Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Necessity of God (Non-supernatural entities though)

  1. May 15, 2009 #1
    I hold as part of my beliefs that god necessarily exist. Here is why:

    The term god as I use it carries 1 function. 'The G-Function' I guess we could call it.

    This G-function is namely bringing about the existence of the universe. Since to me the universe exist (may or may not be subjective but this is irrelevant I think) does it not follow that whatever had completed the G-function is god?

    So is god not a necessary part of the universe?

    I however am not inferring any supernatural entities exist, just that the G-function has been fulfilled.

    The way I look at it this implies that god could be a cosmic muffin that fulfilled the G-function.

    Is my line of thinking mistaken?
    Am I using incorrect terms?
    What is this belief called... if anything?
    Is it falsifiable?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 15, 2009 #2
    Its what they call circular reasoning.
    God exists, because the universe exists, and god created the universe.

    Most philosophers, logicians, etc... have a serious problem with circular reasoning, but religions tend to use it all the time.

    The problem with your reasoning here is the assumption the universe needed creating. If the universe needed creating, why doesn't your 'god muffin' also need creating?

    Then you have infinite regress, which most people don't like much.
  4. May 15, 2009 #3
    Well I never used the term 'created'. Just that it brought the existence of the universe about. For instance it could be in my mind that the universe exist so my mind completed the G-function and can be called god
    What caused my mind to exist is irrelevant I think because god as I view it isn't the begining of everything. Just what brought our universe into existence...

    As well I was kind of hoping you would respond to this Joe :p :D Thanks.
  5. May 15, 2009 #4

    I like it and i think it's pretty elegant despite the obvious inability of the human mind to grasp infinity. If we survive as species, we might one day create a big bang of sorts. Or even multiple big bangs.
    Last edited: May 15, 2009
  6. May 15, 2009 #5
    I think it might also be necessary to point out that in this case god is not a noun it is just a functioning group.

    Like for instance what makes a person. Well a person needs a body and a mind. To me the mind is not a noun it is a list of functions a person can do like think talk etc. If we die our body remains materially here but we are no longer a person because we no longer have a mind or are no longer doing the functions necessary to be a person.
  7. May 15, 2009 #6
    The problem seems to me to be that you are not describing this god/g-function as anything but "that which brought about the universe". You are simply giving a name to an unknown. X-function would work just aswell. The term "god" though has certain meanings attached which may seem to infer more attributes than you are defining it with.

    Would you propose any other reason for using the term other than perhaps the loose creator deity connection?
  8. May 15, 2009 #7
    No I guess you could use other terms to define the said functions. Regardless the term for god I am using is more philosophical than religious... I just don't know what other name to give the function of bringing to existence our universe other than god?
  9. May 15, 2009 #8
    Why does the universe need to be 'brought into existence'? I'd say the universe defines existence. The universe is just another word for 'everything'.
    I aim to please.
  10. May 15, 2009 #9
    Well Joe everything does exist.. To me at least. This is necessarily true and somehow I recognize this existence. Something must have brought it in to existence or else this would not be possible right?
  11. May 15, 2009 #10
    I see no reason to believe that 'non-existence' is anything but a poorly defined concept based on abstract negation. Things exist, and change into other things. But I've never seen a thing stop existing, nor have I ever seen a thing before it existed.

    So no, I see no reason to believe that anything would need to be 'brought into existence'. In fact if that's the way of things, you end up with infinite regress, which just amplifies your problems.
  12. May 15, 2009 #11
    I don't find my self in any sort of regress problem because I'm not setting WHAT brought the universe about I tink that's what your missing from my explanation. How can the reason everything exist... Which we don't know about... Need something to cause its existence? It seems rediculous and redundant to claim that.
  13. May 15, 2009 #12
    The universe could serve as proof of the non-existence of god. Consider that a perfect being, god, would be motionless as to not disturb his own perfection. Intensional motion or effort is an attempt to substitute a less satisfactory state with a more satisfactory state. A perfect being would be completely satisfied not to do anything. But the universe exist, so the perfect being, god is ruled out.
  14. May 15, 2009 #13
    Helios I'm just wondering if you even read the original post or any subsequent posts on the matter? Even the title states this is not about some perfect supernatural entity..
  15. May 16, 2009 #14
    This text assumes that (i) the G-function is definable (ii) that the G-function can exist outside of existence ("the universe), (iii) that the universe began to exist (rather than existing for a finite amount of time, yet have no beginning) or is not necessary in of itself, all of which are invalid assumptions.
  16. May 16, 2009 #15
    Its ridiculous to claim the universe, which we don't really know what it is, needs an explanation. The universe IS existence. Its your WHAT that is redundant.
  17. May 16, 2009 #16
    So you don't think that when I wake up in the morning and and see my roof everyday it doesn't require any sort of explaining of what caused any of it? It just is?
  18. May 16, 2009 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The fact that it has some sort of beginning (as witnessed by the Big Bang) means that there is something there that needs explaining. Not necessarily its entire existence, but at least in the sense of 'where did it originate'?
  19. May 16, 2009 #18
    The g-function is defined as I wrote in my first post.

    The g-function necessarily exists outside the existence of OUR universe. (which means we can not know it or anything but the concept is necessary)
    Something that exists for an finite amount of time has a beginning. This doesn't mean nothing existed prior or anything of the sort.
  20. May 16, 2009 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is semantics. You are simply generating a word to describe an existing event.
  21. May 16, 2009 #20
    This is what I am getting at. Just because we can not have empirical knowledge of the concept ... in fact we can not have any knowledge of it further than the abstract concept. I don't find this concept to be faulty though..

    This is true but whenever I read philosophy they tend to use a slightly modified version of the definition for the word god. In my dictionary of philosophy it defines god as the same definition I've given above. It is however possible that I create my own term to describe this but I didn't feel people would relate to it... or they would even just say that it IS god on their own anyways...
  22. May 16, 2009 #21


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, that's the thing. The word God comes loaded with a lot of pre-existing concepts (chief among them: a supernatural entity). If it is your intention to roll your g-function in with these pre-existing concepts then no problem, as long as you accept that other people will have their own very strong opinions on how these things dovetail together. (By using an accepted word, you will be sending a message that this is deliberate on your part.)

    But if your intent is define the creation of the universe independent of the supernatural entity overtones, then you are doing a disservice by repurposing (or "overloading" in program-speak :biggrin:) an existing word.
  23. May 16, 2009 #22
    We have examples of causation with regards to roofs. We do not with regards to universes.
  24. May 16, 2009 #23
    So if roofs are things and the universe as you said is just another term for everything(which implies all things in existence) then by your logic everything does need explanation of existence. So we can switch this now the universe needs an explanation of existence...
  25. May 16, 2009 #24
    No. We observe 'causation' with regards to roofs.
    That doesn't mean roofs *need* a cause. It just means we observe that they do and feel confident we can predict from that observation, via induction.

    We do not have an observation of the universe as a whole, 'universe' is an abstract idea, one that includes everything. So a cause of the universe simply makes no sense. Any cause, would by definition, be part of the universe.

    This is the problem with working with abstract ideas, because they are ill-defined, they can lead to confusion.
  26. May 16, 2009 #25
    Yeah I think we are mostly discussing here what the different terms mean to us. By your idea the universe includes everything including those things which are ideas etc. (at least thats what i'm getting).

    To me the universe is just that which exist and we can gain knowledge of and test this knowledge by scientific method.

    It still makes sense to me to say that these things are brough into existence for us to test and gain knowledge. If not then there would be nothing, and nothing is impossible to have.

    here are things I have read that may complete the g-function:
    -most cosmological models (whether quantum mechanics or not)
    -supernatural entities (might not believe them but they MAY have completed MY g-function)
    -my cosmic muffin in first post :D
    -my own mind brings about the existence of everything (wrote a paper on this called pure perception)
    -a computer...
    -maybe something elses mind and it had a really quick thought about us and this is his thought... seems to go on forever for us because we are living in our time not it's time. (woah just made this up... weird)
    -maybe another intelligent creature created our universe in a lab. (like the simulation on the computer only this is REAL existence... assuming that the first creature isn't itself a simulation.)

    there are so many more. I don't think any one is more true than any others because I don't think it will ever be conclusive. This doesn't negate the fact that there MUST have been something that brought about the existence of what I call the universe.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook