The Laws of Physics Require an Omnipotent Being

[Agnostic75]

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

I never said that. All I said was that the existence of the laws means an omnipotent being has to be their ultimate source.

Ok, why must an omnipotent being be the ultimate source of physical laws?

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Why would you care how many people claimed something?

Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't. Maybe the same goes for you too, at least sometimes. Are you suggesting that Christians should never quote experts unless they understand what the experts say?


Anyway, as I said in my previous post, if you want to start a new thread regarding whether or not people who are not experts should be
influenced by consensuses of experts, I will participate in the thread.

[Agnostic75]

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

PM me about [the global flood]. Turning this into a creation-evolution debate would completely derail the topic.

I already mentioned the pertinent link at the Evolution/Creation Debates forum.

I will try to stay on topic, but you must hope that if you can convince naturalists to accept your premises in this thread, they will eventually become Christians.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

All I said was that the existence of the laws means an omnipotent being has to be their ultimate source.

I once heard somebody say that spaghetti grew on trees.

[Nowhere Man]

To Nowhere Man:

What exactly do you mean by “track back”? The argument in the first post does point out, easily, that an omnipotent being is the source of the laws…so it seems like all you’re doing here is agreeing with me!

In a manner of speaking I am agreeing with you. The difference is that you take a theistic approach whereas I do not. We all are nevertheless talking about the same thing in the sense that something definitly caused all of this. IMV God as an anthropomorphic omipotient being equated with natural processess.

I already have.

An omnipotent being is, in the argument, identified as one that can do anything.

I understand your position, yet I dont see how that can be effectively identified in any tangable way. If for sake of arguement there is at the moment a god being, then you could easily backtrack to the source and point it out rather well. However, I dont think any such first cause exists as everything succumbs to the forces of constitent change and impermenence and pointing out such orginal causes becomes moot and forever lost in speculation.

To simplify what I'm expressing, my orginal cause was manifested through my parents, but being they are now both dead and dissipated you cant backtrack to my origins in any convincing manner and readily point it out as presently something still being there in the form of parents, I essentially by way of tangability* now have no "real" origin.

* OK Bones may still be around, but give it enough time.

[Agnostic75]

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

I never said that. All I said was that the existence of the laws means an omnipotent being has to be their ultimate source.

Ok, why must an omnipotent being be the ultimate source of physical laws? Can you quote any scholarly sources who agree with you?

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

Ok, why must an omnipotent being be the ultimate source of physical laws?

I have not seen any evidence of omnipotent being as source affecting the law of physics. And no one here has presented one here.

Theists and creationists have only argue for the omnipotent being without any backing to support their claims. Just dubious logic (that if you can call it "logic").

[cottage]

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

To cottage:

Why not?

Because what is actual is also possible, but not in the case of a necessarily existent entity, which by its very definition cannot be a possible being. If God is necessary then he has no potential for being, for if such a thing exists then it is pure actuality. And this is why the Anselmian term the ‘greatest being’ brings with it all sorts of unwanted associations such as God is the greatest evil, since whatever we can conceive to be a great evil, God is necessarily the greater. And yet it cannot be objected that in that case God must be the greatest good, since there is evil in the world and we can logically conceive of a world without evil.

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Didn’t you read? I said it was because the only way to make reality better is to be causally potent, so its better (for a being that won’t do any evil, anyway) to exist than to not exist.

I did read it. “2C) Since the only way to make reality into more good states is to be causally potent, its better to exist than to not exist.”
Your argument seems to be saying a thing that formerly didn’t exist (the world) came into existence in need of improvement, and in order to rectify the faults it is necessary for God to exist. On this account is seems that God is being made dependent upon reality in order to justify or explain his existence! But surely if God is the cause of the world, together with all its faults, then he already existed? And this Being that ‘won’t do any evil’, how do you account for the evident evil in the world?

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Only if the argument is false.

If you’re saying it is true then may I ask you to identify the contradiction?

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

What about God existing would lead to an infinite regression? If something exists because its impossible for it to not exist, there’s no need for an infinite number of anything.

And that would be true if there were some thing for which non-existence would be impossible. But I don’t accept your argument to that end, as I explain in my next passage.

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Then what’s your response to the argument I gave for that being the case?

Either ‘God exists’ is a tautology (with reference to necessary being), or God happens to exist as a plain fact. If God exists is true then ‘God exists’ is both logically and factually certain. But since nothing factual can be demonstrated a priori the concept is thus merely tautological, and as existence doesn’t follow from analytical propositions, there is therefore no factual or demonstrable necessary being.

[cottage]

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

To cottage:

That’s correct. And there was, initially, and will be again after the resurrection. But, right now, the issue is that God, being the greatest possible entity and omnipotent, can’t directly improve the world. Since God is omnipotent, and can do anything, there's no limit to how much he could improve the world. No matter how much he does it, he always can do it more. And since he's the best possible being, he'll do it as much as he can. But, that'd be infinitely...and an actual infinite is a self-contradiction, it can't exist, as we saw above.
So, instead, he created the best possible starting place for reality, and made conscious beings to do the direct improving.

I’m sorry but there is so much wrong with that. If for the sake of argument we accept the notion of necessary cause then it must be the case if God can’t directly improve the world then he cannot be the Supreme Being! And you’ve placed constraints upon God: ‘he’ll do as much as he can’. But if there is a state of perfection then God has it within his power to bring it about, for God surely is perfection. The ‘best possible world’ concept also seeks to curtail God’s omnipotence. If evil and imperfection exist then it is because God caused those things to exist; and if he did not then some other entity did, in which case God is not the Supreme Being. And it makes no sense to say God made humans to do the improving. What was it that existed before humans that humans were required to improve?

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

I’m not doing it arbitrarily at all. If the world doesn’t exist necessarily, then you’d need something to cause it to exist. Those are the only two ways for it to be here.

You can only make that argument by appealing to causation, but causation isn’t necessary and is part of the material world. Furthermore there is no argument that I’m aware of that informs that the world cannot be self-existent. Even St Thomas thought that the world has always existed (Summa Theologica 1a, 46)

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Well yeah, but that doesn’t mean it only exists because the world exists. That’s like saying, since existence is obviously a feature of Zeta Metroid, there’s only existence because Zeta Metroid is alive!

The point here is since cause and effect isn’t demonstrable even in this world how do you propose to make an argument for it to obtain necessarily in other worlds?

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Its not. Its just necessary.

But of course it isn’t! If it were it would be demonstrable. If I kick a football there is no reason to suppose other than by reasoning from experience that it will not remain stationary rather than being given to motion. No matter how many times I kick the ball to find it carries forwards I am not justified in stating, as a logical law, that striking the ball with my foot will always have the same result. Experimental (inductive) reasoning can never be certain, which is to say it can never be demonstrated as a truth.

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Yes there is. Going back to that argument above, its better to be able to cause things than to not be able to cause things (since, if you can’t cause, then there’s no way for you to make reality any better), so the best possible being must be able to cause.

Self-evidently it is qualitatively superior for things to be complete and finished rather than in want of improvement, and so the best possible reality is one that is in no need of augmentation or improvement. Therefore the best possible being (and the best possible world) would be one where causation is unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

What’s contradictory about that? The ability to cause is a basic part of its definition.

A Supreme Being by definition is everything and has everything and therefore cannot desire, need or want anything. And to say something necessarily exists is not to say it must have causal abilities. There is nothing in the term ‘necessary’ that implies a logical law of cause and effect, which of course there isn’t anyway!

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Ah, OK. So the sentence meant “it cannot be omnipotent without causal ability, and yet causal ability means that it cannot be omnipotent”.

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

So, why does being able to cause mean you can’t be omnipotent?

Because the supposed causal ability can be denied, which negates omnipotence.

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

You can’t be omnipotent without being able to cause, that’s what “potent” means!

Yes, that's quite right.

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

“Omnipotent” means you can cause anything.

Except where there is a contradiction, and there is none involved in denying causation.

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

I can’t quite tell what you mean here, could you re-phrase?

A Supreme Being is by definition all-sufficient and will not be being trying or attempting to do things.

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

Originally Posted by Zeta Metroid

I’d say I have P:

Okay, I'll take that as a humorous quip - or you could give me a summary of your objections, to which I'll respond?

[Agnostic75]

Zeta Metroid says:

1. Physical laws exist.
2. The existence of physical laws requires the existence of God.
3. The existence of physical laws requires the existence of an omnipotent God.

Even if items 1 and 2 are true, there is not any credible evidence that item 3 is true. It would be impossible for fallible, imperfect humans to make such an assessment by using science. Humans have not even discovered a cure for the common cold, and do not fully understand even the simplest cell, let alone have credible evidence about all of the attributes of a possible God.

[Zeta Metroid]

To Agnostic75:

Ok, why must an omnipotent being be the ultimate source of physical laws?

That’s what the very first post in the topic explained.

Are you suggesting that Christians should never quote experts unless they understand what the experts say?

Yes
Nobody should

Zeta Metroid says:

1. Physical laws exist.
2. The existence of physical laws requires the existence of God.
3. The existence of physical laws requires the existence of an omnipotent God.

When did I say that? I mean, yeah, I think all those things, but when did I make any sort of argument with steps resembling those? My argument was that they require an omnipotent being. Whether its God or not is irrelevant.

… let alone have credible evidence about all of the attributes of a possible God.

You don’t need to know all about all the attributes of something to know it exists. You know you exist; do you know everything about yourself?

To Nowhere Man:

The difference is that you take a theistic approach whereas I do not.

How’re you defining a “theistic approach”?

…I essentially by way of tangability* now have no "real" origin.

So what? You can still know you had parents, just like we can still know an omnipotent being exists. Plus, I’d actually argue that tangibility is kind-of arbitrary: a lot of people would say dreams are intangible, but you feel and see while you’re in them