Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:Um squib that went over my head, I have no idea what you said.

A potential infinite never gets to infinity but rather approaches it. For example like a non-terminating process such as counting where we add 1 to the previous number, or lets say dividing between two points and then again between those points such that you keep dividing forever.

An actual infinite as a mathematical abstraction could represent the set of all natural numbers.

But lets imagine that an actual infinite number of objects, lets say books could exist. If you take away every second book what are you are left with? Infinity! How many did you take away? Infinity! Now if you add 1? Infinity Subtract 1? Infinity! If you add infinity? Infinity! If take infinity away? Perhaps 0.. but look at what happened when every second one was taken.. Now suppose you take all the books from the 4th one onwards {1,2,3,{4..n}}, now you are left with 3, but what was the count you took away? When it comes to an actual infinite the thing is you could take away equal quantities from equal quantities and end up with anything between 0 and infinity!

Actual infinites truly lead to absurdity, this is one of many reasons why it is believed that an unmoved mover must exist and that time & physical reality/events cannot be "actually" past infinite, or another way of saying it is that a temporally ordered number of events cannot be actually infinite. This conclusion comes from pure reason. (side note: God is different since God is not temporal, especially prior/sans creation. ) This point has been well argued, well before modern science, starting with Aristotle when he differentiated between actual and potential infinites. However independent of that we have good evidence supporting the standard inflationary big bang model which indicates an absolute beginning to time and space (even if there were a multiverse, There are different versions of the multiverse ie: L1, L2, L3). Also the view where people espouse that an actually infinite number of universes exists is demonstrably absurd given the above example (this is usually used as a way to explain away the apparent initial fine-tuning conditions of our observable universe). As such, since actual infinites lead to absurdity it is argued that an actual infinite number of universes cannot possibly exist in principle.

When we say God is infinitely loving for example it is not in the same terms of above, rather it is sort of like saying unendingly loving for example, its a way of describing Gods Love.. Similarly again with infinitely powerful, it is a describing of such a property so to speak, but not meant in the above terms. It's hard to express this because words don't easily convey what we are trying to say. As such in terms of God it can only be analogously explained..

Thanks squib, I'd have said much the same in different words, just wondering as you were a bit cryptic.

Squible wrote:Actual infinites truly lead to absurdity, this is one of many reasons why it is believed that an unmoved mover must exist and that time & physical reality/events cannot be "actually" past infinite, or another way of saying it is that a temporally ordered number of events cannot be actually infinite.

But you also know that the classical approach natural theology objects to this line of reasoning, right? It is, of course, obvious that a great many Christian apologists and philosophers espouse this view. I don't, though, want people to think that the argument for the unmoved mover rests on this premise. It does not. In fact, Thomas Aquinas explicitly rejected it the idea that we can prove the world is temporal from reason alone. He says,

• The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things "that appear not" (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, "I believe in one God," etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth": in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.

And in another work, at the conclusion of a fairly lengthy discussion on various arguments used to prove that the world must necessarily have had a beginning in time (including the arguments you used above), that discussion, he says:

• Now, these arguments, though not devoid of probability, lack absolute and necessary conclusiveness. Hence it is sufficient to deal with them quite briefly, lest the Catholic faith might appear to be founded on ineffectual reasonings, and not, as it is, on the most solid teaching of God. It would seem fitting, then, to state how these arguments are countered by the partisans of the doctrine of the world’s eternity.

Beyond all that, I would just point out that even if the universe did not have a temporal beginning, that would not constitute an actual infinity. The reason is simply that the things in the past don't actually exist anymore. So unless you are going to posit a B-theory of time, you can't use the arguments against an actual infinity against an infinite regress.

Jac3510 wrote:

Squible wrote:Actual infinites truly lead to absurdity, this is one of many reasons why it is believed that an unmoved mover must exist and that time & physical reality/events cannot be "actually" past infinite, or another way of saying it is that a temporally ordered number of events cannot be actually infinite.

But you also know that the classical approach natural theology objects to this line of reasoning, right? It is, of course, obvious that a great many Christian apologists and philosophers espouse this view. I don't, though, want people to think that the argument for the unmoved mover rests on this premise. It does not. In fact, Thomas Aquinas explicitly rejected it the idea that we can prove the world is temporal from reason alone. He says,

• The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things "that appear not" (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, "I believe in one God," etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth": in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.

And in another work, at the conclusion of a fairly lengthy discussion on various arguments used to prove that the world must necessarily have had a beginning in time (including the arguments you used above), that discussion, he says:

• Now, these arguments, though not devoid of probability, lack absolute and necessary conclusiveness. Hence it is sufficient to deal with them quite briefly, lest the Catholic faith might appear to be founded on ineffectual reasonings, and not, as it is, on the most solid teaching of God. It would seem fitting, then, to state how these arguments are countered by the partisans of the doctrine of the world’s eternity.

Beyond all that, I would just point out that even if the universe did not have a temporal beginning, that would not constitute an actual infinity. The reason is simply that the things in the past don't actually exist anymore. So unless you are going to posit a B-theory of time, you can't use the arguments against an actual infinity against an infinite regress.

Jac I have been reading considerably scholastic metaphysics and following it for a while.

In part I agree with you. Since linear ordering from a thomistic view could be past infinite, but under a thomistic view the way I understand it hiarhical ordering cannot. I didn't go into that because there is a bit of explaining to convey that.

To me personally I don't care if the universe is past eternal I am convinced of the unmoved mover in a hiarhical sense anyway. In that existence itself is grounded in God for example. The same example applies to hiarchical ordering with regard to the absurdity of actual infinites.

However we do have good grounds to also believe linear ordering cannot given the same example and also that the universe is not past eternal given the evidence we do have..

I also disagree with your view that only a B theory of time applies and that is what I should hold to. If I understand you correctly. In fact the way I understand it B theory of time for example is typically used as an objection against WLC's kalam cosmological argument, since it challenges the "begins to exist" premise. So I am a little confused as to why you would say what you have. WLC holds to an A theory of time, and I do as well for similar reasons, to me it seems quite evident that A theory is more true. Also prior to the beginning it is argued there was no "time" as such prior is "timeless" so I don't understand what A theory has to do with this It only seems to apply at the point of creation being brought into being, which is when time was created under this view.

Add in a good form of PSR with the argument from contingency we have solid grounds to plant our feet on. To me it's a strong cumulative case no matter how we look at it.

To clarify, I also come from a probalistic position...

In part I agree with you. Since linear ordering from a thomistic view could be past infinite, but under a thomistic view the way I understand it hiarhical ordering cannot. I didn't go into that because there is a bit of explaining to convey that.

That is correct.

To me personally I don't care if the universe is past eternal I am convinced of the unmoved mover in a hiarhical sense anyway. In that existence itself is grounded in God for example. The same example applies to hiarchical ordering with regard to the absurdity of actual infinites.

Again, correct. I happen to find arguments based on what you are calling a hierarchical ordering (the technical jargon being ordered per se rather than per accidens, or put differently, essentially ordered v. accidentally ordered causes) much more persuasive. A word on that below.

However we do have good grounds to also believe linear ordering cannot given the same example and also that the universe is not past eternal given the evidence we do have..I also disagree with your view that only a B theory of time applies, under an A theory of time it cannot be past infinite, this is well argued by WLC et al. In fact the way I understand it B theory of time for example is typically used as an objection against the WLC's kalam cosmological argument , since it challenges the "begins to exist" premise. WLC holds to an A theory of time, and I do as well for similar reasons, to me it seems quite evident that A theory is more true. Also prior to the beginning it is argued that there was no "time" as such.

I agree and disagree. Thomas himself doesn't say that the arguments against a linear infinity are faulty. He says that they are "not devoid of probability, [but] lack absolute and necessary conclusiveness." In other words, such arguments are not proper demonstrations. You can appeal to them from a probabilistic perspective, but you'll never have a formal proof. That's not a bad thing. It just is what it is. Some things can only be accepted on the basis of a preponderance of evidence. Inductive reasoning only goes so far, but it's fair to say that it at least gives us warrant in holding a particular position. Atheism doesn't even have that much going for it. But on the other hand, where demonstration is available, why settle for mere warrant? If God's existence can be known for absolute certainty, and if certain things about His nature can be so known, why leave people with the impression that we're just making the best inference? Again, sure, that's a victory in itself. But why not make the strongest case you can?

Beyond that, I don't think WLC is particularly persuasive on this point. He confuses counter-intuitive claims with self-contradictory ones. Hilbert's Hotel, strictly speaking, doesn't show an actual infinity cannot exist. It just shows an actual infinity leads us to ideas that we can't really get our minds around. But there's nothing strictly self-contradictory (meaning nothing that requires A = ~A) in the claim. To be clear, there are good arguments against actual infinities. You probably know some of them if you've been reading your scholastic metaphysics. It was so well understood even then that the phrase infinitum actu non datur (an actual infinity is not found) was virtually axiomatic. WLC wants an infinite past to be impossible because it supports the Kalam. But he's just wrong on that point. Well intentioned, sure. But wrong, none the less.

As to the B/A Theory, I think you misunderstood me, or else I wasn't clear. I meant that on a B theory, it's feasible than an infinite past is impossible because then you truly do have an actual infinite insofar as everything exists at the same "time." But since A theory is a presentist view--the past and future don't really exist--then the argument against an infinite past doesn't work. Of course, if you assume a B theory, then the argument fails, as you note, given the "begins to exist" clause! In case you haven't figured it out, I'm not a fan of the kalam as Craig defends it. I think it needs to be recast as what it is--a probabilistic argument given warrant by modern science, not a philosophical demonstration. As such, the second premise should be restated, "The universe probably came into existence," where "probably" refers to the scientific evidence as we currently understand it (such that it is equivalent to statements like, "If I drop this apple, it will probably fall to the ground assuming there is nothing holding it up.")

Add in a good form of PSR with the argument from contingency we have solid grounds to plant our feet on. To me it's a strong cumulative case no matter how we look at it.

Again, agreed. When someone really understands the nature of the argument, they really do have to be an irrational hack to deny God's existence. I just think that it's our job to present that case in the strongest and most honest way possible.

Good points Jac..

For me Craig helped get the ball rolling I must admit. These days I don't totally agree with a number of his views.. However with regard to the kalam Craig admits that each premise leading to the conclusion is probably more true then it's negation. Actually I beleive this is his position in general.

I do still have considerably more research to do on A & B theory of time. So my current views may be challenged at a later date on this topic.

I must say since gaining more of an an understanding of scholastic metaphysics I find their arguments the most persuasive. I still have plenty of reading to go on this as well. I rather enjoy it!

I would say I'm am leaning more towards classical theism..

However to discuss this view with anyone takes a considerable amount of effort given the metaphysics behind it.. It has truly changed my perspective on things and challenged me along the way..

Actually I will also add, that recently I have debated from a scholastic/classical theist position and many atheists simply don't know how to respond.

I have either been left with crickets or when they do respond straw men arguments.

Basically I have seen atheists go into a complete tail spin, against this position.

Squible wrote:Actually I will also add, that recently I have debated from a scholastic/classical theist position and many atheists simply don't know how to respond.

I have either been left with crickets or when they do respond straw men arguments.

Basically I have seen atheists go into a complete tail spin, against this position.

If I see such arguments from someone who believes there was a real world wide flood
it wont be my tail that is spinning.

Audie wrote:

Squible wrote:Actually I will also add, that recently I have debated
from a scholastic/classical theist position and many atheists simply don't know how to respond.

I have either been left with crickets or when they do respond straw men arguments.

Basically I have seen atheists go into a complete tail spin, against this position.

If I see such arguments from someone who believes there was a real world wide flood
it wont be my tail that is spinning.

Sadly the point being made here against the scholastic / classic theist metaphysics isn't even in the same category. Are you trying to lend support to what I said there?

Secondly in response to what was said I am OEC and thirdly I also don't see the flood as world wide but rather to be the known world.

Audie,

In Australia as a bit of a Joke and gentle dig we might say in response, what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Squible is quite right, chinadoll. He and I are talking about philosophical principles, which are completely unrelated (at least at this juncture) to questions of exegesis and historiography. A person's stance on the extent of the flood--or for that matter on any biblical principle--really has nothing to do with whether or not that same person is or can be a good philosopher or scientist or accountant or any other profession. To take but one silly example, did you know that the inventor of the first magnetic resonance scanning machine--the thing that does MRIs . . . a pretty important invention!--was a young earth creationist? (His name was Raymond Vahan Damadian, if you are curious.) He believed the earth is 6000 years old, believed Noah's flood was global, etc. Did his beliefs on such matters in any way affect his ability to do science properly? Of course not. And so it is in matters of philosophy.

As a matter of fact, I think that if you were to do the work that you were recommended when you first arrived here by me and Byblos, and now implicitly by Squible, you would find that you would have no argument whatsoever against them. All that you would have to do would be to understand the terms. That sounds easy. It isn't, sadly. But such is the case with any science. But once you know the terms, things are incredibly self-evident, such that you would clearly see that to deny the existence of God is literally on the same level as to insist that triangles have four sides, that one and one make three, that a married man is a bachelor, or that something that has absolutely no kind of existence is capable of doing anything at all.

Jac,

Well said brother!

I also appreciate the way in which you articulate your position.

Cheers

Jac,

I must say once I started on the journey on scholasticism and I wrapped my mind around hiacrhcial ordering in particular I lifted my hand in front of my eyes and went woohoah!

Right now I am sitting on my back landing, we have a lot of trees and just watching the wind rustle through the leaves and with the view I hold to now it simply blows me away. I just cannot see the world like I use to. If I ever had an anthropomorphic view of God prior I can confidently say it no longer is the case now.

Interestingly I have found that on many points I intuitively held to without realising it. Mind you I wasn't able to articulate it as well prior.

I encourage anyone to investigate classical theism / scholasticism. It's sad to see what happened in history with this position but it is also great to see it having a resurgence too.. It's certainly long overdue.

Just thought I would share that..

Cheers.

Squible wrote:

Audie wrote:

Squible wrote:Actually I will also add, that recently I have debated
from a scholastic/classical theist position and many atheists simply don't know how to respond.

I have either been left with crickets or when they do respond straw men arguments.

Basically I have seen atheists go into a complete tail spin, against this position.

If I see such arguments from someone who believes there was a real world wide flood
it wont be my tail that is spinning.

Sadly the point being made here against the scholastic / classic theist metaphysics isn't even in the same category. Are you trying to lend support to what I said there?

Secondly in response to what was said I am OEC and thirdly I also don't see the flood as world wide but rather to be the known world.

I didnt take you for a WWF.

True on the different categories. The comment was an aside, not
about you.

Do you see people compartmentalizing, being ultra rational here and there while doing
the opposite elsewhere?

Audie wrote:

Squible wrote:

Audie wrote:

Squible wrote:Actually I will also add, that recently I have debated
from a scholastic/classical theist position and many atheists simply don't know how to respond.

I have either been left with crickets or when they do respond straw men arguments.

Basically I have seen atheists go into a complete tail spin, against this position.

If I see such arguments from someone who believes there was a real world wide flood
it wont be my tail that is spinning.

Sadly the point being made here against the scholastic / classic theist metaphysics isn't even in the same category. Are you trying to lend support to what I said there?

Secondly in response to what was said I am OEC and thirdly I also don't see the flood as world wide but rather to be the known world.

I didnt take you for a WWF.

True on the different categories. The comment was an aside, not
about you.

Do you see people compartmentalizing, being ultra rational here and there while doing
the opposite elsewhere?

Audie,

Are you having a go at me or asking about others with this new question?

People can be like Spock all their life and completely miss the point. There's more to life then being ultra rational 24/7.

Emotion, awe and so on are key aspects to life. They can also compliment reason. It seems you call it compartmentalising I would argue it's called being a complete human being. Without these other aspects the way I see it we may as well be not alive.

Why would you seemingly attack such things?

Do you also realize when someone points there is a lot being said about them as well?