An Argument for God (hell, atheism, quote, contradictions)

[The Matrix]

Since there are few philosophical arguments for God’s existence mentioned here, I thought I might give it a try. It's been years since I've really tried to outline one of these, and it's a bit long (if anyone has a better or clearer way to state it, I'm all ears). And it may not be the easiest to follow. Sorry about that But this argument is inherently (maybe even notoriously) difficult--so stay with it and let me know what you think! I'm looking forward to comments. I hope some of you are able to read through it!

Let’s first distinguish between arguments that are meant to be proofs (which would usually be taken to mean that the case is closed), and those arguments that don’t prove, but provide rational justification for belief. I think I’ve said this before, but I don’t know of ANY proofs for ANYTHING important or controversial--in other words, there are no arguments free of at least some controversies. But there are arguments for the rationality of positions and beliefs, and these don’t need to be air-tight; they only need to lend support to a belief. Again: there don’t seem to be any air-tight proofs for anything important. I'm going to give an argument for the rational justification of belief in God, and not a proof.

Second, there are at least two different kinds of argument or evidence: (1) there are arguments based on premises and deductive (or inductive) reasoning, which can involve empirical evidence, like what we might get from history or science; or strictly conceptual or definitional considerations; and (2) existential considerations. For example, when you say “well, God never spoke to me or revealed himself to me,” that is not a rational argument, but something asking for existential confirmation. These kinds of questions and comments don’t count as “rational evidence,” but as existential confirmation which should be balanced by rational considerations.

Ok. Here is an adaptation of Leibniz’s cosmological argument. This argument begins with the question, “why is there something rather than nothing?” There must be a sufficient reason why something exists. And this reason must be necessary, or there is no reason for anything. The argument could be put something like this:

(1) There is a reason for everything that exists, either in the nature or essence of the thing (in which case the thing would be a necessary being), or in its cause (in which case the thing is a contingent being, and it is possible for it to not exist).

Another way to state this: for anything that might not exist, there is a reason why it, and not something else, exists. The reason for a thing is usually associated with its cause. A domino falls because another domino topples into it. A pot of water boils because there is fire under it. We would not think that the boiling water or the falling domino simply have no explanation whatsoever. And we would not say that something can exist without having any reason for its existence. There is a reason for everything. Indeed, why do we think we can discover the workings of the natural world? It is because we think that there are explanations and we have access to them in some way.

(2) The universe does not contain the reason for its own existence, and, hence, we must look elsewhere for the explanation/cause.

Two things I want to say here. First, the Big Bang suggests (more strongly: urges) that the universe had a beginning. For all we know, and all science seems to have shown us, this is a rational, reasonable position to hold. Second, let’s say (instead) that the universe had no beginning. Let’s say, like a line of cosmic dominoes, the universe is eternal. But even then, there must be a reason for the series itself (as there is for a line of dominoes). There must be an explanation for the universe, that is, for the series of contingent things, even if it has no beginning, because it is possible that the universe never existed. And if it’s possible that it never existed, then there must be a reason or explanation for why it DOES exist (since it might not have existed). So, if the universe has a beginning, or not, it doesn't matter, since there must be a reason for its existence.

(3) If the cause of the universe is contingent, we must again look for another cause to find the sufficient reason for existence.

(4) And so there must be a necessary being (that is, a being that contains the reason for its own existence, as well as the existence of everything else) to explain why there is something rather than nothing. For only a necessary being can be the sufficient explanation for existence.

(5) Furthermore, this necessary being, which is the reason for the existence of the universe, and contains the reason for its own existence, must be omnipotent, since it is the cause of everything; and it must be intelligent, since it is the grounds for all possibility, out of which this universe came to exist, and out of which anything is possible at all; and it must have the capacity to act and the will to choose, from out of which one possible world was chosen from the infinitely many that could have been (for if it was completely random, then there would be no reason for why there is something rather than nothing).

Again: a cause cannot act without there being a disposition towards that action. And the necessary cause of the universe must have such a disposition towards causing THIS universe, out of all the infinite possibilities. If there was no inclination whatsoever, how could this universe come to exist, out of all the possible universes? And so the necessary being from which the universe came to exist must have power, in order to be the cause of the existence of all things; and inclination, to be able to choose one of the uncountable possible worlds; and intelligence by which all these possibilities are understood; and this being must have these attributes to an infinite degree (omniscience, omnipotence), or else there can be no sufficient answer to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?”

If the necessary cause of the universe is not infinitely intelligent and immeasurably powerful with a capacity to choose from among all the infinite possible worlds, then the cause would not contain the final explanation for existence. The question would simply be pushed back until we do reach an infinite being, for nothing contingent can be the reason, and nothing limited in intelligence or power could be a sufficient reason. If there are limits on the necessary cause of all things, then there would still be a question as to why THIS world, and not some other world exists--there would have to be a reason for the limitations on the necessary being. And so we would thus need to turn elsewhere for the final explanation, to a necessary being that has no limits.

(6) Hence, this necessary being is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibelevolent.

(7) Hence, God exists, that is, a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevlent and necessary.

Thus we have a final explanation for truth, a ground for possibility, and a reason for why there is something rather than nothing, and why THIS world exists rather than another. This cause, which contains the reason for all things, is God.

Now, there are places where this argument can be questioned. Maybe it's not stated rigorously enough (it isn't). But by no means do I think this argument is ridiculous, or specious, but profound and grand, following in a long tradition rooted in Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. I hope some of you will agree.

[Haaziq]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

(1) There is a reason for everything that exists, either in the nature or essence of the thing (in which case the thing would be a necessary being), or in its cause (in which case the thing is a contingent being, and it is possible for it to not exist).

Another way to state this: for anything that might not exist, there is a reason why it, and not something else, exists. The reason for a thing is usually associated with its cause. A domino falls because another domino topples into it. A pot of water boils because there is fire under it. We would not think that the boiling water or the falling domino simply have no explanation whatsoever. And we would not say that something can exist without having any reason for its existence. There is a reason for everything. Indeed, why do we think we can discover the workings of the natural world? It is because we think that there are explanations and we have access to them in some way.

That is very subjective. There is no rule or law that everything in existence must have a purpose.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

(2) The universe does not contain the reason for its own existence, and, hence, we must look elsewhere for the explanation/cause.

Two things I want to say here. First, the Big Bang suggests (more strongly: urges) that the universe had a beginning. For all we know, and all science seems to have shown us, this is a rational, reasonable position to hold. Second, let’s say (instead) that the universe had no beginning. Let’s say, like a line of cosmic dominoes, the universe is eternal. But even then, there must be a reason for the series itself (as there is for a line of dominoes). There must be an explanation for the universe, that is, for the series of contingent things, even if it has no beginning, because it is possible that the universe never existed. And if it’s possible that it never existed, then there must be a reason or explanation for why it DOES exist (since it might not have existed). So, if the universe has a beginning, or not, it doesn't matter, since there must be a reason for its existence.

You must not know that much about the Big Bang. The contents that make up the universe have always existed. They just didn't form a universe prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang began the period of time that we live in, but is most certainly not the beginning of existence. Once again, you are speaking subjectively, as there is no rule or law that everything in existence must have a reason to exist.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

(3) If the cause of the universe is contingent, we must again look for another cause to find the sufficient reason for existence.

If the contents of the universe have always existed, then if something is probable, no matter how small the chances, it will happen if given enough time.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

(4) And so there must be a necessary being (that is, a being that contains the reason for its own existence, as well as the existence of everything else) to explain why there is something rather than nothing. For only a necessary being can be the sufficient explanation for existence.

Subjective. You really like forming arguments based on your perception of things.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

(5) Furthermore, this necessary being, which is the reason for the existence of the universe, and contains the reason for its own existence, must be omnipotent, since it is the cause of everything; and it must be intelligent, since it is the grounds for all possibility, out of which this universe came to exist, and out of which anything is possible at all;

You'd have to raise the question of where this power and intelligence came from. You aren't born knowing things. Omnipotence is a contradiction of itself and giving your god that attribute negates his existence. Do I really have to bring up the old argument showing the paradox of omnipotence?

Originally Posted by The Matrix

and it must have the capacity to act and the will to choose, from out of which one possible world was chosen from the infinitely many that could have been (for if it was completely random, then there would be no reason for why there is something rather than nothing).

Ok, so you're essentially saying that if there is no purpose or reason for things to exist, then they wouldn't exist. Once again, that is subjective.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Again: a cause cannot act without there being a disposition towards that action. And the necessary cause of the universe must have such a disposition towards causing THIS universe, out of all the infinite possibilities. If there was no inclination whatsoever, how could this universe come to exist, out of all the possible universes? And so the necessary being from which the universe came to exist must have power, in order to be the cause of the existence of all things; and inclination, to be able to choose one of the uncountable possible worlds; and intelligence by which all these possibilities are understood; and this being must have these attributes to an infinite degree (omniscience, omnipotence), or else there can be no sufficient answer to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?”

Out of all the infinite possibilities, why is a creator required? And if there is a creator, what created it? You can't try to argue that creation is necessary and exclude the creator you believe in. It just doesn't work. You're speaking absolutely with an exception.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

If the necessary cause of the universe is not infinitely intelligent and immeasurably powerful with a capacity to choose from among all the infinite possible worlds, then the cause would not contain the final explanation for existence. The question would simply be pushed back until we do reach an infinite being, for nothing contingent can be the reason, and nothing limited in intelligence or power could be a sufficient reason. If there are limits on the necessary cause of all things, then there would still be a question as to why THIS world, and not some other world exists--there would have to be a reason for the limitations on the necessary being. And so we would thus need to turn elsewhere for the final explanation, to a necessary being that has no limits.

Tsk tsk, subjective. You're basing your arguments on your own perception of how the universe works.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

(6) Hence, this necessary being is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibelevolent.

Prove that it is necessary without using personal opinions.

Omnipotence and omniscience both negate his existence because they are impossible. If you don't know about the contradictions in the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience, I suggest you do a little research.

And you can not suggest that god is omnibenevolent if you say things exist for a reason. If that's the case, then evil was created or had a beginning. If everything in existence has a purpose (according to you), then you must address the existence of evil. Not to mention, if god is perfect and we were created, then we'd be perfect. Perfection begets perfection.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

(7) Hence, God exists, that is, a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevlent and necessary.

Thus we have a final explanation for truth, a ground for possibility, and a reason for why there is something rather than nothing, and why THIS world exists rather than another. This cause, which contains the reason for all things, is God.

Now, there are places where this argument can be questioned. Maybe it's not stated rigorously enough (it isn't). But by no means do I think this argument is ridiculous, or specious, but profound and grand, following in a long tradition rooted in Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. I hope some of you will agree.

Your whole arguments for believing are very subjective.

[june 7th]

June has to say she agrees with Haaziq, here!

"Being" and "meaning" are subjective, existential variables.

The way June sees it, reason---->perception------>subjective----->explanation------>subjectivity------>perspective/reason all over again.

In other words, (in the interests of simplification) you and I can look at the exact same thing, and we both see something different in our views. You and I, in looking at a tree, would both describe the tree, but in different terms, words, and so forth. Yet we both "experience" the same thing. Our perspectives are subjective. Our reason is also subjective.

What is it that separates Aristotle from Descartes from Sartre from Lao Tzu?

All attempt to address the same things, albiet, subjectively based on reason and subjectivity.

--At least that's what June suspects, subjectively speaking, that is!


Take gentle ontological care!

[The Matrix]

Haaziq, I thank you for taking the time to read my post. Let me ask you something, which I hope will not, and is not intended to, offend. Have you studied any philosophical arguments--of the cosmological type--for God's existence? I hope you take the opportunity to think a bit more about the objections you raise. I'm not at all suggesting that you will be convinced, but I do hope you see that much of what you say misses the mark. The argument I gave, which I did not invent, is not easy to understand, but requires some patience and thought. (And maybe I have not been the best in explaining it, either)

Originally Posted by Haaziq

That is very subjective. There is no rule or law that everything in existence must have a purpose.

The principle at work here is not that everything has a "purpose," but that everything has a reason or cause.

And throughout your response you insist what I say is "subjective," but you don't really explain what this means. Do you mean it's simply my opinion? That would be a bald assertion. Show us exactly why you say this. Give REASONS for your claims--and my insisting that you give reasons assumes that you HAVE reasons, and are not simply speaking without any cause. And so, assuming there is a reason for your categorical denial of the principle that everything has a sufficient reason is simply my way of affirming this principle.

Originally Posted by Haaziq

You must not know that much about the Big Bang. The contents that make up the universe have always existed. They just didn't form a universe prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang began the period of time that we live in, but is most certainly not the beginning of existence. Once again, you are speaking subjectively, as there is no rule or law that everything in existence must have a reason to exist.

Good! You state the principle correctly here (everything in existence must have a reason why it exists). Now I ask you: why do you think it is merely subjective? Don't say: "prove that it's not." You are making a positive claim, and I would like to see your reasons (and I am assuming you have them ) for your denial of this principle--a principle which seems to be behind all rational thought and investigation. This principle is assumed in all our interactions with and in the world. It is, in a word, reasonable (or something very much like it is). So why do you deny it?

About your comments on the Big Bang. Two things. First: You are making a (in my judgment) wild assertion, without any attempt to back it up. What REASON (again, we are asking for reasons) can you give for why the contents of the universe have always existed? Such a claim has NOTHING to do with the Big Bang--it is something that some people have speculated about. The Big Bang itself can be viewed as evidence against your claim (maybe not conclusive, but quite reasonable evidence). Second: it doesn't matter if the universe, or its contents, have always existed, as you assert. The argument I give goes through regardless.

Originally Posted by Haaziq

If the contents of the universe have always existed, then if something is probable, no matter how small the chances, it will happen if given enough time.

So, you're saying that given enough time you would come to believe in God?

In any case, I don't see what this has to do with what I said. It looks like a non sequitur. Even so, I nonetheless can see no reason why this would be true. "given enough time" doesn't guarantee anything at all. It is logically possible that the same thing (or things) be repeated again and again, without every possible thing actually happening. But as I said, this seems like an irrelevant claim on your part.

The point--and I think you've missed it--is that even if the universe (or its contents) has always existed, it is still nonetheless logically possible for it to have not existed. And if it's possible for it to not exist, then why does it exist? The question is legitimate, and demands an answer.

Originally Posted by Haaziq

Subjective. You really like forming arguments based on your perception of things.

And a good morning to you as well. By the way, the step which you critique here is meant to logically follow from the previous premises of the argument. I'm starting to think you are not really following the reasoning?

Originally Posted by Haaziq

You'd have to raise the question of where this power and intelligence came from.

Wrong. It is the conclusion of the argument. You can of course attack the steps leading up to it, though.

Originally Posted by Haaziq

You aren't born knowing things.

That's something that has been debated for over 2000 years. Some people have thought there are innate ideas, or innate knowledge (like Plato, Leibniz, Descartes, etc.), and others have denied it (like Aquinas and Locke). The jury's still out for me. In any case, this has no bearing on the current argument.

Originally Posted by Haaziq

Omnipotence is a contradiction of itself and giving your god that attribute negates his existence. Do I really have to bring up the old argument showing the paradox of omnipotence?

No, you don't. I'm aware of these sorts of arguments. To be brief: there is a difference between a paradox and a contradiction. And I have yet to see any contradiction. I hesitate to ask this of you (since I really don't want to go off on a tangent), but can you prove there is a contradiction? From all that I have seen, there is none.

Originally Posted by Haaziq

Ok, so you're essentially saying that if there is no purpose or reason for things to exist, then they wouldn't exist. Once again, that is subjective.

Okay, I'll affirm that: if there is no reason, then it can't exist. Explain why you deny it, since I have no doubt there is a REASON for it.

Originally Posted by Haaziq

Out of all the infinite possibilities, why is a creator required? And if there is a creator, what created it? You can't try to argue that creation is necessary and exclude the creator you believe in. It just doesn't work. You're speaking absolutely with an exception.

What are you saying here? I don't follow you. It looks like you might just be denying the conclusion of the argument without providing any reason?

Originally Posted by Haaziq

And you can not suggest that god is omnibenevolent if you say things exist for a reason. If that's the case, then evil was created or had a beginning. If everything in existence has a purpose (according to you), then you must address the existence of evil. Not to mention, if god is perfect and we were created, then we'd be perfect. Perfection begets perfection.

Thank you for pointing out that I included "omnibenevolence." That was a mistake. So please cross it off the list of attributes we're talking about in the argument.

As for the rest of what you say--about the problem of evil--while I don't agree with you, might I suggest putting that issue to the side for now? Let's stick to the main issue, on whether this argument could work to provide rational support for belief in a God.

But let me just say a few things in response. Yes, evil had a beginning. But God is neither the author or cause of evil: we are. Our intellect is the author of evil, and our will is the cause. And we cannot say that God would have created us "perfect," since no created being can be perfect--only God can be perfect. Limitations by nature belong to created things, and anything with a limited nature cannot be perfect.

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by june 7th

Take gentle ontological care!

And I agree with June here!

[Haaziq]

I just noticed your response, but I'm getting ready to go to work.

I'll be happy to post a reply when I get home tonight.

[GCSTroop]

Matrix,

I began to respond as I've gone through the whole philosophical, cosmological thing before. I'm more scientifically minded at heart and I have to say I'm much more interested in the way science takes the approach to task rather than philosophy. However, I do, on occassion, enjoy engaging in matters of philosophical debate, but I prefer to use science within it. So, I hope you don't mind but I think I find this answer to be wholly more logical as explained by randomness.


To say that everything has a "reason" or a "purpose" is a little misleading. For one, it leads one to automatically make the mental leap of assuming that there is a pre-defined objective for things. Rather, the laws of standard physics along with quantum physics tell us that the reason things behave the way they do is because of the increasing disorder in the universe. Eggs splatter but don't unsplatter, cokes spill but don't unspill, etc... etc... This is the flow of times' arrow completely explainable by the laws of physics as a result of the Big Bang.

However, your question seems to be more cognicant of what precluded the Big Bang as the Big Bang must have had a cause (whether the product of randomness or divine interaction).

What I do find to be slightly askewed in this argument is the encompassment of infinity. I want to throw this your way because mathematics and physics are getting awfully close to proving this theory as true:

In an infinite universe with endless possibilities it should be safe to assume that all things could happen as the product of randomness. Cosmological constants within this universe are "just so" because they had the luxury of billions of trillions of trillions of other possibilities within an infinite universe. To further on that, in an infinite universe with infinite possibilities, we can encompass a 10-dimensional Master Universe with an extra dimension for time (or duration).

What does this mean? Let me try to explain it a little better. In an 11-dimensional universe, with infinite space and infinite time (time is a function of matter by the way) it is entirely possible to imagine that other universes exist outside of this universe. But why stop there? If there can be another universe outside of this one, why not another one? And another one? And another one? And soon what we might realize is that within infinite space and with infinite possibilities, there could be a wholly other "The Matrix" who decides to stop reading this at this point in my explanation. And from there, that person would go about his own path. In this universe, you might continue reading but every decision, every choice, every opportunity that you act on or don't act on is all a possibility within infinity. To really boggle your mind, it's also a theoretical possibility that all the events throughout the history of a universe that had the same causes and effects, the same formations of galaxies, supernovas, hypernovas, Milky Way's, Earth's, and human evolution to the point of you being born are all a possibility. Why? Because we are talking about infinity.

So, why go on about this tangent? Because it is merely a matter of wondering about the cause and effect of all of this. If there are indeed choices that we make within life, they are all contained within the Master Dimension (I'm not making this stuff up, I promise) and therefore every cause, and every effect is all contained with this Dimension. All possible Big Bangs, all possible universes with their own beginning and endings, all humans who make their own choices on different universes, with different Earth's, with different opportunities that all run parallel to your life, are all contained with the Master Dimension.

Superstring Theory describes large vibrating "strings" within the Master Dimension that create the first inklings of matter.

Believe me, it sounds absolutely nuts, but it makes a lot of sense when you think about. Within infinity all things are possible and that's a product of randomness not a product of an omnipotent force. Within infinity, all things are possible to include every single cause and effect.

In all, I prefer to use Occam's Razor and say that the universe just exists is a much simpler explanation than an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who needed no infinite regress of cause and effect himself just because he allegedly lives outside any natural realm.

[Haaziq]

Wow..

I agree with GCSTroop 100%. I don't even need to say much now.

On the contents of the universe. Energy and matter can not be created nor destroyed (first law of thermodynamics). Every physical object is made up for energy and matter. If something can't be created nor destroyed, it can not be nonexistent one minute and exist the next minute. So basically, neither can have a beginning.

About my contradiction statement..
I was going to type an explanation myself, but I managed to stumble upon this article by a guy who takes the time to explain it better than I ever could.

What does it mean to be all-powerful?


Omnipotence, sometimes known as being all-powerful, refers to God’s ability to do absolutely anything God wants. This characteristic is usually treated as implied from God’s characteristic as absolute creator. If God is capable of creating all of existence (whether ex nihilo or ex deo), it is felt that it would be nonsensical to then assert that there are things beyond God’s abilities. Any being capable of creating existence itself must therefore be capable of anything at all — right? Unfortunately, the most absolute sense of omnipotent has been found to be incoherent. If God were truly omnipotent in an absolute and unlimited sense, then God could be capable of both existing and not existing at the same time, meaning that every form of theism and every form of atheism would be equally justified at all times simultaneously.

Such a God could be capable of informing humans of certain requirements for attaining heaven and avoiding hell but actually holding to entirely different requirements without ever actually lying.

Clearly, then, any coherent understanding of God and God’s nature requires theologians to place limits of some sort upon God’s alleged omnipotence. The first and most basic limit, designed to avoid problems like those described above, is that of logic: God’s omnipotence means that God can do anything that is logically possible to do. Thus, God cannot make 2 + 2 equal 5, God cannot both simultaneously exist and not exist, and God cannot lie and tell the truth at the same time.
If omnipotence were God’s only attribute, the logical limitations might be sufficient; however, other limitations have been found to be necessary because of the many other attributes which people tend to assume that God has. Without these limitations, their definition of God would be logically contradictory and it would be reasonable to conclude that God, as defined, cannot exist.
For example, can God sit down? Although some conceptions of gods in the past allowed for them to be able to sit down, classic philosophical theism has always postulated a non-material, disembodied divinity. Thus, it simply would not be possible for God to sit down — an apparent contradiction to omnipotence, especially since I am capable of sitting down all I want.
To consider another example, is God capable of committing evil? Or, to use a Christian context, can God sin? Once again, some theistic systems have imagined gods capable of all manner of horrible things; philosophical theism, however, has always imagined a perfectly good God. It is inconceivable to believers in such a god that it would ever sin or do evil — even though humans are obviously quite capable of it.
As a consequence, another common limitation to omnipotence which has developed in philosophy and theology is that God can do anything which is compatible with God’s nature. Sitting down is not compatible with the nature of a non-material being. Sinning is not compatible with the nature of a perfectly good being. Thus, God may not be able to sit down or sin, but those aren’t “really” contradictions with divine omnipotence because this new definition of omnipotence excludes anything contradictory to the nature of the being in question.
If that isn’t bad enough, philosophers and theologians have found themselves devising a number of others limitations upon the definition of omnipotence in order to allow for many more things which God cannot do while retaining the characteristic of omnipotence. A detailed examination of these restrictions is left for another time; what is important to see here is that “omnipotence” has been whittled down bit by bit until there is very little left of the original concept. Arguably, you and I are “omnipotent” under some of these “refined” conceptions of omnipotence that have become so weak. Any conception of omnipotence which could allow us to argue that we are also omnipotent has become a conception of impotence, especially when combined with the observation that we are capable of many things well outside the ability of this allegedly omnipotent God.

Saying something subjective is similar to saying something based on your own opinion. Not to say that you were the first to think of the those arguments.

And there is no chance of me ever becoming a believer. At least not until I'm presented with irrefutable evidence of a creator's existence.

[The Matrix]

Hi Troop,

Thanks for writing such a thoughtful post. I certainly think science can play a crucial role in many of these types of debates, and I'm very happy to have your input from the scientific quarter. At its heart, though, this strikes me as more philosophy than science. And though your account leans heavily on science, it's really metaphysics--the backbone of the theories you're talking about is mathematical metaphysics, i.e., mathematical models of the structure of being, of reality. So I think we're pretty much solidly in the philosophical domain. There could be argument about what I'm suggesting, but that would in my opinion be semantics.

In any case, a few things came to mind as I read your account. Near the end you say:

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Believe me, it sounds absolutely nuts...

Which I think is very interesting. In some way I think ANY model of reality, ANY "final theory" of ontology or being is going to "sound absolutely nuts." In the end we are left scratching our heads, and leaving with more questions than answers. But the fact that we think there ARE answers is foundational. We relate to the world AS IF there were reasons for the way things are. In fact, your entire account is an explanation, a reason, meant to be a final answer in some way. It's obviously a hypothesis, and I don't think you truly believe it (do you?); but it might be true. But the very fact that we have such hypotheses seems to confirm the principle that everything has a sufficient reason. When someone falls over dead, we don't say there is nothing to account for it in the slightest. When the pot of water boils, there is a cause, a reason. Contemporary science is, if nothing else, motivated and compelled forward by this principle that there are reasons for things. Why else are people trying to have a "grand unification theory"? We believe there are reasons why things happen, and why things are the way they are.

I'm not really going to argue with your general account. I agree with you; I've done some reading about superstrings and it sounds crazy. But it has an elegance to it, which I admire. Nonetheless, it is metaphysical speculation--you might take that as an insult. By it's not. You ask, if there can be another universe outside of this one, why not another, and another, and another? This is obviously speculation of the most metaphysical sort. But there is no sufficient reason to believe that these other universes exist. And this sort of idea isn't new. David Lewis thought of something very much like it in philosophy--a view called "modal realism" meant to account for the truth of our statements of possibility, like "it is possible for me to be president." Well, in a "possible world" my "counterpart" is president (we cant say it really WAS me, since I live in this world, not that other possible world). Every one of these possible worlds is an entire universe, each one separated by space and time from every other world. But one of the objections to his metaphysical theory is that we could have absolutely no way of ever knowing if these other "possible worlds" exists, since they are all completely separated from ours--we have absolutely no physical access to any other world. And I believe a similar problem faces superstring theory and master dimensions. How could we ever know?

Science rests on metaphysical assumptions to some degree. But I think that the "master dimension," or the "landscape" or whatever we want to call it--the landscape of all universes we speculate exist--that the demand for an answer would still be there. Why is there such a landscape? Why is there a master dimension of wiggling strings? It is not necessarily the case that it exist. And if it is possible that it not exist, then why does it? We need to look elsewhere for such an answer, since what is contingent, even if it is eternal, cannot account for its own existence. There must be a reason for it. And so there must be a necessary being that is the "final answer" which is the reason for all contingent things (including the master dimension), and which contains the reason for its own existence (which is to say it is a necessary being).

So the argument doesn't hinge on showing that there was a beginning to the universe, or that there is a first cause. The argument doesn't turn on a causal theory, but the principle that there is a reason for everything. And this is motivated by the profound and perplexing question: why is there something rather than nothing? And the only answer that can satisfy this question is that there is a necessary being.

You wrote:

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Within infinity all things are possible and that's a product of randomness not a product of an omnipotent force. Within infinity, all things are possible to include every single cause and effect.

Maybe this is true. Maybe "all things are possible" granted infinity. But it does not follow from this that all things are actual if we grant infinity. Now, the "infinity" we're talking about here is the master dimension, which is at worst a wild speculation, and at best an interesting hypothesis (I fall somewhere between these two extremes). We need to first grant that there is such a thing as this infinite landscape before we can freely claim that all these things are possible.

But suppose we grant the landscape, and we grant that all things are possible. It doesn't follow (I think I just said this above?) that all things are actual. This is the mistake that Thomas Aquinas made in one of his arguments for God's existence. He used the following principle: if it is POSSIBLE for something to not exist, then at one time it did NOT exist. But I don't think the consequent follows the antecedent. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it will actually be the case. Just because it is possible that the universe might never have existed doesn't entail that at one time it did not--it might be eternal.

Something is required to make a possibility actual. That is, there must be a reason for why a possibility becomes actually real. And so there can be doubt about Aquinas' principle. And likewise there is doubt about the possibility in the master dimension: just because a universe is possible doesn't entail that it is actually real. And if it is actual, there has to be a reason why. So in a sense I think it is getting things "ontologically backwards," putting the cart before the horse, by claiming that "whatever is possible is going to be actually the case" (if we grant to omni-verse). This is the reverse order. We ought not grant existence to a possibility, simply because it is possible, but only those possibilities that have reasons to exist.

And this means that there still must be an explanation for the existence of our universe, with all its "fine-tuning." There must be a "designer," as it were. But this is a different argument, which I'm not now giving.

Lastly, all this talk of possibilities puts front and center the need to explain why there are possibilities at all--why there are "things" that do not exist, but could. This sounds crazy! (and it is really one of the most puzzling things you could think about) The only suitable explanation for infinite possibilities would be a necessary being. God is the ground of possibilities, and without him, nothing would be possible. Or so I would argue. (And by the way, Occam believed in God ).

Now, you might in some way be uneasy with saying that all things need explanations. But I think that there is something truly compelling about this principle. And if you reflect on it, on how it seems to be the principle behind all our reasoning, the assumption behind all scientific investigation, I think you might agree that it is compelling.

Thanks again for your response, Troop.

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Matrix,

I began to respond as I've gone through the whole philosophical, cosmological thing before. I'm more scientifically minded at heart and I have to say I'm much more interested in the way science takes the approach to task rather than philosophy. However, I do, on occassion, enjoy engaging in matters of philosophical debate, but I prefer to use science within it. So, I hope you don't mind but I think I find this answer to be wholly more logical as explained by randomness.


To say that everything has a "reason" or a "purpose" is a little misleading. For one, it leads one to automatically make the mental leap of assuming that there is a pre-defined objective for things. Rather, the laws of standard physics along with quantum physics tell us that the reason things behave the way they do is because of the increasing disorder in the universe. Eggs splatter but don't unsplatter, cokes spill but don't unspill, etc... etc... This is the flow of times' arrow completely explainable by the laws of physics as a result of the Big Bang.

However, your question seems to be more cognicant of what precluded the Big Bang as the Big Bang must have had a cause (whether the product of randomness or divine interaction).

What I do find to be slightly askewed in this argument is the encompassment of infinity. I want to throw this your way because mathematics and physics are getting awfully close to proving this theory as true:

In an infinite universe with endless possibilities it should be safe to assume that all things could happen as the product of randomness. Cosmological constants within this universe are "just so" because they had the luxury of billions of trillions of trillions of other possibilities within an infinite universe. To further on that, in an infinite universe with infinite possibilities, we can encompass a 10-dimensional Master Universe with an extra dimension for time (or duration).

What does this mean? Let me try to explain it a little better. In an 11-dimensional universe, with infinite space and infinite time (time is a function of matter by the way) it is entirely possible to imagine that other universes exist outside of this universe. But why stop there? If there can be another universe outside of this one, why not another one? And another one? And another one? And soon what we might realize is that within infinite space and with infinite possibilities, there could be a wholly other "The Matrix" who decides to stop reading this at this point in my explanation. And from there, that person would go about his own path. In this universe, you might continue reading but every decision, every choice, every opportunity that you act on or don't act on is all a possibility within infinity. To really boggle your mind, it's also a theoretical possibility that all the events throughout the history of a universe that had the same causes and effects, the same formations of galaxies, supernovas, hypernovas, Milky Way's, Earth's, and human evolution to the point of you being born are all a possibility. Why? Because we are talking about infinity.

So, why go on about this tangent? Because it is merely a matter of wondering about the cause and effect of all of this. If there are indeed choices that we make within life, they are all contained within the Master Dimension (I'm not making this stuff up, I promise) and therefore every cause, and every effect is all contained with this Dimension. All possible Big Bangs, all possible universes with their own beginning and endings, all humans who make their own choices on different universes, with different Earth's, with different opportunities that all run parallel to your life, are all contained with the Master Dimension.

Superstring Theory describes large vibrating "strings" within the Master Dimension that create the first inklings of matter.

Believe me, it sounds absolutely nuts, but it makes a lot of sense when you think about. Within infinity all things are possible and that's a product of randomness not a product of an omnipotent force. Within infinity, all things are possible to include every single cause and effect.

In all, I prefer to use Occam's Razor and say that the universe just exists is a much simpler explanation than an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who needed no infinite regress of cause and effect himself just because he allegedly lives outside any natural realm.

[laysayfair]

Originally Posted by Haaziq

That is very subjective. There is no rule or law that everything in existence must have a purpose.



You must not know that much about the Big Bang. The contents that make up the universe have always existed. They just didn't form a universe prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang began the period of time that we live in, but is most certainly not the beginning of existence. Once again, you are speaking subjectively, as there is no rule or law that everything in existence must have a reason to exist.



If the contents of the universe have always existed, then if something is probable, no matter how small the chances, it will happen if given enough time.



Subjective. You really like forming arguments based on your perception of things.



You'd have to raise the question of where this power and intelligence came from. You aren't born knowing things. Omnipotence is a contradiction of itself and giving your god that attribute negates his existence. Do I really have to bring up the old argument showing the paradox of omnipotence?



Ok, so you're essentially saying that if there is no purpose or reason for things to exist, then they wouldn't exist. Once again, that is subjective.


Out of all the infinite possibilities, why is a creator required? And if there is a creator, what created it? You can't try to argue that creation is necessary and exclude the creator you believe in. It just doesn't work. You're speaking absolutely with an exception.



Tsk tsk, subjective. You're basing your arguments on your own perception of how the universe works.



Prove that it is necessary without using personal opinions.

Omnipotence and omniscience both negate his existence because they are impossible. If you don't know about the contradictions in the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience, I suggest you do a little research.

And you can not suggest that god is omnibenevolent if you say things exist for a reason. If that's the case, then evil was created or had a beginning. If everything in existence has a purpose (according to you), then you must address the existence of evil. Not to mention, if god is perfect and we were created, then we'd be perfect. Perfection begets perfection.


Your whole arguments for believing are very subjective.

I agree. If the first premise can't be shown to be true then everything that follows from it
can't be shown to be true.