Monday, December 21, 2009

Argument for Gods existence.

This was originally submitted for my "critical thinking" course in university last week.


-Premise one:
*The Universe exists and natural laws exist.

-Premise two:
*There exists a limited(so far as know) set of rational/logical, comprehensible, mathematically precise, discoverable natural laws that govern the universe.

-Premise three
* Two of the natural laws is the development into existence of life, or the raw ingredients to combine and bring about the existence of simple life{ie: abiogenesis}. Along with the natural law of evolution of life(including adaptation or survival of the fittest).

-Premise four
*Had the cosmological constants or any of the natural laws been different by even the slighest percentile at the onset of or shortly after the singularity expanded and the first symmetries were broken{ie: cosmogenesis} after the big bang, the universe would likely be a drastically different place, and no life of any sort would exist in it nor have been able to exist or evolve.

-Premise five
*All laws are governed by other interconnected and over-arching laws.

-Premise six
*(Hence) there must be an overarching rational/logical, comprehensable, mathematically precise, discoverable law that governs all natural laws.

-Premise seven
*In our experience such rationality/logic, precise, ordered, comprehensible laws generally are made or governed by or tweaked by a governing, calculating agency or intelligence of some sorts.

* Therefore, there is "probably"{not "certainly"} a force, likely{not certainly} intelligent or calculating in some sense, behind the creation or emanation of or self contained within the universe and it's laws.
{creation/emenation or self-containement and/or oscillation really depends on which cosmological theory of cosmogenesis turns out to be true}
This force (of set of forces, perhaps) one could logically choose to call anything, but which most, by convention/tradition label/term as 'God"{other terms which apply to this same creative and/or intelligent principle or force could also be used}. Therefore, God{Deus; not Theos} "probably"(again, not 'certainly'} exists.

Whether this law/force/God exists outside of our universes space/time or even all possible universes{multiverse} and apart from such and it created or emanated the universe(s) and/or whether it became the universe(s), and/or is itself self-contained within one oscillating big bang/big crunch eternal universe and is the over-arching law or sum of all the laws(all really depends on which cosmological theory/argument of cosmogenesis or on the origins of this universe turns out to be true/factual}.
This premise to conclusion argument is only designed to argue the "probablity{not certainty} of an intelligent or creative force(or God) that is either the sum of, part of, or behind all the rational/logical, comprehensible, precise, limited set of discoverable natural laws.
It is or would then be purely Deistic, not Theistic.

P.S. as one last addition to this. I originally designed this argument as a hand in assignment for my "Critical Thinking" class in University. It also contained a diagram which I can't do here. Anyways, my professor gave me a 3.5 out of 5 on it, I suspect the missing 1.5 was due to my not being able to completely correctly answer two unrelated questions{unrelated to this argument for god} in the assignment, as well as he challenged my first premise based on an argument related to the uncertainty of the nature of the quantum reality.

He{my prof) asked{in challenge to premise one}:
"Have we arrived at a unified theory of these laws? Or are the laws of nature at the quantum level of reality as yet elusive?

I have yet to answer him. However, I included it here to answer it thusly:
* True, we have not YET arrived at a unified theory. We still do not quite understand the as of yet elusive nature of laws at the quantum level of reality. However, this is one of the reasons why I myself am not a STRONG Deist, but an Agnostic-Deist. I might suggest this however, that thus far even the macro level of reality is not yet "fully' known or understood, my argument is designed aorund what we so far know about the universe at the macro level. If the macro level is so far as we can tell of such a rational/logical, comprehensible, mathematically precise, discoverable nature, and it has been our experience in times past that we and our scientists did not yet understand laws and things about the universes we now do, and that time has born out that for the most part all that we've discovered is a universe that operates according to such principles, it stands to reason that there's a good chance or a degree of probaility that the quantum level of reality does as well, perhaps by it's own set of laws, but laws which nonetheless will likely turn out to be logical/rational, comprehensible, and precise and which in some way connect to the laws that govern the macro world; we just have yet to fully understand them and the micro/quantum level, but so far our experience has born out the rational/logical, mathematical nature of the universe that we were less certain of in times past. We may discover that the quantum reality is indeed truly absurd and not logical even in the slighest, but given experience a reasonable presumption is the probabiltiy that it is indeed rational/logical and we have just yet to discover and fully understand all those logical laws of the quantum part of reality.

That is my theory. I could, however be wrong.

Anyways, that is my argument for god.

I also would like to take this opportunity to reccomend anything by Physicist/Cosmologist/Astrobiologist and effectively agnostic-(pan)deist Paul Davies. Such as his books "The Mind of God: the scientific case for a rational world" and "God and the new physics"

No comments:

Post a Comment