Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:Okay I think I got it. God does not move, but he causes things to move. Is that correct? If so, how does this metaphysically prove the existence of God?

Because without an unmoved prime mover nothing moves (remember, essentially ordered series).

For the sake of the conversation; let's assume that is true; how do you know this unmoved prime mover is your idea of God, and not something else?

Ken

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:Okay I think I got it. God does not move, but he causes things to move. Is that correct? If so, how does this metaphysically prove the existence of God?

Because without an unmoved prime mover nothing moves (remember, essentially ordered series).

Right, and more strictly, what it actually shows is that the First Mover (that must exist by necessity; no atheist can logically deny that--what they could argue, at least were it not for this argument, is that there are many boring and trivial first movers, like you or me) is Pure Act; that is, the argument proves that the First Mover has absolutely no potentiality in it whatsoever.

The argument didn't prove anything. The argument did make a lot of claims; but none of those claims were backed up with proof.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:Okay I think I got it. God does not move, but he causes things to move. Is that correct? If so, how does this metaphysically prove the existence of God?

Because without an unmoved prime mover nothing moves (remember, essentially ordered series).

For the sake of the conversation; let's assume that is true; how do you know this unmoved prime mover is your idea of God, and not something else?

That's a whole 'nother story Kenny but let's summarize it nonetheless. As it turns out Aquinas' prime mover and Aristotle's first cause are necessarily one and the same. We can then surmise the following characteristics concerning the prime mover/first cause:

- It must be an absolutely necessary being without any contingencies. In fact it can only be described as 'being' itself, existence. In metaphysical terms it is called a se, or God's aseity,
- It must be absolutely simple, i.e. not composed of any parts for if it is composed of parts then its parts must be dependent on something else, therefore contingent
- There can be one and only one such entity for two reasons, a strong one and a weaker one. The strong reason is if there were two of them then there must be something they can be distinguished by, some difference that one lacks and the other doesn't. But if that's the case then by definition the one that is lacking something is contingent on whatever/whoever is able to supply him with this lack. The weaker reason is that two divine beings with contradictory wills, one to create and the other not to create is a logical contradiction (as proof, well, here we are ...)
- It must not only possess the will to create but also the will to sustain its creation/motion, every second of every day
- From the first cause argument we can positively say it must be immaterial (for matter is contingent), timeless and spaceless (since it created matter and space-time, it must be outside both), changeless (we've been through this one and you've conceded it, for the sake of the argument of course), enormously powerful, personal (with the free will to create, or not).

From all of the above we can narrow the field of possible gods down to the one worshiped by the 3 major monotheistic religions. There are still further metaphysical arguments that can be made which would narrow the field down to only one, that of Christianity, but they are not as forceful as the arguments for his existence from classical theism.

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:Okay I think I got it. God does not move, but he causes things to move. Is that correct? If so, how does this metaphysically prove the existence of God?

Because without an unmoved prime mover nothing moves (remember, essentially ordered series).

Right, and more strictly, what it actually shows is that the First Mover (that must exist by necessity; no atheist can logically deny that--what they could argue, at least were it not for this argument, is that there are many boring and trivial first movers, like you or me) is Pure Act; that is, the argument proves that the First Mover has absolutely no potentiality in it whatsoever.

The argument didn't prove anything. The argument did make a lot of claims; but none of those claims were backed up with proof.

Proof in what sense kenny? If what you have in mind is a 'scientific' type of proof then you're absolutely correct, it's not a proof. But then again, by that same logic, neither are any other scientific theories. Science is in the business of providing evidence given the best data models we have at the time.

If, however, what you had in mind is metaphysical proof then you could not be more wrong for indeed they are proofs that have withstood the test of time for over 2 millennia. New-age so-called philosophers who think have dismissed classical theism have traditionally attacked some caricature of the arguments but never the arguments themselves. Read the books I recommended, it will be an eye-opening experience, I promise you.

Byblos:
That's a whole 'nother story Kenny but let's summarize it nonetheless. As it turns out Aquinas' prime mover and Aristotle's first cause are necessarily one and the same. We can then surmise the following characteristics concerning the prime mover/first cause:

- It must be an absolutely necessary being without any contingencies. In fact it can only be described as 'being' itself, existence. In metaphysical terms it is called a se, or God's aseity,
- It must be absolutely simple, i.e. not composed of any parts for if it is composed of parts then its parts must be dependent on something else, therefore contingent
- There can be one and only one such entity for two reasons, a strong one and a weaker one. The strong reason is if there were two of them then there must be something they can be distinguished by, some difference that one lacks and the other doesn't. But if that's the case then by definition the one that is lacking something is contingent on whatever/whoever is able to supply him with this lack. The weaker reason is that two divine beings with contradictory wills, one to create and the other not to create is a logical contradiction (as proof, well, here we are ...)
- It must not only possess the will to create but also the will to sustain its creation/motion, every second of every day
- From the first cause argument we can positively say it must be immaterial (for matter is contingent), timeless and spaceless (since it created matter and space-time, it must be outside both), changeless (we've been through this one and you've conceded it, for the sake of the argument of course), enormously powerful, personal (with the free will to create, or not).

From all of the above we can narrow the field of possible gods down to the one worshiped by the 3 major monotheistic religions. There are still further metaphysical arguments that can be made which would narrow the field down to only one, that of Christianity, but they are not as forceful as the arguments for his existence from classical theism.



Kenny
If (and that's an awfullly big IF) we assume a prime mover/first cause;

*it does not have to be an absolutely necessary being without any contingncies
*it does not mean there could only be one
*it does not mean they must possess the will to create, or even be aware it is creating
*it does not mean it is not material

All it means is that it is a prime mover/first cause; all that other stuff cannot be assumed unless you find evidence that leads you in that direction.


Byblos
Proof in what sense kenny?

Kenny
Evidence.

Byblos
If, however, what you had in mind is metaphysical proof then you could not be more wrong for indeed they are proofs that have withstood the test of time for over 2 millennia. New-age so-called philosophers who think have dismissed classical theism have traditionally attacked some caricature of the arguments but never the arguments themselves. Read the books I recommended, it will be an eye-opening experience, I promise you.

Ken
So what is some of this evidence that has stood the test of 2 millennia?

Ken

Earth to Kenny...hello...Kenny...are you there?
Kenny,
You have just been shown metaphysical proof!!!! I've never seen someone so unwilling to understand something that is so clear. And Byblos has put it in easy to understand terms too.

If you're not going to take this seriously, please stop wasting other peoples' time.



Byblos,

If I had an award for patience, I'd give it to you.

RickD wrote:Earth to Kenny...hello...Kenny...are you there?
Kenny,
You have just been shown metaphysical proof!!!! I've never seen someone so unwilling to understand something that is so clear. And Byblos has put it in easy to understand terms too.

If you're not going to take this seriously, please stop wasting other peoples' time.

How are you defining metaphysical proof? Is it as simple as making a claim?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Earth to Kenny...hello...Kenny...are you there?
Kenny,
You have just been shown metaphysical proof!!!! I've never seen someone so unwilling to understand something that is so clear. And Byblos has put it in easy to understand terms too.

If you're not going to take this seriously, please stop wasting other peoples' time.

How are you defining metaphysical proof? Is it as simple as making a claim?

Ken

Ken, we offer you proof and you ask for evidence. Forgive the analogy but that's like buying a car because you have a gallon of gasoline at home you don't want to waste. Evidence is for science, the empirical kind, that is. Evidence is much weaker than proof because evidence is falsifiable with new evidence. No need to attack premises, no need to use reason and logic even. Simply new evidence that contradicts prior evidence. Metaphysical proof, on the other hand, kenny, requires a much more rigorous process. It requires thinking, logic, reason. Aquinas' five ways in general and the first way in particular (which has been the subject of this thread for most part) IS such a metaphysical proof. And what I offered above is a direct correlation to that proof. You can't simply dismiss it by saying you need evidence, that's just silly. You don't dismiss a proof with evidence, you dismiss it with counter logic and reason. I.e. if you disagree with one or more of the premises offered in the proof then you must state very clearly where those premises fail kenny. Unless and until you offer sound counter-reasoning as to why one ore more of the premises fail then it is incumbent upon you as a self-respecting, intellectually honest person (which I firmly believe you are) that you either accept the premises or spend more time researching the subject. I've offered a couple of suggestions for further research into the matter. I hope and pray you heed my suggestion. In the meantime, I think we've taken the subject as far as I think you can take it.

Kenny, to emphasize what Byblos has said, metaphysical proofs are analogous to geometric proofs. Suppose I were to ask you to provethe law of sines (if one angle is obtuse, then the center of the circle lies outside the triangle). You would respond with something like this:



Suppose you wrote that and I asked for "evidence" for it being true. If I did that, you would rightly conclude that I don't understand how geometry works. Worse, that I don't understand how basic logic works. (If, by the way, you want something easier, here's a proof that the sum of the angles in a triangle always equals 180 degrees.)

It is just so with a metaphysical proof. Such proofs are not "scientific" in that they do not rely on probabilities or measurements that are subject to interpretation. They are much more stringent. Like geometric proofs, they require absolute demonstration. Aquinas' First Way is just such a demonstration. In review, they are:

• 1. Some things in the world are changing;
  2. Anything that is changing is being changed by something else;
  3. But this something else, if it is being changed, is also being changed by something else, and so on;
  4. This series of things being changed by something else else cannot be endless;
  5. Therefore, there must be a first cause of change which is itself unchanging; this we understand to be God.

(1) is the given. All I have done here is change the word "motion" to "change" (with relevant grammatical changes) to make what Thomas is sayng clearer to you. There are reasons that "motion" is still a better translation, but let that pass for now. Just take it on the authority of someone who wrote their master's thesis on this subject that "change" works. If you absolutely insist on a proper discussion of the proper usage of "motion," see my thesis here, starting on page six, where you will find a full discussion on the meaning of the words "actuality," "potentiality," "motion," and "change," and the relevant Greek and Latin words behind each.

Anyway, (2) is a metaphysical fact easily demonstrated - there are only three logical possibilities to account for change: a) that something is being changed by nothing; b) that something is changing itself; or c) that something is being changed by something else. Both (a) and (b) are self-contradictory, and therefore (c) is and must be true. (3) is simply the logical consequent of (1) and (2). (4) is true given the nature of the kind of causal chain Thomas has in mind, namely, an essentially ordered causal chain. Byblos has offered you some illustrations to this end, but to add another (which I take from Feser), imagine a paint brush with a very, very long handle--so long, in fact, that you cannot see the hand that holds it. And yet, the paint brush is, in fact, painting the wall. Could an infinitely long handle account for the up and down movement of the brush? Of course not. At some point, you have to have a principle of motion, something that is causing the change, whereby the handle is simply an instrument by which the thing causing the change (a hand somewhere) is USING it--the handle--to bring about the desired effect. In other words, for any essentially ordered series of changes, there MUST be a first changer. Again, there is no question that a first changer exists. The question is the nature of this changer. From (1)-(4), we conclude something about that changer--namely, that it is not being changed in any way whatsoever.

In this thread, Mallz and Byblos have been very patient with you. Both have shown you a proof for God's existence. You're failure to understand their approach is something you need to work to correct.

Byblos wrote:. if you disagree with one or more of the premises offered in the proof then you must state very clearly where those premises fail kenny. Unless and until you offer sound counter-reasoning as to why one ore more of the premises fail then it is incumbent upon you as a self-respecting, intellectually honest person (which I firmly believe you are) that you either accept the premises or spend more time researching the subject.

Using Algebra as an analogy, he is basically saying; "if A+B=C, then C-B=A. I am saying he needs to demonstrate that C-B=A. Now with math it is easy to demonstrate such a claim, but with the laws ofthe Universe it is not. On Saturday 6/28/14 at 5:58am I explained why I disagree that C-B=A.

*I said there is no reason to assume there can’t be more than one prime mover
*There is no reason to assume it has the will or even be aware it is causing the existence of something else
*there is no reason to assume it cannot be material.

Now granted on 6/27/14 at 6:20pm you did suggest there can’t be more than 1 because if there were two, one would be stronger than the other and one would be contingent upon the other. But how did you make the leap that because one is weaker it is contingent upon the stronger one? And how do you know one has to be weaker, as if that makes a difference. You also seem to suggest that it must be intelligent and divine; something you failed to demonstrate.

You seem to be making a lot of claims but I don't see any evidence leading to these claims.
I see no reason to dismiss the possibility of multiple prime movers.
I see no reason to dismiss the possibility that some of the prime movers via contact with others can change and become contingent upon another,
I also see no reason to assume the laws of nature and physics that apply to Earth will apply to every inch of the Universe. These arguments seem to be saying that because A+B=C on Earth, that A+B is going to equal C on every planet, star, and galaxy in the Universe and I don’t think anybody is qualified to make such a claim.

Ken

Jac3510 wrote:

• 1. Some things in the world are changing;
  2. Anything that is changing is being changed by something else;
  3. But this something else, if it is being changed, is also being changed by something else, and so on;
  4. This series of things being changed by something else else cannot be endless;
  5. Therefore, there must be a first cause of change which is itself unchanging; this we understand to be God.

How do you know there is only 1 first cause? How do you know it is intelligent, unchanging, and fits all the qualifications to be considered God?
Now if you could demonstrate that the way you demonstrated the law of sines, that would answer a whole lotta questions.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

• 1. Some things in the world are changing;
  2. Anything that is changing is being changed by something else;
  3. But this something else, if it is being changed, is also being changed by something else, and so on;
  4. This series of things being changed by something else else cannot be endless;
  5. Therefore, there must be a first cause of change which is itself unchanging; this we understand to be God.

How do you know there is only 1 first cause? How do you know it is intelligent, unchanging, and fits all the qualifications to be considered God?
Now if you could demonstrate that the way you demonstrated the law of sines, that would answer a whole lotta questions.

Ken

It's not terribly hard, but I suspect that you are moving the goal posts. All the First Way seeks to prove is that the First Cause is absolutely unchanging. Once again, that has been demonstrated. If you can accept that much, then we can show without too much difficulty that, being actus purus (Aquinas' word for "absolutely unchanging," more literally translated, "Pure Act") the First Cause must have all of those other properties.

But, again, one step at a time. First you need to acknowledge what has already been shown.

Jac3510 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

• 1. Some things in the world are changing;
  2. Anything that is changing is being changed by something else;
  3. But this something else, if it is being changed, is also being changed by something else, and so on;
  4. This series of things being changed by something else else cannot be endless;
  5. Therefore, there must be a first cause of change which is itself unchanging; this we understand to be God.

How do you know there is only 1 first cause? How do you know it is intelligent, unchanging, and fits all the qualifications to be considered God?
Now if you could demonstrate that the way you demonstrated the law of sines, that would answer a whole lotta questions.

Ken

It's not terribly hard, but I suspect that you are moving the goal posts. All the First Way seeks to prove is that the First Cause is absolutely unchanging. Once again, that has been demonstrated. If you can accept that much, then we can show without too much difficulty that, being actus purus (Aquinas' word for "absolutely unchanging," more literally translated, "Pure Act") the First Cause must have all of those other properties.

But, again, one step at a time. First you need to acknowledge what has already been shown.

I also take exception with #2. Things can change over time as well. Now on Earth this change is mature/deterioration, but we can’t assume that to be the case everywhere, in the context of eternity; I can imagine a scenario where something that has always existed in a constant state of change.
The rest of the claims however I can accept.

Ken

Kenny wrote:I also take exception with #2. Things can change over time as well. Now on Earth this change is mature/deterioration, but we can’t assume that to be the case everywhere, in the context of eternity; I can imagine a scenario where something that has always existed in a constant state of change.

Then you've arrived at a logical contradiction for in an essentially order series a first mover (regardless of its quantity or characteristics) is absolutely necessary.

You can't take exception to (2) but accept all the rest. (3) follows from (1) and (2) and (4) assumes (2). (5), of course, simply states the conclusion of (1-4). As I have said a million times before, (2) is the heart of the argument. And of course you take exception to it. You don't understand what the words mean, as you have repeatedly shown in this thread, and you either lack the intellectual capacity or intellectual honesty to comprehend what they mean. *shrug*

You could surprise me and interact with the argument as it is really presented, but that would be a surprise indeed. In all the pages and all the posts on this, you haven't directed a single argument--NOT ONE--at what Aquinas is actually saying. And what's worse, you've had people telling you that and trying to help you see what he is actually saying the entire time. So either you just aren't informed enough to follow his argument or else you aren't interested in following his argument. Either way, the deficiency is with you, not with the First Way. I would love to see you correct it. But I strongly suspect you won't, so forgive me for not pressing any further. If others (Byblos or Mallz or whomever) want to continue trying to help you see, then it's well within their rights to do so.

I would only add that beyond being completely bored with trying to explain something to someone who is making absolutely zero attempt at understanding, it would be a waste of time to press the nature of the FC, precisely because the nature of the FC depends on you understanding the meaning of motus (motion) in #2. The argument demonstrates beyond any doubt that the FC is actus purus, that is, that it is pure actuality and thus has no admixture of potentiality whatsoever. All the arguments for the FC's nature presume an understanding of what those words mean, but since you don't get what the words "actuality" and "potentiality" mean, even though it's been explained to you repeatedly, there's no way for you to see how the argument moves forward.

So the ball's in your court. You can either keep attacking a weak version of Aquinas, which is really no version of Aquinas at all, and thus have absolutely zero dialogue with the real argument as it stands, or you can get a grasp on the argument as it is really presented and dialogue with it. It's completely and totally up to you as to which you'll do, and just insisting that you really do want to understand is completely insufficient. You have to demonstrate that you ARE grasping what is being said. Because, as of now, your words in every post prove that you just don't--the above being no exception, because if you understood what the words in question mean, you would see that you are saying square triangles, living dead things, and married bachelors can all exist--in other words, your post above assumes the law of non-contradiction is false, and sense that law is the basis for all rationality, your post is less that irrational; it is arational. That you don't see that, and you certainly don't, points, yet again, to your continued ignorance.

I know that comes across as a slam. Its not. It's just a statement of fact. There are things that you are not aware of. You could be if you so desired. But, really, at this point, it's up to you to get yourself educated. Some here (e.g., Mallz, Byblos, etc.) can help you with that education if you so desire. If not, then feel free to continue in your bliss.

Jac
You can't take exception to (2) but accept all the rest.

Ken
Of course I can. #1 speaks of some things, #3 & 4 speaks of specific things, and #2 speaks of all that exists.

Jac
You don't understand what the words mean, as you have repeatedly shown in this thread, and you either lack the intellectual capacity or intellectual honesty to comprehend what they mean. *shrug*

Ken
Now let me see if I’ve got this straight! You make your point; I state my disagreement; then instead of you stating YOUR disagreement with what I’ve said; you dismiss what I’ve said by simply saying I don’t know what the words mean and attack my intellectual honesty and ability to comprehend in the process. Now why am I not surprised you would respond this way???

But that’s okay! From the start you made it clear you had no intention of getting involved in this exchange; but rather a desire to sit back and let others respond. I thank-you for allowing it to continue that way.

Ken