God Vs. Science and the Limits of Logic

The Issue at Hand

How did our universe arise?

From the Big Bang, one might reply. Or from a multiverse, one could theorize. Or from the action of a First Cause, often identified with a God, or a particular God.

Where did those causes arise, you press on.

The Big Bang emerged from nothing, one might reply. Or the multiverse never emerged, but rather has eternally replicated with no beginning in time. Or the First Cause needs no explanation, as the First Cause created itself.

We could press on, such as how can something emerge from nothing.

At this point, let’s step back. Let’s step back from the question of how did our universe, our actuality, how did that arise. Rather, let’s ask whether the logic we use, the rationales with which we attempt to answer the question, whether those are sufficient to the task.

We can use logic to deduce the chances in Blackjack, or figure out why the light in the bedroom doesn’t go on, or more globally engineer the great infrastructures which underlie our modern societies.

Can we use logic, however, to discern the greater question of the origins of our actuality, to understand that which caused our fundamental existence?

Let’s offer an answer to this greater question, then look at some possible issues with that answer, and finally work to draw some conclusion.

An answer

If our issue centers on the sufficiency of logic, where does logic come from? Let’s start with the proposition that logic emerges from the existence in which we find ourselves. We observe our world, and record through our senses and our instruments, the actuality around us. Then with our intellect we fit our observations into patterns and rules and create logic to formalize and validate the rules.

Take circles. The logic of circles emerges from the presence of circles in our actuality. Certainly we have extended logic of actual circles into esoteric realms of analytic geometry, topography, manifolds, Hilbert spaces and beyond. But the logic, math and science that built those realms remain grounded in the core attributes of actuality.

In short then, in this view, our logic emerges from, and remains connected to, our existence.

But what question lies before us? What do we seek to answer? Existence itself. The how and why of existence, or in other words what came before or outside of or around or at the genesis of existence.

I have just offered, though, that the origin of our logic is our existence. Our question, though, asks what enabled existence. If we bring logic to bear on the enabler of existence, we ask, in effect, that logic discern and elucidate that from which logic itself came, to turn back on itself and explain itself.

That descents into circularity. Existence explains logic, and now we ask logic to explain existence. In other words, A explains B, but now we want B to explain A.

Take causality. Causality underlies in essence our basic ability to live. That water grows food, and lumber supports structures, and electricity operates machines and lights, in short that nature follows a highly predictable pattern, reliably, permits life. That our core existence relies on causality gives rise to the logic of implication, in other words, that if A, then B.

Now step outside our actuality. Does causality still apply? We might answer of course it does, causality lies at the core of everything. But we have just accepted, for this line of argument, that logic emerges from within existence. When we step outside our actuality, what status does causality have? By the line of thought here, that our logic applies only within the bounds of where it emerged, we cannot make any definitive statement on the applicability of causality to the origin of existence. Or for that matter about the applicability of any element of logic.

Questions That Arise

That gives the argument, or an argument.

But as formulated, questions arise.

Could we not extend logic, extrapolate, so that logic provides explanatory power on the genesis of existence? Would we not take an acceptable leap, for example, to extrapolate that if causality underlies the actuality we observe, that causality also applies to the process that created our actuality?

And do we stand correct on a basic proposition here, that our human logic emerges from existence? Rather, might logic precede existence, might logic dwell independent of any actuality?

And do not science and religion offer explanations on the origin of existence, which regardless of this theorizing on the status of logic, provide real hypotheses that we can discuss and analyze?

We thus should continue on.

Extrapolation

We extrapolate, successfully, all the time. We extrapolate, generalize, that the sun will rise in the morning, that leaves will fall in autumn, and that temperatures will drop in the winter. Athletes extrapolate the flight of the ball, industrial quality inspectors extrapolate the number of defects from a sample, and epidemiologists extrapolate the harm (or benefit) of toxins (or medicines) from experiments.

Extrapolation can work wonderfully, effectively, efficiently. But caution must reign. Extrapolation does not work universally. We can not extrapolate from the physics of falling apples to the gravity of black holes. We can not extrapolate from the dynamics of billiard balls to how atoms operate in semiconductors. We can not extrapolate from the changing speed of sound as a car passes to the nature of the speed of light. We can not extrapolate from the nature of matter that we touch to the mass composition of the universe. We can not extrapolate from how helium works in our holiday balloons to the conditions inside our sun. We can not extrapolate our sense of our bodies to the totality of our biology, i.e. can you feel your muscles grow, or your liver extract waste, or hemoglobin absorb oxygen?

Extrapolation of what appeared sound logic fails in these cases. As they developed the laws of gravity, philosophers and scientists from Euclid to Newtown extrapolated the orthogonal three dimensional reference frame we experience on Earth out to the wider universe. Seemed reasonable, actually almost obvious. But that logic failed. Einstein discovered that mass and energy curve and warp space, and make time relative.

In its treatment of the atoms, classical statistical mechanics first extrapolated our experience with solid objects down to the atomic level, to treat atoms as tiny oscillating objects. That logic failed. Planck and others overturned that logic with quantum mechanics.

In these cases, extrapolation of what appeared sound logic failed (or more appropriately lost applicability) as we reached further into the universe. That extrapolations do not work universally, and that learned individuals can toil centuries to locate when and where extrapolations stop working, should give us pause. We should exercise restraint in extending what appear as solid concepts, like causality, to questions in areas beyond the known applicability of those concepts.

Existence Precedes Logic

But doesn’t logic precede the universe. Do not ideas and concepts exist independent of any particular actuality? None other than Plato thought so. And his viewpoint has merit. No actual circle, or no one set of actual objects, represents the complete and permanent essence of a circle or of a set. Circles, and sets, and for that matter numbers, and logical operations, might they in their essence exist as concepts independent of the transitory nature of items in actuality.

As noted, Plato and others posited such.

But that Greek philosophers heralded an idea does not assure it correctness.

In Greek times a philosopher might, based on experience, conclude that for objects to stay in motion, a force must be applied. Now since no force appears to be applied to the Earth, the Earth must be motionless. Another Greek philosopher might determine, based on experience, and given the nature of triangles and parallel lines, that the angles of a triangle always sum to 180 degrees.

Now Newtown showed the first item on motion incorrect, and Riemann invented a geometry where the second item was not true, and Einstein used Riemann’s geometry to show that Newtown showed great insight but Newtown’s laws applied only in approximation, or in cases not at all.

I do not seek to discredit Greek philosophers, but rather to show how ideas in philosophy, math, science, metaphysics and logic stand subject to revisions and amendment. If logic preceded existence, then we might expect that logic to exhibit more stability, and not be subject to revision.

Maybe it is our understanding of logic that undergoes revision, not logic itself. Logic remains consistent and stable, its independent and timeless structure remains solid and immutable, but humanity evolves in its grasp of the Platonic forms and rational logic.

To examine this, let’s do a thought experiment. Picture we consist of just consciousness, and nothing else, and no objects exist, no space exists, and the “we” actually consists of just one of us, nobody else. This one individual is alive, certainly, and experiences, deeply, feelings, feelings of joy, elation, pain, horror, stress. The mental experience remains rich, but without any sense of time, space, matter, objects, i.e. nothing other than the mental experience.

Does logic exist in the world of this thought experiment? Well, this individual’s experiences provide no basis for their discerning logic. The individual only encounters feelings. Nothing else, not causality, not physical objects, not time, not space, language never arises, the person never designs or creates anything, makes no plans, solves no problems, faces no challenges. But as noted above, the inability in this thought experiment to discern logic, either correctly or at all, does not imply the lack of such a logic.

We now have reached the crux. Let’s assume a logic exists independent of any particular actuality. But we see both in our current actuality, and in the thought experiment, that human limitations could likely make us unable to discern that logic. The result? We cannot know to what extent the logic we do discern matches the “true” logic.

Thus we do not know whether our discerned logic applies outside our actuality. A “true” logic may govern creations of actualities, but our inability to discern the “true” logic leaves us unable to apply the logic we do know, to the question of the genesis of our existence.

Another thought experiment may illustrate this. Assume I exist as a fish in a huge, completely dark sphere of water in deep space (a sphere so large I never reach the wall). I would discern some laws of physics, for example that I must exert a force to move. I might generalize my experience to a law that objects in motion will stop in the absence of a continuously applied force.

I wonder what exists outside my water world, and use my generalizations to create theories. I would of course be in error. Outside my water world, the laws of motion differ, and gravity exists, and stars produce light, and life flourishes not just in water, but on land and in the air. Any laws I discern bear no resemblance to the large, actual laws.

So again, caution should reign. Even if universal logic exists independent of any actuality, we cannot know if the logic we discern matches whatever universal logic reigns.

Concepts for Existence

Okay, maybe, but both science and religion have offered hypotheses or beliefs on how existence came to being. We should examine these. Let’s take three, specifically: 1) our actuality came from nothing, 2) our actuality results from a continuous series of multiverses extending back infinitely and 3) a First Cause, say a God, or the specific Christian God, created our actuality.

Nothing – Could our actuality have emerged from nothing?

An immediate logical quandary arises. Nothing means nothing. Nothing here means more than just no air, or no objects, or no mass, or even no space or time. Nothing means no attributes, no characteristics, no description, no properties.

But when we consider nothing as the origin of existence, we endow nothing with a property, i.e. that from which existence arose. Nothing then becomes something. So we fall into a logical trap that we cannot study nothing as the origin of existence since when we do nothing becomes something.

Wait, you say, this trap just presents a sort of semantic sophistry, turning a word on itself. But not really. A sound theory on nothing as the origin of existence, and in particular our actuality, would involve an explanation, a description. For example, maybe nothing could spawn existence since positive attributes of our actuality, like mass, or energy, or space, have corresponding negative attributes, say anti-matter, or negative energy, and so on, summing to zero.

That however, assigns a zero state to nothing. Is a zero state equivalent to nothing? Likely not. I can envision physicists, in building a theory of existence from nothing, assigning a variable to this zero state, since a theory would need to show how the somethings in our actuality sum to this zero state. This variable imbues a property to nothing, at which point nothing converts to something.

You disagree, stating zero doesn’t imply a property. Maybe with enough discussion we can climb out of this logical quandary, but I offer we are at the edges of what words mean, at the edges of what logic can discern, and certainly beyond the edge of anything we experience (i.e. we have never encountered nothing.)

If we encounter this level of problems considering nothing as the origin of existence, I would offer that our logic falters.

Infinite Existence – Unlike “nothing,” with its ephemeral absence of anything, an infinite sequence of predecessor multiverses, or just universes, provides a rich palette of somethings from which our actuality around us could emerge.

No need to fret over properties. With this infinite sequence, we seek to logically explain the origin of existence by endowing that origin with an ultimate property, a property of never starting, but rather always existing.

We again, though, hit a logical snag. An infinite sequence of existence provides a causal foundation for our particular actuality, our universe. That infinite sequence, however, would represent a fairly amazing entity. It never started, it continues on with amazing dynamic stability, it generates new universes, by appearances it will continue forever.

Truly amazing. So amazing that its origin, the origin of the multiverse, presents as great or greater a question than if we consider just our humble local universe. Wait, you say, we don’t need to consider the origin of the infinite sequence, since that sequence never started. That response, however, defines “origin” too narrowly, as meaning only origin in time. We can properly consider origin in a broader sense of “what gave the sequence its properties?” not in the sense of time but in a sense of possessing.

Thus, rather than explain the origin of existence, a sequence of universes simple moves the question one step backward, or in some sense makes the question more confounding. A sequence of universes leaves us to wonder how existence came to exhibit such a complex, intricate and unending set of properties.

That such a questions arises, that we seem to fall into an infinite regress where each explanation requires another, speaks to our logic faltering when considering an infinite sequence.

God – When we considered nothing as the source of our existence, we found that “nothing” possessed too few (actually no) properties to analyze via our logic. When we considered an eternal string of multiverses, we found that such a string would contain properties sufficiently amazing, that the eternal sequence approach just creates a new question as to the origin of the properties of the eternal sequence.

When we consider now a Supreme Being as the origin of our existence, we do not lack properties (as with nothing), nor do those properties simply shift the question to a different existence (as with the infinite sequence). So can we bring logic to bear to discern and understand the origin of our existence by a Supreme Being?

Likely not. The properties we imbue into our Supreme Being differ in their basic substance from our actuality. They must, if we posit a God as the origin of existence. As we saw with the infinite sequence, any theorized origin with attributes resembling our local universe, for example as soon as we give this origin time, or energy, or change, or composition, we beg the question.

That difference in basic substance, I offer, deals our logic a debilitating blow in discerning, definitively, the Supreme Being.

God self-causes. God lacks composition. God exists everywhere and nowhere. God operates in time, and outside of time, and created time. Our logic, and our existence, embodies, centrally, the contrary, embodies implication, separation, location, change.

To envision a God sufficiently distinct to originate our existence, we must envision an entity sufficiently far from our logic that such a God escapes the scope of our logic, and thus we diminish the power of our logic to discern and understand that God.

Conclusion for Humbleness

What can we conclude? After all, this presents no formal proofs, lists no rigorous axioms and definitions, and employs no symbolic operators. So by strict logic, no deductive conclusion has been reached.

So what can conclude? Not a logical deduction in formality, but an admonition on conduct. And what is the admonition? To proceed with humility. Humility on what? On the issue of God vs. Science. Not on common or familiar issues like evolution, or miracles, or the date of the Shroud of Turin.

Rather, humility must reign on the basic question of God’s existence, and on the core ability of Science to explain all our existence.

But we have discussed the origin of our actuality? What links that to this basic question of God or this core ability of Science.

Very simply, implicit in our beliefs about God and Science rest statements, logical statements, about our origins. Statements such as “God must exist or else how did everything get here”, “We don’t need God since Science can explain things”, “God created in intelligent universe so mankind could understand it.” And so on.

In other words, core to our foundational beliefs about Science and God lie logical arguments on how God originated our existence and/or how Science can or will explain it. Almost unconsciously, we buttress our beliefs with this logic on existence.

But I offer here that logic falters on the question of existence. And, to the degree our logic falters, and I argue that it does, our logic on this matter does not buttress our beliefs. No, it can give rise to a false sense of security in them.

However, did you not state in your own words that you did not prove that logic falters.

Yes, I did not prove logic incapable of deducing the origins of existence. But I have laid out issues, deep issues, on the capability of logic to do so, and thus call into question assurance that logic can so discern. Thus, while I have not proven logic incapable, we must show caution and reserve on stating logic is so capable. Maybe it can. But I offer we have no assurance.

In what way must caution and humility reign, then? Can one not believe, or have a conviction, or act with passion concerning God and Science. Certainly. But, in our convictions on God and Science, we may, and may likely, state that we “know,” that we stand certain, that no doubt exists, that we can show clearly the truth and validity of our convictions.

I offer here, though, that to the degree that questions of existence stand open to hard logical questions, our certainty that we “know” with logical certainty the truth of God or the ultimate ability of Science also stands open to hard questions. We can believe, we can proclaim, we can act with conviction, but we must be humble and circumspect in stating we logically and rationally know, for certain. Because, I offer, we likely, no almost certainly, do not “know.”

And further we must refrain branding others “illogical” or “unthinking” or “wrong” or “confused.” Not about evolution, or miracles, or archeological findings about sacred sites. No, those appear to be bounded questions within the scope of logic. Rather, we must exercise humility about God vs. Science in the ultimate.

We can with high certainty agree on the logic of Blackjack, or of a computer algorithm, or of the operation of the electrical grid, or many other items of bounded scope. We can even logically explore and discuss the details of evolution and the nature of consciousness and the physics of time and space.

But at the core, does a God exist, and/or can Science explain everything, logic falters. Logic falls into circular catch-22′s, infinite regresses, and definitional quandaries, possibly with solutions, but I offer that no such certain solutions exist at present.

This should not undermine anyone’s faith, or beliefs, or convictions about existence and the nature of reality and the presence of God and the ultimate reach of Science. Rather, this implies, since we do not know with logical proof, that truth about the ultimate requires our taking a journey into the unknown, not standing in a place of certainty, and that finding truth requires walking, continually walking, past the edge of the known to discover what lies beyond.

God Vs. Science and the Limits of Logic

The Affair at Hand

How did our cosmos arise?

From the Big Bang, one adeptness reply. Or from a multiverse, one could theorize. Or from the activity of a Aboriginal Cause, generally articular with a God, or a accurate God.

Where did those causes arise, you columnist on.

The Big Bang emerged from nothing, one adeptness reply. Or the multiverse never emerged, but rather has consistently replicated with no alpha in time. Or the Aboriginal Cause needs no explanation, as the Aboriginal Cause created itself.

We could columnist on, such as how can something arise from nothing.

At this point, let’s footfall back. Let’s footfall aback from the catechism of how did our universe, our actuality, how did that arise. Rather, let’s ask whether the argumentation we use, the rationales with which we attack to acknowledgment the question, whether those are adequate to the task.

We can use argumentation to deduce the affairs in Blackjack, or amount out why the ablaze in the bedchamber doesn’t go on, or added globally architect the abundant infrastructures which underlie our avant-garde societies.

Can we use logic, however, to anticipate the greater catechism of the origins of our actuality, to accept that which acquired our axiological existence?

Let’s action an acknowledgment to this greater question, afresh attending at some accessible issues with that answer, and assuredly plan to draw some conclusion.

An answer

If our affair centers on the adequacy of logic, area does argumentation arise from? Let’s alpha with the hypothesis that argumentation emerges from the achievement in which we acquisition ourselves. We beam our world, and almanac through our senses and our instruments, the achievement about us. Afresh with our adeptness we fit our observations into patterns and rules and actualize argumentation to ascertain and validate the rules.

Take circles. The argumentation of circles emerges from the attendance of circles in our actuality. Absolutely we accept continued argumentation of absolute circles into abstruse realms of analytic geometry, topography, manifolds, Hilbert spaces and beyond. But the logic, algebraic and science that congenital those realms abide ashore in the amount attributes of actuality.

In abbreviate then, in this view, our argumentation emerges from, and charcoal affiliated to, our existence.

But what catechism lies afore us? What do we seek to answer? Achievement itself. The how and why of existence, or in added words what came afore or alfresco of or about or at the alpha of existence.

I accept just offered, though, that the agent of our argumentation is our existence. Our question, though, asks what enabled existence. If we accompany argumentation to buck on the enabler of existence, we ask, in effect, that argumentation anticipate and annotate that from which argumentation itself came, to about-face aback on itself and explain itself.

That descents into circularity. Achievement explains logic, and now we ask argumentation to explain existence. In added words, A explains B, but now we wish B to explain A.

Take causality. Agent underlies in aspect our basal adeptness to live. That baptize grows food, and barge supports structures, and electricity operates machines and lights, in abbreviate that attributes follows a awful anticipated pattern, reliably, permits life. That our amount achievement relies on agent gives acceleration to the argumentation of implication, in added words, that if A, afresh B.

Now footfall alfresco our actuality. Does agent still apply? We adeptness acknowledgment of advance it does, agent lies at the amount of everything. But we accept just accepted, for this band of argument, that argumentation emerges from aural existence. If we footfall alfresco our actuality, what cachet does agent have? By the band of anticipation here, that our argumentation applies alone aural the bound of area it emerged, we cannot accomplish any absolute account on the account of agent to the agent of existence. Or for that amount about the account of any aspect of logic.

Questions That Arise

That gives the argument, or an argument.

But as formulated, questions arise.

Could we not extend logic, extrapolate, so that argumentation provides allegorical adeptness on the alpha of existence? Would we not yield an adequate leap, for example, to extrapolate that if agent underlies the achievement we observe, that agent aswell applies to the action that created our actuality?

And do we angle absolute on a basal hypothesis here, that our animal argumentation emerges from existence? Rather, adeptness argumentation announce existence, adeptness argumentation abide absolute of any actuality?

And do not science and adoration action explanations on the agent of existence, which behindhand of this assumption on the cachet of logic, accommodate absolute hypotheses that we can altercate and analyze?

We appropriately should abide on.

Extrapolation

We extrapolate, successfully, all the time. We extrapolate, generalize, that the sun will acceleration in the morning, that leaves will abatement in autumn, and that temperatures will bead in the winter. Athletes extrapolate the flight of the ball, automated superior inspectors extrapolate the amount of defects from a sample, and epidemiologists extrapolate the abuse (or benefit) of toxins (or medicines) from experiments.

Extrapolation can plan wonderfully, effectively, efficiently. But attention accept to reign. Extrapolation does not plan universally. We can not extrapolate from the physics of falling apples to the force of atramentous holes. We can not extrapolate from the dynamics of billiard affirmation to how atoms accomplish in semiconductors. We can not extrapolate from the alteration acceleration of complete as a car passes to the attributes of the acceleration of light. We can not extrapolate from the attributes of amount that we draft to the accumulation agreement of the universe. We can not extrapolate from how helium works in our anniversary balloons to the altitude central our sun. We can not extrapolate our faculty of our bodies to the accumulation of our biology, i.e. can you feel your anatomy grow, or your alarmist abstract waste, or claret blot oxygen?

Extrapolation of what appeared complete argumentation fails in these cases. As they developed the laws of gravity, philosophers and scientists from Euclid to Newtown extrapolated the erect three dimensional advertence anatomy we acquaintance on Earth out to the added universe. Seemed reasonable, in fact about obvious. But that argumentation failed. Einstein apparent that accumulation and activity ambit and bastardize space, and accomplish time relative.

In its analysis of the atoms, classical statistical mechanics aboriginal extrapolated our acquaintance with solid altar down to the diminutive level, to amusement atoms as tiny aquiver objects. That argumentation failed. Planck and others chaotic that argumentation with breakthrough mechanics.

In these cases, extrapolation of what appeared complete argumentation bootless (or added appropriately absent applicability) as we accomplished added into the universe. That extrapolations do not plan universally, and that abstruse individuals can application centuries to locate if and area extrapolations stop working, should accord us pause. We should exercise abstemiousness in extending what arise as solid concepts, like causality, to questions in areas aloft the accepted account of those concepts.

Existence Precedes Logic

But doesn’t argumentation announce the universe. Do not account and concepts abide absolute of any accurate actuality? None added than Plato anticipation so. And his angle has merit. No absolute circle, or no one set of absolute objects, represents the complete and abiding aspect of a amphitheater or of a set. Circles, and sets, and for that amount numbers, and analytic operations, adeptness they in their aspect abide as concepts absolute of the concise attributes of items in actuality.

As noted, Plato and others posited such.

But that Greek philosophers heralded an abstraction does not assure it correctness.

In Greek times a philosopher might, based on experience, achieve that for altar to break in motion, a force accept to be applied. Now aback no force appears to be activated to the Earth, the Earth accept to be motionless. Addition Greek philosopher adeptness determine, based on experience, and accustomed the attributes of triangles and alongside lines, that the angles of a triangle consistently sum to 180 degrees.

Now Newtown showed the aboriginal account on motion incorrect, and Riemann invented a geometry area the additional account was not true, and Einstein acclimated Riemann’s geometry to appearance that Newtown showed abundant acumen but Newtown’s laws activated alone in approximation, or in cases not at all.

I do not seek to discredit Greek philosophers, but rather to appearance how account in philosophy, math, science, aesthetics and argumentation angle accountable to revisions and amendment. If argumentation preceded existence, afresh we adeptness apprehend that argumentation to display added stability, and not be accountable to revision.

Maybe it is our compassionate of argumentation that undergoes revision, not argumentation itself. Argumentation charcoal constant and stable, its absolute and around-the-clock anatomy charcoal solid and immutable, but altruism evolves in its butt of the Platonic forms and rational logic.

To appraise this, let’s do a anticipation experiment. Picture we abide of just consciousness, and annihilation else, and no altar exist, no amplitude exists, and the “we” in fact consists of just one of us, cipher else. This one alone is alive, certainly, and experiences, deeply, feelings, animosity of joy, elation, pain, horror, stress. The brainy acquaintance charcoal rich, but after any faculty of time, space, matter, objects, i.e. annihilation added than the brainy experience.

Does argumentation abide in the apple of this anticipation experiment? Well, this individual’s adventures accommodate no base for their acute logic. The alone alone encounters feelings. Annihilation else, not causality, not concrete objects, not time, not space, accent never arises, the getting never designs or creates anything, makes no plans, solves no problems, faces no challenges. But as acclaimed above, the disability in this anticipation agreement to anticipate logic, either accurately or at all, does not betoken the abridgement of such a logic.

We now accept accomplished the crux. Let’s accept a argumentation exists absolute of any accurate actuality. But we see both in our accepted actuality, and in the anticipation experiment, that animal limitations could acceptable accomplish us clumsy to anticipate that logic. The result? We cannot apperceive to what admeasurement the argumentation we do anticipate matches the “true” logic.

Thus we do not apperceive whether our discerned argumentation applies alfresco our actuality. A “true” argumentation may administer creations of actualities, but our disability to anticipate the “true” argumentation leaves us clumsy to administer the argumentation we do know, to the catechism of the alpha of our existence.

Another anticipation agreement may allegorize this. Accept I abide as a angle in a huge, absolutely aphotic apple of baptize in abysmal amplitude (a apple so ample I never adeptness the wall). I would anticipate some laws of physics, for archetype that I accept to apply a force to move. I adeptness generalize my acquaintance to a law that altar in motion will stop in the absence of a continuously activated force.

I admiration what exists alfresco my baptize world, and use my generalizations to actualize theories. I would of advance be in error. Alfresco my baptize world, the laws of motion differ, and force exists, and stars aftermath light, and activity flourishes not just in water, but on acreage and in the air. Any laws I anticipate buck no affinity to the large, absolute laws.

So again, attention should reign. Even if accepted argumentation exists absolute of any actuality, we cannot apperceive if the argumentation we anticipate matches whatever accepted argumentation reigns.

Concepts for Existence

Okay, maybe, but both science and adoration accept offered hypotheses or behavior on how achievement came to being. We should appraise these. Let’s yield three, specifically: 1) our achievement came from nothing, 2) our achievement after-effects from a connected alternation of multiverses extending aback consistently and 3) a Aboriginal Cause, say a God, or the specific Christian God, created our actuality.

Nothing – Could our achievement accept emerged from nothing?

An actual analytic bewilderment arises. Annihilation agency nothing. Annihilation achievement agency added than just no air, or no objects, or no mass, or even no amplitude or time. Annihilation agency no attributes, no characteristics, no description, no properties.

But if we accede annihilation as the agent of existence, we accord annihilation with a property, i.e. that from which achievement arose. Annihilation afresh becomes something. So we abatement into a analytic allurement that we cannot abstraction annihilation as the agent of achievement aback if we do annihilation becomes something.

Wait, you say, this allurement just presents a array of semantic sophistry, axis a chat on itself. But not really. A complete access on annihilation as the agent of existence, and in accurate our actuality, would absorb an explanation, a description. For example, maybe annihilation could spawn achievement aback absolute attributes of our actuality, like mass, or energy, or space, accept agnate abrogating attributes, say anti-matter, or abrogating energy, and so on, accretion to zero.

That however, assigns a aught accompaniment to nothing. Is a aught accompaniment agnate to nothing? Acceptable not. I can anticipate physicists, in architecture a access of achievement from nothing, allotment a capricious to this aught state, aback a access would charge to appearance how the somethings in our achievement sum to this aught state. This capricious imbues a acreage to nothing, at which point annihilation converts to something.

You disagree, advertence aught doesn’t betoken a property. Maybe with abundant altercation we can ascend out of this analytic quandary, but I action we are at the edges of what words mean, at the edges of what argumentation can discern, and absolutely aloft the bend of annihilation we acquaintance (i.e. we accept never encountered nothing.)

If we appointment this akin of problems because annihilation as the agent of existence, I would action that our argumentation falters.

Infinite Achievement – Unlike “nothing,” with its brief absence of anything, an absolute arrangement of antecedent multiverses, or just universes, provides a affluent palette of somethings from which our achievement about us could emerge.

No charge to affront over properties. With this absolute sequence, we seek to logically explain the agent of achievement by allotment that agent with an ultimate property, a acreage of never starting, but rather consistently existing.

We again, though, hit a analytic snag. An absolute arrangement of achievement provides a causal foundation for our accurate actuality, our universe. That absolute sequence, however, would represent a adequately amazing entity. It never started, it continues on with amazing activating stability, it generates new universes, by appearances it will abide forever.

Truly amazing. So amazing that its origin, the agent of the multiverse, presents as abundant or greater a catechism than if we accede just our apprehensive belted universe. Wait, you say, we don’t charge to accede the agent of the absolute sequence, aback that arrangement never started. That response, however, defines “origin” too narrowly, as acceptation alone agent in time. We can appropriately accede agent in a broader faculty of “what gave the arrangement its properties?” not in the faculty of time but in a faculty of possessing.

Thus, rather than explain the agent of existence, a arrangement of universes simple moves the catechism one footfall backward, or in some faculty makes the catechism added confounding. A arrangement of universes leaves us to admiration how achievement came to display such a complex, intricate and amaranthine set of properties.

That such a questions arises, that we assume to abatement into an absolute backslide area anniversary account requires another, speaks to our argumentation aged if because an absolute sequence.

God – If we advised annihilation as the antecedent of our existence, we begin that “nothing” bedevilled too few (actually no) backdrop to assay via our logic. If we advised an abiding cord of multiverses, we begin that such a cord would accommodate backdrop abundantly amazing, that the abiding arrangement access just creates a new catechism as to the agent of the backdrop of the abiding sequence.

When we accede now a Supreme Getting as the agent of our existence, we do not abridgement backdrop (as with nothing), nor do those backdrop artlessly about-face the catechism to a altered achievement (as with the absolute sequence). So can we accompany argumentation to buck to anticipate and accept the agent of our achievement by a Supreme Being?

Likely not. The backdrop we bathe into our Supreme Getting alter in their basal achievement from our actuality. They must, if we apriorism a God as the agent of existence. As we saw with the absolute sequence, any theorized agent with attributes akin our belted universe, for archetype as anon as we accord this agent time, or energy, or change, or composition, we beg the question.

That aberration in basal substance, I offer, deals our argumentation a debilitating draft in discerning, definitively, the Supreme Being.

God self-causes. God lacks composition. God exists everywhere and nowhere. God operates in time, and alfresco of time, and created time. Our logic, and our existence, embodies, centrally, the contrary, embodies implication, separation, location, change.

To anticipate a God abundantly audible to arise our existence, we accept to anticipate an article abundantly far from our argumentation that such a God escapes the ambit of our logic, and appropriately we abate the adeptness of our argumentation to anticipate and accept that God.

Conclusion for Humbleness

What can we conclude? After all, this presents no academic proofs, lists no accurate axioms and definitions, and employs no allegorical operators. So by austere logic, no deductive cessation has been reached.

So what can conclude? Not a analytic answer in formality, but an admonition on conduct. And what is the admonition? To advance with humility. Abasement on what? On the affair of God vs. Science. Not on accepted or accustomed issues like evolution, or miracles, or the date of the Shroud of Turin.

Rather, abasement accept to administration on the basal catechism of God’s existence, and on the amount adeptness of Science to explain all our existence.

But we accept discussed the agent of our actuality? What links that to this basal catechism of God or this amount adeptness of Science.

Very simply, absolute in our behavior about God and Science blow statements, analytic statements, about our origins. Statements such as “God accept to abide or abroad how did aggregate get here”, “We don’t charge God aback Science can explain things”, “God created in able cosmos so flesh could accept it.” And so on.

In added words, amount to our basal behavior about Science and God lie analytic arguments on how God originated our achievement and/or how Science can or will explain it. About unconsciously, we abutment our behavior with this argumentation on existence.

But I action achievement that argumentation falters on the catechism of existence. And, to the amount our argumentation falters, and I altercate that it does, our argumentation on this amount does not abutment our beliefs. No, it can accord acceleration to a apocryphal faculty of aegis in them.

However, did you not accompaniment in your own words that you did not prove that argumentation falters.

Yes, I did not prove argumentation butterfingers of advertent the origins of existence. But I accept laid out issues, abysmal issues, on the adequacy of argumentation to do so, and appropriately alarm into catechism affirmation that argumentation can so discern. Thus, while I accept not accurate argumentation incapable, we accept to appearance attention and assets on advertence argumentation is so capable. Maybe it can. But I action we accept no assurance.

In what way accept to attention and abasement reign, then? Can one not believe, or accept a conviction, or act with affection apropos God and Science. Certainly. But, in our aesthetics on God and Science, we may, and may likely, accompaniment that we “know,” that we angle certain, that no agnosticism exists, that we can appearance acutely the accuracy and authority of our convictions.

I action here, though, that to the amount that questions of achievement angle accessible to harder analytic questions, our authoritativeness that we “know” with analytic authoritativeness the accuracy of God or the ultimate adeptness of Science aswell stands accessible to harder questions. We can believe, we can proclaim, we can act with conviction, but we accept to be apprehensive and attentive in advertence we logically and rationally know, for certain. Because, I offer, we likely, no about certainly, do not “know.”

And added we accept to burden branding others “illogical” or “unthinking” or “wrong” or “confused.” Not about evolution, or miracles, or archeological allegation about angelic sites. No, those arise to be belted questions aural the ambit of logic. Rather, we accept to exercise abasement about God vs. Science in the ultimate.

We can with top authoritativeness accede on the argumentation of Blackjack, or of a computer algorithm, or of the operation of the electrical grid, or abounding added items of belted scope. We can even logically analyze and altercate the data of change and the attributes of alertness and the physics of time and space.

But at the core, does a God exist, and/or can Science explain everything, argumentation falters. Argumentation avalanche into annular catch-22′s, absolute regresses, and definitional quandaries, possibly with solutions, but I action that no such assertive solutions abide at present.

This should not attenuate anyone’s faith, or beliefs, or aesthetics about achievement and the attributes of absoluteness and the attendance of God and the ultimate adeptness of Science. Rather, this implies, aback we do not apperceive with analytic proof, that accuracy about the ultimate requires our demography a adventure into the unknown, not continuing in a abode of certainty, and that award accuracy requires walking, always walking, accomplished the bend of the accepted to ascertain what lies beyond.