God Did It - A Necessary Scientific Heuristic

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

God Did It - A Necessary Scientific Heuristic

Post by Meleagar »

It has often been argued that theism (god did it) is a science-stopper. The implication is that if one believes that "god did it", there is no motivation left to pursue understanding of the cause and effect sequences involved in generating the phenomena in question.

Historically, of course, this is patently false. The history of science is full of devout believers who, even though they firmly believed that "god did it", didn't use that belief as a reason to stop investigating; rather, it propelled them to continue. They believed that a rational, purposeful god intentionally created the universe the way it was, and created reason and gave man free will so that he could apprehend and appreciate His creation. Newton, Kepler, Bacon, etc. were, in their minds, seeking to understand the mind of god by examining the sequences of cause and effect in the physical world.

For these men, science was about finding and uncovering truths about the world through empirical and methodical investigation; they fashioned the scientific method, still used today, to best pursue that knowledge.

Of course there were those in positions of power - at the time, the church - that didn't like what certain scientists discovered, and attempted to censor that information. However, that is hardly because of religion, since the history of secular science is full of exactly the same kind of behavior. People in power, who have reputations and credibility on the line, do not like factual information to spread that undermines their reputations, credibility, and authority - whether they are in positions religious or secular.

No religious scientist of any historical merit ever used "god did it" as a reason to stop investigating the cause and effect sequences of any phenomena, even while concurrently believing that god was the first cause and prime mover of existence itself.

But, let us say that at some time, somewhere, a scientist did reach a conclusion - let's say, "where gravity came from" or "why the universal constants are set at what they are set at" - of "god did it". Is such a finding unscientific? Preposterous? A "science-stopper"?

Recently, Stephen Hawking has asserted that the universe created itself. Apparently, now, entire universe can just "create themselves"; exactly what science can be conducted after we decide that a thing created itself out of "nothing"? If we are talking about true "nothing", then there are no properties to investigate or theorize, no potential, no time or space. What exactly is science supposed to do with that? Isn't saying that something created itself out of nothing a true science stopper?

At least with the conclusion that a god, as prime mover and first cause, created the universe - you have something, and something is always better than nothing when it comes to the potential of further scientific or at least rational inquiry.

After all, it is only materialist ideology that claims that science can only investigate the material world; Isaac Newton didn't subscribe to that notion as he set about to discover the mind of god by rationally examining the patterned behavior of physical matter and thus discern the invisible, non-material "laws" that govern our universe. If Newton had begun with "the universe creating itself out of nothing", exactly what principle would have led him to think that there existed rationally-discernible laws of matter that governed a universe?

One can see why the consequent would follow if a rational god created both the universe and those who would be living in it; but a universe that springs ex nihilo has no obligation to be rationally discernible, nor offers any reason to believe it even could be. Such a premise offers zero heuristic rationale or impetus to do science of any sort.

However, the premise or conclusion that a rational first cause and prime mover is informing both the form and substance of our universe, and our mind in correlation to that universe, at least offers a reason why the pursuit of rational scientific methodology should be productive, while materialism offers no basis whatsoever for such a perspective. In materialism, reason itself is just whatever each individual set of colliding molecules happens to think it is, rendering it utterly relative and not a means of discerning any truths at all.

In the end, only the premise and conclusion that a rational first cause and prime mover, operating from purpose and intent - God did it - can originate, promote, and inform sound scientific investigation; otherwise, we end up with nihilistic and absurd proclamations such as "the universe created itself from nothing" and an abandonment of science as a search for truth.

God did it is not only a viable explanation that promotes scientific inquiry; it is the only viable ultimate explanation, and it is a necessary explanation as the basis for meaningful scientific inquiry.
Persecrates
Posts: 220
Joined: July 6th, 2010, 2:15 pm

Re: God Did It - A Necessary Scientific Heuristic

Post by Persecrates »

Meleagar wrote: God did it is not only a viable explanation that promotes scientific inquiry; it is the only viable ultimate explanation, and it is a necessary explanation as the basis for meaningful scientific inquiry.
Meleagar, I would sincerely be inclined to agree with you if I thought that the Big Bang was a scientific/empirical fact.
But it's not. It's an hypothesis.
If the universe has always existed, is an eternal physical existence, then infinite regress is not logical.
There would have been NO ('scientific' or 'theological'/teleological) ex-nihilo creation.

Furthemore, the same concept cannot be illogical if used by science and be meaningful rational if used by theology.
Whatever it's the universe or God that has been spontaneously created it's as irrational as it can get.

That's why I speak about the limit of our cognitive capacity.
What is infinite? What is eternal? What is existence? What is nothing?
We have these concepts, we use them but do we trully understand them?

The only (logical and intellectual) way (at our disposal now) to step out/go beyond this false dichotomy fallacy (The universe or God created itself from nothing) is to understand/accept, as some Greek philosophers did long ago, that the universe has always been existing. It is eternal.
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

An eternal universe doesn't escape the necessity of providing sufficient cause. Unless one wishes to refer to infinite regress and thus be unable to provide sufficient cause, one still requires a prime mover.

Without a rational god as first cause and/or prime mover, science (and, indeed, logic) lacks any significant motivating or explanatory heuristic.

"God did it" is necessary whether the universe had a beginning or is eternal. Questioning the cognitive capacity of humans undermines your own argument as well, and is thus self-defeating.
Nihilcertum
Posts: 45
Joined: January 18th, 2010, 4:26 pm

Post by Nihilcertum »

I have not yet read Steven Hawking's new book so I can't respond directly to that comment. And I agree that a belief in God as a Prime Mover of the universe and creator of a rational universe did not stop such scientists as Newton from seeking to understand nature. But, if we say that God did it (create the universe), how is that a better proposition than the universe created itself? If God created the universe, where did God come from (who/what created God)? I don't understand how the explanation of creation by God does not beg the question, where did God come from? Thanks for any clarification on this.
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Nihilcertum wrote:Thanks for any clarification on this.
Your clarification is in the O.P.
Persecrates
Posts: 220
Joined: July 6th, 2010, 2:15 pm

Post by Persecrates »

P1: An eternal universe can be defined as "without begining nor end".
(Or positively: "a universe which has always been existing and will always exist")

P2: A eternal universe imply the non-existence of an event creating it (since it hasn't be created in the first place).

Conclusion: An eternal universe doesn't need a (First) cause (a first event allowing/inducing/causing its creation).

It would have a lot more implications/consequences than that, but let's stay on topic.

Therefore God, as the idea of a first cause, prime mover wouldn't be necessary anymore to explain the existence of the Universe... Nor is the idea of a creation ex-nihilo (of our universe).
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Persecrates wrote: Therefore God, as the idea of a first cause, prime mover wouldn't be necessary anymore to explain the existence of the Universe... Nor is the idea of a creation ex-nihilo (of our universe).
The "prime mover" has nothing to do with explaining the origin of the universe; in an eternal universe, it is still required to provide sufficent cause for any effect.
Wowbagger
Posts: 649
Joined: July 19th, 2010, 9:46 am
Favorite Philosopher: Peter Singer _ David Pearce

Re: God Did It - A Necessary Scientific Heuristic

Post by Wowbagger »

Persecrates wrote:Meleagar, I would sincerely be inclined to agree with you if I thought that the Big Bang was a scientific/empirical fact.
But it's not. It's an hypothesis.
That's a lie, the big bang happened for a fact(as much as it gets in science that is), the evidence for it is overwhelming.

But you could be right with the 'always existing' thing. The big bang applies only to our universe, and maybe there's an underlying structure that is always existing.

By using string theory, scientists have actually done calculations about BEFORE the big bang and gotten sensible results.

The always existing thing wouldn't be 'nothing'. In fact, 'nothing' is simply a human construct, in reality, there's never absolute nothing. Even in a vacuum, particles are popping in and out of existance enabling the 'casimir effect'.

String theoriests say a collision of universe-membranes could have caused the big bang (and there's actually a way to prove it, if we look back long enough, we might see that our universe, at the big bang, had an umbilical cord.

Others think string theory is nonsense, yet even these have ideas and testable concepts to offer.

So again, "goddidit" is just a lame conversation stopper, real science is much more interesting.
Persecrates
Posts: 220
Joined: July 6th, 2010, 2:15 pm

Post by Persecrates »

Meleagar wrote:
Persecrates wrote: Therefore God, as the idea of a first cause, prime mover wouldn't be necessary anymore to explain the existence of the Universe... Nor is the idea of a creation ex-nihilo (of our universe).
The "prime mover" has nothing to do with explaining the origin of the universe; in an eternal universe, it is still required to provide sufficent cause for any effect.
Your whole argumentation is based on the creation of the universe and the necessity of a first cause it implies.

If you wish to speak specifically about the Aristotelian Prime Mover (motion) not necessarily related to the creation of the universe please do so.
Don't blame me for being on topic.

In the context of your OP, I demonstrated that God was not necessary to explain the existence of the universe.

Oh, I forgot...
Questioning the cognitive capacity of humans undermines your own argument as well, and is thus self-defeating.
My argument is not self-defeating. It is diminished by our cognitive capacity to truly validate it... Of course.
What we do is speculation, as much as I (you don't seem to be as concerned as I am with intellectual rigour) try for it to stay in the ream/boundaries of logic, I'm bound to imperfection.

What concerns me is that you don't apply that fact (we have no empirical definitive proof for the creation or eternal existence of the universe.) to (the formulation of your) reasoning.
You act as if you knew and as if I didn't just develop a demonstration clearly contradicting (defeating) yours.

Still, using logic (as I did), it is rational to say that the universe hasn't been created. Or, at least, that God is not a logical necessity because the creation of the universe is not the only possible explanation for its existence.

You should, above all, realize that affirming that God is a rational concept/necessity is not enough to make it so...
If you think the concept of creation ex-nihilo illogical, you have to apply that conclusion to both the universe and God.
If you think it logical, you must admit that the so-called infinite logical/causal regress can stop at the "universe-level".
There is no logical necessity/proof for one to be sound while the other is not.
That's why you should stop claiming something to be logical and true when it's not proven (by you) to be so and not even the only possibility we can consider today with the (limited) understanding we have of concepts such as existence, creation, eternal, nothing...

Why asserting this idea in the first place?
Ought of belief and desire for this belief to be true, of course.
This has nothing to do with logic nor "necessary scientific heuristic"... But with faith...
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Persecrates wrote: Your whole argumentation is based on the creation of the universe and the necessity of a first cause it implies.
No, it isn't. The "first cause" portion of the O.P. was only offered as one example of how "god did it" is a better heuristic for science than what science offers in that particular case, which is "nothing created the universe".

In other cases, such as Newton, I showed how the "god did it" heuristic not only didn't stop science, but informed the search for rational, universal laws, whether or not they were generated at any creation point. The "mind of god" argument (for the investigatory heuristic) can be seen either as a prime mover or a first cause argument.
If you wish to speak specifically about the Aristotelian Prime Mover (motion) not necessarily related to the creation of the universe please do so.
I already have, in prior posts.
In the context of your OP, I demonstrated that God was not necessary to explain the existence of the universe.
Infinite regress and "lack of human cognitive capacity to find alternatives" is not a rational explanation for the universe as we find it.
What concerns me is that you don't apply that fact (we have no empirical definitive proof for the creation or eternal existence of the universe.) to (the formulation of your) reasoning.
Because wether the universe had an origin point or not is irrelevant to my argument; my argument accomodates both. I just used the big bang as an example of one aspect of my argument - the first cause. The prime mover is still a necessary aspect even if the universe is eternal.

As far as "definitive proof", that is up to the individual to decide. Unless you are going to argue that thermal entropy is somehow compensated for or reversed, the fact that there is order in the universe is pretty conclusive evidence (for many) that entropy hasn't been in effect since "forever".
If you think it logical, you must admit that the so-called infinite logical/causal regress can stop at the "universe-level".
If you are defining the universe as a rational acausal cause with intent and purpose, then our difference is just one of semantics. If not, then your "universe as cause" fails to account for logic, intent, purpose, and the comprehsible nature of the world.
Eveready
Banned
Posts: 348
Joined: June 19th, 2010, 10:30 pm

Post by Eveready »

Meleagar,Newton didn`t argue scientifically that goddidit, he showed scientifically gravity exists, did Newton call his scientific finding god? nope and your pseudo argument [for that is what this is]has to be the first I`ve read about it :shock:

Infinite regress and "lack of human cognitive capacity to find alternatives" is not a rational explanation for the universe as we find it.
Your red herrings don`t apply Meleagar, evolution asserts regress and progress. A pendulum effect throughout history.
Therefore Your Goddidit is a pendulum then? Scientifically speaking.
In other cases, such as Newton, I showed how the "god did it
No you haven`t shown Newton said gravity is goddidit!! Newton said his science and his findings scientifically show gravity. Newton believing in his god didn`t make his science relevant, his discovery of gravity did.
A madman serial killer could claim goddidit, god inspired him to kill, he would find short shrift from those listening to his claim. Didn`t your U.S. former president G.W. Bush claim this to defend his slaughter of Iraq civilians? God fearing people tend to become the executioners of humanity in any religion. So much for their loving god. : :roll: Meleagar ON THESE BOARDS you call materialist determinists robots, not human beings, what is next, annihilation of human robots ..your a breath away from becoming Hitler and exterminating those whom you don`t define as human!

What I find odd about Meleagars argument is he wants science to explain his god to him..Most theists say science can`t explain their god, their god is outside of this universe and mans sciences.. difference between science and religion is, scientist can`t definately explain why people decide to become religious, and religion doesn`t intrude on the sciences or calls itself science. It doesn`t make either the lesser, it just means if you study history your are not studying math.

When the religious try to take over science it is like a history teacher trying to teach math...it doesn`t work. Instead of criticisng evolution and darwin, the religious should thank him..in this place at this time he did earth humans a favor. Religion deals with human spiritual vexations and the ? afterlife, science doesn`t interfere with them, why do they insist on interfering with science?
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Eveready wrote:Meleagar,Newton didn`t argue scientifically that goddidit, he showed scientifically gravity exists, did Newton call his scientific finding god? nope and your pseudo argument [for that is what this is]has to be the first I`ve read about it :shock:
I didn't say that Newton argued that god did it; that was his axiomatic assumption which provided the heuristic for his investigations and theories.

The rest of your post clearly indicates you didn't understand anything I wrote, at least not in any way I intended it, so there isn't much to comment on seeing as it doesn't address anything I meant.
Eveready
Banned
Posts: 348
Joined: June 19th, 2010, 10:30 pm

Post by Eveready »

I didn't say that Newton argued that god did it; that was his axiomatic assumption which provided the heuristic for his investigations and theories.[/quote

Yes you did you asserted without his god Newton would not find gravity..you can`t speak for Newtons axiomatic investigations as you are not him, many like Newtons of his era had to pretend to seek god in science due to science being overseen by the religious.
The rest of your post clearly indicates you didn't understand anything I wrote
So you deny now, that you claim determinist and materialist are robots? funny but most of your recent threads claim that! what is dissassocation but claiming humans are just robots..expendable ..like Hitler thought..
Nihilcertum
Posts: 45
Joined: January 18th, 2010, 4:26 pm

Post by Nihilcertum »

nihilcertum wrote:If God created the universe, where did God come from (who/what created God)? I don't understand how the explanation of creation by God does not beg the question, where did God come from?
Meleagar wrote:
Nihilcertum wrote:Thanks for any clarification on this.
Your clarification is in the O.P.
Meleager, the opening post does not answer my question. You say the universe couldn't create itself, that God did it is a "necessary scientific heuristic". I am asking about how God came into existence.
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Nihilcertum wrote:
Meleager, the opening post does not answer my question. You say the universe couldn't create itself, that God did it is a "necessary scientific heuristic". I am asking about how God came into existence.
Since all things that have a beginning or an end are caused to have a beginning or an end, god as a necessary first cause concept is considered acausal, meaning without cause - no beginning, no end.

By the way, I didn't say that the universe couldn't create itself. I said that such a position is irrational. An acausal cause as first cause and/or prime mover is necessary in logic to keep from referring to infinite regress, or something being caused by itself or nothing.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021