1. You start by saying that

"[The cosmological argument] chooses a god as the creator of the universe based on attributing, arbitrarily, powers to the creator god that is denied to the natural universe. This is, in essence, assuming the powers of a god whose very existence the argument is supposed to prove."

I disagree. The universe is not self-existing; it does not have the attribute of aseity which is "existence originating from and having no source other than itself." There is a difference between what a thing is or its "essence" and its existence, between its essence and its accidental features, between the particular object and the object's nature, between form and matter, and so on. Therefore denying the universe aseity is not arbitrary; it is due to everyday observations. God, on the other hand, is a perfectly unified simple being. "Nothing at all," I write elsewhere, "can come between God and His being to threaten it, as it can with creatures, because they are one and the same."

The cosmological argument does not assume the existence of God. It says "there must be an immutable first cause of all change in the universe, and that is what everyone calls God." Natural theology is not a process of justifying some pre-existing concept of God; it is discovering what God actually is.

But is it not arbitrary to say that the first cause must possess aseity, be uncreated, eternal, infinite, etc.? No, these properties follow from the fact that the being we are discussing is outside of nature. That God is pure act can be proved independently. God's immutability follows from his pure actuality, simplicity, and perfection. God's eternity follows from His immutability; His infinity is defined as an absence of all limitations, proved because "the divine being is not a being received in anything"; etc.

Why must there be something to give you existence? Can't you say, "I exist and that's the end of it. I depend on nothing."? But this will not do. For you are a contingent being; you don't have to exist, and hence something is responsible not only for bringing you into being but also for sustaining you in being. The same question applies to the universe as a whole. It, either, does not disappear for a reason. And the being who created and sustains it is what we call God.

2. You then take issue with the idea that an actual infinite cannot exist. First, is not God actually infinite? Not in the sense of immense size but as lacking any limitations on His being and power. He is infinite, because He is "infinitely great" in the sense of possessing the various "great-making" properties such as omniscience.

You write that "There is no reason to reject, out of hand, that the universe can't be an actual infinite (or, for that matter, that it is incapable of self-cause) no matter how non-sensible it sounds."

Well, so much for the alleged superior atheistic "rationality."

3. The mention of the Big Bang is irrelevant; we are discussing philosophy. But I seem to detect the hope that one day, perhaps, scientists will overturn this theory which obviously has theistic implications, and all will be well with the world again. Good luck with that.

4. "The universe began to exist, hence God created it" is not a "god of the gaps" argument. The actual conclusion, again, has this form: The cause of the universe is what everyone calls God.

5. "[The fallacy] lies in the proposition that the explanation of a creator, excepted from the rule that it must have a cause, outside of the universe is somehow more valid than the proposition that the universe (or at least the natural forces that drive it) is sufficient in creating itself. Put plainly, the problem is that the kalam arguer believes, implicitly, that God is a more likely explanation than nature."

What nature? There was no nature logically prior to the universe.

6. "[T]he cosmological argument makes 'the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.'" Not if God's essence is His existence, such that God exists necessarily. This is so for several reasons. First, because nothing can give God existence, for God is the first efficient cause, as shown above. Second, God is pure actuality, and if his essence and existence were separate, there would be a potentiality in Him. Third, God is also His own nature and has no accidents, and therefore existence, did it not belong to His essence, would be an accident; God would be a being "by participation." From these it follows that in God essence and existence are one. Therefore there is no need for any regress.

7. "Also, it seems odd to declare that existence is somehow 'better' than non-existence."

Odd? Why odd?

8. The parody of the ontological argument cited is problematic for at least two reasons. First, it might be a greater achievement to create the world when you don't exist than when you do, but with respect to being as such, non-existence is infinitely less in greatness than existence. God is the fullness of being, a superabundance of life, much better than the void. This should be self-evident. Second, it is of course impossible for nothingness to create.

dchernik,
You made your assertion:

and then proceeded to expound upon this 'simple being' in a way that ShaunPhilly had already addressed as the prime problem with this 'prime mover' in the statement prior to what you first quoted from his work.

After that you go on to cursorily rebuff the usage of the metaphorical terms used by ShaunPhilly and then finally use your own undefined metaphorical terms to argue his point for him concerning the apologetic method.

But where is the substance of god, that dchernik can even test what it is?

How can he say what god is? Does he have another god to compare it to?

He can see that things exist. That's all he can state with certainty.

He can't begin to say that it came to us from anywhere, let alone a thing called 'god.'

LOL

I know it is a doctrine of the church. That doesn't, however, make it true.

I understand; God is not a complex thing with parts. What I'm saying is that if this is the claim, I don't accept it. If God is supposed to have these abilities which interact with our universe, then in some way he must be able to actually interact with our universe. How does a non-physical and simple transcendent being interact with a complex physical universe. This is the so-called "interaction problem" that plagues not only this question but also mind/body dualism.

I don't expect an actual answer to it other than that we arbitrarily say that God has these abilities that nature does not. Defining this necessary being into existence because you see this being as necessary does not make it true.

This is the exact exception I'm talking about. You are, again, making my point for me by being the example of what I'm talking about.

What I said above. The claim is that God is simple, necessary, and non-composite. I'm saying that anything that does fit this definition would not have any powers at all,pertaining to this universe let alone the power to create universes.

This is all mental masterbation. It is meaningless fluff. It is pure speculation and does not pertain to reality at all. Just because some ideas can be understood, are intenally consistant (or at least appear to be by some), and sound "deep" and meaningful does not mean that they are true.

Ah yes, the old claim that our wisdom is not God's. It's the old game of hiding the proof behind an invincible wall. By saying that no matter how hard we try, the simplicity will always confound us mere finite beings, you are making an unfalsifiable claim. it is, however, not unrejectable.

You seem to still be missing the essenital point here. I'm saying that your claim that this being is necessary is a false claim, not that the universe necessarily takes on the qualities. I'm saying that the qualities you ascribe to God here do not exist anywhere; they are imaginary qualities. And even if these qualities did exist, it is a biased choice to say that the universe cannot have them based on what some blow-hard said in the 12th century.

The attributes that I am claiming the universe might have, which you attribute to God, are the qualities of being able to create. The qualities that Aquinas talks about are pure unsupported speculation, not having anything to do with reality. To base the idea that God must exist because the universe cannot have qualities that are made up by men in the12th century that got off on out-dated interpretations of Aristotelean logic is, well, ridiculous.

I said:"Besides, knowing the universe has a creating force is a long way from having any actual implications for anythinh else, let alone any particular religion. And since a creator cannot be shown to be the correect answer, invoking a potential one as "God" and then using that invocation to defend any particular dogmatism (as Christian apologists do, for example), is clearly unsupportable."

to which you replied

If you say so. I think it gives us nothing more than deism, at best.

Simplicity and love don't exist in the universe? So, you've either never loved or are not part of the universe, right?

But you haven't shown that the universe is dependent upon anything else. That's the point.

Shaun

Let's see.
Crazy, Ignorant, or Lying?

divine mystery??? The very concept of a mystery involves examining available evidence to point toward the cause. By up-chucking the adjective 'divine' in front of that, you cut off any other cause for the mystery besides a god. Thus directing the discussion to your assertion by faith that there is a god.

The probability/possibility that this might not be the case never enters your examination.

Well, I'll be. lol.

Here's the first four from dictionary.com

mystery
1. anything that is kept secret or remains unexplained or unknown: the mysteries of nature.
2. any affair, thing, or person that presents features or qualities so obscure as to arouse curiosity or speculation: The masked guest is an absolute mystery to everyone.
3. a novel, short story, play, or film whose plot involves a crime or other event that remains puzzlingly unsettled until the very end: a mystery by Agatha Christie.
4. obscure, puzzling, or mysterious quality or character: the mystery of Mona Lisa's smile.

So, by your citing the other 5 definitions would you have told me that the van that Scooby-Doo rode in was called a 'god micro-bus' rather than the 'mystery machine'?

Agatha Christie wrote only stories that you could figure out by divine revelation???

Alfred Hitchcock presents....... stories god told him???

wtf?

let's not go off on a tangent here. instead, let's talk about "examining available evidence to point toward the cause".
chernik, your claims possess no evidence to support them, therefore they point to nothing.
our claims possess tons of evidence, therefore they point to a most probable truth, if they haven't already been wholly proven as fact.

I see. So, according to you, bucket, the universe is necessary; it cannot not exist. Is that your claim?

Does it sound absurd to you?

Premise 1) is not a definition. Did you not read what I wrote in my first post? "Natural theology is not a process of justifying some pre-existing concept of God; it is discovering what God actually is." Nor is it defining God with arbitrary properties. 1) can be proven as follows, and this is from the Summa:

"First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused either by the constituent principles of that essence (like a property that necessarily accompanies the species -- as the faculty of laughing is proper to a man -- and is caused by the constituent principles of the species), or by some exterior agent -- as heat is caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now it is impossible for a thing's existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence.

"Secondly, existence is that which makes every form or nature actual; for goodness and humanity are spoken of as actual, only because they are spoken of as existing. Therefore existence must be compared to essence, if the latter is a distinct reality, as actuality to potentiality. Therefore, since in God there is no potentiality..., it follows that in Him essence does not differ from existence. Therefore His essence is His existence.

"Thirdly, because, just as that which has fire, but is not itself fire, is on fire by participation; so that which has existence but is not existence, is a being by participation. But God is His own essence...; if, therefore, He is not His own existence He will be not essential, but participated being. He will not therefore be the first being -- which is absurd. Therefore God is His own existence, and not merely His own essence."

Premise 2) is not a definition either. First, the universe is not a single object; it is at the very least space/time, matter, and energy. You could say that some things in the universe, such as space and matter, are imperishable, that is, they do not tend to go out of existence. But in every object within the universe there is a distinction between what it is (its essence) and that it is (its existence). You can imagine a unicorn, for example, without it existing. This should be self-evident.

Second, in the possible worlds semantics of modal logic a proposition is necessary if it is true in every possible world. Now consider yourself. Do you exist in all possible worlds? Of course not. We can easily imagine a world in which you do not exist. Hence you are not necessary. Even if your soul is naturally imperishable, nonetheless there is a difference between imperishability and absolute necessity. But does what applies to objects within the universe apply to the universe itself? I see absolutely no reason why not. Our world could have been vastly different. And it might not have existed at all. The burden of demonstrating something so counter-intuitive as that the universe cannot not exist is on you.

Third, Aquinas's "third way" is actually more complicated than you present it. In it he first shows that "if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence." Here he presupposes the past eternity of the world and reasons that, given infinite time, all possibilities would be realized, including the possibility of simultaneous non-existence of all contingent (perishable) things. It may be objected that even if all the things in the universe actually corrupted, then their matter could still exist under different forms. But this presupposes that matter as such is not perishable, only the things that are received in it are. Hence in that case matter will be one of the necessary or imperishable things whose existence Aqunas is trying to establish in this proof. Now our author assumes that the universe itself, composed as it is of contingent things, is also contingent and would therefore have ceased to exist at some point in the past. (Again, if this assumption is incorrect, then the universe is necessary.) But from nothing nothing comes. So nothing would exist now, which is absurd. What if the universe began to exist a finite amount of time ago? In that case, ontologically prior to the universe's coming into being, there must have been nothing in existence at all. But once again, from nothing nothing comes. Therefore, there must exist a necessary being (or beings), which cannot not exist. Some things that are necessary are matter, angels, and human souls, because they have no inherent potentiality to cease to be. Further, these necessary or imperishable things are such either of themselves or derivatively, when their existence, though necessary, depends upon the existence of something else. And there cannot be an infinite series of things deriving their necessity each from its predecessor. That being which is necessary in itself (absolutely) is called God.

Fourth, recall the famous question asked by Leibniz: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" According to him, there must be a "sufficient reason" for the existence of the current as opposed to some other state of affairs. This reason cannot be found in any single thing nor in a collection of things (all contingent) nor in the past causes of things (which do not explain why either these causes or the universe exist) but must reside outside the universe. And that "sufficient reason" is, again, what everyone calls God Whose existence is due only to Himself.

I'll say it again.
The probability/possibility that this might not be the case never enters your examination.

You see, according to me, bucket, the universe exists, for we are contemplating the cause of it. Therefore the non-existence and or necessity(wtf? necessary for what? toejam?) of the universe is an irrelevant thing to reflect upon. A self existing universe is a more plausible proposition than a self existing universe plus one pink unicorn. That is my claim drtychik.

If this is your claim, then you are in trouble, because implicit in the concept of "self existing universe" or the universe having aseity is the fact that the universe is not only imperishable (which is what I mean by "necessary") but that it is essentially so. I don't deny that it is necessary (although who knows). I do deny that is essentially necessary. I say, then, the being who is essentially necessary is what we mean by "God."

I've only read what you've written in the thread so far.
It's kind of the same approach I've been thinking of lately.
The other approaches I've come across require a sophistication in philosophy that most people I argue with can't grasp easily. This alternative approach ought to be able appeal to their common-sense reasoning.

I'm looking forward to reading the main article.

These "proofs" are nothing more than word games.Not valid as evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

Dmitri, I've read all of your posts so far, and despite your insinuations that I don't understand what I read, I have a firm grasp on the concepts of circular logic and non-sequiter conclusions. These, along with the use of antiquated terminology, are your primary weapons.

One more time, I will go through what you've written and point out that there's no substance to it.

Yes. it is a very good observation. You followed it up with circular logic that does nothing to refute my astute observation. How can we prove that X exists unless we know what X is? Well, we formulate a theory based on scientific evidence. Once we have enough testable data together, we form a hypothesis that tries to link the data in a meaningful way. Once we have the hypothesis, we try to disprove it. One day, if there's enough evidence that the hypothesis is correct, we call it a theory. This is the scientific method.

You are correct... we don't know the essence of God, because there is no way to test a thing that may or may not exists beyond the comprehension of science.

NOTHING!! We don't have a theory because we don't have any data. Therefore, there is nothing to prove!

What? This presupposes that god exists and has names for us. We're not even to the part about having a theory of what he might be yet. And what in the world would his names for us have to do with proving that he exists? This is just throwing mumbo-jumbo into the paragraph to make it longer and more imposing. I'm not biting.

No... This is what you said in the beginning, and it still presupposes the existence of God. That's not how science works!! First the data, then the theory... no data, no theory. End of story. Circular logic.

Whoops! You caught me mislabelling paragraphs. Naughty Hambydammit!

Ah, but since I get to say what the Purple People Eater is, I say that only people whose names start with D go to hell. The thing is, since the Purple People Eater's essence and potentiality are the same because he is the creator of the universe, it is self evident that the potentiality in the Summa Flux Capacitor only allows time travel if you eat twinkies.

You're missing the whole point, Dmitri. Even if this whole conglomeration of higglety-pigglety buggety boo were to prove that the universe must have been created by some unending intelligence outside the bounds of the universe, there's no (and I mean ZERO) evidence to lead us to the conclusion that this being would be the Christian God. I can say that I have revelation that it's the Purple People Eater, and I'm on exactly the same scientific ground as you and good old Aquinas.

A thing may indeed exist in the mind. Let's say, unicorns, hobbits, and three-headed globphystocytes from the planet Zorb. A thing may also exist in reality. I agree with you completely here.

So, I'm imagining a superhero named Captain Dumb Dumb, who travels through the sewers saving rats from cobras that have mutated into seven-legged, fire-breathing bacteria. This being now has potential because I have imagined it to exist. So what do I do now?

Again, you're missing the whole point. Yes, potential and existence are related. One can lead to the other. But this still has absolutely nothing to do with a being that people made up to explain why the thunder hurt their ears and made their children cry.

I agreed with you that I made a very astute observation.

No, I get it. You haven't gotten that it's double speak. Not my fault. I'm trying to explain it to you.

An adult is rational. An infant is also rational, but in an extremely limited way. A bear cub, and a bear, for that matter, react to the world in a primitive version of the way humans do. They input data and their brains formulate a reaction to the data based on a combination of instinct and learned behaviors.

Let me see if I can sum this up in non-gobblety-guk language:
"Things that exist can influence the universe. Things that don't exist, but can be imagined, have to be created."

No, Dimitri. That's just not true. This whole section, stripped of unnecessary pontification, reads like this...

If a thing exists, it must have been created.

There is no evidence that this is true.

Oh, criminy... my head hurts again.

And for the record, Dimitri, I've read your website. It's a big gigantic load of double speak and circular logic, just like your arguments here.

Also, for the record, I have a Masters degree in Philosophy. I find these so-called "proofs" to be, well, sophomoric.

Shaun

Actually, I minored in Philosophy and tutored it in college - nobody I tutored got below a B. Philosophy isn't SUPPOSED to be a word game, but people like you and the Ancient Greek Sophists try to do it that way.

Well, ShaunPhilly, if you find proofs of the existence of God to be "sophomoric," then, I suppose, the case is closed. You are a confirmed atheist, set in your ways, your mind is made up. You are what you are, and no stinkin' proof is going to change that. And yet you have not shown these proofs to be wrong. If you could do that, I'd gladly learn from you.

Why not simply call it the Big Bang?

Philosophy is useful for describing conceptual matters. The "whys" of the universe. Science is useful for determining the physical characteristics of the universe, such as cause+effect. Therefore speculating on how stuff works in nature is in the realm of science. Religion tries to be both, and fails at both.

Who, exactly arrived at this conclusion? I don't know any physicists or astronomers who came up with this. Once again, this is in the realm pf physics.

Really? Has divine revelation given us one useful piece of knowledge? I can't think of a single one. Divine revelation has given us simplistic explanations of natural phenomena that were without explanation while this revelation was granted that are outright wrong, a set of retrograde moral codes that are for the most part useless for an advanced society, and lots of mumbo-jumbo that can be found in any "divine" revelation around the world.

It seems when philosophers speak of god, they speak of the god of deists or pantheists, not Christians.

The supernatural was invoked in ancient times when the explanation of natural phenomena was beyond the grasp of those making up these myths. Zeus was responsible for thunder, Poseidon for storms at sea, demons for afflictions like leprosy, as well as a host of mental diseases. In fact, many primitive-minded folks believe that their god is responsible for events such as Hurricane Katrina and the '04 tsunami that struck Asia when this is clearly not the case. This is the god of the gaps.

Note: you are giving those whose name originates from the Greek goddess Demeter a bad name, including me.

Okay, let's take a look.

Oh? In that case, did you take into account the various findings of physics and cosmology of the last few centuries? Have you incorporated the theoretical implications of string theory? What about the experimental evidence for the Big Bang theory? The multiverse theory? What of quantum mechanics? You can't just say "I conclude this, therefore this is so." If you are making statements about the physical world, you need empirical evidence. Unfortunately, it appears that natural theology is merely one more example of onanism.

In other words, the only piece of "useful" knowledge is that God is impossible to consider reasonably. If you've thrown reason to the winds, there is no point to debate him. It's a cop-out, and cop-outs aren't something I generally consider "useful." I will now examine your website.

What does "infinite" mean in this context? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle suggests that omniscience is an impossibility. Assuming, for the sake of argument that it is not, is God's knowledge limited to actuality, or does he also know all that exists merely as potentiality?

So far you have also made two assumptions based on no reasonable evidence: that God exists, and that he is omniscient.

This does not make sense. Knowledge is merely codified information. I can look at a rock, and due to the way in which the light reflected off of it affects the neuron connections in my brain, I will have knowledge of it. What exists in my head is not a rock or a copy of the rock, but information codified as neuron connections. I can then describe this rock to you through words. I am further codifying it into language - letters, words, sentences - to make you understand what it is. All knowledge and codified information must be physical. There exists no information in the universe which is not physical. Think about that for a while. In order to have "complete and unified" knowledge of himself, God would simply need to have a copy of himself, which would mean there are two Gods, and unless they were mutually each others' knowledge, each God would also need infinite knowledge of himself, ad infinitum, necessitating an infinite amount of Gods. This is absurd already. Furthermore, consider the implication of God's omniscience (which I am granting for the sake of argument) and couple that with his complete knowledge of himself. This means that he has no free will, since he knows beforehand how he will act.

So you're implying Jesus is merely self-knowledge? Codified information of God? But Jesus was not infinite, he was probably less than two meters tall.

I thought the son was merely self-knowledge. How is self-knowledge capable of knowledge of the self? You're implying Jesus is merely knowledge (codified information), but knowledge itself cannot know anything; to know something requires an intelligent being. If his begetting is not by will but by nature, then his entire life seems rather arbitrary and certainly not divine.

The article sort of stops making sense after this. Impressive hand-waving on your part, however.

Anyway, your argument reads more like post-modernist deconstruction (complete with unnecesserily elevated diction!) than any philosophy I've read. It's vague, has many undefined terms, has little logical flow, includes way too many unsupported assertions and assumptions that I sure as hell will not grant, and generally speaking sucks. Sorry.

Right the first time, Dima.

Did you even read my arguments on this thread or on my website ("Aquinas' Five Ways")? It does not require the string theory, etc. Unless, that is, you can show me how the string theory contradicts it.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is relevant for us humans, because in order to find out the properties of a particle, we need to shine light on it, and thus the process of measurement of one quality of the particle alters another quality of it. But God does not need to shine light on things in order to know their position and momentum. He simply knows. In other words, the uncertainty is epistemological not ontological. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And here I was thinking that knowledge was properly justified true belief. But what I mean is that the Son comprehends all that the Father is and is therefore His Image. The Father begets the Son, because His self-knowledge is complete and "becomes" a copy of Him, equal to the Father in all respects.

Isn't this self-evidently false? Information is by definition neither matter nor energy, though it could be encoded in matter, as on paper or in a computer. God is a "pure form," a "thought thinking itself."

Yes, but the Father and the Son are unified by the Holy Spirit, Who is God's self-love. Love is a unitive force.

That is precisely one of the mysteries of the Trinity. God's self-knowledge is complete, "spanning" the infinite regress, such that the Son emerges in a way as a perfect copy. This is partly why God is infinite. One infinity can somehow contain the other. And I write, "In humans if 'I' know, 'that which knows' is forever distinct from the 'that which is known.' This is not so in God. But we can't imagine it." But we at least can acknowledge it. As you go up the ontological hierarchy, you should be able to see this without a great deal of dfficulty.

Not Jesus. God the Son qua God, on His own, so to speak.

The Son is the entirety of the knowledge of the Father's essence. The Son comprehends the Father's whole infinitude. And that is why He is the Image of the Father and therefore possesses all of the Father's perfections, including a personality and intelligence. The interesting question is, Is the Son's personality different from the Father's? I'm not sure.

With all due respect to your IQ, this is all orthodox Catholic doctrine with only a few embellishments on my part.

The thing that stood out for me in that whole discussion was the comment about metaphysics coming before epistemology. This is telling of the set of biases and understanding of how epistemology and metaphysics are related.

If you think metaphysics come before epistemology, it implies that you assume that the metaphysical information is not subject to epistemological critique. In other words, it implies that what you accept as "truth" about metaphysical questions has not been through the review process that other questions are put through. You accept things like the Trinity without questioning it the way you would accept which toothpaste to use. It is merely a mystery, and not to be questioned using the epistemological methods that we use to understand science.

Why? Well, that's what my essay was about. Theists give exceptions to religious concepts that they don't give to natural things.

Epistemology must come before metaphysics. Why? Because the only avenue we have to attain metaphysical knowledge is through those epistemological channels. Revelation? Saying that the revealed ideas came from God is fine, proving it is another matter. You have to apply the same epistemological standards to things claimed to have been revealed as those that we find through our senses.

You can't simply choose to ignore critiquing information simply because it is supposed to have been revealed. That's the biased choice I was referring to. It's an unsubstantiated and arbitrary choice made out of, well, I'm not sure. I really don't know what advantage it gives you to accept it.

Shaun

There were far too many poorly-defined terms, baseless assumptions, and generalities that left much more clarification to be desired. Epistemology must come before metaphysics, but it seems you disagree. It's impossible to proceed if you essentially cut the feet from under any reasonable skeptical debate.

How would you go about demonstrating this in a non-arbitrary fashion?