Arguments for the existence of God

[animist]

Latest post of the previous page:

Animist,

Are you saying that I cannot conceive of my non-existence?

No, I'm saying that you cannot conceive (directly) of non-existence. Whenever you think, you must think something, you cannot think nothing.

Mick

oh dear, again I don't see what you mean - whatever does "directly" add to your sentence? I assume you are trying to say that I cannot conceive of non-existence in general? Well, I can conceive of there being nothing at all. Of course, if I think about any particular or even general non-existence, I am thinking something, as you say, but what I am thinking ABOUT is nothingness, what's the problem?

[animist]

1. "there was no dog" is not equivalent to "non-existence" for obvious reasons.

2. Proposition: the universe is existence from non-existence. Why is this not a proposition?

1. what does this mean? "There is no dog" does mean the non-existence of any dog. 2. Your sentence is a proposition, yes. How does this relate to what I said?

What I was saying was that there is no logical contradiction between something (eg a particular dog) not existing at one moment of time and its existing at another moment; there would be some CAUSAL connection between the situations of its existence and non-existence, of course, but this is nothing to do with TLNC. I find it hard to believe in spontaneous creation of matter from nothing, but the concept is not logically self-contradictory - do you know of a Christian philosopher who does think as you do?

[mickeyd]

Animist,

Code: Select all

Your sentence is a proposition, yes. How does this relate to what I said? 

Because you said, "surely not, TLNC...is about propositions."

"There is no dog" does mean the non-existence of any dog.

But it does not mean the non-existence of anything, which is the context under consideration in this debate.

I find it hard to believe in spontaneous creation of matter from nothing, but the concept is not logically self-contradictory - do you know of a Christian philosopher who does think as you do?

The concept of anything from nothing, spontaneous or otherwise, is logically self-contradictory because it means self-causation. If something 'came from nothing' then it came from itself because only nothing can come from nothing. And any notion of self-causation is nonsense, because in order for something to cause itself it must exist before it exists which violates TLNC.

I find it curious that you find 'something from nothing' hard to believe yet don't regard it as illogical. Why do you find it hard to believe?

To be honest, I do have to pinch myself sometimes to check that my having to defend "from nothing comes only nothing" is not some crazy dream. It's not something that I would expect to find myself having to defend. I know of no philosopher, Christian or otherwise, who has ever argued for "something from nothing". If you can produce any references to the contrary I'd be happy to look at them.

What I was saying was that there is no logical contradiction between something (eg a particular dog) not existing at one moment of time and its existing at another moment; there would be some CAUSAL connection between the situations of its existence and non-existence, of course, but this is nothing to do with TLNC.

This is wholly untenable. Let "something" be the universe. Then you're saying that there is some CAUSAL connection between the non-existence of the universe and it's subsequent existence, but no logical contradiction is involved. This can only mean you think non-existence possesses causal efficacy which is manifestly absurd. For A to cause B, A must contain properties intrinsically capable of causing B - but non-existence possesses no properties whatsoever.


Re. the inconceivability of non-existence, this is certainly true because to directly conceive of it would require conceiving nothing, but then no conception would have occurred, i.e. there's nothing to conceive. As confirmation, I would ask you to consider that we can only speak of nothing in terms of something: no-thing, non-existence, and hence:

but what I am thinking ABOUT is nothingness

okay, describe your thoughts when you think about nothingness - what's going through your mind?

Cheers,
Mick

[animist]

"There is no dog" does mean the non-existence of any dog.

But it does not mean the non-existence of anything, which is the context under consideration in this debate.

yes, but since the universe is made up of various things, including my hypothetical dog, the non-existence of each one of them (which you seem able to comprehend) would mean total non-existence.

I find it hard to believe in spontaneous creation of matter from nothing, but the concept is not logically self-contradictory - do you know of a Christian philosopher who does think as you do?

The concept of anything from nothing, spontaneous or otherwise, is logically self-contradictory because it means self-causation. If something 'came from nothing' then it came from itself because only nothing can come from nothing. And any notion of self-causation is nonsense, because in order for something to cause itself it must exist before it exists which violates TLNC.

this is just where you are so wrong. Nothing can cause itself, agreed. But that something might appear from nothing is not self-contradictory. You are assuming just what we are debating, whether everything must logically have a cause. For the umpteenth time, no it need not.

What I was saying was that there is no logical contradiction between something (eg a particular dog) not existing at one moment of time and its existing at another moment; there would be some CAUSAL connection between the situations of its existence and non-existence, of course, but this is nothing to do with TLNC.

This is wholly untenable. Let "something" be the universe. Then you're saying that there is some CAUSAL connection between the non-existence of the universe and it's subsequent existence, but no logical contradiction is involved. This can only mean you think non-existence possesses causal efficacy which is manifestly absurd. For A to cause B, A must contain properties intrinsically capable of causing B - but non-existence possesses no properties whatsoever.

to repeat, it is not a question of nothing causing something, but of something which has no cause

Re. the inconceivability of non-existence, this is certainly true because to directly conceive of it would require conceiving nothing, but then no conception would have occurred, i.e. there's nothing to conceive.

no, conception is an activity so there can be conception of nothing in particular, ie nothingness

but what I am thinking ABOUT is nothingness

okay, describe your thoughts when you think about nothingness - what's going through your mind?

empty space, I suppose, but it is not important. As I said already, it is just the absence of any particular thing, which is what nothingness is. Imagine the universe comprised one trillion things; now conceive it losing one at a time, until nothing was left - now you have it, nothingness!

[mickeyd]

Hi animist,

But that something might appear from nothing is not self-contradictory.

On the contrary, it is self-contradictory because there is, by the literal meaning of the proposition itself, nothing for something to come from, and therefore it is a proposition using the word 'from' functionlessly. But 'from' is a functional word indicating source, cause, agency, basis. So we have a bonafide contradiction by TLNC - because 'from' is a functional word you can't employ it functionlessly. 'From' cannot be functional and non-functional at the same time and in the same sense.

and so...

You are assuming just what we are debating, whether everything must logically have a cause. For the umpteenth time, no it need not.

Everything that occurs must have a cause, otherwise it is something from nothing and my comments above apply. You can say that the universe did not occur, it just is and therefore has no cause; but you can't say it's something from nothing without speaking a literal non-sense.

Nothing can cause itself, agreed.

Well hurrah for that!

empty space, I suppose

1. Empty space is not nothing because you've got the space itself; alternatively, if 'empty' really means 'nothing', then to conceive of 'empty' you've got to conceive of 'nothing' which is the point at issue (i.e. you are in a circularity);

2. The empty space must be bounded if the word 'space' is to have any meaning, so if 'empty' means 'nothing' you've got problem (1) and the contradiction with the boundary which is something: empty bounded space is not nothing;

Imagine the universe comprised one trillion things; now conceive it losing one at a time, until nothing was left

Okay, imagine going from one thing to nothing - can you do it? Describe to me your thoughts please - in particular, your conception of nothing (without referring to "empty space").


Cheers,
Mick

[Paolo]

Nothing can cause itself, agreed.

Including God presumably.

Keeping to the topic of the thread, the origin of the Universe does not provide the basis for a valid argument for the existence of God, since God is merely one proposed originator or cause amongst many - and indeed there is no good reason to expect that any of the proposed originators or causes are accurate.

At this rate you'll be arguing in circles until the end of the Universe...

[animist]

Hi animist,

But that something might appear from nothing is not self-contradictory.

On the contrary, it is self-contradictory because there is, by the literal meaning of the proposition, nothing for something to come from, and therefore it is a proposition using the word 'from' functionlessly. But 'from' is a functional word indicating source, agency, basis. So we have a bonafide contradiction by TNLC - because 'from' is a functional word you can't employ it functionlessly. Not only is this a contradiction, it's an abuse of language.

I think Philbo has already mentioned that this is just not true - "from" is not what you say it is, since if I say "I have come to Kingston from East Grinstead", the latter has in no way propelled me. I fear it is you who abuse language.

empty space, I suppose

Empty space is not nothing because you've got the space itself.

sorry, space is nothing - we say "empty space" and empty means there is nothing, no-thing (as you say yourself)

Imagine the universe comprised one trillion things; now conceive it losing one at a time, until nothing was left

Okay, imagine going from one thing to nothing - can you do it? Describe to me your thoughts please - in particular, your conception of nothing, without referring to "empty space".

I am sorry, this is getting too silly. Do you really mean that you cannot conceive of nothing? I think this must be why you believe that somehow God must exist. Does your father or anyone else actually believe what you claim to?

[mickeyd]

Animist,

I have come to Kingston from East Grinstead

Oh come on animist, this is sham reasoning and you should know it. East Grinstead is not nothing. 'From' is a functional word - East Grinstead is the existent geographic source of your geographic transfer to Kingston. By contrast, "I have come to Kingston from non-existence" falls into my critique in exactly the same way that "the universe has come to existence from non-existence" does. Your mention of East Grinstead is therefore strictly irrelevant.

I am sorry, this is getting too silly.

Fine, why not just answer the question and then we can see if it is silly as you claim.


Note I've edited my comments to provide more detail on my objection to your "empty space" 'solution'.

Cheers,
Mike

[mickeyd]

Paolo,

Including God presumably.

Quite so, no theistic conception of God is of a caused entity. If God were caused then to postulate God as a causal explanation of the universe would obviously be a non-starter.

Mick

[animist]

I have come to Kingston from East Grinstead

Oh come on animist, this is sham reasoning and you should know it. East Grinstead is not nothing. 'From' is a functional word - East Grinstead is the existent geographic source of your geographic transfer to Kingston. By contrast, "I have come to Kingston from non-existence" falls into my critique in exactly the same way that "the universe has come to existence from non-existence" does. Your mention of East Grinstead is therefore strictly irrelevant.

no it is not irrelevant, and the question is not about reasoning. You claimed that the word "from" entailed an idea of agency, and I gave you an example where it did not; you are again simply assuming or asserting what we contend, that "nothing then something" must mean that nothing has caused something. Define what you mean by "functional".

I am sorry, this is getting too silly.

Fine, why not just answer the question and then we can see if it is silly as you claim.

it is silly because I have already told you about empty space; since you insist that this is not empty, there is no way that I can take this further.

[mickeyd]

Animist,

The real point at issue is this:

Is non-existence functional as the clause "...from non-existence" requires? I say never, because to ascribe functionality to non-existence is to violate TLNC. Functionality is something but no-thing excludes something.


Best,
Mick

[animist]

Animist,

The real point at issue is this:

Is non-existence functional as the clause "...from non-existence" requires? I say never, because to ascribe functionality to non-existence is to violate TLNC. Functionality is something but no-thing excludes something.


Best,
Mick

I can only repeat: define "functional"

[Alan C.]

Mickeyd............................ Seems to be evolving.
Mickey.
Mike.
Mick.

[Nick]

...decreasing in size, like the Cheshire Cat....

Mic

Mi

M

.

[mickeyd]

Animist,

You claimed that the word "from" entailed an idea of agency

Wrong, it's more wide ranging than that: I quoted Merriam-Webster which says it's a functional word indicating source, cause, agency or basis.

Even if you take what is probably its weakest sense, basis, you're stuck with logically reconciling, without violating TLNC, non-existence and the notion of basis. Can you do that?

Define what you mean by "functional".

Functional: Of function(s) (Oxford)

Function: mode of action or activity by which thing fulfils its purpose (Oxford)

Origination of function: Latin: functio: perform (Oxford)


Now what has non-existence got to do with performance, action, activity, purpose? Nothing, because it 'is' nothing.

it is silly because I have already told you about empty space; since you insist that this is not empty

Wrong, I've explicity allowed for this in my edited post - check it out.


Cheers,
Mick

[animist]

...decreasing in size, like the Cheshire Cat....

Mic

Mi

M

.

but Nick, the point is.....

[animist]

You claimed that the word "from" entailed an idea of agency

Wrong, it's more wide ranging than that: I quoted Merriam-Webster which says it's a functional word indicating source, cause, agency or basis.

Even if you take what is probably its weakest sense, basis, you're stuck with logically reconciling, without violating TLNC, non-existence and the notion of basis. Can you do that?

no need to - you're wrong as, even assuming the definitions you give, source is weaker than basis - I suppose I could say that East Grinstead was my source, though even this sounds odd.

Define what you mean by "functional".

Functional: Of function(s) (Oxford)

Function: mode of action or activity by which thing fulfils its purpose (Oxford)

Origination of function: Latin: functio: perform (Oxford)


Now what has non-existence got to do with performance, action, activity, purpose? Nothing, because it 'is' nothing.

correct, so it has no functionality; did I say it did? no. I said that "something after nothing" is not the same as "something being caused by nothing".

[Alan C.]

animist
but Nick, the point is.....

The point is that after another three posts m will disappear up his own arse

[thundril]

Cross-poted with the last thre posts, but anyway, I took ages typing this, so I'm going to chuck it in anyway.

Thundril,

It implies that the universe exists, Mick

Great, the universe exists implies the universe exists. Very illuminating.

the best scientific theories show that the universe does not need, or indeed allow, a prior cause

Really? If the universe does not allow a prior cause then it must contain within it a power of inevitable existence. Where is your scientific evidence for that?

Mick

I have already given this evidence; Philbo has already given this evidence; Animist has already given this evidence. Perhaps none of the references to Hawking's Brief History.. have been clear enough, so let me give it one more try..
The image of the Universe as something that exists in an infinite pool of wider space is erroneous.
Space is a property of the Universe. (Note I am disagreeing here with the idea of empty space as 'nothing'; I'll come back to this later in this post.) When we percieve of things existing in a vast pool of space it is only because our senses have developed with a limited range; we percieve some things, and we are always aware that the things we can percieve are set within a field whose limits we cannot percieve.. We find it virtually impossible to 'picture' the Universe having bounds yet not having anything outside it; not even 'nothingness'. But that is (very roughly speaking) what cosmology tells us.
You say it is impossible to think of 'nothing'. Very well, let's start with a different, but tangentially related concept;: zero. Of course you have no problem thinking about zero. It's a real number, an integer, and it is the sum of two other real numbers; (x and minus x)
Also I'm assuming you have no difficulty thinking about negative numbers. If your current-account balance is anything like mine, you'll be sadly all too familiar with negative numbers and their meanings.
The problem arises if one tries to take a perfectly graspable concept out of its proper context. In this example, the analogy would be trying to picture your money being held in a steel box. You can't open the box and see 'minus a hundred quid' in it. You probably can't even picture what that would look like. Even so, if your balance reads 'one hundred pounds overdrawn' that's exactly the situation in the real world.
Now, that was a bit of a long-drawn out analogy, but here I want to go back to my remark that empty space is not the same as 'nothing'.
Actually, what we normally think of as empty space is a vacuum with a fluctuating energy density. The slope of the energy density between any two small regions of space can not be exactly flat; that is, the difference in energy density cannot be exactly zero. (This is predicted by the Uncertainty Principle.) Rather, the 'zero' of that region becmes a pair of exactly opposite virtual particles (one of matter, the other of anti-matter.). These particles must (except in one very special case) instantly annihilate each other. Note that there is no 'cause' for this phenomenon; it is somthing that very, very probably will happen.
So here we have another picture of the matters you have been debating; 'something from nothing' and 'something because of nothing', and we can see that your difficulties in this area stem entirely from your pre-twentieth-century ideas of time, space, vacuum, cause-and-effect, etc.
I'll clarify the point about time in a later post, if you wish.

Was that helpful at all?

[mickeyd]

Animist,

no need to - you're wrong as, even assuming the definitions you give, source is weaker than basis

Fine, then I invite you to logically reconcile, without violating TLNC, non-existence and the notion of source.

"something after nothing" is not the same as "something being caused by nothing".

Agreed, but only because "after", unlike "from", has no functional meaning. By the same token, the question of why the universe exists rather than not is left completely open.


Cheers,
Mick

[mickeyd]

Hiya Thundril,

I appreciate the effort but:

We find it virtually impossible to 'picture' the Universe having bounds yet not having anything outside it; not even 'nothingness'. But that is (very roughly speaking) what cosmology tells us.

Well then the cosmologist who pronounces this is a philosopher, not a scientist - which is what I've suspected of some cosmologists for a long time.

You say it is impossible to think of 'nothing'. Very well, let's start with a different, but tangentially related concept;: zero. Of course you have no problem thinking about zero. It's a real number, an integer, and it is the sum of two other real numbers; (x and minus x)

As soon as you apply zero to the world ‘out there’, i.e. outside of number abstraction, you find yourself trying to think of nothing which you can’t do without referencing the negation of something: no-thing. (And the phrase "real number", by the way, is purely intramural to mathematics - everyone now accepts imaginary numbers and their use in applied mathematics; the only import of the word "real" is to distinguish real numbers from imaginary numbers, it's got nothing to do with existence vis a vis non-existence.)

In this example, the analogy would be trying to picture your money being held in a steel box. You can't open the box and see 'minus a hundred quid' in it. You probably can't even picture what that would look like. Even so, if your balance reads 'one hundred pounds overdrawn' that's exactly the situation in the real world.

The only purpose of the minus sign is to denote a liability rather than an asset - your liability to the bank's shareholders, which is a very real £100 they can spend in the real economy. Sorry mate, but again, this has got nothing to do with existence vis a vis non-existence.

a pair of exactly opposite virtual particles (one of matter, the other of anti-matter.). These particles must (except in one very special case) instantly annihilate each other. Note that there is no 'cause' for this phenomenon; it is somthing that very, very probably will happen.

1. I think you mean "there is no known cause". In any case, I struggle to understand how there be no cause yet in one very special case the phenomenon cannot occur. If causation is irrelevant to the phenomenon then how can there be any preventative cause?

2. Further, what does it mean to say "something can become existent without cause"? It means "something can become existent not from something" = "something can become existent from nothing" ("not from some thing" = "from no thing"). And to say "something can become existent from nothing" is self-contradictory because it requires nothing to be at the very least a source of something becoming existent (as per my discussion with animist on the meaning of 'from'), but a source is something whereas nothing is only nothing.

3. About the particles, are you really saying "matter and anti-matter virtual particles" = "non-existence"? Surely not. I mean even if they do annilihate each other as you say, they've first got to exist before they can be annilihated, right? How can non-existence be annilihated??


Cheers,
Mick