One the most important questions man has had to ask is his purpose, his own being (reality), and the existence of God. It is safe to say that most people believe in God and /or an afterlife but the proof of Gods existence still escapes us. To the average person, to believe in something is reason enough not to call into doubt Gods existence. Obviously science and philosophy does not go by mere here-say and dogma. If that were the case I could quote a statistical survey that says, >80% people on the planet believe that there is a God and we can all pack our books and call it a day. Just because a few billion people believe in something doesn’t always make it true. Let’s look at this question two ways, both scientifically and philosophically. I want to emphasize Descartes argument since this is a PHILO blog.
First scientifically. Using a null hypothesis, the ‘there is nothing until you show me something method’, we see by nature that one thing whether it be mass or energy must be preceded by another thing IE a wave in the ocean must have been created the currents and these currents were created by a force and the force came about means of another force etc…In this way it safe to reason that everything in the known universe must have a supreme being setting this in motion and that great mover being God.
Appreciations Tom for structuring the blog both in scientific and in philosophical terms.
ReplyDeleteAt some point in my childhood, probably around age 9 I developed a love for astronomy, and began questioning the connection between God, the Universe, the concept of its finity/infinity, and also of myself as a young boy living in a physical world in that Universe somewhere between heaven and hell. One question that persisted in my mind was the following- ‘if I could sit in a rocketship at the edge of the Universe, what would I see?’ I can’t remember who I asked this question, but I do remember that I received an answer somewhere to the effect that ‘God has created a complex world that shouldn’t be questioned, but He is the answer.’ That answer sufficed without much reflection until I took a high school chemistry course which discussed the First Law of Thermodynamics. Also known as the Law of Conservation, it basically specifies that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system, only transferred or changed into a different form of energy. How then could science explain the creation of the Universe, without violating this law? Is the Universe closed, and if so what act created it from a state of nothingness? What is the nothingness? Are there other universes alongside ours? I had many questions for the scientists and the practitioners of knowledge.
In Meditation Three, Descartes tells us: ‘Hence it follows that something cannot come into being out of nothing.' This statement seems to be a philosophical remix of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Descartes then does what empirical science is not able to do: to show through logic that in order for oneself to exist, there must be a master creator (God) of that self which necessarily preexists. So it stands that well over 360 full moons later, the same answer that was provided to me as a child, has stood the test of time and scrutiny of scholars across multiple disciplines. God was, and still is, my end all answer.
Tom, you bring up a great point regarding the ontological argument for the existence of god. Infinite regress, as you eloquently put it presents a lot of problems for science or specifically cosmology. It is established fact that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. That's as far as science goes, however, theologians will ask "Well what set off the big bang in the first place?" That question cannot be answered by science so far. One can only speculate to what caused that.
ReplyDeleteOne could say that god caused that but that brings up two problems.
1) I can play the same game and ask "what caused god?"
2) Even if the universe was created by god, ask yourself this. Which god? There are as many gods as religions exists. To assign it to your particular god is faulty logic and a desperate attempt to rationalize a particular religious view.
I think that the scientific community is only willing to regress back to the "Big Bang" as the first mover. As far as the moment before "t-zero" (or the first moment of time), even the most radical theoretical physicists can barely speculate. I think once you say that something called "God" must have been the first mover, or the unmoved mover, or the first cause, then you leave the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy / theology.
ReplyDeleteFurther, Arturo (above) gets it just right when he asks: what caused god? The regression need not stop there.
Descartes’ notion of “something cannot come into being out of nothing, and also that what is more perfect (that is, what contains in itself more reality) cannot come into being from what is less perfect” (Meditations on First Philosophy, 41) states two conclusions, which when taken together, synthesizes an implied third conclusion. Firstly is Descartes’ claim that “something” cannot form from “nothing”. For example, in the concept of artificial intelligence, it is not possible to create an independently thinking entity from “zero” to “one”. Such is the same principle persisting to all existence. No existence can come into being from nothingness. However, it is undeniable that there is existence and thusly, one must conclude there being an entity responsible for being The Architect- an entity that has always been. Secondly, Descartes claims that perfection cannot form from the minds of human- the imperfect. However, humans without a doubt, has the concept of God and the perfect and that leads to the pondering of these concepts’ origins. The “imperfect” cannot breed the “perfect”. Only the “perfect” can give rise to the notion of “perfect”. Taking the two premises into consideration, Descartes is arguing in this quote that all things in existence sprung from the works of God for all existence must have a maker and the only one capable of forming the perfect (God) is the perfect. However, my problem with this conclusion is “how can God create the idea of His own existence?”
ReplyDeleteI agree with the philosophical argument that Descartes uses when he says that he must have been created by greater than himself because it does not make sense that something could be created from nothing and that if Descartes had created himself he would have created a perfect being with no flaws. But I also feel that this is not a full justification for the argument that there is a God because as stated in class a few times there still is the concept of the “evil genius” that could have created all this which is why some of our perceptions can be misconstrued and called into doubt. So with Descartes argument in mind I feel that all that is proven by this is that a being greater than us actually exists but as to the nature of this being I do not believe it can be said for certain what the intent of this being is.
ReplyDeleteOne has to understand that when Descartes describes the nature of God, he focuses on the perfection of his essence. Judaism believes that God is everything and nothing at the same time. Meaning, he permeates space and time but is also at the same time above and beyond it. Jewish thought believes one can pray to God but one cannot know God's essence. In the same sense, an ant cannot truly understand a human because they exist in seperate spheres of conscienceness. Descartes understands that God cannot be an "evil genuis" because that would imply an imperfection in God's essence. Perfection is an interesting concept becasue as humans it is hard to comprehend what perfection truly is. Perfection is more of an ideal than a reality. The idea of God being perfect and existing above space and time is hard to grasp but Descartes understands that infinity and perfection are tied together by some cosmological force which is why the "hyperbolic doubt" of God being an "evil genuis" was such a radical notion in Descartes close proximity to the Scholastic tradtion.
ReplyDeleteThere's none and no one which/whom can explain me if God exist or not. But I need to belief in something to create a base from where to start building my world and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteTom, I think you have been lucky to take this polemic theme about the existence of God. Just like many people, I think the only way to get out and wrap up this question is answering as a personal reflection since science doesn't give enough proof whether God exists or not, or the origin of the universe, not even an unique accurate thesis about human existence, and theology/philosophy brings sometimes unsubstantiated and subjective theories. I will not venture to say Descartes states unsubstantiated theories, but when he argues that "the idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being; therefore God exists" seems to me it can be taken or left as a theory because it doesn't really convince, I mean it easy to conclude being this issue very extended.