BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/685899
If a first cause is logically necessary, what does that entail for the universe's origins?

The argument for a God must be done through evidence. The only thing which can be logically concluded is that a God is a possibility among many others. This means there is nothing different about a God from any other existence. One must find evidence of a God, and that evidence must necessarily lead to a God opposed to another possible alternative. — Philosophim

Ancient people probably had no concept of an eternal or self-existent First Cause. Their polytheistic gods were merely names for invisible natural features of the world -- weather gods, sun gods, earth gods -- that seemed to control things that people depended upon for their livelihood, and which seemed to behave temperamentally, as-if they were living intelligent agents. Today, we have more control over Nature, hence not so dependent upon those mysterious natural forces.

So, we give them impersonal technical names -- like Energy, Force, Natural Laws -- and rest assured that those labels mean that we understand them. Yet, modern scientists may know more about what causal "Energy" does, but nothing about what it is essentially. For example, Energy is defined as the "ability", or "power" to cause change, but those attributes also pertain to human agents. So, it's easy to see why the ancients pictured their gods in human or animal form.

The Monotheistic notion of deity was a later development in the science-myths of early civilizations. That all-encompassing concept was probably a reaction to philosophical critiques of polytheism, as recorded in the Hebrew & Hindu Scriptures. If the deity is a formless spirit, not in physical form, most of the practical objections, such as "where's the evidence?" could be ignored. In the apocryphal chapter 14 of the book of Daniel, the hero proved empirically that the idol of Baal (Bel) was not actually eating the food offered to him. Yet, Daniel's non-physical god, with no need for food, was immune to such negative evidence. Ironically, his own Hebrew culture's tribal-god fore-runner also demanded food sacrifices. But, the scriptures say He survived a god-competition cook-off, by consuming the offerings to other gods with divine fire.

Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. And modern science has nothing to say about such meta-physical (non-physical) existence. So, depending on your assessment of the logical evidence, you can believe it or not. However, there is "another possible alternative". Actually, several possibilities. For example, the First Cause postulated by Plato & Aristotle was not presented as a human, but as an eternal logical principle of causation & organization. As such, the only evidence for that kind of governing principle is logical consistency : e.g. an evolutionary sequence either has a first instance or it is eternal.

The current cosmological model implies that our world is not eternal or self-existent, so it's not its own Cause. Instead, the scientific evidence indicates that the universe is contingent upon some a priori Cause, existing before the Big Bang. You could say that the Singularity itself is the Prime Cause of space-time, hence a creator God. But, it's just an abstract mathematical concept, so is it worthy of the label "god". Or should we look beyond that dimensionless dot of Potential, for an ultimate timeless-spaceless Creative Cause of our own contingent Existence?


GOD OF THE DEAD PORTRAYED AS JACKAL MAN (scavenger of dead bodies)
https://www.cleopatraegypttours.com/wp- ... an-god.jpg

Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. — Gnomon
Which is fine. But it cannot be concluded via philosophical argument that such a God is logically necessary any more. — Philosophim

That's a strange assertion coming from "Philosophim" (those who love wisdom?). If a logical necessity cannot be derived via philosophical argument, how else could such a conclusion be reached : by fantasy? An "ultimate principle", such as Plato's Logos and Judaism's Singular Deity, is obviously not an empirical observation, but a hypothetical speculation based on the premise that a contingent causal world (subject to dead-end Entropy) must logically have an initial cause. And, in order to explain a finite chain-of-causation, it must have a definite beginning. And that First Cause must be acausal, hence uncreated, or merely a link in an eternal regression of causation. So, what is your "any more" that makes logical evidence un-necessary?

How else could we "evaluate" such a conjecture, except via rational analysis of the deductive process? Plato & Aristotle offered no physical (quanta) evidence to support their proposed fundamental (qualia) "Principle". Basically, all we can say about any such hypothesis (proposed explanation) is that it either makes sense or not ; it's believable or not. However, the "sense" depends on the definition. The OP definitively omits all non-empirical evidence, such as logical inference. So, "case closed" by definition. But most theologians & philosophers would feel discriminated against by such an exclusionary construction of the question. However, if a philosophical First Cause or Eternal Deity is taken as a "principle", it is inherently exempted from scientific proof. Which leaves us two options : evaluate the logic of the principle, or use force to compel agreement to its authority.


Logical Necessity :
1. When something is logically necessary, it is true by definition
2. a being whose non-existence is a logical impossibility, and which therefore exists either timeless or eternally in all possible worlds ___Wiki

Monotheism :
Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself ___ https://plato.stanford.edu/plato.stanford.edu

Principle :
Principles are ideas based on scientific rules and laws that are generally accepted by scientists. They are fundamental truths that are the foundation for other studies. Principles are qualitative.
They aren't really rules that can be written down with mathematical symbols. They are more like guiding ideas that scientists use to make predictions and develop new laws. . . .
A law describes an event, but it does not explain why the event happens. Laws describe relationships, specific situations, and conditions. This is different from a principle, which tells us why and how things happen.
https://www.expii.com/t/scientific-prin ... ples-10310

PS___The Cause (impetus) of an ongoing chain-of-causation is necessarily prior-to & external-to the chain, yes? Hence, the First Cause question entails an Exogenous (originating from outside) Force, no?

What if the chain is infinitely long or closed? Ìf all prior causes are endogenous? — Haglund

That open-ended chain seems to be the assumption of Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. But it mandates an endless regression of Causes, with no answer to the Origin question. Empirical & Pragmatic scientists might be satisfied with such an evasive answer, but Mathematical & Theoretical scientists tend to abhor infinities in their theses.

However, some speculative Philosophers & Cosmologists & Theologians seem comfortable with (or resigned to) Eternal Ellipsis ("God" or "First Cause" or "Multiverse" or "Many Worlds" ; insert your label "here") as a logical answer to ultimate questions about a proximate world. Apparently, for Plato the "First Cause" was an eternal Principle, which served as a stand-in for all those elliptical dots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."
___Albert Einstein

Cyclic Universe :
these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN
Turtle%20Tower.jpg

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/686750
If a first cause is logically necessary, what does that entail for the universe's origins?

"A while back I wrote an argument that a "first cause" was logically necessary. " — Philosophim


The argument for a God must be done through evidence. The only thing which can be logically concluded is that a God is a possibility among many others. This means there is nothing different about a God from any other existence. One must find evidence of a God, and that evidence must necessarily lead to a God opposed to another possible alternative. — Philosophim

Ancient people probably had no concept of an eternal or self-existent First Cause. Their polytheistic gods were merely names for invisible natural features of the world -- weather gods, sun gods, earth gods -- that seemed to control things that people depended upon for their livelihood, and which seemed to behave temperamentally, as-if they were living intelligent agents. Today, we have more control over Nature, hence not so dependent upon those mysterious natural forces.

So, we give them impersonal technical names -- like Energy, Force, Natural Laws -- and rest assured that those labels mean that we understand them. Yet, modern scientists may know more about what causal "Energy" does, but nothing about what it is essentially. For example, Energy is defined as the "ability", or "power" to cause change, but those attributes also pertain to human agents. So, it's easy to see why the ancients pictured their gods in human or animal form.

The Monotheistic notion of deity was a later development in the science-myths of early civilizations. That all-encompassing concept was probably a reaction to philosophical critiques of polytheism, as recorded in the Hebrew & Hindu Scriptures. If the deity is a formless spirit, not in physical form, most of the practical objections, such as "where's the evidence?" could be ignored. In the apocryphal chapter 14 of the book of Daniel, the hero proved empirically that the idol of Baal (Bel) was not actually eating the food offered to him. Yet, Daniel's non-physical god, with no need for food, was immune to such negative evidence. Ironically, his own Hebrew culture's tribal-god fore-runner also demanded food sacrifices. But, the scriptures say He survived a god-competition cook-off, by consuming the offerings to other gods with divine fire.

Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. And modern science has nothing to say about such meta-physical (non-physical) existence. So, depending on your assessment of the logical evidence, you can believe it or not. However, there is "another possible alternative". Actually, several possibilities. For example, the First Cause postulated by Plato & Aristotle was not presented as a human, but as an eternal logical principle of causation & organization. As such, the only evidence for that kind of governing principle is logical consistency : e.g. an evolutionary sequence either has a first instance or it is eternal.

The current cosmological model implies that our world is not eternal or self-existent, so it's not its own Cause. Instead, the scientific evidence indicates that the universe is contingent upon some a priori Cause, existing before the Big Bang. You could say that the Singularity itself is the Prime Cause of space-time, hence a creator God. But, it's just an abstract mathematical concept, so is it worthy of the label "god". Or should we look beyond that dimensionless dot of Potential, for an ultimate timeless-spaceless Creative Cause of our own contingent Existence?


GOD OF THE DEAD PORTRAYED AS JACKAL MAN (scavenger of dead bodies)
https://www.cleopatraegypttours.com/wp- ... an-god.jpg

Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. — Gnomon
Which is fine. But it cannot be concluded via philosophical argument that such a God is logically necessary any more. — Philosophim

That's a strange assertion coming from "Philosophim" (those who love wisdom?). If a logical necessity cannot be derived via philosophical argument, how else could such a conclusion be reached : by fantasy? An "ultimate principle", such as Plato's Logos and Judaism's Singular Deity, is obviously not an empirical observation, but a hypothetical speculation based on the premise that a contingent causal world (subject to dead-end Entropy) must logically have an initial cause. And, in order to explain a finite chain-of-causation, it must have a definite beginning. And that First Cause must be acausal, hence uncreated, or merely a link in an eternal regression of causation. So, what is your "any more" that makes logical evidence un-necessary?

How else could we "evaluate" such a conjecture, except via rational analysis of the deductive process? Plato & Aristotle offered no physical (quanta) evidence to support their proposed fundamental (qualia) "Principle". Basically, all we can say about any such hypothesis (proposed explanation) is that it either makes sense or not ; it's believable or not. However, the "sense" depends on the definition. The OP definitively omits all non-empirical evidence, such as logical inference. So, "case closed" by definition. But most theologians & philosophers would feel discriminated against by such an exclusionary construction of the question. However, if a philosophical First Cause or Eternal Deity is taken as a "principle", it is inherently exempted from scientific proof. Which leaves us two options : evaluate the logic of the principle, or use force to compel agreement to its authority.


Logical Necessity :
1. When something is logically necessary, it is true by definition
2. a being whose non-existence is a logical impossibility, and which therefore exists either timeless or eternally in all possible worlds ___Wiki

Monotheism :
Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself ___ https://plato.stanford.edu/plato.stanford.edu

Principle :
Principles are ideas based on scientific rules and laws that are generally accepted by scientists. They are fundamental truths that are the foundation for other studies. Principles are qualitative.
They aren't really rules that can be written down with mathematical symbols. They are more like guiding ideas that scientists use to make predictions and develop new laws. . . .
A law describes an event, but it does not explain why the event happens. Laws describe relationships, specific situations, and conditions. This is different from a principle, which tells us why and how things happen.
https://www.expii.com/t/scientific-prin ... ples-10310

PS___The Cause (impetus) of an ongoing chain-of-causation is necessarily prior-to & external-to the chain, yes? Hence, the First Cause question entails an Exogenous (originating from outside) Force, no?

What if the chain is infinitely long or closed? Ìf all prior causes are endogenous? — Haglund

That open-ended chain seems to be the assumption of Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. But it mandates an endless regression of Causes, with no answer to the Origin question. Empirical & Pragmatic scientists might be satisfied with such an evasive answer, but Mathematical & Theoretical scientists tend to abhor infinities in their theses.

However, some speculative Philosophers & Cosmologists & Theologians seem comfortable with (or resigned to) Eternal Ellipsis ("God" or "First Cause" or "Multiverse" or "Many Worlds" ; insert your label "here") as a logical answer to ultimate questions about a proximate world. Apparently, for Plato the "First Cause" was an eternal Principle, which served as a stand-in for all those elliptical dots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :sad:

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."
___Albert Einstein

Cyclic Universe :
these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Image ... 0Tower.jpg

Yes. The point is that I see no philosophical argument at this time that can argue for God's logical necessity anymore. Feel free to try, but for the one's I am familiar with, they are all negated by the argument I've made. — Philosophim

The Catholic Scholastics were arguing in favor of their bible-god : paradoxically, both a timeless abstract concept, and a historical personality acting in space-time. But Plato & Aristotle were reasoning to the conclusion that there must be a Necessary Being in order to explain the existence of all contingent & dependent beings. It was a Logical argument, not a scientific demonstration. So, the later expansion of human scientific knowledge did not answer the philosophical question of "why something instead of nothing". The modern Big Bang theory has given substance to what was just an intuition in ancient times : the contingency (dependence) of our space-time existence on a priori causation.

Moreover, the definition of "existence" is different for Scientists (physical observation) and Philosophers (meta-physical prerequisite). The verb "to be" refers to a future state that follows from "becoming". So, the Necessary Being is supposed to be the meta-physical Cause of becoming into physical being. It's a tricky distinction that would only appeal to speculative philosophers, and not to pragmatic scientists. Which is why our modern knowledge of physical reality still does not "negate" the ancient intuition that a First Cause is necessary to explain the observed chain of causation in which new forms always emerge from old forms. For Plato, his ultimate Form is not an actual thing, but the Potential for all things.

Plato & Aristotle did not believe in magic or serendipity, so they reasoned that human existence was not due to Chance or Accident, but to a pre-existing Cause. They didn't refer to that dynamic causal power as "god" though, because the gods of their time were merely super-humans with limited powers. Instead, they used more abstract terms, such as "Form", or "Logos" or "First Cause", or "Potential" to describe concepts that are beyond human experience, but amenable to human reasoning & imagination. Their logical-god was not Real, but Ideal; not Actual but Potential.


Entelechy : realization of potential

Contingency : A possibility; something which may or may not happen ; not necessary

Potential & Actual :
These concepts, in modified forms, remained very important into the Middle Ages, influencing the development of medieval theology in several ways. In modern times the dichotomy has gradually lost importance, as understandings of nature and deity have changed. However the terminology has also been adapted to new uses, as is most obvious in words like energy and dynamic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential ... nd_biology
Note -- Physicists assume that Energy (causal power) has always existed, of necessity.

Necessary Being :
Many have thought that if God exists necessarily, there is a sound ontological argument for God’s existence, or that if there is a sound ontological argument for God’s existence, God exists necessarily. But both claims are false. Some have used philosophical views of the nature of necessity – for example, that all necessity is conventional, a matter of how we choose to use words – to challenge God’s necessary existence. But the theories which best support these challenges have fallen from favour, and in fact, even if one accepts the theories, the challenges fail.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... -being/v-1
Note -- Since Plato & Aristotle seem to have invented the notion of Logical Necessity, it was not a convention for them. But their definitions have since become conventional for philosophers, along with many other fundamental concepts of Inductive & Deductive reasoning. They are now conventional, because they are necessary for philosophical purposes.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/687185
God & Existence

First Cause -- Reason or Intuition
X exists then X is detectable — Agent Smith

This premise presumes physical existence, hence knowable via the 5 senses.

But most modern god-concepts deny that premise. Hence knowable only via the 6th sense of Reasoning or Intuition. So, the premise is prejudicial to most modern god-definitions.

One alternative premise is that "god is existence", the Necessary Being.
But how do you detect "necessity"? By physical or intuitive or logical processes?

PS__Apparently, most god-believers trust their Intuition more than their Reason. But philosophers seem less reliant on intuition, so require some Objective evidence to supplement their Rational deductions.

Interesting points! Intuition as opposed to logic and that intriguing way of defining God as existence itself. — Agent Smith

Modern philosophers tend to distrust Intuition, as a hasty & emotional instead of methodical & rational way of knowing. But Intuition is fundamental, subjective, and personal, hence it makes the strongest case for belief. Only after those intuitive embryos-of-thought are established can the rational faculties analyze them to select the ones that conform to logical structures, and that can survive the gauntlet of objective social criticism. However, even those ideas that are strong enough to become firm beliefs, are based on limited information. Which is why Bayesian inference was developed, to update our provisional beliefs with additional evidence. Bayes whittled normal human logic, based on conventional concepts (words), down to a mathematical (statistical) analysis of probability. But that bare-bones abstract result may lack the emotional impact of visceral Intuition as the foundation of faith.

Since I have concluded, intuitively & logically, that our world (our reality ; our existence) is highly improbable, given that its fundamental process is Entropy -- inevitably leading to death & disappearance -- the necessity for an exogenous causal force seems undeniable. Plato & Aristotle referred to that logically essential force as the "First Cause" or "Unmoved Mover". But they seemed to assume that the Causal Principle of our existence must also lie outside the space-time devolution from Order (Logos) to Disorder (Chaos). In other words it must exist eternally, as Absolute Potential for the creation of Actual Reality from Possible Ideality. Plato also used the term "Chaos" (disorder) to describe that eternal resource of potential stuff. But he didn't mean it was chaotic in the modern sense, but merely that it was unformed potential (like malleable clay) that could be molded into enformed things & organisms.

Those ancient philosophers also spoke of "Being & Becoming". With that in mind, I think of our evolving space-time universe as Becoming, and the timeless power-to-exist-physically as absolute Being. Or, as others spoke of the same ultimate source of existence : "the ground of being". Therefore, as an alternative to the conventional religious label for that enigmatic eternal unknowable omnipotent Cause-of-all-effects, I sometimes refer to it simply as "BEING".


BEING :
* In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

I like the way you make ideals another type of being. It's close to what I said once in another thread. There's no nonexistence, just different kinds of existence. I think Meinong of Meinong's jungle fame thought along the same lines. On this view it's wrong to say God, or anything else for that matter, doesn't exist. God exists but not in the same way as (say) a rock! Wordplay? — Agent Smith

Of course, it's wordplay. But it's also Idea-play. That's what humans do. Those who deny Idealism, are repudiating Humanism. What distinguishes humans from animals? Mostly, it's the ability to convert sensory impressions into the communicatable concepts we call "Words" & "Ideas". We can then play-around with those "Memes" to construct worldviews that are more-than just sensory appearances. Those imaginary models of the world are what we label "Ideals" ; mental replicas of reality with improvements. They go beyond as-is Reality into as-if Ideality. And the positive result of that reasoning from IS to IF is what we call "Creativity". Of course, some creative ideas fall short of feasibility : e.g. Elon Musk says he wants to buy CocaCola, so he can put the Cocaine back in. I hope he's pulling-the-leg of Twitter twits.

Ironically, adamant philosophical Realists dismiss the practicality of the unrealistic mental tool that makes Philosophy possible : the ability to abstract the essence of specific concrete (real) things into general & universal (ideal) principles, which exist only in the un-real realm of Ideality. World-dominating human culture is the practical product of the homo sapiens ability to Idealize mundane Reality into Utopias & Sky Castles, that seldom become real, but do give us an advantage over the animals, who just make-do with what Nature provides -- humans make-believe. Without our talent for improving upon Nature, we would still be shivering cave-dwellers without fangs & claws. The Garden of Eden does not exist in the past, but only in the future world of Ideality.


Ideality :
* In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call "Reality" consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. "To measure" is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A traditional name for that fertile field is G*D. But you can call it the Enformation Field, if you like.
BothAnd Blog Glossary