Hi guys,
Today we begin our discussion about some of the world's biggest questions and I am pretty excited. I hope we have some great discussions here. The first topic that I want to get into is the existence of a god. Now, as I've mentioned before in Big questions (part 2), it is impossible for us to construct an absolute proof (the kind which we find in Mathematics) to show the existence of a god since those kinds of proofs only exist in the mathematical realm. Thus, I feel that the only approach to take is to consider everything that could possibly serve as evidence that, again possibly, points to a god's existence instead of his non-existence. I use the word 'possibly' here since I realize that not all of you will come into this discussion with the same opinions as me. For me the evidence (which I will provide) points more likely to a god than away from him, but we will get to everything in good time.
I am not going to make today's writing very long. I will provide one piece of evidence which, to my mind, points me to an intelligent creator; however I will provide more in subsequent writings.
For me one of the strongest suggestions of an intelligent creator is the universe around us. To be more specific, the rational intelligibility and the complexity of the universe, I think, quite strongly suggests a mind behind it. We see information of the most complex forms each and every day. Indeed, by looking at some physical laws alone, it is obvious that the cosmos is an extremely complicated entity. To me, it is quite rational to think that an intelligent mind is behind this cosmos. I would also say that I think it is more rational to think that there is an intelligent creator behind it than to say that the universe is a brute fact. In other words: the universe just is.
Here is why I say so: when we come across any piece of information (for instance a book), we immediately assume that some mind way more intelligent than that book is behind its existence. We don't assume that the information in the book has come into existence by a random unguided process (I am assuming that is what most of my non-believer friends think). Now, by this analogy, it seems to me that it cannot be suggested that believing in an intelligent mind behind the cosmos, is irrational, since this is the process of reasoning that we are very much used to.
I heard many comments along the lines of "just because that is the process that we know, doesn't mean that the universe came into existence by the same processes". I want to make it clear that I absolutely agree with this. I would want to come back, once again, to the fact that I want to look at which option looks the more likely to me. I would also suggest that to a big extent, this is the way that we make progress in Science: by following the "more likely" outcomes.
I know that this has been a far too short introduction, but I decided that I would rather keep updating the blog on a regular basis than write long articles (which would take me longer to finish obviously). For that reason I have called this part 3a because this is not the only argument that I want to present.
Thanks guys,
Happy reading and as always, please feel free to write me.
Hermann
From Plato in ancient Greece to Avicenna and Aquinas in the middle ages to many a philosopher, theologian and scientist in modern times. They have all posited and/propounded the argument of intelligent design as we call it these days.
ReplyDeleteLet me start by saying that I too am a believer in the Christian God of the bible. I realize that since I have been a believer from childhood my views are most definitely subjective. I have however, over the years since starting to make scientific inquiries on life and many of its finer details, to have an objective methodology. That is, not to disregard a possibility out of hand because it looks like it might contradict my current views.
Now, to elaborate on the discussion topic, allow me first to share what some of the great minds throughout recorded history have thought in this regard.
Plato made the argument that the world and the cosmos are in motion and that this motion must have been imparted from somewhere. From some “self-originated motion”. This is no different from modern day scientists who are trying find out more about the origin of the universe. How did the big bang happen? What caused the initial motion?
Aristotle put forth that the underlying essence of the universe has always been in existence and always will be. This essence is what “caused” the universe. This is no different from theistic or atheistic thought. Theists call the essence god, and atheists call it some unknown cause.
Sometime later the Islamic philosopher Avicenna spent some time thinking about the question of being, and more specifically the distinctions between essence and existence. These thoughts led to his conclusion that existence must be due to an agent cause that necessitates imparts, gives, or adds existence to an essence. I do not explain Avicenna’s reasoning well here at all, but the point I am trying to make here is simply to portray some of the ideas and conclusions that minds that have gone before us have made.
Another of the very famous thinkers to have made an impact in this field with a similar line of reasoning is Thomas Aquinas, who is probably the most well known theologian of medieval Europe. His argument has more familiar look to us who have studied mathematics. It looks like this:
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
Aquinas further said that this First Cause is understood to be God. The very distinguished mathematician Gottfried Leibniz had this to say on the matter: “There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition, without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."