i] At OU summer school, I have been asked by a group of philosophy student friends to prove that Almighty God exists. I ask by what means do they look for this proof? They sensibly reply that they do not look to science for this proof for rightly they perceive that by the definition of science, God, if God exists, is not subject to the natural, but rather the natural would be subject to God. My reply is that their proof lays in two complimentary directions, the philosophical and the personal. If they want personal proof then since (as I hope to successfully argue here), I perceive that God is a personal being, they will have to look to a faith community and within themselves and seek out their own personal proof by means of relationship, but no further than that can I take them until they have wrestled with and bought into my philosophy.
ii] For the present, the only proof I can offer to them is the philosophical proof which will satisfy their minds but not their hearts. To prove that Almighty God exists, the argument of necessity has to be clearly broken down into sub-arguments:-
1. Existence of Creator God. Here we need to argue merely for the existence of a super-natural entity (defined as God) capable of creating the whole natural cosmos
2. Creator God is omnipresent. Here we need to argue that this God is present in the now of time and space
3. Creator God is benevolent. Here we need to argue that this God is both personal and benevolent
4. Creator God is omniscient. Here we need to argue that this God knows the time space cosmos, not necessarily the outcome of all autonomous choice.
5. Creator God is all these things and so is almighty. Here we need to argue that this God is almighty both in the natural and supernatural realms.
Adam an OU atheist friend has agreed to comment on this essay, and so I am incorporating his criticisms appropriately against each section using this italic coloured text. I trust this will be helpful to the reader without any loss of the thread of my argument!
1 Philosophical proof of the Existence of Creator God
1.1 That we all exist in a natural cosmos comprising all that may be studied by science is surely not reasonable to doubt. As far as we may experience and believe in our own existence, anyone of sound mind must also acknowledge the existence of the temporal cosmos in which we exist and of which we are a part. That this cosmos is temporal is self-evident by virtue of our experience as well as by the findings of physics. In describing the cosmos as temporal, I mean that time is a part and parcel of its fabric, that it had a beginning and could have an end. Physics currently tells us that ‘space-time’, viz., that which we experience as time and that which we experience as space are in close relationship with each other and it is believed by science that both commenced simultaneously from zero some 15 billion years ago.
1.2 To this knowledge we may reasonably apply some logic. First I claim that since empirically it has been shown that space-time had a beginning, it is reasonable to consider the orthoganal existence of timelessness (this is not the same thing as saying the timelessness existed before time which is not logical). To be able to conceptualise this consider the illustration of a globe. We start at one of the poles and move accross the surface to the other. This illustrates the beginning of time and its progress as we experience it. Now you can say we can't go further South (or North) than the pole, so you cant go further back than the beginning of time. However at any point on our journey introducing another dimension we can always go vertical ie orthangonally. This provides a conceptual notion for timelessness in relation to time.
1.3 Timelessness is the absence of the passage of time (a priori), and in the orthagonal direction of our time model it is true to say that the passage of time is irrelevant. Now consider different model in that Einstein has shown us that time itself varies in speed and so the possibility arises that time could from space-time literally stand ‘still’ (or go in and out of existence), and this may provide us with another simulation concept for timelessness. Since timelessness is not the same as space-time (even though space-time may derive from it), it is reasonable to conclude that timelessness exists regardless of space-time. We should also note here that timelessness is not subject to scientific investigation because science is strictly self-limited to space-time concepts only.
Adam is not choosing to contend paras. 1.1 to 1.3
1.4 Now it is also evident to the logic of our experience that all space-time events have cause and it is also evident to reason that space-time was birthed from the realm of timelessness. We know that cause and effect are related to space-time, however it is not logical to suppose that cause and effect necessarily exist in the ‘realm of timelessness’ from which space-time derives.
Adam: 'There are events that are uncaused, at the quantum level. Further, any transition from one thing to another is a temporal notion, which cannot be so in timelessness. But let’s ignore that for now. Let's get to the meat of your argument...'
Mike: 'Yes, I agree the temporal has to emerge from the a-temporal, however I have argued that this 'first' cause within the a-temporal is coincident with the temporal, so there is no logical problem, except that of our abilty to comprehend the notion. '
1.5 I now propose to define this timeless realm (which I have demonstated exists) as the ‘super-natural’ and the first thing I wish to claim is that cause and effect does not apply to the supernatural realm. But this gives a dilemma, for I am saying that ‘cause and effect’ by virtue of their being intrinsic to space-time, must also derive from the supernatural. However the supernatural by virtue of being timeless is not a realm in which cause and effect exists. This dilemma can only be resolved if we suppose that a timeless first cause exists (in the present tense) for all of space-time and no prior cause to that cause exists. This first cause is in fact logically coincident with the whole of space-time. So I am claiming that in the absence of time, the notion of cause and effect is meaningless, therefore no prior cause (in the manner that cause is defined) can exist to the first cause of the natural cosmos.
Adam: 'You have a problem here. If cause and effect emerge from the a-temporal supernatural realm, doesn’t something from within this realm have to bring about the concept of cause and effect from within it for it to be brought about? How else does it occur? In other words, a causal event occurred within this a-temporal supernatural realm to bring about effects and their related causes...'
Mike: 'If you are conceding that the temporal may derive somehow from the a-temporal then I am merely adding that the reality of temporal 'cause and effect' also derives from the a-temporal. Obviously we are both looking at the notion from a temporal perspective! We have no way of viewing the notion from an a-temporal perspective, so you will need to concede my language has to be temporal, but that does not negate the logic of my argument!
1.6 Now we know from the study of physics that the natural cosmos exists by virtue of unique laws that are pertinent to its existence. By reason of the particular nature of these laws, it is reasonable to suppose that these unique laws would be of no relevance to the existence of a supernatural realm. Therefore we must logically conclude that the laws are in existence for the purpose of the existence of a natural cosmos. The natural cosmos we experience exists and so the laws that govern it may reasonably be accepted as existing for that purpose.
Adam: 'The laws of physics is a language we created to explain the world around us. Not something we necessarily ‘discovered’.'
Mike: 'This is a red herring! In science we use language to describe what we discover, so the laws of Physics describe properties that have most certainly been discovered!
Adam: 'You are using teleological language here and you are not justified to do so! If you carry on with this train of thought you will be taking yourself into a circular argument. You are ascribing purpose when there may be no purpose at all.'
Mike: ' Thanks for the warning, but there is nothing illogical about studying purpose in reality - humanity is full of purpose - do not your kindly comments on this essay have a purpose!? However you want to look at it, the particular properties of existence that support the cosmos as we have it, are all the very pertinent to its existence and science tells us that is true. Thus it is quite reasonable for me to claim that these very particular properties are only pertinent to our temporal situation. And it is not unreasonable for me to speculate that from an a-temporal perspective, these very particualar properties exist for the purpose of our temporal existence.
Mike: 'Nor can it be rationally claimed that the universe might be the result of an accident. Because faced with the evidence that we have (viz., that we exist and we have no basis to suppose the existence of any other temporal cosmos), we have no basis to suppose that the 'very particular' properties of the cosmos by which we exist, are somehow an accident! So I conclude that your criticism here is very weak and I am quite justified in using teleological language.
1.7 Since purposeful laws exist by which space-time came to exist, it follows that these purposeful laws (pertinent to the possible existence of space-time) must either exist in the timeless supernatural and are thus coincident with all of space-time, or they are essentially coincident with the first cause and came into existence from the supernatural together with space-time.
1.8 Now it is reasonable to our logical minds that only an entity with purpose can create purposeful laws and so if reason has prevailed thus far, it is reasonable to accept that an entity capable of being the first cause has ‘created’ these purposeful laws, an entity that exists in the supernatural.
1.9 We may define this entity as the supernatural creator God without automatically loading the definition with the baggage of different religions. I intend however to proceed further from this logic to argue (in Part 2 and 3 of this essay) that this supernatural creator God is in fact omnipresent to the natural. For my initial purpose however, the existence of supernatural purposeful creator God is reasonably proved using empirical observation and logic. It follows that the existence of the cosmos is derived solely from the existence of this supernatural purposeful creator God.
Adam: 'Why a supernatural God? The universe could have been the result of an experiment done in a lab such as CERN. To say it is a supernatural God is clutching at straws. It might even have been a mischievous deity. I know you say you will go on to argue that this God is the god of omnipotence, omniscience etc but what you say so far is far from conclusive. .. You’ve made some claims, I’ve shown the errors with those claims.. '
Mike: 'Adam, I do not concede that you have shown any 'errors' in my logic, nor have you shown there to be errors in my premises and so you have not shown any errors in my claims! In para. 1.9, I am defining a supernatural god, I am not clutching at staws! Nor have I yet got round to arguing whether or not this deity is mischievous or benevolent - that comes next! What sort of a-temporal being or beings do you suppose capable of experimenting by creating our cosmos? Might it not be the very 'deity' I am defining? Far from my argument in 'part 1' being inconclusive, I think it is your criticism that is not conclusive, and that my argument not only stands, but is fit to be taken to the next stage. However I would be very pleased if you would honour me with your analysis of parts 2 and 3 of this essay!'
9 comments:
I’m not sure this works. For my analogy, by using the North Pole as my reference point, what I am saying is that the North Pole is the beginning of time. If we are to look back in time we would look towards the North Pole and this works anywhere on the globe. If we want to travel back in time towards the beginning, then using the North Pole analogy we head towards the North Pole. When we get there, which will be nearer to the ‘beginning of time’, we will find we cannot go any further, because you can’t go before the beginning, which you rightly point out.
What you are doing is that you are using the analogy the other way round. You start at the North Pole and head away. This is okay because you are going forward in time and the further away from the North Pole you go, the closer you get to the South Pole. The North Pole is the beginning and the South Pole is the end (of time). No problems with that – it is a good analogy. Even further, using this analogy you could zigzag across the globe and this zigzagging could be thought of as time slowing down or speeding up.
However, you introduce an extra dimension – a vertical dimension. What direction is dimension coming from? What perspective is t? What does it represent? I don’t get it! Please elaborate.
Let’s get this out of the way and
I’ll move on to your other points.
Adam
Adam
Yes I am introducing a new dimension in the analogy because I want to use it to illustrate what I believe is another dimension in reality (viz. what I call timelessness) that is in one sense connected to time, but which is at the same time unrelated to time. Just as the vertical dimension (radial from the centre of the earth) is in a sense unrelated to your global position (it is always orthogonal to your direction of travel wherever you are including your starting point) so timelessness is unrelated to where you are in time, it always exists. In another sense however there is always some relationship between where you are on the globe and the particular radial and so I am claiming there is an interconnection between time and timelessness. However since you probably disagree with me you will need to continue to exercise the principle of charity when following my argument!
kind regards
Mike
Hi Mike,
I agree, we should leave the complications of the temporal and atemporal realms to one side, for now... Let’s look at what you have written in part one...
In 1.4 you start with... ”Now it is also evident to the logic of our experience that all space-time events have cause and it is also evident to reason that space-time was birthed from the realm of timelessness. We know that cause and effect are related to space-time, however it is not logical to suppose that cause and effect necessarily exist in the ‘realm of timelessness’ from which space-time derives.”
There are events that are uncaused, at the quantum level. Further, any transition from one thing to another is a temporal notion, which cannot be so in timelessness. But let’s ignore that for now. Let's get to the meat of your argument...
“1.5 I now propose to define this timeless realm (which I have demonstated exists) as the ‘super-natural’ and the first thing I wish to claim is that cause and effect does not apply to the supernatural realm. But this gives a dilemma, for I am saying that ‘cause and effect’ by virtue of their being intrinsic to space-time, must also derive from the supernatural. However the supernatural by virtue of being timeless is not a realm in which cause and effect exists. This dilemma can only be resolved if we suppose that a timeless first cause exists (in the present tense) for all of space-time and no prior cause to that cause exists. This first cause is in fact logically coincident with the whole of space-time. So I am claiming that in the absence of time, the notion of cause and effect is meaningless, therefore no prior cause (in the manner that cause is defined) can exist to the first cause of the natural cosmos.
The cosmological argument, in a roundabout way.
You have a problem here. If cause and effect emerge from the atemporal supernatural realm, doesn’t something from within this realm have to bring about the concept of cause and effect from within it for it to be brought about? How else does it occur? In other words, a causal event occurred within this atemporal supernatural realm to bring about effects and their related causes...
... You can’t say “before cause and effect existed something gave rise to this cause and effect notion” because this is still a temporal notion. To ‘give rise to’ or in your words ”must also derive from the supernatural” means that something happened for something to be created – both temporal notions.
Moving on. In 1.6 you wrote:
1.6 Now we know from the study of physics that the natural cosmos exists by virtue of unique laws that are pertinent to its existence. [...]
The laws of physics is a language we created to explain the world around us. Not something we necessarily ‘discovered’.
Dear Adam
First thank you for your detailed and thoughtful criticisms, which I will study and publish as soon as I can.
Yes, I agree the temporal has to emerge from the atemporal, however I have argued that this 'first' cause within the atemporal is coincident with the temporal, so there is no logical problem, except that of our abilty to comprehend the notion.
Adam
If you are conceding that the temporal derives somehow from the atemporal then I am merely adding the the reality of temporal 'cause and effect' also derives from the atemporal. Obviously we are both looking at the notion from a temporal perspective! We have no way of viewing the notion from an atemporal perspective, so you will need to concede my language has to be temporal, but that does not negate the logic of my argument!
Post a Comment