Does Our Creator Have A Creator Itself?

[CeeAnne]

Religionists support the religion. At best, god is a pseudoscience. In a addition to pseudoscience having the uncanny ability to explain everything, the difference between a science and pseudoscience is that scientific statements can be proved wrong and pseudoscientific statements cannot. By this definition, you will find that a surprising number of seemingly scientific assertions - perhaps even many in which you devoutly believe - are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly this is not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of them may be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to claim the cast-iron assurance and reliance that you can have, and place, in scientific facts.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Religionists support the religion. At best, god is a pseudoscience. In a addition to pseudoscience having the uncanny ability to explain everything, the difference between a science and pseudoscience is that scientific statements can be proved wrong and pseudoscientific statements cannot. By this definition, you will find that a surprising number of seemingly scientific assertions - perhaps even many in which you devoutly believe - are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly this is not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of them may be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to claim the cast-iron assurance and reliance that you can have, and place, in scientific facts.

I don't know if you are responding to my comment to you, but this response assumes you are.

You are right to say religionists support religion; I assume when you say "god is a pseudoscience" you mean that some of the explanations the religious sometimes give have elements of science woven into non-scientific beliefs. I have heard a lot of that, and little of it makes sense.

However not all opinions about God are equal. What people do is look at religions and think that is all there is to the claim (that God exists), but it isn't. Personally I have no use for religion, and never have. But I became interested in if there were any experiences that people have had which could be a logical basis for thinking there is, let's say, "something more" (i.e., like some sort of consciousness that's part of the universe?), which is less apparent than the physcial world which we've become so adept at studying.

You might not realize it but your statement about pseudoscience contains an epistomological assumption about what produces knowledge. You seem to imply that only science reveals reality to us, and in philosophy that belief is sometimes referred to as scientism.

Now, what makes science work? It is the requirement that sense data confirm one's hypotheses. Without sense experience, science would be just another speculative philosophy. The senses are "avenues" linking the extenal world to internal consciousness where experience occurs. While the senses provide information, it is experience that causes knowing. Further, if experience is internal, almost like the "heart" of consciousness, we can conclude that senses and experience are two different things (sensory deprivation devices seem to confirm this).

Okay, here's where it gets interesting. There is a 3000 year old history of people who have practiced withdrawing from the senses to experience pure consciousness. Some, like the Buddha, seemed to have achieved a new ability with consciousness called enlightenment, and part of that new ability was the perception of "something more." I've studied the history of the enlightenment experience extensively, and I am convinced it is the main origin of the God concept that inspired the major religions. I emphasized "main" because there obviously have been superstitious concepts of "gods," and lots of other imagined stuff.

My point is, it is not a valid assumption, at least before you look at the evidence I've described, that science is the ONLY avenue to knowledge. Senses are used in science, and that is why science is only good for studying external reality. If that inner experience is what it takes to find out if there is "something more," then plainly science isn't going to tell us anything about it. And if inner experience is what it takes to see why people have said there is a God, then anyone wanting to fairly evaluate their claims is going to have to develop that skill.

 

[harvey1]

Religionists support the religion. At best, god is a pseudoscience. In a addition to pseudoscience having the uncanny ability to explain everything, the difference between a science and pseudoscience is that scientific statements can be proved wrong and pseudoscientific statements cannot. By this definition, you will find that a surprising number of seemingly scientific assertions - perhaps even many in which you devoutly believe - are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly this is not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of them may be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to claim the cast-iron assurance and reliance that you can have, and place, in scientific facts.

No, this is incorrect. Religionists for the most part do not think they are engaging in science with their advocating the necessity of God. Science is, strictly speaking, a methodological approach to providing knowledge about the world that is pragmatically successful in manipulating and understanding natural phenomena. Scientific theories may or may not be 'true', but regardless, the main justification is not truth or approximate truth, their main justification is their usefulness in prediction and coherent explanations about the phenomena in question.

Religionists take a step back from trying to explain natural phenomena, and instead, the questions are much more philosophical in nature. For example, is there meaning to our lives? Can humans live beyond death? Is there a purpose for the universe? Is the universe designed for life? Is there a designer?

True, religionists take definite stances on these issues, but it is not a scientific stance (for the most part). Science cannot answer these questions because there are no observables to make any theoretical predictions about them. So, any attempt to answer these questions is neither scientific or pseudoscientific, they are merely unscientific.

But, there's nothing wrong with religionists to pursue these issues, since science is mainly a methodology based on its own philosophical justifications. To say that religionists are not entitled to justify their beliefs with philosophical justifications is not much different than saying that science is also not justified in making its own philosophical justifications. To be rational, a religionist can make a argument that is philosophical in nature as long as they make it rationally. This is why science is really outside the scope of religion (for the most part), and religion is outside the scope of science (for the most part). If either strays into the other domain, then religion must choose to make a scientific argument (or be made a pseudoscience - eg special creationism), or science must choose to make a philosophical argument (which as another poster mentioned, is no longer science per se, but is scientism, materialism, etc).

 

[harvey1]

A material universe is by definition causeless since its existence is dependent on brute fact.

I don't understand what youre saying here. Please explain it more clearly.

.

I should say, a materialist view of the universe is by definition causeless since material things exist without there being an explanation for a material universe.

A self-creating universe is no exception since an infinite time ago the universe still existed, hence it never was created, it just always existed - therefore, even a self-creating universe existed without cause. This means that there exists an infinite collection of 'past moments' that were uncaused, which contradicts our notion of causation as being something that is linked to the previous actions (and not something that always existed). Thus, a material universe without God is non-sensical.

You presuppose time exists outside the scope of the universe, which has no basis. It's easier to think of it as a four dimensional object, 3 of space and 1 of time, that was simply created, or popped into existence. Note that I use the past tense "created" or "popped" not because the universe was created at a specific point in time in the past, but because it is here now. It is a flaw of our language which arises because our conception of things requires something that exists now to have been created in the past. This logic is misleading when applied to the universe, since every object we can conceive exists and interacts completely within it.

Okay, let's view our universe as 3+1 dimensional object. The 3+1 dimensional object exists without cause. Each event in that 3+1 dimensional object is causeless (since the object as a whole exists without a cause, each individual component of that object exists without a cause). This contradicts the appearance of causation present in our universe and its history. For example, your post is 'causeless' (i.e., not connected to what happen before since there is no 'before' in a 3+1 self-existing object), and my posting this reply to your post is also 'causeless' for the same reason. This contradicts the obvious fact that you posted because you were posting a reply to my post, and I am posting this because of your reply. If the universe were a causeless 3+1 dimensional object, then you would not expect such a thing.

Since any logico-mathematical law is a deduction from its axioms, the axioms are 'true'. If something is inherently 'true', this requires there to be a conceptual structure that provides meaning to the term 'true'. This meaning of truth requires for their to be intelligence and consciousness since axiomatic truths are language based, and language requires intelligence and consciousness to exist. Therefore, God is synonymous with the existing of truth (and logic).

There are no "true" laws of physics. We assume laws are true because they have always turned out to be verified by experiment, but this does not constitute a logical proof.

There are laws of physics that are possibly 'true' (i.e., they are dependent on there being some inherent truths to the Universe). For example, there is work in the foundations of physics (e.g., symmetry) that show how the laws of physics can be derived from a simple set of assumptions. These approaches don't prove that the laws of physics are true, but they show a relationship exists between complex laws of physical phenomena, simple assumptions that these foundation attempts demonstrate. So, it is not as simple as having a whole collection of physical descriptions and on some whim saying that there is something 'true' that underlies these descriptions. It's much more than that. Due to the philosophical nature of such attempts, it's probably not possible to ever conclude this issue. There will always exist a philosophical argument which can open the door.

Your assumption that truth requires consciousness is again presupposing your conclusion there is a god. It is logically possible for a universe to exist where there are truths (eg., gravity is an attractive force) but not conscious beings or gods to derive and appreciate them. If you disagree with this, please explain your reasoning instead of just reciting your opinion.

How does supposing there is truth that exists presume a God exists? I suppose truth exists because it is difficult to eliminate this possibility, and the other possibility (i.e., no truth exists, just matter in some primitive composition of it), presents real difficulties with regard to the causal history of our universe (as mentioned above). Truth, as we understand it, is language based, and therefore truth requires comprehension. If truth exists, it would appear that comprehension does as well (i.e., Mind exists). Hence, God.

As for your argument that you can have truths without comprehension, I think you are ignoring the full implication of truth having an ontological existence. Yes, "gravity is an attractive force" might be 'true', but this is not necessarily an ontologically existing truth. For example, "all birds that landed on my yard today are blue" is not necessary an ontological truth of the Universe. It might be that the next bird that lands on my yard is red.

When you talk about ontological truth, this is an entirely different issue. You have to ask what makes a particular ontological truth a truth of the Universe. To this you have to look for the correlation between the ontological statement and the state of affairs that exist (or possibly can exist), and that's the aspect of ontological truth that requires for there to be Mind. Mind must exist to equate a statement with a state of affairs (or possible state of affairs). If no such mind exists, then you cannot say there is a relationship between the ontological statement and state of affairs, in which case you cannot have an ontological truth.

As I alluded to above, an ontological truth becomes necessary to consider when we ask the foundation questions of our universe. If causality exists, then it does so because of some logico-causal order to the world, and this implies ontological truth. If you can dismiss causality as a mirage, then perhaps you can dismiss ontological truth as a fantasy, but then you run into all the problems that a causal world can provide a straightforward solution (e.g., why you disagree with my posts).

 

[CeeAnne]

Gosh, you know, there's a awful lot of noise in that which we term mind. Mind, like life and weather is an emergent system. The brain seems a sort of processor with parallel input and lots of internal interaction or feedback. I view the feedback as the control mechanism and the associated feedback delay as consciousness. It seems to function somewhat and seems very cause-and-effect. I like that in a brain. Pretty much all it knows is right there. It doesn't receive strange messages from faroff people or places and politely doesn't broadcast them. It doesn't come up with valid answers to the universe out of the blue. It's mostly hormonally motivated and consequently a complete mess logically. So, when it develops nice little filters like physics and maths which help determine what really is and help to somewhat organise its self-awareness and perception of the surroundings, this brain likes that and wants more. The god and higher levels concepts are filters, too, I suppose, and although they probably work similarly, I'll take the maths.

 

[harvey1]

Gosh, you know, there's a awful lot of noise in that which we term mind. Mind, like life and weather is an emergent system. The brain seems a sort of processor with parallel input and lots of internal interaction or feedback. I view the feedback as the control mechanism and the associated feedback delay as consciousness. It seems to function somewhat and seems very cause-and-effect. I like that in a brain. Pretty much all it knows is right there. It doesn't receive strange messages from faroff people or places and politely doesn't broadcast them. It doesn't come up with valid answers to the universe out of the blue. It's mostly hormonally motivated and consequently a complete mess logically. So, when it develops nice little filters like physics and maths which help determine what really is and help to somewhat organise its self-awareness and perception of the surroundings, this brain likes that and wants more. The god and higher levels concepts are filters, too, I suppose, and although they probably work similarly, I'll take the maths.

You can take the maths (and internets too), but you are confusing epistemology with ontology. As far as the complete mess of the human brain, it's all we have to reason about the world, and the beginning of that reasoning process is philosophy, not science. It's no coincidence that philosophy was discovered before modern science, and it's also no coincidence that it was a philosophically aware culture that discovered science. You need the right philosophical background for scientific awareness to take root.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You can take the maths (and internets too), but you are confusing epistemology with ontology. As far as the complete mess of the human brain, it's all we have to reason about the world, and the beginning of that reasoning process is philosophy, not science. It's no coincidence that philosophy was discovered before modern science, and it's also no coincidence that it was a philosophically aware culture that discovered science. You need the right philosophical background for scientific awareness to take root.

The brain is not a mess, as neuroligists are discovering, and that's where to began, rather than with philospophy, which tells us nothing it hasn't already assumed.

And if philosophy was discovered before modern science, so was astrology discovered before modern astronomy, and mythology before philosophy!

 

[AeroFunk]

Truth, as we understand it, is language based, and therefore truth requires comprehension. If truth exists, it would appear that comprehension does as well (i.e., Mind exists). Hence, God.

I completley disagree with this, how does intellegence or comprehension lead to the existence of god.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I completley disagree with this, how does intellegence or comprehension lead to the existence of god.

You are right, it doesn't. It's rationalistic meandering where the assumptions relied on are deemed "self-evident" and therefore not necessary to be properly supported with facts. And I don't believe this statement by harvey1 is accurate either, "Truth, as we understand it, is language based, and therefore truth requires comprehension." It's the "we" part that isn't accurate because I don't think most thinkers today see truth that way. It isn't just language . . . it is a combination of reality, experience, and language.

The correspondence concept of truth fits better with what we know. There we recognize there is reality apart from our comprehension of it; we accept that we can experience that reality, and that in a healthy conscious our experience is a close facsimile to what reality is like; we represent what we experience with concepts, and concepts are represented in communication with words. A truth, then, is a concept that corresponds as closely as possible to the way reality is. I'd say there is a second part to this too, which is that we are best able to achieve correspondence when we experience what we are talking about. That is the basis of empiricism, and I believe we need experience to achieve proper corresponding concepts about God too.

Of course, none of that answers the question of if our creator has a creator. I'll cast my vote and say yes, that some set of utterly basic conditions contain the potential to cause consciousness to originage accidentally, and the creator evolved from such a happenstance eons ago.

 

[harvey1]

The brain is not a mess, as neuroligists are discovering, and that's where to began, rather than with philospophy, which tells us nothing it hasn't already assumed.

And if philosophy was discovered before modern science, so was astrology discovered before modern astronomy, and mythology before philosophy!

Science, or natural philosophy, grew out of metaphysics (from Aristotle). To suggest that it was a coincidence that science was taught within the context of philosophy is not accurate at all. It was the philosophical thought which drove 13th century European philosophers to depart from Aristotles views on necessity, which led them to think in terms of probable arguments. That opened the door to think in terms of empirical means to test theories for their truth value.

While experimentation seems perfectly obvious to our 21st century minds, such was not the case for the majority of humans prior to the 13th century. Philosophy was able break through the conceptual hurdles that were in the way of that thought. The brains of humans living 100,000 years ago were probably very similar to our own, so you can't say modern brains were the answer to discovering science. It took philosophy and, lucky for us, a skepticism of Aristotlean philosophy caused by Christian thinkers who were never 100% comfortable with the 'pagan' philosopher (hence, they were allowed and even forced to think outside the box).

 

[harvey1]

I completley disagree with this, how does intellegence or comprehension lead to the existence of god.

If truth exists, then as I said, truth implies comprehension. That is, X=Y is true if and only if X obtains, and Y obtains, and they obtain in the same context, etc, etc. Now, if there is no Mind that comprehends X=Y, etc, then how can there be an ontological truth to this effect? There cannot be. The statement that is supposed to be true has absolutely no meaning unless it interpreted by a comprehensive Mind and known by comprehensive Mind to be true.

Now, use whatever term you want for Mind. You can call it the Mind of Truth and say that's not God. I really don't care. To my way of thinking, it is God.

 

[harvey1]

You are right, it doesn't. It's rationalistic meandering where the assumptions relied on are deemed "self-evident" and therefore not necessary to be properly supported with facts.

I don't take for granted that any assumption is self-evident. I think they are justified and I'm prepared to justify them to anyone.

And I don't believe this statement by harvey1 is accurate either, "Truth, as we understand it, is language based, and therefore truth requires comprehension." It's the "we" part that isn't accurate because I don't think most thinkers today see truth that way. It isn't just language . . . it is a combination of reality, experience, and language.

I agree, theories of truth are a combination of reality and language, but 'language based' does not mean that truth is only language, and I didn't say it did.

The correspondence concept of truth fits better with what we know. There we recognize there is reality apart from our comprehension of it; we accept that we can experience that reality, and that in a healthy conscious our experience is a close facsimile to what reality is like; we represent what we experience with concepts, and concepts are represented in communication with words. A truth, then, is a concept that corresponds as closely as possible to the way reality is. I'd say there is a second part to this too, which is that we are best able to achieve correspondence when we experience what we are talking about. That is the basis of empiricism, and I believe we need experience to achieve proper corresponding concepts about God too.

I have no real disagreement with this. Actually, it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about truth as an ontological structure, not as a human based concept that we encounter anytime we say something is true. When talking about the theoretical structure as an ontological one, this is when the area of comprehension and mind are interwoven.

Of course, none of that answers the question of if our creator has a creator. I'll cast my vote and say yes, that some set of utterly basic conditions contain the potential to cause consciousness to originage accidentally, and the creator evolved from such a happenstance eons ago.

Well, if truth is a theoretical structure, it makes little sense to ask whether there exists another theoretical structure which makes that structure 'true'. No matter the ontology, you sooner or later must come to a point to where you must say that the ontology in question is a primitive. For me, it makes sense to draw that line at the beginning of reasoning, which is a logico-causal-truth structure that is comprehensive of those things. There's no need to find a creator of this place, because you've reached home.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Science, or natural philosophy, grew out of metaphysics (from Aristotle). To suggest that it was a coincidence that science was taught within the context of philosophy is not accurate at all. It was the philosophical thought which drove 13th century European philosophers to depart from Aristotles views on necessity, which led them to think in terms of probable arguments. That opened the door to think in terms of empirical means to test theories for their truth value.

While experimentation seems perfectly obvious to our 21st century minds, such was not the case for the majority of humans prior to the 13th century. Philosophy was able break through the conceptual hurdles that were in the way of that thought. The brains of humans living 100,000 years ago were probably very similar to our own, so you can't say modern brains were the answer to discovering science. It took philosophy and, lucky for us, a skepticism of Aristotlean philosophy caused by Christian thinkers who were never 100% comfortable with the 'pagan' philosopher (hence, they were allowed and even forced to think outside the box).

The idea that Galileo was inspired by Ockam or Buridan lacks any documentary backing as far as I know, and is unlikely on the face of it. The medieval post-Aristotelians were mostly forgotten in the sixteenth century having been discretely suppressed by the late scholastics, who were Galileo's enemies. And while experiments were done in the middle ages, by the likes of Roger Bacon and Petrus Peregrinus, they weren't done by these closeted category-choppers. (I speak as a great admirer of both Ockam and Buridan, by the way).

 

[StatusX]

Okay, let's view our universe as 3+1 dimensional object. The 3+1 dimensional object exists without cause. Each event in that 3+1 dimensional object is causeless (since the object as a whole exists without a cause, each individual component of that object exists without a cause).

This doesn't follow. Cause is something that, like time, is completely contained within our universe. In fact, causation is not a meaningul concept in the absense of time. So just because our universe doesn't have a cause doesn't mean none of the events inside it have a cause.

This contradicts the appearance of causation present in our universe and its history. For example, your post is 'causeless' (i.e., not connected to what happen before since there is no 'before' in a 3+1 self-existing object), and my posting this reply to your post is also 'causeless' for the same reason. This contradicts the obvious fact that you posted because you were posting a reply to my post, and I am posting this because of your reply. If the universe were a causeless 3+1 dimensional object, then you would not expect such a thing.

My reply can be traced back to events earlier in my life which gave me my opinions, and all of these events can be traced back further and further to tiny fluctuations in the structure of matter and energy in the universe nanoseconds after the big bang. The big bang, or whatever you believe to be the earliest point in time, does not need a cause, because there was no causation before this point, because there was no "before this point."

How does supposing there is truth that exists presume a God exists? I suppose truth exists because it is difficult to eliminate this possibility, and the other possibility (i.e., no truth exists, just matter in some primitive composition of it), presents real difficulties with regard to the causal history of our universe (as mentioned above). Truth, as we understand it, is language based, and therefore truth requires comprehension. If truth exists, it would appear that comprehension does as well (i.e., Mind exists). Hence, God.

I'm not sure what you mean by "truth." You say that in the absense of truth there would just be "matter in some primitive composition of it." This does not make sense to me. For one thing, I don't see how the removal of an abstract human idea such as truth could affect the physical universe, and futhermore, wouldn't the statement "Matter is in a primitive composition" be a true one in this alternate world(although again, I don't see what's different about it)? Your basic argument seems to be that since we can make true statements about the universe, and only a conscious being could make such statements, there must be a god. Neither of the steps in this deduction are logically plausible.

As for your argument that you can have truths without comprehension, I think you are ignoring the full implication of truth having an ontological existence. Yes, "gravity is an attractive force" might be 'true', but this is not necessarily an ontologically existing truth. For example, "all birds that landed on my yard today are blue" is not necessary an ontological truth of the Universe. It might be that the next bird that lands on my yard is red.

When you talk about ontological truth, this is an entirely different issue. You have to ask what makes a particular ontological truth a truth of the Universe. To this you have to look for the correlation between the ontological statement and the state of affairs that exist (or possibly can exist), and that's the aspect of ontological truth that requires for there to be Mind. Mind must exist to equate a statement with a state of affairs (or possible state of affairs). If no such mind exists, then you cannot say there is a relationship between the ontological statement and state of affairs, in which case you cannot have an ontological truth.

A mind is not necessary for an ontological truth. The statement "there is a planet on the other side of the galaxy with an active volcano" has a definite ontological truth value, but no conscious being (that we know of) knows it. If you are arguing a god is necessary so that all such statements can be known, then you are, like I said in the last post, presupposing a god must exist for truth to exist.

 

[harvey1]

The idea that Galileo was inspired by Ockam or Buridan lacks any documentary backing as far as I know, and is unlikely on the face of it. The medieval post-Aristotelians were mostly forgotten in the sixteenth century having been discretely suppressed by the late scholastics, who were Galileo's enemies. And while experiments were done in the middle ages, by the likes of Roger Bacon and Petrus Peregrinus, they weren't done by these closeted category-choppers. (I speak as a great admirer of both Ockam and Buridan, by the way).

Maybe forgotten, but not without having set the stage for those who were to follow. Galileo was not born in a vacuum, afterall

I think the key issue here is that medieval post-Aristotelian philosophy led to the emergence of natural philosophy as a separate branch of philosophy. Whether they were largely forgotten is not relevant since the ones that followed were able to develop theories in a context which they initiated. Had they not initiated that branch of philosophy, I think it's likely that Europe would have not developed science.

 

[harvey1]

Okay, let's view our universe as 3+1 dimensional object. The 3+1 dimensional object exists without cause. Each event in that 3+1 dimensional object is causeless (since the object as a whole exists without a cause, each individual component of that object exists without a cause).

This doesn't follow. Cause is something that, like time, is completely contained within our universe. In fact, causation is not a meaningul concept in the absense of time. So just because our universe doesn't have a cause doesn't mean none of the events inside it have a cause.

You have a 3+1 dimensional object, you are saying that its existence has nothing to do with whether it was caused or not? Is this structure not your primitive? If so, then it is uncaused. If it is not your primitive, then what is your primitive?

By the way, causation and time are not as intertwined as you suggest. In a 3+1 dimensional universe, such a universe could be a baby universe to a universe having many more spatial and temporal dimensions. Also, a quantum theory might require that the classical 'arrow of time' is an emergent property of our universe, with quantum phenomena being the causal structure to this temporal property of the universe.

My reply can be traced back to events earlier in my life which gave me my opinions, and all of these events can be traced back further and further to tiny fluctuations in the structure of matter and energy in the universe nanoseconds after the big bang. The big bang, or whatever you believe to be the earliest point in time, does not need a cause, because there was no causation before this point, because there was no "before this point."

A temporally finite uncaused beginning is a little different story than a temporally infinite uncaused beginning, but if there is no zero time, then Zeno's infinitestimal paradox seems like it would be a problem for you. That is, you never have an earliest moment in time since you can always get closer to 'zero time' by scaling down from seconds to milliseconds to microseconds to nanoseconds to attoseconds, etc. In that case, there is no first event unless you are prepared to say the first event was an infinitestimal, in which case the whole 3+1 timeline must be considered a collection of infinitestimal moments. In that case, all of these infinitestimal moments are uncaused, not just the first moment.

I'm not sure what you mean by "truth."

When I say ontological truth exists, I mean that there is a conceptual structure that exists which provides justification for certain axioms to exist, some of which instantiate the universe to exist. So, for example, let's say that Noether's symmetry arguments are axioms that instantiated the universe (speculatively speaking). Then, the symmetry axioms are said to exist because they are true. This conceptual structure called truth exists. It has certain properties that are interwoven with this structure. For example, Tarski's concept of satisfaction might be one of these interwoven properties. Perhaps coherence is another interwoven properties (i.e., some kind of ontological logic).

You say that in the absense of truth there would just be "matter in some primitive composition of it." This does not make sense to me. For one thing, I don't see how the removal of an abstract human idea such as truth could affect the physical universe,

If looking at truth as an ontological structure, then humans have nothing to do with truth. Our only task is to identify it, if possible, but nothing in an ontological theory of truth means that humans have the ability to recognize or determine truth values of a statement.

and futhermore, wouldn't the statement "Matter is in a primitive composition" be a true one in this alternate world(although again, I don't see what's different about it)?

The difference in the way you use the term 'truth' and the way that I use it in an ontological sense is that truth is an emergent property in a materialist worldview, whereas in an ontological view of truth, it is a primitive.

Your basic argument seems to be that since we can make true statements about the universe, and only a conscious being could make such statements, there must be a god. Neither of the steps in this deduction are logically plausible.

No. Our ability to make statements (true or otherwise) has nothing to do with there being a God. My argument is that if ontological truth exists (i.e., as a conceptual structure: my primitive), then as an ontological structure it contains language which connects somehow to a state of affairs (i.e., truth is about something). Since only mind can connect language to a state of affairs, presupposing ontological truth also presupposes the existence of God.

[

A mind is not necessary for an ontological truth. The statement "there is a planet on the other side of the galaxy with an active volcano" has a definite ontological truth value, but no conscious being (that we know of) knows it. If you are arguing a god is necessary so that all such statements can be known, then you are, like I said in the last post, presupposing a god must exist for truth to exist.

I don't want to confuse our terms. By using the term 'ontology' I don't mean emergent features - I mean something that actually exists on its own, not dependent on something else for its existence. Bugs Bunny has an ontological truth value (i.e., there is a context which Bugs Bunny exists), but Bugs Bunny is an emergent truth value. Bugs depends on Hollywood, technology and human imagination to exist.

A planet on the other side of the galaxy with an active volcano can be true, but its truth depends on humans to organize material structures in terms of planets, galaxies, and volcanos. So, it does not necessarily qualify as an ontological truth value according to my definition.

Now, when I say that there is ontological truth to substantiate the state of affairs that exist, I have no idea what level this is happening. It might be as simple as verifying logico-mathematical axioms are indeed true in the universes which they are true for, and from there the whole universe results, or, it might be a complex modal language which sustains the universe from one moment to the next moment. It might even define the objects in our universe (e.g., valid wavefunctions). I have no clue. But, the main reason to believe such an ontological truth structure exists is because of causality. The causal chain of the universe is preserved by saying that causal relationships exist (e.g., the universe is a result of logico-mathematical statements, etc).

I see the materialist perspective either unable or inefficient to address the causal nature of the universe, whereas at a minimum, a logico-mathematical order preserves causality and makes sense of the causal events that we see daily.

 

[Microburst]

where did god come from? he couldn't have created himself? so is it possible for our own god to have a god himself, or is it like a never ending chain of gods?? It's just confusing for me, give me your opinions.

yes, human beings...

 

[TENYEARS]

Forum cannot answer these questions for you. You must walk the line. No knowledge is free for nothing in life is free. There is a fee for all things. To understand the truth you must pay with you time and your effort and your spirit. You have the ability for it is in all humans. It surrounds them. When I was 23 I saw the almighty and when I was 27 I figured out gravity and the connection between God and matter. If you want these answers you must pay a price. Are you ready to pay that price? The price is honesty with yourself. If you can do this even for just a moment you will have your answer and in that moment the answer to any question may be answered.

 

[Canute]

Harvey1

I find your argument intriguing but at the moment it seems to me that you are muddling the ontological with the epistemilogical. Are you saying that 'truth' exists in an ontological sense? Surely only statements can have a truth value. I'm struggling to see how what is can be either true or false.

To put it another way, 'true' and 'false' are relative properties belonging to theorems in some formal system. As such truth and falsity can never be absolute properties of 'things'. To say that theorem x is true is simply to say that within some formal system theorem x is consistent with the axioms. It will be false within some other set of differently axiomatised systems.

However what you say about causation makes sense to me. If we want to argue that the universe is caused then we are forced to accept an infinite regression of causes, which makes little sense. However if we say that it is uncaused then its existence makes little sense. Hence the causation question is 'metaphysical', i.e. both answers to it contradict human reason. My preference is for Chuang-Tsu's 'causeless cause'.

 

[harvey1]

I find your argument intriguing but at the moment it seems to me that you are muddling the ontological with the epistemilogical. Are you saying that 'truth' exists in an ontological sense? Surely only statements can have a truth value. I'm struggling to see how what is can be either true or false.

Yes, I agree, only statements can have truth value. But, to clarify, I'm saying that certain modal statements actually 'exist' and those modal statements are evaluated for their truth or falsity. For example, axioms of mathematics might actually exist, and those modal statements are evaluated based on some theoretical conception of truth that is a primitive to the world (e.g., cohesion).

To put it another way, 'true' and 'false' are relative properties belonging to theorems in some formal system. As such truth and falsity can never be absolute properties of 'things'. To say that theorem x is true is simply to say that within some formal system theorem x is consistent with the axioms. It will be false within some other set of differently axiomatised systems.

I have no problem with the relative nature of truth (e.g., conflicting formal systems). Modal statements are determined to be true based on the axioms of the formal system they belong. So, for example, if a theorem deduced from the axioms of classical logic is in conflict with a theorem deduced from some fuzzy logic, this does not necessarily bring down the whole house of cards. Rather, there might exist 'firewalls' that exist between divergent logics which keep such paradoxes contained to certain modal regions.

However what you say about causation makes sense to me. If we want to argue that the universe is caused then we are forced to accept an infinite regression of causes, which makes little sense. However if we say that it is uncaused then its existence makes little sense. Hence the causation question is 'metaphysical', i.e. both answers to it contradict human reason. My preference is for Chuang-Tsu's 'causeless cause'.

This reminds me of the kid in the backseat of a car saying "are we there yet?". Just when you answer the question they ask it again, and again, and again. This is all that infinite regression of causation amounts to if truth has an ontological structure. That is, what is the cause of truth amounts to "are we there yet?". The answer is very simple. Truth is a primitive. By asking what causes truth, you are asking it in the very context of assuming truth exists, hence the reason for the question.

I have no problem if a materialist says that 'matter exists' as a primitive. They can even say that asking why it exists is to assume matter exists in the first place (such reasoning is not out of the question). However, a materialist still must give account as to why things happen as if they are caused by people, evolution, scientific laws, etc. What I tried to demonstrate with my arguments is that a materialist origin to the world (whether finite or infinite) does not preserve causality in anything remotely sensitive to our experiences.

Such is not the case with a modal ontology such as what I described. Causality is part of the modal structure of the world, and that structure is imbued onto the material world by some kind of complex formal system that exists 'above us'. Such a modal world not only allows real causal relations to exist, it also explains why our world conforms to natural law. Natural law is merely an approximation of these modalities that exist, and we are just bright enough to understand them and probe deeper into their fundamental nature, which not coincidentally, look mathematical.

 

[Rothiemurchus]

There is no creator:
the word creator implies a beginning and the universe can't have a beginning
because that would be an exactl moment in time and physicists can't measure
time exactly even in principle (look up Heisenberg uncertainty on web).

 

[StatusX]

You have a 3+1 dimensional object, you are saying that its existence has nothing to do with whether it was caused or not? Is this structure not your primitive? If so, then it is uncaused. If it is not your primitive, then what is your primitive?

I don't pretend to know what's at the bottom of everything. All I'm saying is that god does not help explain anything, because simply postulating his existence still leaves the question "Why is there a god?" But this is just another way of saying "Why is there a universe?", which was the original question, and we've gotten nowhere.

By the way, causation and time are not as intertwined as you suggest. In a 3+1 dimensional universe, such a universe could be a baby universe to a universe having many more spatial and temporal dimensions. Also, a quantum theory might require that the classical 'arrow of time' is an emergent property of our universe, with quantum phenomena being the causal structure to this temporal property of the universe.

By universe I mean all that exists, including any "mother universes" and including any super powerful beings. Causation applies to things that already exist, but there is no reason to assume that the set of all things that exist, ie, the universe, was caused. What could have caused it?

A temporally finite uncaused beginning is a little different story than a temporally infinite uncaused beginning, but if there is no zero time, then Zeno's infinitestimal paradox seems like it would be a problem for you. That is, you never have an earliest moment in time since you can always get closer to 'zero time' by scaling down from seconds to milliseconds to microseconds to nanoseconds to attoseconds, etc. In that case, there is no first event unless you are prepared to say the first event was an infinitestimal, in which case the whole 3+1 timeline must be considered a collection of infinitestimal moments. In that case, all of these infinitestimal moments are uncaused, not just the first moment.

But I thought you said time and causation were two different things?

When I say ontological truth exists, I mean that there is a conceptual structure that exists which provides justification for certain axioms to exist, some of which instantiate the universe to exist. So, for example, let's say that Noether's symmetry arguments are axioms that instantiated the universe (speculatively speaking). Then, the symmetry axioms are said to exist because they are true. This conceptual structure called truth exists. It has certain properties that are interwoven with this structure. For example, Tarski's concept of satisfaction might be one of these interwoven properties. Perhaps coherence is another interwoven properties (i.e., some kind of ontological logic).

Ok, now I think I understand your position. You are saying there are certain "truths" that existed before we were here. For example, even 10 billion years ago, 5 was greater than 4, and addition was commutative. For such statements to have been true, there must have been some kind of mind to comprehend them. Do I have this right?

Truth is only a valid concept for a mind. We cannot imagine a universe without a mind because all that we know is our minds projection of the universe. Before we were here, there were no truths. There was no structure to the universe, no atoms, no planets. There was just matter. We find structure in what we see, and we assume that structure is real, but it is not. And true statements can only relate the structures we have created.

The difference in the way you use the term 'truth' and the way that I use it in an ontological sense is that truth is an emergent property in a materialist worldview, whereas in an ontological view of truth, it is a primitive.

Well this is what I was talking about when I said your notion of truth presupposes a god.

Now, when I say that there is ontological truth to substantiate the state of affairs that exist, I have no idea what level this is happening. It might be as simple as verifying logico-mathematical axioms are indeed true in the universes which they are true for, and from there the whole universe results, or, it might be a complex modal language which sustains the universe from one moment to the next moment. It might even define the objects in our universe (e.g., valid wavefunctions). I have no clue. But, the main reason to believe such an ontological truth structure exists is because of causality. The causal chain of the universe is preserved by saying that causal relationships exist (e.g., the universe is a result of logico-mathematical statements, etc).

I see the materialist perspective either unable or inefficient to address the causal nature of the universe, whereas at a minimum, a logico-mathematical order preserves causality and makes sense of the causal events that we see daily.

We think in terms of cause and effect. Is this the only valid way to think? All that is happening is matter is interacting, and we label causes and effects. But like I said, this is all in our minds, and even though it seems a consistent reasoning in everyday life, there is no reason to assume it applies to the universe itself.

 

[harvey1]

I don't pretend to know what's at the bottom of everything. All I'm saying is that god does not help explain anything, because simply postulating his existence still leaves the question "Why is there a god?" But this is just another way of saying "Why is there a universe?", which was the original question, and we've gotten nowhere.

I don't think this is the most effective way to approach ontology. I think a more effective way is to first ask the implications of the possibilities that you can conceive of, and then try and deduce the limitations of that approach, etc. I agree that a material universe is a first option since, obviously, we know that we have that before us. The problem, though, is that nobody is saying that chairs, tables, computers, etc, are fundamental objects, so we already move to a more abstract materialism than any of us experiences. Add to this that we must contend with mathematical-like laws in our physics equations, issues of causation, and a myriad of other issues, and soon we are really at the stage where that 'first option' is not something that we should be married to any longer.

Of course, that doesn't give us automatic license to believe in God, but we can't dismiss it out of hand either. As I said in my posts, I think most of our focus should be on modal aspects versus material aspects. As it turns out, I think modal aspects do entail a God, so it just happens to be like that. But, I don't think this is really a coincidence at all. Many of the well thoughout approaches to religion were based on modal considerations, so it is possible that modal considerations fueled the acceptance of God in terms of the ease by which it won over those who were really interested in such questions (e.g., Greek philosophers, medieval theologians, etc).

By universe I mean all that exists, including any "mother universes" and including any super powerful beings. Causation applies to things that already exist, but there is no reason to assume that the set of all things that exist, ie, the universe, was caused. What could have caused it?

I'm not hung up on a cause for whatever you want to cite as your primitive. I understand that you have to start somewhere. The problem I have is that your primitive is the whole material universe. I expect that your primitive should be primitive in that we can easily imagine the world evolved from that simple point. Of course, there's no law that requires such, but all of our experiences point to this. If it were otherwise, then we might as well as believe anything that suits our fancy.

In that case, there is no first event unless you are prepared to say the first event was an infinitestimal, in which case the whole 3+1 timeline must be considered a collection of infinitestimal moments. In that case, all of these infinitestimal moments are uncaused, not just the first moment.

But I thought you said time and causation were two different things?

Time and causation have certain things in common (e.g., asymmetry of events in terms of the arrow of time), but they certainly may not be the same things. Causality might have something to do with the arrow of time, but it might be just a coincidence. More science might help to understand the arrow of time (I'm not so confident science will solve the causal issues of the universe).

With regard to my argument here, the situation is a little different. I'm not saying time and causality are the same. Rather, I'm saying that any temporal beginning with a 'first uncaused moment' must be infinitestimal due to a similar argument that Zeno put forth. This argument is still valid and it raises a perplexing problem for materialists suggesting a finite beginning to the universe. I won't repeat my argument.

Ok, now I think I understand your position. You are saying there are certain "truths" that existed before we were here. For example, even 10 billion years ago, 5 was greater than 4, and addition was commutative. For such statements to have been true, there must have been some kind of mind to comprehend them. Do I have this right?

Basically true. Truth is language based, and if you are going to say that modal statements (e.g., Peano's axioms) have some kind of ontological existence, then you must also say that those axioms have no meaning unless there is an aspect to the Universe (big U includes all ontology even God in my usage of the term...) which can comprehend the meaning of modal statements. Otherwise they exist without interpretation and are as meaningless as null statements.

Truth is only a valid concept for a mind. We cannot imagine a universe without a mind because all that we know is our minds projection of the universe. Before we were here, there were no truths. There was no structure to the universe, no atoms, no planets. There was just matter. We find structure in what we see, and we assume that structure is real, but it is not. And true statements can only relate the structures we have created.

Well, you are concluding your premise here. If your premise is that materialism is valid, then you cannot conclude competing ontologies are wrong because they disagree with your premise.

The difference in the way you use the term 'truth' and the way that I use it in an ontological sense is that truth is an emergent property in a materialist worldview, whereas in an ontological view of truth, it is a primitive.

Well this is what I was talking about when I said your notion of truth presupposes a god.

An ontological notion of truth doesn't necessarily presuppose a God. As I mentioned above, the statements of truth could be held to be meaningless or the comprehension needed can be argued as not tied to a God. Another poster had already quipped about this point. Thus, I don't think its a co-premise of my argument. Rather, it is one of the conclusions of my premise.

We think in terms of cause and effect. Is this the only valid way to think? All that is happening is matter is interacting, and we label causes and effects. But like I said, this is all in our minds, and even though it seems a consistent reasoning in everyday life, there is no reason to assume it applies to the universe itself.

Well, I don't want to limit the universe by saying I am responding to your post because you disagreed with my point, but in general, the first to go in trying to develop a believable theory are those theories which make no sense whatsoever. There's always potential that theories that make no sense were right, but fair or unfair they usually do not get that kind of serious consideration. If materialism fails to provide a suitable account for causation, then you have to junk it. Materialism's main selling point is that we only encounter material things, so it is commonsense to start off by posing it as the preferred ontology. But, as I mentioned above, as science pushes us to extreme abstract things (e.g., virtual particles, wave-particle duality, wavefunctions, mathematical physics, etc), then materialism starts to lose its appeal. If materialism fails to account for causation, I would say that it isn't viable any longer.

 

[omicron]

I think it stupid to think that our creator has a creator itself. As someone said:If God was created, he would by definition, not be God. Nothing created God! He's the first and the last and however u want to describe his greatness!I also think that people who don't believe there is a God(atheists) should be careful when posting because I always see it somewhere whether its in this thread or not. After all the thread is about "Does Our Creator Have A Creator Itself"? Not there is no God!

God has obviously tried to create superior beings like himself, wouldn't you say? he created beings called angels that were both good and bad to help God but only some did.

If angels was as superior than there would be many Gods. And God did not create bad angels. Why would God create something bad? From the Christian point of view, he created angels(which were ALL good) but one wanted to be as/or more superior than him. And one third of the other angels followed him.

I think our supposed "creator" was created by those he supposedly "created", that is, the Almighty is just a Godly figure that man dreamt up to cure his insecurities.

I think that's just stupid. Its like saying: Oooo I created a cup and the cup created me. If there is a Almighty than how can he be just a Godly figure? He would be more than just that.

harvey1 said: No, that's not correct.

You can't say that that's not correct. But u can disagree with it. Its PHILOSOPHY!

Logically speaking, god is an assumption. Most religion is based on the assumption that god exists.

I would agree with u on this on for some religion. But not all religions are based on God.

God is a pseudoscience

How can u say that God is a pseudoscience? U don't even know if there is such a thing as God. In the first place how can u prove that there is a God with science. If God was the almighty he would be beyond what science can do. Isn't that logical?

Of course, none of that answers the question of if our creator has a creator. I'll cast my vote and say yes, that some set of utterly basic conditions contain the potential to cause consciousness to originage accidentally, and the creator evolved from such a happenstance eons ago.

When u say "I'll cast my vote and say yes" do u mean that our creator has a creator? About ur last sentence, if that were true in reality, than our creator would not be the Almighty. Instead chance, luck or whatever u want to call it is the Almighty. So our the Almighty is either chance, luck, etc... or our creator's creator?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose our creator had a creator. We name them X and Y respectively. So my question is why would u want to worship, praise, etc... X when Y is more superior than X. That would that be stupid right? So y bother about X when Y is more mighty? Its like Worshipping an angel instead of God!

 

[Les Sleeth]

I think it stupid to think that our creator has a creator itself. As someone said:If God was created, he would by definition, not be God. Nothing created God! He's the first and the last and however u want to describe his greatness!

The fact that religions assign certain qualities to God doesn't mean they are correct. Why does God have to be "almighty"? Why does God have to have existed forever in the past? Why does God have to be all knowing. Think about it, God only has to be powerful, knowing and old enough to have brought about creation. Such a creator would still be an incredible being.

When u say "I'll cast my vote and say yes" do u mean that our creator has a creator? About ur last sentence, if that were true in reality, than our creator would not be the Almighty. Instead chance, luck or whatever u want to call it is the Almighty. So our the Almighty is either chance, luck, etc... or our creator's creator? . . . . Suppose our creator had a creator. We name them X and Y respectively. So my question is why would u want to worship, praise, etc... X when Y is more superior than X. That would that be stupid right? So y bother about X when Y is more mighty? Its like Worshipping an angel instead of God!

A "creator" of the creator doesn't have to be another conscious being, and that is what I was suggesting. Without going into detail about why, my vote for something having created the creator is because I don't think an infinitely-existing creator makes sense. You've heard it said God is light? Well, what if there is an infinite, never created ocean of light-essence that has the potential to accidentally spawn consciousness when certain dynamics occur. Say that consciousness, although having a beginning, evolves forever. Now, after zillions of eons of evolution it acquires the ability to compress light-essence to make mattter, evolves biological forms, and allows points of its own consciousness to enter biology to develop as individual consciousnesses.

I am not saying that is what happened. I am saying that some of us who believe there is a "creator" also want a creator model to make sense. Personally I don't think religious models of God make much sense.

 

[z4955]

do we really have a creator or have we simply formed from the materials floating in space and evolved to our current state?

 

[selfAdjoint]

do we really have a creator or have we simply formed from the materials floating in space and evolved to our current state?

That's a matter of faith.

Note however your two alternatives are not really contradictory. It is possible to believe in a creator who started things up (say, the big bang leading naturally to chemicals in space..) and then let the physical laws he had decreed work their way. This was the belief of the Deists of the 18th century, and it is more or less the belief of some scientists today. Other scientists, of course, are flaming atheists.

 

[Les Sleeth]

do we really have a creator or have we simply formed from the materials floating in space and evolved to our current state?

Well, that's the big debate. But we could say that if you are correct that is the "creator." In other words, something created this situation we now find ourselves in, and there is no reason we can't call whatever it is the creator. Then the question becomes, what's the nature of the creator? Is it purely physical, or is some sort of consciousness part of it?

 

[omicron]

The fact that religions assign certain qualities to God doesn't mean they are correct. Why does God have to be "almighty"? Why does God have to have existed forever in the past? Why does God have to be all knowing. Think about it, God only has to be powerful, knowing and old enough to have brought about creation. Such a creator would still be an incredible being.

So what are u saying?

The fact that religions assign certain qualities to God doesn't mean they are correct. Why does God have to be "almighty"? Why does God have to have existed forever in the past? Why does God have to be all knowing.

I agree with everything but why wouldn't God be almighty, all knowing etc... if he was the creator?

You've heard it said God is light?

Then u've also heard it said that God is love, life and every other thing.
Are u also saying that u believe that God is light?

 

[Zlex]

So what are u saying?

I agree with everything but why wouldn't God be almighty, all knowing etc... if he was the creator?

If God exists, and if God created the Universe, then He did not have to do it by the prescribed manner--ie, jump over our ant hurdles--to prove that He did. For all we know, if He created the universe, then he must have also designed it. If he designed it, then he imagined every detail. Yet if he imagined it, and designed it, and imagined every detail, then why would there actually be a need to create it? A creator able to imagine and design and build would also be able to simply imagine.

Such a creator would know the punch line to every cosmic joke in this universe; how does such a creator, if He is to create 'surprise' in the Universe, do that? Impossible? Hardly. He could do what any schizo on Earth does; he could divide his conciousness.

Is there conciousness in the universe? Sure. Is there divided conciousness in the Universe? Well, is there 'surprise?' Is any of that proof of anything? No, it is by illustration a demonstration that the whole concept of 'proof' of God is ridiculous and unanswerable. Either way, a matter of pure faith.

Whatever God is or isn't, one thing is for sure; there is exactly zero requirement that any such God jump through any ant hoops or hurdles to prove that He exists. He does not need a beard, he does not need to sit on a throne, He does not even need to be anything other than the entire material Universe that we live in, with all of its rules, surprises, and experiments, whether deliberate or random and chaotic. Whatever He is or isn't is by definition forever above our pay grade.

Agnostics do not know. Agnostic theists believe that it is probably our job not to know; that is our function in the Universe. To not know, and to live here anyway, to create surprise in the Universe.