Necessity of God (Non-supernatural entities though)

[Sorry!]

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?

 

[JoeDawg]

Is my line of thinking mistaken?

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.

 

[Sorry!]

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.

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 beginning 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.

 

[WaveJumper]

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.

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.

 

[Sorry!]

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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?

 

[Sorry!]

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?

 

[JoeDawg]

Well I never used the term 'created'. Just that it brought the existence of the universe about.

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'.

As well I was kind of hoping you would respond to this Joe :p :D Thanks.

I aim to please.

 

[Sorry!]

Well Joe everything does exist.. To me at least. This is necessarily true and somehow I recognize this existence. Something must have brought it into existence or else this would not be possible right?

 

[JoeDawg]

Well Joe everything does exist.. To me at least. This is necessarily true and somehow I recognize this existence. Something must have brought it into existence or else this would not be possible right?

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.

 

[Sorry!]

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.

 

[Helios]

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.

 

[Sorry!]

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..

 

[Moridin]

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?

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.

 

[JoeDawg]

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.

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.

 

[Sorry!]

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.

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?

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

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'?

 

[Sorry!]

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.

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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

This is semantics. You are simply generating a word to describe an existing event.

 

[Sorry!]

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'?

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 semantics. You are simply generating a word to describe an existing event.

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...

 

[DaveC426913]

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...

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 ) an existing word.

 

[JoeDawg]

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?

We have examples of causation with regards to roofs. We do not with regards to universes.

 

[Sorry!]

The universe is just another word for 'everything'.

We have examples of causation with regards to roofs. We do not with regards to universes.

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...

 

[JoeDawg]

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...

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.

 

[Sorry!]

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 that's 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 anyone 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.

 

[deadcat]

Is my line of thinking mistaken?

Yes, but it can always change. This is similar to how ancient societies though, which lead to believes such as Greek/Roman mythology, the line of thinking needs to be adapted in the sense that just because we don't have an explanation, doesn't mean we need to make one up, we need to dig deeper into the subject, in the direction of the answer. Until then, it's ok to say we don't know something. Like "Sorry!" said with scientific method would be the way to gain knowledge into this.

 

[deadcat]

The fact that it has some sort of beginning

It doesn't "need" a beginning, everyone just insist on it. For all we know the "big bang" theory may just represent an insignificant fraction of the universe. Just because infinity is too hard for most people to comprehend doesn't mean it's impossible, for example a number can be divided infinitely with decimals. How do you know space itself isn't an insignificant fraction relevant to a larger existence of which it may be within? The real "fact" is we don't know if there was a beginning, this is just popular consensus/ a theory, not a "fact".

 

[Sorry!]

It doesn't "need" a beginning, everyone just insist on it. For all we know the "big bang" theory may just represent an insignificant fraction of the universe. Just because infinity is too hard for most people to comprehend doesn't mean it's impossible, for example a number can be divided infinitely with decimals. How do you know space itself isn't an insignificant fraction relevant to a larger existence of which it may be within? The real "fact" is we don't know if there was a beginning, this is just popular consensus/ a theory, not a "fact".

Well I'm not positing a beginning to everything that exists just our universe which is all we know that exists. Even though most scientific models of the expansion of our universe go beyond the Big Bang does not mean that the Big Bang did not cause our universe to come into existence how it is now.

 

[JoeDawg]

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'?

But as you say, that's not really an existence issue. The big bang, theoretically, is not really an explosion in the normal sense of things moving through space/time, all the laws of physics break down the closer you get to the big bang. So yes, we can describe it as 'a beginning', but space/time as we understand it, ceases to have much meaning in relation to the 'big bang'. So any comparison is at best a weak analogy.

Causation as we understand it, on a day to day level, works great, but the big bang is a whole nother kettle of fish. Even if its convenient to think of it as a bang, its nothing like our everyday experience of explosions.

 

[deadcat]

Well I'm not positing a beginning to everything that exists just our universe which is all we know that exists. Even though most scientific models of the expansion of our universe go beyond the Big Bang does not mean that the Big Bang did not cause our universe to come into existence how it is now.

Yes, I agree with you. It's a possibility and the most likely one, but as with a math equation, without all the information the equation cannot be solved, or will be incorrect. I'm not saying this is incorrect (big bang) but it's the best theory available with the information at hand, which I'm sure will evolve as information is made available, as all ideas & theories do until they are complete, or seem to be complete.

 

[WaveJumper]

But as you say, that's not really an existence issue. The big bang, theoretically, is not really an explosion in the normal sense of things moving through space/time, all the laws of physics break down the closer you get to the big bang. So yes, we can describe it as 'a beginning', but space/time as we understand it, ceases to have much meaning in relation to the 'big bang'. So any comparison is at best a weak analogy.

Causation as we understand it, on a day to day level, works great, but the big bang is a whole nother kettle of fish. Even if its convenient to think of it as a bang, its nothing like our everyday experience of explosions.

How does this refute the requirement for causation? And how does this "theory" explain the extreme odds of having a universe like ours develop by chance(whatever that means), with all the constants just right for the formation of matter, stars, planets and life. Even Stephen Hawking, who tries hard to explain away the creation of the universe as a series coincidences in A Brief History of Time, acknowledges the extraordinary equilibrium in the rate of expansion:

"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."

Paul Davies comments on how the laws of physics provide for conditions ideal for life to emerge:

"Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it…Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision."

So does this extraordinary precision not require an explanation?I am much more in favour of atheism than any and all religions but i hate how hastily atheism sticks its head in the sand if some finding contradicts its tenets.

 

[JoeDawg]

How does this refute the requirement for causation?

I'm not refuting anything, I'm saying that relying on our understanding of causation to be accurate, in situation as alien as the big bang (and I don't mean the inflation afterward, I mean the big bang itself) makes no real sense, even if its a convenient analogy.

Its like saying a light is a wave... no its a particle... no its a wave. It isn't really either. Its something different, that we can describe very vaguely as having wave and particle like behaviors. Our everyday life causation, is no standard at all... except with regards to our everyday life.

 

[Tibarn]

Even if the g-function implies "God" exists, it says nothing about God. Taking something known to exist, defining it as God, then using that as evidence for the existence of God is rather dishonest. I may as well redefine "extraterrestrial" as "cosmic ray"; I'll be perfectly justified in thus saying that extraterrestrials come to Earth, but this new statement has absolutely nothing in common with the usual implications of this statement. It's a semantic trick, nothing more.

 

[Sorry!]

Even if the g-function implies "God" exists, it says nothing about God. Taking something known to exist, defining it as God, then using that as evidence for the existence of God is rather dishonest. I may as well redefine "extraterrestrial" as "cosmic ray"; I'll be perfectly justified in thus saying that extraterrestrials come to Earth, but this new statement has absolutely nothing in common with the usual implications of this statement. It's a semantic trick, nothing more.

Well I decided to use this word because it is correlated to what I have set up as the definition. It is not intended to prove the 'existence of God' (God in your case has a capital g making me assume you are using it as a noun. Which I covered in an earlier post) Nor am I intending to be dishonest to anyone.

If it helps at all I'm a atheist (related to religious terms). So I am NOT posting this to attempt to prove any sort of supernatural entity exist. I leave open the possibility of such an entity in my definition but it is not one I believe will be correct... not that I will ever know for sure anyways.

As well, it may not say anything about what I define, as in give characteristics to?, god but does that really matter?

Your word game of defining extraterrestials as cosmic rays is dishonest to yourself and I think an insult to my intelligence.

 

[DaveC426913]

It doesn't "need" a beginning, everyone just insist on it. For all we know the "big bang" theory may just represent an insignificant fraction of the universe. Just because infinity is too hard for most people to comprehend doesn't mean it's impossible, for example a number can be divided infinitely with decimals. How do you know space itself isn't an insignificant fraction relevant to a larger existence of which it may be within? The real "fact" is we don't know if there was a beginning, this is just popular consensus/ a theory, not a "fact".

No. The phyics and math show that there was a beginning to this universe. The BB is pretty solid.

Though that still doesn't mean it was the beginning of everything...