Posts
I wanted to rise to the challenge of proving the existence of God. The actual nature of the challenge is to "scientifically" prove the existence of God. I am going to have to back off of this challenge a little because I cannot prove that God exists using science. Science is a series of observations that essentially amounts to "when these material conditions exist, such and such a result happens and this is what we think is happening to cause it." Using this methodology it is impossible to prove that God exists because it relies on reaction in matter and God is necessarily immaterial.
What I am able to do is logically prove that God exists. Logic is a pre-requisite to science functioning so I am actually appealing to a level of "knowing" that is deeper than that which science is able to offer.
There are a series of logical proofs that have been developed by various people at various times. I am not particularly concerned with the validity of all of these proofs and have no intention of presenting them all here. This would be unnecessary and confusing as many of the proofs use totally different means and methods to reach their goal. I will content myself with one simple proof which, if valid, is enough to definitively prove that God does exist.
What this proof does not do is say anything about the nature of God. It simply demonstrates the necessity of a Creator that could as easily be Hindu or Native American or Greek as the modern Judaeo/Christian God. Discussing the actual NATURE of God is a much bigger and harder task that I am not willing to attempt at this point. Also, if we cannot prove that there is a Creator then it is ridiculous to try and say anything about His nature.
This proof is one which has been briefly touched upon previously but I want to go into this in much greater length and detail here.
Let us start with an observation from the universe. We are able to observe that Cause and Effect are real and follow successively; one cause leads to an effect which is also a cause for another effect and so on. This is the basis for most conversation about the universe and is certainly the basis of modern science.
Cause and Effect can be traced back in time successively and without break or interruption to the beginning of the universe. I say beginning of the universe but there are really two options in considering the nature of the universe; either it simply began at one point or it has existed for ever.
The universe cannot have existed for ever. If the universe existed for ever then the chain of cause and effect would be infinitely long. If the chain of cause and effect were infinitely long it would take an infinite amount of time for any effect to result from a cause that occurred an infinite distance away down the cause and effect chain. If it takes an infinite amount of time to travel down the chain then it will never arrive. As we can see ourselves that effects occur on a regular basis we can be assured that the universe has not existed forever.
Therefore the universe had to have a beginning point. If it had a beginning point then there had to be an initial cause that got the whole domino chain of cause and effect rolling. Something had to push that first domino over and that first thing cannot be the domino itself. Logically no effect can be its own cause. This is where the necessity of a Creator comes in. Something not bound by cause and effect or the material universe (something totally inconceivable) stepped in and pushed that first domino over. This inconceivable thing is the Creator of the universe.
This is an old proof and certainly not one of my own creation. However, it is solid and forever ends the question as to whether or not God exists. The only way to deny that there is a Creator would be to say that the universe does not follow cause and effect. Unfortunately, we are able to see that the universe does.
If anyone is interested in modern science then it is interesting to note that the astrophysicists are coming around to this very model of the universe. The Steady State theory of the universe, in which the universe has existed for ever, has been pushed out the door by an increased understanding of how light is impacted by the velocity of its source, red shifting. The Big Bang theory has gained prominence and is currently the primary understanding or the nature of the universe. Physicists are avoiding the “Creator” aspect of their theory by stating that before the Big Bang occurred Cause and Effect could not have functioned as we know it now and all prior events are therefore unknowable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 Discussion Points:
Good point, but I'm wondering why 'the inconceivable' decided to stop after flicking that first domino. I geuss if you take into account the time 'the inconceivable' took Adam's rib out to make Eve, gave Sampson super strength thru his hair, and managed to get a poor young virgin pregnant, it's hard to say 'the inconceivable' has done nothing. Let's just say 'the inconceivable' hasn't exactly been overly busy.
If not for these few solid examples that proove 'the inconceivable' still exists to this day (or at least up until 2008 years ago when it made it's last documented appearance), I'd wonder whether it was possible for an uncaused cause to exist in a world based on cause & effect. Perhaps the Big Bang was in fact the annihilation of 'the inconceivable'. Perhaps we can only live in a world where there is only the concievable left. Perhaps 'the inconcievable' went down in a final flame of glory so that we may all live, similar to Bruce Willis in Armageddon, only even Bigger (if you can conceive that).
Well, I am not even saying that God did all those things. I am just proving that there IS a God. Your point about God not existing anymore is a good one, and I DO intend to respond because there is an answer, I just want to wait and see if anyone is able to refute the proof before moving on to anything else.
To make sure I understand: your proof is that the universe exists, so someone must have made it, and that someone must be God?
Meg, your problem must be, once again, with the definition of 'God'. In the 'proof' he must be defining 'God' as the creator of the universe. You know your table exists, therefore you know there exists something that built it (be it a person or a machine).
The proof cannot be used to determine the existence of heaven, hell, angels, Jesus, etc. Just that there was a 'creator'.
Not that I personally have anything against cause & effect, as I remember having argued to its defense in the past. Now my problem must reside in this statement: "The only way to deny that there is a Creator would be to say that the universe does not follow cause and effect." Well, it looks like 'free will' has been tossed out the window. The same 'free will' that the believers of 'God' must rely on. If you can defend the existence of 'free will' and at the same time the existence of 'God' then perhaps this should be clairified.
This is Ray Comfort's argument all over again. You can't compare natural things to man-made things.
There is a tree in my front yard. It's beautiful. It's very unlikely that any tree would look exactly like this one -- in fact, I've seen millions of trees and have never seen an identical one. That does not mean that someone made it. That's just how nature works.
Of course, you can believe that God made my tree if it makes you feel better about life.
The tree whose seed grew to become your tree is who made your tree. This is the cause & effect chain. You & I don't look the same but someone made us. Something had to happen which resulted in my existence... If that something never happened then I would not exist.
Capitalist: Yes. That is precisely the argument.
Seve&Megan: No. I am not saying that because the universe is "made" there must have been someone who "made" it. That would be circular reasoning because why do I assume that it was "made"?
What I am saying is that if you knock over a table and it falls to the ground you have observed cause and effect. The rest of the argument is inescapable.
This does raise issues for Free Will as it creates a picture of an apparently totally deterministic universe. The universe, apart for living beings, does appear to be "nearly" totally deterministic (if we ignore quantum physics for awhile). This proof does not require human beings to exist so for the moment we can ignore them.
From what little I know, the universe was created by a "Big Bang", which was the beginning of time. Nothing caused it, because there was no time before that -- there was nothing to come before it and no cause or effect. That was the beginning of cause and effect. The uncaused cause, I guess you could say.
You could say that God caused it, but the whole process works equally well without adding in a deity.
*grins and applauds* Excellent!
This is the only argument that I have ever found to actually address the real thrust of the Proof. If you need to have a Uncaused Cause (as logically you do) then what is to stop the uncaused cause from being the Big Bang? Why do we need to add another factor into the equation?
I have a friend who poetically stated, "And so Occam's Razor slits the wrists of the Unmoved Mover." This really sums the point up.
The problem with this argument is that it is saying that matter is incredibly unpredictable, which we see on a daily basis is not true. It does not suffice to say that the conditions were right this one time for this event. There were no conditions and there was no one time (there was no time at all actually!).
Take a moment and think about it. Really think about it; Matter and Energy creating itself out of nothingness.
I hope you have spent at least five minutes thinking about that because I certainly did. Now, modern physics, E=MC^2, refutes this by saying that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Logic also refutes this, by saying that no thing (nothing) can be its own cause.
Once you study a little logic and a little physics you begin to see how much sense those ancient theologians make. The have been saying for a long long time that God exists outside of time and is purely cause (or effect, I can't remember which and certainly won't be able to find the article now!).
I don't understand why you think it says that matter is incredibly unpredictable.
Well, if matter can spontaneously create itself then it IS incredibly unpredictable. There can be no reason for it to have appeared and there was no cause for it. Really this defies everything we know about matter, everything that we know about science.
Another way to answer your question: By definition nothing can possibly be more unpredictable than an effect without a cause. It is something happening for no reason at all! Not just happening for no reason that we understand or that we might someday understand, but no reason AT ALL!
Yeah, but it only did that once in the last 14 billion years.
Great posting, great comments.
Megan: once is fourteen billions years is as good as a hundred, or a hundred billion. If I walk on the water one time, that's proves a lot, don't you think? If you pursue the reasoning, with courage, it will take you into theism.
Nathan: your earlier comments need to take into account the fact that the uncaused cause is the cause of everything, including time and being. The uncaused cause is not confined to a single moment, at the beginning of time; the uncaused cause is the mother of time itself, and so is present in every moment of time. It's not present in the same way, but is present nonetheless.
Dad
Good Reverend: Accurate, of course, as always.
Steve&Megan: Another way to look at that particular point would be to consider that if something happens, even once in a million billion years, you always have to keep that in your understanding of the situation. An asteroid struck the earth a long time ago and wiped out the dinosaurs. Today we still scan the skies looking out for that extinction event that might appear out of the proverbial heavens and wipe us all out.
If something happens once, it is infinitely more probable to happen again than something that has never happened!
What I think is really interesting is the conversation that we are having turns into a consideration of what time is. This has certain logical implications for any "Creator" figure and allows us to say slightly (very slightly) more as to what the nature of the "Creator" is like. Actually, at this point I am going to go ahead and take Creator out of quotations and just refer to Him as God.
This may just be because it is shorter and I am lazy.
Really this is incredibly exciting stuff. This is the absolute most important question in the universe, and we find that we have something to say about it! Amazing!
I don't understand why you keep wimping out and calling this creator "God". If, indeed, you can prove that a conscious mind created the universe, you ought to be published in Science magazine.
*shrugs* First off, while this is my version of the proof but I didn't write it. If anyone is to be published he is a very old dead guy. Secondly, the reaction that you have to my using the word God is the reaction that nearly everyone else I talk to has.
You cannot convince someone of something that they are dead set is not true, not without getting all 1964 on them at least.
I have had conversations with people in which it has been definitively PROVEN that God exists. The next day when I remind them of the conversation they shrug and pretend it never happened. They offer no rebuttal and no counter-argument but they want so badly for me to be wrong that they cannot really consider that I might be right.
This is funny because I have heard these same people, earlier in the initial conversation, say that belief in God is a matter of wishful thinking, and "you only think that because you want it to be true."
*Laughs* What a wacky world we live in! If you remember my article about Truth you will have some idea why this type of behavior is so dangerous.
You get that response due to what people think naturally follows belief in what you are terming God. In reality Heaven, Hell, Jesus, etc do not naturally follow the belief in this form of 'God'
Precisely!
I usually do cover that as well, I am a little anal about defining my terms because I hate to be misunderstood over the terms I use.
Preconceptions and poorly defined terms are a real difficulty in any philosophical conversation.
But let’s sit back and appreciate how much we have achieved. We have proven that there IS a God.
"Where we go from here... I leave up to you."
Not really, I am going to still keep on keeping on but the Matrix quote seemed to fit quite well though. I am going to leave this as it stands for a little bit though.
If I don't respond to your claim of proof for the existence of a being that no scientist can confirm, will you take it as agreement?
I had been taking it for agreement. If you disagree then I would appreciate your explaining why. Simply put, if you see some way that this proof is invalid you will be doing me a great service by pointing it out.
As far as Scientists go they really don't have anything to say about God. I know that they DO say a great number of things but they are really not qualified to do so. They study matter and matter remains pretty silent on the question of what the cause of all matter is. The Steady State theory has been philosophically deomonstrated to be invalid (because it posits infinite time) for a very long time. However, because they keep their noses so close to their own discipline, scientists have only recently acknowledged that the theory is invalid.
I don't see where the proof is. Perhaps I missed it.
*shrugs* Ok. Cause and effect occur. They cannot proceede for eternety. This means they had to begin. They could not have simply created themselves because no effect can be it's own cause (if it did the effect would cause the cause which would cause the effect which would cause the cause which would cause the effect and so on to infinity). Ergo something not part of cause and effect caused it to happen.
Thus we know that there was a "uncaused cause" or a "unmoved mover" or whatever else you want to call it.
Let's assume that nobody has ever heard of the Big Bang, which is what actually created the universe billions of years ago with no cause. (Perhaps we should worship the Big Bang for creating time and space. There would be some proof for that.)
How do you know there is only one unmoved mover? Maybe there's one unmoved mover that created half the periodic table, and another unmoved mover that created the other half. Even if this unmoved mover exists, there's nothing to suggest that it is divine.
You can't know this. You WANT to know this. You're desperate to know this and to be comforted that you haven't thrown away untold years believing it. I understand how you feel.
*Laughs* I can only point out that you have not forwarded any argument at this point.
It illogical to state that matter has created its self or that cause and effect created its self. As pointed out above this logic is circular and cannot move beyond its self.
To respond to your question: I do not know that there is only ONE unmoved mover (by the proof presented here) there might as easily be twenty. There is just no necessity for there to be more than one so why try and complicate things? (Also the elements, save hydrogen, were created by nuclear reactions in the centers of suns, a long long time after the big bang. This is irrelevant though!)
As far as throwing away time you HAVE to be mistaken. If it is true then everything is to be gained. If it were a false belief it would still create a sense of purpose that would give the illusion of meaning in a life that is ultimately meaningless. This means that nothing would be wasted at all, and the illusion of purpose would be gained. If it were false this would mean that a life committed to the lie would be categorically better than that of one committed to nothing at all because there is a reason to do something. Those not committed to the lie have no reason to do anything.
This is really getting into the implications though and getting away from the fundamental question.
Inventing a deity is the most complicated explanation of all, especially when science provides natural explanations for the world around us.
Then where does matter come from? What caused the big bang?
To say that matter can spontaneously create itself out of nothingness is no more ridiculous than inventing an uncaused cause beyond the Big Bang. There is no evidence to distinguish between the two; but, per the Occam's Razor comment, the more likely one is matter spontaneously coming into being. We have never in recorded history observed it to do this, but we have never in recorded history observed a Creator making matter either.
There is a big big difference here. If matter spontaneously creates itself (whatever that means) then the world we are living in is so unpredictable, that rational thought is completely unreliable. The "uncaused cause" does not require us to give up rational thought; "spontaneous self-creation" does.
Let me extend the point. Do you see how atheism forces you to ridiculous claims? So, to avoid the uncaused cause, you have to speculate that matter just pops into being, like a rabbit in a Harry Potter movie!
Atheism is silly.
The uncaused cause is the Big Bang. There is no avoidance involved in this.
Well, there might not be any avoidance.... Let's think about it. You are making an astonishing claim about the nature of the "Big Bang" here. You are claiming that it is a different sort of reality than material reality, because material reality requires a cause. If the Big Bang is not material reality, then the Hindoos are right: the world is God's Body. Do you mean to say this? It will have logical implications!
No matter what we do, we will eventually end at something beyond our conception of a material reality. Otherwise scientists would be talking about this instead of philosophers.
I do not see how we have proven anything so far other than what I said. We set out to investigate an uncaused cause, and found that there must be one. It follows naturally that this uncaused cause is most likely the first (chronologically) cause that science is capable of conceiving of. Since we are incapable of describing any cause before the Big Bang, why should we not assume that it was uncaused, since we have established that something was uncaused? What better candidate is there?
I know nothing of Hindoos besides that they have multiple arms and are half man, half snake, so I don't know what I'm getting into, but if they believe what I just said, then yes, I suppose at this point I am agreeing with them.
I am not certain that we can say something like "the world is God's body", however. The world is the effect, not the cause, of the event of the Big Bang, and thus is perfectly within the realm of material reality.
So this is the argument that is being presented? The Big Bang is the start of all matter. Before the Big Bang there was nothing. The cause of the Big Bang was the Big Bang.
This is faulty logic. If the cause of A (the big bang) is A then there is no other cause or effect that occurs. If your dropping a pen is what causes you to drop the pen then the pen will never hit the floor (it will be busy causing you to drop it). You will be stuck dropping the pen for eternity. This is a logical loop and is why it is absurd to say that the Big Bang caused the Big Bang.
On the other hand if the Big Bang had NO cause then logically we have to distrust matter. There is no reason to assume that cause will lead to effect. Matter is unstable and we should not make predictions based on matter or on cause and effect. This (interestingly) totally undermines science, the only tool that tells us that the Big Bang ever occurred, or that any thing else about the material universe.
This is why the Good Reverend points out that Atheism drives you to absurdity. It is absurd to claim that this scientific event created matter if by making that claim you render science totally unreliable. It's shooting yourself in the foot I'm afraid.
We could take a different tack, and get to the same place.
These days, we commonly talk about the "big bang", without thinking much about it. If we DO think about it, we will have to give the
"big bang" attributes former generations gave to God.
For example, the big bang derives from what Hawkins called a "singularity": according to his definition, a single point with infinite density. What does that mean? It means that this singularity has no dimensions - - no mass - - but infinite potency. It's not really a "point", because a point is a location, and the singularity is the source of space, and therefore the source of location. So, it's everywhere and nowhere, and it has infinite power. Does this sound like God to you?
It gets better. The singularity is the origin of time - - every moment of time. In other words, the singularity is eternal. Does this sound like God to you?
It gets better. This singularity is the origin of absolutely everything in the universe, including the persons, and their consciousness. In other words, the singularity includes personhood and consciousness.
Why don't we call this reality GOD?
I must split hairs for a moment. First off I am advancing the second idea, that the Big Bang has no cause, not that it was its own cause.
Secondly, I'm not sure such a concept would undermine science. Simply because, as I mentioned a post above, the world, and all of existence as we know it, is the effect, and not the cause. If it were the uncaused cause then you would be right to distrust cause and effect, but since the universe would be an effect that did have a cause, it does not violate the laws of science.
The hair I have to split is that the Bang is not matter, it is the cause of matter. The Bang being caused or uncaused does not affect the properties of the matter. Similar to the way the last car of a train feels only the car before it, and not the other fifty cars, matter is interested only in what caused it, not what occurs before what caused it. Whether there was only the Bang or there were another fifty causes before that, matter would not "know" the difference.
Oh, and Dad - that is more or less precisely my point.
OK, but this is theism. If this is what you mean by Big Bang, then you mean God is the Big Bang. You're on Matt's side, not on Richard Dawkins' side. You just prefer the term "big bang" to "Jehovah". We can just edit our prayer books, and go on.
You want to worship a scientific process? Wouldn't germ theory or the production of chorophyll be more worthy of your worship?
I worship the Creator of every scientific process. I worship the Creator, not the creation.
Benjamin has defined the Big Bang in such a way, that it is not the universe, but the Cause of the universe.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
The Big Bang was indeed the cause of the universe. Ben didn't define it that way, he explained what it was.
I've read that when this theory first started to take hold, scientists were skeptical because it was a bit too much like God creating the universe out of nothing. They called it "Big Bang" dismissively, and the name stuck.
Over time, they realised that it was real. However, a deity does not need to be present for the process to work.
Heh, sort of - I am not on Matt's side insofar as he thinks there is one more car in the train than I do. And I have no idea who this Dawkins fellow is.
I have not mentioned anything about worshiping the Big Bang, nor have I said anything about the properties of it beyond that it exists, it is a cause, and it is not an effect, so to worship it would be a bit of a stretch. This is theism (although I would push farther and say deism), but it is not religion as we conceive of it today.
However, since we have earlier defined the term "God" to refer to the uncaused cause and since I, if not Matt, have arrived at the conclusion that the Big Bang is the uncaused cause, then yes, I am saying that God is the Big Bang.
It seems from the course of the arguments that I need to stress that this has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. God here has nothing to do with any organized religion; we have redefined the word. God is just a cause that had no cause, and nothing else. I am still waiting to see what Matt thinks he can say about the nature of God.
Megan: You are writing as though we haven't progressed through that issue already. The entire thread has provided the response to your comment. You are repeating your previous point, without acknowledging the many responses.
Benjamin: The Uncaused Cause would not be one more car in the train. One more car would only be one more effect to explain. The uncaused cause - - by definition - - is a different sort of reality than that other cars in the train. This different sort of reality is a logical necessity, as your comments above (tacitly) acknowledge.
Sadly, that is because my point is still the correct one.
If we cannot get any further than christening the Big Bang a new deity just because we need to define God as the cause of the universe, I fear for the rest of the thread as well.
Do you have an alternate definition?
You have it backwards, Megan; the entire discussion is contingent upon the definition of God as the Creator. If you recall, in the beginning we were referring only to the Creator. Ten comments or so in Matt decided he was lazy and started writing God instead. You can feel free to replace every instance of "God" in every one of my comments with either "Creator" or "Uncaused Cause" if you like, because that is what I have meant. I christen the Big Bang not as a new deity, but as the Uncaused Cause which we were earlier referring to as God. It is not a new deity, it is the same one we have been talking about all along. I hesitate to even use the word "deity" because of the preconceptions that will likely arise from that. I have thus far been referring to the concept of God as outlined in the fourth paragraph of Matt's original blog post.
Rev. Kev. - Matt's second car is my first car. Net result: one less car in the train. The Uncaused Cause is not exactly one more car, it is the first car. The difference is in where we consider that first car to be.
Ben, I think we agree.
If you want to use the word "God" as a shorthand, that's OK by me, although it's not really much shorter. I'm curious about what this type of God would be like, though. What I am hesitant about is the leap to stating that the Big Bang is actually one of the Gods religious people talk about.
Megan:
No one is making any leap. We are thinking through the question, step by step. Matthew has shown us the necessity of the uncaused caused, and we have moved on from there.
Your curiosity about "what this type of God would be like" could take us further into the question.
It will take time and effort and courage. We have made wonderful progress - - but we will need to hold the ground we have won: an uncaused cause, which is not the universe, but the cause of the universe.
Using the term "big bang" will be fine, just so long as we agree among ourselves that our definition of the big bang is NOT the common concept. The common concept of the big bang locates it IN the universe, as the first cause in a series. But as Matthew has shown us, such a first cause would not be the uncaused cause.
Hold to this, and we can make progress.
If you have come up with some weird definition of the Big Bang that's outside of what science can show us, I am not agreeing to it. Just so's we're clear, y'know. :)
Sorry for the double posts, Matt. I don't know why that keeps happening. I've taken them down.
If you refuse to think about realities beyond "what science can show us" then you have chosen not to think about God (or love or justice or beauty).
The special definition of the big bang is not necessary for this discussion. Perhaps it is a rabbit trail -- we can drop it.
Let me restate what has been established in this thread. Matthew has shown us that the standard "materialist" or "atheist" account of reality is bogus. This is a revolution - - or it should be! We were (ALL) taught, in our schools and through our mass media, that scientific materialism is gradually providing a rational, coherent account of our existence. Matthew has been proven this belief to be as irrational as believing in magic dust. You all have insisted - - rightly - - that his "uncaused cause" is not shown to be the God of any particular religion. He might be taking us to an Amish community, or to a Hare Krishna Temple. I frankly suspect that he cannot take us to any particular religion, using reason alone, so we might not be going anywhere in particular. However, if we are honest, and consistent, we cannot go "back": we cannot pretend that religions are the products of wishful thinking, whereas atheism is hard-headed rationalism. Now we know that atheism is a superstition.
Great posting everybody! This has been so much fun that it has kept me from completing my next post.
At any rate I do feel that this is a solid beginning that we can stand on. I do not presume to lead people into any religion, that is not the collar that I wear, but I do feel that there are certain things that can be said about God using pure logic. My concern is with truth and reason, not with converting people to one religion or another (per se). I do not see how atheism is rational or logical and so am explaining my objections here.
Steve&Megan: No worries about the double posts I am just hoping that all the deleted ones were yours. I have not been removing anyone’s!
Ben: The number of cars in the train is irrelevant, as long as it is not infinite, but what needs to be acknowledged is that the first car (the one pushing all the others) is radically different from all the other cars in the train.
There has been a lot of talk about the Big Bang and I think that we should define the term. This may be the source of our confusion. The definition that I have been operating on is the initial event (which happened to be an explosion) of matter and energy. This is the beginning of matter and thus time (they are linked: no matter=no time). I am using the understanding that the Big Bang is itself a material event similar to the explosion of a unbelievably large (infinitely small) supernova. This would be the initial explosion of all matter.
Alternative definitions are welcome.
Yes, I think that may have been the source of the confusion, at this end at least. I would consider the Bang to be the cause and not the effect, as an explosion is a cause and the mushroom cloud is the effect. We see the effect, and not the cause. Science knows nothing about the Bang (and admits to knowing nothing, indeed states, for the most part, that it is impossible to know anything), it was merely deduced from a number of observed effects. If you're defining the Bang as the event, as seems to be the case at this point, then I would agree that there would have to be "one more car in the train."
But, like you said, it is essentially irrelevant and I won't push the point any further. The issue at hand, the uncaused cause, I think was settled many comments ago; at this point it matters little what you think that cause is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
This is a link to a Wikipedia article on Dawkin's book The God Delusion.
Hey! Who's been deleting all my comments?
If your arguments had not clearly proven mine to be wrong I might have let them stay up. As it was, they just had to go!
It's funny 'cuz I was busy for a coupla days & came back to see 59 comments, all bickering over what was clearly laid out by my 2nd comment. Seems what people naturally believe is to follow the 'proof' of 'God' gets them uptight (for good reason I guess, seeing all the stupid outspoken 'believers' out there). What's really being argued about is the nature of God that we assume follows the proof. But there has been no nature described yet... You're gonna get yourself in quite the pickle if you actually attempt to describe the nature of this Creator.
Yes and No. There are somethings that we can say about any "creator" based on logic and what we have said so far.
This is why I objected to Matt's decision to start calling the Big Bang "God". It's not really much shorter, and in our culture the new name is associated with the concept of a supreme being that created the world from some sort of intelligence and that has a specific personality. It's an attempt to introduce this concept into the conversation through the back door. Otherwise, there's no need to continue this string at all.
If you really need to shorten it for future use, "BB" would be more appropriate.
I don't need to sneak anything in any logical back door and I really didn't come into the discussion with an agenda. That implication is really pretty insulting. If you like you can say that this is nothing more than my "opinion" on the nature of ultimate reality.
I am not calling the big bang God because, per my above definition of the big bang, this would be nonsensical. I am calling the Uncaused Cause God because this is one of the standard definitions of God. Certain others have a problem with this term (which I can understand and appreciate for the sake of specificity) and have chosen to label the Uncaused Cause the big bang.
*shrugs* I am using the proper terminology for a metaphysical conversation on the nature of the universe and could as easily object to the term big bang smuggling in a materialistic world view. Terms have to be defined within the context of the conversation and I had attempted to do so. If I confused or mislead anyone by loosely defining my terms, I apologize. If you read through my posts I am sure that you will see that the terms in question have been clearly defined through the conversation.
Post a Comment