Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New member question about philosophy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Machinist View Post
    Hello. This is my first post of Theologyweb.com

    I have a question about philosophy that I have thought about for a very very long time, and was wondering if I could get some insight here:

    It deals with the nature of God, or rather the necessity of God's existence:

    First, does not the most extreme atheist and the most extreme theist begin the same basic logic? The axiom of self existence? By that I mean, SOMETHING existed, whether that was God (in whatever religious garb), or the universe itself.

    If the big bang is asserted, then that condensed ball of matter was simply just there, self existent. If God exists, then he too was self existant (unless you want to assert a self existent infinite regression).

    Thus, God (in whatever form), or the Universe (in whatever form) simply self exists.

    So the atheist and the theist begin with the pre-supposition of self-existence.

    Is this correct in saying this?

    I would ask that some of you here on this forum provide some insight into this before I continue with the other parts of this question.

    Thank you so much.

    Machinist
    True, both atheist and theist presuppose that something exists eternally and necessarily. The atheist believes that which exists necessarily to be the material world itself, whereas the theist believes that which exists necessarily to be a supernatural being who then creates the material world out of nothing.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      True, both atheist and theist presuppose that something exists eternally and necessarily. The atheist believes that which exists necessarily to be the material world itself, whereas the theist believes that which exists necessarily to be a supernatural being who then creates the material world out of nothing.
      Not all theists propose that the material world was created out of the [philosophical] nothing. It is primarily a Christian argument based on theological assumptions.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Not all theists propose that the material world was created out of the [philosophical] nothing. It is primarily a Christian argument based on theological assumptions.
        Could be, don't know all theistic positions, but if they don't believe that an immaterial or supernatural existent created the material or natural world then the only alternative I can see is Pantheism. If your argument is that there are 2 necessary existences, then I would argue that there are 2 gods, and the very idea that there are 2 gods is a contradiction on its face. I know you've said that the B'hai preaches that the material world is a reflection of god or something like that, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Could be, don't know all theistic positions, but if they don't believe that an immaterial or supernatural existent created the material or natural world then the only alternative I can see is Pantheism. If your argument is that there are 2 necessary existences, then I would argue that there are 2 gods, and the very idea that there are 2 gods is a contradiction on its face. I know you've said that the B'hai preaches that the material world is a reflection of god or something like that, but that doesn't make any sense to me.
          The Romans, Egyptians, and Greeks didn't even stop at two...
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            The Romans, Egyptians, and Greeks didn't even stop at two...
            Yes, I know carpe. I'm not as stupid as I look you know. But, I believe we're basically talking monotheism, not the more ancient mythology.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Yes, I know carpe. I'm not as stupid as I look you know. But, I believe we're basically talking monotheism, not the more ancient mythology.
              I have no idea how you look.

              The post was meant facetiously, Jim - not seriously.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                I have no idea how you look.

                The post was meant facetiously, Jim - not seriously.
                I know, so was mine. I actually look intelligent.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  I know, so was mine. I actually look intelligent.
                  Shhhuuurrre you do....
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I've been really busy and haven't had time to gather my thoughts on the matter. Plus, several cryptic statements from one poster threw me off a bit.

                    So without splitting any really really fine semantic hairs, I think it's generally agreed upon that self existence is a fact whether you are an atheist or theist. There for a minute I was wondering if there were some argument similar to the ontological and the transcendental argument from reason, that logically explained that there must be a God creator if existence exists. The one poster here seemed to suggest that, and I honestly reflected on his statements, but found them difficult to digest.

                    So I will continue here:


                    A self existent universe, not a logical problem. It seems though that where the problems begin is when we begin to look around at the universe, at all it's amazing complexity and symmetry, that a natural tendency arises to conclude that it must have been created by an intelligent designer.

                    Myriad cases are cited like " look at the complexity of DNA, and how it works like a complex piece of machinery", or " look at the human eye, how it sees, how it's made. How could that have "evolved" randomly", or " if the earth was so many degrees this way or that way, it would burn up from the sun's heat. "

                    Statistics are often tossed about too, like " there is one in ten trillion to the zillionth power that this could have formed this way."

                    So would you agree that where the disagreements begin is not the fact that the universe, or God, or something, self existed, but rather the complexity, symmetry and function of that self existing something?

                    My work again needs my attention. So I want to also leave this thought. I can't really articulate just yet how it relates, but I will be back later to hopefully read some comments, and perhaps develop more of my own thoughts:


                    If you take a hundred pennies, and throw them in the air, they will fall to the floor is a particular random way. Whatever way they land, what are the chances they landed that way and that way alone? If you throw them up in the air again, what are the chances that they will land again the same exact way as the first experiment? How many times would you have to throw the pennies into the air for them to land at the same precise coordinates?

                    I guess what I am groping at here, is that this idea seems to parallel what many say about the universe, when they say " look at this flower, the bee, this atom, etc. how could it have evolved this way". And my thought is that if it hadn't have formed that way, then it would have formed another one in a zillion ways.

                    I don't necessarily believe this, I just think that maybe it's not illogical to truly reason that not only is the universe (all matter, space, time) self existent, but perhaps this self exist soup also possesses self existent properties of symmetry.

                    Thank You. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts and comments.
                    Last edited by Machinist; 03-03-2018, 09:06 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                      I've been really busy and haven't had time to gather my thoughts on the matter. Plus, several cryptic statements from one poster threw me off a bit.
                      To quote CP, this is about me, isn't it...

                      Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                      So without splitting any really really fine semantic hairs, I think it's generally agreed upon that self existence is a fact whether you are an atheist or theist. There for a minute I was wondering if there were some argument similar to the ontological and the transcendental argument from reason, that logically explained that there must be a God creator if existence exists. The one poster here seemed to suggest that, and I honestly reflected on his statements, but found them difficult to digest.

                      So I will continue here:

                      A self existent universe, not a logical problem. It seems though that where the problems begin is when we begin to look around at the universe, at all it's amazing complexity and symmetry, that a natural tendency arises to conclude that it must have been created by an intelligent designer.

                      Myriad cases are cited like " look at the complexity of DNA, and how it works like a complex piece of machinery", or " look at the human eye, how it sees, how it's made. How could that have "evolved" randomly", or " if the earth was so many degrees this way or that way, it would burn up from the sun's heat. "

                      Statistics are often tossed about too, like " there is one in ten trillion to the zillionth power that this could have formed this way."

                      So would you agree that where the disagreements begin is not the fact that the universe, or God, or something, self existed, but rather the complexity, symmetry and function of that self existing something?
                      There is a strong tendency for people to see "design" in the complexity of the universe, and so infer a designer. Personally, I think that is a mistake; it is an argument that presumes its conclusion by labeling the things you note (i.e., complexity, symmetry, functionality) with the word "design."

                      Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                      My work again needs my attention. So I want to also leave this thought. I can't really articulate just yet how it relates, but I will be back later to hopefully read some comments, and perhaps develop more of my own thoughts:

                      If you take a hundred pennies, and throw them in the air, they will fall to the floor is a particular random way. Whatever way they land, what are the chances they landed that way and that way alone? If you throw them up in the air again, what are the chances that they will land again the same exact way as the first experiment? How many times would you have to throw the pennies into the air for them to land at the same precise coordinates?

                      I guess what I am groping at here, is that this idea seems to parallel what many say about the universe, when they say " look at this flower, the bee, this atom, etc. how could it have evolved this way". And my thought is that if it hadn't have formed that way, then it would have formed another one in a zillion ways.

                      I don't necessarily believe this, I just think that maybe it's not illogical to truly reason that not only is the universe (all matter, space, time) self existent, but perhaps this self exist soup also possesses self existent properties of symmetry.

                      Thank You. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts and comments.
                      The language of probability is often used in this discussion in ways that I do not think are warranted. First of all, when you argue, "what is the probability that the universe would be as it is," you are trying to make an argument from a sample space of one. We have only one universe. So, instead, people take that various numbers that represent some aspect of our universe (i.e., the speed of light, gravitation force, etc.) and imagine some enormously large number of possible values these numbers "might" have and then point to the specific value it DOES have and say, "see - a zillion to one chance this could have happened randomly." Unfortunately, it is all pure speculation, and mostly made-up numbers. It's as if they're imagining some random force rolling the die on all of these parameters, aand magically coming up with the numbers evident in our universe. The entire model seems flawed from the get-go.

                      I think there is no reason to discount the possibility that these values are also self-existent, as you suggest. If someone finds this so "awesome" that they need a god to explain its wonder, then so be it. I do not find I have that need.

                      Discussions about the universe are interesting ones, and we have to accept a very real possibility: that there are some things about our universe we may never be able to discern, and some perspectives we have about it that may be wrong and we have no way of correcting it. Recently, I read a paper about the expansion of the universe, and the author of the paper noted that in several trillion years, the expansion of the universe will have progressed to the point where it will not be possible for a species in one galaxy to detect the existence of any other galaxy. A new species arising, when it gains sentience and science, will look at their galaxy and come to the conclusion that it represents all that is, unaware that myriad other galaxies exist outside the range of detection, and lacking any means to correct that misperception.

                      If that is true - how can we know that we are not that species today? That something "out there" exists but is outside our ability to ever detect or know about, and we have no means of every correcting that misperception on our part.

                      The universe is a place of mystery and wonder. I try not to confuse awe/mystery/wonder with a need to worship.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        It was 37818 making the esoteric statements. Which I think are thought provoking and do appreciate them. I just don't know if there is anything really there to investigate.

                        " A sample space of one" helps to describe what I was aiming for. In my experiment, if I toss the pennies onto the floor, I can't marvel because the results are one in gazillion to the power of googleplex. ( I just googled "the largest number with a name")

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                          It was 37818 making the esoteric statements. Which I think are thought provoking and do appreciate them. I just don't know if there is anything really there to investigate.

                          " A sample space of one" helps to describe what I was aiming for. In my experiment, if I toss the pennies onto the floor, I can't marvel because the results are one in gazillion to the power of googleplex. ( I just googled "the largest number with a name")
                          I think the theists would say, "you should marvel at it if the coins fall into the exact shape of the Eiffle Tower." They see the universe as exhibiting even more design than that - hence their belief it was created by a god.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            And I would see the point if they fell into the exact shape of an Eiffle tower, or the statue of liberty or a car,

                            But the universe of matter and space didn't fall into such arrangements. It fell into the shape of raw materials.

                            So just as it's agreed upon that the universe can logically self-exist, (or something self exists), why is it not logical to think that this self existing something possesses the eternal properties that tend toward symmetry and function, even expression and awareness?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                              And I would see the point if they fell into the exact shape of an Eiffle tower, or the statue of liberty or a car,

                              But the universe of matter and space didn't fall into such arrangements. It fell into the shape of raw materials.

                              So just as it's agreed upon that the universe can logically self-exist, (or something self exists), why is it not logical to think that this self existing something possesses the eternal properties that tend toward symmetry and function, even expression and awareness?
                              So two things come to mind. First, the "order" I was talking about is not the distribution of stars/stuff in the universe; it was the precise configuration of the parameters that govern its operation. So, for example, if gravity was a little less/more strong, the consequences for the universe would be catastrophic. If the speed of light were different, or the strong or weak atomic force, etc. Each of these has a very specific value, and the general laws of the universe operate in a way to make all of the universe possible. It is the unique configuration of these variables (I think) that is, to the theist, "Eiffle-Tower-like."

                              Second, I dont think they are making the argument out of "logic." Logically speaking, either assumption is viable (self-existent universe, or self-existent god creating the universe). I think they are making the argument out of a sense of perceived likelihood. It simply seems, to them, more likely that a rational mind was at work setting these "knobs" to the specific values necessary to produce the universe we have, than it is that that they ended up at those settings "randomly."

                              Again, I think the "likely" argument is simply filling a space where the best we can say is "we don't know" with "god did it." There is along history of science displacing theistic interpretations of observed phenomena (i.e., "god did it") with scientific ones. We are basicly at the point where "god did it" has been pushed back to the actual laws/rules/principles on which the universe operates, instead of the individual phenomena. In a sense, we're at "god indirectly did it," by creating the basis "stuff" (matter/energy) and the physical laws that govern their unfolding.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Second, I dont think they are making the argument out of "logic." Logically speaking, either assumption is viable (self-existent universe, or self-existent god creating the universe). I think they are making the argument out of a sense of perceived likelihood. It simply seems, to them, more likely that a rational mind was at work setting these "knobs" to the specific values necessary to produce the universe we have, than it is that that they ended up at those settings "randomly."
                                Perceived likelihood is the only way to make the decision of what is self-existent. No objective evidence is available. The same perceived likelihood is what makes self-existence universe folks, lean to that option.

                                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Again, I think the "likely" argument is simply filling a space where the best we can say is "we don't know" with "god did it." There is along history of science displacing theistic interpretations of observed phenomena (i.e., "god did it") with scientific ones. We are basicly at the point where "god did it" has been pushed back to the actual laws/rules/principles on which the universe operates, instead of the individual phenomena. In a sense, we're at "god indirectly did it," by creating the basis "stuff" (matter/energy) and the physical laws that govern their unfolding.
                                I agree that we don't know is not a reason to say God did it. However, I see the same dynamic at work with people like Jim saying in effect, "Since you can not prove scientifically that there is a God, that means that God did not do it."
                                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X