Does God exist?

[Kuciwalker]

Except for the final comment, about it being rather silly t

[DrGerry]

I can't read huge posts (my english in not good, and my eyes are worse than my english). But if the question really is Does God exist?, my answer is: the known, the christian-jude-muslim, the mythic God, surelly NO.

[Ben Kenobi]

The cosmological, a posteriori or causal argument for God (Aquinas) works on the basis that everything that moves has a mover. That something cannot exist in a state of potentiality and actuality, so a potential property can only be actualised by something that already has that property. Ice has the potential to become water if it is hot, but in order for that potential to be realised, you might place an ice cube in a fire, which in actuality has the property of being hot. To avoid an infinite regress of consequences and their causes, there must be a first cause, which is supposedly God. On the face of it, this is obviously a very weak argument, since its conclusion contradicts one its premises, thus making it absurd.

Why is it absurd? It is a good question. If everything that moves, must first have a mover, then eventually you come to the point, where you have an infinite regress of causation. If this is so, and we know that the universe is not infinite, then this is an absurd conclusion. Therefore, since the preposition that everything that moves must have a mover, yet we know there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, then something must exist that has not, nor could be moved, yet is the first mover of everthing else. That is the only way to resolve this paradox of a finite universe yet an infinite regression of causation.

the stark conclusion of infinite regress (no God) and absurdity.

The problem is if you devote yourself to the cause of an infinite regression, then you must explain how this works inside a finite universe.

If you suppose that everything is contingent then once there was a time when nothing existed. However, according to this logic, that would surely mean that nothing would exist now, since every consequence has a cause. No cause (nothing) = no consequence (we, and this universe, wouldn’t exist). There must be something non-contingent therefore, something that would exist necessarily, and that would be God.

Or something. Aquinas has only postulated another source for a First Mover. What form this first mover may take requires further information.

God therefore, as infinity is unknowable and in our case, cannot rationally exist. This is basic determinism.

You and Russell are clever, to say that there must first be a contingent condition, and that to create the universe, requires knowledge of the universe that we do not possess.

Just because we cannot know infinity does not put infinity out of reach of God. Essentially, you have added a rationale for the third characteristic of God.

Aquinas first argued for God's omnipotence, in being the First Mover. Then he argued for his Eternal existance, as there could not have been a time before him. You and Russell have provided the rational for God's omniscience, as he would require knowledge of infinity in order to create the necessary conditions to produce the universe.

Very clever Whaleboy.

Also, the notions of cause and consequence are pretty distinct, in your mind you can think of something’s existence without the idea of something that caused it,

No, I ask you to try that again. It's not clear to me that anything comes into being without thinking of it's cause.

You could start with Anselm who defines God as something “than which nothing greater can be thought”. You can think of such a perfect being in your mind, but you can conceive of it in your mind. Assuming existence to be a property, the only thing greater than that in your mind is for the being in your mind to exist in reality, thus it has taken on another property making that perfect being more perfect than the conception of it in your mind. Thus it must exist. So basically, if God by his definition exists as a concept in your mind, you must be forced to conclude that it exists in reality.

For if we could think of something greater, we would consider such an entity God. I don't usually use Anselm to prove the existence of God from our thoughts, rather his principles are useful in refuting other conceptions of God, because they do not meet his priniciples.

One case would be polytheists. For if we can conceive of many different gods, if we could conceive of one god higher than all the others in the pantheon, then it makes sense that we would call this one god God.

Essentially, he gives some necessary conditions for what constitutes 'God'.

I agree with your critiques, and for that reason I don't use Anselm in this manner.

This is easily criticised by refuting the assumption that existence is a property, or say that existence is not a predicate as Kant calls it.

I think that existence is a property, but then I am also a objectivist. Regardless of whether we feel, things exist, the universe is not contigent upon us for it's existence, nor is our existence determined by subjective assessements.

I personally have a problem with that because you’re idea of an object or a person changes whether or not they exist.

Yes, but this does not change the fact that Ahab still is a character in a book. Your opinion may change, but his existence does not.

If you come at it from a religious point of view where morality and a view of perfection is transcendent that’s not going to be a problem for you, but for me that is. It seems to lend itself therefore as existence of God unto us, but not objectively in “reality”.

Interesting. I find that as an objectivist, only those things that transcend our perceptions can really constitute universal qualities. They are, in a sense, more real than we.

As for the teleological argument, or the argument from design, it works on the principle that the universe is constructed to a design, it’s ordered, governed by very simple laws that we humans can understand and use to predict the future, say, gravity for example. Such an intelligent design appears highly unlikely to have developed randomly and thus a designer is entailed and this is god.

Many of these functions of the universe seem to be constructed in such a way that chance cannot provide an adequate explanation. One adjunct to the design argument comes from the weak anthropic principle, which examines the significance of our physical constants.

My mobile phone, with which I have experience (not just with mine but I’ve encountered lots of phones in my time etc) had a designer… I have experience with that phone being designed, manufactured, used etc. I have no such objective experience with this universe.

This puts you in the same position as a savage looking at a watch washing up in shore. Which is, by the way, a very old analogy.

Just because one is a savage, does not mean that one cannot recognise the elements of design in the object that do not seem to pertain to chance.

For in our watch case, let us look at a normal pocketwatch, one of those snap-cases. Even if one had never see a watch, just the workmanship in the watch could easily be seen, the smoothness of the edge, and the fine moments of the timepiece. The precision of these moments could also be noted, without having any previous understanding of a clock, or seeing the innards.

we cannot logically say that therefore there is a God since there is no intrinsic evidence in that “design” for God.

Hold on. Now, don't the similarities between the savage and ourselves speak to the truth of the analogy? Do we not recognise the peculiar regularities and structure of the universe as similar to the precise movements of the watch?

As for the design itself, the sufficient reason principle applies. A million monkeys at a million typewriters will write a hell of a lot of gibberish. Eventually, if they keep writing for a sufficient length of time, you will get all the works of Shakespeare as the saying goes.. But if you are already the works of Shakespeare that probability is now defunct and determinism applies.

The key word being 'eventually'.

You do not have infinite time, whaleboy. Astronomers give you about 12 billion years to give chance the capability of performing all these miraculous wonders we see around us today. The sheer implausibility of just one of the components of the universe forming in such a way as to assist life, is vastly outside of the time period.

Consider just the binding energy of an electron. If it moves only slightly greater or less, that change influences so many other chemical and physical processes. Slightly less, and you do not get enough energy from the chemical reactions. Slightly more, and the activation energy will be too great to start the reactions.

We look at ourselves now and see such extraordinary complexity but that came about through a series of benign and simple steps, a cascade effect.

We barely understand simple molecules, and even then, we have difficulty with even the smallest objects. Look at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Just that alone should prove to you the impossibility of a totally deterministic structure of the universe.

However, this is a system with energy going into it, so to speak. Imagine I break my coffee cup on the floor. It’s a nice cup, so I decide to put the bits of china back together. I use my hands and superglue. To do that, the glue needs to dry, and I burn energy to do so. The disorder I create by repairing the cup is greater than the order I create. Similarly, the disorder in the universe had a net increase through the albeit ordered construction of life on Earth.

True, my bad. I misread what you wrote.

Your point doesn't prove one thing or another. So entropy causes everything to decay, and scientists, and theists alike understand that people are an increase to the disorder in the universe, even as they try to order things.

Entropy cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, unless we start to see highly ordered systems that are very unlikely to have formed.

One of these would be all the gas molecules ending up in one side of a room, and none of them being on the other.

[Kuciwalker]

The key word being 'eventually'.

You do not have infinite time, whaleboy. Astronomers give you about 12 billion years to give chance the capability of performing all these miraculous wonders we see around us today. The sheer implausibility of just one of the components of the universe forming in such a way as to assist life, is vastly outside of the time period.

Prove it.

[Odin]

God cannot exist because the universe follows universal laws, leaving a hypothetical diety with no power to affect the universe

[Odin]

BK, quantum mechanics has KO'ed the first mover BS via the concept of virtual particles.

[Ben Kenobi]

God cannot exist because the universe follows universal laws, leaving a hypothetical diety with no power to affect the universe

If this hypothetical God made the laws that control the universe, than surely he also has the power to change those laws should he desire.

The desire not to act does not prove an inability to act.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, quantum mechanics has KO'ed the first mover BS via the concept of virtual particles.

Not really. All Hawking theorised is that a virtual particle may be able to come into being all by itself. Such a particle, and given the rarity of such an occurance does not fit with what we know of the big bang.

So it may be possible for particles to pop out of nothing, but the likelihood is so rare as to be useless.

This is like seeing a baseball tunnel through a wall. Possible, but very improbable.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
God cannot exist because the universe follows universal laws, leaving a hypothetical diety with no power to affect the universe

That's a completely meaningless non sequiter.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
BK, quantum mechanics has KO'ed the first mover BS via the concept of virtual particles.

It has done nothing of the sort. A first mover is inherently impossible to disprove except with Occam's razor.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't have time to compile all the requirements for life on Earth, but this should give you an idea of the difficulties of the chance forming life.

Let us now ignore the experimental evidence and accept that 1 in 10^6900 is a reasonable estimate of the chance of assembling a catalyst by tinkering with amino acid sequences

Now, this is just one tiny part of the evolution of animals.

So if there is a 1 in 10^6900 chance of forming life randomly, then you have a question as to how this can happen when you only have

10^79 atoms in the universe.

There are only three ways that people have gotten around this.

1. They postulate an infinitely large universe.
2. They postulate an eternal universe.
3. They postulate an infinite number of universes.

All three are mere evasions and speculations from the hard truth that chance is very unlikely to be responsible for the things that we see in nature.

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/hoyle.htm

[loinburger]

I've never seen much point in trying to prove the existence of god(s) unless that proof also entails that god(s) must take a given form or have a given set of (dis)likes or whatever. I mean, otherwise the proof of the existence of god(s) doesn't really get you anywhere meaningful, unless you're willing to resort to some fantastic leaps of logic, e.g., "God is the First Cause, therefore, God hates fags," or "There can be nothing greater than God, therefore, I shouldn't eat pork," etc.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by loinburger
I've never seen much point in trying to prove the existence of god(s) unless that proof also entails that god(s) must take a given form or have a given set of (dis)likes or whatever. I mean, otherwise the proof of the existence of god(s) doesn't really get you anywhere meaningful, unless you're willing to resort to some fantastic leaps of logic, e.g., "God is the First Cause, therefore, God hates fags," or "There can be nothing greater than God, therefore, I shouldn't eat pork," etc.

That's what I said...

[Ben Kenobi]

One wouldn't. Unless of course you believe that accepting any notion of god necessarily means one should worship it.

That's a whole another question. Assuming there is a God, what would he be like?

That's where we can use people like Anselm.

But I feel that is subject to me, I don't worship it or subjugate myself to it... it is integral to my character. More transcendental than anything, it bears resemblance to Buddhism, Wicca and Satanism... or rather taking elements from all three... but that's just me of course, in my argument I merely leave the door open for such a view.

Has this thing, which is a part of you, always been a part of you?

[Neutrino]

Carbon molecules are very versatile and capable of forming the many molecules required for life on Earth. Given that the Earth has significant amounts of C, H, N, O, and P, there is a good chance of self-replicating molecules (e.g. the precursors of ribonucleic acids).

Given current knowledge it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god(s). However, I feel that god(s), if they exist, surely are not the anthropocentric incarnations of current mainstream religions.

My 2 cents.