ray-moo - Tumblr blog

ray-moo · 1 day ago

Text

>here's the thing: the rules of our present universe may not have been a thing before the Big Bang

Don't a lot of models point towards the Big Bang originating from a pre-existent singularity rather than nothing? If so then our universe might precede the Big Bang. Thus the laws governing our universe might precede the Big Bang as well.

Secondly if the Big Bang only resulted in material, then we can only say laws governing material were brought fourth by the Big Bang. Things governing metaphysics such as the laws of physics might have to precede the Big Bang if the Big Bang was merely a physical/material event.

Thirdly it doesn't make metaphysical sense for the Big Bang and whatever came afterward to not share a metaphysical substrate since otherwise the Big Bang and whatever came before would be utterly dissimilar. There ought to be a conservation of substrate since the substrate itself which gave rise to the Big Bang is still operating by it's own laws and would not be able to transcend it's laws. Hence we can look at the most basic facts about our universe and infer that they're probably shared by whatever came beforehand.

Fourthly I don't think the Law of Identity can be violated. But since the Law of Identity is the bedrock of all logic (that I'm aware of), and IMO most logical laws including the Principle of Sufficient Reason can be deduced from the Law of Identity, whatever came before the Big Bang probably follows the Laws of Logic including the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which necessitates some kind of creator for the Big Bang. Also, I found your old post!

Arguments for God

Argument from Creation

Premise: All things that are created are created by something else.

Most things are created in the sense that they come into existence due to something other than themselves. Actually, all things that come into existence are caused to do so by something outside of themselves. But if everything that is created is created by something else, then for anything to be created, there must be something that is uncreated to create everything.

One may ask, who created the Creator? But that question assumes that all things need a creator. We do not need to say that all things need a creator in order to say that all created things need a creator that is itself not created. Of course, there is no need to say from this argument alone that this Creator is a god as opposed to some natural force.

Argument from Change

Premise: All things that change are changed by something else.

If everything that changes is changed by something else then there must be an unchanged First Cause who initiated the chain of causality.

More properly, most given things have both actuality and potentiality. Actuality is what a thing is. For example, wood is wood. And potentiality is what a thing could become. Wood can become ash. But wood never becomes ash without a fire.

One could say that there could be an infinite chain of things changing one another, with no first cause. However, as each link in the chain of causation has no power in itself to change, the very ability to change must come from outside this chain. An infinitely long chain of gears will never turn without an engine, an infinitely long power cord could not power a lightbulb without electricity. An infinitely long chain of changers could not change anything without there being a first Unchanged Changer.

Argument from Contingency

Premise: There are two categories things can be sorted into. That is, things which gain their current state of existence from an outside source, and things which gain their current state of existence totally from themselves. Let us call the first category of things contingents and the second category necessaries. There is nothing that is neither a contingent or a necessary.

Take a piece of bread. It is bread because flour was baked. It is hot from the oven, it is cooling from the air around it. This bread is a contingent. But if the bread was bread because it was it’s own reason for being bread, the bread was warm without need for oven or despite the coolness of the air, then it would be a necessary. Now, no bread is this way, but a necessary would be such that it’s attributes do not have an outside reason to be the way they are.

If contingents exist, then a Necessary must exist, for contingents by definition require a source. And even if there were an infinite number of contingents, so that each contingent had a contingent before it to be contingent on, the whole set of contingents would itself be a contingent and require a source outside of itself.

Thus it can be demonstrated that a Necessary must exist.

Argument from Perfection

Premise: Goodness exists objectively.

If goodness exists objectively, that is, if morality and beauty are not only subjective, then there is an objective standard for goodness.

The Objective Standard for Goodness is an essence, that is, that which is definitional to Goodness itself.

Now, if Goodness exists, then things can be said to be more good or less good based on this standard of Goodness.

Now, for what there is a standard for and for which gradients exist, it is conceivable that there is a maximal amount of something, potentially an infinite amount of it, as well as a maximal is-ness of something, something that is as close to the standard as possible as to be that gradient.

An infinite amount of goodness could be called Perfection, while something which is completely good could also be called Perfection.

Now, the essence of Goodness that is the standard of Goodness must adhere to itself else it would not meet the standard for Goodness. Hence, the second kind of perfection exists.

For if goodness could be made more good, it would not be Goodness, since something that is completely itself or the standard for itself cannot be made more itself. A centimeter cannot be made more a centimeter, a litre cannot be made more a litre. Goodness cannot be made more good.

A goodness which could be made less good would be worse than a goodness that could not be made less good, hence the standard of Goodness cannot be made less good.

A Goodness that was not good in the first sense would be a better good than a goodness that was perfectly good in adhering to the standard, but not in quantity. Hence, the Standard of Good must be infinitely good in both ways, in both quality and quantity of goodness.

So the Standard of Goodness cannot be increased or decreased, but can it be changed? If perfection were such that it’s definition could be changed, it would not be perfect. The essence of perfection, if changed, would no longer be that essence. Instead, a different essence would be named perfection. The first essence would be destroyed. But as something that is truly perfect cannot be destructible, this is impossible.

Perfection thus can be said to really, eternally, unchangingly exist in the universe.

Argument from Ends

Premise 1: Different things have an ‘ends’ they aspire to. An acorn aspires to be a tree, a baby aspires to be an adult. Dough in an oven becomes bread. Even subatomic particles like atoms and electrons act in different ways due to their natures on each other. ETC.

Premise 2: Nothing can assign itself it’s own ends, for the ends of a thing is present when it first exists.

Premise 3: A non-intelligence cannot assign ends for non-intelligences cannot conceive of purposes.

Therefore, an intelligent Designer assigned the ends to the things that exist in the universe.

Argument from the Soul

Premise 1. Indivisibilities cannot arise from separate sources or be made from parts, because if they were made from parts they wouldn't be indivisible and if they came from separate sources they would be made from parts.

Premise 2. Consciousness is an indivisibility, therefore it cannot be made from parts.

Argument A. If we define consciousness as self-perception, then by definition consciousness is indivisible because we only perceive ourselves at once at any given time. If an aspect of this perception lay outside of itself, then it would be by definition not part of this process of perception.

Argument B. I think, therefore I am, therefore something must be responsible for thinking and being conscious. However, this thing can only be one thing because multiple responsible agents for our thinking and consciousness would not be able to generate a unitary consciousness (See Premise 1)

Argument C. Nothing that is made up of parts is really real since the object wouldn't be real, it would be a category you group its parts in. But categories aren't real, only their parts are real. Our consciousness is clearly real because if it wasn't real we wouldn't be experiencing it, therefore it can't be made up of parts.

Therefore if consciousness is an indivisibility, and indivisibilities can't arise from parts, then our consciousness and conscious experience can't arise from merely physical bodies, but we must have an intangible component to our existences responsible for our consciousness. We would normally call this a soul.

Since indivisibilities can't be created from divisibilities, the Source of Souls must be Indivisible, and it must be inexhaustible for if some power could be exhausted, that would imply it was divisible into the amounts it loses.

Putting together God’s attributes

Given that There is an Uncreated Creator.

There is an Unchanged Changer.

There is a Necessary Entity.

There is a Perfection which really exists.

There is a Designer for the universe.

There is an Indivisible, Inexhaustible, Creator of Souls.

Now, an uncreated creator must be necessary for if an uncreated creator was contingent, it would not be uncreated

And a first cause for change must first change that which is possible into that which actually exists, making the uncreated creator and the unchanged changer the same thing

Now a perfection which could be further perfected would be changeable, but if perfection is unchanging it is also a necessary entity

These cannot be separate necessary entities, there can only be one Necessary Entity. For if there were multiple distinct necessary entities, their distinctions would be separate from what they share in being necessary, thus said distinctions would not be necessary. Thus, that trait which makes these separate necessary entities necessary would be the real Necessary Entity. Thus there is only one Necessary Entity.

Now consider a Necessary Entity which creates, changes, and maintains the universe. Who else would be the one responsible for designing and assigning purposes to the universe?

And consider the Inexhaustible Creator of Souls. If the Creator of Souls is uncreated itself, then it is the Necessary. If it is not, then it receives it’s inexhaustibility from the Necessary as it is wholly reliant on it. Thus the Necessary is the true Inexhaustible Source of Souls.

Now, consider the Inexhaustible, Unchangeable Essence. Inexhaustability and eternity are forms of infinity, and as the Necessary must not be reliant on anything external to itself for definition, the Necessary must be synonymous with the infinite. And because the Necessary is indivisible, the infinite is not distinct or separate from any other aspect or attribute of the Necessary. Consider also that the Necessary is also the Perfect. If the Perfect were not infinitely perfect in all it’s attributes, it would not truly be perfect since a perfection that was not infinitely perfect would be less perfect than a perfection that was.

Thus, every aspect of the Necessary can be described as infinite. If the Necessary is powerful, the Necessary is infinitely powerful. If the Necessary is knowledgeable, the Necessary is infinitely knowledgeable. Firstly, because the Necessary is synonymous with the infinite. Secondly, because the Necessary would be less perfect if it were not.

Now consider an inexhaustible, eternal entity which unconsciously creates. Such a universe would be infinite and infinitely full. But our universe is not infinite and infinitely full. Thus the power of the necessary existent must be directed by a will and consciousness.

Thus we may arrive at the conclusion that God exists.

Theodicy

Now, consider an Infinite Being as we have described. In it’s relationship with us, it must be infinite in whatever disposition it bears towards us. It cannot be that this Being cannot have a disposition or relationship with us for it is omniscient and so it is not ignorant of our existence. So in it’s thoughts and disposition towards us, it must be either benevolent, malevolent, or ambivalent. If this Being is infinitely malevolent, we would be in infinite, inescapable pain.But we are not in infinite, inescapable pain. Thus this Being is not infinitely malevolent towards us.

This Being cannot be ambivalent towards us, for it cared enough to create us, nor can it be said that it accidentally created us because it is omniscient and aware of the effects of it’s actions. Nor can the Being be simply ambivalent to our suffering while being desirous that we accomplish some function, as we have many capabilities which do not fulfill functions, but are for our own good. It is unlikely that humanity would see beauty in so many things if we were not meant to see beauty. It is unlikely that humanity would love and sympathize with our enemies if we were not meant to love. It is unlikely that humans would love and seek what is true beyond utility if we were not meant to care for the truth. Truth, love, and beauty are all attributes of the Perfect as the Perfect is synonymous with truth and the good of beauty, and naturally loves itself as it deserves. One of humanity’s functions is to seek such attributes, and thus a relationship with this Being. This Being would likely not design us for a relationship with it if it did not intend for us to have a relationship with it. And in being capable of attaining a relationship with the Perfect, we are capable of achieving that which is the greatest possible thing for us. Such a design does not speak of ambivalence or a non-benevolent utilitarian reason for our existence. If we are born capable of experiencing the highest good, it can be said that the highest good was meant for us.

Therefore this Being must be infinitely benevolent.

But then why is there so much suffering in the world?

It should be noted that unlike malevolence, benevolence does not entail a simple giving. Being kind and doing what brings someone the most physical pleasure is not the summation of what it means to be benevolent. Consider the inverse of what a malevolent being would do. A benevolent Being would place us in a state of finite, escapable pleasure which is exactly the state we are born in. While malevolence can have only one desire, the requirements of benevolence are multifactored. The priority of physical wellbeing and pleasure must be combined with a respect for the dignity of free will. Thus we are born with a touch of the beautiful, the true, the good in reach, but not forced into our arms. However, with the lack of the present fullness of goodness, there is room for pain and suffering.

The evidence for Christianity

In Christian belief, humans did start off in paradise, but left due to their own free will. The permitting of such an occurrence is perfectly in-line with what a Benevolent Being might be like.

Now, an infinitely loving God whom is also the source of all goodness would want those which it loves to have a way to access it. So we would expect a religion on Earth to be a true way to know this God.

Now, given an infinitely loving Being, one would expect not to be able to outperform it in terms of love. For how could a finite human Being outlove an infinitely loving God? Now, to lay down your life is the greatest possible show of love in a world where suffering persists. In other religions, humans have died for their belief in a god they believed loved them. However, only in Christianity does God die for humanity in the form of Jesus, not only dying for those He loved, but dying for the sake of those who did not love Him. Thus unlike in most other religions, in Christianity God matches and exceeds the love of His followers.

Thus in the person of Jesus we see the fulfillment of all our expectations for this Perfect Being.

Now, how do we know that we have an accurate knowledge of Jesus?

Firstly, most Historians agree that a historical Jesus existed. There was a Jewish man who was known as a miracle-worker and crucified, even if those miracles never took place. Such details exist in the earliest stories about Jesus and so were likely not added on to the story of His life later on. They are part of the original telling of His life story.

Secondly, there are multiple corroborating sources about the life and resurrection of Jesus. While the Bible is one book now, it was only compiled centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus recorded in it. So even if contained in one book now, in the past it could be said that there were many sources for Jesus’ life and resurrection. In the books compiled into the Bible, there are broadly three major sources for this resurrection. The synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, and the letters of Paul.

While the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John have eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, Paul is not an eyewitness of the resurrection. However, Paul does provide testimony that Jesus’ Disciples, whom he knew, believed that Jesus rose from the dead. So even if we discount the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ Disciples as unreliable or fabricated by others after they died, we still have evidence that Jesus’ Disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead and that they were eyewitnesses. And even if we discount the Gospels as written later and not by Jesus’ Disciples, most Bible Scholars agree that at least some of Paul’s letters are genuinely by a guy named Paul who believed Jesus rose from the dead and would have probably known His Disciples. And so we have solid evidence that Jesus’ Disciples believed strongly that they saw Him risen from the dead.

How do we know the Disciples weren’t lying? The Disciples had very little to gain from saying that Jesus rose from the dead. They made themselves enemies of religious authorities, alienated themselves from friends and family, and were fiercely persecuted. Paul himself was a persecutor of the Disciples before he converted. According to Christian tradition, every Disciple other than John (and Judas) is martyred. If confessing that they had been lying would have gotten them out of execution, at least one of the 11 who were executed would have.

Were the Disciples mistaken then? This is unlikely as the Disciples reported collectively having conversation with the resurrected Jesus. That goes beyond the realm of wishful thinking. What if their testimonies of these conversations in the Gospels were created independently of them? This is also unlikely due to the Gospels being quickly widespread and accepted throughout the Christian world early on. If they originated later on than the Disciples, they would have been only amongst many other regional traditions instead of being so widespread. Further, the Apostolic Fathers, who are said in tradition to be students of the Apostles, quote the very same Gospels, and even if it could be disputed that they don’t quote them, do not disagree with the Gospels.

So the Disciples were neither lying nor mistaken. But if that is true, then Jesus really did rise from the dead. And if Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity is the true religion.

If Christianity is the true religion, then there is life after death. There is a resurrection at the end of time. There is an all-powerful God who loves you, and His name is Jesus. And you should become a Christian to gain life after death, to gain resurrection in the world to come, and to gain fellowship with this God.

But take this how you will.

14 notes · View notes

ray-moo · 1 day ago

Text

>In your first argument you say "We do not need to say that all things need a creator in order to say that all created things need a creator that is itself not created." From my perspective, you are assuming that the natural world was created without evidence or justification. If you want me to agree that the universe must have a creator, you must first convince me that it was created. That's a presupposition many religious people hold, but not many atheists.

The Universe is said even by scientists to be created though, by the Big Bang. If you would say that the Big Bang was the not the creator of the universe, but only a changing in form of the universe, you could argue that nothing is ever created, only the form of that which has always existed is changed. But that just leads into my second argument.

>Plenty of things change as a natural result of their own internal processes over time. Even if you wanted to argue, say, that aging is caused by telomeres shortening, the cause of telomeres shortening is imperfect copying.

In this case the Telomeres don't actually shorten though, do they? The Telomeres are the creators (see the first argument) of new, more imperfect Telomeres. And the body as a whole only ages because different mechanisms within it move each other and change each other. Change of one entity only happens with the mechanistic acting of one part of it against another part. And out of the body are many lines of causality, from the food we eat to the air we breathe. All of these lines of causality need to trace back to an eternal, self-existent First Cause.

>The argument from perfection is predicated on a premise I think most, if not all, atheists would disagree with: "Goodness exists objectively." If I don't accept that premise, which I don't, then the entire rest of that argument is irrelevant. Fair but then you have to throw out objective morality.

Even then I think there's evidence for goodness existing. Firstly, we have the concept of perfection. Most fictional concepts are remixes of real concepts. A Centaur is half-man, half-horse. A dragon is a flying, fire-breathing lizard-thing. But perfection? It isn't a remix of anything. How could humans have ever made up the concept of perfection?

Secondly there's the univocity of value. You value things, I value things, it's what motivates us. We share a definition of value. However, without objective good, a shared sense of value doesn't make much sense. Moreover, I don't think value can be redefined, hinting at it having an essence independent of human conception. It's an abstract which exists independent of human opinions, like the number 1.

>Just because an end exists, does not mean it has to have been assigned.

Something can't intrinsically have an ends and then assign itself it's own end. That's like creating yourself. You can only change yourself after you've been created by something other than yourself. Unless you believe that the ends of an existent pre-exist the existent itself, which I doubt you do. So ends do have to be assigned. If not by the existent with an ends, then with the existent's creator. You could argue that even if God existed that doesn't mean that He assigns ends and that they might be assigned by other things, but those assignments would only happen with His knowledge as He knew that it would happen beforehand.

Ends doesn't necessarily mean what something changes towards, but what the reason for it's existence is. In regard to subatomic particles, they act in very arbitrary ways naturally, which suggests that they have assigned ends. At the very least, they inherently do very specific things.

>Why would we assume that consciousness is solely perception of self or that perception of self must be indivisible We wouldn't. Consciousness is defined as self-perception, that is awareness of what you are perceiving. There might be other definitions but that doesn't dismiss the strangeness of what I'm referring to as consciousness.

As for why self-perception is indivisible, it's because if part of self-perception was outside of self-perception then it wouldn't be self-perception because you wouldn't be self-perceiving it.

Secondly, multiple parts can't make one whole thing which self-perception is.

Thirdly, things that are made out of parts aren't real, they're aggregates of the parts they're made of with the parts being what is actually real. But consciousness and self-perception is real, so it must not be made out of parts.

Now, you could have it that the parts collectively form a coherent entity out of relation to one of their parts, but regardless you still end up with an irreducible part which is responsible for the reality of consciousness.

Arguments for God

Argument from Creation

Premise: All things that are created are created by something else.

Argument from Change

Premise: All things that change are changed by something else.

If everything that changes is changed by something else then there must be an unchanged First Cause who initiated the chain of causality.

Argument from Contingency

Thus it can be demonstrated that a Necessary must exist.

Argument from Perfection

Premise: Goodness exists objectively.

If goodness exists objectively, that is, if morality and beauty are not only subjective, then there is an objective standard for goodness.

The Objective Standard for Goodness is an essence, that is, that which is definitional to Goodness itself.

Now, if Goodness exists, then things can be said to be more good or less good based on this standard of Goodness.

An infinite amount of goodness could be called Perfection, while something which is completely good could also be called Perfection.

Now, the essence of Goodness that is the standard of Goodness must adhere to itself else it would not meet the standard for Goodness. Hence, the second kind of perfection exists.

A goodness which could be made less good would be worse than a goodness that could not be made less good, hence the standard of Goodness cannot be made less good.

Perfection thus can be said to really, eternally, unchangingly exist in the universe.

Argument from Ends

Premise 2: Nothing can assign itself it’s own ends, for the ends of a thing is present when it first exists.

Premise 3: A non-intelligence cannot assign ends for non-intelligences cannot conceive of purposes.

Therefore, an intelligent Designer assigned the ends to the things that exist in the universe.

Argument from the Soul

Premise 2. Consciousness is an indivisibility, therefore it cannot be made from parts.

Putting together God’s attributes

Given that There is an Uncreated Creator.

There is an Unchanged Changer.

There is a Necessary Entity.

There is a Perfection which really exists.

There is a Designer for the universe.

There is an Indivisible, Inexhaustible, Creator of Souls.

Now, an uncreated creator must be necessary for if an uncreated creator was contingent, it would not be uncreated

And a first cause for change must first change that which is possible into that which actually exists, making the uncreated creator and the unchanged changer the same thing

Now a perfection which could be further perfected would be changeable, but if perfection is unchanging it is also a necessary entity

Now consider a Necessary Entity which creates, changes, and maintains the universe. Who else would be the one responsible for designing and assigning purposes to the universe?

Thus we may arrive at the conclusion that God exists.

Theodicy

Therefore this Being must be infinitely benevolent.

But then why is there so much suffering in the world?

The evidence for Christianity

In Christian belief, humans did start off in paradise, but left due to their own free will. The permitting of such an occurrence is perfectly in-line with what a Benevolent Being might be like.

Thus in the person of Jesus we see the fulfillment of all our expectations for this Perfect Being.

Now, how do we know that we have an accurate knowledge of Jesus?

So the Disciples were neither lying nor mistaken. But if that is true, then Jesus really did rise from the dead. And if Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity is the true religion.

But take this how you will.

14 notes · View notes