Total posts: 4
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
and to top it off, you just assign all that to a character who only exists in stories from the last ~5000 years (of 3.5Bn earth, ~14Bn universe years), presuming you actually mean capital G god, as opposed to generic nebulous 'god' that seems to have disappeared after the big bang ignition.
Per the forum introduction, this conversation is not specifically about the Christian God, however the being I have described would have many of the attributes of said Christian God. But defending that position is beyond the scope and rules of this forum as I understand them, so this objection is clearly attacking a straw man. The position I defend is classical theism.
This assumes an infinite regress isn't possible, without conceding that we can't know that at all. Your boxcar analogy doesn't allow for the possibility that you can't see the end of the train in either direction, so you assume that on one end or another there's an engine. This may be right or wrong. Your way out of this looks like "since I can't see the first or last car, and you can't see the first or last car, then we agree there is a first or last car." I don't agree with you. Demonstrate there's a first or last car, or we both must agree that all we see in either direction are a bunch of box cars with no apparent beginning or end.
It was never my claim that there is a first car because we can’t see the end of the train of boxcars. In fact, I conceded for sake of argument the possibility of an infinite regress of boxcars in order to explain that even if we did observe such a thing it would clearly be absurd as an explanation of the movement of the train. In a scenario where the movement of one boxcar explains the movement of the subsequent boxcar, postulating an infinite number of boxcars fails to explain where the movement actually comes from because the boxcars are only instruments of change. The principle or source of change cannot be located in either an individual boxcar or in the collective.
Consider another example. We know that the light from the moon is only a reflection of the sun. We explain the moon’s light by way of its principle source which is the sun. But say we had a series of moons each reflecting the light off of each other. Even if we had an infinite number of moons reflecting light we would not arrive at an explanation without the sun or other source of light.
Even if you were granted that SOMETHING hit the ignition on the big bang, you've made zero progress toward defining that something through any logical or rational means. IT sounds all academic, but it's just a disguise.
I’m not arguing for a finite past so the point about the Big Bang is attacking a strawman. Furthermore your accusation of an academic disguise is just poisoning the well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The question of whether the universe had a beginning is an interesting one for sure, however more fundamentally we can pose the question for the present moment. If you refer to my previous post, all change in the universe is a composite of act and potency but no single object contains the principle of change. Furthermore, we can see that even all objects together or an infinite number of them cannot account for a principle of change. Hypothetically it is possible that things have always existed in some state even if it is "quantum nothingness" but the question of hierarchical order is an entirely different one. The only way to explain the order of all change in the world is to propose something that is purely actual and not itself a composite entity of act and potency, as things with potencies require their own prior causes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It seems to me that Prof. Hawking's argument is logically invalid. His conclusion doesn't follow from his reasoning. Furthermore, the question of God's existence is a philosophical question. Science deals only with the physical whereas questions such as "why is there something rather than nothing" is a metaphysical question.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll bite. I believe God exists on account of Aristotle's argument for the unmoved mover as further explicated by St. Thomas Aquinas in both the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles.
Aristotle uses the term we translate as motion but it more accurately means "change" of any kind. As the argument's chain of reasoning goes, we observe change in the world around us. Change occurs because things in the world exist presently in one manner and yet are capable of being in another manner (potential vs actual). A cup of hot coffee gradually cools as the temperature in a room brings it down for example. We all observe changes like this occurring every day. We also observe that no potency ever brings itself to a state of actuality. A candle might possibly be a pool of wax, but it will remain a solid substance until heat is introduced to it. Now all things in the world are either in a state of potentiality or actuality. When something is in a state of actuality it is only because something acts to make it so, just as I am suspended above the floor because the chair beneath me sustains my position, which in turn is sustained by the floor beneath it, and so on and so forth.
Now we have two possibilities of explaining where all this change comes from. Either there is an infinite series of changers and things changed in the present moment, or there is a finite chain that terminates in one ultimate cause of change, itself being unchanged.
However, an infinite regression in the present simply isn't a possible explanation because to posit such does not explain where the principle of change actually comes from. To illustrate why, consider explaining a train's movement by way of infinite boxcars. One boxcar is moved because it is moved by another which in turn is moved by another, so on to infinity. In such a regress, the causes of change are all instrumental and only instrumental, hence even postulating an infinite number of them still leaves us at a loss to explain their movement. That is unless we terminate the infinite change with a principle cause, that being the locomotive engine compartment.
Because an infinite regress is not possible, we must terminate the chain with one principle cause of all change. This being must be purely actual and not at all potential. It must be external to the world as all things in the world are made up of potentialities. It must be omnipotent in that it presently sustains all things. It must immutable as it has no potentialities. Finally, it must resemble intelligence as it grounds all intelligent states of the universe and further directs universal operations toward intelligent ends. This being we understand to be God.
Created: