Scientific argument for God's existence

You are equivocating here. Your title talks about “at Least One Unconditioned Reality” while your video talks about “Proof for God”.

Those are different, as the “at Least” shows. Or are you arguing for a form of polytheism?

I respect you and I appreciate physics, but in the simplest terms, metaphysics and theology is not the realm of science, and I think it’s a blunder to try and work forward from that position. Science is measurement. Math is the language of measurement. God is unmeasurable.

It’s like trying to justify the existence of human beings by examining the chemical architecture of synthetic fuel. We can intuit that it must be the work of an intelligent designer, but nothing about the fuel itself points to humans.

I mostly read your posts for the snarky banter. But in this case you’ve actually caused me to stop and rethink the cyclical universe theory, because it’s really quite intriguing.

In a cyclical universe where time only exists within the universes, and not between the universes, then all potential universes should exist…simultaneously. Designating which universe is the first in the series, and which universe is the last in the series would be impossible.

Essentially what you would have is a superposition of universes, which is arguably exactly what QM suggests. So what I had long dismissed as just a hypothetical curiosity, doesn’t look quite so absurd anymore.

Of course a Thomist will still argue that this doesn’t actually address the type of per se causal series that Aquinas is referring to.

Now that’s what I call a back handed compliment.

As regards the simultaneously existing universes…well, I guess if time doesn’t exist between each cycle then the terms ‘before’ and ‘after’ cease to have meaning. Just like it’s nonsensical to talk about ‘before’ the big bang.

But when it comes to matters such as this we have a physical reality which isn’t going to conform to day-to-day terms in any case. Before, after, now, simultaneous etc cease to have meaning.

There are any number of bizarre things that occur when one starts to consider the cyclical universe theory as essentially a superposition of all possible universes.

Because it would mean that everything that could ever exist, exists eternally and simultaneously in this superposition of universes. Everything that could ever happen, happens in this superposition of universes.

Now if someone was so inclined they could attribute Godlike qualities to this superposition of universes. For one thing it contains no potency, it can never be anything more or anything less than what it is. It also contains within itself the maximum of everything. Thus every iteration of the cyclical universe necessarily lacks something that the superposition possesses. All in all, this superposition of universes could appear to be very Godlike.

However there would seem to be some essential differences between a superposition of universes, and popular concepts of God. Most importantly, it would be a misnomer to refer to this superposition of universes as the “cause” of the underlying universes. Because its existence is just as much dependent upon their existence, as their existence is on it. At best what one would have is pantheism.

As I said in my last post, the cyclical universe theory is quite intriguing when one considers that it may actually lead to a superposition of universes. But one must be careful when exploring rabbit holes.

Just to confirm, there is no suggestion that all ‘aeons’ (a word Penrose uses to describe the individual universes) are concurrent. Thay are definitely sequential. This isn’t a variation on the multiverse.

The question at hand is, does physical existence have a necessary act of reality. There is change. So it follows true that physical existence is a fundamentally limited act of reality since it is a thing of becoming, change, emergence, in principle expressing states of being that are not necessarily true or real.

This is simply to say that if you are looking for a physical explanation of reality, you are in principle looking in the wrong direction. Science cannot in principle get you to the answer.

The only way out for the metaphysical naturalist is to say that all change is an illusion. And even then i would wonder why physical reality would express itself in parts and have finite dimensions or any limitation in it’s being at all.

It’s not limited. There was no first cause. Apart from the previous ‘aeon’. There is no regression to an infinite past. Each eaon is caused by the previous and causes the next. There was no ‘first aeon’.

Even if that’s true, how does it address my argument? In principle what you are presenting is not a necessary act of reality.

There’s no reason to believe that the answer to this question can’t be yes.

Why not? Metaphysics is simply science at its most fundamental level.

No, you’ve simply created a nonexistent problem, and then assumed that it has no solution.

Yes there is. Change.

It is a problem, perhaps a problem that is being ignored, but it’s a problem nonetheless

It has no physical solution. I never said that it doesn’t have a solution.

You’ll have to explain that in the context of a cyclical universe. Because change is not caused by anything outside of the universe.

I’ve spent the last four days going over Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology hypothesis, and I must say that although it’s an interesting proposal which may have some truth to it, it’s flawed in a number of ways, and in a number of assumptions.

All in all, I’m not fond of it.

So what? What makes you think that change isn’t a necessary part of reality. No change…no reality.

And you don’t see how that’s an assumption.

Yeah, the problems with it have been noted by others in the field. And even admitted to by Penrose. But it cannot be dismissed out of hand. Unless…you are a Christian who holds to Aquinas’ arguments.

I’ve yet to see anyone in this forum who uses them suggest that they might not be the only answer.

So you admit that it is a fundamentally limited act of reality, since it’s nature is evolving, emerging becoming, a reality that is not complete in the expression of it’s actuality. As opposed to that which has the fullness of it’s actuality, lacking nothing in it’s actuality, a complete act of existence, a pure-actuality, eternally without change.

Aquinas isn’t arguing against it.

Nope, I don’t admit that at all…it’s not a limited act of reality…it is reality.

So an eternally cyclic universe which needs no first cause or a cause external to itself would be acceptable to Aquinas?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.