Can anyone provide an argument for a necessary being?

[MindForgedManacle]

Aristotle himself was not trying to give a proof for a divine being. It just so happened that a working definition for a nessesary being came out of his argument. The question with which he was concerned was how things preserve their identity throughout change. The atheistic dilemma is to solve that problem without referring to a fundamental principle governing the tension between static being and constant change.

That's hardly an atheistic dilemma. More like a problem for anyone claiming the identity of matter really persists in any strong sense. It's easily ported to your dualistic view of identity as well:

Are people who go to heaven or hell the same person as they were on Earth? If so, then why can they not sin in heaven, or (I dunno) still obtain salvation in hell. Claims of "Beautific Vision" keeping us from even desiring to do anything but abide by God just raises the question of why we weren't created with Beautific Vision to begin with.

[Ryantology]

If the universe is made of eternal matter, and it may well be, that still does not deal with the problem of how it all came to be set into motion. I am quite comfortable with a panetheistic explanation of the universe, i.e., that the matter of the universe is the eternal "body" of the creator being. That would make you and I and the ants and the swirling cosmic gas all akin, all intimately and eternally connected.

Yes, the question remains. Perhaps it is the one question which can never be answered. Therefore, we have enough of a dilemma without doubling it by attributing it to a cause that is just as impervious to explanation as the thing it is supposed to explain. It is like trying to heal a cut by giving yourself a second one. It just doesn't do anything useful for you.

Yet the question remains, "What set this all atwirl?"

It may not be a valid question, ultimately. Perhaps it has, and will, always twirl. It may take on radically different forms, perhaps an infinite permutation. Maybe it all did have a beginning, but if there is a question least likely to ever be answered, that's surely it.

Every action is a reaction to a preceding action. So it is in the macrocosm. So it is in the microcosm. To think that there must have been an initial action/movement that set, eventually, everything else in the universe into motion is both logical and rational. This type of thinking is the classic type of rational and logical thinking that the great pioneers of western philosophy are best known for.

I don't necessary think it is necessary for a first cause to exist, and even if there was, adding a creator agent not only doesn't actually answer the question, it just raises the obvious next one: what cause the creator? How can an initial action happen with no preceding cause?

I really do see only one destination to this infinity of paths: an ultimately eternal and infinite meta-existence, everything in the most literal sense. Perhaps it is as infinite in layers as it is in duration. It's not a satisfying answer, because it can never be explained... but neither can an ultimate first cause, and that still leaves that eternity to account for. Best to not even bother with the idea.

[Metalogos]

Dear Ryan, you wrote:
I don't necessary think it is necessary for a first cause to exist, and even if there was, adding a creator agent not only doesn't actually answer the question, it just raises the obvious next one: what cause the creator? How can an initial action happen with no preceding cause?

I really do see only one destination to this infinity of paths: an ultimately eternal and infinite meta-existence, everything in the most literal sense. Perhaps it is as infinite in layers as it is in duration. It's not a satisfying answer, because it can never be explained... but neither can an ultimate first cause, and that still leaves that eternity to account for. Best to not even bother with the idea.

I would answer the question in the first paragraph with restating the meaning of a prime mover or an unmoved mover. Such an agent is self- contained in this classical argument. Because by definition prime means 'the first', there is no need to explain a cause for this agent. The assumption is that this Prime mover is an eternal entity. It is not an action itself but the ultimate cause of all action.

As for your final conclusion that the universe can be explained (though without satisfaction) by positing an eternal existence of all matter, this was the position taken by Democritus but challenged by Aristotle. The latter could not accept that all things have been in motion from eternity and so cognized an agent for the initial action, i.e., the Prime Mover.
As far as I can see, both are possible. I can conceive of an eternal prime being that lends its eternal prime essence to be infinitely permuted into infinite states that are governed by natural laws that emanate from the nature of the eternal prime matter itself. Such matter would and should reflect the perfect wisdom and beauty of its origin and that is exactly what we seem to observe all about us. We see states of matter in constant change but we also see that though the matter changes, it does not cease to be. (Law of conservation of matter/mass) Wherever we look in the natural world, we see beauty and wisdom in every form and every state of being.
Anyway, I find this explanation very much more satisfying and acceptable than an atheistic one that gives no account for the problem of how things began to move in this universe of constant motion.
Finally, it is not acceptable advise to a philosopher to suggest that because a particular idea is difficult to understand that it is best to not think about it. This is medieval thinking, my friend. I prefer the open and unconstrained pursuit of knowledge of ancient Grecian times or our own age that is finally once again free from oppressive dogmatism and stifling conservatism. We can say here and now whatever pleases our minds and have no fear of being tortured or censured for our thoughts. Let us follow them wherever they may lead, turning here and there as necessary to follow always after that elusive and beautiful creature, Truth.

[Whateverist]

Anyway, I find this explanation very much more satisfying and acceptable than an atheistic one that gives no account for the problem of how things began to move in this universe of constant motion.

Of course this isn't a reason to share your conclusion. It is simply an explanation of why you embrace it.

Finally, it is not acceptable advise to a philosopher to suggest that because a particular idea is difficult to understand that it is best to not think about it.

But it is acceptable advice to a philosopher not to rush to judgment concerning that which he clearly does not fully grasp. To assume that everything that exists must conform to your notions of logic and limited knowledge base is hubris. It doesn't mean you may not think about it. It just means you have more thinking to do.

This is medieval thinking, my friend. I prefer the open and unconstrained pursuit of knowledge of ancient Grecian times or our own age that is finally once again free from oppressive dogmatism and stifling conservatism. We can say here and now whatever pleases our minds and have no fear of being tortured or censured for our thoughts. Let us follow them wherever they may lead, turning here and there as necessary to follow always after that elusive and beautiful creature, Truth.

And that I'm afraid makes you a poseur. Enough grandstanding. You know nothing, Jon Snow.

[Cato]

The latter could not accept that all things have been in motion from eternity and so cognized an agent for the initial action, i.e., the Prime Mover.

I have an issue with the way you use cognize here. Cognize essentially means 'to know'. It does not mean hypothesize, speculate, imagine, or 'make shit up' as you seem to be using it.

[Metalogos]

The latter could not accept that all things have been in motion from eternity and so cognized an agent for the initial action, i.e., the Prime Mover.

I have an issue with the way you use cognize here. Cognize essentially means 'to know'. It does not mean hypothesize, speculate, imagine, or 'make shit up' as you seem to be using it.

Sorry, Cato. I meant to use the word to mean conceive which is a synonym of this verb but you are probably right in checking my word usage here. Thank you.

---

This is medieval thinking, my friend. I prefer the open and unconstrained pursuit of knowledge of ancient Grecian times or our own age that is finally once again free from oppressive dogmatism and stifling conservatism. We can say here and now whatever pleases our minds and have no fear of being tortured or censured for our thoughts. Let us follow them wherever they may lead, turning here and there as necessary to follow always after that elusive and beautiful creature, Truth.

And that I'm afraid makes you a poseur. Enough grandstanding. You know nothing, Jon Snow.

Dear W,
You may not like my way of expressing myself nor agree with my position but you need not attack me for that. Let's keep our discussion civil and kind. Thank you.

[Tonus]

If we can all agree that everything in the known universe does indeed have a beginning and an end, then we can rule out the idea that things can go on existing ad infinitum and also that the universe could have existed forever, can we not? If we can, then positing some prime mover or creator being for the origin of the universe does not seem to me to be out of the question. Conversely, and nobody seems to want to tackle this, is the question of what would be a plausible alternative explanation for the origin of the universe without an agent that brings it into existence and sets it all into motion. Please, dear fellow thinkers, bring forth your best fruits and lay them on the table for us all to examine openly.

What you are asking is "if it's not god, then what is it?" But if you have no evidence for god, then it's dishonest to assume that god should be the default explanation for questions of the origins of the universe. Especially since we know that humans have, for as long as we can tell, assigned "god" as an explanation for anything that they didn't understand at the time. And when they did gain an understanding, "god" was never the answer. Why would we accept "god" (or any such supernatural explanation) in this case?

[Metalogos]

What you are asking is "if it's not god, then what is it?" But if you have no evidence for god, then it's dishonest to assume that god should be the default explanation for questions of the origins of the universe. Especially since we know that humans have, for as long as we can tell, assigned "god" as an explanation for anything that they didn't understand at the time. And when they did gain an understanding, "god" was never the answer. Why would we accept "god" (or any such supernatural explanation) in this case?
[/quote]

Thank you for engaging me intelligently, Tonus.
Yes, you are right in a way by restating my challenge for an alternative answer the way you have although I didn't and probably wouldn't use the word god in such a question. It is a word that is filled with too much controversy and too many assumptions so I try to avoid it whenever possible.
I have nothing to hide so I don't get your reasoning for calling me dishonest when I attempt to take a theist approach to the question of origin. It is not my default answer because I have been through the rejection phase of all things religious many years past and indeed have had to forfeit a number of important things like jobs and relationships because of my lack of an orthodox christian belief system. I have been contemplating these kinds of ideas for decades and probably will for decades more, assuming I survive that long. I am completely open in my thinking and so there are no dogmas that I need to defend. Having a theistic position does not force one to take a religious position. It is not dishonest to posit an agent, say, a prime mover, as a plausible first cause for a universe that is obviously governed by the laws of cause and effect. That is all that I am doing and nothing else.
As for the statement that you made about people in the past attempting to explain anything they didn't or couldn't understand by attributing it all to a god or God but then discarding that devise as soon as they had a better explanation, yes, such things did and still probably do occur continuously. I do beg to differ with you though when you say that "god was never the answer" after gaining more scientific, more rational explanations because there are any number of scientist or scholars of past and present who did not discard their theistic views even after gaining new and perhaps improved knowledge and understanding of the many intricate workings of the universe. Certainly there are countless cases of people who did discard their faiths and abandoned their philosophical positions but it was not everyone and so it is not true that a god or God ceased to be important to all people of past or present who receive better information than they previously possessed. I will cede to you though that those individuals who hold ideas or belief systems that are based on the opinions or positions of others rather than having been worked out and formulated through rigorous thinking and critical questioning will be the first to abandon those ideas and beliefs in the face of a superior argument.
Finally, you ask why should we (do you mean atheists here?) accept god as an explanation in this case (do you mean the case of origin here?) and I would reply that it is just in this case when we are discussing the origin of the universe that a theistic approach to the question "What gave existence to the universe?" is a plausible and even perhaps a preferable position to take. This position adequately addresses the problem of the necessity of a first mover that is unmoved itself. The alternative position is the one Democritus took when he said that there always was motion in the universe and there always will be motion. This view has an underlying assumption that matter has always existed and always will exist. I guess I look at the information available to me concerning the history of the cosmos and see that everything seems to have a beginning and an end. The universe is not static. It is not eternal. There seems to have been a beginning to it all. We call that the Big Bang. If things have a beginning then they have an end. How things really began and how things will really end is pure speculation at this point in time. But the universe is not the static, eternal place that many of our predecessors believed it to be. Can I prove irrefutably that a prime mover is responsible for setting the universe into motion? No! Can you prove irrefutably that such an agent in not responsible for setting the universe into motion? No! If your position is similar to that of Democritus, then we are left to ask which position is most satisfying. Of course that answer will be subjective and so perhaps it is best left unasked but nonetheless people do tend to fall into one position or the other.
Thank you for your consideration and patience.

[RobbyPants]

If we can all agree that everything in the known universe does indeed have a beginning and an end, then we can rule out the idea that things can go on existing ad infinitum and also that the universe could have existed forever, can we not? If we can, then positing some prime mover or creator being for the origin of the universe does not seem to me to be out of the question. Conversely, and nobody seems to want to tackle this, is the question of what would be a plausible alternative explanation for the origin of the universe without an agent that brings it into existence and sets it all into motion. Please, dear fellow thinkers, bring forth your best fruits and lay them on the table for us all to examine openly.

We can agree that everything we've observed thus far has a beginning. We haven't observed the beginning of the universe, so it's speculation.

Now, you might be entirely right in assuming the universe, too, has a beginning. You also might be making some induction failure and be entirely wrong. If every male you've ever met has a beard, you might assume that all males have beards.

[Whateverist]

This is medieval thinking, my friend. I prefer the open and unconstrained pursuit of knowledge of ancient Grecian times or our own age that is finally once again free from oppressive dogmatism and stifling conservatism. We can say here and now whatever pleases our minds and have no fear of being tortured or censured for our thoughts. Let us follow them wherever they may lead, turning here and there as necessary to follow always after that elusive and beautiful creature, Truth.

And that I'm afraid makes you a poseur. Enough grandstanding. You know nothing, Jon Snow.

Dear W,
You may not like my way of expressing myself nor agree with my position but you need not attack me for that. Let's keep our discussion civil and kind. Thank you.

No offense intended but I think I see the nicety you yourself use to characterize the other person's thinking with whom you disagree. Let me try again. I should have said:


I will note that you have only responded to the part of my post to which you took offense. I guess you don't want to defend your rush to judgment. You would like to characterize your willingness to adopt a position on the arcane question of prior causes as making an effort and praiseworthy. And that my friend makes you a poseur.