Board index ‹ God
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
What would the world look like if God didn't exist?
by Ostrich » Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:01 pm
A Christian believes, has faith, that God exists, and the Universe as it is today, is a result of Him and His creation. So my question to you is, "What would the Universe be like if God didn't exist? How could we tell the difference?"
- Ostrich
Re: What would the world look like if God didn't exist?
by jimwalton » Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:20 pm
I notice the only people who have answered your question are atheists. I really wouldn't trust their perceptions or information about God. They are obviously, by self-identification, of a decidedly negative perspective.
You probably know that Christians believe that the universe was created by action of God (how long and what processes are debated). So the most direct answer is "no God, no universe." It's also a Christian teaching that God actively sustains and upholds the universe—it doesn't function right without him. So the second most direct answer is "no God, no universe."
But I think you're being a little playful, supposing this universe and world could come about all by itself via Big Bang, evolutionary naturalism, and natural selection.
Having worked through the logic of these things (and to avoid writing a huge wall of text), I'm quite convinced that reason can not have stemmed from random processes. As far as we know, reason can only come from reason, personality from personality, true morals from an objective sources, purpose from intent, free will from reason, and meaning from purpose.
We're intelligent people, right? We know that if we have nothing, we get nothing. If anything can pop into existence from nothing (like a pink unicorn), then there is no such thing as science. But there is something.
We know that we have an eternal cause. Something always was (whether matter, energy, a singularity, a metaphysical being). Something must have always existed. There must be some eternal first cause, whatever it was.
We know that we have a timeless cause. If the past is infinite, we would have no present (Kalam's Cosmological argument). Only if the past is finite can there be a present, so the sufficient cause must be timeless.
There must be a personal cause. Impersonal causes must have first causes. Only personal causes are capable of being first causes. Kinetic energy is energy is motion; potential energy is energy stored. The only way something begins in motion is if there is a first cause. What puts a system in motion?
We must have an intelligent cause. There are three types of data (random data, which doesn't require an intelligent cause, ordered data, such as snowflakes, which don't necessarily require an intelligent cause, and information data). There is no example in science that informational data can come from anything but an intelligent cause.
There must be a moral cause. We all know there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil. Though we disagree on some of what goes into those categories, we all subscribe to such objectivities as the existence of right and wrong. If we infer the most reasonable conclusion, we infer an objective moral source for objective moral realities. Without it there is not possible objective evaluation of an action or a thought as good or evil, because such things are only based on opinion and one's own perception. Everything would just be morally blank. There would be nothing wrong with murdering someone, and nothing good about saving a bus full of children from crashing down a cliff. Elaborate complex chemical reactions do not have any moral value or moral agency. Everyone would simply be a physical collection of atoms. Everything would simply just be. Without God, we might live in a MadMax world of insanity and chaos, but we could call that bad—just what is. We might live in a humanist utopia, but we couldn't call that good—just what is.
In other words, the world as we know it can only come from an eternal, timeless, personal, intelligent, powerful, purposeful, moral, free will, meaningful cause. Therefore, a world without God could not possibly include reason, purpose, personality, meaning or morality, let alone things like love, grace, forgiveness, or happiness.
You probably know that Christians believe that the universe was created by action of God (how long and what processes are debated). So the most direct answer is "no God, no universe." It's also a Christian teaching that God actively sustains and upholds the universe—it doesn't function right without him. So the second most direct answer is "no God, no universe."
But I think you're being a little playful, supposing this universe and world could come about all by itself via Big Bang, evolutionary naturalism, and natural selection.
Having worked through the logic of these things (and to avoid writing a huge wall of text), I'm quite convinced that reason can not have stemmed from random processes. As far as we know, reason can only come from reason, personality from personality, true morals from an objective sources, purpose from intent, free will from reason, and meaning from purpose.
We're intelligent people, right? We know that if we have nothing, we get nothing. If anything can pop into existence from nothing (like a pink unicorn), then there is no such thing as science. But there is something.
We know that we have an eternal cause. Something always was (whether matter, energy, a singularity, a metaphysical being). Something must have always existed. There must be some eternal first cause, whatever it was.
We know that we have a timeless cause. If the past is infinite, we would have no present (Kalam's Cosmological argument). Only if the past is finite can there be a present, so the sufficient cause must be timeless.
There must be a personal cause. Impersonal causes must have first causes. Only personal causes are capable of being first causes. Kinetic energy is energy is motion; potential energy is energy stored. The only way something begins in motion is if there is a first cause. What puts a system in motion?
We must have an intelligent cause. There are three types of data (random data, which doesn't require an intelligent cause, ordered data, such as snowflakes, which don't necessarily require an intelligent cause, and information data). There is no example in science that informational data can come from anything but an intelligent cause.
There must be a moral cause. We all know there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil. Though we disagree on some of what goes into those categories, we all subscribe to such objectivities as the existence of right and wrong. If we infer the most reasonable conclusion, we infer an objective moral source for objective moral realities. Without it there is not possible objective evaluation of an action or a thought as good or evil, because such things are only based on opinion and one's own perception. Everything would just be morally blank. There would be nothing wrong with murdering someone, and nothing good about saving a bus full of children from crashing down a cliff. Elaborate complex chemical reactions do not have any moral value or moral agency. Everyone would simply be a physical collection of atoms. Everything would simply just be. Without God, we might live in a MadMax world of insanity and chaos, but we could call that bad—just what is. We might live in a humanist utopia, but we couldn't call that good—just what is.
In other words, the world as we know it can only come from an eternal, timeless, personal, intelligent, powerful, purposeful, moral, free will, meaningful cause. Therefore, a world without God could not possibly include reason, purpose, personality, meaning or morality, let alone things like love, grace, forgiveness, or happiness.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What would the world look like if God didn't exist?
by Ostrich » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:15 pm
1. "No God, no universe" presupposes God to exist.
2. Can something exist without a designer or creator?
While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement.
The assumption of an omnipotent God leads to problems communicating a moral code in a clear way to people in an authentic manner.
3. The existence of God is assumed in defining something that already exists (morality); therefore it is circular reasoning by attempting to show the existence of God in this manner.
Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that if all of Divine Morality can be derived from naturalistic morality (i.e., Divine Morality is morally equivalent to "whatever is best for humanity"), religion and the gods themselves aren't necessary for humans to have Divine Morality. If Divine Morality contradicts naturalistic morality, Divine Morality and thus the gods themselves are actually malevolent.
2. Can something exist without a designer or creator?
While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement.
The assumption of an omnipotent God leads to problems communicating a moral code in a clear way to people in an authentic manner.
3. The existence of God is assumed in defining something that already exists (morality); therefore it is circular reasoning by attempting to show the existence of God in this manner.
Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that if all of Divine Morality can be derived from naturalistic morality (i.e., Divine Morality is morally equivalent to "whatever is best for humanity"), religion and the gods themselves aren't necessary for humans to have Divine Morality. If Divine Morality contradicts naturalistic morality, Divine Morality and thus the gods themselves are actually malevolent.
- Ostrich
Re: What would the world look like if God didn't exist?
by jimwalton » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:40 pm
> "No God, no universe" presupposes God to exist.
We ultimately have to wrestle with the conundrum of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The universe itself presupposes that some existed before it (if the Big Bang is correct) and that pre-existing something had causative force. If the Big Bang is where it all began (which one can fairly well grant, at least in the thinking of present-day scientific theory), we must ask what preceded the "bang." Current theory is that everything was a singularity. Again, according to theory, a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down (are non-existent).
Therefore, we have to presuppose the pre-existence of something, and current theory says the starting point cannot be scientific. My argument presupposes the existence of an eternal, timeless, personal, intelligent, powerful, purposeful, moral, free-willed, meaningful cause. If we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, presupposing God is more logical than presupposing science.
> Can something exist without a designer or creator?
That is the question of the hour, isn't it? We as humans don't know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that wasn't indeed purposefully designed. Whenever we know of something that exhibits purpose (a reason for why it exists or why something happened the way it did), and whenever we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design (somebody thought it up and made it happen), it was indeed the designed product of an intelligent being. Whether a watch, a washer, or a window, if we can infer that there was a purpose behind it, it's safe to say that an intelligent being designed it for that purpose, or at least for a purpose.
Our scientific observations show us that there are many parts of the universe, the earth, and life as we know it that exhibit purpose—not just parts of the universe exhibit purpose, though, but even the universe itself. Every scientist asks "Why?" We assume purpose in what we observe around us. "Why do the planets spin?" "Why is the earth pitched at an angle?" We are always looking for the reasons and the purpose, assuming they are there and, not surprisingly, we find purpose in many parts of the universe and life.
Therefore, it's altogether possible that everything that exists—since we see purpose everywhere—was designed. It's logical to assume that the universe could be the product of purposeful design. Everything else we know that exhibits purpose was indeed designed; why should the universe be treated any differently?
> While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement.
Scientists consider that matter is not eternal, but that there was a beginning, somewhere, somehow. We also know that everything that begins to exist has a cause. And since the cause of the "bang" isn't science, as previously established, we can infer that the universe must have a cause outside of itself, and outside of physics.
We also know of nothing that began at one time to exist spontaneously of its own volition—nothing that we know of is self-caused. We know of nothing that at any time began to exist from its own nature (How can something pop itself into existence when it doesn’t exist?). Everything that had a beginning was brought into existence by something else that already existed, whether technological, mechanical, or even biological. Even biological things came from other biological things, or at least from something that already existed. Something had to always have existed. So what caused the universe to begin to exist? It has to have had a cause. God is a reasonable choice as to that cause.
> The existence of God is assumed in defining something that already exists (morality); therefore it is circular reasoning by attempting to show the existence of God in this manner.
The argument from morality is not circular. It goes like this: (source: Zacharias)
1. It is commonly admitted that there is evil in the world. People believe that some things are just wrong.
2. But if evil exists, one must also assume that good also exists in order to know the difference.
3. And if good and evil exist, one must assume that some kind of standard exists to measure what is good and what is evil. Again, people commonly believe that there are standards of right and wrong, good and bad. That would lead us to believe that a moral law exists that allows us to evaluate such things.
4. If a moral law exists, then that moral law has a source. Where did the moral law come from—our "standard" of what is right and what is wrong? It must have come from somewhere, or there must at least be an objective basis for it.
5. It makes sense that the source of our personal, objective moral law must also be personal, moral, and objective.
6. Therefore God—a personal, moral source outside of humanity—must exist.
> Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that if all of Divine Morality can be derived from naturalistic morality (i.e., Divine Morality is morally equivalent to "whatever is best for humanity"), religion and the gods themselves aren't necessary for humans to have Divine Morality. If Divine Morality contradicts naturalistic morality, Divine Morality and thus the gods themselves are actually malevolent.
This is not a problem at all because the logic doesn't hold. My first objection is your main premise, that Divine Morality can be derived from naturalistic morality. This is backwards. All of natural notions of morality are subsets, distortions, or contrivances based on divine morality—the objective standard inherent in the universe because of the nature of God. Divine morality is not morally equivalent to "whatever is best for humanity," but to what is objectively good and right because it is an attribute of God. And if divine morality contradicts naturalistic morality, it is naturalistic morality that has gone askew, and not an evidence of divine malevolence. All three of your premises are backwards and illegitimate.
We ultimately have to wrestle with the conundrum of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The universe itself presupposes that some existed before it (if the Big Bang is correct) and that pre-existing something had causative force. If the Big Bang is where it all began (which one can fairly well grant, at least in the thinking of present-day scientific theory), we must ask what preceded the "bang." Current theory is that everything was a singularity. Again, according to theory, a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down (are non-existent).
Therefore, we have to presuppose the pre-existence of something, and current theory says the starting point cannot be scientific. My argument presupposes the existence of an eternal, timeless, personal, intelligent, powerful, purposeful, moral, free-willed, meaningful cause. If we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, presupposing God is more logical than presupposing science.
> Can something exist without a designer or creator?
That is the question of the hour, isn't it? We as humans don't know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that wasn't indeed purposefully designed. Whenever we know of something that exhibits purpose (a reason for why it exists or why something happened the way it did), and whenever we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design (somebody thought it up and made it happen), it was indeed the designed product of an intelligent being. Whether a watch, a washer, or a window, if we can infer that there was a purpose behind it, it's safe to say that an intelligent being designed it for that purpose, or at least for a purpose.
Our scientific observations show us that there are many parts of the universe, the earth, and life as we know it that exhibit purpose—not just parts of the universe exhibit purpose, though, but even the universe itself. Every scientist asks "Why?" We assume purpose in what we observe around us. "Why do the planets spin?" "Why is the earth pitched at an angle?" We are always looking for the reasons and the purpose, assuming they are there and, not surprisingly, we find purpose in many parts of the universe and life.
Therefore, it's altogether possible that everything that exists—since we see purpose everywhere—was designed. It's logical to assume that the universe could be the product of purposeful design. Everything else we know that exhibits purpose was indeed designed; why should the universe be treated any differently?
> While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement.
Scientists consider that matter is not eternal, but that there was a beginning, somewhere, somehow. We also know that everything that begins to exist has a cause. And since the cause of the "bang" isn't science, as previously established, we can infer that the universe must have a cause outside of itself, and outside of physics.
We also know of nothing that began at one time to exist spontaneously of its own volition—nothing that we know of is self-caused. We know of nothing that at any time began to exist from its own nature (How can something pop itself into existence when it doesn’t exist?). Everything that had a beginning was brought into existence by something else that already existed, whether technological, mechanical, or even biological. Even biological things came from other biological things, or at least from something that already existed. Something had to always have existed. So what caused the universe to begin to exist? It has to have had a cause. God is a reasonable choice as to that cause.
> The existence of God is assumed in defining something that already exists (morality); therefore it is circular reasoning by attempting to show the existence of God in this manner.
The argument from morality is not circular. It goes like this: (source: Zacharias)
1. It is commonly admitted that there is evil in the world. People believe that some things are just wrong.
2. But if evil exists, one must also assume that good also exists in order to know the difference.
3. And if good and evil exist, one must assume that some kind of standard exists to measure what is good and what is evil. Again, people commonly believe that there are standards of right and wrong, good and bad. That would lead us to believe that a moral law exists that allows us to evaluate such things.
4. If a moral law exists, then that moral law has a source. Where did the moral law come from—our "standard" of what is right and what is wrong? It must have come from somewhere, or there must at least be an objective basis for it.
5. It makes sense that the source of our personal, objective moral law must also be personal, moral, and objective.
6. Therefore God—a personal, moral source outside of humanity—must exist.
> Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that if all of Divine Morality can be derived from naturalistic morality (i.e., Divine Morality is morally equivalent to "whatever is best for humanity"), religion and the gods themselves aren't necessary for humans to have Divine Morality. If Divine Morality contradicts naturalistic morality, Divine Morality and thus the gods themselves are actually malevolent.
This is not a problem at all because the logic doesn't hold. My first objection is your main premise, that Divine Morality can be derived from naturalistic morality. This is backwards. All of natural notions of morality are subsets, distortions, or contrivances based on divine morality—the objective standard inherent in the universe because of the nature of God. Divine morality is not morally equivalent to "whatever is best for humanity," but to what is objectively good and right because it is an attribute of God. And if divine morality contradicts naturalistic morality, it is naturalistic morality that has gone askew, and not an evidence of divine malevolence. All three of your premises are backwards and illegitimate.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What would the world look like if God didn't exist?
by Ostrich » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:56 pm
"presupposing God is more logical than presupposing science."
The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God.
"Whenever we know of something that exhibits purpose...
it was indeed the designed product of an intelligent being."
Who designed God?
If Everything that exists has a cause, and God exists, then what caused God?
If evil does exist, then God does not exist, is not omnipotent, omniscient, and/or is not omnibenevolent.
" what is objectively good and right because it is an attribute of God."
The underlying assumption is that God communicates through revelations, which, the assumptions made in the definition of God (specifically, existence of omnipotent beings) will make it difficult to validate the authenticity of revelations without using special pleading (That God's existence is unique in set of omnipotent beings, and God is omnibenevolent).
The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God.
"Whenever we know of something that exhibits purpose...
it was indeed the designed product of an intelligent being."
Who designed God?
If Everything that exists has a cause, and God exists, then what caused God?
If evil does exist, then God does not exist, is not omnipotent, omniscient, and/or is not omnibenevolent.
" what is objectively good and right because it is an attribute of God."
The underlying assumption is that God communicates through revelations, which, the assumptions made in the definition of God (specifically, existence of omnipotent beings) will make it difficult to validate the authenticity of revelations without using special pleading (That God's existence is unique in set of omnipotent beings, and God is omnibenevolent).
- Ostrich
Re: What would the world look like if God didn't exist?
by jimwalton » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:09 pm
> Who designed God?
It seems you didn't read by post. I'll cut and paste it again: "We ultimately have to wrestle with the conundrum of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' The universe itself presupposes that some existed before it (if the Big Bang is correct) and that pre-existing something had causative force. If the Big Bang is where it all began (which one can fairly well grant, at least in the thinking of present-day scientific theory), we must ask what preceded the "bang." Current theory is that everything was a singularity. Again, according to theory, a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down (are non-existent).
Therefore, we have to presuppose the pre-existence of something, and current theory says the starting point cannot be scientific. My argument presupposes the existence of an eternal, timeless, personal, intelligent, powerful, purposeful, moral, free-willed, meaningful cause. If we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, presupposing God is more logical than presupposing science."
In other words, something is eternal, and we know it's not science, physics, natural laws, or matter. We're intelligent people, right? We know that if we have nothing, we get nothing. If anything can pop into existence from nothing (like a pink unicorn), then there is no such thing as science. But there is something.
We know that we have an eternal cause. Something always was (whether matter, energy, a singularity, a metaphysical being). Something must have always existed. There must be some eternal first cause, whatever it was.
We know that we have a timeless cause. If the past is infinite, we would have no present. Imagine going to the deli counter. There you see a red thingy that says "Before you take a ticket, you have to take a ticket from the red thingy to the right." And there’s a sign on that one that says the same thing. And on the next one. And the next. Only if we ever get to one that says "Take a ticket here" can we run the sequence and get back to the counter. We can only get back to the counter if the line of red thingys isn't infinite. Only if the past is finite can there be a present, so the cause of the universe must be timeless.
There must be a personal cause. Impersonal causes must have first causes. Only personal causes are capable of being first causes. Kinetic energy is energy is motion; potential energy is energy stored. The only way something begins in motion is if there is a first cause. What puts a system in motion?
We must have an intelligent cause. There are three types of data (random data, which doesn't require an intelligent cause, ordered data, such as snowflakes, which don't necessarily require an intelligent cause, and information data). There is no example in science that informational data can come from anything but an intelligent cause.
There must be a moral cause. We all know there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil. Though we disagree on some of what goes into those categories, we all subscribe to such objectivities as the existence of right and wrong. If we infer the most reasonable conclusion, we infer an objective moral source for objective moral realities. Without it there is not possible objective evaluation of an action or a thought as good or evil, because such things are only based on opinion and one's own perception. Everything would just be morally blank. There would be nothing wrong with murdering someone, and nothing good about saving a bus full of children from crashing down a cliff. Elaborate complex chemical reactions do not have any moral value or moral agency. Everyone would simply be a physical collection of atoms. Everything would simply just be. Without God, we might live in a MadMax world of insanity and chaos, but we could call that bad—just what is. We might live in a humanist utopia, but we couldn't call that good—just what is.
In other words, the world as we know it can only come from an eternal, timeless, personal, intelligent, powerful, purposeful, moral, free will, meaningful cause. And that's God. He always was. Something always was, and God is the most logical answer.
> If evil does exist, then God does not exist, is not omnipotent, omniscient, and/or is not omnibenevolent.
This is not logically consistent. You can't put this in a reasonable syllogism because your points won't hold. From my side, if what you are saying is true, I have to abandon one of these propositions: God exists, God is omnipotent, God is omniscient, God is omnibenevolent, and evil exists. But none of these propositions formally entail a logical contradiction. To create a necessary contradictions, something must be added, but it has never been done. These premises do not necessarily contradict. The burden of proof is on you to put forth a syllogism that supports your case.
> The underlying assumption is that God communicates through revelations, which, the assumptions made in the definition of God (specifically, existence of omnipotent beings) will make it difficult to validate the authenticity of revelations without using special pleading
It depends what you will accept as validation. If God truly exists, and if he is truly a spirit being, and if he is truly transcendent in his nature, then revelation is the only possible route to knowledge. So what will you accept as validation that is an appropriate measure of the object at hand, viz. the revelation of God? (If, as Christians claim, he is a metaphysical reality, then science, repeatability, experimentation, and solely physical evidences are not necessarily the proper measure, just as science and experimentation are not the proper measure of how to determine how much I love my wife.) So what do you propose?
It seems you didn't read by post. I'll cut and paste it again: "We ultimately have to wrestle with the conundrum of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' The universe itself presupposes that some existed before it (if the Big Bang is correct) and that pre-existing something had causative force. If the Big Bang is where it all began (which one can fairly well grant, at least in the thinking of present-day scientific theory), we must ask what preceded the "bang." Current theory is that everything was a singularity. Again, according to theory, a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down (are non-existent).
Therefore, we have to presuppose the pre-existence of something, and current theory says the starting point cannot be scientific. My argument presupposes the existence of an eternal, timeless, personal, intelligent, powerful, purposeful, moral, free-willed, meaningful cause. If we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, presupposing God is more logical than presupposing science."
In other words, something is eternal, and we know it's not science, physics, natural laws, or matter. We're intelligent people, right? We know that if we have nothing, we get nothing. If anything can pop into existence from nothing (like a pink unicorn), then there is no such thing as science. But there is something.
We know that we have an eternal cause. Something always was (whether matter, energy, a singularity, a metaphysical being). Something must have always existed. There must be some eternal first cause, whatever it was.
We know that we have a timeless cause. If the past is infinite, we would have no present. Imagine going to the deli counter. There you see a red thingy that says "Before you take a ticket, you have to take a ticket from the red thingy to the right." And there’s a sign on that one that says the same thing. And on the next one. And the next. Only if we ever get to one that says "Take a ticket here" can we run the sequence and get back to the counter. We can only get back to the counter if the line of red thingys isn't infinite. Only if the past is finite can there be a present, so the cause of the universe must be timeless.
There must be a personal cause. Impersonal causes must have first causes. Only personal causes are capable of being first causes. Kinetic energy is energy is motion; potential energy is energy stored. The only way something begins in motion is if there is a first cause. What puts a system in motion?
We must have an intelligent cause. There are three types of data (random data, which doesn't require an intelligent cause, ordered data, such as snowflakes, which don't necessarily require an intelligent cause, and information data). There is no example in science that informational data can come from anything but an intelligent cause.
There must be a moral cause. We all know there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil. Though we disagree on some of what goes into those categories, we all subscribe to such objectivities as the existence of right and wrong. If we infer the most reasonable conclusion, we infer an objective moral source for objective moral realities. Without it there is not possible objective evaluation of an action or a thought as good or evil, because such things are only based on opinion and one's own perception. Everything would just be morally blank. There would be nothing wrong with murdering someone, and nothing good about saving a bus full of children from crashing down a cliff. Elaborate complex chemical reactions do not have any moral value or moral agency. Everyone would simply be a physical collection of atoms. Everything would simply just be. Without God, we might live in a MadMax world of insanity and chaos, but we could call that bad—just what is. We might live in a humanist utopia, but we couldn't call that good—just what is.
In other words, the world as we know it can only come from an eternal, timeless, personal, intelligent, powerful, purposeful, moral, free will, meaningful cause. And that's God. He always was. Something always was, and God is the most logical answer.
> If evil does exist, then God does not exist, is not omnipotent, omniscient, and/or is not omnibenevolent.
This is not logically consistent. You can't put this in a reasonable syllogism because your points won't hold. From my side, if what you are saying is true, I have to abandon one of these propositions: God exists, God is omnipotent, God is omniscient, God is omnibenevolent, and evil exists. But none of these propositions formally entail a logical contradiction. To create a necessary contradictions, something must be added, but it has never been done. These premises do not necessarily contradict. The burden of proof is on you to put forth a syllogism that supports your case.
> The underlying assumption is that God communicates through revelations, which, the assumptions made in the definition of God (specifically, existence of omnipotent beings) will make it difficult to validate the authenticity of revelations without using special pleading
It depends what you will accept as validation. If God truly exists, and if he is truly a spirit being, and if he is truly transcendent in his nature, then revelation is the only possible route to knowledge. So what will you accept as validation that is an appropriate measure of the object at hand, viz. the revelation of God? (If, as Christians claim, he is a metaphysical reality, then science, repeatability, experimentation, and solely physical evidences are not necessarily the proper measure, just as science and experimentation are not the proper measure of how to determine how much I love my wife.) So what do you propose?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What would the world look like if God didn't exist?
by Ostrich » Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:07 pm
In physics, things do not begin to exist. The conservation of mass means that things form from other things already in existence. So it is meaningless to state that they have a cause because they begin to exist.In quantum mechanics, things happen which are not caused, such as radioactive decay, or when an atom in an excited energy level loses a photon. No cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.
Your second premise is also flawed, because it simply assumes that the universe has a beginning. Not enough is known about the early stages of the Big Bang or about what, if anything, existed before it. We don't know what the universe was like before the first 10−43 seconds after inflation started and, contrary to your assertions, it is far from certain that the universe had a beginning. Instead, various possibilities exist.
A. Before the expansion started, the universe existed in a stable state eternally.
B.The multiverse could have existed before our universe started.
C. There could have been a Big Crunch prior to the Big Bang. In fact, published cosmological models, such as the Steinhardt–Turok model and Baum–Frampton model describe such Universes.
D. Something else entirely could have existed.
Even the laws of cause and effect that we observe in our universe today had broken down at the point of the singularity, it's not even a plausible premise to conclude that the principles of cause and effect must have operated, never mind existed, before the big bang
1. I don't buy uour reasoning for "personal" first cause. You've included it with poor logical support only to advance a person God agenda. There is no reason why the Universe couldn't be eternal and a-personal and a-moral.
2. Demonstrating that a god is a necessary condition for objective morality requires either one or more a priori arguments to discredit the various alternatives. Secondly, the argument assumes objective morality is consistent with the existence of god, a notion challenged by the Euthyphro dilemma.
3. God exists. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists. Evil exists (logical contradiction).
4. You can't call God eternal, since that would exclude God from the physical world and turn Him into something intangible like a mathematical concept.
5. Revelation, in the simplest form, means "God told/showed me this". It is utterly impossible to validate the authenticity of any divine revelation. Descartes illustrated this.
Without checking the content of the message, it is impossible to distinguish between messages sent by an arbitrary Cartesian daemon and a message sent by a god.
We define a Cartesian daemon to be an (arbitrary) entity who is able to manipulate all of one's senses, dreams, and perceptions, essentially shaping the reality one perceives; or being an conscious intermediary between a person and the reality that person perceives. The method/channels a god chooses to send a message to someone can be used by any other Cartesian daemon(s). No foolproof authentication method can be established since the authentication key has to be sent through one of those methods/channels without the possibility of some other Cartesian daemon imitating it.
Simply, how can we know that the bible wasn't written by the devil? (Wow. What a great question for a new post!)
Your second premise is also flawed, because it simply assumes that the universe has a beginning. Not enough is known about the early stages of the Big Bang or about what, if anything, existed before it. We don't know what the universe was like before the first 10−43 seconds after inflation started and, contrary to your assertions, it is far from certain that the universe had a beginning. Instead, various possibilities exist.
A. Before the expansion started, the universe existed in a stable state eternally.
B.The multiverse could have existed before our universe started.
C. There could have been a Big Crunch prior to the Big Bang. In fact, published cosmological models, such as the Steinhardt–Turok model and Baum–Frampton model describe such Universes.
D. Something else entirely could have existed.
Even the laws of cause and effect that we observe in our universe today had broken down at the point of the singularity, it's not even a plausible premise to conclude that the principles of cause and effect must have operated, never mind existed, before the big bang
1. I don't buy uour reasoning for "personal" first cause. You've included it with poor logical support only to advance a person God agenda. There is no reason why the Universe couldn't be eternal and a-personal and a-moral.
2. Demonstrating that a god is a necessary condition for objective morality requires either one or more a priori arguments to discredit the various alternatives. Secondly, the argument assumes objective morality is consistent with the existence of god, a notion challenged by the Euthyphro dilemma.
3. God exists. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists. Evil exists (logical contradiction).
4. You can't call God eternal, since that would exclude God from the physical world and turn Him into something intangible like a mathematical concept.
5. Revelation, in the simplest form, means "God told/showed me this". It is utterly impossible to validate the authenticity of any divine revelation. Descartes illustrated this.
Without checking the content of the message, it is impossible to distinguish between messages sent by an arbitrary Cartesian daemon and a message sent by a god.
We define a Cartesian daemon to be an (arbitrary) entity who is able to manipulate all of one's senses, dreams, and perceptions, essentially shaping the reality one perceives; or being an conscious intermediary between a person and the reality that person perceives. The method/channels a god chooses to send a message to someone can be used by any other Cartesian daemon(s). No foolproof authentication method can be established since the authentication key has to be sent through one of those methods/channels without the possibility of some other Cartesian daemon imitating it.
Simply, how can we know that the bible wasn't written by the devil? (Wow. What a great question for a new post!)
- Ostrich
Re: What would the world look like if God didn't exist?
by jimwalton » Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:42 pm
I honestly don't expect you to agree with my points. If you did, you would be a Christian.
> In physics, things do not begin to exist.
I know of no scientist who believes that the laws of physics were operational before the Big Bang. Therefore, they began to exist at some point.
> The conservation of mass means that things form from other things already in existence.
The current theory is that the Big Bang came from a singularity, meaning that nothing was already in existence.
> In quantum mechanics...
Just because QM is to some extent characterized by indeterminism doesn't mean it is exempt from causality. It's just that instead of linear cause-and-effect, there are a spectrum of probabilities to the possible outcomes. A network of causes is still causes.
> Your second premise is also flawed, because it simply assumes that the universe has a beginning.
Current scientific consensus is that the universe had a beginning. For now, it's a logical assumption based on our best understanding. You can't just dismiss this because it doesn't fit with your worldview.
> There is no reason why the Universe couldn't be eternal and a-personal and a-moral.
The only reason the universe can't be eternal is because scientists say it wasn't. If the universe is a-personal, then science cannot explain the genesis of personality. Chemicals and physical forces, no matter how much time and chance, don't give rise to personality. Same with morality: if we are nothing but matter + time + chance, then what is simply is. There is no such thing or the possibility of good and bad, right and wrong, only existence and survival. Truth is a non-entity.
> Euthyphro dilemma
The Euthyphro dilemma is a flawed dilemma, but that's the subject of another conversation. It posits a choice between two options, but there are clearly other options, and so it's a false problem.
> God exists. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
Suppose you have a surgeon who is good and moral. Does he really want to prevent all evils? Let's say that the only way to prevent fatal gangrene is to amputate your leg. Has he prevented ALL evils? Suppose you have an oncologist who wants to buy you a few more months of survival, and so he puts you through radiation and chemo that take you to within an inch of death to buy you that time. Has he prevented ALL evils, or has he perpetrated some because he has a greater good in mind? It's not a logical progression to claim that an omnibenevolent being has to prevent all evils to be a moral individual.
> An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
Are there ever events where evils result in a greater good? Where a murder in a community yields love, compassion, help, mercy, togetherness, protection, and a value of life? Then this point doesn't necessarily follow either.
> A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
This doesn't hold either. Supposing that by preventing an evil a greater good is sacrificed? Is not the greater good a superior moral choice, even if it requires the perpetration of some limited evil to bring it about? You haven't gotten close to making your case. People sacrifice and endure all sorts of evils in the quest for a greater good.
> You can't call God eternal, since that would exclude God from the physical world and turn Him into something intangible like a mathematical concept.
It is essential that God is transcendent above the natural world rather than a part of it. That God is part of the physical world is an impossible position. (1) There is no such thing as personality because there is no subject-object relationship, no particularity, only a blank unity. There can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. There is no grounds for diversity or distinction basic to reality; (2) If all is one, there is no difference between good and evil, for all is God. Rape is as acceptable as generosity. These positions are all untenable and in contradiction to the world as we see it.
> Without checking the content of the message, it is impossible to distinguish between messages sent by an arbitrary Cartesian daemon and a message sent by a god.
The only possibility and hope of distinction lies in the reality of objective good and evil. If there is no such thing as evil, then rape, murder, and child abuse are no different than shopping for groceries or taking in a movie. But if there is such a thing as evil, then it must be possible to distinguish between messages sent by a daemon and a message sent by an omnibenevolent God. And that's how we can know that the Bible wasn't written by the devil.
> In physics, things do not begin to exist.
I know of no scientist who believes that the laws of physics were operational before the Big Bang. Therefore, they began to exist at some point.
> The conservation of mass means that things form from other things already in existence.
The current theory is that the Big Bang came from a singularity, meaning that nothing was already in existence.
> In quantum mechanics...
Just because QM is to some extent characterized by indeterminism doesn't mean it is exempt from causality. It's just that instead of linear cause-and-effect, there are a spectrum of probabilities to the possible outcomes. A network of causes is still causes.
> Your second premise is also flawed, because it simply assumes that the universe has a beginning.
Current scientific consensus is that the universe had a beginning. For now, it's a logical assumption based on our best understanding. You can't just dismiss this because it doesn't fit with your worldview.
> There is no reason why the Universe couldn't be eternal and a-personal and a-moral.
The only reason the universe can't be eternal is because scientists say it wasn't. If the universe is a-personal, then science cannot explain the genesis of personality. Chemicals and physical forces, no matter how much time and chance, don't give rise to personality. Same with morality: if we are nothing but matter + time + chance, then what is simply is. There is no such thing or the possibility of good and bad, right and wrong, only existence and survival. Truth is a non-entity.
> Euthyphro dilemma
The Euthyphro dilemma is a flawed dilemma, but that's the subject of another conversation. It posits a choice between two options, but there are clearly other options, and so it's a false problem.
> God exists. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
Suppose you have a surgeon who is good and moral. Does he really want to prevent all evils? Let's say that the only way to prevent fatal gangrene is to amputate your leg. Has he prevented ALL evils? Suppose you have an oncologist who wants to buy you a few more months of survival, and so he puts you through radiation and chemo that take you to within an inch of death to buy you that time. Has he prevented ALL evils, or has he perpetrated some because he has a greater good in mind? It's not a logical progression to claim that an omnibenevolent being has to prevent all evils to be a moral individual.
> An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
Are there ever events where evils result in a greater good? Where a murder in a community yields love, compassion, help, mercy, togetherness, protection, and a value of life? Then this point doesn't necessarily follow either.
> A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
This doesn't hold either. Supposing that by preventing an evil a greater good is sacrificed? Is not the greater good a superior moral choice, even if it requires the perpetration of some limited evil to bring it about? You haven't gotten close to making your case. People sacrifice and endure all sorts of evils in the quest for a greater good.
> You can't call God eternal, since that would exclude God from the physical world and turn Him into something intangible like a mathematical concept.
It is essential that God is transcendent above the natural world rather than a part of it. That God is part of the physical world is an impossible position. (1) There is no such thing as personality because there is no subject-object relationship, no particularity, only a blank unity. There can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. There is no grounds for diversity or distinction basic to reality; (2) If all is one, there is no difference between good and evil, for all is God. Rape is as acceptable as generosity. These positions are all untenable and in contradiction to the world as we see it.
> Without checking the content of the message, it is impossible to distinguish between messages sent by an arbitrary Cartesian daemon and a message sent by a god.
The only possibility and hope of distinction lies in the reality of objective good and evil. If there is no such thing as evil, then rape, murder, and child abuse are no different than shopping for groceries or taking in a movie. But if there is such a thing as evil, then it must be possible to distinguish between messages sent by a daemon and a message sent by an omnibenevolent God. And that's how we can know that the Bible wasn't written by the devil.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What would the world look like if God didn't exist?
by Ostrich » Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:57 pm
> I know of no scientist who believes that the laws of physics were operational before the Big Bang. Therefore, they began to exist at some point.
We're playing semantics here. You're claiming that a car begins to exist, while I'm claiming that the steel, plastic and rubber already existed. Just in another form.
> The current theory is that the Big Bang came from a singularity, meaning that nothing was already in existence.
That's not what it means. Nothing can't be a something (singularity).
> Chemicals and physical forces, no matter how much time and chance, don't give rise to personality.
yes they can. Evolution explains this.
> Euthyphro dilemma
Still doesn't explain how YOU can understand or predict what God will view as good or evil. This seems to indicate that the believer already has some personal moral code separate from religion, and is able to formulate an opinion of what actions would be "good" or "bad."
> A surgeon. an oncologist.....
An omnipotent surgeon could heal the leg without amputation.
> Are there ever events where evils result in a greater good?
If this is what you're claiming then you're redefining evil acts actually as "good". So that evil doesn't exist if a "greater good" results. Which is also arbitrary. A mother who lost her son could claim that community, mercy, love is NOT a great good than having her son's life back. You're illustrating that morality is subjective. And/or that You somehow have a special insight into God's definitions of Good/Evil. Where in a murder is actually a good thing if it results in arbitrarily defined "good" consequences. This very easily leads to the argument that God condones the rape of a 13 year old girl. As long as she becomes pregnant and her son becomes a doctor.
> It is essential that God is transcendent above the natural world rather than a part of it.
Then miracles cannot exist. If defined as God changing the laws of the universe to fit His will. Also prayer as anything more than meditation is useless. The virgin birth and Jesus himself are impossible if God remains outside of the natural world.
> The only possibility and hope of distinction lies in the reality of objective good and evil.
To claim to know what is "evil" and what is "good" BEFORE receiving the divine message indicates that a list already exists for the receiver. Who gave this list to the receiver?
We're playing semantics here. You're claiming that a car begins to exist, while I'm claiming that the steel, plastic and rubber already existed. Just in another form.
> The current theory is that the Big Bang came from a singularity, meaning that nothing was already in existence.
That's not what it means. Nothing can't be a something (singularity).
> Chemicals and physical forces, no matter how much time and chance, don't give rise to personality.
yes they can. Evolution explains this.
> Euthyphro dilemma
Still doesn't explain how YOU can understand or predict what God will view as good or evil. This seems to indicate that the believer already has some personal moral code separate from religion, and is able to formulate an opinion of what actions would be "good" or "bad."
> A surgeon. an oncologist.....
An omnipotent surgeon could heal the leg without amputation.
> Are there ever events where evils result in a greater good?
If this is what you're claiming then you're redefining evil acts actually as "good". So that evil doesn't exist if a "greater good" results. Which is also arbitrary. A mother who lost her son could claim that community, mercy, love is NOT a great good than having her son's life back. You're illustrating that morality is subjective. And/or that You somehow have a special insight into God's definitions of Good/Evil. Where in a murder is actually a good thing if it results in arbitrarily defined "good" consequences. This very easily leads to the argument that God condones the rape of a 13 year old girl. As long as she becomes pregnant and her son becomes a doctor.
> It is essential that God is transcendent above the natural world rather than a part of it.
Then miracles cannot exist. If defined as God changing the laws of the universe to fit His will. Also prayer as anything more than meditation is useless. The virgin birth and Jesus himself are impossible if God remains outside of the natural world.
> The only possibility and hope of distinction lies in the reality of objective good and evil.
To claim to know what is "evil" and what is "good" BEFORE receiving the divine message indicates that a list already exists for the receiver. Who gave this list to the receiver?
- Ostrich
Re: What would the world look like if God didn't exist?
by jimwalton » Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:11 pm
> Evolution explains this.
Evolution doesn't even get close to explaining this. It assumes it. "Well, we have personality, so it must have happened." It's just a god-of-the-gaps argument that has no evidence or logic to support it.
> An omnipotent surgeon could heal the leg without amputation.
You've missed the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy is not the healing (of course an omnipotent surgeon could heal the leg without amputation), but that in medicine pain and suffering are a necessary road to the good. And yet you don't judge a doctor as immoral because he allows or even causes pain and suffering.
> If this is what you're claiming then you're redefining evil acts actually as "good".
Then you are missing this point too. I'm not claim evil is good; I'm claiming that for a good person to allow evil is not (1) impossible, or (2) a contradiction to his goodness, which is what you were claiming.
> A mother who lost her son could claim that community, mercy, love is NOT a great good than having her son's life back.
I agree with you.
> You're illustrating that morality is subjective.
Not at all. I'm am showing that for evil to exist doesn't mean that the person who allows it isn't good.
> Where in a murder is actually a good thing if it results in arbitrarily defined "good" consequences.
No, I'm not saying that murder is ever a good thing. What I'm saying is the the broader picture can possibly change the argument you are trying to make. It's not a contradiction for a person to be good and for evil to exist.
> "It is essential that God is transcendent above the natural world rather than a part of it." Then miracles cannot exist.
This doesn't follow in the least. Because God is NOT part of the world is what enables him to act outside of it. Because the universe is NOT a closed system is what makes miracles possible—because no one can guarantee that there aren't metaphysical realities and spiritual forces. If the universe were a closed system (if God and nature were codependent), then miracles cannot exist. But that is not the case.
> If defined as God changing the laws of the universe to fit His will.
That's not how I define miracles.
> Also prayer as anything more than meditation is useless.
There's nothing about this that follows along any lines of your case.
> To claim to know what is "evil" and what is "good" BEFORE receiving the divine message indicates that a list already exists for the receiver. Who gave this list to the receiver?
God did. Objective morality is based on His nature and attributes that we know from his revelation to us. Also, the Bible teaches that morality is built into us (we all have a sense of right and wrong), and so we were given "this list" as part of human nature.
Evolution doesn't even get close to explaining this. It assumes it. "Well, we have personality, so it must have happened." It's just a god-of-the-gaps argument that has no evidence or logic to support it.
> An omnipotent surgeon could heal the leg without amputation.
You've missed the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy is not the healing (of course an omnipotent surgeon could heal the leg without amputation), but that in medicine pain and suffering are a necessary road to the good. And yet you don't judge a doctor as immoral because he allows or even causes pain and suffering.
> If this is what you're claiming then you're redefining evil acts actually as "good".
Then you are missing this point too. I'm not claim evil is good; I'm claiming that for a good person to allow evil is not (1) impossible, or (2) a contradiction to his goodness, which is what you were claiming.
> A mother who lost her son could claim that community, mercy, love is NOT a great good than having her son's life back.
I agree with you.
> You're illustrating that morality is subjective.
Not at all. I'm am showing that for evil to exist doesn't mean that the person who allows it isn't good.
> Where in a murder is actually a good thing if it results in arbitrarily defined "good" consequences.
No, I'm not saying that murder is ever a good thing. What I'm saying is the the broader picture can possibly change the argument you are trying to make. It's not a contradiction for a person to be good and for evil to exist.
> "It is essential that God is transcendent above the natural world rather than a part of it." Then miracles cannot exist.
This doesn't follow in the least. Because God is NOT part of the world is what enables him to act outside of it. Because the universe is NOT a closed system is what makes miracles possible—because no one can guarantee that there aren't metaphysical realities and spiritual forces. If the universe were a closed system (if God and nature were codependent), then miracles cannot exist. But that is not the case.
> If defined as God changing the laws of the universe to fit His will.
That's not how I define miracles.
> Also prayer as anything more than meditation is useless.
There's nothing about this that follows along any lines of your case.
> To claim to know what is "evil" and what is "good" BEFORE receiving the divine message indicates that a list already exists for the receiver. Who gave this list to the receiver?
God did. Objective morality is based on His nature and attributes that we know from his revelation to us. Also, the Bible teaches that morality is built into us (we all have a sense of right and wrong), and so we were given "this list" as part of human nature.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests