Evidence for God from Science

An arguement I hear a lot now and one I'm trying to understand is the arguement from contingency, put forth by great minds like William Lane Craig.

From what I can tell, the arguement is that God necessarily exists because He is uncaused and His existence is not based on contingency like everything else is and thus He is not subject to the scientific method. But I've challeneged this in threads that it comes up in because I feel like I can imagine something in my mind that is uncaused and incontingent, yet I doubt it exists. The arguement I gave in one thread:

I can imagine in an interdimensional sphere made of solid gold. This sphere has always existed, is uncaused, is incontingent, and exists outside of our universe. It is infinitely simple and has no parts subject to contingency, it's goldness and it's sphericalness are inseperatable parts of it's nature. Does this sphere of gold necessarily exist? I would say it doesn't yet it's incontingent by definition and is not subject to the scientific method. Yet it does not necessarily exist.

Do I misunderstand the arguement? If so, what's the difference between my hypothetical solid gold ball and God, where the gold sphere doesn't necessarily exist, but God does?

Seraph wrote:An arguement I hear a lot now and one I'm trying to understand is the arguement from contingency, put forth by great minds like William Lane Craig.

From what I can tell, the arguement is that God necessarily exists because He is uncaused and His existence is not based on contingency like everything else is and thus He is not subject to the scientific method. But I've challeneged this in threads that it comes up in because I feel like I can imagine something in my mind that is uncaused and incontingent, yet I doubt it exists. The arguement I gave in one thread:

I can imagine in an interdimensional sphere made of solid gold. This sphere has always existed, is uncaused, is incontingent, and exists outside of our universe. It is infinitely simple and has no parts subject to contingency, it's goldness and it's sphericalness are inseperatable parts of it's nature. Does this sphere of gold necessarily exist? I would say it doesn't yet it's incontingent by definition and is not subject to the scientific method. Yet it does not necessarily exist.

Do I misunderstand the arguement? If so, what's the difference between my hypothetical solid gold ball and God, where the gold sphere doesn't necessarily exist, but God does?

You misunderstand the argument. An uncaused cause must not only be eternal (which, granted, you claim for the solid gold sphere), but also immaterial (which you cannot claim for the gold sphere), and intelligent (which you cannot claim for it either).

It must be immaterial because anything material is necessarily contingent upon something else for its creation.
It must be intelligent in order to form the intent to create ex nihilo.

So your solid gold sphere fails on (at least) 2 fundamental points to be classified as an uncaused cause.

I can imagine in an interdimensional sphere made of solid gold. This sphere has always existed, is uncaused, is incontingent, and exists outside of our universe. It is infinitely simple and has no parts subject to contingency, it's goldness and it's sphericalness are inseperatable parts of it's nature. Does this sphere of gold necessarily exist? I would say it doesn't yet it's incontingent by definition and is not subject to the scientific method. Yet it does not necessarily exist.

Look, the last part of your statement says it all. "Yet it does not necessarily exist". If it does not necessarily exist, then so should the rest of the universe. The contingency argument roughly says that since everything that comes to existence has a cause in the material, what caused the first cause must be immaterial and outside of what is natural. Only then can we account the first beginning because otherwise the cycle will be endless. But do notice that in the argument the start of universe is accounted for by the first un-caused cause (God) . That is the very nature of the argument, your argument on the other hand is self-defeating since you are implying that the gold ball has no relation to the material and since there is no connection, its existence can be questioned; Which is not what the actual contingency argument states. God exists because the universe has to have had a cause. That cause is God, you cant separate the two because then it won't remain true to the argument.

I can imagine in an interdimensional sphere made of solid gold. This sphere has always existed, is uncaused, is incontingent, and exists outside of our universe. It is infinitely simple and has no parts subject to contingency, it's goldness and it's sphericalness are inseperatable parts of it's nature. Does this sphere of gold necessarily exist? I would say it doesn't yet it's incontingent by definition and is not subject to the scientific method. Yet it does not necessarily exist.

Do I misunderstand the arguement? If so, what's the difference between my hypothetical solid gold ball and God, where the gold sphere doesn't necessarily exist, but God does?[/quote]

I know you can probably amend this, but the first mistake I saw was a sphere MADE of gold. There are other issues, but that was the most obvious to me.

Seraph wrote:

I can imagine in an interdimensional sphere made of solid gold. This sphere has always existed, is uncaused, is incontingent, and exists outside of our universe. It is infinitely simple and has no parts subject to contingency, it's goldness and it's sphericalness are inseperatable parts of it's nature. Does this sphere of gold necessarily exist? I would say it doesn't yet it's incontingent by definition and is not subject to the scientific method. Yet it does not necessarily exist.

“Solid” and “gold” are things which exist in the natural realm and are therefore contingent things.

“Solid” and “gold” have no creative powers.

Let alone a mind …

The problem is, I think a mind sounds just as much like a created contingent thing as gold does. Possibly even more so. Same thing with creativity.

Gold is a substance made of atoms of a certain structure. A mind as we know it as well as the part of the brain that sparks creativity consists of a complex network of neurons and chemicals. It's hard to picture God's infinitely more powerful mind being consisted of even less "parts" and being uncreated.

Seraph wrote:The problem is, I think a mind sounds just as much like a created contingent thing as gold does. Possibly even more so. Same thing with creativity.

Gold is a substance made of atoms of a certain structure. A mind as we know it as well as the part of the brain that sparks creativity consists of a complex network of neurons and chemicals. It's hard to picture God's infinitely more powerful mind being consisted of even less "parts" and being uncreated.

In other words there is no such thing as spirit nor anything that cannot be defined other than in terms of material things. Congratulations, you've completely crossed to the other side (never mind the fact that you would be wrong).

Seraph wrote:The problem is, I think a mind sounds just as much like a created contingent thing as gold does. Possibly even more so. Same thing with creativity.

Gold is a substance made of atoms of a certain structure. A mind as we know it as well as the part of the brain that sparks creativity consists of a complex network of neurons and chemicals. It's hard to picture God's infinitely more powerful mind being consisted of even less "parts" and being uncreated.

I don't think so. A mind is the capacity for consciousness and thought. An infinite mind, or an infinite stream of consciousness, would not be a contingent thing. A solid gold sphere is obviously a contingent thing.

In other words there is no such thing as spirit nor anything that cannot be defined other than in terms of material things. Congratulations, you've completely crossed to the other side (never mind the fact that you would be wrong).

Not sure how you got that idea out of that sentence. Our spirits ARE created by God are they not?
Strawmen are fun.

All I'm asking is how a complex thing like a mind (we do know that it's complex) can be incontingent and irreducible. An appeal to negative consequences doesn't really give a good answer.

I don't think so. A mind is the capacity for consciousness and thought. An infinite mind, or an infinite stream of consciousness, would not be a contingent thing. A solid gold sphere is obviously a contingent thing.

True, but when we look at our minds, they are largely made of complex things. When you take medications, it alters the state of your consciousness because it alters the part of your brain that controls it. So a lot (not necessarily all) of what makes up our mind is in the material brain. God's mind is infinitely more powerful than ours, yet the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is simulateonusly more simple than us, so His mind would compose of practically nothing other than Himself.

Seraph wrote:True, but when we look at our minds, they are largely made of complex things.

You make it sound so easy. You just look at your mind.

There once was a man who said "Though
It seems that I know that I know,
What I would like to see
Is the "I" that knows "Me"
When I KNOW that I know that I know.

You make it sound so easy. You just look at your mind.

Well I don't think the mind is an entirely unknowable thing. Our mind and our brain functions are closely entwined, it's hard to deny that. If you're still living, yet you remove a portion of the brain, there's a reason you're likely to enter a vegetative state. Your mind isn't all there anymore. So I think a significant part of our mind and consciousness is physical, as well as complex.

Happiness and sadness in people are largely caused by brain functions. God also shows these emotions, but people insist that he does not have a brain. This is one issue I have with saying that God is infinitely simple. He doesn't seem like an infinitely simple being. And because of this, I kind of butt heads with the arguement from contingency since one of it's premises is that He is infinitely simple, irreducible, and thus incontingent.

As a side note, not saying I am one, but I think it's possible to be a materialist (as in, opposite of mind/body dualist) and still be Christian. I think materialists do have a point in that the mind is not ENTIRELY non physical or free from the material body. I beleive CS Lewis said "God likes matter. He created it".

Does God have to be simple or complex, surely God is above or below this.

I think that you are setting up a problem that doesn't exist, is God simple or complex. Or in other words "how will you view God today?"

Seraph wrote:

In other words there is no such thing as spirit nor anything that cannot be defined other than in terms of material things. Congratulations, you've completely crossed to the other side (never mind the fact that you would be wrong).

Not sure how you got that idea out of that sentence. Our spirits ARE created by God are they not?
Strawmen are fun.

No strawmen here, funny or otherwise. Here's what you said:

Seraph wrote:The problem is, I think a mind sounds just as much like a created contingent thing as gold does. Possibly even more so.

So it's not a gigantic leap to surmise that intelligence is not possible without a contingent mind or at least something at least as complex, possibly even more so.

But the point is that you keep conflating intelligence with complexity and you take simplicity to be the opposite of complexity which is not the case. The doctrine of divine simplicity is not vs complexity but rather simple vs compound (as in having composition). If God were a compound then he is reducible in some way and if he is reducible then some part of him is contingent and ... well you can see how it goes from there. I don't recall if you've mentioned ever reading Aquinas' summa theologica but even if you did I would urge you to read it again. Also please refer to the following link. Pay close attention to articles 2 and 7 as they pertain to the subject at hand.

Seraph wrote:All I'm asking is how a complex thing like a mind (we do know that it's complex) can be incontingent and irreducible. An appeal to negative consequences doesn't really give a good answer.

And the answer is that God's mind is infinitely more complex than ours, as well as simple in composition and irreducible.

In any case, I think we've amply answered your OP and how the gold sphere doesn't come close to being incontigent or an uncaused cause.

DannyM wrote:I don't think so. A mind is the capacity for consciousness and thought. An infinite mind, or an infinite stream of consciousness, would not be a contingent thing. A solid gold sphere is obviously a contingent thing.

Seraph wrote:True, but when we look at our minds, they are largely made of complex things. When you take medications, it alters the state of your consciousness because it alters the part of your brain that controls it. So a lot (not necessarily all) of what makes up our mind is in the material brain. God's mind is infinitely more powerful than ours, yet the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is simulateonusly more simple than us, so His mind would compose of practically nothing other than Himself.

Byblos wrote:The doctrine of divine simplicity is not vs complexity but rather simple vs compound (as in having composition). If God were a compound then he is reducible in some way and if he is reducible then some part of him is contingent and ... well you can see how it goes from there. I don't recall if you've mentioned ever reading Aquinas' summa theologica but even if you did I would urge you to read it again. Also please refer to the following link. Pay close attention to articles 2 and 7 as they pertain to the subject at hand.

And the answer is that God's mind is infinitely more complex than ours, as well as simple in composition and irreducible.

Very nicely put, John!! What Brother Byblos said, Seraph! And be sure to read the article he posted on divine simplicity