'God': A Possible Definition

Post Reply New Topic

I notice there is yet another thread dealing once again with this topic (i.e. 'Is God is a Jerk?', by our favourite theologian AspieOtaku), but the problem with most of these discussions is that the term 'God' itself is almost never clarified, nor are the reasons given by theists for why we should believe in God ever adequate for most who doubt this proposition. Well, here is my own understanding of the idea, and some of the reasoning behind why I don't just dismiss the concept out of hand, as many tend to do.

a) Our physical reality, which we call ‘the universe’, is contingent (i.e. it could have had other properties and constants, or not existed at all). The ‘multiverse hypothesis’ not only has no evidence in its favour whatsoever, but actually does not address the issue of ultimate causes, for one has to then ask why there is a multiverse rather than nothing, and if one then postulates in order to account for this level of reality yet another level of (physical) reality, then one will never actually reach the ultimate source for all there is (see ‘infinite regression’, below).

b) Contingent entities are generally recognised to have causes, whether the cause is efficient or material, contingent or necessary, temporal or atemporal (W. L. Craig). A ‘cause’ can either precede the ‘effect’, or be temporally co-existent (atemporal causality).

The common objection that causality itself is an aspect of the physical reality we know, and that because of this there was no time ‘before’ the universe began, and therefore the universe did not ‘begin’ in that sense, does not take into account the fact that an effect need not follow in a temporal sequence the cause that brought it into existence; the two - the cause and the effect - can be simultaneous. For example, the very table that I am now currently sitting next to sustains the objects that rest upon it in a relationship that places those objects a certain distance above the ground. If the table in question were to somehow magically pop out of existence, all that rests upon it would instantaneously fall to the ground due to the force of gravity. We can say, therefore, that the table is the contingent, atemporal cause of the current configuration of the objects that rest upon it, the simultaneity of both the cause and the effect demonstrating that time, in this specific example and as we understand it, is not required for such a situation to be. In the very same way it is said by theologians that God ‘sustains in existence’ the physical reality that, in its absence, would simply not exist. All that is physical is also contingent; physical entities, processes and phenomena are of limited duration and extent, are explicable, and required (or requires) the existence of something else external to it that one can consider to be its cause. (By the way, the last time I used the 'disappearing table' analogy, there was at least one person who thought I really did believe that tables could actually do this. I don't, it's just an example I have chosen to use to help clarify a concept, the concept of atemporal causality).

c) Entities, whether physical or non-physical (ex. consciousness), are never responsible for their own existence, for this would require they have some form of existence prior to their actually coming into existence, which is impossible. Any entity, process or phenomenon that had somehow created itself, would also have violated the principles of both temporal and atemporal causality.

d) That which exists, however one defines ‘existence’, requires an explanation for its existence, whether the explanation in question is contained within that which is being explained (i.e. it exists necessarily), or whether there is an exterior one that provides a context within which the entity in question can be accounted for (i.e. it exists contingently). An example of an aspect of reality that is necessary and therefore self-explanatory, is the mathematical entity known as the triangle. A triangle, by definition, is a polygon that only ever has three sides and interior angles that sum to 180 degrees in Euclidean space. The explanation for what a triangle is and why it is so, is found not in anything external to it, but within the entity itself. It matters not whether the triangle is isosceles, equilateral, right or scalene, the above requirements still apply, the definition still holds. So it is with other mathematical concepts, and with God too. They exist necessarily, because they simply could not fail to exist in the manner they do.

e) Any ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing must be necessary, if only because the postulation of yet another contingent explanation for what there is and why, would inevitably lead to the absurdity of an infinite regression of causes (J. P. Moreland). Can an infinity of moments actually be crossed? The answer according to theologians such as J. P. Moreland and others, is that no, they cannot. Here’s why.

The past, as something that is said to exist in a real and meaningful way, has at least one boundary that we are all aware of (i.e. the present), and however one decides to define exactly what is meant by a ‘moment in time’, it is generally agreed that such moments, however brief in duration they may be, cannot be infinite in number for the simple reason that the past would have no lower bound; that is, it would have taken an unlimited amount of time to reach what we call the present, and the problem arises when one considers the fact that one of the defining characteristics of the infinite, as a concept, is that no number, however large, that is added to or subtracted from it, can alter its basic, boundless nature. The past, being infinite in extent, would have ensured that we could never have reached the moment in time where we are now.

f) Reality (i.e. the physical universe) exists, is contingent, and cannot in any way, shape or form, violate either causality or the laws of logic, and requires an explanation for both its existence and why it exists in the manner it does. This cause must be necessary, not contingent.

Conclusion: There must necessarily exist a foundational base that is necessary (not contingent), provide an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, and be the atemporal cause for all we understand to be reality, due to the fact that this reality cannot violate the rules of logic and create itself.

He either does not exist, or he does what he pleases and likes to take innocent lives and incite fear in order to get people to love him.

You're making the, rather unjustified, assumption that the only God that could possibly exist would be of the kind we come across in the various monotheistic mythologies. You are presenting a false dichotomy here. There are other options to choose from. The 'God' of the Bible is an obvious fraud, and the same should be said of the one that apparently dictated the Qu'ran to a Mr. Moe Hammered.

Perhaps the term god is just a simple explanation for the unknown until more discoveries have been made. The Universe is ever so vast and expanding and little is known about its origins and complexities what we do know it is there and we are but a tiny spec in the universe. Until recently we have believed that we are the only life forms in this vast universe until fossilized microbes from a meteorite from mars found in Antarctica was found. With the keplar telescope we have also found several Earth like planets within the goldilocks system with water and possible life.

'Tiny speck' - for some reason I've been coming across that expression a lot lately. I get the impression that those who use it seem to think that because the universe we inhabit is so incomparably vast in comparison to our little Earth that it means we are, in the grand scheme of things, equally insignificant. That, however, does not logically follow.

In any case, scientific discoveries about life on other planets is kind of irrelevant to the topic here, so even if we eventually do find life elsewhere it will make no difference to the points I raise about the universe itself.

The Universe is much older than what YEC think it is, it certainly is a lot older than 10000 years old it is now estimated to be possibly 14 billion years old. The origin of the universe is still not known only guesses or just the simple God did it approach. There could be a possibility that there is a multiverse, before this universe was formed it was just an empty void possibly a black hole from another universe opened up sucking up what was from the prior and our universe is just what is on the other side of that black hole.

God is gravity. Gravity creates everything, and is in absolute control of everything and everyone.
I suspect that there is no point in time where all things began, it always has been and always will.

The meaning of life is to experience it with the illusion that it is your own story.
You think you are driving your car, but really you are the passenger, and gravity is the driver.

You think you are playing an open world non-linear video game, but it's actually a movie that gravity made.

Let's deal with the one we've got rather than speculating about what might be possible.



What do hypotheses about multiple universes have to do with this? Seriously, I'm not sure why you think they're relevant.





If you're going to misrepresent someone, might be best you make sure there isn't a record of the conversation. I'll refer you to my actual stated opinion on the subject, and invite anyone who is interested to read the thread, starting with:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=286409&start=360

Wherein you posted this exact same wall of nonsense.



We'll lump C and D together for obvious reasons.



So your argument is completely reliant on the assertion that a thing is "utterly impossible *waves fingers* except this one time because otherwise my model doesn't work".



But stating with any certainty that the 'ultimate explanation' is a: God and b: immediately responsible for creating the universe is not justified by this argument. You still haven't provided a definition for God, let alone a necessity for one.

Also, you can still plot points on a theoretically infinite line.



Until we have a complete understanding of what constitutes causality and the 'laws of logic', the above statement is no more valid than any multiverse hypothesis, and a great deal less useful.



You have proven neither your conclusion nor the logic which informs it.

I was dealing with the one we've got. I was pointing out the fact that it need not have turned out the way it has, there being nothing we can point to that could be said to determine how, or why, the one we do have HAD to be like this.



They've got everything to do with this, because atheistic cosmologists like to brag about how the multiverse hypothesis explains away our fortuitous physical constants that allow for life to even arise in the first place, arguing that it stands to reason we should find ourselves in such a place because there are an infinite number of other, parallel universes in existence where the constants are not so conducive. There is NO evidence for the existence of these alternative realities, but that doesn't stop some people from having blind faith in their existence if it means, in their mind, that we can therefore do away with the concept of God.



Who am I misrepresenting?! 'Wall of nonsense'?! What an ignorant, utterly clueless thing to say! It's rather obvious that you just did not understand the points I made there, and have therefore chosen to just dismiss them, perhaps thinking, "I don't understand this, therefore it's nonsense". How mature of you.



You still don't get the analogy! It is NOT a literal table! Do you comprehend the concept of metaphor?

I'm not even going to bother with the gibberish you write after this. You have chosen to deliberately misrepresent the points I make here, or perhaps you just don't understand them to begin with. I'm not sure which, but I am not going to waste my time with someone who clearly is unwilling or incapable of understanding some very simple philosophical concepts.

How do you know what possible alternatives there are, if any? We don't understand anything about the conditions required for the formation of Universes. It's entirely possible that this is the only possible configuration that works. Alternatively, we have no way of knowing if a different configuration would be better suited to habitation. Speculation is pointless beyond what is.



And they're making these hypotheses based on observations of reality rather than trying to conform reality to their ideology. Why are you scared of advancing knowledge? If only a fraction of a fraction of the studies being done lead to positive outcomes - e.g. we already understand some diseases better because of it - it doesn't matter how wildly speculative you believe it to be.



There's a world of difference between 'blind faith' and 'this theoretical model could explain x'. Don't you realise that your attempt to dismiss their views as 'blind faith' only betrays your contempt for your own blind faith?



Nice ad hominem you have there, care to try again only this time demonstrating you understand my point? I mean you're about to respond to me quoting myself from another thread from quite some time ago as if I've only just posted it, but carry on with your delusion that I'm the one who doesn't understand.

Your misrepresentation was of myself. I provided the evidence of such. Your denial of such is further evidence of the intellectual dishonesty we discussed in the other thread.



This in response to the following:



I'm going to break my own rule about explaining plain English here, because I'm starting to suspect it isn't your first language. Here's a breakdown of that sentence:

"You used a metaphorical magic table": This is a de facto statement of my understanding of your friend Mr. Craig's idiotic argument. You've wisely left out the special pleading which he at least admits to - namely that the entire premise requires faith in his specific God.

"As part of a nonsensical model": Craig's contingency model is flawed, relying as it does on a physically constructed environment which cannot exist in the vacuum you would have us believe it does. The contingency argument is infantile nonsense.

"In a bid to describe physical reality": Which has been done far better by those scientists you're so quick to debunk based only on your own preconceived ideological preferences.



Further intellectual dishonesty. And they aren't even your points to begin with. Why don't you try thinking for yourself for a bit? Some original arguments might actually provide something of a stimulating challenge.



Translation: I'm butthurt because you aren't blindly agreeing with my super special magical secret knowledge that I got from the interwebs.

Move along people, there's really nothing to see here.

There is only one universe that we know of, so why do you just lazily assume there are others?



No, this isn't the case. If you knew anything at all about chemistry, physics and cosmology, you would not make such an erroneous statement.



...and yet you indulge in speculation when you presuppose the reality of other universes when you say, 'We don't understand anything about the conditions required for the formation of Universes'. Universes - plural. To imagine there are other universes out there somewhere would come under any reasonable person's definition of 'pointless speculation'.



I'm not. Just the opposite in fact. What on Earth gave you this impression?



I don't have 'blind faith'. Perhaps you do, and you are projecting this onto me.



Isn't it a touch hypocritical to accuse someone of indulging in ad hominem attacks when you do so yourself? You know, like saying that I am 'scared of advancing knowledge', or have 'blind faith'.



Where?! I don't see it. It must have been written in invisible ink.



Another ad hominem! That's the third one so far, isn't it?



A physically-constructed environment... oh Gawd, your objection to the contingency argument is based upon an ignorance of the argument that is truly astonishing. Please, do yourself a favour and learn a bit about it.



Are you actually serious?



Another ad hominem! You're on a roll here.



Oh, I'm hurt. Sure, like the arguments, if I can even call them that, that you present here are just SO original! Right.



Yes, you are. Perhaps you should see a doctor about that. It might be an infection.

Pardon? You're the one proposing alternative configurations. Would you not consider these alternatives to be different universes? Clearly they wouldn't be this one. Are you truly this blind to the nuance of language or are you having to work hard just to attempt to create the illusion of having something to criticise?



Everything we know about chemistry is contingent on the existence of this universe. We know nothing of the conditions which created the universe. Chemistry, physics and cosmology cannot yet tell us whether a slight alteration to the conditions which formed our universe would or would not result in a damp squib, and nor can you.



This is how far you have to stretch in order to wriggle off the hook you've placed yourself on. In lieu of an actual argument, you've decided to play a child's game of semantics. If you'd taken the time to form your own argument instead of copy&pasting someone else's, you'd realise that the other "universes" are those hypothetical ones you suggested with your alternative configurations.

Seriously, is this the best you can do?



Why you did, dear Lintar. That was an easy one.



Define your God.



Kindly point out where I then failed to offer a counter point to what you posted. In short, no. No it is not.



Do you have some sort of short term memory problem? This isn't exactly a long thread.



Actually no, that was a legitimately stated concern.



Are you arguing that the model came into being as the result of magic? An act of creation? Tell me, Lintar, whence cometh the table?



Are you telling me that it was simple ignorance instead?



Hardly. Your arguments are lifted wholesale from the source, and you're failing to defend against even the mildest of scrutiny.



Wherein you acknowledge that my assessment was a fair one, despite calling it an ad hominem. Pray tell, if you are able, what source do you wish me to credit for my rebuttals?



Start with semantics, end with quote mining. Do you happen to possess a Creationist guide to debating?

No, the ones who are proposing alternative universes are the atheistic cosmologists like Hawking, Mlodinow and Krauss who need these alternative realities in order to account, without God, for what has come to be known as the fine-tuning. I am the one who is saying, "No, these universes have yet to be shown to be real". I don't believe in them.



Yet another ad hominem.



The fact that you acknowledge 'conditions that created the universe' tells me you accept the contingency of the universe itself, which was the point I demonstrated before - i.e. that the universe isn't necessary, could have been otherwise, need not have existed at all. What have I been saying all along? The universe is contingent, therefore it requires an explanation. Are you even reading what you are criticising here?



It seems you have blown a fuse. How sad. The arguments are my own, not anyone else's, not even Craig's (although he does raise similar issues). I am not on any 'hook', apart from the one that only exists in your imagination.



Good question. Well, is it?



You've done NOTHING to demonstrate a coherent argument for accepting what you yourself believe to be true (i.e. that God doesn't exist). No, I don't have a 'memory problem', thanks for asking.



No, it was an insult. We can do this all day you know.



No, that's what the atheists believe. You know - "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded".



No, I haven't done this. Prove that I have. The 'cut and paste' was from a document that I myself wrote up, and I thought it easier to do this than write it all out again.



No.

I have to go now, my time here is up. They close at five.

You make several definitive statements here ("all", "never", and so forth). I don't think these are necessarily justified.

How do you know that the universe is contingent? What evidence do you have that it isn't necessary.
Contingent entities might be "recognised" as having causes - how do we know that they always do? Human assumptions have a habit of being wrong.
How do you know that entities are never responsible for their own existence?
How do you know what the principles of both temporal and atemporal causality are?

Essentially - how do you know the rules you use for dealing with day-to-day situations apply to the universe?

I think an easier place to start might be this - that consciousness may not only be potential where nerve cells or single-cell anatomy as we're use to it exists. It may only be as potent as the quantity and quality of what it can hold command of and if it's an atom it's not getting too far, a molecule not an improvement we'd generally note, a single-celled organism it's up and running, a plant - rooted in something probably like surgical sedation, an animal - having a vivid limbic and intuitive grasp of its environment moment by moment (that gap is a very interesting one - the jump from plant to animal), and the last of what we can speak of in a grounded way - humans, which can range from Plotinus and Emerson on one hand to Beavis and Butthead on the other.

That's where one could see entire systems as having graduated levels of awareness and where you could consider THE God, not solar, not galactic, perhaps not universal, but of all possible, spaces, times, and dimensions, as the superstructure of all aggregated consciousness in existence. Another way to look at that model is to draw it in reverse and consider God starting with major decisions about It's own overture, behaviors, preferences, and deciding to work hierarchically to finer and more minute details hence all things could be graduated subdivisions. In a personally intimate way it would make The Absolute the root of all experience, thought, emotion, and memory.

If we accept the standard definition of 'the universe' as being 'the cosmos, physical reality, all that we know of that is material', then it most certainly had what we could call a beginning. Unlike many creationists, I actually understand the Second Law of thermodynamics, and it points in the direction of our reality being finite in time, due to the fact that an equilibrium state will be reached when the level of entropy within this universe reaches its maximum extent. We generally accept the universe is a closed system, and unless it isn't (possible? - maybe) there will be a point in time in the future when all possible activity will cease. If our universe has always existed, then we should not see the order that we find within it, because it would have run down aeons ago - in fact, an infinite amount of time ago.

There is also the widely accepted Big Bang theory, which has our universe as being 13.7 thousand million years of age. Cosmologists no longer accept Steady State (endorsed by Fred Hoyle), nor do they accept the oscillating model (so far as I know).

Contingency means that the entity, phenomenon or whatever it is that one has in mind has not existed eternally, has a reason for why it exists and in the manner it does, and could possibly have been otherwise or failed to exist in the first place.



First hand experience of the world we live in. If something does not have a cause (ex. the mathematical truth that 2+2=4), then it is considered to be 'necessary' (i.e. self-explanatory, eternally true). I don't really like using the word 'cause' myself, if only because it presupposes conventional causality; that is, it presupposes the existence of time which apparently did not, because it could not, have existed in any sense 'prior' to the existence of the universe itself. The word 'explanation' would be a better choice, because it allows for phenomena that from our perspective don't seem to have 'causes' (ex. virtual particles). Apparently our universe was in this sense without a cause, but a) so much of cosmology is at this point in time purely speculative, and b) even if there was no cause we must acccpt that it at least can be explained. We generally don't accept that events or phenomena or what-have-you is simply inexplicable. We always look for an explanation, because we would be unsatisfied without at least the possibility of finding one.



Simply because for something to be responsible for its own existence, it would have to exist prior in time to the point when it actually began to. I don't believe that this would ever be possible, because it doesn't even make sense in the first place.



Atemporal causality - when the effect is simultaneous in time with the cause. Ex. when a person plants their foot into soft sand, the placement of their foot and the impression - the effect - made in the sand occur at the same moment. What we call temporal causality is when the effect of an event prior in time can be attributed to that prior event.



Well, many of the rules dealing with day-to-day situations don't apply, but if an idea is logically incoherent (ex. all we know of - an entire universe - just popping into existence from nothing, and for no reason) we can safely reject it.

Anyway, I hope that this time I have been much clearer, because for whatever reason I just could not effectively convey what I meant to say to 'adifferentname'. I thought I had been clear enough, but apparently I hadn't been.