve out of Adam's rib, etc.

[Jamiet99uk]

God is the mountains, God is the sun, God is the quarks and every quantum field. I can show you all of these things.

Which is all good stuff. God is glorious, magnificent, beautiful and terrible and all that. But what I have to ask, as it seems somewhat crucial from the perspective humanity, is this. Is the God you perceive conscious and does He care about us?

This.

Does the sun want me to live a life without sin?

Will the mountains let me into heaven if I accept Jesus Christ as my true saviour?

Do the quarks love me?

[orathaic]

God is the mountains, God is the sun, God is the quarks and every quantum field. I can show you all of these things.

Which is all good stuff. God is glorious, magnificent, beautiful and terrible and all that. But what I have to ask, as it seems somewhat crucial from the perspective humanity, is this. Is the God you perceive conscious and does He care about us?

You seeming to assume that I can know what qualities this infinite or at lest all emcompassing God has. That way Hubris lies.

But in the sense the God is everyone person, yes it is conscious.
Whether it cares I'm a bit less convinced by.

No, Jamie, the quarks don't love you. Just like your leg doesn't love you. Your leg is still part of you.

The question of the significance of this perspective on God and it's sociological function is a seperate one.

This God encodes all information, ie everything that can be known is known by the Universe.

It is capable of doing all things which are physically possible, ie it is all powerful.

And as for all-loving. I'm afraid it does appear rather indifferent. I mean, unless you consider the fine-tuning of this part of the Universe whicg seems to make life itself possible... Maybe you could infer something from that...

But generally, I think it fits all the standard requirements for a God. It doesn't need to be worshiped (again, it seems indifferent) but we can sit in awe and aspire to understand as much of it as our limited human minds are capable.

That seems the most appropriate form of worship. If you are looking for a prescriptive religion, to tell you how to live, I'm afraid you're out of luck. But you can attempt to understand entropy, and the 4 dimensions of space-time we appear to inhabit; how we are limited space-time object with a beginning and end.

This is the deep meaningful understanding that I have accepted, which address issues like dealing with death, and addressing morality questions like abortion or euthanasia... Is that what you need from 'God' in order to 'count' as a valid definition?

[Octavious]

You seeming to assume that I can know what qualities this infinite or at lest all emcompassing God has. That way Hubris lies.

Oh, good Lord no. My assumption is far more modest and is simply that you know your own mind.

But in the sense the God is everyone person, yes it is conscious.

That’s like saying a dead person is still alive in the sense that their stomach bacteria is still functioning. No, for God to be considered conscious He has to, at the very least, be aware of Himself as a being.

But generally, I think it fits all the standard requirements for a God.

You do? I don't think it comes close to meeting any definition of god I've ever come across. A being that is neither aware nor interested? You might as well worship a cushion.

[Jamiet99uk]

I concur with Octavious on this.

Surely a definition of God has to be a little more specific than Orathaic is proposing?

If God is everything then how can God be distinguished from other things?

[flash2015]

CosmicSkeptic does a decent takedown of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P28hy8JRYUk

His debate/discussion with William Lane Craig on the Kalam-Cosmological is honestly the main reason this thread was triggered.

I think this discussion was misunderstood. It wasn't in any way shape or form a debate. Cosmic Skeptic was just trying to make him expand on his argument rather than shoot it down. I watched about 20 minutes of it - William Lane Craig's argument wasn't getting any more compelling. It was just one arbitrary assertion after another.

[FriendBoy]

To read my argument in reverse, as it were:

If you assert that God exists, and:
If you assert that God was not created, then:
You accept that something can exist without being created.

This does not demonstrate that "God" (whatever the fuck that is) is that something.
This does not demonstrate that "God" (whatever the fuck that is) exists.
It is not an argument for God.
The Universe may simply have no start point.
What if a Universe existed before the "big bang" in a form we can no longer perceive due to that event?

I'm not saying god yet. At the moment it's just eternal existence.
Baby steps.

And I do believe something can exist without being created. I don't believe nothing can create something though.

I fully believe the big bang was not the beginning of existence already. If it was then nothing made something which is literally what I'm arguing against.

I like this.

Eternality is a hard concept to truly grasp for the human mind. Everything we know and come across has a beginning and eventual end.
Life begins and ends. And yet… very few people I actually come across profess that death is the final end of humans. If it is not, is there a final end for us, or do we begin but never end?

Between eternal existence and something out of nothing, I’m with eternality.

[yavuzovic]

Sorry I haven't followed the thread but I want to ask a question:
Do we observe any creation in present time? I think I heard particles appearing from nothing which causes Hawking radiation (opposite particle is consumed by black hole, other particle is radiated) but I didn't follow that either so I'd like a better explanation. As far as I know this makes black holes shrink so this may not be creation from nothing. But if it is, then I will be more open to the idea of universe being interfered.

[Crazy Anglican]

Virtual particles create themselves all the time. Saying their is a quantum field from which they become excited and then returns to the ground state of doesn't change the fact that they spontaneously create themselves.

Hi orathaic,

I am certainly no scientist, so I am showing my own ignorance here. I would like to know how this affects (or is affected by) the law of conservation of matter. I know nothing of gluons or their properties. Is their creation of themselves a creation out of nothing, or a rearranging of material into a new form? That was a new concept for me, so I wanted a little more information is all.