Wednesday, December 5, 2007

The Existence of God

The reverse causality argument for God's existence hinges upon two assumptions:
1) For any eventuality there is a preceding actuality, which is a rather obtruse way of saying that for every event is the consequence of a prior event, (Aristotle's Prime Mover argument, later improved upon by Saint Thomas Aquinas)
2) Since this chain of causaity cannot logically extend backwards into infinity, there must have been, mathematically speaking, a point of orgin, an unmoved Mover.

The typical atheist response to the aforementioned argument is to ask: if all things have a creator, then what created God? They reject the hypothesis than it is possible for any entity or state of being to have always existed before which there was nothing, and after which there can be nothing. They allow for no exception to the metaphysical law that, ceteris paribus, all that causes has a cause.However, though they reject the idea of the unmoved mover, science itself defends such a concept.

According the philosophical, non-sectarian definition of God, it is an omnipresent, all-encompassing, transcendent being with neither beginning nor end ( a concept represented in Catholicism by the Greek letters Alpha and Omega).

Isaac Newton's first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, (always was, is and always will be) moving into form, through form and out of form. The String Theory and other advanced concepts of modern quantam physics suggest what ancient mystery systems have known for millenia: THAT ONE IS ALL AND ALL IS ONE. Energy is indivisible and ever constant throughout reality, transcendent and omnipresent.The separation of bodies is an optical illusion, but that is another topic for another day.

X can neither be created nor destroyed, exists everywhere at once, constantly moving into form, through form and out of form, where X can be used to represent energy...or God. Newton's law makes it possible for such a Being to exist because it is the inherent nature of energy itself to be eternal, transcendent, and all-encompassing.

'Fine then,' you ask, 'this Prime Mover exists. Yet God is ascribed with Intelligence, how can you prove that this Prime Mover acted conscientiously? How can you show...that Energy can possess intellect? Could it not have been a cosmic accident?'Easily. If there was no external mover, then this Prime Mover moved itself to act. For a thing to affect others, it may be moved externally such that it moves something else, for example, the white ball, acted upon by the pool cue, can move the 8-ball. However, there is no pool cue. There is only the white ball, and yet the white ball moves. For the white ball to move when there is nothing else to move it, the elimination process points to the white ball as the mover of itself.Now, for any given entity to move itself unassisted, IT MUST DECIDE TO DO SO, otherwise it cannot move or act.

For the Unmoved Mover to act of its own accord, it must possess the power to decide, which is ultimately the definition of intelligence. Intelligence is nothing less than the ability to make choices, because the concept of choice necessarily implies self-awareness, which in turn is the defining criteria of sentient life. There can be no 'I am,' I act' or 'I will act' without a concept of 'I."To conclude: The possibility of an eternal, transcendent and omnipresent being, before which there was nothing, is theoretically supported by the scientific laws of thermodynamics. If there was an unmoved mover, in order for it to act it must have been self-aware, else it was not truly the first.Ergo, the possibility exists for the existence of what we call God, even if only in a distant, impersonal sense.

P.S*I may have confused the Law of Thermodynamics with the Conservation of Energy.P.P.S 7/2/2007 The first law of thermodynamics IS the conservation of energy. I guess my physics aren't so bad after all.

2 comments:

Dedwarmo said...

Do you have any opinions about the possibility of having a relationship with the prime mover?

Marli said...

Dedwarmo,
I'm still grappling with that question myself.