23

Lots of people consider the universe to be too complex, ordered, structured, and too advanced to have come about, without a designer. However, isn’t God the most complex, ordered, structured, and the most advanced thing possible? He can create and destroy anything, be anywhere, and has infinite power. How could His existence be less miraculous than the universe?

I’m not sure how God, being supposedly uncreated, solves the issue. Imagine you came across a very advanced robot. Imagine someone tells you “this formed by chance. No one designed this”. One may deem this ridiculous. But now imagine if someone tells you that this robot was just always there, undesigned. Would believing this be less ridiculous? Arguably, it would be even more. Given ample periods of time, complex things may come about. But given no time?

What is the argument against God's probability?

Julius Hamilton
  • 1,559
  • 4
  • 29
Baby_philosopher
  • 1
  • 1
  • 4
  • 22
  • 1
    Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Geoffrey Thomas Mar 26 '24 at 17:19
  • 2

    Lots of people consider the universe to be too complex, too ordered, too structured, and too advanced to have come about without a designer. Those people are philosophical neophytes who don't know about ideas such as the Anthropic Principle.

     – Kaz Mar 28 '24 at 07:02
  • 1
    @Kaz Rebuttals available here. – Mark Mar 28 '24 at 07:07
  • 1
    @Mark I can't bring myself to negotiate with tyrants – ac15 Mar 28 '24 at 11:45

15 Answers15

12

I would like to outline the basic branches of the argument:

Some theists may like to say "The universe cannot have come into existence itself, it must have a creator".

A non-theist might then say "Doesn't the creator then also need a creator?"

The theist may say one of two things: "No, the creator can just spontaneously come into existence" or "No, the creator has always existed."

With either of those answers, a non-theist would then say "If you allow for the possibility that the creator could do that, then it seems equally reasonable for me to allow for the possibility that our universe did that itself without a creator".

Here's a wikipedia page on the question, including quotes from both sides of the debate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_God

This is one of those questions in philosophy, like many, that is perennially unsettled formally, and how you choose to resolve the debate comes down, apparently, to personal intuition. Some people seem to intuitively feel like "God can create itself, or have always existed, but the universe cannot". Other people intuitively feel like God, as a complex thinking being, must be in some sense complex enough to say "if the universe needs a creator, God does too".

The wikipedia page lists many counter-arguments from theists, mainly, so allow me to post a couple alternative links.

Stephen Hawking has some thoughts on the matter.

So does Sean Carroll

This is a debate, as you can see, that's been going on for many decades (centuries?), and it hasn't stopped yet. I may have my own opinion and my own intuition, but I wouldn't say that people who disagree with my thoughts are necessarily making obvious grave errors in reasoning. It's a tricky one.

TKoL
  • 2,569
  • 5
  • 15
  • 3
    Problem: "The universe has always existed" is not supported by cosmology. – Joshua Mar 26 '24 at 03:39
  • 11
    @Joshua: Incorrect. Cosmology says precisely nothing about whether the universe existed before the Big Bang or even whether the concept of "before the Big Bang" is meaningful. – Jack Aidley Mar 26 '24 at 09:53
  • 4
    @JackAidley: It says we see no evidence of anything before the big bang and requires new physics for the answer to be anything other than "no"; thus making it the same class of blind faith being protested against. – Joshua Mar 26 '24 at 14:00
  • 15
    @Joshua Not really, it requires us to shrug and go "we don't know" like we do about everything else we don't know about. There is no blind faith being applied. – Jack Aidley Mar 26 '24 at 14:39
8

The question presupposes that God is composite, but in classical theism a key attribute which is derived from God is simplicity. By this what is meant is no real divisibility into parts in any way. As Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologiae (I:3:7):

The absolute simplicity of God may be shown in many ways.

First, from the previous articles of this question. For there is neither composition of quantitative parts in God, since He is not a body; nor composition of matter and form; nor does His nature differ from His "suppositum"; nor His essence from His existence; neither is there in Him composition of genus and difference, nor of subject and accident. Therefore, it is clear that God is nowise composite, but is altogether simple.

Secondly, because every composite is posterior to its component parts, and is dependent on them; but God is the first being, as shown above (I:2:3).

Thirdly, because every composite has a cause, for things in themselves different cannot unite unless something causes them to unite. But God is uncaused, as shown above (I:2:3), since He is the first efficient cause.

Fourthly, because in every composite there must be potentiality and actuality; but this does not apply to God; for either one of the parts actuates another, or at least all the parts are potential to the whole.

Fifthly, because nothing composite can be predicated of any single one of its parts. [...] Thus in every composite there is something which is not it itself. But, even if this could be said of whatever has a form, viz. that it has something which is not it itself, as in a white object there is something which does not belong to the essence of white; nevertheless in the form itself, there is nothing besides itself. And so, since God is absolute form, or rather absolute being, He can be in no way composite.

Yes, if God were composite, he would be more in need of explaining than the universe - he would definitely be vastly more complex than anything therein. But then, by the standards of classical theism, he wouldn't even be God. He would be something with matter and form, with potentiality and actuality, and thus merely another creature in need of an unmoved mover to be actual at any moment. It is precisely from such traits found in material beings that God's existence is demonstrated in the classical proofs for his existence. Not as merely another being with these same traits but vastly greater in degree, but something vastly different in his very quality. Because it's not just very complex things such as the human brain or the universe as a whole which serves as a starting point, but even something as simple as the existence of a single subatomic particle, since even that is a composite in some way.

Mutoh
  • 656
  • 3
  • 8
  • 8
    Even if He is made of no parts, the fact remains that He is all powerful and thus possesses an infinite amount of power. I’m not quite sure how the existence of this entity can be any less miraculous or “simple” than what it tries to explain – Baby_philosopher Mar 25 '24 at 22:24
  • 4
    I feel this is a better form of the answer that I think @jaredad7's was going for when he answered the new rebuttal question made by Mark whose link appears in the comments of ac15's answer. This is primarily because although it doesn't address the extra step part, it presents the axiomatic nature of things more clearly in the sense that "when one accepts an existence of god, then that means this, and therefore this follows." – DKNguyen Mar 25 '24 at 22:32
  • 8
    This is nothing but classic special pleading. I don't know why anyone with a philosophical bent would take this seriously. – Jack Aidley Mar 26 '24 at 09:51
  • 3
    @JackAidley if there's a moving line of railroad cars, it's not special pleading to suppose that, because even an infinite line of railroad cars can't do any moving, there must be a locomotive different from all the rest that can move on its own pulling them all. Likewise, if it can be reasonably shown that even the universe as a whole can't do something on its own because of intrinsic characteristics (such as undergoing change, or being composite), it's just as reasonable to conclude that whatever is ultimately behind it must be an exception to the rule. – Mutoh Mar 26 '24 at 12:49
  • @Baby_philosopher if you can demonstrate that 1) the material universe cannot explain itself (for example, because whatever is composite needs a cause for its unity) and 2) there is an explanation which is not subject to the same need (say, because it is ontologically simple and thus without need for a cause for its unity), & therefore it is in itself a sufficient explanation... then what exactly is left to show? Omnipotence and infinitude can be further demonstrated as its attributes. If you want a thorough treatment on the matter, Five Proofs for the Existence of God is a good book. – Mutoh Mar 26 '24 at 13:59
  • 3
    weird uses of 'derived', 'shown' and 'demonstrated' – ac15 Mar 26 '24 at 15:40
  • 1
    @JackAidley "I don't know why anyone with a philosophical bent" perhaps because it is philosophy of a sort you are simply unfamiliar with? – eques Mar 27 '24 at 00:25
  • 1
    I was inclined to downvote this. As philosophy it's loaded with unsupported axioms, tautologies, circular logic, muddled analogies, and inconsistent rules. It supposes a creator so complex we cannot even conceive of them and calls that simple. It supposes a creator that does not follow the rules of our Universe, while also using those (very muddled) rules to prove the creator's existence. It supposes that a creator must be immaterial because if they weren't they wouldn't be the creator. However, it's useful to show the theological view. – Schwern Mar 27 '24 at 20:30
  • @Schwern, to call that a "theological view" is imprecise at best. The work is theological in nature but covers natural theological frameworks in an Aristotelean/Platonist philosophical manner. "It supposes a creator so complex" in what way does the description above imply complexity? or what definition of "complex" do you use? – eques Mar 28 '24 at 14:13
  • @eques You're right, it is Aristotelian, tho Christian theology relies on Aristotle often. Being Aristotelian, it's hard for me to follow the tower of analogies. They seem to argue the creator is simple because it cannot be divided into parts. Yet that requires the creator runs under completely different and unfathomable rules, outside of time, outside of space, yet able to know and affect it anywhere, anytime, perfectly. A thing for which we have no example. That's not simple. An analogy would be a microchip. The microchip appears simple and opaque and unknowable, but it is very complex. – Schwern Mar 28 '24 at 19:01
  • @Schwern "creator is simple because it cannot be divided into parts" I'm with you here (that is, this is "by definition", but God can't have parts in this framework due to preceding distinctions of essence/existence, act/potency, matter/form). "that requires the creator runs under completely different" I don't follow that. – eques Mar 28 '24 at 21:42
  • @eques Aquinas offers a "God atom"; an indivisible, eternal being not made of anything in our Universe, yet is omnipotent and omnipresent and eternal with respect to our Universe. Simple... until we ask how such a God atom works. What are the rules that allow an atom with no moving parts to think? How does it have perfect knowledge and power in our Universe? By analogy, a microchip seems like a solid block of silicon, much simpler than clockwork. But then we have to ask how a simple, solid block of silicon does anything? There must be hidden complexity, either in the rules or in the chip. – Schwern Mar 28 '24 at 21:57
  • @Schwern that still amounts to a sort of equivocation on simple/complex. Aquinas means it in terms of parts/composition. You seem to be using it in terms of comprehensive capacity. And yet, Aquinas does address those same types of questions throughout his corpus. – eques Mar 28 '24 at 22:03
  • @eques Its supposed qualities require complexity. As Carl Sagan said, "if you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the Universe". Aquinas's ultimately simple God atom argument is incomplete. We have to suppose a whole new universe with a whole new set of rules to explain its abilities: complexity. We have to explain how it can invisibly interact with and violate the rules of our Universe: complexity. This answer does not attempt to address that. I'd be interested to see how Aquinas does. – Schwern Mar 28 '24 at 22:39
7

Say we live in a computer simulation of a universe (c.f. "The Matrix"). This would be a designed universe, but there is nothing miraculous about the creator, just a very good programmer. The programmer could be omniscient, omnipotent etc., no problem to include a back door so that the laws if the simulation apply differently to the programmer's avatar.

Time for the simulation begins when the simulation starts running, but not for the programmer, who pre-existed our universe. The programmer could be said to exist outside of time. Note also that the simulation doesn't necessarily run in "real time" - processes on computers are often suspended to allow some other process to run etc. The operating system is designed such that the process is oblivious to this happening - as far as the process is concerned, it has the computer to itself. So even while the simulation is running, the programmer exists outside the constraints of time as experienced by the simulation.

Now have a being that can make a physical universe (advanced science)...

As I said in the comments, questions like this generally serve only for people to reinforce their prior (dis) belief and progress in unlikely as there is no form of evidence that would be acceptable to all sides.

Of course, I suspect I have already gone through this with "Thinkingman" ;o)

Dikran Marsupial
  • 2,118
  • 10
  • 15
  • 1
    Almost all debates involve a difference in prior beliefs but this doesn’t mean certain prior beliefs aren’t more rational than others. For example, it would be ridiculous to have a high prior in people surviving falls after death even after seeing tons of people die after falling from a cliff. Similarly, it is arguably irrational to have any sort of high prior belief in any entity that does not have evidence. This is because of the simple fact that one can invent an infinite number of unfalsifiable deities, or cosmic programmers as you say, none of which have any more evidence than the other. – Baby_philosopher Mar 26 '24 at 09:44
  • 1
    Just to expand on that to avoid confusion, suppose someone has a “low” prior for people dying from falling at high heights. They then see 1000 people die from falling at high heights. However, they refuse to incorporate this evidence. Now, when they come across the 101th person about to jump off a cliff, their “prior” based on their previous faulty evidence considerations is still very low. But it should be high. Thus, this current “prior” is irrational and unjustified – Baby_philosopher Mar 26 '24 at 09:47
  • 3
    @Baby_philosopher we have no evidence on which to base a prior for this one. Nobody is saying that you should have a high prior - my position is the opposite, a rational prior is one that holds no strong view either way on questions where we have no evidence and no prospect of evidence that both sides would consider admissible and "theoretical" justifications can be made for both answers. Better to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out (Sagan?) – Dikran Marsupial Mar 26 '24 at 09:47
  • 1
    But that very claim is in dispute (I.e. the claim that there is no evidence). The way you phrase it makes it seem as if theists and non theists both agree that there is no prospect of evidence for either side. This is not true. Do you think that there is no prospect of evidence for Scientology or Santa Claus? I’m not trying to equate God to Santa Claus. I’m genuinely curious about your position here – Baby_philosopher Mar 26 '24 at 11:48
  • 3
    @Baby_philosopher I made it clear that the problem is that there is no evidence that is *admissible/acceptable* to both sides of the debate. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 26 '24 at 12:13
  • 1
    Are you saying that theists and atheists are in disagreement over what qualifies as evidence? If so, why is that relevant? I differ from a flat earth believer as to what constitutes as evidence. It doesn’t change the fact that there is evidence for a spherical earth and that there is no evidence for a flat one – Baby_philosopher Mar 27 '24 at 17:12
  • 1
    @Baby_philosopher yes, of course atheists and theists disagree about what constitutes evidence, e.g. personal testimony of religious experience. In the absence of evidence that both sides would accept, then it is just going to boil down to peoples prior beliefs and the chances of productive discussion is slim. I have pointed out a way in which a deity could exist and exist outside of time as we know it without it being a miracle. I note that you have not commented on that example. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 27 '24 at 17:42
  • 2
    Permutation City riffs on this idea that the inhabitants of the simulation cannot tell how fast the simulation is running, nor what hardware it's running on, and then just keeps going. – Schwern Mar 27 '24 at 20:35
  • 1
    @DikranMarsupial Testimony of grandiose claims has never been evidence. Prior beliefs of a person don’t determine reality. A person can have a high prior of miraculous testimony serving as good evidence: this doesn’t change the fact that there’s zero evidence that even a single miracle has happened – Baby_philosopher Mar 27 '24 at 20:58
  • 1
    @Baby_philosopher your comment appears to be word salad, e.g. conflating priors with evidence. The point I was making is that different people have different views on what constitutes evidence, you have demonstrated that I am correct. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 30 '24 at 14:56
  • 1
    @DikranMarsupial Your priors on a matter are determined by prior belief which can be influenced by old evidence that you may have already considered. And yeah, some people consider there to be evidence that the earth is flat. But their posit is irrelevant to the fact of the matter that it is not – Baby_philosopher Mar 30 '24 at 16:22
  • 1
    @Baby_philosopher not necessarily, priors can also be based on theory/reasoning. "But their posit is irrelevant to the fact of the matter that it is not " trouble is you can say the same thing about e.g. belief in God, where we don't know whether it is true or not - so all people do is reinforce their prior beliefs by arguing with people that disagree with them, not listening to the counter arguments and claiming "victory". It is not philosophy, but it is what happens in the majority of these discussions on forums. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 30 '24 at 16:26
  • 1
    @DikranMarsupial We “don’t know for sure” whether your mother is real or whether the cup in front of you is real or not. A solipsist would disagree. We don’t know for sure that homeopathic medicine doesn’t work. A person in that field would have different priors then you. A kid who believes in Santa Claus will have different priors than me. The mistake in your reasoning is obvious: you are assuming that all these priors have weight to them. They do not. Some priors are based on good reasoning and good accounting of background information. Others are not. – Baby_philosopher Mar 30 '24 at 16:30
  • 1
    "you are assuming that all these priors have weight to them." nope, that is your assertion. Epistemic probabilities are statements about a state of knowledge. That doesn't imply you agree with them or that they are true. They are a statement of what someone believes. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 30 '24 at 16:35
3

I think you might have a hidden presupposition in your question. Let me tease that out.

Supposing the existence of God to be true for the sake of the following options.

Option 1: God exists within time and space

Suppose that time and space are the highest order of things, the universe exists via purely natural means, therefore God exists within time and space and came about with the universe, then yes, the existence of such a divine being would be more miraculous than the existence of the universe itself. I think your original question pre-supposes that God exists within time and space, no?

Option 2: God exists outside of time and space

God, as a being outside of time and space, is responsible for the creation of the universe. God simply "is" and is unbounded by time/space. It follows then that time and space are "created" things (along with the rest of the universe). In this case, I suppose the universe's existence is the greater miracle since God exists-because-he-must-exist in this scenario... an unsatisfying tautology, I'm aware ;-)

The broader context of your question seems to be about whether the apparent design of our universe is favorable to the existence of God. To be clear, my answer is not an answer to that question. It just speaks to how "miraculous" the existence of God would be in these two scenarios outlined.

Hopefully I've understood your question and answered as fairly and charitably. The original question seemed like it could have gone in a couple directions.

C. Tewalt
  • 209
  • 2
  • 8
1

The formulation of your question presupposes the existence of God. Your question only asks, if his/her existence is miraculous, i.e. without natural explanation. But the main point is whether the concept “God” has a referent, i.e. whether God exists.

One should not discuss the “why?” before there is agreement about the facts.

I agree that until now several fundamental questions about our universe did not find an answer. In such a situation it is a nearby way-out to imagine the universe as being created like human create other complex objects. But the missing of a natural explanation does not imply that the answer from design must be correct. Instead one has to present positive arguments for the existence of God. This has been attempted since time immemorial by theologians, without coming to a general accepted result.

Aside: The whole problem discussed in your last section has been discussed since the advent of Darwin’s theory of evolution and already long before. At this point I will not recall the arguments in favour of the theory of evolution once more.

Jo Wehler
  • 30,912
  • 3
  • 29
  • 94
  • What arguments do theists use anyway? I can think of "creation requires a creator", "something dependent requires something independent to bring it about". What is the problem with these arguments? – Abdel Aleem Mar 26 '24 at 12:27
  • @AbdelAleem Arguments like these do not apply to the origin of species due to selforganisation - according to the theory of evolution. In addition, nobody knows about the origin of the universe. – Jo Wehler Mar 26 '24 at 12:35
  • but evolution is dependent on natural laws of physics, biology, chemistry etc. There is a myriad of conditions and circumstances for life to thrive. It isn't at all something that is "self-organised" from that point of view. Theists can rightfully ask questions like: What brought about these factors? Pure luck and coincidence or purpose and intent? What is the ultimate explanation behind these laws? – Abdel Aleem Mar 26 '24 at 12:41
1

Certainly, a all seeing, all judging, ever present God as proposed or purported is something which is weird.

The question assumes that the universe or any thing ever created is through conscious creation. If today's AI trends tell you anything, "conscious" beings try to provide large enough data in hopes of creating something with partial consciousness with some black box mathematics - increasing complexity with simple rules/layers.

We emerged out of the process of this universe, especially when the universe as we know it at the time of Big Bang was just a really hot proton soup. For the protons to come together and form Hydrogen, to then form Helium through nuclear fusion due to the force of gravity and for those atoms to themselves form denser and denser atoms until Iron where the stars explode - creating larger atoms still, leads to a very strange realisation. That there is no conscious process at play to create us, just very simple rules.

If you have ever seen a "Game of Life" by Conway play out, you will come to the realisation that all it takes is some extremely simple rules to appear as extremely complex processes.

But then the question becomes, the same simple processes which gave rise to our personal consciousness did they manifest to form a universal consciousness too? Or was it the other way around?

Did the universal consciouness rather gave rise to the individual consciousness as we experience it? Would our purpose then be to let entropy rise to point where we become one or dissolve into nothingness?

From the Hindu belief system, especially in the Advait school of thought, the world and every particle and being inhabiting it isn't seen as being different from the Supreme being. The material world with gross matter came much later than chit (roughly translated as ego/consciousness) itself. The idea that there is only one reserved thing which exhibits divinity is absurd. Advait philosophy also gives rise to the question, what gave rise to material itself, what is it's origin, how is it different from the Supreme consciousness?

Gaurav Agarwal
  • 119
  • 2
1

You would rightfully call it ridiculous.

All of this is not ridiculous.

If you believe in God, then every single statement in your question is true.

If you do not believe in God, then every single statement in your question is ... less than true, depending on where you fall on the Spectrum.

In the first case, it would be awful to ridicule people for their belief. In the second case, there is nothing really to gain since you are starting with an axiom that you cannot prove through your arguments except in a circular manner (which you will find people will not accept).

And all of it is less a matter of philosophy, but of each individuals belief system and "need" for explanation.

AnoE
  • 2,698
  • 7
  • 9
1

Combining the views in the other answers, results in:

God is identical to the laws of physics.

And indeed, according to some physics lectures on youtube, the laws of physics were created at the big bang. Before that, there was no time, no space, no laws of physics. Most laws of physics are just know for some 100, 150 years. Before that, it was perfectly reasonable to use the God metaphore.

References, e.g:

https://youtube.com/shorts/VvvvfyPd8XE Stephen Hawkins explained about time space continuum having a closed surface, similar that there is nothing more south than the south pole.

https://youtu.be/dr6nNvw55C4 at about 13:10 dr Don Lincoln says that physics breaks down before 10 to the power of minus 43 seconds after the big bang

https://youtu.be/Su3djmyY9FU a talk at the New York Academy of Physics on Where do the laws of physics come from.

https://youtu.be/TGs4C60FR68 theoretical physicist Sean Carrol explains that, if there are multiple universes, they can have different laws of physics

Roland
  • 121
  • 3
  • 1
    Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Mar 27 '24 at 23:01
  • 1
    @Community please see my expanded answer – Roland Mar 30 '24 at 02:20
0

You seem to be of the opinion that God is more likely to be caused than the universe. There are inductive and deductive cosmological arguments, and in both of these God is uncaused.

Aquinas' deductive cosmological argument is explicitly for something that is uncaused

there must be something whose necessity is uncaused

So such a theist is arguing for a God that is not more likely to be caused than the universe. Other variations of the cosmological argument, e.g. Swinburne's inductive argument

contends that it is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but more likely that God would exist uncaused. It is likely that if there is a God, he will make something like the finite and complex universe. The puzzling existence of the universe can be made comprehensible (explicable) if we suppose it is brought about by a personal God with intentional beliefs and the power to bring intentions to fruition (2004: 152).

Simplicity - insofar as theism posists both natural and supernatural things - may be a better counter-argument for atheism than arguing that God's necessity is likely to be caused.

The problem seems to be that you are arguing against a God that no-one believes in.

My two cents is that omnipotence is more likely than the universe is to not be caused by something else. I would think it very likely that an omnipotent being would have the capacity to bring itself about.

e.g. for Descartes, God is the efficient cause of himself

God is causa sui, since the immense power of his capacity to bestowing existence on himself.

which just shows I may be talking about God and not in a muddled way.

user66697
  • 639
  • 11
  • 1
    why was my answer voted down. it was well referecned, well reasoned, and did engage the specifics of the question, one which i found ugly – user66697 Mar 25 '24 at 14:15
  • 1
    Probably because they're just not ready for it. I found the jump from the question to your answer jarring. – Joshua Mar 26 '24 at 03:48
  • 1
    ok yeah, door in the face technique may not be suitable, even if it is a philosophical door. thanks @Joshua – user66697 Mar 26 '24 at 06:16
  • The whole problem with the last paragraph is that it is just begging the question, in some very strange ways. "I would think it very likely that an omnipotent being would have the capacity to bring itself about." So the being has to exist so that it can orchestrate it's own existence? That seems more complicated and unfounded than either God or the Universe just existing without cause. – JMac Mar 26 '24 at 12:24
  • the idea of God is self caused is not alien to theism or philosophy @JMac and idt it is "question begging" – user66697 Mar 26 '24 at 12:26
  • hi, @user66697, , some things that ocurred to me reading your answer just now: it would be nice if you provided at leat an outline/main points of Aquinas's argument, for while some people may in fact agree with the quoted conclusion (I kinda do), they may take it to refer to something quite different than a creator-god; Swiburne's quote seems to be of the form 'if ∃x.God(x), then Phi', like the OP, but, unlike the OP, it kinda ends there, not arguing for the antecedent, while the former argues that "likely, ¬Phi", so maybe add to it too; your final paragraph has a 'dual' problem: – ac15 Mar 26 '24 at 12:34
  • 'forall x.[Ominipotent(x) -> BringItselfAbout(x)]', which seems alright, but may well be true simply in virtue of 'not ∃x.Omni(x)'; all in all, this suggests it's neither well-referenced, nor well-reasoned – ac15 Mar 26 '24 at 12:35
  • i am not familar with how you are exprfessing yourself. how can you say that my question is not well referenced when it is 60-70% quotes? well reasoned? @ac15 – user66697 Mar 26 '24 at 12:36
  • @user66697 I can't think of a religion that believe God is self-caused. They always argue He is a Necessary Being, uncaused, self-sustaining, existed forever. A lot of the rational arguments theism poses is usually "something that does not exist cannot bring itself about", which makes sense. – Abdel Aleem Mar 26 '24 at 12:37
  • that *is* a question begging answer. clearly, if god does not exist then hey hum – user66697 Mar 26 '24 at 12:37
  • @AbdelAleem i read the wikipedia article, which agrees with you. the quote is from britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-cause – user66697 Mar 26 '24 at 12:40
  • @ac15 it's not meant as a deductive proof of the existence of god, so i don't see what difference it makes that god may not exist despite being omnioptent. ofc if he doesn't, then he doesn't – user66697 Mar 26 '24 at 12:53
  • 1
    @user66697 Just because others have made the argument, it doesnt mean it isnt flawed... Your own answer has God as both "uncaused" and "the cause of himself". What do those statements really even mean? Just stating a contradiction doesnt mean anything exists that actually has those contradictory properties. – JMac Mar 26 '24 at 12:59
  • ah whatever @JMac – user66697 Mar 26 '24 at 13:05
0

Here is what Muslims believe: "God was always there. We are living in a dimension that has time and space. But God exists somewhere in another dimension with no concept of time and space. But this universe has time and space and it cannot exist without it." So God is always there - He needed to design this whole universe for us to think about it. Of course, nothing can exist without a creator, a common sense!

Rabail Anjum
  • 299
  • 1
  • 10
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Geoffrey Thomas Mar 26 '24 at 17:20
0

Is God’s very existence the ultimate miracle?

One definition of a miracle is:

a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.

So the answer to your question is Yes, but this means acknowledging that God's existence is the ultimate improbable event.

This may seem like wordplay, but the philosophical links on this site to God via improbable events are undeniable.

Idiosyncratic Soul
  • 1,443
  • 1
  • 2
  • 13
0

There is one idea, once accepted, that carries the potential to demystify God's miracles.

If you think about it, intelligent life will eventually abandon flash and bones and move into digital existence. If not in the next one thousand years, then definitely in the next one million years. Once you accept this evolutionary inevitability, then you will notice that in a digital world there are no miracles. What you can think of, I can create virtual reality for.

TheMatrix Equation-balance
  • 500
  • 1
  • 8
  • 1
    "What you can think of, I can create virtual reality for." No, you can't. I thought up a design for a hypercomputer in general relativity. You can't built a virtual reality for it without being able to build the real one first. – Joshua Mar 26 '24 at 03:42
  • 2
    Inevitability? That is just a false assumption. You cannot guarantee that more meteorites could not strike earth in the next 100, 500 years or that we would successfully deflect them in time or that we would succeed in settling on multiple planets that we could avoid human extinct. Or we could all die before then due to climate change. – stackoverblown Mar 26 '24 at 11:45
  • @stackoverblown - Do you consider growing old a 100% inevitability? If someone dies young, it does not change the inevitability of growing old. – TheMatrix Equation-balance Mar 27 '24 at 01:09
  • @TheMatrixEquation-balance Please don't try to pull a false equivalence. – stackoverblown Mar 27 '24 at 10:11
  • 1
    @TheMatrixEquation-balance Growing old isn't inevitable, because you can die young... I think you might be using that word wrong. – JMac Mar 27 '24 at 14:04
  • @JMac - Dying young does not change inevitability. You need to take an example of someone staying young in old age to contradict the inevitability of growing old. – TheMatrix Equation-balance Mar 28 '24 at 04:11
  • @TheMatrixEquation-balance I really think you are using that word wrong. Death is inevitable, because everyone dies. Growing old is not guaranteed to happen. Aging is inevitable, but growing old requires you to live for an extended period of time, and sadly that is not a sure thing. – JMac Mar 28 '24 at 12:43
0

Our existence is a bigger miracle than His.

He didn't need to create us, but we need Him.

We understand this because each of us has a father and a mother.

Who says God doesn't have a Father?

pygosceles
  • 606
  • 3
  • 12
-1

MIRACLE = "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency"

Question asked: Is God’s very existence the ultimate miracle?

One characteristic of a miracle is "the work of a divine agency".

Another is that the event be "surprising"

Another is "not explicable by natural or scientific laws".

No natural or scientific laws explain or predict a god, so if a god exists, that would be very surprising and not explicable using naturalness or science.

But it fails the "therefore must be the work of a divine agency"... unless we introduce a "God-Maker" that is divine and makes the God that is in question.

In short... if a "God" exists, and if that is to be considered miraculous... by definition there would need to be a "God's God" that made the miraculous "God".

And of course, there would have to be something "not explicable by natural or scientific laws" in need of explaining some other way, like via a "God" or "divine agency" in the first place.

Alistair Riddoch
  • 754
  • 7
  • 16
  • 2
    Now you're replacing a philosophical question with wordplay. – user3445853 Mar 25 '24 at 21:51
  • It is actually a theological question. No philosopher would start with the assumption that a supreme universal being exists. Nor choose the one named God with a capital g, versus a non-denominational creator-god. No justification philosophically/logically to differentiate between Christion creator god and Aztec creator god or any of the other invented creator gods. When you name the god... it becomes personal-belief. – Alistair Riddoch Mar 26 '24 at 01:46
  • well if you assume there's no real god you can't tell the difference between one god and another; but if you assume it's possible to tell the difference you might find you can. i can tell the difference between the azetc god and the muslim god. – Joshua Mar 26 '24 at 03:46
  • Differentiation... what Earthly reviewable evidence/reason exists indicating that I should choose to define Zeus not Quetzacoatl, not the Muslim god, when assembling a list of "possible or suggested supernatural supreme being conceiver and creator of reality and humanity?"... to be logical, one doesn't assume anything... one assembles the list of suggestions then assesses them one by one, with awareness of the entire set while doing so. – Alistair Riddoch Mar 26 '24 at 13:28
-1

[There are Christian atheists and Jewish atheists and...]
Richard you're a Christian atheist
Rabbi Sacks to Richard Dawkins

So in the Rabbi's spirit let me ask you, Which God are you asking about?

Let's say God for X is whatever is the supreme or key ontic entity in X's religious belief system.

Let's examine a few:

  • Many people across the ages and cultures worship the Sun.
    Do you find the Sun's existence a miracle?
  • Others worship astrology ie. the planets. So they direct their religiosity towards appeasing the malefic and beseeching the benefic planets. See benefic-malefic
    So is the great benefic blesser Jupiter or the malefic Saturn miraculous?
  • Others worship their ancestors
    Are your ancestors miraculous?

Now you may protest: Of course these exist or existed but assuming they can hear my prayers is not legitimate!

[Assuming you do protest thus] Notice that You have to change your atheistic argument to each religious framework!

Summary

You seem to be asking about the Christian God
[Or Judeo Christian Or Abrahamic God]

There is in fact:
No atheist argument that spans/addresses all religions

Rushi
  • 2,637
  • 2
  • 7
  • 28
  • Are there any theist arguments that span/address all religions? – Dave X Mar 26 '24 at 16:16
  • @DaveX The word "theism" simply does not apply to much — in fact most ­— religions outside of the Abrahamic so-called monotheisms. I could add some more on this to this answer. But this should really be another question – Rushi Mar 26 '24 at 16:24
  • I'm not convinced that the difficulty in defining religion leads to a difficulty in defining atheism (more than the extent to which any word like 'chair' or 'capitalism' is undefinable due to the nature of language and reality)? – Kaia Mar 26 '24 at 20:07
  • @Kaia I don't understand — You will need to articulate a bit more what you are trying to say. Theism and religion are unrelated phenomena ? That would be extreme! Theism and religion are empirically less related than a Christian may presuppose. And therefore an atheist needs to do much more work defining what exactly they are opposing/rejecting. Unless they are fine being merely "Christian atheists' ?? Yeah that comes close to what I am saying. – Rushi Mar 27 '24 at 02:09
  • @Kaia OYOH if you are literally saying These are all just words Well uh... so is everything. — Assuming good faith on all sides all communication is language but is about something outside of language. So you need to clarify ... – Rushi Mar 27 '24 at 02:09