Exploring the Prime Mover: Philosophy vs Physics

[CyberShot]

If the universe started with a big bang, what caused that ? If you subscribe to multi-verse theory, I can ask the same question "what caused them?" and so on. If the universe always was, then anything that could've happened already happened. I already typed this statement and know the answer to this question, and thus the purpose was already served; so the infinite universe theory doesn't look good.There has to be a prime mover, and since nothing can happen without a cause, that cause has to be God. Now, you can ask who created God. It's enough to say that nothing created God, that He is self-sustaining because when we talk about God we are speaking in terms of supernaturality, where such "logical stretches" are allowed. Now if you try to apply the same logic to the universe and ask, well why can't you say the universe always was, without a creator? When we say universe we are not speaking in terms of supernaturality, so it doesn't make sense to say it just was. But with God, it just is.Now, I'm tired off people saying that philosophy plays "catch up" with physics and asserts things that can never be proven (i.e waste of time). At least it can spark controversies in ways that physics never can. So take that, you philosophy-bashing physicists! Physics now has to play catch up with philosophy in regard to the above statement.

 

[what66]

Such word salad doesn't explore any new insight into the whys and how of the universe, so is not relevant to Physics.That's All there is to it.

 

[jobigoud]

It's enough to say that nothing created God, that He is self-sustaining because when we talk about God we are speaking in terms of supernaturality, where such "logical stretches" are allowed.

How convenient

So I can say that God is actually a tiny invisible pink unicorn that lives under my bed, because, you know, since we are talking about something supernatural, any logical stretch is allowed.

 

[Tanelorn]

You have a tiny invisible pink Unicorn under your bed also? Maybe you are right!



Cybershot, in Cosmology and Physics in general we observe, measure and we try to understand. We are dealing with the facts.

 

[holomorphic]

t's enough to say that nothing created God, that He is self-sustaining... ... ... But with God, it just is.

God is the most perfect entity imaginable.
An entity is less perfect than another entity if it takes more effort to accomplish tasks.
Ergo God must require less effort to accomplish anything than any amount of effort imaginable.
Ergo God accomplishes everything without effort.
Sustaining one's own being is a form of effort.
Ergo God accomplishes everything without sustaining his own being.
Ergo God does not exist.

Checkmate!

 

[Helios]

Similarily,
God is perfect.
Effort is exerted with the purpose of improvement.
God does not exert any effort because he doesn't need improvement.
Yet creation would require effort, implying that the creator is not perfect.
Ergo God is perfect and God is not perfect, which is absurd.

I think threads like this get locked down. CyberShot might not get to reply quickly enough, but he might say "logic doesn't apply to God because he is supernatural", in his defense.

 

[holomorphic]

Similarily,
...
I think threads like this get locked down. CyberShot might not get to reply quickly enough, but he might say "logic doesn't apply to God because he is supernatural", in his defense.

Yeah. I just wanted to point out why this kind of line of questioning is silly. The conclusions aren't really important since the values being relied upon are ridiculous.

 

[Chronos]

Science is about cause and effect. It works well. God should be left out of it until we run out of scientific explanations. Is the origin of the universe one of those situations? I doubt it. The universe may have originated from a quantum event. Most theologians would probably agree 'God' is not bound by our universe or the physics thereof. So, using science to inquire about the nature of 'God' is rather like asking what the color blue tastes like. The answer is, of course, Rubus idaeus.

 

[CyberShot]

God is the most perfect entity imaginable.
An entity is less perfect than another entity if it takes more effort to accomplish tasks.
Ergo God must require less effort to accomplish anything than any amount of effort imaginable.
Ergo God accomplishes everything without effort.
Sustaining one's own being is a form of effort.
Ergo God accomplishes everything without sustaining his own being.
Ergo God does not exist.

Checkmate!

I have to cast doubt on this. Sustaining one's own being is not a form of effort for the most perfect entity imaginable.

For less perfect entities, yes, I agree with you.

Similarily,
God is perfect.
Effort is exerted with the purpose of improvement.
God does not exert any effort because he doesn't need improvement.
Yet creation would require effort, implying that the creator is not perfect.
Ergo God is perfect and God is not perfect, which is absurd.

I think threads like this get locked down. CyberShot might not get to reply quickly enough, but he might say "logic doesn't apply to God because he is supernatural", in his defense.

Not sure what you mean by your 2nd line. I would consider evolution effort, and scientists know that evolution doesn't always mean improvement of life forms.

As with the person above you, I'm not convinced, nor do I think most philosophers would be, that creation requires effort for an infinitely capable being.

If an entity has infinity effort points to spend, take away 10 "effort points", say, for creating the universe and you're still left with infinity. Since the effort points left to spend didn't change, it's logical that no effort was consumed.

Science is about cause and effect. It works well. God should be left out of it until we run out of scientific explanations. Is the origin of the universe one of those situations? I doubt it. The universe may have originated from a quantum event. Most theologians would probably agree 'God' is not bound by our universe or the physics thereof. So, using science to inquire about the nature of 'God' is rather like asking what the color blue tastes like. The answer is, of course, Rubus idaeus.

I quite agree with you. I'm just in awe at how powerful certain philosophical arguments are (cosmological argument), at least in pointing people in the right direction, without having to do what people call 'science.'

 

[George Jones]

I have closed this thread, as it is not about the mainstream science of cosmology.