Necessity of evil

[Mark Quayle]

With all due respect to Aristotle et al the uncaused cause argument is extremely outdated, to the point of being irrelevant. This isn't 350 BCE. We can actually follow the causal chain backwards in time to the point where matter itself disappears, and all that existed were fluctuating quantum fields.

Now one could ask where the fields came from, but this is tantamount to asking where God came from, hence there's no reason to assume that the fields came from anywhere, they've just 'always' existed.

Problem solved, your God is a set of quantum fields. I hope that you're not too disappointed. That's not to say that the fields themselves can't be self-aware. It's just that being self-aware and being self-determining are two different things, and the latter seems to be an ability that neither those quantum fields, your God, or the uncaused cause can logically possess. They simply do what they do. To do otherwise would of course require a cause.

With all due respect, you can't study cause away. 'Quantum fields' aren't even empirical, but are a model built on math brought to bear on empirical finds. First Cause necessarily is self-existent, and not by accident, but with intent. What's more, quantum fields are, apparently, many, and only one first cause can exist. First Cause does not fluctuate.

You probably haven't noticed, besides, that in all our thinking, we seem to think our concepts are valid, and our words hold substance, when in truth they deceive us, particularly in regard to this border between the 'material' and the 'metaphysical'. All we can do is the best we can. We have proved nothing to think we have proved God out of existence. You can't get something from nothing.

 

[Neutral Observer]

'Quantum fields' aren't even empirical, but are a model built on math brought to bear on empirical finds.

Absolutely true, but where do you want to draw the line? Do accept that matter exists? Do you accept that it's made of molecules? Do you accept that the molecules are made of atoms? Do you accept that the atoms are made of fundamental particles? If you do, then why is it that when we get down to those pesky quantum fields you suddenly become skeptical? Is it simply because it challenges your preferred narrative? Heaven forbid that science might actually force you to rethink your worldview.

I'm not even suggesting that you abandon your worldview, just that you rethink it in the light of new information. Surely that's not too much to ask.

I'm not here to get you to change your beliefs, I'm just here to shine a light on them, anything beyond that is completely up to you. Your beliefs are not my responsibility.

First Cause necessarily is self-existent, and not by accident, but with intent.

As I said, there would seemingly be nothing preventing those quantum fields from being self-aware, and as such who's to say that they don't have intent? But as I also pointed out, if the First Cause can somehow be compelled to make one choice over another, then it's not really the First Cause at all, it answers to something else. Thus 'intent' would seem to be a difficult claim to prove. It would, for all intents and purposes, look like no intent at all, just a fortuitous roll of the cosmic dice.

What's more, quantum fields are, apparently, many, and only one first cause can exist.

Odd though, how some would describe the First Cause as a trinity. I guess theists aren't quite as wedded to the singular first cause argument as they would like the rest of us to be.

First Cause does not fluctuate.

Ah, but then again, that may just be a matter of perspective. After all, if the Bible is to be taken literally God would certainly seem to 'fluctuate' a lot. But perhaps our perspective isn't quite as reliable as we're wont to believe it is. I read the Bible and see a God that changes His mind, you see fields that fluctuate, does the discrepancy lie with them, or with us?

We have proved nothing to think we have proved God out of existence.

Was I attempting to prove that God doesn't exist? Or was I simply accentuating an old adage, "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." So just what is it that you think you know for sure?

Now if you're happy sticking with 2500 year old metaphysics, be my guest, but while you're at it you might as well be a YEC as well. It would seem to suit you. Or perhaps its time to update your theology.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
'Quantum fields' aren't even empirical, but are a model built on math brought to bear on empirical finds.

Absolutely true, but where do you want to draw the line? Do accept that matter exists? Do you accept that it's made of molecules? Do you accept that the molecules are made of atoms? Do you accept that the atoms are made of fundamental particles? If you do, then why is it that when we get down to those pesky quantum fields you suddenly become skeptical? Is it simply because it challenges your preferred narrative? Heaven forbid that science might actually force you to rethink your worldview.

I'm skeptical of all science and ALL religion including my own POV. In fact, the only thing I take to be more self-evident than my own existence is that GOD is, and in the same vein, that he created very fact itself (if there even is such a thing as fact). (And if he did not create it, he is not God). Endemic to those two, and also to the self-evidence of my own existence, is causation, which is simply fundamental to logic.

Oh yes, I am also not skeptical of maths, though I am skeptical of some people's calculations and the conclusions they draw from them.

I'm not even suggesting that you abandon your worldview, just that you rethink it in the light of new information. Surely that's not too much to ask.

That's fair.

But "there's nothing [truly] new under the sun".

Only First Cause can make 'new'.

As I said, there would seemingly be nothing preventing those quantum fields from being self-aware, and as such who's to say that they don't have intent? But as I also pointed out, if the First Cause can somehow be compelled to make one choice over another, then it's not really the First Cause at all, it answers to something else. Thus 'intent' would seem to be a difficult claim to prove. It would, for all intents and purposes, look like no intent at all, just a fortuitous roll of the cosmic dice.

Nor is there anything to indicate that they are self-aware or have intent, in and of themselves. Not even logic brought to bear on their behavior suggests self-awareness. They are only puzzling, if the models even have any definitive value.

The 'cosmic dice' notion only demonstrates lack of human ability to compile information it can't access.

What can compel first cause to make a choice? To even say it makes a choice is to use human terminology, attributing a human frailty upon the omnipotent. We don't know what it means to say that God chooses, or chose. Nor do we know what it means to say that God is what he does. Those are also mere models, concepts, almost figures of speech, at best.

However, the idea, "First Cause with Intent", does allow for that first cause to be influenced by itself. But not by any principle external to itself. That is, it has no obligation to anything except itself. In the objections I hear, and come up with myself, to the Simplicity of God, all I see is human concepts of definitions that are dependent on human concepts. Anthropomorphisms.

Odd though, how some would describe the First Cause as a trinity. I guess theists aren't quite as wedded to the singular first cause argument as they would like the rest of us to be.

If the trinity is One God, there is no contradiction. Do we really have the knowledge to attribute ourselves with the ability to understand how that works?

By the way, Theists don't all agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. And none of them fully understands it. But it is not empirically self-evident information to a human, temporal, POV, and is taken by faith, at least so far as logic (theological philosophy) has taken it, so that it is irrelevant to the logic of this discussion. There is only one God, one First Cause, one Omnipotent.

Ah, but then again, that may just be a matter of perspective. After all, if the Bible is to be taken literally God would certainly seem to 'fluctuate' a lot. But perhaps our perspective isn't quite as reliable as we're wont to believe it is. I read the Bible and see a God that changes His mind, you see fields that fluctuate, does the discrepancy lie with them, or with us?

Logic says that First Cause does not fluctuate. What seems to me like fluctuation is my inability to see the whole of what God is doing, at any one point. We can only describe what we "see" God doing. The 'appearance' is a human conception.

Was I attempting to prove that God doesn't exist? Or was I simply accentuating an old adage, "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." So just what is it that you think you know for sure?

Now if you're happy sticking with 2500 year old metaphysics, be my guest, but while you're at it you might as well be a YEC as well. It would seem to suit you. Or perhaps its time to update your theology.

Not that I understand all the "new" information and the resulting models drawn —far from it— but so far, anything I hear that appears to contradict the Bible, is to me far from logically compelling. But I will admit that my lack of understanding is an impediment to compelling argument in the matter, so...

 

[Neutral Observer]

Mark Quayle said:
'Quantum fields' aren't even empirical, but are a model built on math brought to bear on empirical finds.


I'm skeptical of all science and ALL religion including my own POV. In fact, the only thing I take to be more self-evident than my own existence is that GOD is, and in the same vein, that he created very fact itself (if there even is such a thing as fact). (And if he did not create it, he is not God). Endemic to those two, and also to the self-evidence of my own existence, is causation, which is simply fundamental to logic.

Oh yes, I am also not skeptical of maths, though I am skeptical of some people's calculations and the conclusions they draw from them.


That's fair.

But "there's nothing [truly] new under the sun".

Only First Cause can make 'new'.


Nor is there anything to indicate that they are self-aware or have intent, in and of themselves. Not even logic brought to bear on their behavior suggests self-awareness. They are only puzzling, if the models even have any definitive value.

The 'cosmic dice' notion only demonstrates lack of human ability to compile information it can't access.

What can compel first cause to make a choice? To even say it makes a choice is to use human terminology, attributing a human frailty upon the omnipotent. We don't know what it means to say that God chooses, or chose. Nor do we know what it means to say that God is what he does. Those are also mere models, concepts, almost figures of speech, at best.

However, the idea, "First Cause with Intent", does allow for that first cause to be influenced by itself. But not by any principle external to itself. That is, it has no obligation to anything except itself. In the objections I hear, and come up with myself, to the Simplicity of God, all I see is human concepts of definitions that are dependent on human concepts. Anthropomorphisms.


If the trinity is One God, there is no contradiction. Do we really have the knowledge to attribute ourselves with the ability to understand how that works?

By the way, Theists don't all agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. And none of them fully understands it. But it is not empirically self-evident information to a human, temporal, POV, and is taken by faith, at least so far as logic (theological philosophy) has taken it, so that it is irrelevant to the logic of this discussion. There is only one God, one First Cause, one Omnipotent.


Logic says that First Cause does not fluctuate. What seems to me like fluctuation is my inability to see the whole of what God is doing, at any one point. We can only describe what we "see" God doing. The 'appearance' is a human conception.


Not that I understand all the "new" information and the resulting models drawn —far from it— but so far, anything I hear that appears to contradict the Bible, is to me far from logically compelling. But I will admit that my lack of understanding is an impediment to compelling argument in the matter, so...

Excellent post. Thank you.

At first blush there doesn't seem to be much to disagree with. There is this bit however:

Logic says that First Cause does not fluctuate.

For me this has long been a logical conundrum, even though I understand the argument behind it. It's sort of like the notion of a block universe. How can a universe which cannot change contain beings that perceive it to change? What attribute does one of these entities possess that the other doesn't?

I have no logically conclusive answer, and the best speculative conclusion that I can come up with is that the difference between the two is consciousness, or the limitation thereof. But that's a rabbit hole for a completely different thread, and one with seemingly no place on these forums. After all, it's not ethics, it's not science, and philosophy would seem to be verboten.

 

[disciple Clint]

With all due respect to Aristotle et al the uncaused cause argument is extremely outdated, to the point of being irrelevant. This isn't 350 BCE. We can actually follow the causal chain backwards in time to the point where matter itself disappears, and all that existed were fluctuating quantum fields.

Now one could ask where the fields came from, but this is tantamount to asking where God came from, hence there's no reason to assume that the fields came from anywhere, they've just 'always' existed.

Problem solved, your God is a set of quantum fields. I hope that you're not too disappointed. That's not to say that the fields themselves can't be self-aware. It's just that being self-aware and being self-determining are two different things, and the latter seems to be an ability that neither those quantum fields, your God, or the uncaused cause can logically possess. They simply do what they do. To do otherwise would of course require a cause.

Since this is 2023 what is the evidence that quantum fields do not require a cause?

 

[durangodawood]

Since this is 2023 what is the evidence that quantum fields do not require a cause?

Wheres the evidence that God doesnt require a cause?

Point is, both of these propositions (eternal God and eternal quantum fields) are are conjectures that lack supporting or opposing evidence, - aside from internal subjective intuitions or faith.

So, believers in God have demonstrated that lack of objective evidence isnt decisive for them regarding God. Why then would they insist that a lack of objective evidence be decisive against other propositions that are currently not objectively decidable?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Wheres the evidence that God doesnt require a cause?

Point is, both of these propositions (eternal God and eternal quantum fields) are are conjectures that lack supporting or opposing evidence, - aside from internal subjective intuitions or faith.

So, believers in God have demonstrated that lack of objective evidence isnt decisive for them regarding God. Why then would they insist that a lack of objective evidence be decisive against other propositions that are currently not objectively decidable?

Part of the theoretical definition of "God" is that in and of himself, he is existent. There is no such claim for "quantum fields". God is [NOT] expressed as a scientific model to explain existence. Quantum fields are, and nobody is claiming they are "self-existent first cause", except for those who wish to discredit the notion of God as first cause. God does not answer to form. Quantum fields must answer to form, though we are at a loss to describe that form. We have no reason to think quantum fields are in and of themselves independent. God is —by definition.

There are huge differences between the two ideas, between quantum models vs first cause.

Edit: God is NOT expressed as a scientific model to explain existence.

 

[durangodawood]

Part of the theoretical definition of "God" is that in and of himself, he is existent. There is no such claim for "quantum fields". God is expressed as a scientific model to explain existence. Quantum fields are, and nobody is claiming they are "self-existent first cause", except for those who wish to discredit the notion of God as first cause. God does not answer to form. Quantum fields must answer to form, though we are at a loss to describe that form. We have no reason to think quantum fields are in and of themselves independent. God is —by definition.

There are huge differences between the two ideas, between quantum models vs first cause.

The God of the Bible may not be answerable to form. But he does seem to have a particular disposition. I see no reason why form at some proposed most-basic level should require an explanation, while disposition doesnt.

 

[durangodawood]

....Quantum fields are, and nobody is claiming they are "self-existent first cause", except for those who wish to discredit the notion of God as first cause.....

I need to be clear here. I am only trying to discredit the idea of God as a logically necessary first cause per human understanding. I am not trying to discredit God as an actual first cause. (Thats not even allowed here, I think).

In other words I have no rock solid rational argument against belief in God as a first cause. But I do push back when others tell me logic demands I come to their faith - because I find their reasoning lacking. As far as I can tell, no firm propositions about the existence of God, for or against, are logically decidable.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Since this is 2023 what is the evidence that quantum fields do not require a cause?

That's a legitimate question, indeed it's the exact same question that an atheist could reasonably ask about God. How do we know that God doesn't require a cause? For most theists the answer is simple, because they just define God that way, as that which doesn't require a cause... thus God is by definition the inescapable First Cause. In fact Aquinas then gives us Five Ways by which to identify this 'First Cause'.

They are: Aquinas' Five Ways

1. The Argument from Motion
2. The Argument from Efficient Cause
3. The Argument to Necessary Being
4. The Argument from Gradation
5. The Argument from Design

The question for us then is, does a quantum field satisfy those Five Ways? I would argue that indeed it does. Although I would disagree with Aquinas on a number of things, such as assigning agency or intent to the "Designer". Although intent is possible I don't think that it's necessary, at least not in the way that we humans understand the concept of intent.

So as with God the only way to 'prove' that those quantum fields don't require a cause is by showing that they fulfill all the requirements of the First Cause. Now we could go through them one by one, and I could explain how a quantum field satisfies each and every one of them, but that would require a lengthy discussion, and this isn't the proper thread in which to do that, nor is there even a forum in which to place such a thread.

But I agree with @durangodawood in that this in no way refutes the notion of God. It simply points out the interesting similarity between quantum fields and the metaphysical concept of a First Cause. What you choose to make of that similarity is completely up to you.

 

[zoidar]

That's a legitimate question, indeed it's the exact same question that an atheist could reasonably ask about God. How do we know that God doesn't require a cause? For most theists the answer is simple, because they just define God that way, as that which doesn't require a cause... thus God is by definition the inescapable First Cause. In fact Aquinas then gives us Five Ways by which to identify this 'First Cause'.

They are: Aquinas' Five Ways

1. The Argument from Motion
2. The Argument from Efficient Cause
3. The Argument to Necessary Being
4. The Argument from Gradation
5. The Argument from Design

The question for us then is, does a quantum field satisfy those Five Ways? I would argue that indeed it does. Although I would disagree with Aquinas on a number of things, such as assigning agency or intent to the "Designer". Although intent is possible I don't think that it's necessary, at least not in the way that we humans understand the concept of intent.

So as with God the only way to 'prove' that those quantum fields don't require a cause is by showing that they fulfill all the requirements of the First Cause. Now we could go through them one by one, and I could explain how a quantum field satisfies each and every one of them, but that would require a lengthy discussion, and this isn't the proper thread in which to do that, nor is there even a forum in which to place such a thread.

But I agree with @durangodawood in that this in no way refutes the notion of God. It simply points out the interesting similarity between quantum fields and the metaphysical concept of a First Cause. What you choose to make of that similarity is completely up to you.

I think the best proof of God is Jesus Christ. If the claims about him from his followers are true, then we have no reason to doubt the existence of God, since then Christ is the Son of God the Father. To me it all stands or falls by the validity of the testamonies about Christ.

 

[Robban]

The secret of faith.

Which is faith that transcends interlect,

this concept cannot be grasped interllectually,

but only through faith.

 

[Robban]

I, Havayah, have not changed.

There is no change in Him at all,

He was alone before creation of the world,

so is He alone after it was created.

"You" that existed before the worlds creation remains the same "You" after it's creation.

Without any change in His being, nor even in His knowledge.

For by knowing Himself, He knows all created things since all derive from Him

and all are nullified in relation to Him.

(Havayah=the attributes of the Holy One blessed be He)

 

[QvQ]

A quantum field is a field.
A quantum field obeys the laws of conservation of mass and energy.
In a sense, then, a quantum field is akin to the gravitational fields that governs the motion of the planets.
So, a person could argue the fact that earth goes around the sun is proof that God does not exist as the "necessary first cause" of that motion and the shape of the planet is the gravitational field?

BTW nothing exists in the past or future. Every particle that has ever been or will ever be is right now. The glue that holds the entirety of the entire may be quantum fields as quantum fields are, theoretically, the geometry of space time.

It seems as if a description of "how" God did it is being used to deny that God did do it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The God of the Bible may not be answerable to form. But he does seem to have a particular disposition. I see no reason why form at some proposed most-basic level should require an explanation, while disposition doesnt.

I see I wrote that wrong. God is NOT expressed as a scientific model to explain existence. Hope that helps clear up what I meant.

What 'disposition' do you see there?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I need to be clear here. I am only trying to discredit the idea of God as a logically necessary first cause per human understanding. I am not trying to discredit God as an actual first cause. (Thats not even allowed here, I think).

In other words I have no rock solid rational argument against belief in God as a first cause. But I do push back when others tell me logic demands I come to their faith - because I find their reasoning lacking. As far as I can tell, no firm propositions about the existence of God, for or against, are logically decidable.

To me it is rock solid because existence demands explanation, and there is no logical explanation available except for First Cause. Furthermore, a little investigation into the necessary nature of First Cause finds that First Cause must have intent. I.e. first cause is not mere mechanical fact.

 

[Neutral Observer]

It seems as if a description of "how" God did it is being used to deny that God did do it.

My desire isn't to get anyone to deny the existence of God, rather it's to get them to see the existence of God in places where they'd never recognized it before. You look at those quantum fields and think that they disprove His existence, I look at them and think the opposite, that they confirm His existence, not because they're ostentatious and miraculous, but because they're simple and natural, as I suspect God must be.

You may believe that I use "how' God did it to deny "that" God did it, but I believe that a better understanding of the former will only lead me to a better understanding of the latter, and that in the end there may not be a difference.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Furthermore, a little investigation into the necessary nature of First Cause finds that First Cause must have intent.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'd appreciate it if you'd explain this to me. How does one deduce the necessity of intent?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'd appreciate it if you'd explain this to me. How does one deduce the necessity of intent?

Perhaps the most obvious way is by the negative. IF there is a first cause, then it can not be mere mechanical fact. First Cause of necessarily is not subject to outside principle, (to include accident). Mechanical fact is. And mechanical fact is the only alternative to "with intent" as far as I know.

There are other ways by the negative: First Cause does not answer to form; first cause does not change; for starters...

 

[Neutral Observer]

First Cause of necessarily is not subject to outside principle, (to include accident). Mechanical fact is.

Like I said I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that being said, this makes no sense to me. So could you give me the dumbed down version?