Philosophy thread

[OlenWhitaker]

I know I'm reaching by posting this in a politics forum, but there isn't a forum for religious or philisophical debate so I thought I'd toss it in here. After all, we are one nation UNDER GOD, so if it's about God, it's about politics (thanks, mysecondstar for that one.)

One further note: I'm presenting this argument in the lame-ass, sophomoric point 1, point 2, conclusion style which I deeply despise for its inelegance but I think you'll agree it's better than having a ten-thousand word post, it's long enough already.

I have a line of reasoning which attempts to prove the existence of God if you allow that God is defined only as a force or entity which exists outside the universe, which is able to affect the universe, without being affected by the universe.

I. The qualities of being finite and being infinite are mutually exclusive.
From the definition of infinity

II. There cannot exist anything that is not part of infinity.
Also, from the definition of infinity

III. No part of inifinity can be isolated or divided. That is to say, no finite thing can be excised from an infinite thing.
It is mathematically impossible.

IV. I exist.
For this, don't think of me, the person writing this, think of yourself. I can't prove to you that I exist but I believe you can prove to yourself that you exist.

V. I am finite.
If I/you were infinite then I/you would have an infinite amount of time to discover this fact and therefore could not erroneously think otherwise. If you think you're finite, you are. If you think you're infinite, well, you'll have to go a long way to prove that.

VI. I am part of the universe.
By definition of the universe (i.e. all that exists,) this must be so.

VII. The universe is finite.
As I pointed out in point III, nothing finite can be taken independently of an infinite whole, so if I exist, am finite, and am part of the universe, then the universe must be finite.

VIII. All finite things must be caused (set into motion)
This comes from the definition of being finite.

IX. A thing cannot cause itself.
This comes from the nature of cause and effect.

X. Something which is greater thant the universe, existing outside the universe, with the power to effect the universe without being effected by the universe must have set the universe in motion.
This is the summation of the argument. If the universe had a beginning, and it could not begin itself, something started it in motion.

I know this seems self-contradictory on the face of it since I'm positing the existence of something that seems to violate the very premises on which the argument is based, but if you look closer, I don't think it really is contradictory. I'm not saying that a particular God is responsible, or what the nature of that God is, or even that it is a being as we know it. Under this argument, it could simply be a force that we don't understand yet.

What is important about this argument is not the God part so much as the fact that, if you accept this argument, then it does show that there must be objectivity in the universe. Whatever this force or being was, it must now have an objective viewpoint towards the universe. Therefore, objective truth exists in the universe. This would be the total refutation of existentialism, and situational ethics.

This argument is far from air-tight, however. It accepts certain things as axiomatic which may not be (e.g. existence itself, mathematical laws, the nature of inifity, cause and effect, etc,.) I'm not posting this to say, "Hey, I'm right and you're wrong," I just want to get feedback and a chance to debate some of the points above.

If you think I'm wrong in my conclusion or any of the premises, feel free to try and refute me.

P.S. My apologies if you think I strayed to far off topic posting this here. I just didn't have a better option.

[Jimsween]

Those are some very good points but humans are infinate, we dont end we just change forms.

[Black-Guy]

Wow, you brought up some quite good points. But I believe we are infinite. The body is simply a shell of the soul. Thus dieing we exist as something us...
whatever I don't know what I'm talking about.

[OlenWhitaker]

The view that people have a soul which is immortal is compatible with my assertion, and is actually by view as well. It could be that these immortal souls are the very transcendent force to which my argument was pointing. It's also possible that the souls are fragments of God, as it were. My intial argument is compatible with both the view that we do and that we don't have souls. When I said that people are finite, I meant finite on this plane, the universe plane. This can be proven mathematically. We may yet be infinite on the higher, God plane, that is just one of the possiblities suggested by my argument.

[JMHX]

Well, if we go on forever, we've nothing at all to worry about. However, if you move away from myth and fantasy, you'll realize that humans live and die just like any other organism on the planet.

[OlenWhitaker]

At 3/13/03 10:05 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: humans live and die just like any other organism on the planet.

This may also be true. My point was not and is not to decide if humans have souls or not.

I'm still waiting for an actual criticism of my original post. Surely somebody must disagree with me. ;)

[thenark]

So where does mass and volume of matter, which we all are, enter into the equation, surely, if the universe is finite, and everything in it has a mass and takes up space, then god cannot exist if he has no mass or displacement

[OlenWhitaker]

That's what I meant about the seeming contradiction. What I'm saying, though, is that this entity exists in a different way from us. My description of this entity or force stated that it was able to bring about change in the universe, without being changed by the universe. It wouldn't follow the physical laws that govern our universe and therefore could exist without taking up space or having mass. I know that I seem to be reaching, but, something had to set the universe in motion, and this is the only plausible scenario that I could think of.

Do you have a better idea?

[Raptorman]

At 3/13/03 10:59 PM, thenark wrote: then god cannot exist if he has no mass or displacement

Studies of the universe conclude that it is, in fact finite. However, gravimetric studies show the universe acting as if it had a mass several times as great as the matter we are able to see/mesure/extrapolate. That means that the majority of the universe is in a form we cannot see or understand. I'm not saying this is God. I'm saying that this leaves a lot of room for error.

[thenark]

Well the universe is an isolated system, which means it cannot exchange matter or energy with its surroundings, which are presumably nothingness, neither mass nor energy. So if everything that exists has mass and volume, then something that has no mass, displacement, or energy, does not exist (whatever is outside the universe, heaven, hell, etc...)

[Raptorman]

At 3/13/03 10:29 PM, OlenWhitaker wrote: I'm still waiting for an actual criticism of my original post. Surely somebody must disagree with me. ;)

Well, let me jump on a minor point. You said that no part of infinity could be isolated due to the mathematical impossibility of it. The weakness lies in the mathematics, not in the reality. Mathematics is constantly evolving and growing into new fields were concepts previously though impossible or undefinable are given form. Impossible numbers and calculus are two well know examples of this.

Consequently, if observed reality does not fit the mathematical formula, the error lies in the formula or in the mathematics itself, not in the reality.

[implodinggoat]

I am a rather scientific individual. I will believe science before religion on any occasion however I have never been able to except Atheism because it is simply not scientifically feasable.

My point is this according to the big bang theory (this is highly simplified)which I have come to accept the universe was created when two atoms collided and thus started an ever expanding reaction thus forming the Universe. But I must wonder where those two atoms came from.

To me it seems that there must be some sort of higher power. However I feel it is arrogant of man to presume that he knows what God is or what his motives are.

[Slizor]

VIII. All finite things must be caused (set into motion)
This comes from the definition of being finite.

This is observed knowledge, if we were to find something that wasn't caused, say the universe, then we would change our view.

IX. A thing cannot cause itself.
This comes from the nature of cause and effect.

This excludes the possibility of a paradox. In which something auses itself.

This is the summation of the argument. If the universe had a beginning, and it could not begin itself, something started it in motion.

What started that?

[JMHX]

At 3/14/03 08:06 PM, Newgrundling wrote: It seems like an awful lot to say just to make the point that "since we're here, something created us" - for this is patently true.

Evolution, my friend. It's the great equalizer in the debate of why we are here. Who says we have a purpose? Maybe we're just like all of those little bacteria floating around in ponds. Has there really got to be a purpose to everything?

[the-unknown-soldier]

At 3/13/03 05:59 PM, OlenWhitaker wrote:

:we are one nation UNDER GOD,

You don't hapen to know what world wide web means do you?? it means world wide web

[the-unknown-soldier]

religion: where gona find out sooner or later...can't you just wait till then?

[mysecondstar]

wow this thread has really taken off Olen. i'm sorry i'm not putting any insiteful or likewise intelligent up as i am exhausted, but it appeats that your idea of a philosophy thread has taken off.

[the-unknown-soldier]

At 3/15/03 02:30 AM, mysecondstar wrote: wow this thread has really taken off Olen. i'm sorry i'm not putting any insiteful or likewise intelligent up as i am exhausted, but it appeats that your idea of a philosophy thread has taken off.

taken off??? theres like 5 responses in 5 hours

[mysecondstar]

At 3/15/03 02:34 AM, the_unknown_soldier wrote:

At 3/15/03 02:30 AM, mysecondstar wrote: wow this thread has really taken off Olen. i'm sorry i'm not putting any insiteful or likewise intelligent up as i am exhausted, but it appeats that your idea of a philosophy thread has taken off.

taken off??? theres like 5 responses in 5 hours

he was afraid it wouldn't be as well received as it is right now. plus a philosophy thread isn't as abundant as others are.

[cableshaft]

Olen, your argument is an intriguing one, except that I noticed something it appears you have not: your argument is circular. You are proving that an objective reality exists by using the definitions and laws and theories that assume that an objective reality exists in order to have any function. In other words, you do not succeed in proving objective reality at all, since you are starting from the assumption of objective reality existing, which leaves you with, well, nothing.

Your turn. You have the burden of proving that those definitions, laws, and theories don't start with that assumption. Good luck with that one.

[DrNatchKilder]

There are some reasons to doubt about God:

1.- We aren't perfect, in fact, we fail repeteadly and even our science uses this trial-error method

2.- And if we aren't perfect and God created us there are two conclusions:
- God isn't perfect because he failed at creating a perfect being, so it isn't a God
- God created us with intentions that we were imperfect, thus not being a god because he isn't "good" ( the term God implies perfection and goodness )

What do you think?

[Taxman2A]

Olen... this is good stuff you have here, however, some very smart men have brought up points in the past which are similar to yours, maybe a bit more concise. Allow me to elaborate.

Have you ever read Thomas Aquinas- Summa Theologica? It contains the most brilliant and unbeatable argument for the existance of God I have ever read- Primary Mover Theory .

This is the synopsis-
All action is caused by a previous action.
This is a physical truth of our universe.

The Universe is not infinite.
The universe is finite. It was created at some point in time, what is now alleged to be the "Big Bang". For anyone that wants to dispute this point, I recommend doing research concerning the law of entropy of matter.

There must have been a primary action to start the Universe in motion.
This is the logical conclusion to above premises. If everything that happens, happens because something previous triggered it, then there must be a first event, a "primary action" that began all events. Is it the big bang? Something even previous to the big bang? We sure don't know now, and may never know. Oh well.

There must have been a primary body to initiate this first action, the primary mover.
This conclusion once again follows logically. Who else would be the Primary mover- God.

Your argument is good, and I'm sure you would enjoy reading more about Primary Mover theory.
Good thread.

[Taxman2A]

At 3/15/03 10:27 AM, Dr_Natch_Kilder wrote: There are some reasons to doubt about God:

1.- We aren't perfect, in fact, we fail repeteadly and even our science uses this trial-error method

2.- And if we aren't perfect and God created us there are two conclusions:

**ANNNNN, WRONG!**
In the Philosophy world, what you're doing here is referred to as the fallacy of the false dichotomy. You claim that there are two conclusions, when there are in fact more possibilities.

- God isn't perfect because he failed at creating a perfect being, so it isn't a God

Who said that to be a God you had to create a perfect being? Any deity which is responsibly for the creation of the cosmos still claims "God" status in my book. This isn't really a major point, but I still wanted to mention it.

- God created us with intentions that we were imperfect, thus not being a god because he isn't "good" ( the term God implies perfection and goodness )

Well... not really. The Judeo-Christian concept of God certainly talks of an omni-benevolent being. However, the term "God" in the past (Roman, Greek mythology) talks of many Gods who have problems along the lines of humans. God, in the broader context, refers more to a being with incredible power compared to mortals. I suppose if your argument were to be logically sound, it would be a good argument to debunk the common ideas of Judeo-Christian religion. Alas, it is not strong enough to put the rabbis and priests out of a job just yet.

What do you think?

Getting back to the false dichotomy raised above, there is a very clear and more desirable option than the two you gave:
That God did not fail when we were created, nor did God intend to create flawed beings, rather, God wanted to create beings who could make choices for themselves. .

If God were to have created a world where everyone acted perfectly in accordance with what was "good", we would be mere robots acting out a repetitive play. Instead, we have a free will, the ability choose to do right or wrong. This means that God created humans not with a failed vision of a perfect race of people, or with the intention of creating evil creatures, but rather with the vision to give life to us, with the choice to do with it what we will. It is impossible to know the truth of what was intended for this universe, however, the fact remains that this third argument is still a valid possibility.

[TheShrike]

At 3/15/03 10:27 AM, Dr_Natch_Kilder wrote: - God isn't perfect because he failed at creating a perfect being, so it isn't a God
- God created us with intentions that we were imperfect, thus not being a god because he isn't "good" ( the term God implies perfection and goodness )

Yes, but what if 'God' had some motive for making us imperfect?
And who says that god has to be perfect? Maybe some people have that idea in their heads, but it is not neccessarily true.

One may argue that humans are a form of machine. One might argue the kind of machine only possible by a divine power. Given that, it is impossible to make a perfect machine. You lose energy somewhere (it's a law... too tired to look it up), and the loss of energy shows proof of imperfection, since a perfect machine would use all energy in performing it's purpose.
ughh... too many p's...

[Taxman2A]

At 3/17/03 01:49 AM, TheShrike wrote: You lose energy somewhere (it's a law... too tired to look it up)

That fits into the same law of entropy of matter that I mentioned in my posts as well.

[TheShrike]

At 3/13/03 05:59 PM, OlenWhitaker wrote: I know I'm reaching by posting this in a politics forum, but there isn't a forum for religious or philisophical debate so I thought I'd toss it in here. After all, we are one nation UNDER GOD, so if it's about God, it's about politics (thanks, mysecondstar for that one.)

One further note: I'm presenting this argument in the lame-ass, sophomoric point 1, point 2, conclusion style which I deeply despise for its inelegance but I think you'll agree it's better than having a ten-thousand word post, it's long enough already.

I have a line of reasoning which attempts to prove the existence of God if you allow that God is defined only as a force or entity which exists outside the universe, which is able to affect the universe, without being affected by the universe.

Gotcha by your thesis!

Schroedinger's Cat.

Ok, God exists outside of the Universe.
Ok, God can affect the Universe.
(here's where it crumbles)
God cannot be affected by the Universe.

Say you are God. The box & cat is the Universe.
If you so much as touch the box, you confirm the state of the cat. Rather, if you reach in and give it some food, or change its kitty litter, you affect and confirm the cat's state.

As a simple law of quantum physics, you change what you observe simply by observing it. If you do not observe it, how can you prove you affect it?

I. The qualities of being finite and being infinite are mutually exclusive.
From the definition of infinity

II. There cannot exist anything that is not part of infinity.
Also, from the definition of infinity

Ok, given this...

III. No part of inifinity can be isolated or divided. That is to say, no finite thing can be excised from an infinite thing.
It is mathematically impossible.

False. Let us imagine time is infinite. If the above statement is true, then you cannot measure time, let alone experience any part of it separate from the rest.

IV. I exist.
For this, don't think of me, the person writing this, think of yourself. I can't prove to you that I exist but I believe you can prove to yourself that you exist.

I cannot prove I exist. I can tell you what my senses tell me, but they are only my perceptions, and I cannot prove my existence outside of myself and my perceptions.

V. I am finite.
If I/you were infinite then I/you would have an infinite amount of time to discover this fact and therefore could not erroneously think otherwise. If you think you're finite, you are. If you think you're infinite, well, you'll have to go a long way to prove that.

But, you can also not prove that you are finite until, alas, you are nomore.

VI. I am part of the universe.
By definition of the universe (i.e. all that exists,) this must be so.

VII. The universe is finite.
As I pointed out in point III, nothing finite can be taken independently of an infinite whole, so if I exist, am finite, and am part of the universe, then the universe must be finite.

And who is to say that the universe is finite? If it is, then it is not neccessarily taken from the whole of infinity, but rather is an inextractable part of infinity. like the 3 in Pi, as a crude example.

VIII. All finite things must be caused (set into motion)
This comes from the definition of being finite.

What if something finite is created, from nothing, with no purpose, by noone. That would also shoot down this theory.
Y'know, as long as we're talking in abstract.
Say for instance, again from quantum physics, the creation of a subatomic particle.

Ok, that's all I've got for now... In my defense it is late.

[TheShrike]

I'm thinking of a number between 41 & 43...

[Taxman2A]

Shrike, I think you make some good points, and I do not entirely disagree with you. However, I have a few objections.

At 3/17/03 02:24 AM, TheShrike wrote: At 3/13/03 05:59 PM, OlenWhitaker wrote: III. No part of inifinity can be isolated or divided. That is to say, no finite thing can be excised from an infinite thing.
It is mathematically impossible.

False. Let us imagine time is infinite. If the above statement is true, then you cannot measure time, let alone experience any part of it separate from the rest.

Is time truly infinite though? Isn't time just another dimension of this same universe, which we already agreed is NOT infinite? Time, as a dimension, would have begun at the same time as the inception of the universe, making it finite.

IV. I exist.
For this, don't think of me, the person writing this, think of yourself. I can't prove to you that I exist but I believe you can prove to yourself that you exist.

I cannot prove I exist. I can tell you what my senses tell me, but they are only my perceptions, and I cannot prove my existence outside of myself and my perceptions.

Hmmm, now we are getting closer to discussing Descartes. If haven't yet, read Meditations by Rene Descartes. This, unlike Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas is a very piece, and can be downloaded off the internet and read at your own discretion.

However, for those of us who are not Philosophy majors (as I am), I will give an extremely brief synopsis:

Descartes first says "I know I exist" because he has perceptions. However, he then reasons that there have been times where the senses have been known to decieve you (i.e. optical illusions), therefore, they cannot be relied upon. This is the point The Shrike has made, and it is certainly a fair lead to make.

Now, break down everything you know from your senses alone. You can't know if anything else in the world exists. You can't know if cars, houses, people, or even your own body exist. With this being said- can you prove ANYTHING exists?!

Yes. There are abstract concepts that can be proven to exist, math for one. I will not lay out the argument for why they must exist in this post though. I would say if you really care, read Descartes, however, I may elaborate on this later if I get bored or if there are people complaining and saying I am full of shit.

Back to the matter at hand- one of the things that also must exist is YOU. Why? Because you are a thinking being, and you have certain perceptions.
This means one of two things:
1) Your general perceptions about the world are generally true. This is to say, that while your perceptions may sometimes deceive you, you are correct in assuming that you have a body, and there is a world around you.
2) Your perceptions are false. This means that while you have perceptions about the outside world, they are false. You are being decieved by your perceptions, and while you believe you have a body, and that there is an outside world with cars and people and weather, it is all false, and that you really are alone in darkness.

While you may be decieved or not, one thing that you know for sure is that YOU exist. Either you exist as we commonly think we exist, in the context of our world, or we exist, in an alternate reality. In any event, as long as we are thinking beings, we exist.

As a sidenote, the The Matrix blatantly ripped off this concept from Descartes. They did a good job with the movie, though, so it doesn't really bother Descartes all that much. After all, they did turn people on to Philosophy.

V. I am finite.
If I/you were infinite then I/you would have an infinite amount of time to discover this fact and therefore could not erroneously think otherwise. If you think you're finite, you are. If you think you're infinite, well, you'll have to go a long way to prove that.

But, you can also not prove that you are finite until, alas, you are nomore.

Well, not necessarily. We can prove we are finite in terms of the fact that our lives had a definite beginning. An infinite being would have existed throughout all dimensions of the universe, including time. I can quite easily point out the moment of my beginning: March 31, 1981. On the other hand, pinpointing the beginning of an infinite being is as impossible as finding the beginning of a perfect circle. While it is true that I will have to die to prove that there is an end to my existance, it is likewise true that my birth certificate proves that there was a beginning to it (at least in the tangible sense of our reality).

VI. I am part of the universe.
By definition of the universe (i.e. all that exists,) this must be so.

VII. The universe is finite.
As I pointed out in point III, nothing finite can be taken independently of an infinite whole, so if I exist, am finite, and am part of the universe, then the universe must be finite.

And who is to say that the universe is finite? If it is, then it is not neccessarily taken from the whole of infinity, but rather is an inextractable part of infinity. like the 3 in Pi, as a crude example.

The law of entropy of matter (which you cited in an above post, concerning loss of energy), in different words, says that the universe is finite.

VIII. All finite things must be caused (set into motion)
This comes from the definition of being finite.

What if something finite is created, from nothing, with no purpose, by noone. That would also shoot down this theory.

This is true. However, this has never happened. If I were to all of a sudden just levitate into the air and float around the universe with no force causing me to do so, then this would also shoot down many other physical laws. However, until I, or anyone else does this, the laws still stand pretty firmly.

Ok, that's all I've got for now... In my defense it is late.

Good stuff though. Good to see people in this thread actually thinking for a change.

[PreacherJ]

As far as "God" is concerned, the whole idea of it strikes me as just a little ridiculous. Now, the concept of what has created the Universe in that it required something to create it, that's a more interesting and possible thought process to follow up on. The entire concept of "gods" and religions were thought up back in the times when people had jobs like "gathering berries for the tribe" and "royal sheep jerker-offer". Gods and religion were created to explain that what was unknown. People wanted rain, and they didn't want to feel helpless. So, they created something to do when there was no rain to get a sense of accomplishment. Religion works like that in many ways. It can give people hope, or absolution, or a positive model to live life, but often, it just restricts people from following basic human instict, and breeds other things, such as hate, bigotry, war, oppression, etc.

I'm not denying some sort of outside force, but rather spitting in the face of religion in it's forms as it stands today. I don't know what started the universe. Nobody does, regardless of your "faith". But I do know (as much as anyone else with any opinion in religion) that what we've been using to explain the universe (Creationism, etc.)is pretty stupid. I don't know how we can be anymore knowledgable about the beginnings of "Life, the Universe and Everything", short of "GOD" him/her/itself appearing magically and going on TV to explain it, but I think the world would be a lot better off in a lot of places if people would stop following ancient stories and look toward the future possibilities rather than the past. Stop crediting "God", and keep looking for (lame-ass Star-Wars reference) "The Force."

Word.

[TheShrike]

At 3/17/03 03:39 PM, Taxman2A wrote: Shrike, I think you make some good points, and I do not entirely disagree with you. However, I have a few objections.

At 3/17/03 02:24 AM, TheShrike wrote:

What if something finite is created, from nothing, with no purpose, by noone. That would also shoot down this theory.

This is true. However, this has never happened. ...[more]...

At the risk of sounding incredibly childish, I ask that you prove that.
Seriously. Construct for me a theory or explanation that completely rules out the possibility that everything may not have been 'made' by 'something'

ah.... the endless debate that is philosophy.