Non-religious Theism

[Whateverist]

As far as my claim that there is wisdom and order in the universe, I am speaking of the myriad manifestations of nature that show intelligence, chief amongst those would be you, I'm sure, and a methodical arrangement of elements that result in harmonious entities like human beings, ants, and snowflakes.

Sure, sure. The universe is awe inspiring. Without a doubt. But when you observe how everything fits so well together, you're not seeing evidence of intention. You're seeing something structurally essential about the nature of reality itself.

Did you see that meme -was it in this thread?- of a puddle exclaiming how well its hole fit it .. almost as though it had been designed with him in mind. Like the puddle, I think you are imagining a tailor where really what we're seeing is a non-arbitrary, inborn fit between the parts of a whole.

Please, I am not arguing here for intelligent design. I'm simply saying there is intelligence and exquisite order in the universe.

Absolutely. Both. But the second need not be an effect of the first.

[Faith No More]

---

To answer the first objection about the fruitlessness of engaging in pure reasoning without having any kind of empirical evidence to support such reasoning, in general, I would agree with you. On the other hand, I do not regard thinking about the origins of the universe to be an act of pure reasoning. On the contrary, it is a very natural, everyday kind of thinking that leads one to ask, "Where did all this stuff come from?" or "What caused all of this stuff to exist in the way that it exists?" It is just wanting to know and understand the very real world around us that has lead to all the scientific discoveries that underpin our modern societies and without which we would find life very difficult to lead.

In rebuttal to the second objection about the lack of explanatory or predictive power in the prime mover argument, I would say that it is just this argument that does indeed explain the very important and fundamental question of how things got started in this universe.
Empirical evidence shows that everything is in motion. A very natural question is "What set things in motion?" Empirical evidence shows that everything that moves has had an action performed on it by a preceding agent. True in the macrocosm. True in the microcosm. If everything requires a preceding agent to set it into motion, logically, there must have been a moment in time when there was a movement that we can consider the prime movement that was the result of a Prime mover, an initial agent taking that first move.
This is a very logical, natural way to think. It is not a question of metaphysics. It is a question of natural physics. What causes a ball to fly through the air when someone hits it with a bat? There are all kinds of detailed descriptions concerning the physics and mathematics of things in motion we can give as to why the ball moves but they will essentially boil down to an answer like, "Well, when John hit it with his bat, he applied force to the bat that in turn applied force to the ball and since the ball was free to move and had a much smaller mass than the bat, it was propelled through air." Every place we look, we see the world in motion and every time we investigate the cause behind those various instances of things in motion, we discover that there was a preceding cause.

The prime mover argument, the way I would state it, says that since we can see that everything in the universe is in motion and since we know that everything that is in motion has had a preceding cause, there must have been an initial cause, an initial movement.
Movements come about by agents. Not all agents are equal nor are they all sentient beings but considering that the universe displays wisdom and order in all its manifestations, it is logical to conclude that wisdom and order, as opposed to insensible chaos are natural attributes of the initial agent or Prime Mover.
That the eventual effect of the initial movement set in motion by the Prime Mover results, over time, in sentient beings that are capable of self contemplation and selfless love, namely, ourselves, it is certainly natural to think that such attributes could be attributed to the one that set this universe into motion in the first place. Since this initial agent would have to be one that existed, self-contained, before the initial movement that started the universe to come into existence, it would have to be an agent that existed before time or beyond time or eternally. An eternal, self-contained, self aware agent is the kind of being many cultures past and present would call a god or God or a deity or the Deity.
We have therefore, with this argument an explanation for the empirical evidence that everything is in motion and that every motion was begat by a preceding motion regressively until we reach the moment in time when the first motion occurred. We name that now the Big Bang. This argument gives a satisfactory explanation sans detailed descriptions as to why that first motion occurred, namely that the Prime Mover caused it to occur. This argument does have explanatory power.

As for predictive power, well, what kind of predictions would you expect or not expect for it to have? I would expect that it would predict that there would be no movement and therefore no matter prior to the initial movement. I wouldn't expect it to predict what will happen after that first movement. We are not talking about a hypothetical law of nature here so I'm not sure why you bring up this point about predictability. A hypothetical law would need to be able to predict what would happen according to the principles of the law but that is not the case here.

I don't have any preconceived beliefs about this question of origin. I am not religious in any way. My views are open. I would be very willing to change my position from theist to atheist if I was given a rational and plausible alternative argument that would account for the origin of this universe and the accompanying natural laws that we can observe.

I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns, sir. Thank you for your patience and consideration.

---

You are definitely delving into the world of pure reason. Just because the foundation of your argument, that every action requires a cause(I'll get to that), is based upon empirical observation does not mean that your argument is empirical. We're talking about trying to understand the moment before time itself existed, which is something we can never observe. At best we can use theoretical mathematics to attempt to comprehend the state of reality, but the prime mover argument doesn't even use that. It's just pure thought without observation to back it up.

As far as everything requiring a cause, that is a temporal observation. Everything we see has a cause that preceeded it, but how can something preceed something else when time does not yet exist? You are attempting to apply reasoning where that reasoning is not applicable. For all we know, our understanding of cause and effect may completely break down when time doesn't exist.

By predictive power, I mean that a good hypothesis says that if X is true, we will see Y. We judge a hypothesis by its ability to predict things unknown, and the prime mover gives us none of that.

[Metalogos]

As far as my claim that there is wisdom and order in the universe, I am speaking of the myriad manifestations of nature that show intelligence, chief amongst those would be you, I'm sure, and a methodical arrangement of elements that result in harmonious entities like human beings, ants, and snowflakes.

Sure, sure. The universe is awe inspiring. Without a doubt. But when you observe how everything fits so well together, you're not seeing evidence of intention. You're seeing something structurally essential about the nature of reality itself.

Did you see that meme -was it in this thread?- of a puddle exclaiming how well its hole fit it .. almost as though it had been designed with him in mind. Like the puddle, I think you are imagining a tailor where really what we're seeing is a non-arbitrary, inborn fit between the parts of a whole.

Please, I am not arguing here for intelligent design. I'm simply saying there is intelligence and exquisite order in the universe.

Absolutely. Both. But the second need not be an effect of the first.

I get your puddle and the hole point but in fact, puddles don't think about their holes or talk with them but human beings do think about their bodies and their world and they do wonder how they came to get such a marvelous instrument with which to exist in and such a beautiful place in which to live. When they do have such thoughts, I think it is quite natural for them to think of a creator being because they themselves possess the ability and will to create.
Human beings create with intentions and goals and so to imagine a creator being that also has/had intentions and goals is only natural. When humans began to notice how the world worked, i.e., through the mechanism of cause and effect, they naturally began to think that if one cause brings about an effect and then that in turn becomes a cause to bring about another consecutive effect, there must be, naturally,a first cause for all of this to come about.
At the time people began to think this way, the gods had been in their imaginations for countless generations. We modern people tend to imagine that our ancient forebears had a consciousness just as we do but that only their customs and clothes and technologies were different but this is a mistake. Their consciousness was filled much more with an awareness of what many people now call the spiritual world and we know this from looking at the architecture they created, their way they buried their dead, their art, and many, many more artifact they leave us with impressions from the past.
As time passed, the human consciousness lost more and more of its connection with the spiritual world and became more and more focussed on the material world. The link to the gods was eventually broken and there are many stories in various cultures that comment on this momentous event in the evolution of human consciousness. The one that gives a very clear picture to me is the story in the Norse creation myth, the Kalevala, wherein the bridge to Asgard was broken, the place where all the gods dwelt, from Odin down to Loki, and the humans could no longer commingle with them which caused great sadness in both worlds.
I mention this change in human consciousness only to remind you/us that we cannot assume that human beings at a much earlier time in our evolution were incapable of seeing or understanding things that we in this time of what we might call a period of spiritual blindness are unable to perceive. We have the ability now to peer into the most obscure reaches of the material world and we certainly think that we are far superior to our ancestors for all our advances in technology and accumulated knowledge but we mostly forget that we have made those advances and gains at the loss of our former connection to the spiritual world.
We cannot and will not return to the past but there will perhaps come a time in the future when human beings, wielding their hard won abilities of clearly perceiving and understanding the material world, will reconnect their consciousness with the spiritual one. If such a time indeed comes about the spiritual knowledge humans at that time will have will be gained through the same kind of clear thinking and perception we of this age possess with regards to the physical world.
I'm sure you will say 'Don't hold your breath!" and actually, I breathe much easier having a sense that human beings of every age have and probably always will tend to have a sense of connection to something divine, to something eternal and perfect.

[Whateverist]

Human beings create with intentions and goals and so to imagine a creator being that also has/had intentions and goals is only natural.

Human beings also create without dictatorial conscious control. It isn't necessary to decide on a goal and then turn the creative process into merely a struggle to impose that goal on the materials at hand. That approach really doesn't make a for a very high art form. It isn't that human beings can't do that, it just isn't very artful or creative.

When humans began to notice how the world worked, i.e., through the mechanism of cause and effect, they naturally began to think that if one cause brings about an effect and then that in turn becomes a cause to bring about another consecutive effect, there must be, naturally,a first cause for all of this to come about.

Well, so you keep saying. How often must you repeat the incantation to remain convinced I wonder? (No insult intended. Think of it as good natured ribbing.)

I breathe much easier having a sense that human beings of every age have and probably always will tend to have a sense of connection to something divine, to something eternal and perfect.

There are ways of thinking about those three things which won't encumber you with medieval baggage. What gives rise to ourselves is as though 'divine', 'eternal' and 'perfect'. It isn't literally any of those things. You'd be surprised how little you have to give up if you gain a little perspective.

[Metalogos]

[/quote]


Human beings also create without dictatorial conscious control. It isn't necessary to decide on a goal and then turn the creative process into merely a struggle to impose that goal on the materials at hand. That approach really doesn't make a for a very high art form. It isn't that human beings can't do that, it just isn't very artful or creative.


Yes, I agree with you, W, that if there is a creator being like the one I am positing there is, the creative process will not be limited to the confines of whatever our creative powers are capable of, be it either high or low art. Actually, I rather like the imagination of a creator being setting a universe into motion and having no idea of how it will all turn out.

[Metalogos]

Whateverist wrote:
Well, so you keep saying. How often must you repeat the incantation to remain convinced I wonder? (No insult intended. Think of it as good natured ribbing.)

Thank you for the reminder. I apologize for my thick-headedness. Okay, I do get it that you don't think my repeated mantra of prior cause has any merit but if you will excuse my obvious forgetfulness, will you please state again clearly why this doesn't work for you as an argument for a prime mover scenario.
I think I remember you saying that when we are discussing anything prior to the explosion of the singularity, normal natural laws may not, and probably do not hold any longer. I get that. If we are talking about a point that has zero space and infinite mass as per the predictions of Einstein's theory of relativity via the Harte-Hawking reworking of it, I do understand that natural physical laws of time and space will cease to have effect or meaning. Therefore we can only talk about what happens regressively up to the instant of the explosion.
You must be aware of Quentin Smith's 2008 rather famous arguments against a theistic explanation for the origin of the universe wherein he states that there is no first moment before a singularity explodes because space and time break down at the singularity itself. If there is no instant before the singularity explodes, he argues, there is no logical space for God to act. He argues for a self caused universe.
He was refuted by Robin Collins in that 2008 debate with an argument that said that because Smith's argument is a casual one, one that relies on a casual explanation which states that each part of the universe logically explains the existence of the whole, and that the whole was caused by the sequence of events following the Big Bang, he must claim that the Big Bang provides an additional explanation for all that followed it sequentially. Collins argued that it is here that the theist can claim that this sort of necessary additional explanation is provided by God and that God is essential to providing a complete explanation of the universe. He goes on to attack Smith's argument and tries to show that it might suffer from a fatal circular flaw wherein no matter what part of the universe one starts with, the part of the universe doing the explaining is in further need of an explanation until God is posited to close the regress.
I gather from this and other arguments that I have seen that both sides will probably continue to debate each other forever without either side having to concede defeat. As I stated before, perhaps not in this thread, I forget, that is seems to come down to which argument one prefers, which is completely subjective.
By the way, I think I would have rebutted Smith with the argument that if the creator agent is eternal, as is claimed by theists, then such a being would not be limited to a time-space paradigm and could simply will the universe into existence instantaneously. Bang!

---

Whateverist wrote:
There are ways of thinking about those three things which won't encumber you with medieval baggage. What gives rise to ourselves is as though 'divine', 'eternal' and 'perfect'. It isn't literally any of those things. You'd be surprised how little you have to give up if you gain a little perspective.
[/quote]

I will attempt to climb higher and higher in my quest for understanding. You may well be reaching out a hand from your elevated position and all I have to do is trust you and grab ahold. Perhaps. As I said before, I defend no religion or dogma. My very subjective feeling right now is that a non-religious theist position is somehow preferable to the current atheist position when it comes to a discussion of origin. On the other hand, I would prefer to sit and have a discussion with an atheist about this subject and any other subject that I can imagine than with a catholic, protestant, or fundamentalist christian/jew/muslim person. That is why I chose this site over a religious one to share my views. Anyway, thanks for your advise and I do appreciate your "good-natured ribbing" or at least the tone of camaraderie that I sense to be behind your words.

[Whateverist]

..if there is a creator being like the one I am positing there is, the creative process will not be limited to the confines of whatever our creative powers are capable of ..

I guess ... if. I always wonder how it is we can reason what is and isn't possible given the possibility of powers beyond our own. A bat has powers beyond our own. A dog's olfactory powers exceed our own by 10's of 1000's of times. It is a good exercise to try to imagine what the world would be like if our perceptual/cognitive powers were different. I just wonder how conclusive our speculation can ever be.

Actually, I rather like the imagination of a creator being setting a universe into motion and having no idea of how it will all turn out.

Back when I making up my own conception of god, I always imagined someone someone ancient who'd seen it all before and who was bored and lonely. What that dude (?) needed, I figured, was a peer not a follower. Not a peer in powers but at least someone willing and able to act autonomously and reason from first principles.

So IF there was a wise ancient dude or dudette god, I agree with you they would value surprises. But I've since decided that imagining such a one is just one more thing we are able to do, it doesn't require the literal existence of such a one for you to have a sense of their presence. It is how (some) novelists channel characters whose words and actions can take the author by surprise.

I'm not invested in selling my point of view to you, by the way. I'm just sharing what I've come to. I make no claims. Hell, I'm feeling my way blindly the same as everyone else. All I know is I get one and only one opportunity to grasp what I can and I don't intend to accept any substitutes. Why would I want anyone else to do that? (I don't.)

[archangle]

It appears to me that there are quite a few individuals on this site and in the larger world that might fall into the category that I would identify as non-religious theism. I think that one comes to such a position through rational thinking, just as Aristotle did when he posited the Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover in the 12th book of his Metaphysics. And though the 13th century Christian thinker, Thomas Aquinas, was certainly a very religious theist, he found it quite helpful to build his Five Proofs for the existence of God upon this non-religious theistic foundation in his Summa Theologica.
I should like to open this thread with the hope of finding both like-minded individuals who could comment sympathetically on the subject of non-religious theism and opposite-minded thinkers who could offer logical reasons for not coming to a position like non-religious theism in order to explain the origin of the universe.
I welcome then anyone who could argue successfully that the known universe with all its inherent order and wisdom could possibly have come into existence without a Prime Mover. Let it be known that I do not in any way claim to know what the nature of such a Prime Mover is beyond the obvious logical conclusion that such a being is self-contained.
Furthermore, I would like to ask what people think of the imagination of a world that was fuller of non-religious theists than religious theists as opposed to the imagination of a world that was fuller of non-religious theists than atheists. Perhaps this question seems meaningless to some but I would argue that there is indeed an important difference between a group of people who carry in their minds the idea of a world that started willfully and a group of people who have no such idea or imagination.

"willfully" is the debate for me.
Were we created "willfully" by a living planet?
Is your finger nail "willfully" created by you?

It takes no imagination to say yes to these questions. Nor does there need to be "poof there it is," type traits to this god of theirs.

I think there is more data to suggest that we are part of a larger system. This system may be alive. But it aint watching us or condemning us to hell any more than we condemn our hand for dropping a ball.

I don't know one thing we have more of than the universe has. It is more reasonable to say it has more awareness than us or is it more reasonable to say it has less?

But there is no breaded guy in the sky. We are it, it is us. if it should exist at all.

but my guess is that our 110-er won't be able to see past the nose on their face.

good op there guy.

[MindForgedManacle]

Any argument for a necessary being comes down to this: presume an ontological truth you cannot defend (ex: the Principle of Sufficient Reason) and beg the question as a result of that. After all, if the PSR is an ontological truth, then there must be a reason that the PSR is true, and a reason for the reason that the PSR is true, ad infinitum. It just collapses back into the same problem any First Cause, Prime Mover or Contingency argument is supposed to "fix".

And oh, what d'you know? It just happens to be the being I happened to already believe in. Motivated reasoning? What could give you that idea?