Reply
Thu 24 Apr, 2003 09:41 pm
Anselm's Ontological argument hit many points. One of which was the idea of God as a ?'necessary being.' It was something to this effect: Once one can conceive of God, then God has become a necessary being to that individual; whereas God was not a necessary being to that individual before He was conceived of. Many Theologians hold this to be reasonable, and rightly so. It does make sense.
Anselm also mention how God is the "uncaused cause" and holds the power to create something from nothing, not to be confused with nothing from nothing--for God spoke and there was ?'being.'
Now I return to my original paragraph. It is an impossibility to ask, "Who was before God?" For God has always been there and is the ?'necessary being,' so that question is not a valid one. But my teacher, who is one that believes in God whereas I do not, asked me, "What was the Big Bang?"
So I replied, "It was a singularity with infinite density and infinite dimension that expanded (exploded) into being to form space, time, matter, the Universe, etcÂ…"
She nodded as if in deep thought and followed my response with yet another question, "What was before this singularity?"
"What is north of the North Pole, or what was before time when the word before is a function of time and cannot be asked since time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. It is a question that is undefined and parallels the question, "Who was before God?"", I explained.
"Anselm has explained that through the ?'necessary being.'" She repeated.
So I asked, "Why can't this singularity be a ?'necessary being?" She only shook her head.
So I am here in this forum to ask, "Why can't this singularity be a ?'necessary being?'" If the question is not permitted when asked of God, why is it then permitted when asked of this singularity?
I'll bookmark this, have to give it some thought,
The ontological proof of the existence of God is many things -- but one thing it is not:
It is not a proof of the existence of God.
Frank Apisa, I suppose that depends on who you ask. Followers of Anselm, which includes the Catholic Church as well as independent followers, believe it does. They believe he is a logical necessity to the Universe as well as to mankind. I for one do not believe, otherwise I wouldn't try to apply his argument to the Big Bang.
My question still stand, though, why cant I apply the Ontological argument for the existence of God to the Big Bang?
Thank you babsatamelia, I hope you can come up with something.
Yottos
As an agnostic, I can only deal with your question from the agnostic perspective.
In my opinion, ontological proofs are absurd and illogical. To attempt to apply them to the Big Bang -- or any other as yet unproven theory of reality -- is to do an injustice to logic.
I am every bit as agnostic on the question of the Big Bang (which really doesn't answer most of the questions about reality) as I am about the gods.
Apply the ontological method to the Big Bang if you choose - but usually scientists have more pride than the Catholic Church -- and will refuse to accept a proof that offers nothing more than "it is so because we say it is so."
Yottos, perhaps because it's not the only physical singularity that we know of. Black holes are believed to be singularities.
Are these singularities separate manifestations of a greater whole?
It's an interesting question, and perhaps there is a relationship between god and singularites.
Violet Lake wrote:Yottos, perhaps because it's not the only physical singularity that we know of. Black holes are believed to be singularities.
Are these singularities separate manifestations of a greater whole?
It's an interesting question, and perhaps there is a relationship between god and singularites.
And perhaps there are no gods -- just as perhaps what we now call "singularities" are not what we think them to be.
We really don't know.
Your comment "perhaps there is a relationship between god and singularites" presupposes both without a qualifier.
Frank, "perhaps" you're presupposing too much into what I wrote
Violet Lake wrote:Frank, "perhaps" you're presupposing too much into what I wrote
All I have to work with are your words, Violet.
But if you did not actually say what you said, I apologize.
Now now, don't pay any attention to FrankA; he makes a profession of "not knowing" and it's very rude of him to then turn arround and profess "knowledge"!!
[that was, by the way, a little joke that frank and I share]
In my universe, at the beginning "nothing" started to become "everything";
This is commonly called the big bang, and before this there was not, nor did there need to be, anything in existence. Deities, prime movers, thingamajigs, whatever; all are unecessary to the process.
What I am saying, and have said here many times (add nauseum) is that your premise is correct. [and Anselm was up a very old tree!]
Of course we really don't know, Frank. Would you like that to be the first and final take on this discussion?
Since my statement was such a problem for you, allow me to rephrase it:
Perhaps there is a relationship between god (if god exists) and singularites (if our understanding of them is correct).
I guess this is how I'll have to write from now on, or Frank Apisa will accuse me of presupposing that God exists
Yottos, yes, scientists can postulate the conditions required for our universe to come into being and logically argue that those initial conditions "always" existed and are therefore the uncaused cause, so no god-like "being" was necessary at all.
But the infinitely hot and dense singularity is passé. Colliding branes is my current favorite for the "necessary being" that caused the big bang.
For an example, look how important "Wilson" was to
Tom Hanks in that movie of his, where he was deserted
on that island for 5 years or something like that??
Terry;
"colliding branes"; how appropriate to a@k's colliding brains!
Yottos, I suspect that "The Big Bang Never Happened" (also a book title.) by Eric Lerner:
Furthermore, Probably never was a Singularity, or a Creation.
If one examines the proofs or indications that the Universe had a beginning they have very little more going for them than the theory that has a guy (that looks like a Jewish patriarch) saying "let there be light".
There seem to be a lot of grantors out there who do not seem to be satisfied by "is".
I am beginning to suspect that pecuniary interests have a little to do with this.
Terry, Wonderfull to see you again.
I am afraid that the braines are also going to be a little tough to swallow. Perhaps with long cooking and sufficient regression of infinities they can be made palatable, but I doubt it.
IMO if you must postulate unknown dimensions you'd be just as well off with the Old Man on a throne, or a pile of Turtles.
The math, in four dimensions is difficult, but probably not impossible.
Violet, The rapidly multiplying number of black holes probably seen even in our galaxy kind of tends to negate the chances of one of them being a singularity. I suspect that they may be a stage in galactic evolution.
There are reputed (darn am I getting paranoid) photographs of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way interacting with the matter at its horizin on. (sorry Iv'e lost the link) . Taken by the VLA telescope in Arizona I think.
It was posted on the Science News about a year ago. In changing computers and servers some things got lost in cyberspace. I'll try harder if you are interested!
being
Yottos, as I recall, St. Anselm's ontological proof for the existence of God, was originally formulated by Aristotle in some form or another. The "proof" was eventually rejected by the Vatican. I think it went as follows: A God must be seen as perfect (or he's no God). This means that he has ALL conceivable virtues. But we MUST, necessarily, include or add to that infinite list of virtues EXISTENCE itself. Otherwise all the other virtues have no application to Him. His being, therefore is necessary. This is, of course, no proof at all. I can think of a perfect man (in my mind, of course) and this would then require his existence for him to be perfect. But I just made him up. Just as mankind made up God.
being
Yottos, as I recall, St. Anselm's ontological proof for the existence of God, was originally formulated by Aristotle in some form or another. The "proof" was eventually rejected by the Vatican. I think it went as follows: A God must be seen as perfect (or he's no God). This means that he has ALL conceivable virtues. But we MUST, necessarily, include or add to that infinite list of virtues EXISTENCE itself. Otherwise all the other virtues have no application to Him. His being, therefore is necessary. This is, of course, no proof at all. I can think of a perfect man (in my mind, of course) and this would then require his existence for him to be perfect. But I just made him up. Just as mankind made up God.
Sorry for the accidental duplication.
Anselm's ontological proof of the existence of God is nothing more than an elaborate tautology. Truly it is not given much credence by the philosophic community -- and it bearly gets any consideration from the religious folks either.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace