God Almost Certainly Exists
I know this is an old argument that has been with us for 1000s of years. Most memorably, St Thomas Aquinas recounted it as his 2nd of 5 ways to prove the existence of God. But I feel it is worth revisiting - it is almost certainly correct.
Infinite regresses come up when discussing the origin of the universe in terms of cause and effect - chains of cause and effect stretch backwards in time (a cause causes an effect and the effect in turn causes another effect and so on), the question is do these chains of cause and effect stretch back forever or is there an initial first cause?
If the chains of cause and effect stretch back forever, then there cannot be a first cause. The first cause would cause the 2nd cause - without the first cause, the second cause cannot be. Likewise, the nth cause would cause the nth+1 cause, so by mathematical induction, causality cannot exist at all if there is no first cause. But causality does exist, so there must be a first cause.
Illustrating this proof with an example from pool: The cue hits the white ball. The white ball hits the black ball. The black goes in the pocket. Would the black ball go in the pocket if the cue did not hit the white? No - we have removed the first element in a time ordered regress and found that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress cannot exist - infinite regresses are impossible.
Obviously this argument makes the assumption that the law of cause and effect holds universally. Causality is best explained as matter interacting with matter - either by collision or gravitational interaction. Newton's third law of motion is that whenever two objects interact, they exert equal and opposite forces on each other - this law governs causality (for matter collisions). The other main law governing causality is Newton’s second law - the mass of bodies causes a force on other bodies remotely via the force of gravity. So the often mentioned claim that causality is somehow an unscientific concept does not seem justifiable.
We also live our lives according to the law of cause and effect - so we have all consciously or sub-consciously accepted the axiom of causality.
So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time.
Infinite regresses come up when discussing the origin of the universe in terms of cause and effect - chains of cause and effect stretch backwards in time (a cause causes an effect and the effect in turn causes another effect and so on), the question is do these chains of cause and effect stretch back forever or is there an initial first cause?
If the chains of cause and effect stretch back forever, then there cannot be a first cause. The first cause would cause the 2nd cause - without the first cause, the second cause cannot be. Likewise, the nth cause would cause the nth+1 cause, so by mathematical induction, causality cannot exist at all if there is no first cause. But causality does exist, so there must be a first cause.
Illustrating this proof with an example from pool: The cue hits the white ball. The white ball hits the black ball. The black goes in the pocket. Would the black ball go in the pocket if the cue did not hit the white? No - we have removed the first element in a time ordered regress and found that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress cannot exist - infinite regresses are impossible.
Obviously this argument makes the assumption that the law of cause and effect holds universally. Causality is best explained as matter interacting with matter - either by collision or gravitational interaction. Newton's third law of motion is that whenever two objects interact, they exert equal and opposite forces on each other - this law governs causality (for matter collisions). The other main law governing causality is Newton’s second law - the mass of bodies causes a force on other bodies remotely via the force of gravity. So the often mentioned claim that causality is somehow an unscientific concept does not seem justifiable.
We also live our lives according to the law of cause and effect - so we have all consciously or sub-consciously accepted the axiom of causality.
So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time.
Comments (623)
But if cause and effect hold universally there cannot be a first cause, because that first cause would, by definition, be outside of cause an effect, and so it's no longer universal.
I imagine a wider universe somehow containing spacetime. Causality as we know it, dominates spacetime, but in the wider universe, causality as we know it may not apply, so an uncaused cause would be possible.
So as I see it, there is something permanent outside of spacetime (nothing is permanent within spacetime) and this permanent thing is the first cause. It is outside of causality but it is the root of causality - the tip of the pyramid of cause and effect.
Being 'caused' implies that a cause, prior in time, caused and effect, subsequently in time.
Everything in time appears to have a cause.
So an 'uncaused cause' would clearly have to be external to time. For an uncaused cause, there is no 'before' or 'after', there is just IS - it is external to time. Something that exists permanently - outside of time - and so was never caused.
But if it's outside the universe, then it could be anything - or nothing. If causality is not universal, it might be circular, or work in some other bizarre fashion. We just end up with a big unknown.
Why assume such a thing (if we can even meaningfully speak of anything "outside the universe") would be anything like "God" as believed in by some of us humans?
It - the first cause - has to be something real (physical) and permanent:
- assume you can't get something from nothing (as per the law of conservation of energy)
- then the universe can never have been in a state of nothingness
- else nothingness would persist to today
- so something permanent must exist
- and nothing permanent can exist within spacetime
- so something real/physical exists outside spacetime
- and it somehow (we only have evidence for causation within time) caused spacetime
Yes a fair point, I should clarify what I mean by God:
- not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient
- capable of independent action
- inteligent
- able to create spacetime
- benevolent
- timeless
So not exactly the God of christianity! It could be flying spaghetti monster (within the above limitations).
If it's outside of spacetime it's not physical. If it's outside of cause and effect it's not physical. If it's outside of time it's not "permanent" in any traditional sense of the word.
It seems that nothing can be permanent within spacetime, but something permanent must exist else there would be nothing at all.
The simplest model is to assume that 4d spacetime maps onto 4d space (eternalism). Then there is a wider universe that is physical and it contains spacetime.
Or the first cause must be able to cause something (eg the Big Bang) and to cause something you have to effect matter and to effect matter you have to be matter - so the first cause maybe material.
Yes. That's always been the problem with Aquinas' arguments "proving" the existence of God, and the problem with others trying to take advantage of them. As I recall, Aquinas would end his proofs with words to this effect: "And this we call God." Well no, we don't.
I did credit Thomas for the idea in the OP!
I tend to think of the creator of the universe as God. I can appreciate that you have a different perspective.
What Aquinus regurgitated was that there must either be a first cause or an infinite regress of causes. The failure of his logic was to suddenly shout "And this we call God" at the end like some kind of theological Tourette's syndrome.
"The inflationary model of the Big Bang theory posits a permanent and expanding metastable scalar field that, at any given point, has some finite probability of locally and spontaneously collapsing into a hot vacuum capable of polarising the fermionic field to create great quantities of matter.
And this we call God!"
Very fitting, KK.
I think we are splitting hairs here: the first cause must be capable of independent, intelligent, action and be capable of starting time. I call that God. I appreciate that you may wish to use a different definition of 'God'.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
And where did it start? If its expanding, it has a start. It cannot have been strictly permanent if it's expanding - there are places it has not been to yet. You really are talking nonsense with that last paragraph!
I tend to fall in the pantheism/panpsychism camp. But it's always annoyed me when Christian apologists, for example, refer to the famous proofs of God existence, which if anything merely relate to what is generally called "the god of the philosophers." Of the philosophers, yes. Of the Christians, no. That's not to say you fall into that error, as you evidently don't.
Pantheism seems like a possibility. One problem is the speed of light - parts of the universe are moving apart at faster than the speed of light - so these regions are causally disconnected from each other. If the universe was a being, its head could not control its toes. So if pantheism is correct, the being - the universe itself - must be able to disobey the speed of light speed limit.
Panpsychism - a quark would need a mind of some sort? That mind would need a physical representation. That leads to an infinite regress of minds. So that cannot be right.
A creationist may not be able to abide the lack of an intelligent first cause. That does not necessitate an intelligent creator.
Quoting Devans99
Yes, something can be infinite and expanding. The hypothesised inflaton field is such a thing and, unlike God, we can not only hypothesise it, but we can describe exactly how it creates universes if it exists. One-nil to inflatons.
Quoting Devans99
You do realise this is the same inflationary model of the universe you just described as nonsense :rofl:
Aquinus' God btw was causal. When he hears of sodomy, he sends angels. When he tires of humanity, he sends floods. We must go back further, to God's first cause: a stone age human trying to make sense of a world he had not the technology or knowledge to rationalise.
The first cause must be able to cause something, so it must be capable of independent action, meaning it is self driven, therefore very likely intelligent. Plus the obviously signs of fine tuning for life in the universe point to intelligence, plus the enormous, suspicious looking explosion of the Big Bang seems like it would require intelligence to orchestrate.
If you say something will expand without end, you are describing the topology of future as some object without end - that is impossible - all objects require a non-zero length to exist and length=end-size so the length for something without end is UNDEFINED - IE not something that could actually exist.
Again, according to the creationist mindset which ascribes agency to anything it doesn't understand. There is still no reason why a first cause needs or even wants a intelligent causer.
Quoting Devans99
Which is again a creationist's anthropocentric view: I am here, therefore it must all be for me. Meanwhile the universe seems quite ambivalent about us. I would actually agree that if the purpose of the universe was to create life, an intelligent creator would be likely. But since there's no evidence or reason for it other than to console the egos of some hairless apes, we need not consider it.
Quoting Devans99
You needn't even go that far. The universe could quite happily be infinite and expanding now. It is not the boundary of the universe that is expanding: every point is moving away from every adjacent point. If it was just that the universe was getting bigger, that would not explain the fact that every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy right now.
The first cause must be able to cause something, so it is self-driven, which suggests intelligence.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Everything in the universe seems fine tuned for life. Just think about the atom - its an incredibly delicate balancing act - in most universes, matter would simply bounce of itself endlessly or clump together - our universe, we have the balancing act of atoms, and molecules - the absolutely necessary ingredients for life.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Nothing can go on forever, it would be without end. Then the length of the future would be end-start=UNDEFINED. Spacetime must have an end or it cannot logically exist. Probably a Big Crunch will happen.
So it follows that there must be something beyond our universe that 'caused' it to come into existence. But what that is is entirely unknown. To ascribe it to some story of an anthropomorphic god is really quite childish and naïve.
It appears that the first cause was intelligent. If you think of all forms of intelligent entities (man, animals, aliens, AI, gods), one thing they all would value is information - sensory perception in our case - is information.
So imagine an intelligent being all on its own - it would have the desire to create information - interest - and what could be better than create a whole universe of intelligent beings?
What is your view (biocentric/ecocentric)? Cosmologically, do you have a theory about what was happening before the Big Bang ( a timeless first-cause)?
Or would you fall under, say, the Materialist/Reductionist camp-I'm just throwing that out? If so, what is your theory about how self-awareness evolved from a piece of wood?
Also, in an ethical way, how would you square objectification of men/women in a strictly materialistic sense (one of many questions of course, but since the objectification thread is active, it made me think of it...)? Meaning, I believe you have the burden of precluding conscious existence from the human condition/equation, no?
Do you have any opposing theories to anthropomorphic... ?
The inflation field can cause something and is self-driven. That's rather why I mentioned it.
Quoting Devans99
Your body is fine-tuned as a walking bacterium habitat. Do you suppose you were created to house bacteria? The universe is as it is. Lots of things happen in it that have nothing to do with life: supernova, pulsars, neutrino oscillations, the quantum Hall effect, the Casimir effect, the orbit of Mercury, ad infinitum. Life is one of the things that can and did happen. There's no reason, beyond anthropocentrism, to suspect that the universe is specifically for life any more than it is specifically for pulsars. It's sheer arrogance, and a failure to even start to comprehend the scale of the universe, to think it's all about you and yours.
Quoting Devans99
The accelerated expansion of the universe has rather ruled out a big crunch, which required gravity to overcome what was supposed at the time to be a linear or diminishing expansion. And there's no reason why it can't go on forever. The shape of the universe suggests that eternity is on the cards, a heat death most probably, but even if it does end, the inflaton field that might have created it can carry on and on and on.... In fact, quantum mechanics suggests it will do precisely that unless someone measured it or something.
Actually that's a better justification. If this is the only universe and if the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, someone must have observed the inflaton field in order for it to have collapse to a hot vacuum... and we call that someone God!
...is an unknown. It is something that cannot be determined by logic or science.
The question of whether it is more likely that there is at least one god...or if it is more liekly that there are no gods...
...ALSO IS AN UNKNOWN...and cannot be determined by logic or science.
We would all be doing logic and science a favor by leaving them out of this discussion. There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with making a blind guess in either direction...and one of those guesses is probably correct. (Almost certainly correct.)
So make guesses...but don't suppose they are anything more than guesses.
The inflation field must have a start.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Supernovas and pulsars are a result of gravity which is a absolute requirement form life. The Casimir effect has an alternative explanation that does not involve or prove the existence of virtual particles. How would you (imagine yourself as God) go about creating life? Design or brute force? We are so complex that we can rule design out of the question - So God had no choice but to evolve rather than design us. So we are not perfect beings... we are the product of evolution ... which was God's doing.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
The astronomers can't even agree on the speed of the expansion of the universe, and the speed has changed in the past - so it could change - contract - in future. Nothing can go on forever because time can't go on forever. Saying something goes on forever means it goes on for a longer than finite period of time. But time passing is just adding one - it can never become greater than finite.
We cannot even prove that we are not brains in vats... thanks to Rene Descartes. So we must resort to probability on questions like this. I believe the probability of God's existence is high, but technically I must remain agnostic forever.
I've mentioned one in every post, yes! It'd be most fraudulent to say it was mine though. I am agnostic on it too.
It is a fallacy that I can reject a silly theory only if I have a good one. It isn't true. I can reject a silly theory and not know. "I don't know, let's find out!" is what science is all about.
Quoting 3017amen
My theory is that self-awareness did not evolve from a piece of wood. For a start, a piece of wood cannot procreate.
Quoting 3017amen
No, this is also a fallacy. "I conceive of conscious existence as a divine soul, created by God, breathed into us at birth/conception/day after I'm okay with abortion until. If you do not believe in God, you must disbelieve in conscious existence!" That's the gist of it, right?
Why? If it is infinite and expanding, then in the past it was still infinite and expanding. No start required.
Quoting Devans99
Gravity is a requirement for life, true. However this value of gravity is not essential to pulsars and supernovas. Is it your feeling that pulsars are perhaps an incidental symptom of the laws of physics, and that the universe was not created for them? That is good, because it means you get the idea that just because something exists in nature, it does not mean the universe had it in mind.
Quoting Devans99
Good question! I actually do this sort of thing for a living. I would create an optimisation algorithm, one that would reward features that minimise some kind of cost function in their environment and punish ones that maximise it. You can solve the Schrodinger equation this way, or find the minimum of a curve. Let me think it through a little more...
1. I don't want to just be stuck with the initial test answer I put in. It would be good, if I have two semi-decent candidates, if I could merge them somehow and try different combinations of different features of both. I shall call this inheritance.
2. We need some measure of saying this thing is better than that for a given environment, and some way of killing off candidate features that don't cut the mustard. It would be best if the environment itself dealt with the fitness measure, then we could just get rid of the chaff every now and then. I'll call this competition.
3. I don't want to be stuck with my initial feature space. I'm not very thorough and algorithms like this can be so sensitive to starting conditions if you're not careful. I'll need to add some noise into equation, so that new features I didn't think of can be evaluated. I'll call this mutation.
Quoting Devans99
He seems kind of unnecessary then. I don't want to get the guy fired or anything, but he's not really pulling his weight.
Quoting Devans99
Well, the rate was unknown in the past, and now it is known. Different hypotheses for the speed were put forward, some leading to big crunches, some to steady-state, some to eternal expansion. Not knowing and finding out is not the same thing as changing.
The past can't be infinite - do you believe the past is longer than a finite number of days long?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Pulsars and supernovas are side effects of gravity, which was required to support any form of life. Designs of complex systems are not perfect - instead optimal is strived for. We needed gravity for life and unfortunately that also means pulsars and supernovas are part of the product.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
But surely you would wish to maximise the informational content (=interest) of the universe? Else it would be sort of dull?
What a cogent argument!
You are a moron!
Actually even without inflationary theory that's fine. Good old-fashioned "where did that come from?" Big Bang gives you an infinite past, from a point of view. (An older, simpler BB model is just a black hole in reverse. When you fall into a black hole, from an outside perspective you approach the event horizon and vanish. But from your point of view you freefall forever. Except for the dying bit anyway. This is because gravity warps space-time so much. Chuck a minus sign on that, and you've got a BB that's both finite in time from our perspective and infinite from the perspective of something emerging from it.)
Quoting Devans99
Awesome. So you're happy in principle with the idea that a feature of the universe does not necessitate a purpose. Just keep applying that and you're golden.
Quoting Devans99
Oh yeah, it's dull until the answer pops out, that bit's fun. Maximising is difficult. Even if you did want to maximise something, it's easier to, say, divide one by it and minimise that. In this case, I want to maximise fitness, but that's the same as minimising unfitness, which is an easier number to deal with. I haven't entirely sorted the details of the cost function, a lot of environmental factors, but I've got until Monday before I need to kick this stuff off. Hopefully should finish by the following Saturday then the rest of the week's my own.
Nothing can go on forever - especially in the past - how possibly could the days of the past number more than finite?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
The coincidence of so many features - parameters that are fine tuned for life in the universe - that all effect a single purpose - the support of life - is noteworthy - the likelihood that it could have happened by chance is vanishingly small.
2.4k posts? You must be the Great Pretender. Turn if off again.
Well, even a universal law of causality exists it doesnt exclude the "self-causing". Consider the point at which time has not started, in this singularity cause and effect cannot apply. Because there is no time progression. If time and causality begin from the same source you only need that one phenomenon to exist in order to produce a universe that has duration.
I like to think this source is energy itself. Considering it travels at the speed limit and cannot be created nor destroyed. A universe without time doesnt destroy energy because energy is the potential to do work. Potential does not require time. Only the results of potential require time and if time itself is one of the results than you can see how energy can result in causality. Energy is the cause and the effect simultaneously....because it is always conserved.
Whether you believe pure energy is God or not I dont think matters. It could well be. Not for me to decide but in either case it's still a remarkable and awesome characteristic if the universe
I am not sure that anything self causing can exist. Its a tricky question as causality and time go together hand in hand in our experience, and the cause always comes before the effect - so self-causing would require some sort of backwards time travel - impossible. Outside of time, self causing seems also logically circular. So I personally favour a timeless, causeless, first cause rather than anything self causing.
Isn't this more or less a repeat of earlier posts of yours, ? :)
We are only familiar with change that occurs within time. That does not prove that change cannot occur without time.
Everything in time is transitory, yet there must be something permanent else nothing would logically exist - you cannot get something from nothing - so something must have existed always - IE if there was ever a time that nothing existed, then nothing would exist now. Hence something must have existed always - which is impossible within time.
That thing is the timeless first cause. This is Aquinas's 3rd of 5 ways.
Instead of such creative special pleading, shouldn't you try something a bit more defensible?
Time is sequential in nature and therefore enables change. We can imagine some sort of non-sequential structure such as a binary tree, or a map, that allows change outside of the sequential structure of time. All change would be happening 'simultaneously' in the 'eternal now'.
I fail to see any other alternatives to timelessness: FACT - time has a start. FACT: the start of time was caused by something external to time. FACT: change can somehow take place outside of time.
It is one of the great mysteries of life.
Interesting, so you can easily reject two plus two equals five, because you know that two plus two equals four. So please tell us then, where is your two plus two equals four in this context?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
And what does physical science say?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
What caused consciousness then (what theory do you have)?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
No; you clearly seem to be saying you don't believe in causation and therefore causation doesn't exist. So you seem to be saying something is silly for no reason. In other words, you don't have any theory to support your disbelief.
One simply cannot prove that every event has a cause, since doing so would require one to list every event and its corresponding cause. There are too many of 'em to list.
But further, one cannot disprove that every event has a cause. Given some event, disproving that it has a cause would involve disproving every possible cause. Again, there's too many of 'em. The cause for this event might not be obvious, but that does not prove that it does not exist.
The best we can do, given some event, is to look for its cause; but if we do not find it, we cannot conclude that it is not there. We have no guarantee that it exists.
Can we contemplate uncaused events without the universe ceasing to be rationally describable? It seems so, since physicist do this when considering quantum events in which talk of causation is replaced by talk of wave functions and probability.
Causal chains, then, are neither provable nor disprovable, nor are they essential to our description of how things are.
The Psychology of causal chains
Those who have the greatest adherence to causal chains are those who use them for another purpose.
@Devans99 is a case in point. He claims Quoting Devans99
Devans is certain that god exists, but not so sure that the argument works - hence the faltering use of "almost..."
On being shown that argument is unconvincing, Devans will resort to auxiliary hypotheses in its defence. Examples can be seen in his reply to @Echarmion:
Quoting Devans99
Another example is his reply to @Ciceronianus the White
Quoting Devans99
So Causation is necessary everywhere except were Devans doesn't want it, in order that he preserve his god.
Notable, too, that the authority mentioned, Aquinas, made use of Aristotelian physics. Anything more recent will not support Devan's certainty.
The OP is not about rationally exploring the way things are. It's about defending Devans' pre-exisiting certainty.
Hence, the cogent and revealing: Quoting Devans99
Then we have the alternate strategy of changing the topic, exemplified here:
But they're not fine-tuned for life. That's just arrogance. The universe doesn't care that you exist. The fact that something can exist in the universe doesn't give it a teleology.
That's a variant of the same fallacious argument: "God caused everything, you don't believe in God, therefore you don't believe in causation."
You will not get anywhere with this, of course, since Devans is certain that the universe, as instantiated in his imaginary friend, does care for him.
Okay. Here's your argument: " God did not cause everything and I don't believe in God therefore I don't believe in causation". Is that logic correct?
Indeed; theology should be banned from the forums, because it explains everything. All questions - philosophical and otherwise - can be answered with "because god says"; and hence, that is a useless explanation.
That's not his argument, At least pretend to some intellectual honesty.
Does that include atheism, as a religion?
LOL
What does " intellectual honesty " mean? How do you know I'm being dishonest?
Surely you're not trolling this thread are you? Now that I think about it, that might be a good definition of intellectual dishonesty LoL.
We're talking about causation, numbnuts LoL
The evidence is your failure to address the OP and subsequent repudiations. This is, nominally, a thread about causation. You are not addressing the topic.
...and there's the abusive language.
I agree with the OP!
That's what happens when you troll threads my friend LoL
Hypocritical twaddle.
Yep, I spoke with God yesterday, and he told me that your level of ignorance is a little bit higher than mine. But I told him that I would pray for you.
You continue to provide support for my contention that the nominal topic - chains of causation - is a front for mere uncritical certainty in god.
Your behaviour here is far from exemplary; but it is typical of what passes for philosophical discussion among the more overt theists.
See if you can address my post, here. I have pointed out issues with both the logic and the psychology of the OP.
Demonstrate some intellectual capacity by addressing the issue.
Quoting 3017amen
Or is the whole of you argument "God did it"?
I agree with Devon's ...nothing more to say is there?
Is the whole of your argument God didn't do it?
That's pathetic, even by the standards that Christians set in this forum.
Exactly. That's seemingly what Kenosha Kid is arguing LoL
And you continue not to address mine, given here.
Display some intellectual honesty, for your god's sake.
With all due respect, your argument is not coherent. You may want to study, say, theoretical physics a bit more.
Otherwise, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose, John Wheeler, are some a good resources there.
LOL
I suppose that in Christian circles, that's the ultimate argument. Or perhaps it is in the end their only argument.
The more you proceed in this fashion, the more you demonstrate the pathos of Christian pretences to rationality.
Sure. No different than say, quantum mechanics, double-slits, and other observed phenomena... .
Yes. As I reached adulthood, I became an Agnostic because I no longer believed the Bible was the inspired revelation of an omniscient deity. But I could never go all the way to Atheism, because I had no better explanation for the temporary existence of our contingent world. Augustine saw the logic of Aristotle's First Cause argument, but used it to defend his faith in the Christian Jehovah. My current position on the god-question is Deist, remaining Agnostic about any personal traits of the Creator of space & time; which scientists called "The Singularity", and I call "G*D".
Quoting Echarmion
The Cause of space-time is "first" in the sense of "ultimate", not merely the first of a series. Logically, the Creator of our evolving universe must be prior-to the big-bang emergence of space-time, hence Eternal, and external to the Physical universe, hence Metaphysical. Prior, not in time, but in logical order.
Ultimate : a final or fundamental fact or principle
Prior : existing or coming before in time, order, or importance
Quoting Devans99
Your "wider" universe is what scientists postulate as The Multiverse. My problem with that "more-of-the-same-forever" speculation is that it doesn't address the primary concern of philosophers today : how could Life & Mind arise by natural evolutionary processes? Atheists take it on faith, that physical Science will eventually answer "the hard question". But, I'm skeptical.
My alternative to the Turtles-all-the-way-down Multiverse, is to assume that the potential for Conscious Beings must have been included in (programmed into) the original Singularity. As a Agnostic, I prefer not to speculate on an eternal regression of the "same-old-same-old", which doesn't provide any new information anyway. My theory says that Information itself (power to enform, to create) is the causal energy that powers the progression of evolution. It's "just a theory", but it explains more than the Multiverse theory.
Turtles : http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page41.html
Information : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
Quoting Devans99
In my worldview, the First Cause is not Real, but Ideal, Metaphysical, not Physical. And it's permanent in the sense of existing necessarily, outside of the space-time world it created.
Metaphysical : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Quoting Devans99
My Deist notion of G*D is all of the above, including "omnipresent". But, it's not an ancient anthro-morphic interventionist King in heaven, because we now know that our world is on automatic pilot --- it seems to be programmed with laws & constants & selection criteria to handle all contingencies via adaptation.
Since my abstract G*D is not a person, or a blob of "noodly appendages", it can be called by various names, depending on the context : Nature, Logos, Chaos, ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. It's the eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part, and, as the Creator of physical space-time, can be known by humans only by what it does, not what it is.
Any questions? :grin:
I suspect that Amen was assuming you'd Google those names if you were really interested (not just dismissive) in how their expert theories "might apply". But we can get into more detail here, if you want to know about some "authoritative" alternatives to Atheism, that don't depend on ancient scriptures. :nerd:
Having read much of their work, I felt no need to use Google. Perhaps my relying on primary sources rather than Wikipedia is a Boomer flaw.
I've set out various issues with the OP. If you think the authors named are relevant, then explain how.
Don't leave your argument dangling.
Why adopt even this? The truth is simply that our knowledge is incomplete.
Quoting Gnomon
We don't know how mind arrises, but we do not therefore need to jump to a deity as an explanation. Your feeling the need for a conclusion may be a curious psychological fact about yourself, but others are comfortable admitting that they simply do not know. Using the word faith smells of what psychologists call transference - the feelings, desires, and expectations of one person are redirected and applied to another person - in this case are you transferring your need for an answer onto your postulated atheist?
What causes (e.g.) radioactive decay?
Entropy? I think. :grin:
Edit: The unsettling dynamic that an object at rest stays at rest unless an external force is applied. When that force is no longer present, the object gradually returns to it's natural state of inactivity. On a small scale the solid molecule when introduced to moisture becomes liquid and when introduced to heat becomes a gas, when the heat is gone it reverts to a liquid and when that moisture is gone it reverts back to a solid. On a larger scale they say the universe is headed for heat death for example.
We can fill the argument out, I think.
The implication of the OP is that a rational person must accept a chain of cause and effect - that every event has a cause.
I showed above that this can neither be proven, nor disproven.
A possible reply is that even so, it is necessary in order to engage in rational discussion that one accept the so-called principle of causation.
What your example, radiation, and other examples from thermodynamics and quantum mechanics show is that there are ways of proceeding that do not presuppose causation.
Some defenders of causation might be tempted to suggest that, for example, there is a hidden cause for an atom fissioning now... but that misses the point. Science has proceeded without finding this hidden cause. Rational discussion proceeds without the principle of causation.
On occasions writers here have elevated the 'principle of causation' to the status of a law of thought - on a par with Identity, Non-contradiction and Excluded Middle. Of course, it isn't.
:up:
For whatever reason I sometimes find the most vocal thiests are the ones most afraid to be "proven" wrong by the world and ways they claim to be above, while the passive ones are as they are simply because they fear to place non-thiests in a position from which- by their own dogma states- there is no return. Hey, rather hear it from a friend would you not. :)
A fair point. It would be rude to accost a christian simply going about their daily life.
But that's not the case here. This is a philosophy forum, and there is at least a pretence to rationality. Post here and expect critique.
The event at time 1 is caused by the event at time ½, which in turn is caused by the event at time ¼, and so on. Every event in the causal chain has a cause, without a first cause, in a finite time, and without reaching zero.
Looking forward to the replies...
I'm no mathematician... obviously. But, doesn't this have the same logic as Zeno's paradox with the hare and the tortoise?
Doesn't calculus solve this?
What's the problem? No need for a deity.
I was more asking if calculus was applicable here? If not, why not? It seems to be based upon the same logic(infinite division) as Zeno's paradox.
Is the problem within Zeno's paradox somehow not one here, with your(Hawking's) suggestion?
Not really. I think however, and perhaps you'll agree, that Zeno was using infinite divisibility in a much different way, for much different reasons. In short, I am not at all confident that I fully understand the difference between Zeno's paradox(concerning shortening distances over time by dividing a whole) and what's going on with Hawking's suggestion...
Nevermind me... I think I'm in over my head here!
:wink:
SO the answer to Zeno is found in the runner occupying an infinite number of places in a finite time; but in Hawking's example it's an infinity of causes in a finite time.
What's odd, as pointed out, is that @Devans99 invokes an uncaused cause when it suits him. So he can say
Quoting Devans99
...apparently without seeing how convenient this argument is.
Ah, the convenience of leaning on an unknown realm as a logical possibility. Logical possibility alone does not warrant/justify belief... by my lights anyway.
I'll stick with the unknown... and hence, my agnosticism.
Not really, there is a lot of data available for quantum weirdness....
There's a body of literature linking an inability to deal with ambiguity to conservative political views. That may explain the reliance on half-arguments such as that in the OP. A conservative mindset needs the leap of faith.
Doesn't really address anything. You want me to start coming up with things for the occasion as well?
Quoting Devans99
Start over. Try something more defensible.
Could you if you may give a real world example of what you said? A linear progression like stepping on the gas pedal of a vehicle slowly or.. ? Seeking clarification, thanks. Unfamiliar with said theory. Perhaps I should just Google it. Of course, always prefer firsthand experience. :D
I would argue this is a strong argument that there always was and always will be movement and heat in the universe. I think the universe was predestined (scientific determinism or determinism) to have feeling/awareness but i don't want to get entirely off topic.
What many people don't understand is if there is gravity then there is definitely matter and heat and movement. Many Physicists agree with your OP and many don't. Many assume all Physicists agree.
In short i agree with you.
Moving south might serve as a metaphor. @Devans99 might be seen as asserting that, from observation of his surrounds, he can conclude that every point on the Earth has a point to its south. This is analogous to the claim that every event has a cause. Hawking's point would be seen as asking what is south of the South Pole.
Just as the notion of moving south loses meaning at the south pole, the notion that every event has a cause might lose meaning as one proceeds back in time.
You might enjoy Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning.
Hawking's article is at p.563, here. The version I gave above is a gross oversimplification, which i think is in one of his popular books.
"Inventing a religion" can be a far cry from enabling an open society centered around the idea of a Creator.
One could not speak of why people got sick in unsanitary restrooms so, in that age, one invented (presumably) the idea of a Japanese bathroom demon that made even the laziest tidy up and society healthier as a result. One could not speak of why the same occurred in old houses with stagnant or hazardous air so they invented "miasma" or "bad air" as a result. Compare religion to an unproven theory for a moment. What is your prerogative against it?
This nevertheless means that cause and effect isn't universal. I was really just pointing out that logical contradiction.
Then better not to read any of the criticisms that follow, lest your belief be challenged. Especially witht hat name of yours.
(And your remix of the classic Witt line is perfectly apt!)
In all seriousness, you would think theists and apologists would learn from their history: tethering the truth of your religious/theological views to an unresolved factual/scientific question is a bad idea, because despite your faith and a priori assumption, you don't actually know what the answer to that scientific question will be. And so it is here. We don't know whether the universe is past-eternal or not: the science on the matter is decidedly NOT settled, and for all their admirable efforts theistic apologists (like Craig) have still yet to derive a logical contradiction from a past-infinite sequence of cases, or a past-eternal universe; the best they've been able to do is deduce counter-intuitive results, not genuine contradictions. But then, that's probably what one would expect even if infinite causal sequences are real- when your experience is exclusively of finite sequences, then infinite ones will inevitably run counter to your intuitions. So all they have on this crucial question is all they ever have: faith, and simply assuming or stipulating what they want to be true (and thus arguments whose conclusions are more or less indistinguishable from their founding assumption).
So as far as both logic and empirical scientific evidence is concerned, past-infinite causal sequences and cyclical and past-eternal universes remain very much on the table, even in light of the accelerating expansion of space/dark energy: you have eternal inflation, Penrose's conformal cyclical cosmology, the bouncing universe of loop quantum gravity/loop quantum cosmology, and so on. All viable models. You even have viable models that exclude a past-eternal universe, but remain unamenable to theistic interpretation, like Hawking/Hartle's "no boundary" proposal where the universe is in some sense past-finite but nevertheless lacking a beginning or start (and therefore lacking any causal role for a creator, at least in any horizontal or sequential sense). And this is all in addition the fact that our efforts to model the earliest stages of the universe are likely futile because gravity would be significant enough to dominate on the quantum scale, and so our lack of a quantum theory of gravity likely makes most of our efforts moot (indeed it would be sort of a miracle if we managed to stumble on a correct description of the early universe, despite lacking any viable theoretical framework for this period).
So despite Devans and others religious conviction on this matter, there is nothing even "almost" certain about any of this... other than the fact that their arguments are patently unsound and even somewhat arbitrary.
What advantage is there in positing a creator, not found in enabling an open society?
The devil is in the detail. Christianity in particular, with its incumbent sexual perversion, misogyny, homophobia... need I go on?
The Hawking example I provided is not intended as an answer, as, perhaps, are the other explanations you list. What they show is the simple lack of imagination, the intellectual self-limiting, that occurs in an argument such as this. We don't need an alternate answer to show the poverty of the OP.
Physics has moved on since Aristotle. Some of our religious brethren have moved along with it, but not, it seems, present company.
That's great and all but until you can explain the Big Bang and the Singularity or for that matter can- right now- grab scientific instruments (doesn't matter if they're available easily or not) and prove to a group of skeptics, convincing the majority, of the facts you claim to know by in person irrefutable evidence.. the question of who relies on blind faith more you or the thiest is a moot one.
And its not that either Hawking's or any past-eternal model is clearly correct, the point is of course that the question remains unsettled and all these various alternatives remain viable, and so the theists stubborn preference for the one cosmological model consistent with and conducive to their religious views seems to always be explained by ideology and a priori commitment (come what may) rather than evidence or any defensible line of reasoning (which is no doubt why the arguments rarely hold up to the slightest critical scrutiny- they were ad hoc to begin with).
Making no positive claim is a valid epistemological position. Saying "we don't know yet" isn't the same as saying "and therefore, God".
I'm assuming we can replace positive with assertive or irrefutable?
That's a fact. So. By the same logic, it is not discounting the possibility. Therefore, er, yeah. When you're talking about things like parallel universes, black holes, and alien worlds the "possibility of God" becomes much more on par with the inverse.
A positive claim is an assertion. Not sure what irrefutable has to do with it.
Quoting Outlander
Black holes and alien worlds are observable phenomena. God would be a metaphysical claim, like parallel universes. But yes, an argument asserting that God is impossible would look very different from an argument asserting that God isn't real. This thread is about the latter.
Huh. That's a fair amount to think about. While I do tell me.. no relation to the idea of "an inch over the line is the same as a mile" or is it?
I get your example, thank you for that. The planet being a globe there is an absolute "northernmost point" as well as the opposite. Any further is... objectively in relation to the dynamics more... the opposite. Relatively, essentially. Huh. Definitely will come back to this. May or may not quite grasp it yet.
I'm sure you'll forgive me but a little tongue in cheek.
Yeah because that happens all the time... :D
I mean. Yeah. Even if true there has to be some irony to a fictional independent observer. If one goes back in time there would be no linear knowledge of the preliminary event so the cause would simply be another event. Perhaps all causes are events and all events are causes if you look into it enough eh.
Oh. Great. I'll just come by and you can show me a blackhole and alien world. You know just real casually. Not a big deal.
No, we will not "Google it" or "watch a YouTube video" or believe some "paper doctrine" (alleged peer reviewed research) as the same can and is done toward the idea of God.
If you are unable to do so, I'd assert the odds remain 50/50.
How do you do that?
I was prepared to let all this garbage about God as an explanation on a par with the Big Bang slide, but misuse of probability is where I draw the line. So it's 50/50 is it? Show your workings.
In that case, I'd assert that your epistemic standards are idiotic.
Go to 'Categories', pick the one you don't want to see, scroll down to the bottom of the page and there's a little eye. Just click on that and the whole category no longer appears on the front page. It's brilliant.
Glad you liked it.
Wittgenstein was seriously spiritual, by all accounts. While he would have rejected outright the ridiculous argument of the OP, he may have had some time for what religion, when at its best, might try to show; music, art, sacrifice and courage.
It's late guys come on. There's a box that says "live cat" on it. You got 2 people who say they did research and concluded there is no cat. Last they checked. And you got 2 who say there is a cat because they witnessed it's "power" I guess. Maybe they heard a meow.
Yet no group can show not just me but themselves even without relying on the hearsay they so selectively despise if there is or there is not a cat.
To me, that's 50/50. If you've witnessed a black hole or alien world in person or through a telescope or something, then sorry. Rather can find one- right now- to show an independent observer. You're right. And I apologize. Until said circumstances are met, blind faith unites us more than some would like to admit.
No. The mere existence of two possible outcomes does not in of itself make the probability space 50/50. Consider a coin flip. There are three possible outcomes - heads, tails, side. The mere existence of these three possible outcomes does not in of itself make the probability of any one 1/3.
Why would my personal observation be privileged? That's an idiotic standard. Case in point: you're not even observing me in person. So you don't know whether I exist, it's 50/50, right?
Unfortunately I don't know you, friend. Perhaps you're an esteemed professor in a relevant field. I wouldn't know. Perhaps you're not. You clearly have a firm grasp on reality. I can sense it even from here. What makes speculative theory into credible research? Peer review. If it weren't for "personal observation" having a value, well... case in point.
Generally I don't know what you constitute as "I" (you) so naturally, only you could answer that. Do you? I'd hope so. :D
Man. If I had a time machine and one of those Men in Black memory wipe pens I'd bring this guy and we'd enforce geocentric theory for millenia.
After all, there'd be no proof. I mean come on its the 15th century for crying out loud. No time for unproven fairy tales. To the gallows with ye! :smirk:
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. At a guess I'd say you're trying to make some point about the fact that many things we now think of as true were at the time thought of as fairy-tales? If so, I can't really think of any examples. Most of things suppressed as heresy (like the non-geocentric theory) were dismissed precisely because they had good solid evidence for them and the church were rightly very worried about it supplanting their storytelling.
Total word salad then! Wonderful. I clearly need some help. Perhaps there's a nice cage for me somewhere. That'll teach me for going against the narrative.
Oh, by some phenomenal, astronomical chance your guess is what I logically explained. Great. Let's see. Flight. Travel to outer space. To the ocean. Communicating with one another on the other side of the land. It's getting rather hard to think of an item taken for granted now that doesn't fall under this area quite frankly.
We're still escaping the point. Intentionally or not that is up to the concerned reader. What makes a theory that has yet to be proven but perhaps rather somehow definitely will different than storytelling? Perception. Assurance. The final proof as they say.
Additionally, assuming they were not corrupt, which I'll admit is a toss up. It was not because they wanted to not fall out of favor because "it'd hurt their feelings" as much as it was that Charles Darwin effectively orchestrated the Holocaust with his ideas. Think about it. Don't be biased. What country are you from? You've never entertained the idea of what it would be like to "assume control" of- obviously a weaker as faith in this world is only for the hearty- neighboring country? Don't lie.
You were talking about issues which were considered fairy-tales at the time but later turned out to be true. That we can travel to outer space at that time, was indeed a fairy story and in has never yet been shown that they could travel to outer space at that time. The idea that space travel might one day be possible, was always (to my knowledge) considered at least plausible, and it indeed turned out to be the case. Same goes for your other examples.
What's different about religion is that it has only been seen as increasingly implausible. It started out as stories, some people took them to be true, but gradually most reaslised they were implausible. The scientific knowledge we now have has not followed this trend, in fact the opposite in every way. It didn't start out as a story (it was intended to be an explanation all along) at no point in time did masses of people believe its propositions to be the absolute truth (they've mostly been seen as a work in progress), and theories have generally become more and more plausible.
The two sets of propositions are not remotely comparable.
No, still the same fallacy.
"I do not believe in God, therefore I do not believe that God caused everything." That logic is correct.
Sounds a bit like world peace then. Religion could mean anything. From Zen Bhuddism or contentness with nothing non essential to empire building. The concept is the idea of an intelligent Creator God as opposed to meaningless chaos for little more reason that what can be imagined by the individual.
Before that, right, what is plausible could one day be possible. That doesn't change the fact that those who vocally advocated the plausible yet unproven as truth were treated poorly.
Hi Tim! For the record, I have just been having a quiet think to myself for the last few months.
Quoting Banno
I think that everything in time has a cause.
We cannot prove this - it is merely an empirical observation - but no-one has ever found any phenomena (at macro level anyway) that is uncaused - so the axiom of causality is about as strong an axiom as there is. Maybe the law of the excluded middle is stronger, but there is not much else.
Everything in time has a cause leads to the inescapable conclusion that at least one cause must be external to time. That's certainly very much how the Big Bang looks - surely the start of spacetime - and surely that start was caused by something external to space time.
Things outside time not having a cause makes perfect sense - there is no 'before' for timeless things, so they by definition must be uncaused.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
There are about 20 parameters of the standard model and Big Bang that are fine-tuned for life. Its billions to one against that that happened by accident.
Quoting Gnomon
Sounds like a sensible position. I would say I am agnostic-deist but strongly leaning towards deism.
Quoting Gnomon
By a wider universe outside spacetime, I do not mean a multiverse. I mean something timeless - it has permanent existence - it was never created - it will never be destroyed. This timeless thing is then the root cause of everything in existence. So it is not turtles all the way down - the buck stops with the timeless first cause.
Quoting 180 Proof
A radioactive nucleus is very busy - quarks juggling with each other - constantly exchanging gluons. Every now and again the juggling causes some particle to be emitted from the nucleus - radioactive decay. So there is a cause of radioactive decay - but its beyond the capability of our physics to ever predict when decay will occur.
Quoting Banno
That does not work - the first cause determines the 2nd cause, the 2nd the 3rd - there can be nothing without a first cause. Your picture is a supertask - they are impossible - there is no clearly defined first cause so none of the supertask can exist.
Quoting christian2017
Thanks Christian! I think the other arguments relating to time having a start dovetail nicely with the first cause argument. Time having a start implies a timeless first cause that caused the start of time. The causality argument also implies a timeless first cause. Then there is Aquinas's 3rd of 5 ways that comes to the same conclusion. So 3 separate arguments all point to a timeless first cause.
Quoting Enai De A Lukal
We do know that time has a start - how could the past possibly be longer than any finite number of days?
I am agnostic forever...and at age 84 in 6 weeks, "forever" doesn't seem that far away.
As for your comment, "I believe the probability of God's existence is high, "
MY TAKE:
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that gods are needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
No, they're not. The particular values allow for formations of the kinds of atoms we have, which allows for the kind of chemistry we have. They are not "fine-tuned", and certainly not fine-tuned for life.
Your argument for God ends up being circular. You are supporting the existence of God with the argument that God chose the parameters of the universe such that you could exist. A proof of God's existence cannot assume he exists already.
What are you saying here, Isaac?
Are you saying the existence of gods is impossible?
Consider a computer program that is designed to generate random universes - the parameters of the standard model and Big Bang are randomised and a resultant universe is generated. The types of universe generated would nearly always fall into the following two categories:
- Too much adhesion. The forces are such that all matter in the universe clumps together in one (probably) big black hole. No complex matter ever forms - so nothing like life (water, amino acids, DNA, etc...) can form in this type of universe
- Too little adhesion. The forces are such that the matter particles just endlessly bounce of each other - no complex matter - so no life.
Very, very rarely, the computer program will generate a universe like ours that supports complex matter (elections and quarks make atoms - all 100+ elements from just two types of particle. And from that we have the amazing complexity of the almost infinite types of different molecules that are needed for life. The odds of such a universe occurring purely randomly are billions to one.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
It seems that God exists outside spacetime and choose the parameters of spacetime and then created spacetime. So the argument is not circular.
What causes "the juggling"? And how does that - distinct from anything else - "cause ... particles to be emitted"?
Quoting Devans99
Yeah, like Earth "seems" flat and at the center of the cosmos. :roll:
"Outside spacetime" - location - presupposes spacetime, which like north of the north pole, is nonsense.
The particles in the nucleus are always moving around - I'm no quantum physicist, but I guess it is the interplay of strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force that causes this. Radioactive nucleus's are unstable, so then sometimes something gets ejected from the nucleus.
Apart from causality, then the only other possible explanation for 'stuff happening' seems to be true randomness. But we've never managed to crack randomness - it seems impossible mathematically and impossible to generate on a computer.
My suspicion is that true randomness is impossible. The things that we associate with randomness are actually caused by phenomena - but in ways we cannot predict theoretically - so they are not truly random, they just appear that way.
So you don't know, Devans, or offer any sound inferences. Uh huh. I just wanted to clarify - expose - that your OP amounts to nothing but an argumentum ad ignorantiam aka "g/G-of-the-Gap" fallacy (though @Banno & co have beat me to it). 'Creationist apologetics' is for preaching to the gullible choir, friend, not for this scientifically (semi) literate & philosophically rowdy bunch of barflies. :yawn:
Spacetime was caused by something - the cause of the Big Bang. That it was caused by something implies there must be something external to spacetime.
Quoting 180 Proof
You are just name calling rather than offering any substantive counter arguments - not suitable behaviour for a philosophy forum :(
Quoting Devans99
Quoting Devans99
There. I borrowed a method of justification from your good self.
Yes, and that might tell us something about our universe, for instance that it is one of a great multitude, or that its physical constants cannot have just any old value. It does not necessitate a fine-tuning, and it does not necessitate that life -- just one of the phenomena possible in this universe -- was desired. That comes from other assumptions, bad ones.
Quoting Devans99
It is circular since it presumes the existence of God -- the thing it seeks to prove -- be he inside or outside of spacetime.
Multiple universe theories fail to justify the 'strong anthropic principle'. Do you suppose all such universe are made of radically different stuff to our universe or the very similar stuff? If its similar stuff, then all universes in the multiverse are fined tuned for life and all where created by God for that purpose.
The most credible Multiple universe theory is eternal inflation - it has all the universes generated by the same mechanism - go through the same evolution - and end up pretty much all the same - IE all universes are made of the standard model and all universes support life.
Also, consider that with a multiverse, many of the parameters that must be fined tuned for life are actually multiverse level parameters rather than parameters applicable to single universes. So the actual multiverse (if such a thing exists) must be fine tuned for life.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
My argument does not presume the existence of God; it deduces the existence of a timeless first cause from the assumption of causality - nothing circular about it at all.
You are really out of ideas aren't you! Can you not even summon up one counter argument?
There's nothing to counter. You've told us what seems to you to be the case. I have no reason to doubt that it does seem to you that those things are the case. What's to counter?
Please state your counter arguments if you have any.
KK!
Interesting. Let's parse that one a bit more. Two thoughts come to mind here:
1. Are you saying God caused something- just not everything?
2. What is your existential definition of Causation?
Not sure I'm following you there. For instance, take emergence or panentheism for example, how are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe, or are they central to it?
Is the nature of reality revealed by the bizarre laws of quantum mechanics? According to quantum theory, before the observation is made, a subatomic particle exists in several states, called a superposition (or, as Wheeler called it, a ‘smoky dragon’). Once the particle is observed, it instantaneously collapses into a single position.
Is no phenomenon a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon? If so, how did consciousness emerge without causation?
is inconsistent with
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Quoting 3017amen
Do I need one? Why? I may have a causal definition of existence. If I had an existential definition of causation, I'd be going round in circles.
Quoting Devans99
Alas no. Defence of your argument relied on the assumption that the physical constants of nature had been fine-tuned in order (teleology) to yield life, which is the action of an intelligent creator. It also relied on the more general argument that a first cause must be an intended cause. Neither are themselves derived.
Viz:
Quoting Devans99
assumes the existence of God as a cause of similar universes, therefore cannot be used to answer a question about God's existence.
Hawking's last paper actually suggested tgat the possible range of physical constants might be much smaller than expected. He was an atheist.
Quoting Devans99
So even if every possible combination of laws in an infinity of universes existed, the existence of one inevitable universe with our laws is evidence that they were fine-tuned for life? :rofl: That's hilarious! You have a black box: put anything in, out comes "Proof that God exists!" I am eating an apple. "Proof that God exists!" It is Tuesday. "Proof that God exists!"
My argument in the OP is based purely on causality and is not at all circular.
I have merely pointed out that the causality-based argument is supported by the fine tuning argument. Look at it this way - for us to exist - the universe MUST support life. Why does it support life? There are only two possibilities:
1. It supports life due to a massive fluke - 20 or so parameters all come out in the life supporting range.
2. It supports life because it was designed to support life.
The chances of [1] happening are billions to one, the chances of [2] are much less remote. So we have to favour [2] - which dovetails nicely with the causality-based argument for God's existence.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I am not assuming the existence of God - the causality based argument says there is a timeless first cause. If a multiverse exists, it must have been created or initiated by the timeless first cause.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
You are not reading my arguments - the whole multiverse itself must be fine-tuned for life - and that can only have been achieved by the timeless first cause.
:up: :lol:
Quoting Devans99
What? I've not called you a name yet.
Your OP is an embarrassment of fallacious & misinformed riches as others have pointed out before me. My previous post pointsq out your "north of the northpole" nonsense and "g/G-of-the-Gaps" fallacy which invalidate your "shite OP" (@Isaac).
No "substantive counter arguments" needed to dismiss such an antiquated, pseudo-argument. And since I'm not trying to persuade - or edify - you, Devans, only draw you out further, I only care what others here make of my judgements - whether they concur or not, and possibly why, so that I might gain new insight from them as it's apparent there's nothing to learn from your 'creationist' @%$&#?.
Agreed. So why are you incorrigibly projecting onto us your own genuflected confusions? Your persistent dogma & sophistry are bad form ... :mask:
Not sure you've answered my question there... , are you saying that you would be going around in circles anyway? If the Big Bang had no causation, what are you left with?
Maybe the more obvious question would be, why are there laws of physics/patterns in the universe v. the unrestricted chaos of a lawless universe?
The emergence of conscious beings suggest you need a causal definition of existence, no?. Otherwise, it seems as though you are regurgitating a type of negative-theological version of the ontological argument; 'God didn't do it cause I said so'. I'm curious, where is your 2+2=4 in your argument that God does not exist?
You just pulled that number out of your ass. The chance could be anything.
Quoting 3017amen
Because only in a universe with patterns would there be some patterns capable of thinking about it.
Logically, if humans can ask the question then the universe must allow humans. So, from a purely logical perspective, the answer to the question: "why does the universe allow for life?" is: "because there is life in it".
To defend the necessity that a first cause requires an intelligent agent, when presented with current theory that has no such agent, you argued that conditions for life imply an intelligent agent. I don't know how much more circular you could get.
Quoting 3017amen
Ah! Quick question first: If I present to you a scientific theory that describes exactly how this happens, would you accept that the laws being as they are does not necessitate an intelligent creator?
The reason I ask is because if the answer to that is No, I may as well just make one up, say I don't know, or not answer, maybe just blow a raspberry or something. If the answer to that is Yes, then you base your position not on the truth but on an authority of certainty that is not guaranteed. You value being given an answer, be it true, false, wise or ignorant, above truth.
Before Darwin, science had no explanation for how humanity began. That ignorance is not evidence that God did it. Yet men of faith said "God did it" and people believed them. Before Hubble, we had no idea that galaxies formed from an earlier, hotter period when the universe was more dense. That ignorance is not evidence that God created galaxies. And yet men of faith said "God put them there" and people believed them.
The persistent response I hear to a scientific atheist position is: "Well, if God did not exist, how do you explain...?" Sometimes the questioner is not very scientifically literate and the question has a well-accepted scientific answer. Sometimes they are, and the question is chosen to put God in a gap somewhere.
I'm increasingly convinced that, whichever kind of question, the correct response is something like the one I'm giving. Having all the answers, and them not being true, is the province of religion and theology. Searching for the answers and getting them is the province of science and valid philosophy (i.e. philosophy where the conclusion is not aimed at but derived). In that light, if one were to choose between the person who says, "I know, for I have all the answers" and the person who says "I don't know, let's find out", it's a good thing to listen to the second person.
And yet we so often go with the first.
That's correct, its a guess, but all the following parameters must be within life supporting ranges:
1. Properties of quarks
2. Properties of elections
3. Strength, range and direction of the four forces
4. The initial conditions governing the Big Bang
5. The expansion of space
6. The number of dimensions in the universe
So that's going to come out to some sort of huge number like billions to one.
Why? Explain the logic behind this.
The first cause must be able to cause something whilst not being effected in anyway. So it must be self driven - capable of independent action - intelligent.
Then as a separate argument, fine tuning also implies an intelligent first cause.
There is really absolutely nothing circular about my argument.
Highlight a part of their post with your fingers, a little black "quote" button should appear on the top right of your screen
Take one item - the electro-magnetic force:
1. It could have attractive, repulsive or attractive and repulsive action. The 3rd is required for life. There is a 33% chance of the third
2. Its strength must be correct so that electrons orbit the nucleus, not flying off or falling into the nucleus. I'll have to make a guess here, maybe the chance of the strength being right is 25%
3. Its range must be correct - again I'll guess at 25%.
So 33% * 25% * 25% = 2% chance that the electro-magnetic forces properties are such that life would be supported (IE atoms form).
If you then work through the other 5 sets of parameters I mentioned, you would end up with some really large number, like billions to one chance that the universe is life supporting by accident.
Got it. Thanks. You sure are certain, sir.
Not sure what to say - causality is about as good an axiom as it comes - but there is no way we can be 100% sure that it holds universally - so I have to hedge my bets - all I can say is there is almost certainly a timeless first cause.
Could it? And why would the chances be equally distributed? It could be 0.0001 for the first two.
Quoting Devans99
Those are wild guesses without substance. You'd have to know the range of possible values for either to make any guess. But no-one knows that.
Why should I agree to that? You admitted that you know nothing about the probabilities. You know nothing for any one of the parameters. And you know nothing about the entirety of them. But yet you claim to know something about what the chance is? How can you get something out of nothing?
I am just estimating the chances - what else can I do? I'm not a quantum physicist!
There are about 20 separate parameters. Conservatively assuming there is a 50% chance for each to be in life supporting range, then we have 50%^20 = 0.0000953674316% chance for the universe to be life supporting by chance.
No it is not - it is matter acting on matter via Newton's 2nd and 3rd law.
How about just not making stuff up? Not every question has an answer. It's okay to say "I don't know". Is that such a weird thought?
Quoting Devans99
Let's do a little thought experiment:
Imagine someone offers you the following wager: they will roll one hundred six-sided dice. They will accurately tell you what the result is, but you're not going to see the dice, or them rolling it. If all 100 dice come out 6, you get a million dollars. If only one doesn't, you get a million dollars.
Do you take that wager?
Baloney. The Kantian 'all events must have a cause' is a synthetic judgement that is used in almost all of theoretical physics. Is it "fiction" that you have that innate sense of wonderment from your conscious existence?
Well I prefer to make a rough estimate rather than just saying 'I don't know'. I think a rough estimate is sufficient in this case - the number in question is huge - it hardly matters precisely how huge.
Quoting Echarmion
As I stand to lose nothing, I'd take the wager.
Again, you're saying the number must be huge without any justification. That's not even an estimate, it's a naked claim.
Quoting Devans99
argh, I mistyped. Let's say when all numbers come up 6, you have to pay 100 dollars.
Can you give me an example of a macro-level phenomena without a cause? The creation of the universe is a macro level event - huge amounts of matter were involved. So if you wish to disprove my argument, then an example of a macro-level phenomena without a cause must be provided.
Even in the micro world, everything likely has a cause. There is no alternative to the basic principle of causality - matter/energy acts on matter/energy - apart from true randomness - something from nothing in informational terms - and that does not work - mathematically impossible - impossible to produce on a computer. Micro level phenomena that are described as random are probably actually caused, it just we lack the physics to predict them so we attribute them to random - impossible.
I wasn't making an argument. Just noting that the "authorities" referred-to are highly-credentialed scientists. So your dismissive remarks, implying that the OP is irrational and anti-science, are unjustified. :smile:
It's 20+ separate parameters... it has to be some huge number. All I'm saying is it must be huge.
Quoting Echarmion
I'm not quite following your argument.
Really? Please share your thoughts on the differences between our perceptions of the world, and what the world really is?
Let's try the thought experiment again:
Imagine someone offers you the following wager: they will roll one hundred six-sided dice. They will accurately tell you what the results of each roll are, but you're not going to see the dice, or them rolling it. If all 100 dice come out 6, you have to pay 100 dollars. If only one doesn't, you get a million dollars.
It's 100 dice. It has to be some huge number, right? So you should absolutely take the wager?
The billiard ball is set in motion, perhaps by another ball or the cue - this is Newton's 2nd law in action.
The balls each exert a minor attraction thanks to Newton's 3rd law and gravity, but it is insignificant in this case.
The ball continues in a straight line, as per Newton's 1st law.
Your point is?
- If 100 come out 6, I loose 100 dollars
- If 99 come out 6, I gain a million dollars
- Any other result is neutral (?)
I would take the wager.
Actually I meant that if any one, or multiple, of the 100. So in all cases except all 100 coming out 6, you get a million dollars.
Of course all the dice have a six on every side. So you just lost 100 dollars.
It wasn't a separate argument. You used it to dismiss the notion of a universe created without fine-tuning, itself an argument against an intelligent first cause. This is quite an epic logical error. But I dig that you choose not to believe it is a circular argument, despite all the evidence.
I realize you feel that way. I just feel you're fooling yourself, just like the con artist that offered you the wager would have fooled you.
You are getting very confused:
1. The OP proves (assuming causality) that a timeless first cause is required. The OP has nothing to do with fine tuning and is IN NO WAY CIRCULAR.
2. I made the completely separate argument that the fine tuning argument implies it is very likely that there is intelligence behind the universe. This also is IN NO WAY CIRCULAR.
Look at it this way:
1. The argument from causality is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
2. The fact that time has a start is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
3. The Big Bang sure looks like it was caused by something intelligent
4. The fact the universe is not in equilibrium implies a permanent, intelligent, presence
5. The fine tuning argument is strongly suggestive that intelligence is behind the universe.
So what can a betting man do?
Yes, please provide a ToE or otherwise your theory of causation!!
The event is the billiard ball going down the table. The event is elongated in time. The cause is the cue (or another ball) hitting the first ball.
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting Banno
And answering the question with that question is particularly pathetic in this instance.
Without the likes of @3017amen having started talking about — proclaiming — their imagi..."otherworldly" friends, this wouldn't have come up in the first place.
So, shifting the burden of proof.
Lost count among the promoting comments here...
Sleight of hand (covering up arguing from ignorance), gap-filling for the occasion, special pleading.
Did I miss any?
Quoting 3017amen
This thread isn't a poll/vote, so we kind of expect a bit more than just "I agree".
You agreeing doesn't make it so.
The impact of the cue on the ball causes an equal and opposite reaction as per Newton's 2nd law. It imparts kinetic energy to the ball.
The cause of the additional kinetic energy the ball has is its impact with the cue.
Mmmm, let's see, I agree with Devon here ( I can add at least a dozen or so existential and/or metaphysical phenomena if that helps you):
1. The argument from causality is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
2. The fact that time has a start is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
3. The Big Bang sure looks like it was caused by something intelligent
4. The fact the universe is not in equilibrium implies a permanent, intelligent, presence
5. The fine tuning argument is strongly suggestive that intelligence is behind the universe.
So what can a betting man do?
This assumption leads to the conclusion that something must have permanent existence, IE if the universe was ever in a state of nothingness, then ‘can’t get something from nothing’ implies it would still be in a state of nothingness today - so something must have permanent existence. But time has a start so nothing can exist permanently in time, so the rejection of creation ex nilhilo leads us to the same conclusion - something timeless and permanent must exist outside of spacetime.
An event is not an effect. We are talking about cause and effect here.
No. The cause of the movement past the balls was the cue hitting the (now) moving ball.
An effect is some force applying to matter/energy. An event is a spacetime co-ordinate.
In general an event is not an effect.
Events happen but they are not an effects (they might be coincidental with effects, but generally they are not).
An effect is matter/energy interacting with matter/energy.
Take a null sort of universe for example - no matter/energy but 4d spacetime. Its full of events yet there are no effects.
I adopted the Deist/Logos worldview simply because the Materialist ethos does not even address the fundamental philosophical question : Why? It tells us How the world evolves, but leaves us with the impression of a completely random meaningless process. Yet, Science would not be possible if there was no meaningful Order to the world. The creator or organizer (First Cause) of the logical process of evolution (physical causation) is a valid rational question. And the emergence of Mind from Matter is still the "hard problem" that some materialists dismiss as a non-scientific disputation. But it is, and always has been, a philosophical question.
So, I suppose you could say that my curiosity goes beyond the empirical limits of the scientific method. But it is not satisfied by the pre-scientific "revelations" of Religion. Consequently, I began with a cutting-edge insight of Quantum theory --- that all is Information --- and proceeded to develop my own personal worldview; which explains, to my satisfaction, how and why the world is the way it is. Moreover, as (non-theistic) philosopher Robert Wright concluded in The Evolution of God, "The beauty of the Logos was that you didn't have to take anyone's word for it". The evidence (information) is inherent in the physical world all around us, and the Logos conclusion is completely logical.
But, if your curiosity is content with a materialistic model of a world with a mysterious inexplicable elliptical beginning . . . . then that's OK with me [see Dawkins quote]. :cool:
Logos : the divine algorithm
___Robert Wright
Logos : A principle originating in classical Greek thought which refers to a universal divine reason, immanent in nature, yet transcending all oppositions and imperfections in the cosmos and humanity.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html
Secular Deism : 3- Absolutely. I’ve seen no evidence that Atheism, Deism and Agnosticism are against each other in anyway. Those who ascribed to these defined beliefs may disagree on some minor specifics about the likeliness of a creator, but that’s about it.
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/11/atheism-deism-and-agnosticism-should-have-the-same-goal-secularism/
I agreed that the First Cause is not "universal", in the sense of limited to the known universe. I was just pointing out that the Logos is ubiquitous, comprehensive, omnipresent, and eternal. So it's not a logical contradiction, but merely a semantic distinction. :joke:
1. The interaction of the match on the matchbox causes friction - the effect is combustion.
2. The interaction of the match on the fuse causes combustion of the fuse.
3. The combustion of the fuse ignites the explosive, causing an explosion.
Causality is quite complex I think: there are macro-level and micro-level causes and effects. Some effects are instantaneous whereas others have a prolonged duration.
But causality is always matter/energy acting on matter/energy - fundamentally a very scientific principle.
Unfortunately, the term "Deist" has gained some debatable baggage over the years, from its origin as simple (pre-big-bang) acknowledgement that the world had a beginning, a creation moment, hence a creator. So, I no longer emphasize that term, and instead call my worldview Enformationism, which is merely a theory of how the world evolved after the creation. I remain open-minded but agnostic about anything super-natural.
Quoting Devans99
I was merely noting that your brief description could be interpreted as a reference to the Multiverse. I didn't think you intended it that way. :smile:
...and so your perceptions of the world are based upon conscious existence, right?. How are they similar, in what way? For instance, similar, in that consciousness emerged from chaos?
What is nature though? Is it the stuff in spacetime? Then anything beyond might class as super-natural.
Its interesting to think that we are aware of one possible reality; that of spacetime. We have no idea how many other forms of reality could be out there - things completely different from spacetime that are no time and no distance from our universe.
So super-natural I agree we cannot rule out.
Quoting Gnomon
I can't disprove the existence of a multiverse. It might exist. There is no compelling evidence for or against a multiverse. It is a unscientific concept - how are we meant to collect empirical evidence for something causally disconnected from our universe?
If there is a multiverse, my guess is it all supports life and was all caused somehow by the timeless first cause.
Yep, agreed. I do agree with Aquinas on his cosmological argument. Another way of saying that is that nothing can move by itself since it has to be moved by something else. So it's either turtle power, or something more intelligent.
HEADLINE: God's existence proven once and for all, on the PhilosophyForum.com, by a guy named "Devans".
Good grief.
How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence?
Yes, there must be something self-powered, IE intelligent in the universe. If you look at all natural systems that are purely composed of dumb objects, then they always end up in equilibrium (even orbits decay). For a system to stay out of equilibrium permanently as our universe has, it must have some element of self-power - self-determination - something intelligent must have permanent existence. But nothing permanent can exist in time.
So this argument based on equilibrium also points to a timeless first cause.
Of course. That is one reason I embrace Panentheism, where timelessness and temporality are folded into one entity.
I have never made my mind up on panentheism. A simplistic way of looking at it: In the beginning there was:
1. God. He made the universe from part of his own substance.
2. God and some stuff. He made the universe from stuff.
I have no evidence either way so it seems like 50%/50% for/against panentheism
Folding timelessness and temporality into one entity is quite a trick - can you expand?
Timelessness is where I am stuck. The only sort of change we are aware of is within spacetime. But spacetime having a start implies timelessness and also implies a cause of the start of time. But how can something be caused by something external to time? - Without time, how can change take place?
So it seems timelessness must be able to somehow allow change. Some type of change that is not the usual type that we are used to within spacetime.
So timelessness seems to be a logical requirement, but what exactly could it be?
It has puzzled philosophers for 1000s of years. The best description I heard was 'the eternal now' - imagine all of the events in your life somehow experienced in one go.
:roll: :yawn:
Aquinas ended each of his arguments with variations of, "And this we all call God."
If he had ended his arguments logically...he would have written, "And this we all accept as an unknown."
The "This we all call God" was gratuitous, self-serving, and frankly, silly.
You have to put yourself in the mind of Thomas - this was before the discovery of biological evolution and they still thought the earth was the centre of the universe. I think he made very reasonable conclusions with the amount of evidence he was working with.
Have you ever heard the term 'dipolar' God? Theoretical physicist Davies argues that in his book the Mind of God. It combines logical necessity with contingency. An unchanging timeless being (required for the notion of what caused the Big Bang/what was God doing prior to it) combined with openness and freedom of say, QM or quantum physics (double slit experiment, etc.).
It's not the same as complete chaos. It provides for structured randomness in nature, along with the logical necessity of physical existence. It is intriguing when analogized with Wheeler's game of 20-questions. It seems to imply a participatory anthropic universe (PAP/intelligence) based on our asking the right questions. Kind of like the cosmological computer brain. Depending on what questions we Google, we will only get that which we ask.
:up:
Quoting tim wood
:100:
Quoting Devans99
Either you don't know that you don't know (Dunning-Kruger effect) or you know you don't know and lack the integrity, or honesty, to admit it; so which is it, Devans?
Quoting Devans99
You've not made a sound, or evidentiary, argument for the 'existence of g/G' yet (as tim wood, Banno, I et al have established), which brings Hitchens' Razor comes to mind:
[quote=duly Hitchslaps Devon99]What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.[/quote]
I take it there is some sort of acquiescence by silence?
Or, since you couldn't provide an answer, you got nothing? Gee, well, something exists!! LOL
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was Anselm who posited the Omni-stuff, as well as the ontological argument. In any case, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'm selective on what works and what doesn't work. Just read my profile LOL.
Quoting 3017amen
(yep, including shifting the burden of proof again)
Quoting 3017amen
With nothing more to say (and keeping fallacies alive and well), you've abandoned philosophy for one.
I've literally just said. There's nothing to counter. All you've done is tell us that something seems some way to you. It doesn't seem that way to me. What's to counter?
Okay, let's philosophize. Let's begin with some existential/metaphysical questions:
How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence?
Mr. jorndoe, what is conscious existence? I'm a Christian Existentialist, if you haven't figured it out LOL.
And you are a what?
...any answers to that 180? Perhaps 260 proof would help...:grin:
We certainly need something like that. Timelessness it seems must have something of a non-sequential nature about it.
The idea of superposition - that one thing could sort of be in two places at the same time - does not sit well with me. I prefer to think as matter as a spread out wave of energy that collapses to a very small wave when we measure it. Something being in two places at the same time - no way is that possible is my gut reaction.
One problem is timelessness could be absolutely anything. All we can say it is not spacetime. Not much to go on :(
We can see Nature and that it Rules. It sent a plague of locusts in Africa that blotted out the sun, 100 degrees F in Siberia, a killer virus, and even Trump…
If you want an Invisible Person to rule, He needs to conform to exactly what Nature does, which doesn't really add anything to Nature's natural goings on.
It should. And that's because consciousness and subconsciousness working together violates LEM.
It's called a dipolar God :grin:
Yet, the timeless needs be everything, which thus has to be all-at-once and ever, such as in a superposition.
Well the idea is you explain why it doesn't seem that way to you... and we sort of debate it - rhetoric - as the ancient greek philosophers called it - this is the purpose of The Philosophy Forum.
Good and Evil sprang from Wrong and Right,
When from naught twin Genii split day and night.
Oh, fear not that black’s might can vanquish white;
Darkest night can’t e’en quench the smallest light!
Except that they were really the same Guy.
My point is simply that there is a lot of data for what occurs within our universe but none for what may lie outside of it, And when one is referring to the origin of the universe one is presumably referring to things outside our universe (unless one claims that our universe is self created), for which there is no data.
Either in favour of the very prejudice I was describing -- granting authority to those who claim to have answers instead of those who genuinely seek them -- or else you make very funny joke.
Hello Poetic! My opinion is that the universe is not perfect, but optimal given the constraints that the (probable) creator of the universe was working under.
As life, society and technology evolves, our environment tends towards optimal.
The creator of the universe (I'm almost certain there is one) was benevolent - he foresaw that we would reach an optimal state of existence - so he went ahead and created the universe. He did the best he could under difficult circumstances.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I'm not sure about superposition - how can something be more than one position at the same time? I think matter could be purely a wave - spread out at times so it seems its in multiple positions - collapsed to a small wave when we measure it.
Timelessness is a mighty puzzle - it maybe unsolvable. If it exists, all we know is it not spacetime - not much to go on.
Those who show favor might not become dear
Do not fear the unknown, for it just might be clear
With a nod and a blink, there is never time
Conscious or subconscious, what an eye
Aquinas made good ARGUMENTS. His conclusions sucked.
Essentially he was saying that things happened because of "God"...rather than "We do not know why it happened."
Mistake made by many.
On the question of whether at least one god exists or not:
You can easily use logic to conclude "I do not know."
It is impossible to use logic to conclude "There are no gods" "There is a god" "It is more likely that there is at least one god" or "It is more likely that there are no gods."
We are in a lot more agreement on this, 180, than I thought we'd be able to get.
Thanks.
By the way, nothing here is about whatever you or I believe or not. (Unless things go full-metal psych'ceramics I guess.)
On this question, "beliefs" are essentially guesses about what IS.
Some guess there is a GOD.
Some guess there are GODS.
Some guess there are no gods.
Whatever.
Can you assign your estimated probabilities to each option?
Okay sure, let's stay on topic. Was conscious existence caused from chaos?
Firstly, the contents of argument tells me it's deductive - first cause arguments usually are - but then your conclusion has an obvious inductive character given away by the phrase "almost certainly". :chin:
Do you have knowledge of what exists outside the universe?
The OP reaches a deductive conclusion, but that conclusion is based on the assumption that causality is universal within space time. The assumption of causality seems to be in line with everything we know (at macro level definitely, at micro level too arguably). It is an empirically supported assumption. It is a logically justifiable assumption. But it is still an assumption so we cannot claim certainty - hence I opted for the words 'almost certainly'.
Still ignoring comments unabated as if non-existent.
And how the heck would I know?
But we do know some things, and "atemporal mind" ain't it (by all available evidence it's incoherent nonsense).
Having been answered, are you going to stop ignoring comments?
We only know one state of existence - spacetime. You are ruling out all the other possible states of existence - things not involving space or time even maybe - on what evidence?
The closest in the literature seems to be abstract objects.
Labeling those "deities" or "God" would be a radical departure from religions though.
Quoting Devans99
No, you're ruling in by way of appeal to ignorance, for one.
I thought I did, but for some reason you failed to pass muster in answering my concerns. But yes, God does exist, if that's what you are asking me.
If you have read the thread, you would see that logic has taken us to the conclusion that something permanent, external to time, somehow caused time. That implies that change without time - within the state of timelessness that 'pre-existed' (or maybe enclosed) our universe - must be possible. I admit I am stumped on exactly how.
The timeless thing, the first cause, must be able to effect change within spacetime - start the Big Bang or whatever - the universe requires a concrete start, or it is nothing.
So the timeless thing must be self-driven in some manner, IE intelligent.
No one does. Although some might pretend to do so.
Time has a start. So there is a state of existence without time. This state must of somehow 'caused' the start of time. I fail to see what problem you have with regards to this deduction? It seems quite reasonable to me.
But we have knowledge of what empirically exists as it were, enough to provide clues, through induction, that more likely than not, an intelligent cause is/was at work. But that's just science. Metaphysics, phenomenology, existentialism, cognitive science, are a few of many other domains that provide clues inferring causation.
No matter how you think of it, causation, by definition, is metaphysical, is it not?
Ok.
1. Why can't there be an infinite chain of causes extending into the past?
2. If there can't be an infinite chain of causes extending into the past then it's false that everything has a cause and if that's false then why can't the universe be without a cause?
Each chain of causes requires a concrete start - the first cause causes the second cause - the second cause doe not exist if it is not caused by the first cause. The nth+1 cause cannot exist if the nth cause does not. So causality without a first cause (IE infinite causality) cannot exist - there is nothing to make any of it concrete.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think that everything in time has a cause. Something must be uncaused about the universe (IE external to time) - else there would be nothing.
Oh, now you've claimed it twice, it must be true! The caps lock helped too.
P.S. It was definitely circular.
They must have different circles in your parts...
Possibly, we don't see many in my neck of the woods. They sure have lots of em in yours though.
Since you are not assuming the existence of an intelligent creator to dismiss scientific models of first causes that don't require an intelligent creator, can I infer that you accept the point that an intelligent creator is not necessary for a first cause after all? Or do you have a justification for why the first cause must be intelligent that doesn't assume an intelligent creator?
Strange as I thought you'd be accustomed to having rings run around you?
(ps I don't mean it! Just a joke. Interesting conversation)
Quoting Kenosha Kid
The first cause has to cause the second cause. So it must somehow be animate - and I cannot see how something can be animate and not intelligent.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Why? Knowledge is interesting!
Nothing is certain in this world, so we must resort to probability as our only hope for true knowledge. I find it strange that you will not at least hazard a guess on this important issue.
The Timeless cannot be any one state in particular because there is no input point to what never began, so, it is everything, and we go on to note that it doesn't remain as anything particular even for an instant, but continually transmutes, according to what we call the laws of nature, in a topological type way—remaining as itself at heart.
Or, still as mostly above, but we traverse through everything, on our world line path already carved out, since we had a particular start.
We’ve approached the Mystery, and have found
That Beginnings can’t be, so what goes round
Must be all things, for there’s no point to impart
A design; so drink—to naught more we’re bound!
It's a good one too! I'm cool with banter, don't worry.
Quoting Devans99
A permanent (timeless or cyclic) thing can be a first cause. The mechanism of the effect can be probabilistic. I'm not saying it is per se, just that it's a bit more economic with assumptions than God.
God also gets us into more bother than he solves. We know he is causal himself: he decides to create a universe. Why this one, why then? What lead up to that? And what led up to that?
I currently have doubts about both presentism and eternalism. The first is not compatible with the start of time or special relativity. The second has us co-eternal with the dinosaurs. I am wondering if growing block theory (past and present real, future under continual construction) might be closer to the truth.
The growing block theory of time gives us an eternal presence in the universe - which is nice. Could we somehow experience that eternal presence after death? Seems unlikely, but we can't rule it out. I can think of at least one way...
My daemon, Marcus Tullius Cicero, keeps muttering Ignoratio Elenchi. Well, he says he's my daemon, anyhow.
He also says "Believe or disbelieve, and be silent." He speaks English when I can't think of the Latin.
I think that any mechanism of a purely dumb nature cannot be the first cause - it would have to initiate an action by its own accord - and no dumb mechanism can do that - it seems it has to be something self-motivated - intelligent.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
It's possible that the first cause is able effect causality without being part of causality.
I imagine something intelligent - it would want information to exercise its intelligence upon. It might first manufacture dumb objects - pool tables and such. The objects would get more complex maybe. If we take the argument to the ultimate conclusion, then the ultimate toy for an intelligent being would be its own, life supporting, universe.
How the above story takes place 'timelessly' is a major issue. Timeless existence must support change but the only type of change we know of is within time. This is the issue I am roadblocked on.
Really, you mean you were able to answer those questions, where?
But the point is, if timelessness is eternity, which we cannot figure out, and if temporal time is an illusion ( which has been successfully argued before) , either one becomes a mystery. And so what's the difference; we cannot figure out the phenomenon of time regardless of whether it's temporal or unchanging and timeless.
Yet our Kantian consciousness cries out that ' all events must have a cause'. Why should you care?
My silence is because it's incredibly boring. God is a word, and an essentially meaningless one -- can mean anything you want it to. To say "he/she/it exists" is like asking if ectoplasm exists. These arguments have have been going on for nearly 2000 years, and to think we'll "solve" anything now is ludicrous. If you're new to the question, fine -- but there are more important things to discuss than the "existence" of Shiva, Ba'al, or Yahweh. Who cares?
Then why are you contributing to the thread...out of boredom? LOL
Since you are not able to answer the question that speaks volumes already. If I was an atheist I wouldn't even be contributing to this thread because it would be meaningless. It seems obvious that any atheist who bothers to care, has no faith in their belief system.
I'd recommend that you just walk away from the table. It certainly would help your credibility in any case... LOL
It seems to me that you are just playing with words.
What is called 'causation' is just an association of events - as cogently pointed out by Hume.
Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation- William James
NICE. What causes consciousness? Was it you, or Hume that figured that one out !?
Put in a quarter and try again! Lol
Hmmm. Supertasks are not impossible, Achilles can complete his run. See this Stanford article.
Note that the point of this example was to show that causation is more complex than is supposed in the argument presented in the OP. It is only one of many alternate pictures which do not involve a god of one sort or another. The purpose of the example was to help you see that the conclusion only follows if one adopts a narrow understanding of causation.
So it sounds like you believe in logical necessity then, no?
Please see this post, in which I repeat an obvious argument that shows that "everything has a cause" is neither falsifiable nor provable.
Hence, it is not an empirical claim.
And then this post, which points out that the supposed Principle of Causation is not amongst the laws of thought, except amongst those who seek to use it as you do.
The only evidence we have about anything prior to the BigBang is what we learn from studying the aftermath : the "creation". In my personal worldview, I took the Quantum Theory "evidence" that everything in the world consists of various forms of Generic Information (causal power), which I call "EnFormAction". Shannon Information = destructive Entropy; Boltzman Information = creative Energy; Traditional Information = Mental substance; EnFormAction = cause of all of those forms.
Since Information (mind stuff, computer stuff, matter stuff) seems to be the fundamental "substance" of the physical and metaphysical universe, I equate it with Spinoza's "Single or Universal Substance", which he also called "God". But that theory was postulated centuries before the Big Bang theory, so he assumed the world was eternal. And his theory was called PanTheism. We now know it has not existed forever, therefore we must look beyond the BB barrier to sensory knowledge, and logically infer a self-existent source of Enforming Causal power. Hence, the creative entity, whatever it is, must be both Eternal (metaphysical, Ideal) and Temporal (physical, Real). And the modern scientific & philosophical term for such a deity is PanEnDeism, which does not assume any biblical revelation or personal characteristics of the creative Principle. :smile:
Information : Matter, Energy, Mind are all forms of Generic Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Information is Fundamental : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
EnFormAction : I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
PanEnDeism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
Spinoza's Substance : God is now described not so much as the underlying substance of all things, but as the universal, immanent and sustaining cause of all that exists.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
I would be happy to enter into a formal debate with anyone who is willing to defend the argument in the OP.
I sincerely hope you're kidding.
True. The debates were quite fun on old PF. And for some reason we've let it slip here.
Good to see you again.
We note that things change, of course, but this implies some kind of thingness about things. Well, perhaps that apparently worthless sentence is a clue.
Let me try harder. We think that some semblance of an object continues on to now from before, as if there is a form behind substance. Maybe a clue to extrinsic/intrinsic.
I'll try more. It's still that no fixed object is identical with itself over time, so, well, it's not really a fixed object, or it would still be the same, so, maybe, um, the object goes away and gets replaced with object that has progressed a bit. Enfoldment/infoldment?
In conclusion, I seem to have kept time as it appears to us, but have gotten rid of true motion.
What has that got to do with it? Do you actually want to know what causes consciousness or was that just a rhetorical question?
Philosophy is communicated in words, that is all.
I think the argument in the OP needs to be defined more precisely or simply.
It's something alone the lines of "God more than likely exists because XYZ". Right? I'm glad I learned, thanks to you, about the "god of the gaps" ideology as in some ways more or less most if not many of my attempts to logically rationalize my own belief may fall into that category. I always understood it and its flaws and counterpoints but, it is nice to know. That followed by what the OP has said in several forms essentially how and this is a poor argument as is but how everything seems so perfect in such a chaotic system. No not humanly perfect as in happiness just how every living and non living thing seems to come together and have a purpose. There is nothing that just "exists for no reason". Even things we despise like mosquitos and creepy crawlers play a part.
My fallback rationalization as I'm sure you've read from me before are things like "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Things, ideas, theories rather that got people laughed at, ridiculed, mocked, and sometimes even killed are now things every person uses, has used, or wants to use, etc. I got plenty.
Debates only decide who's boss, not who's correct. Besides, the opposing opinions in this thread are using different criteria : scientific empirical vs rational theoretical. God is not an empirical fact, but a theoretical opinion. Note that the OP says "almost certainly". So, we could debate until the gods come home, and never reach a final truth.
That's why we are merely sharing various opinions on the God topic, not trying to convert unbelievers. We are also using primarily inductive (scientific) reasoning, not deduction from scriptural authorities. Yet, as Hume noted, the Inductive process is open-ended. So, speaking for myself, I don't take my "probable" opinions on faith, but merely as steps to get closer to Truth. :cool:
Induction - closer to truth : the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Hume on Causation : since empirical evidence if always partial and incomplete, he advised skepticism toward provisional scientific "facts".
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/#H5
Closer to Truth : https://www.closertotruth.com/
Indeed; and indeed, in doing so one find that the argument falls apart. Particularly, as we find out about causation, the causal chain breaks.
One curiosity here is the use of "...almost certainly...", and the introduction of the notion of probability. It hints at the introduction of a Bayesian approach. One might take as the prior that there is a 50/50 chance of God, and then seek evidence and re-calculate one's beliefs. While it might be interesting to have someone attempt such a defence, it might be apparent that what is to count as evidence here would be contentious.
No. That's why philosophical speculations on ultimate truths and causes are always couched in metaphors. Plato's Forms are not real things, but ideas that we can grasp by analogy. Professional philosophers would be out of a job, if your assertion was true. Even hard-nosed scientists speculate on ideas without hard evidence (e.g. Dark Matter), and their theories are presented in metaphorical language : Dark Matter is like . . .
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/415955
Anyhow as far as debates I think it should be where there are two ideas, or one and naturally the proving or disproving of it. Naturally and this was my point some "ideas" are not speaking of irrefutability... if that's a word. Rather that, depending on the confidence of the speaker you have the three following ideas: The existence of X cannot be disproved, X is just as likely as Y, or even as I think the OP claims X is more likely than Y.
Also for debates I think it should be like tag team wrestling. Two or more people who use relatable enough logic and ideas on each "side" .. one gets stuck or tired he can "tap out" :grin:
No, we know no such thing. The fact that past-eternal and cyclical cosmological models remain viable is of course due precisely to the fact that we know no such thing. And the past could possibly be infinite, apparently, because there is nothing logically contradictory about an infinite past or infinite causal sequence- at least, not so far as you or Craig or anyone else has hitherto been able to rigorously demonstrate. Nor is there any compelling body of empirical scientific evidence establishing a finite past (and again, thus the viability of past-eternal models).
So this premise is an article of faith no less than the existence of God itself, rendering this entire exercise pointless (since presumably the point of an argument or proof of God's existence is to establish that conclusion on firmer epistemic footing than mere faith).
As opposed to, say, what happens here?
The discussions in these general forums rarely achieve any depth. There are simply too many interjections and divergences for that to happen. A debate allows detail, and participants can be held to account for their conjectures.
In previous debates - not in this forum - there was a parallel general discussion, which, given the presence of folk who actually know their stuff, served to moderate the discussion. Philosophers are quite good at spotting and dissecting rhetorical strategies.
@Baden might tell us if this is so here. Is there a standard format?
Plato certainly thought they were real.
I'm running the simple Wittgensteinian line that such metaphysical speculation is senseless. But... one must also entertain the notion that what it cannot say, it might show. It might be treated as reaching beyond language, even as music and art show us how to live without telling us. If @Devans99 OP were presented as poetry, I might have no beef with it.
But it is presented as argument.
And so far as your discussion of Spinoza shows what we don't know, I have no objection to it. But as soon as it claims to tell us something, it becomes nonsense.
Now here we have the outline of an interesting discussion.
Two things are worth noting about evolution.
The first is that it happens.
The second is that it is not directed; it has no teleology.
Some folk, on first questioning their theism, seek purpose in evolution. But purpose isn't found, it is chosen.
It's curious how often the purveyors of fractured ceramics lack a grasp of the mathematics of infinity.
@Isaac, have you noticed this? Meta suffers a blindness not dissimilar to @Devans99, in that both seem unable to grasp the mathematics of Limits. Could this be a litmus test for nutjobs?
In a modern microscale it can be proven. Genetic variance. Perhaps a particular variance makes you smarter, stronger, or just more attractive. It gives you an edge. And so, you're more likely to reproduce. Perhaps another makes you any of the inverse of the aforementioned. It gives you a burden, that can be turned into a motivation to improve yourself. Whereas, someone who has no need to improve may become complacent, docile, and ignorant. It's a real catch 22.
However tiny changes between characteristics of modern humans do not prove you evolved from some slimy fish frog that was essentially a retarded mutant that was born with freak appendages that allowed it to crawl on land. Does it? How so. Why aren't people born with extra hands or legs today. For example.
(y) Invite @Devans99 right over.
I see ...
Debate Proposals
Debate Discussion
But not in the more formal format.
But I will say that evolution is the very basis of biology, and that the only folk who question it do so with a religious motivation. Rejecting evolution is symptomatic of an inability to reason.
Alright alright. We'll put a pin in this for later. Though, I can reject ones specific definition of law and order without rejecting law and order. Again we should come back to this.
What are the claims being made? God of the gaps, essentially?
A debate with @Devans99 would probably be a reenactment of the objections all ready voiced here; that his OP is based on an inaccurate understanding of causation and that his adoption of it derives from his religious predilections rather than an honest appraisal; in other words that it is self-serving twaddle. Th advantage would be in holding him to developing his argument instead of merely repeating it, as he does here; or at least it would be easier to show that this is what he is doing.
A debate with @3017amen would be too much like kicking a puppy. He has no obvious capacity in this area.
@Gnomon would be more interesting philosophically, since they show a decent grasp of the issues at hand and some erudition.
You'd think someone would like to put this smug, arrogant Boomer in his place.
No; experience teaches me that such discussions are pointless, since those who pretend to argue against evolution are really only afeared for their conservative religious views.
Yes. What happens here is philosophical dialogue. Many of us on this forum have no formal philosophical training, but are autodidacts. It's way of learning about other people's ideas on topics of interest. Did you think the OP was making a formal argument, or inviting a contentious debate? Are you learning anything new? :smile:
Dialogue : As a narrative, philosophical or didactic device, it is chiefly associated in the West with the Socratic dialogue as developed by Plato, . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue
Debate : A debate is seldom a learning device, but merely two preachers pontificating to different choirs.
Quoting Banno
That's why I have put my personal scientific & philosophical worldview into the form of a non-academic thesis : Enformationism. I am not content to hold unscientific beliefs or emotional feelings on important matters.
Since I am now retired, I have followed up that step-by-step exposition, supported with references and side notes, with topical essays on a variety of related subjects. The basic theory has been expanded in recent years, into a personal philosophy, on my Blog, and in a Forum. In my posts, I also offer suggested reading tips for further exploration. My original primitive views have evolved over the last 12 years.
So, if you want more "depth" on my briefly expressed opinions it is readily available on all digital media. Anyone who is interested in a different perspective on the god question, and many other topics, can continue this dialogue on the BothAnd Forum. :nerd:
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
BothAnd Blog : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
BothAnd Forum : http://enformationism.info/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=3
Let me know I'll be happy to debate you one-on-one!!
If you're scared, say you're scared . LoL
Sounds good just so you know the rules will be wide open: all philosophical domains will be argued. But I will mainly focus on existentialism and phenomenology. Just let me know!!
I'm not much in to systematising philosophical positions; explication what you call a worldview. Nailing one's flag to a blog tends to set one's feet in mud... (that was dreadful!)
The fun for me is in the exploring, not in the mapping.
That's your fault; a failure to follow through. Your posts jump form topic to topic with gay abandon. No, if we are to debate, it will be on the argument in the OP, or a rendering of it that suits you better. That is what I requested.
If you are not up to that task, and since @Gnomon has no interest, we will wait on @Devans99.
Okay, how about we focus on existentialism and phenomenology?
Let me know!
Or even the most basic deductive logic, apparently, if they honestly think that they have executed a successful reductio and derived a genuine contradiction from an infinite past or infinite causal sequence.
Or, on the other hand, if they seriously believe "X is weird -> X is therefore impossible" is a compelling or valid argument then they clearly have not been following physics for the last century or so and would be quite shocked to learn about GR or QM (which are nothing if not weird and counter-intuitive, and apparently quite true despite that).
What about a debate on the merits of two-stoke engines.
I've no wish to debate a fool.
Don't hide behind ad hominem, if you're scared say you're scared LOL!
When one starts with the answer, philosophical discussion takes the form of the selection of suitable questions.
Starting from God, Aristotelian physics must be true, evolution false, and infinity anathema.
It's a larger concept, guy. Religion and evolution are just the circumstantial parameters of the thread. What can be or rather has been proven (because you're told so. No one can possibly witness a theoretical change that takes place over a span longer than any natural life) vs. what has not been being untrue simply due to that fact. Many other factors. Are you a biologist? Scientist? Archeologist? No? Then your reasoning is valid primarily due to your trust of authority. Things can be faked. Staged. They are all the time. Something tells me religion has disappointed you some. For reasons beyond what you make known here. I will see what can be done.
Again, it's all a larger concept. One inherently secular.
What bullshit - and I mean this in the technical sense of self-serving disregard for the truth.
I've seen that claim made in anti-evolution blogs. As if there were no History.
OP, hi. Could you maybe simplify all that for us simple or otherwise "tired" folk.
The whole idea of the universe beyond planets, humans, or life itself but rather stars, galaxies, or simply the vastness that is "everything" ie. anything that can be hypothetically or theoretically explored had to have been "made". As in there was a point when "everything" (here) didn't exist or even that is.. just always did eternally. It is a pretty intimidating concept to really think about deeply. The idea of... everything and anything itself. Not much more that can be thought about I suppose. I mean really thinking about it.
So. Timelessness. Is this "outside of the universe" as in there are other "realms" that cannot ever be reached, normally, from this one? Powerful stuff. Truly.
Every event had a cause, essentially. So the Big Bang that "created" the Universe had to have been due or otherwise set into motion by... God? Timelessness? Is God more of a concept to you as in a non entity? What's up.
[quote=Wikipedia]By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory. Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology. Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion, although he held that the two fields were not in conflict. [/quote]
This exemplifies, to my mind, the sense in which Catholicism is more intelligent than Protestant fundamentalism; it has a broad enough worldview to accomodate science and religion without having to see a conflict between them. (See also Aquinas vs Intelligent Design.)
However, in my view, the very fact of the 'big bang theory' will always seem to support the arguments of natural theology - because, after all, it does state that the entire vast universe burst into existence from a single, infinitesimally small point in a single instant. I think the early opposition to it on the grounds that it sounded like creation from nothing were quite well founded!
Not a very accurate characterization of the BBT, but no doubt if that was what it actually described then there may well have been something to all of this. But the BBT describes the evolution of the universe from a hot, dense early state some ~13.8 billion years ago into the cooling and expanding (at an accelerating rate) universe we presently observe. Not only is any absolute beginning or "popping into existence" not a generally accepted part of any cosmological model (including the BBT), we essentially know that GR ceases to be a good description of physical reality once we reach the point where the gravitational field dominates on the quantum scale and so our lack of a theory of quantum gravity means we can't make reliable predictions (and that the predictions we do make- like the hypothetical "t=0" spacetime singularity- are almost certainly wrong, and mere artifacts of a broken theory... or, at least, one pushed well beyond its domain of applicability).
So the supposed convergence or corroboration of the BBT with creationism or theistic cosmologies seems mostly rhetorical and fabricated, and is the same sort of round peg/square hole, old wine -> new skins scenario theology always seems to find itself in wrt specific scientific results (which is, to repeat my original comment, why it is inadvisable to tether your religious views to specific factual claims which may turn out other than you assume).
...as do attempts to defray the appeal of the ‘fine-tuning argument’ by referring to the possibilities of multiverses, of which ‘this universe’ ‘just happens to be one’.
:D
Swiftly abandoning a lost cause (pun intended), I guess.
As an aside, probably not everyone knows Banno's technical sense of bullshit: On Bullshit
Its textbook whataboutism: even if it were true that the notion that multiverses address the "problem" of fine-tuning is rhetorical and fabricated, that would not refute my suggestion that this is the case wrt theistic/creationist interpretations of the BBT- they could BOTH be true. Which is of course why whataboutism is fallacious just in general: the accusation that someone or something did something bad cannot be rebutted by the accusation that someone or something else did something bad too, since its completely possible that they both did something bad.
And its telling that the people who claim that the BBT meaningfully converges on or corroborates a theistic creation story are almost invariably... theologians and theists rather than physicists. That alone should tell you that their take on the relevant science may be suspect, and that this conclusion is motivated rather by religion and theology than science. And indeed that's precisely what it turns out to be: the part of the BBT that is suggested to corroborate theistic creation, isn't actually an accepted part of the BBT at all. Moreover, is something we are fairly certain is an artifact of a broken/incomplete theory (GR) rather than a description of anything physical (i.e. spacetime or gravitational singularities, like the one at the hypothetical "t=0" of the BB model, or at the center of stellar black holes, which indeed disappear in e.g. loop quantum gravity).
And from what little I know about string theory and quantum mechanics, the multiverse or parallel universes in these domains are also motivated at least in part by purely scientific concerns as well- the role of theological boogeyman in these proposals is, at least so far as I can tell, quite exaggerated.
Far more nuanced and interesting that other stuff hereabouts. Thanks.
That question doesn't make sense to me. I don't "believe" in logic. Logic is fundamental to my thinking.
Do you believe your own judgement? Then you believe in your understanding of logic.
I don't think the question was whether I believe what I said - whether I am arguing in good faith.
And thus your argument is circular: you assume that only a god can create a universe to defend the conclusion that whatever created the universe must be a god. It is not a separate point.
This sounds familiar, something about the distaste of having the Earth not at the centre of creation but as a planet that 'just happens to be one' of several in the solar system. I mean, any scientific theory that is contra to my religious beliefs is going to be silly, right?
It's not their main concern, but it is certainly a factor. It's routinely invoked as a counter to 'fine-tuning'-style arguments by pop-sci figures. In a review of 'arguments for the Multiverse', George Ellis notes that one of them is that:
DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story). By: Ellis, George F. R. Scientific American. Aug 2011, Vol. 305 Issue 2, p38-43.
I find it ironic that 'the landscape' of 10[sup]500[/sup] 'universes' can be considered 'a tidy explanation' for anything, but what do I know?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I was reading the other day somewhere that the fact of the earth being at the centre of the Universe was no cause for celebration, as the earth was regarded as being very lowly in the celestial hierarchy, and the centre of the earth was hell.
There’s an enormous amount of myth-making and historical disinformation about all of these issues. A lot of it was fabricated by the ‘conflict theorists’ of the late nineteenth-early 20th century (of whom Dawkins is a spiritual descendant, forgive the irony.)
There’s also a strong but subtle factor in many of these debates, which can generally be described as ‘Anything but God’. This is because the perceived historical conflict between religion and science is such that certain kinds of ideas, philosophies, attitudes, are circumscribed because they’re associated with religious ideologies. So there’s certain kinds of thinking that are just non-pc in secular culture.
Thomas Nagel has some worthwhile things to say about that, not least because he’s a member of the secular intelligentsia and also a professed atheist.
Yes, that's why the Inquisition put heliocentrists on trial, because they liked Hell not being at the centre of the universe.
I do not doubt theologians' ability to change their minds eventually, when continuing to deny something well established looks increasingly stupid. I disagree that this credits them with any wisdom after the fact.
My point was that dismissing multiverse theory on grounds of taste is just repeating the same silly mistake the church makes throughout its history. If multiple universes are possible, and the evidence is consistent with their possibility, even their inevitability, the claim that this one must be special (e.g. the only one, or perhaps "at the centre") is the special pleading that needs justifying or dismissing.
That doesn't demonstrate that there can't be an infinity of causes. In fact if the (n+1)th cause can't exist without the nth cause there should be a infinity of causes.:chin:
Quoting Devans99
So, your argument is:
1. Something about the universe must be uncaused OR there would be nothing
2. There is something (not the case that there's nothing)
Ergo
3. Something about the universe must be uncaused
Well, why can't that "something" be the universe itself? Why do you have to introduce a nth cause (god) if one takes the universe to the bet (n+1)th cause?
I would love to go on about what is so annoying in god arguments, but here's one point, what kind of god requires us to believe in it? It's one thing, I suppose, to hold an unwarranted belief, but it is quite another to insist on going about trying to convince others of it. Most religions don't bother with evangelism, only the biblical ones. Well, maybe Buddhism. What do you get out of it? Does this god get some sort of thrill out of our careless reasoning? Do evangelists get some sort of thrill out of convincing others of what they themselves acknowledge is an "act of faith"?
I do not find it strange at all.
Here is my take on the issue...which I have posted several times already:
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that gods are needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
what do you see wrong or objectionable about that?
Supertasks are obviously logically impossible - we are talking about performing a greater than finite number of steps in a finite time:
- Finite numbers go on forever, so its not possible for the number of steps to be greater than something that goes on forever
- The process of performing steps is just adding one to the step count; there is no way addition of one can ever produce a non-finite number.
Quoting Banno
Causation is matter/energy acting on matter/energy. So causation is just Newton's laws of motion. It is completely scientific and we have masses of empirical evidence to support the fact that causation is universal.
Quoting Banno
Causation is indeed complex. But we can abstract out some key details:
1. Causation is matter acting on matter via Newton's laws of motion.
2. All action takes place subject to the speed of light limit, so the cause precedes the effect
3. All empirical evidence indicates that every effect has a cause (at least at macro level, probably at micro level too - I already explained how there is a cause for radioactive decay for example).
4. A cause can cause multiple effects. Each effect in its turn can cause multiple follow on effects
5. So by [4], causation must form a pyramid shape in time, the first cause being at the tip of the pyramid
6. Entropy increasing with time reenforces this view - as causes and effects multiply, things become less organised so entropy increases.
If you look at the picture of the universe:
You can see that it takes on the pyramid shape I was referring to - with the Big Bang - likely the start of time - being the first cause.
Lets cut to the chase though. Do you think that the Big Bang has a cause or was uncaused?
Quoting Gnomon
Certainly seems that information is fundamental. A key question is that is information transitory, permanent or a mixture of both? For anything to exist at all in the universe, it seems there must be permanent information associated with it - the first cause is permanent. What about spacetime though? Does it contain permanent information (eternalism) or transitory information (presentism)? It could also be something in-between like growing block theory - information is permanent once created.
Quoting Banno
Nothing in science or philosophy is ultimately either falsifiable nor provable - all our deductions are based on axioms - and those axioms maybe true or false - so we can prove results only subject to our axioms being correct.
I believe that the axiom: 'Everything in time has a cause' is a very strong axiom, one which we live our everyday lives according to. Hence I have a strong conviction that there is a timeless first cause, as this is deducible from the axiom.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I mentioned growing block universe as a possible nature of spacetime. I wonder if that model could be used to model timeless existence in some way. So imagine a timeless thing as a brick that has permanent existence but can somehow grow as it timelessly experiences some sort of change.
Quoting Outlander
There has to be.
We can formulate a revised version of Leibniz’s PSR:
1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
[1] and [2] taken together imply that there must be a thing that has no reason outside of time - the timeless first cause (first reason). This argument points to a minimum of one 'brute fact’ to act as the tip of the pyramid of causality within time. That brute fact must exist outside of time, but also be able to cause the first effect within time (the Big Bang maybe).
Something outside of time can have no cause or reason - there is nothing 'before' it and it has 'always' existed. The existence of such an object is why there is something rather than nothing, but there is of cause no 'why' about it. Without such a permanent fixture, there would be nothing at all in the universe.
Quoting Enai De A Lukal
Time must have a start. The past is either a finite or infinite number of days long. If its infinite, then its longer than any finite number of days. But finite numbers go on forever, so that's impossible.
Quoting Outlander
I cannot say everything was created. Spacetime has a start - looks like the Big Bang probably. Matter/energy either entered spacetime at that point or was somehow created in the Big Bang. If it was the second, then some precursor matter/energy must have been inserted into spacetime as the trigger for the creation of the rest of the matter/energy. So there is something permanent outside spacetime that somehow 'caused' the Big Bang.
It appears that the 'timeless realm' either surrounds and encompasses spacetime or is causally connected to spacetime - it must be as it is the cause of spacetime.
Every effect in time has a cause, the Big Bang is in time, so it must have a cause. But logically one cause must be external to the seemingly transitory spacetime - it has a start. That cause must be timeless and permanent - it the root cause of causality - the cause of the start of time - the cause of all motion in the universe.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I doubt the first cause can be a random process:
- The signs of fine-tuning in the universe suggest intelligence
- The start of time suggests intelligence
- I'm not convinced true random is possible. That's informationally a something from nothing. All humans have ever been able to manage is pseudo-random. Anything pseudo-random has a cause, so it does not qualify as a first cause.
Quoting TheMadFool
A causes B. B causes C. D causes E.
If A did not cause B, would D cause E?
Hence we reach the conclusion that any causal regress must have a concrete first cause - they just can't stretch back infinitely.
Quoting TheMadFool
It could possibly be that the 'God' I refer to is somehow synonymous with the universe itself - the universe itself is somehow self-driven and capable of intelligent action. But personally, I think a distinct, intelligent entity is more likely.
There are no signs of teleological fine-tuning. That is an interpretation that once again assumes the necessity of an intelligent creator, making the argument still circular.
Quoting Devans99
Precisely the thing you seek to prove. Circular.
Quoting Devans99
I doubt that it could be an intelligent creator. Would you accept that as dismissal of Aquinus' and by proxy your proof? If not, why should anyone accept the above?
Quoting Devans99
The conservation-of-information argument is a good argument against certain interpretations of QM, such as the Copenhagen interpretation. All other forms contain probabilistics and conserve information.
That said, information is not proven to be a conserved quantity like energy or momentum anyway. If your argument relies on it, it ought to be stated as an assumption at least.
Hahaha....I know, I pray for him, just like a pray for Trump lol.
But seriously, just think about it. If you study enough philosophy, you will see that 90% of all domain's invoke or posit God's existence. Go figure... .
You were proposing that it was logical that human consciousness exists through logical necessity. And so, what else exists through logical necessity?
- There a many of signs of fine-tuning of the universe for life (see arguments given previously)
- The chances of the universe supporting life by purely a co-incidence are very remote.
- That correspondingly makes the chances of the universe supporting life by design very high.
There is really nothing circular about this argument: the universe is life supporting by accident or by design - these are only two possibilities - and by accident is exceedingly unlikely.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
We have the dimension-like degree of freedom that is called time. It has a start. I find the idea that it was started by a random process unlikely. As mentioned true random may not be possible, it would have to be pseudo-random and that would require an underlying cause. And also time looks like it was designed for the purpose of hosting evolution. And also I don't believe any random process that could result in the creation of a dimension-like structure like time - how could some poxy quantum fluctuation ever cause that? Then there is the Big Bang (probable start of time) - it looks a lot like it was intensional - for example the expansion of space is just what is needed to prevent everything collapsing into gravitational equilibrium (one big black hole), thus enabling life. So it seems the start of time was likely a deliberate act caused by an intelligent entity.
What's the alternative to "concrete" first cause? Is there another kind of cause we should be worried about?
Also, from your statement, If A did not cause B, would D cause E, I could ask what caused A? Either you'll posit a cause for A, in which case an infinite regress results or you'll say A is uncaused and if you do why shouldn't this A be the universe? Quoting Devans99
Why?
There appears to be no alternative - causality forms a pyramid-like structure in time, with the first cause at the tip of the pyramid and then causes and effects multiply out to form the rest of the pyramid (the base of the pyramid being today. Such a pyramid cannot exist at all without a concrete first cause.
Quoting TheMadFool
It could be the universe, but the speed of light is an argument against - parts of the universe are causally disconnected from each other (moving apart faster than the speed of light). So it the universe itself was some sort of intelligent entity, then parts of that entity would not be able to effect other parts, suggesting its not a valid entity. But maybe it somehow ignores the speed of light speed limit.
This is an alternative way of looking at the same problem:
1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
So there has to be one concrete reason (the first cause) outside time. That reason must be uncaused.
If only I had a dollar for all the times Cicero's said that to me.
It's nice of you to say so. I wander about vaguely here and there.
If one were to use logic (not that our sense of logic explains other world view's), the infinite regress of turtle power would mean that there was no Big Bang. If physical science had not discovered the phenomenon of the Big Bang, then I suppose you could argue that infinite regress, being one in the same as eternity, would have precluded the need for a first cause in the first place.
However, in that scenario you are still left with the question pertaining to the definition of time itself. So, to that end, in theory, time would be considered eternity then, right? There would be no need to consider a timeless cause.
And if that makes any sense, you would nonetheless still be wondering about what caused eternity. (And that's because you have something rather than no-thing that exists.)
Only if they are interpreted as being teleologically fine-tuned, which they are not. Hence the circularity. You find God in the evidence to support your proof of his existence, be he there or not. Which he's not.
Quoting Devans99
But these are arguments from ignorance. We do not know why the laws of nature are as they are, nor do we know if our universe is special. Leading theory has that it is not, and that theory at least has the features of being a) possible and b) mechanically worked out, which the God hypothesis is not blessed with.
The possibility of inflation theory being right not only rules out the non-existent necessity of an intelligent first cause, it renders whatever back-of-the-envelope estimate you have of our improbability meaningless.
Finally, any number, no matter how small, is large compared with zero. Even if we agree that the probability of this universe existing by chance is one in a trillion, that can still be (and is) much larger than the probability of it being created by a nonexistent creator. You cannot assume that God creating the world is more probable than accident in your proof that God exists. That would, again, be circular.
If we assume that God does not exist, the probability of him having created the universe is zero, compared to which sheer chance is good odds.
Actually, it's the other way round. I am saying the world is how it is because we exist. Humans existing means that the world must allow for humans to exist. That's essentially what the anthropic principle says.
When people ask the "fine tuning" question, they generally assume the viewpoint of some objective observer outside time. In a way, by doing that, one is assuming God. Because your actual perspective is that of the human asking the question, and you can't just ignore that.
You are correct in what you infer, that there is NO UNAMBIGUOUS evidence of fine-tuning.
The problem with your argument is the use of the singular "God" (and the unnecessary use of the singular masculine pronouns "he" and "him.")
Many gods may exists; a single god may exist; no gods may exist.
Your guess about that is no better than Devans...and your arguments in support of your guess no more sound or logical.
Of course. Then it (the anthropic principle) must preclude consciousness emerging from chaos then, right?
And, since you said: " Because only in a universe with patterns would there be some patterns capable of thinking about it. Logically, if humans can ask the question then the universe must allow humans. So, from a purely logical perspective, the answer to the question: "why does the universe allow for life?" is: "because there is life in it".
In other words, our existence is logically necessary. What else then is logically necessary to our conscious existence?
Even accepting this, how do you get from "there is a first cause outside time" to "God exists"? You're missing a premise, and also a definition of "God". Perhaps by "God" you just mean "the first cause"? So long as you don't then start sneaking in certain other properties like "being conscious", "having a will", "being all-powerful", "being all-knowing", etc. then you might have some ground to stand on. But then if it turns out that this "first cause" is just some impersonal thing like a quantum fluctuation of energy then what's the rationale for calling it "God"? It's a loaded term with so much extraneous baggage that it has no place in your argument except as a dishonest attempt to prove something like Christianity.
I might could answer that. You have much more evidence that the concept of God is behind the cause of conscious existence than atheism, which is no-thing. Or, perhaps there is some other sentient baggage at work that most angry atheists seem to have, who knows... .
Accordingly, the reality is It could be the same leap of faith that causes one to believe in the paradigm of atheism. But that would mean that atheism is just another religion LOL
How do you know these obvious and abundant signs of fine tuning are not teleological in nature?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Eternal Inflation theory does not rule out the need for a first cause - it explicitly requires a first cause - the anti-gravity material that starts off inflation has to come from somewhere.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
But the probability of the universe being a creation is rather high (its either a creation or not - that's 50% / 50% - plus all the other abundant signs that it was created - start of time, big bang, universe not in equilibrium, argument from causality, Aquinas's 3rd argument) and the probability of the fine tuning for life happening by accident is incredibly low. GO FIGURE.
I gave my definition of God here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/426361
The first cause is synonymous with God.
Quantum fluctuations don't fluctuate outside of time and the first cause must be timeless. Quantum fluctuations also respect the conservation of energy. They are also a fluctuation of a pre-existing field - they are not 'something from nothing'. Also, they are tiny so to all intense and purposes, they are causally inert - cannot be the source of the vast quantities of matter in the universe.
The extensive signs of fine tuning for life in the universe is one reason I think the first cause must be intelligent.
By "like" I meant "similar to". It might be that the first cause is just some impersonal "event" that without any intention or intelligence or will happened to create time, space, energy, etc.
Quoting Devans99
But your definition contains more terms than just "first cause". It also contains "intelligent" and "benevolent". You've done exactly what I warned you not to do; sneaked in properties that don't follow from your premises.
Your argument said nothing of "fine-tuning". Your argument was just:
1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
Nothing in this argument allows you to conclude that there is an intelligent and benevolent first-cause.
The first cause obviously has no cause, but it must cause the first effect. I do not believe in random - my argument is that random would be something from nothing in informational terms - impossible. We can only do pseudo-random with maths and computers and pseudo-random has a cause.
If the above is correct then the first cause is not a random act. Now it can't be caused or influenced by anything - so that seems just to leave a deliberate act as the only possibility.
But to be fair, I acknowledge that the main thrust of my 'the first cause is intelligent' argument comes from separate arguments that we have discussed since the OP was posted - IE fine tuning, the start of time, the universe is not in equilibrium. Things have got a little muddled.
Benevolent is a separate argument I did not mention. It assumes the first cause is intelligent. Then:
Your Orientation: EVIL Other Person’s Orientation: EVIL Result If you meet: Evil punishes evil
Your Orientation: EVIL Other Person’s Orientation: GOOD Result If you meet: Good punishes evi
Your Orientation: GOOD Other Person’s Orientation: EVIL Result If you meet: Evil punishes Good
Your Orientation: GOOD Other Person’s Orientation: GOOD Result If you meet: Good rewards Good
This argument applies to all intelligent entities (including the higher animals, any aliens, artificial intelligences and any gods) - everything is constrained to be good.
Why would an unintelligent first cause unintentionally creating time and space count as "something from nothing" but an intelligent first cause intentionally creating time and space not count as "something from nothing"? And what's wrong with "something from nothing" anyway? It might violate physical laws, but presumably the first cause which is responsible for the creation of physical laws isn't itself bound by them?
Quoting Devans99
Even granting the fine-tuning of the universe, it doesn't follow that the first cause is the thing responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe. Gnosticism for example believes in the Monad as the first cause and a separate demiurge with its subordinate archons as being responsible for fashioning the physical world.
So as well as showing that there is a first cause and that the fine-tuning of the universe depends on an intelligent designer you also need to show that the first cause is the intelligent designer.
My argument is that the first cause is not a random act, therefore it is a deliberate act - it has to be caused by something self-driven, self-motivated, IE intelligent. It cannot be some dumb, natural process as all dumb, natural processes have causes - so none of them can be the first cause.
Quoting Michael
But the Monad is the first cause and is so responsible for the existence of the demiurge. So the first cause is indirectly responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe (obviously the first cause is indirectly responsible for everything in the universe).
That wasn't your argument. Your argument was:
1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
Can you set out the premises that allow you to conclude that the first cause must be intelligent?
Quoting Devans99
You said that the first-cause must be intelligent because the universe is fine-tuned. But if something like a demiurge is responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe then this only suggests that the demiurge is intelligent. The first-cause might be unintelligent.
As is so often the case, definition is essential to any argument. If you want to prove that something exists, it's useful to define that something in the simplest, most abstract manner possible. The less to prove, the better. A creator God must, at the least, have caused the universe to exist. So, it's necessary, at the least, that there must have been something that caused the universe to exist.
Proof of that, according to some, is achieved by one of "Fat Tommy" Aquinas' "proofs" which is mentioned in the OP. That proof he borrowed like so much else from Aristotle.
However, if that "proof" is, in fact, a proof, all it establishes is a "cause" of the universe. But it seems that we can't know anything significant or even meaningful about that cause. It might be argued that such a cause must have existed before the universe did. That could be problematic, though, as "existence" as we know it as concept we define based on characteristics and events which take place in the universe. So, for that matter, is "cause." In fact, anything we know, anything we think, feel, speak of, observe, describe, or do, is based on what takes place in the universe.
So, we can't prove or infer that this "cause" has any of the characteristics we normally attribute to God.
We can't say that it is within us and everything else. We can't say that it's wise, loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, that it is Jesus (or whatever), that it listens to and answers prayers, that it requires we perform certain rituals, that it regulates our sexual conduct or other conduct, etc.
To prove such things about the "first cause" requires much more in the way of proof. I can't understand why the "proofs" of God's existence are of significance to anyone as a result. Believers in God as we normally think of God are reduced to the sad tactic which has been employed by Christian apologists for so long, which is merely to claim that the presumed first cause is Jesus and has all the traits we want it to have, consistent (sometimes) with what we think of Jesus.
Furthermore, this allows for multiple reasons that are outside of time. What if they're all jointly responsible for the creation of the physical world? Which one is "God"? Or what if just one "timeless reason" is responsible for the creation of the physical world (or the demiurge) but that it itself isn't a first-cause, having been created by some other reason that is outside of time?
There is so much that you try to conclude from the cosmological argument (even when considering also the teleological argument) that just doesn't follow from the premises.
1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
4. The thing that caused [3] is outside time - nothing caused it or comes logically before it
5. The reason in [3] is not purely random (random does not seem to be possible)
6. The thing that caused the first reason therefore acted in a self-driven, deliberate manner
7. Only intelligent things act in a self-driven, deliberate manner (automons are created so cannot be the first cause).
Quoting Michael
If the demiurge was created, he was created directly or indirectly by the first cause and that would require intelligence.
If the demiurge evolved somehow, then the universe must be such that it supports evolution. That would require fine tuning of the universe - which would be caused by the first cause, implying an intelligent first cause.
Quoting Michael
Does causality (or something like it) apply outside time somehow?
- If yes, then all the reasons outside time are caused by a common first reason/cause.
- If something like causality does not apply outside time, then we could imagine multiple timeless things co-existing. It is most likely that one of them only is responsible for our universe. I am not sure how they could collaborate without something like causality. But I agree, it might somehow be a joint effort. So there seems a small chance of multiple gods.
Another hidden premise to be added to 1-3? Revise the argument? Anything else to add?
Quoting Devans99
Why?
(Besides, both "deliberate" and "act" are loaded, indicating where you started rather than where you ended.)
You somehow wish to show an "atemporal deliberate act" of a unique, thinking, living superbeing deity...? :D
Here atemporal is inert and lifeless at best. Or perhaps just an abstract object if you want to go all Platonista. Neither admit such lavish personification.
Anyway, with strangely "atemporal causes", I'd sort of expect an infinite universe.
Start over. Try something more defensible.
If part of your own conscious existence (intelligence) is both physical and metaphysical, and the idea of intelligence is both physical and metaphysical, then could it be reasonably inferred that intelligence is behind the cause of the universe including your own conscious existence?
In other words, explain how consciousness emerges from complete chaos?
You have no idea what atemporal could be. Just because all the change we know of is within time, does not imply that change is impossible without time:
1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?
These are problematic premises that need further support (re. 4. the problematic part is "nothing caused it or comes logically before it").
Quoting Devans99
Why? You don't seem to have a problem with an intelligent first cause just existing without any explanation, so why is it a problem for an unintelligent first cause to be responsible for the creation of an intelligent "second cause"?
This is the probability theory of the amateur theologian, not of the mathematician. The error is always the same: we cannot prove God does not exist, therefore his probability of existing is 50%. That is false. To see this, simply consider the God hypothesis plus two unproven and mutually exclusive scientific hypotheses, say eternal inflation plus a symmetric universe with only a locally defined arrow of time.
The truth of any of them is unknown, but they can't each have a probability of 50% since the total probability of any of them must be <= 100%.
This does not define the probabilities as 1/(no. hypotheses), rather exemplifies the invalidity of the fallacy, endlessly repeated whether out of ignorance or dishonesty by creationists.
A hypothesis that requires two tests of equal importance, only one of which is completed, might be said to have a probability of 50%. The God hypothesis has been examined for millenia, tested in many ways, compared to evidence, and can be well said to have negligible probability.
Quoting Devans99
The inflaton field can be eternal, and can have yielded an infinity of universes via quantum superposition. Some models do not even require superposition, only local collapse of the field's metastable state.
Quoting Devans99
A man in an alley pulls you aside. "Come in to my home, I will give you a thousand dollars." You go in, he smacks you over the head, takes your wallet, and drags you outside. Next day you see him again. "Come in to my home, I will give you a thousand dollars." Technically the probability of him giving you a thousand dollars is nonzero. But, in practical terms, you know he will not.
But let's give him the benefit of the doubt just in case. You go in, he smacks you over the head, takes your new wallet, and drags you outside. Next day you see him again. And this happens every day for the rest of your life. At what point can you be quite certain that a crazy guy who is notoriously full of crap and who appears to do more harm that good is telling you something that is untrue?
That's how I know the claim of a teleological universal origin made by creationists can be dismissed as having at best negligible likelihood. That and the fact nature herself has given me every opportunity to observe that she just doesn't work that way.
I don't think there is a way out. The only way out is, if the Big Bang did not happen, which would make time itself, eternity/outside of time (?)
Re 4, Making the ‘can’t get something from nothing’ assumption leads to the conclusion that something permanent must exist - if the universe was ever in a state of nothingness, then ‘can’t get something from nothing’ implies it would still be in a state of nothingness today - so something must have permanent existence - but nothing can exist permanently in time.
This argument, along with the causality argument and the proof of the start of time, point to a timeless first cause - a permanent thing outside of all forms of time, that was somehow the root cause of the start of time and everything else.
There can be nothing sequentially or logically prior to the timeless first cause - the word ‘before’ only applies to objects within time. So there can be no cause, reason, explanation for the first cause - it has permanent, uncreated, existence.
The first cause is synonymous with ‘something’ in the question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’. So this question is not applicable - the first cause does not have a ‘why’ property.
Perhaps a good way to answer the question is that: something must have permanent, uncaused existence outside time so there can be no reason for such a thing’s existence.
Re 5, I feel science (and maths/computing) is largely supportive of the conclusion that true randomness is impossible. I feel in the few occasions that science points to random behaviour, it is merely our lack of understanding of the cause of the seemingly random behaviour that is the problem. There seems to be no substitute for causality when it comes to actually effecting physical change in the universe.
Quoting Michael
The intelligent "second cause" needs an environment that is life supporting. So its environment must be fine tuned by the first cause.
I think eternity is impossible; it's a form of infinity. So even without the BB, the universe would require a start in time.
Look at your argument again:
1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
How do you get from "at least one reason must be outside of time" to "there is only one reason outside of time and it is the first cause"?
Quoting Devans99
Why? Does the intelligent "first cause" need an environment that is life supporting? If not then why must the "second cause"?
Correct we would be wondering what started or caused infinity and or eternity, right?
Apparently you are not alone in your apathy toward a rationalized worldview. Most people on this and other forums prefer to express how they feel about a particular topic, than to present a logical argument, supported by specific pertinent evidence. Most people's belief systems are based on hand-me-down Faith, instead of personal Reason; hence prove to be narrow, incoherent, and inconsistent when probed by Socratic dialogue. They live in a "reality tunnel" of religion or ideology.
I'm used to such wishy-washy worldviews on general forums. But it's disappointing on a philosophy forum. I suspect that such insipid thinking may be due to the recent teaching of Continental and Postmodern philosophies in universities. Those doctrines tend to be apathetic toward the "grand narratives" and discriminating definitions of Modernism, hallmarks of reason.
Quoting Banno
Personally, I would say that writing a reason-based blog allows one to "take a firm stand" rather than wallowing in the mud of mushy feelings & opinions.
Quoting Banno
I like to do both : exploring and mapping the world, in order to navigate life with a clear up-to-date worldview. :smile:
Worldview : One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical or consistent theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview – precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[19] However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview
1. Start at 50%/50% for the unknown boolean question ‘is the universe a creation?’
2. Time has a start. 50% probability of a creator due to this gives: 50% + 50% * 25% = 75%
3. Universe is not in equilibrium 25% probability of a creator giving: 75% + 25% * 25% = 81%
4. Causality based arguments. 25% probability of a creator giving: 81% + 19% * 25% = 85%
5. Fine tuning 50% probability of a creator giving: 85% + 15% * 50% = 92%
6. Big Bang 25% probability of a creator giving: 92% + 8% * 25% = 94%
7. Aquinas 3rd argument, etc...
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Nothing can be eternal - infinity is complete bullshit.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Sorry - you have lost me there.
But here's the irony, mathematical truths that describe the laws of nature are eternal unchanging truth's.
So we have within our grasp a sense of eternity which doesn't make it impossible.
Repeating the same error does not alleviate that error.
Quoting Devans99
Then God is screwed.
Causality (or anything similar) can only form a pyramid shape with the first cause at the top and everything else caused by it building out the pyramid below.
So if causality (or anything similar) exists outside of time that implies a single first cause.
If something like causality does not apply outside time, then we could imagine multiple timeless things co-existing. It is most likely that one of them only is responsible for our universe. I am not sure how they could collaborate without something like causality. But I agree, it might somehow be a joint effort. So there seems a small chance of multiple gods.
Quoting Michael
The first cause has to be timeless and uncreated, yet capable of change. Nothing can come before it logically or temporally so it cannot have a fine-tuned environment.
How would the first cause create an intelligent 2nd cause? The only way to do it is evolution and that requires a fine tuned environment.
I started at 50%/50% before taking any of the evidence into account.
Then I allowed for the evidence for/against the proposition that the universe is a creation - resulting in a 95% chance that the universe is a creation.
Maybe I missed out some evidence?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
God is timeless and finite.
It all comes down to the axiom of infinity in ZFC, it says a set with a greater than finite number of object in it actually exists. That's just bullshit.
You posted the exact same argument 5 month ago where no fewer than five expert mathematicians told you that probabilities are not calculated like that.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/371473
If you're not going to listen to any counter-arguments, what exactly is the point of you posting here with the exact same errors? I know Tim and I have been a bit abrupt in our approach, but I think that it's grossly unfair of you to draw people into a discussion when you know full well from the outset that you have no intention of listening to, nor have the slightest interest in, anything they have to say. I don't think it's right that you get to treat the site like your personal soapbox. It's supposed to be for discussion.
Devan, am I correct in my reply below?
Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?
— Devans99
I don't think there is a way out. The only way out is, if the Big Bang did not happen, which would make time itself, eternity/outside of time (?)
I'm listening but none of your counter arguments are persuasive.
The way out I think is to have a first cause that is timeless and finite.
But isn't timelessness eternity? Just as a formality.
I imagine timelessness as a state outside time - completely atemporal. A timeless thing is never created and never destroyed - it has permanent atemporal existence - it just IS.
But as the timeless thing is outside the passage of time, it does not need to be infinite to exist eternally; it can suffice with finite dimensions.
The problem with this is how does change happen without time? The timeless thing has to at least be able to express change within spacetime. Maybe it is non-sequential somehow in nature? This is where I am stuck.
This supposed "pyramid" might exist "outside time" as well. There may be a first cause that is responsible for a second cause (which is also outside time) and then this second cause may be responsible for the creation of time and space and matter.
Which one, if either, is intelligent? Which one, if either, is benevolent? Which one, if either, fine-tuned the universe? Which one, if either, is God? Your cosmological argument doesn't answer any of these questions which is why it fails to do what you claim it does.
Quoting Devans99
How would the first cause create time and space and matter and consciousness? Creating a second intelligent cause that doesn't require a fine-tuned environment might in fact be simpler than creating an entire, ordered universe.
You need supporting reasoning for this claim.
Five people rebutted that maths. They all told you where the error was. You refused to believe them. That's the point. If you're just going to refuse to believe anyone telling you that you've made a mistake, and you already know you're going to do that, because you did it five months ago, exactly the same way, then it is disingenuous of you to post on a discussion site. Start a blog.
We can say what atemporal is not. Atemporal as "outside" it all would also be nowhere and nowhen, not even simultaneous with whatever.
So demonstrate this atemporal change, it's your argument (and presumably you don't want to add more appeal to ignorance or special pleading).
I'm almost inclined to just say it: "Devans99's God Almost Certainly Does Not Exist". :D Start over. Try something more defensible.
By the way, you forgot to add your extra premise(s) when you repeated 1-3. Seems like hard determinism, which, incidentally, has further implications.
And I did give an example, which now was raised by:
Quoting 3017amen
3017amen's God is an abstraction. A fairly radical departure from most religions that comes to mind. That's assuming the assertions here.
Isn't this stuff old territory? Already covered in your old threads, @Devans99? (If so, it hasn't become better with age.)
Fair enough, but the first cause is indirectly responsible for the creation of spacetime.
Quoting Michael
- If the second cause is intelligent, then it was evolved which implies it had a fine tuned environment which implies the first cause was intelligent.
- If the second cause is not intelligent, the fine tuned nature of our environment implies the first cause was intelligent.
Quoting Michael
Spacetime is some sort of growing container that would have to be seeded with matter from outside spacetime to cause the Big Bang and the expansion of space (expansion of the container). So at least some matter came from outside spacetime. Maybe all of it or the initial seed of matter somehow created all the rest of the matter in spacetime. Eternal Inflation theory has it like that (2nd way).
I'm not that sure how the actual container of spacetime was created. Very loosely speaking, I imagine some sort of device - a gravity bomb of sorts. Again this is similar to Eternal Inflation theory (its a bit of anti-gravity material rather than a bomb though).
Consciousness evolved.
We are so complex that it is just not possible to design an intelligent entity (30 billion neurons or so we have, just in our brain). The only way a first cause could create intelligent entities is with evolution - brute force - God maybe playing Conway's Game Of Life with the universe.
1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?
That's your, biased, version of events. My recollection is that no-one had any valid counter arguments.
It's got nothing to do bias. People definitely told you where your error was, and you definitely did not believe them. You can't claim that didn't happen, read the thread. The validity of counter-arguments has only three possible sources (that I can think of) - expertise, ubiquity, or your own beliefs. Without doubt the people who engaged with you last time had more expertise than you, and more claim to ubiquity, so claiming their counterarguments were invalid means that you've no interest in the first two measures of validity. But it's only those first two which are produced in discussion. So if you know in advance that you're not interested in either it's impolite of you to start.
Literally nothing anyone is going to say to you here will make any difference. If it contradicts what you think is valid (which you've already made quite clear), you'll simply ignore it. So, again, what's the point in posting?
- If people show I'm wrong, I admit it and change my position
- If no-one shows I'm wrong, I continue to press my argument
Give me a link to where I was proved wrong about the math and I'll demonstrate to you that I was not.
What method are you using to assess whether someone has successfully shown you you're wrong?
- I use deduction and induction (abduction not so much)
- I argue for things I think are greater than 50% likely to be true.
- I argue against things I think are less than 50% likely to be true.
- I carefully consider everyone's counter arguments and adjust my probability estimates accordingly.
One can deduce anything from any premises. I'm asking you how, in cases where others have deduced something different, you determine which is correct - your deduction or theirs?
Quoting Devans99
Arguing is the statement of your case and counter-case, it's not, in itself, a method of determining right cases from wrong.
Quoting Devans99
Again, I can carefully consider the argument "my hands are made of jelly". Merely carefully considering something is not a means of determining right arguments from wrong ones.
Another way of looking at the issue. How did you learn maths? You must, at some point, have faced the necessity to be told something is the case which didn't, at that time, seem to you to be the case. Why did you decide to follow along with what your teacher was telling you, until such time as you understood it?
Sometimes there are logical errors in the actual deduction, but mostly it is bad axioms that undermine arguments. Some people believe in some f**king crazy shit:
- Infinity
- Something from nothing
- Continua
I do not fall for that sort of thing - its just f**king magic! - completely impossible. So my axioms are different from some people, and hence I deduce different results.
Quoting Isaac
We have to accurately express our faith in our axioms. I assess my faith in the axiom of causality is almost certain (97.3% maybe). From that I deduce a timeless first cause with the same level of certainty (97.3%).
I have a degree in maths. I swallowed infinity hook, line and sinker just like everyone else. Its only after years of thinking about it that I realised I made a mistake.
In general, if I don't understand, I ask or find out some other way. So I don't 'follow along with things' I don't understand - I understand them, although I admit that QM is presenting a major challenge!
How do you determine a logical error, in cases where your interlocutor claims there is no error? How do you determine who is correct?
Quoting Devans99
How do you determine that an axiom is bad?
Quoting Devans99
No. We don't. We may well have a degree to which we believe in an axiom, it does not follow that we have to express it, what would be the purpose?
Quoting Devans99
I wasn't asking about your qualification, I was asking about the means by which you acquired it. We're you born knowing all maths, or were you taught some of it? If the latter, then on what grounds did you believe your teachers prior to you yourself understanding the concept?
Quoting Devans99
Ask whom, and on what grounds do you believe what they have to say?
Quoting Devans99
What is this other way?
And that was the first mistake. If you're going for Bayesian estimates, you can't just say X and !X are 50/50. At the start of a game of Clue(do), the probability of the culprit being Col. Mustard or not Col. Mustard is not 50/50.
Quoting Devans99
If he's timeless, he's eternal. The inflaton field is also timeless btw insofar as its value doesn't change with time.
Sure jorndoe, thanks for that observation. Being a Christian Existentialist myself, it serves to support my views concerning the concept of God being Dipolar (similar to the God physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God posits) in that, God is both timeless and within time (temporal/a-temporal) all at the same time.
The important or consistent part to that is : 1. it defies logic/LEM which is fine. 2. yet it is still within the realm of logic (logical possibility) because of abstract mathematical truth's existing (which describe the laws of nature/existence) being logically possible/eternal/unchanging truth.
And so, as with human conscious existence (intelligence), where you have both consciousness and subconsciousness defying logic (LEM), why couldn't an 'intelligent cause' be that which is both abstract and beyond logic to us?
The mere concept of God then, is both logical and illogical as it should be(?). If there was a way to create time and existence (something from nothing/or just simply a universe itself), then this entire causation discussion would not exist, literally and figurately. That's my Existential take; absurd, yet not so absurd, when analogized to our existence.
Of course, that begs other questions like what is the nature of God's intelligence and does God even have consciousness for which we cannot even explain in ourselves, along with other questions like what was God doing before he created Time (BB), and was timelessness and eternity created or caused having a starting point...ad nauseum.
For shits and giggles, here's an excerpt from Eternity in Christian Thought that attempts explanation of a Dipolar God:
Timeless Without and Temporal With Creation
William Lane Craig’s view is that God is timeless without creation, and temporal with creation (Craig 2000). God exists timelessly “without” creation rather than before creation, because there isn’t literally a before. And so it can’t literally be the case that God becomes temporal, since becoming anything involves being first one thing and then the other. Nonetheless, God is “timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation ”, God “enters time at the moment of creation” (Craig 2000: 33). God exists changelessly and timelessly, but by creating, God undergoes an extrinsic change “which draws Him into time” (Craig 2000: 29).
The problem is that even extrinsic change still presupposes a before and after (Leftow 2005: 66). Craig is aware of the difficulty:
[O]n such a view, there seem to be two phases of God’s life, a timeless phase and a temporal phase, and the timeless phase seems to have existed earlier than the temporal phase. But this is logically incoherent, since to stand in a relation of earlier than is by all accounts to be temporal. (Craig 2000: 32)
His solution is
that “prior” to creation there literally are no intervals of time […] no earlier and later, no enduring through successive intervals and, hence, no waiting, no temporal becoming. This state would pass away, not successively, but as a whole, at the moment of creation, when time begins.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#TimeWithTempCrea
NICE! I just saw that while I was posting. Let me do a look-see.... and would love to offer my take on it...
Ditch your hidden premise thus heading towards determinism; entertain abstract objects (which does not deny atemporality by the way).
Banno mentioned the edge-free universe. Others have been pointed out, including in your old threads.
You haven't responded much.
It's merely a mechanical process. I can't remember all the details, modus ponens and so on.
Quoting Isaac
Axioms most usually represent our inductive level of belief in a certain statement of fact. If the axiom has a high probability of being true, I adopt it. If not, I reject it.
Quoting Isaac
How can you possibly quantify your level of belief in an axiom if it is not with a percentage?
Quoting Isaac
I stuff I did not understand, I assigned a 50%/50% probability to - unknown. Since then, I have had a chance to revisit the areas of maths that are relevant to my interests and I believe I have a proficient grasp of these areas.
Quoting Isaac
Belief cannot stem from what others say, only from strong conviction in a small set of axioms, and the act of deducing the required results, can we actually say we believe something. Other people make mistakes or may even try to deliberately mislead you (eg organised religion) - you have to think it through for yourself to have knowledge.
Quoting Isaac
Internet is wonderful.
Intelligence is part of the universe (there are intelligent beings in the universe--sometimes, anyway). We may not fully understand it, but it's here, like we are. How can we reasonably infer from the fact that intelligence is in the universe that it is also "someplace" outside of the universe?
I am using a methodology of my own inventing with that calculation. Take a look - its perfectly reasonable. The approach is to first assume 50%/50% for an unknown, boolean question. Then that percentage is adjusted by weighing in individual pieces of evidence. So with that type of approach, it is actually correct to start with the assumption of 50%/50%.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
The word 'eternity' has two meanings: infinite in time or external to all forms of time. The first is impossible, with the second, something can be external to time but finite. The simplest model (although it does not work) is to assume that 4d spacetime is mapped onto 4d space and there is some 4d object - the first cause - adjacent to the position of spacetime within the larger 4d space. There is nothing to stop this 4d object from being finite - indeed it must be.
I have an attachment to the LEM! I am not convinced we can build logical states of existence without it.
Quoting 3017amen
The problem with this argument is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Anything in time withers and dies. God would not enter time in my opinion. He would stay external. Spacetime maybe implemented as growing block theory, meaning we (humans) would have an eternal presence. But can we re-experience anything? I have a few ideas around this.
Great question. Because when we naturally use our sense of wonder (the Kantian 'all events must have a cause') axiom, then we naturally default to regressive reasons that invoke Anthropology, and the other way around. Causation leads us to inferences about ourselves, our self-awareness, our existence, our consciousness, and other Anthropic theories of existence, etc..
Otherwise, we are left with consciousness emerging from complete chaos. Or, in the alternative, nothingness, meaninglessness, nihilism, etc..
We are trapped in our metaphysical sense of wonderment.
Quoting jorndoe
Whats wrong with determinism? We know of no other way to get things done except causality. Randomness is just not possible - we can't do it with computers or maths - so it very likely does not exist - its determinism all the way.
Quoting jorndoe
Finite yet unbounded. Is that some sort of joke?
It's not the name of the process I'm interested in here. It's the fact that others will consider themselves to have gone through the same, or an equally valid, process. I'm interested in what's behind your reasoning in asking other people for their comments, knowing all along that you possess all you need to determine that you have the right answer.
Quoting Devans99
But how can you possibly assess the probability of an axiom being true? To do that you must assess the soundness of the factors leading to it, in which case it's a conclusion, not an axiom.
Quoting Devans99
I wasn't criticising the means of measurement, I was asking about your motive for telling everyone what measurements you give it. As I said above, I you want critique or analysis of your method for deriving that probability, then it's not an axiom, it's a conclusion.
Quoting Devans99
No you didn't. You did not proceed through your mathematics education acting as if it were equally likely that your teachers were wrong as it was that they were right. That's just a silly thing to claim.
Quoting Devans99
What gives you cause to believe that?
Quoting Devans99
Do you not make mistakes then? How would you know if you had without the knowledge held by the community against which to check it?
Note also the idiosyncratic (to put it kindly) use of probability. Is it mathematics in general?
@Devans99 wants to show an atemporal god "outside" it all.
One that strangely acted deliberately and timelessly to create the universe.
Nonsense, yes, I know, but that seems to be @Devans99's belief...err aim.
So that's the topic here.
Say each of us has a 10% probability of getting a given question wrong. If there are two of us, then we double check: 10% X 10% = 1%. And so on.
With my posts, I am searching for evidence supporting or undermining of my ideas.
Quoting Isaac
Well that's partly deduction and partly induction. An axiom has to be logically acceptable - not lead to any contradictions (eg ?+1=0 implies 1=0). But there also has to be supporting empirical evidence too (where are these actually infinite things? There are no examples in nature at all).
So for example, have I ever experienced a phenomena that did not have a cause? No. So I have a large sample size of empirical data that 100% points to the existence of a timeless first cause.
Then these are bizarre research reports from niche QM researchers questioning causality. No-one actually understands QM so what value actually should I place in such reports? Virtually none, in comparison to the evidence of my own senses.
Quoting Isaac
Some knowledge stems from definitions. We can define 1+1=2 and then knowledge of the rest of the natural numbers is deduced from that definition. A definition is a concrete type of axiom, upon which we can depend.
But the majority of knowledge stems from inductive axioms - it is very likely that such and such - I'm 90% certain of X, and so forth.
So to clearly communicate most of what we class as knowledge, we must also express a level of confidence. I'm 97.3% convinced there is a timeless first cause and so on...
Quoting Isaac
I understood nearly all of it. I waded through all the proofs too. But some things I did not get. The things I did not get, I've since revisited.
Quoting Isaac
I think I understand it better than most mathematicians. Both of the axiom of infinity and the axiom of choice are wrong. There are as a result large sections of maths that are complete marsh gas.
Quoting Isaac
Thats why I'm here - to get your thoughts on these ideas.
Yes. Twice now.
I don't call those answers.
1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?
I cannot. So I conclude that timelessness, as bizarre as it may sound, is almost certainly a real concept.
I'm not sure that suffices to make a reasonable inference, but I think I understand what you're saying and acknowledge its persuasiveness. I would say it's more an evocation than an inference; nothing magical, but like a great work of art, poem or music. Something evokes a kind of conclusion.
Have you ever read C.S. Pierce's article A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God? He can be difficult to read sometimes, but his concept of "musement" fascinates me.
I would say it shows, had I not seen Stephen Unwin use the same approach. If it is reasonable, apply it to the analogy given. The probability of Col. Mustard being the killer is 50/50 by your reasoning. The probability of Prof. Plum being the killer is also 50/50. The probability of Mrs. White being the killer is 50/50. The probability of Miss. Scarlet being the killer is 50/50. The probability of Rev. Green being the killer is 50/50. The probability of Mrs. Peacock being the killer is 50/50.
Do you see what's gone wrong here? And why?
Quoting Devans99
Actually they're the same. An object, let's consider for simplicity a 3D object, that is timeless: f(x,y,z)... not time. Now let's consider a 3D object in time that is always identical to itself at any given time: f(x,y,z,t)=f(x,y,z,T)=f(x,y,z). A thing that is eternally identical to itself at any time is timeless. The inflaton field is such a thing. It is forever expanding, but at every time and position is homogenous.
What are you talking about! With that stupid game, say there are 10 characters, then the probability of each being the killer is 1 / 10 = 10%. That has absolutely nothing to do with my probability calculation - have you read it?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Thats a nice argument.
- time has a start - so spacetime is a subset of a wider environment. So its not possible for the object to have the same status as a timeless object - it is restricted in the dimension of time by the start of time. Eternal inflation is a very funny joke - eternal is impossible in time - where eternal inflation takes place. Those nuts think infinity is possible - It's all finite.
- unless, either eternalism or growing block theory is true. In that case everything, in some unknown way, classes as timeless and eternal (but finite), but to maintain the only idea we have about how stuff actually happens, it has to support something like causality, which implies everything cannot be co-eternal, so maybe glowing block? But its a tricky question.
I confess, pretty much. It caught my eye -- posts aren't normally so almost offensively silly to me.
Quoting 3017amen
The fact that your mind automatically goes to labeling me "atheist" is yet another reason against you. If you're a teenager or young adult, then my apologies. I assume only older people post here.
Of course I broad-brushed the response. The classic example that directly involves abstract metaphysical/timeless truths, is the existence of mathematical genius. Mathematics are objective metaphysical, timeless truths (as far as living in this world is concerned). The nature of mathematics by implication involves many of those concepts from our conscious existence.
The one existential inference that relates to the existence of math is, the fact that we don't need the laws of gravity to dodge falling objects. There is no Darwinian biological survival value. And yet it is so effective in describing the physical universe and of course works in everydayness and/or the engineering profession, construction, etc. etc..
Point is we can abstractly describe physical objects by running calculations through the discipline of mathematics. I can run a calculation to size up a roof truss that doesn't exist yet. Similarly, I would not need to run abstract calculations in order to dodge falling objects.
And so we have this abstract existence, that metaphysical existence, that exists in our consciousness.
What is the likelihood of those features of human existence having emerged from complete chaos, nothingness, purposelessness, etc?
Same with the existence of music and music theory. And of course likewise anything that relates to intelligence beyond lower life forms; self-awareness, phenomenology (love, wonderment, sense of time, colors, ad nauseum) etc.,etc..
The good news is that we are able to make distinctions between abstracts which provide for our quality of life, whether it's buildings, engineering, cars, love, music, and so on. The bad news is, within the realm of this human condition there exists an old adage called ignorance is bliss LoL.
Again, we are trapped in this metaphysical sense of wonderment and causation.
I have not read the publication you mentioned thank you. Can you give me a synopsis?
Likewise my apologies if that label does not fit the bill. Actually there's probably a decent amount of atheists who are in-the-closet agnostic.
But much like the far right-wing extremist/fundamentalist, the stereotypical atheist comes across as angry and bitter. But let's not derail the thread.
Don't want to put words in your mouth but I too, would rather maintain a positive spirit wherever possible... .Thanks for planting the seed... :up:
Quoting Devans99
Whatever you or I believe has little bearing on the truth of the matter. Our beliefs are the adjustable parts, and so we adjust our beliefs to it all, we don't adjust it all to our beliefs. No manner of repetition here can somehow compel it all to be so.
Quoting Devans99
And yet you've been presented with alternatives to your assertions, a few of them by now.
Indefinite Causal Order in a Quantum Switch (Goswami, Giarmatzi, Kewming, Costa, Branciard, Romero, White; APS; Aug 2018)
(also ... the Casimir effect, virtual particle pairs, quantum fluctuations, radioactive decay, spacetime foam/turbulence, the "pressure" of vacuum energy, Fomin's quantum cosmogenesis (successors), Krauss' relativistic quantum fields, ...)
And you still haven't responded to a number of other points (though you have re-re-repeated your beliefs a few times).
Quoting Devans99
No. (FYI, the link is the earliest reference in the literature I know of.)
"obviously" is one of those words that philosophers look out for. It usually marks an assumption, often erroneous.
There is a recurrent theme of late, concerning those amongst us who have not grasped what we might loosely call the mathematics of infinity, and how this relates to fractured ceramics.
I linked to the Stanford article on supertasks, which clearly explains what they are and how they are not logically impossible. In the face of that your insistence is fractious.
I'm neither -- just as I'm neither about ectoplasm. Until someone explains what it is, I can't be for it, against it, or agnostic about it.
Quoting 3017amen
Fair enough.
Well, no. "Every action has a cause" is not one of Newton's laws, nor is it implied by them.
Indeed, the argument in the OP takes cause as read, ignoring the considerable philosophical discussion around this topic. This ought be addresses, if you are going to carry your argument.
Interesting.
Think about the nature of your own existence. If someone doesn't explain to you the nature of your own existence, what would be the purpose of same ( your own existence)?
In the alternative, if someone does happen to explain to you the nature of your existence, what position should you take, and on what basis, using logic or some other method/phenomenal experience (?).
Believe it or not, those questions relate to causation.
Lies-to-children might be worthy of its own thread. The Wiki article is surprisingly good, and even references my favourite philosopher Terry Pratchett (of loving memory).
The simplification of a complex issue is an effective teaching method. The presumption is that the child - or adult - will eventually come to see the oversimplification.
However this does not always happen, and sometimes folk will attempt deductions and predictions based on lies-to-children; that is what has happened here.
Well, no, that's not a pyramid. Indeed, this very diagram is often used to show how space-time may approach t=0 asymptotically. Amusingly, it is even used in the wiki article explaining Hawking's view
edit: oh, and take a look at the text on the extreme left... what's that say? What happens to causation in QM?
Neither. This is a loaded question.
Have you stoped beating your wife?
@Enai De A Lukal mentioned whatabutism earlier. Further examples were not needed.
Quoting Devans99
This is a description of your personal psychological state.
While it may explain why you cannot see the multifarious flaws in your argument, it is pretty much irrelevant to the rest of us deciding if you argument is cogent.
As I understand it, Information can be both permanent (eternal) and temporal (transitory). I illustrate that BothAnd notion by looking at Shannon's boiled-down basic Information, containing no specific meaning. It's defined as a string of 1s and 0s, something or nothing. I imagine that static dichotomy set in motion as an oscillation of spacetime (waveform) varying between [1] (maximum, and [-1] (minimum, with an average baseline of (0) no signal. Reality though, is a complex waveform, that contains the kind of Information that our senses interpret as Meaning (Mind, ideas), or as Thingness (physical objects).
So the waveform of our universe defines an ontological continuum that varies from positive Reality (actual) to Nonexistence (nothingness) to negative Reality (potential). The positives & negatives describe physical-temporal existence that comes & goes : Life & Death; while the zeros describe a state equivalent to Timeless Eternity. In my thesis, I interpret the baseline nothingness as the normal state of Ontology (BEING), which is also the eternal state of Logos, the Enformer. An act of Creation (Enformation, Causation) causes the neutral state to transition into positive-but-transitory existence (real, actual, Energy), which soon dissipates into (unreal, potential, Entropy). I go further to imagine fast oscillations (lightspeed) as Energy, and slow oscillations as Matter.
I'm sure this Enformationism "explication" sounds speculative & far-out, but your question was also pretty unconventional, and called for conjecture. I feel sure a physicist (Paul Davies) could translate my analogies & metaphors into mathematical equations. But, this is about as far as my layman's interpretation of Information can go into essential Ontology. :nerd:
PS__I wouldn't recommend that you waste your time debating abstruse Ontological concepts, such as existence of God. You wouldn't convince anyone that you are right, and they won't respect your unconventional erudition.
ESSENTIAL WAVEFORM OF CREATION
COMPLEX WAVEFORM OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE
And therein lies the key- pop science figures and pop science journalism, which is always quick to sensationalize things or provide overly simplistic narratives. So far as I can tell, to the extent that multiverse models are motivated by fine-tuning at all, the motivation isn't to avoid the conclusion of an intelligent designer (which isn't really on the table anyways), its to avoid relinquishing the Copernican principle: the principle that we do not occupy a special or privileged place in the universe, that we assume everything about our position and situation to be as typical as is consistent with the available evidence.
This principle is motivated more by modesty and probability (after all, if you pick something from a collection at random, you are more likely to have chosen a typical member of that collection) than by any specific empirical evidence. And fine-tuning obviously runs directly counter to this principle, that we are not special and that our situation is typical. That is the threat, not the non-sequiturs about god/Gods that can be tacked on to the end of the supposed problem of fine-tuning: these aren't serious or credible arguments to begin with, so its good that scientists don't credit them overmuch or worry about blocking their conclusions. The Copernican principle, otoh, is something we want to hold on to if we can.
I can sympathise with the appeal of setting out one's thinking systematically as a process of review and consolidation. I did something similar in my own about section on this forum, in which I set out a fw things that I found myself repeating.
But one must avoid the systematiser's generic fault: going a step too far.
My admiration for Wittgenstein stems in part from hs approach to his own "worldview". He built a systematic answer to all philosophical questions, in his Tractatus, and then dismantled it in his Investigations. What is of value in his work is not so much the content as the process, the method with which he approached philosophy.
Another aspect worthy of admiration is his willingness to let the most important things go unsaid.
A lie-to-children I sometimes tell myself might make my position clearer. We know from Godel and related work that any system advanced enough to explain arithmetic must either be incomplete or inconsistent. It follows that any attempt at setting out a complete system will inevitable result in contradiction. Good philosophy, then, will consist in part in identifying the contradictions in any supposedly complete system.
Perhaps foremost amongst Wittgenstein's methods is the identification and rejection of metaphysical notions; those places where language spins freely, failing to engage with the world. Examples are aplenty in this thread, beginning with the supposed principle of causation.
The notion of worldview is too close to the notion of incommensurable conceptual schemes, which I think must also be rejected. In particular, when an individual attempts to develop such a world view in the absence of critical review, it will inevitably fail. As an individual project, developing a world view is inevitable senseless.
But as a social project, the development of this world view as opposed to that world view makes no sense, and hence the very notion dissipates.
We know you believe time must have a start, that you want time to have had a start. The problem is of course that the evidence and logic of the matter doesn't tell us firmly either way: again, hence scientific models of both varieties remaining viable.
And so one can either live with this ignorance, or can opt for blind faith as you have done. I prefer the former, but different strokes and whatever floats your boat and all that.
You keep making claims about logical impossibility, but then failing to derive or produce a contradiction from whatever is alleged to be logically impossible. It seems you're confused about what logical impossibility is and what it isn't: logical impossibility means entailing a contradiction. A and ~ A is logically impossible, because it is contradictory.
Logical impossibility does not mean "what you find conceptually difficult to imagine", which is evidently how you are using the phrase here. Supertasks or infinite sequences may strike you as conceptually difficult to imagine or grasp, but if they do not entail a contradiction, then they are not logically impossible. If you claim that something is logically impossible, stating why it is implausible or weird is not sufficient: show us where it involves a contradiction.
But you can't deny that the mythologising of scientific ideas plays a huge role in popular culture - especially today's. (Actually there's rather a perceptive critique on just this point in the Atlantic, The Multiverse Idea is Rotting Culture.) And besides, not all of the proponents of many worlds ideas are popularisers; David Deutsche is an evangelist, as is Sean Carroll.
Imagine if for some unforeseen reason, it was suddenly decided that multiverse and parallel world (and yes, I know they're different ideas) were decided to be taken off the table for legitimate science, and therefore funding and tenure. I think the absence of the metaphorical elbow-room that these notions provide would introduce a kind of welcome sobriety.
Quoting Enai De A Lukal
I'm suspicious about 'the Copernican principle' insofar as it brackets out the role of the human observer in arriving at a determination of what is the case. I mean, the human position is 'special' insofar as it does observe, it does know. By saying that human perception is not 'privileged', it in effect absorbs the act of observation into a supposedly neutral background, thereby purportedly providing a perspective which is thought to be independent of the act of observation, as if science can see the Universe as it truly is, devoid of any act of observation, the so-called 'God's eye view'.
Consider how the analogy of 'the Copernican revolution in philosophy' was used by Kant:
[quote=Wikipedia]Kant argues that, just as Copernicus moved from the supposition of heavenly bodies revolving around a stationary spectator to a moving spectator, so metaphysics, "proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary hypothesis", should move from assuming that "knowledge must conform to objects" to the supposition that "objects must conform to our [a priori] knowledge".[/quote]
Which is an inversion of the 'Copernican principle' as understood by science.
Quoting Banno
Wittgenstein points to the insufficiencies of metaphysics as a mode of discourse; he wants to get beyond it, though, not declare it 'otiose', as his positivist followers sought to do. And there's a world of difference. I take Wittgenstein's 'silence' to be apophatic.
I agree. Hence,
Quoting Banno
I certainly wouldn't deny that popular discussions of science tend to be terrible all around. Sensationalized, partisan, overly simplistic. And certainly, these narratives crafted for the purposes of media consumption rather than education have left the public in a pretty sorry state wrt knowledge of some topics, including/especially cosmology where rife misconceptions and ignorance are the rule. But if we're talking about working scientists and serious scientific models, its important to point out that the role of fine-tuning is quite overblown and is more a creature of pop-science journalism than actual science.
And the Copernican principle isn't denying that human perception plays a privileged role for human observers: he's denying that our situation and location in the universe are unique and privileged, which is essentially just a repudiation of anthropomorphism: we are not the center of the universe, the universe does not exist purely for our benefit. Instead, we live on a typical planet orbiting a typical star in a typical spiral arm of a typical spiral galaxy in a typical local cluster (at least, so we assume until we encounter evidence to the contrary).
But regardless, say what you will about the Copernican principle (I think its quite solid as a methodological guideline), but the point is that is what the underlying concern is wrt fine-tuning, not any theological or creationist boogeyman. Not least of which because the theistic conclusion doesn't really follow from the premises of fine-tuning to begin with, so the true threat posed by fine-tuning is of a different nature than the theist flatters herself by assuming.
Not an easy task, but I'll try. This is just my interpretation.
First, note that in the title Pierce refers to proof of the reality of God, not God's existence.
Pierce maintains that the hypothesis of God necessarily, or inevitably, comes to mind through a form of abductive reasoning. Pierce was a logician and abductive reasoning, which starts with observations and then seeks to find the simplest and most likely conclusion from the observations, was his creation. The earliest stage of abduction is something Pierce calls "musement" or "pure play." This is the unfettered consideration of the universe, consideration without being subject to any limiting rules.
Pierce thought of the universe we normally speak of as consisting in a manner of speaking of three universes. One represents our experience of the possible, one is the universe of our experience of facts, one is our experience of laws which govern the other universes. Through "musement" on the interconnectedness of these universes and the fact that growth is a factor in all of them, and that the universal feature of growth is preparation in earlier stages for later stages, we come, inexorably, to posit the reality of God as simplest explanation for the universe(s).
This is a very simple summary.
Why do you say that?
Would you like to summarize your argument?
Because one does not want one's beliefs to be challenged.
Sure.
The OP is based on a misapprehension of how physics deals with causation, and hence the argument fails.
But that will make no difference to its defenders, since the real point of this thread is to engage in mutual preening.
Your hands are full at the moment. I don't want to distract you from better discussions. Au revoir.
No, I'm not talking about the mere gathering of other people's thoughts. I'm talking about the judgement of them. How do you know they are wrong? Even when obviously intelligent and knowledgeable people, basically the vast majority of the mathematics community, have told you you're wrong, you still consider yourself to be right, so their conclusions, arguments and demonstrations have had no effect on you whatsoever. Yet they obviously did have an effect on you up to a certain point - you do the same maths as everyone else, it's not a naturally occurring mental activity, so you must have adopted the methods of others at some point.
It seems that at some point (or with some topics) you abruptly decide to no longer adopt your community's syntax. Like you've suddenly decided that 'table' should no longer refer to the flat, waist-high object we eat from, but instead should refer to your cat.
I have no objection to you doing this, of course, you can do what you like, but I am a) very interested in why you would then consult the very community you've already decided you will reject the wisdom of the moment it doesn't suit, and b) slightly annoyed that you're being so evasive about this, which makes me suspect you're motives are hidden and disingenuous.
true
I disagree.
I quite like olives.
Olives are good. I like green olives and black olives on Pizza. Lets hope we don't get caught getting off topic. Shhhhh. quick there coming.
Telling me of your mental state is utterly pointless.
Can you address the objections? If not, then you are of no use here.
Ah, a far more erudite and accurate reply than mine. :up:
Can you justify this without personal incredulity? Otherwise you may as well cut out the middleman and say: "I personally can't conceive of a universe without an intelligent creator, therefore the intelligent creator exists, and we call him God". This actually has the benefit of having only one fallacy.
Quoting Devans99
Yes, and it ain't how Bayes intended. Utter nonsense put forward by Stephen Unwin, creationisms most willing idiot. It's an argument ab rectum.
Quoting Devans99
Yea, it is risible.
How about I consider the inverse of this?
1. Start at 50%/50% for the unknown boolean question ‘is the universe a creation?’
2. Time has a start. 50% probability of no creator due to this gives: 50% + 50% * 25% = 75%
3. Universe is not in equilibrium 75% probability of no creator giving: 75% + 25% * 75% = 94%
4. Causality based arguments. 75% probability of no creator giving: 94% + 6% * 75% = 99%
5. Fine tuning 50% probability of no creator giving: 99% + 1% * 50% = 100%
6. Big Bang 75% probability of no creator giving: 100% + 0% * 75% = 100%
So it is certain that the universe isn't a creation?
Aside from pulling these probabilities out of thin air, the way you've added them together like this makes no sense at all.
These are all micro effects - according to everything we know, all macro effects have causes. The origin of the universe is a macro question - huge amounts of matter.
I suspect all micro effects have causes too - its just our physics is not unto the job of identifying them.
I am not familiar with everything you listed, but: the Casimir effect has an alternative explanation that does not involve quantum fluctuations. Virtual particles / quantum fluctuations are caused by fluctuations of the underlying field. Radioactive decay is caused by activity within the nucleus as I already explained. Suspect the same sort of thing applies to the other phenomena you listed.
Quoting jorndoe
Finite and unbounded is plainly impossible. I'm not even going to waste my time reading that link.
Quoting Banno
That Stanford article is wrong. I will explain the problem fully in a separate post later.
Quoting Banno
Both Newton's 2nd and 3rd law describe matter (=cause) acting upon matter (=effect). So Newton's laws are the embodiment of causality.
Quoting Banno
You seem to have disregarded the LEM! - not acceptable in my book. 'The Big Bang has a cause' is either true or false not both true and false at the same time.
Quoting Banno
And yours. And all of ours. We all believe in causality.
Quoting Gnomon
'Nothing' is an interesting concept:
Space is expanding - 'nothing' can't expand - so space must be 'something' (substantivalism) rather than nothing (relationism). I imagine spacetime maybe like some sort of finite block, maybe surrounded by, and expanding into a wider, timeless, universe. That wider universe is also finite and surrounded by 'nothingness'.
I imagine 'nothingness' as no space, no time, no dimensions - just absolute nothing. It cannot be said to be infinite because it has no dimensions and does not exist.
I am unsure if any matter/energy was actually created - the conservation of energy seems very well respected by nature. It seems more like the container of spacetime has a start (the Big Bang / start of time), so that container was somehow created / initiated. But some or all of the matter/energy must of come from outside spacetime - a seed of matter/energy must at least be planted within spacetime to generate the rest of the matter/energy. Or otherwise, all the matter/energy is sourced externally to spacetime.
Quoting Enai De A Lukal
Fine tuning does not run contrary to the Copernican principle - it says the whole universe (or even whole multiverse if you prefer) was tuned for life and is packed full of life - all those exoplanets we have discovered.
Quoting Banno
Self-referential statements are pathological entities that should not be allowed anywhere near maths or logic. Godel was wrong. I might do a separate post to discuss this at some point later.
Quoting Enai De A Lukal
I've already proved time has a start to you! Did you not read my reply? Once again:
- The past is either a finite number of days long, or greater than all finite number of days long
- Nothing can be greater than all finite numbers; they go on forever
- So time has a start
Please kindly read and properly consider the above proof.
Quoting Enai De A Lukal
Supertasks are impossible. I'll do a separate post to discuss this in the coming weeks.
Quoting TheMadFool
Mad Fool: I like to hear from you too!
Quoting Isaac
1) Mathematics defines points to have zero length.
2) How many points are there on a line segment length one?
3) Line length / point length = 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED.
4) That can’t be correct. Euclid, Cantor and co MUST all have it wrong.
I will explain the implications of the above result in upcoming posts.
I feel we should concentrate on the God issue with this thread.
Quoting Isaac
a) I don't reject others wisdom. I consider their points carefully and adjust my position if required.
b) I can't explain all my ideas in one post. Please bear with me - I will cover it all eventually.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
As I already pointed out to you, eternal inflation theory mandates a first cause.
As to why eternal inflation theory is wrong, I will have to do a separate post on it in the coming weeks; don't want to crowd this already busy thread with other loosely related issues.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Just because you don't understand something, does not mean it's wrong.
Quoting Michael
I'll explain my method:
1) Assume we have a trial and someone is accused of murder.
2) Before hearing any evidence, we assign a neutral 50% guilty, 50% innocent, probability outcome.
3) The first piece of evidence is finger prints on the knife.
4) We assess that [3], on it's own, means it is 75% likely he is guilty.
5) That gives 50% guilty + 50% innocent X 75% = 87.5% chance he is guilty after considering one piece of evidence.
6) The second piece of evidence is blood on his cloths
7) We assess that [6], on it's own, means it is 50% likely he is guilty.
8) That gives 87.5% guilty + 12.5% innocent X 50% = 93.75% chance he is guilty after considering two pieces of evidence.
9) You can obviously continue adding as many separate, non-overlapping, pieces of evidence to get a better estimate.
I can't quite work out how to extend this method to take into account negative evidence. Any ideas?
If 4) means that it is 75% likely he is guilty then it means that it is 25% likely that he is innocent.
If we then use your logic in 5) we have 50% guilty + 50% innocent x 25% = 62.5% chance he is innocent.
So your reasoning leads us to the contradictory conclusion that there is an 87.5% chance that he is guilty and a 62.5% chance that he is innocent.
It should be obvious from this that you're calculating probabilities wrong.
You have that wrong - if we start at a 50% chance that he's guilty - and assess the first piece of evidence means he's 75% likely to be guilty - then the chances he's innocent must go down, and not up as you have calculated above.
Yes, it must, which is why your calculation in 5) is wrong. If the first piece of evidence means he's 75% likely to be guilty then he's 75% likely to be guilty after considering one piece of evidence. The calculation you do in 5) to derive a likelihood of 87.5% makes no sense, as shown by the fact that this calculation also entails the contradictory conclusion that he's 37.5% likely to be guilty.
The first 'piece of evidence' to consider is that 'is he guilty?' is an unknown boolean question. So we should start with the assumption of 50% guilty / 50% innocent to reflect this. IE our evidence is that we are assuming the chances that he is guilty/innocent are normally distributed. This is evidence of a sort and I think it has to be built into the overall calculation.
Then we apply the individual pieces of evidence on top of the starting point. If there is a 50% chance that he is innocent and we have a piece of evidence that says he is 75% likely to be guilty, we reduce the innocent % and increase the guilty %: 50% guilty + 50% innocent X 75% = 87.5% chance he is guilty.
This method then gives a way of combining multiple independent pieces of evidence into a single consolidated probability estimate.
I see your point about whether we should start at 50% guilty or 75% guilty. I am not totally sure on this question. But whichever point we start at, it makes little difference to the results of the calculation - either way, the probability of the universe being a creation comes out very high.
This calculation makes no sense. Let's say that the first piece of evidence says that he is 50% likely to be guilty. We don't then say 50% guilty + 50% innocent x 50% = 75% chance he is guilty. We just say that he is 50% likely to be guilty. As above, we can use your logic to say that because the first piece of evidence says that he is 50% likely to be innocent then 50% innocent + 50% guilty x 50% = 75% chance he is innocent.
Your reasoning leads to the contradictory conclusion that there is a 75% chance he is guilty and a 75% chance he is innocent.
But what happens if 90% of people accused of murder actually turn out to be innocent? Then your logic says the first piece of evidence is that he's 50% likely to be guilty. Well, that seems no good - it seems we cannot ignore the fact that 90% of accused turn out to be innocent - we have to use 90% as our starting point:
10% guilty + 90% innocent X 50% = 55% guilty.
You see I hope how this combines the initial probability distribution we know (that 90% of people accused of murder actually turn out to be innocent), with the first piece of evidence.
Then either we have lots of misleading evidence or you should revise the probability that the evidence suggests guilt.
Quoting Devans99
I've already pointed out that your reasoning leads to contradictory conclusions. That's a mathematical fact that can't be refuted by suggesting a hypothetical situation where innocent people are predominantly found guilty.
I don't follow you - I see nothing contradictory at all about the method I am using.
If you disagree with my method, maybe you can explain how I should do this calculation?
- Lets ignore the initial distribution of the answer space for now
- Lets assume that the first piece of evidence says 50% guilty
- Lets assume that the second piece of evidence says 25% guilty
- What is the combined likelihood of him being guilty?
My method give 50% guilty + 50% innocent X 25% guilty = 62.5% guilty.
What method would you suggest I use instead?
Then read my previous post because I showed you. The math that leads to the conclusion that there is a 75% chance of guilt also leads to the conclusion that there is a 75% chance of innocence. This is a contradiction.
Quoting Devans99
This is the same as:
Your method leads to the contradictory conclusions of 62.5% guilt and 87.5% innocence.
I don't know, and nor do I care to find out. I'm only interested in showing you that the method you've chosen is nonsense.
Woah there! Take it easy, Banno. The probability of God's existence is only 50%. Despite this, the universe was created, so the probability goes up to 75%. Within that universe, matter and antimatter was created, so the probability goes up to 87.5%. Then for each electron that didn't annihilate a positron, there's a 50% chance that God stopped it. That's, what, say a trillion electrons? So the most you could say here is that God exists with a probability of 99.99999999999999999999999999999%.
Nope.
Why do you think extrapolation sufficiently far back is increasingly problematic, and why we cannot extrapolate to a singularity (of infinite density and temperature)?
Because once things become sufficiently small, quantumatics become increasingly pronounced, and we have no established unification.
Quoting Devans99
Rejection by title-reading? :D As mentioned earlier, these ideas have been expounded upon to some extent by Hartle and Hawking.
Your math is wrong. Assume the initial distribution is 50% guilty/ 50% innocent, and the first piece of evidence is 50% likely that he is guilty:
1) 50% guilty + 50% innocent x 50% = 75% chance he is guilty
2) 50% innocent + 50% guilty x 50% = 75% chance he is innocent
The problem is [2] - if we think a piece of evidence indicates that he is guilty (50% chance), then that piece of evidence can in no way INCREASE the likelihood he is innocent.
What you are doing wrong is you are deriving from the fact that 'prints on the knife' indicate that he is 50% guilty that it also implies there is a 50% chance that he is innocent - the fact that there are fingerprints on the knife does not at all increase the chances he is innocent.
Uh, yes? Guilt and innocence are a dichotomy. If something shows 50% chance of guilt then ipso facto it shows 50% chance of not-guilt, i.e. innocence.
I'm with Einstein on this issue - God does not play dice. The apparent randomness of QM is just due to our lack of understanding.
Quoting jorndoe
Yes, by representing time as a complex number - that's drivel - time does not have a real and complex component - it is a single, linear, dimension-like degree of freedom.
You are getting confused:
- 'prints on the knife' make it 50% likely he is guilty
- If we assume we have already established that the is a 50% chance he is guilty
- Then there is a 50% chance that he is innocent
- But the 'prints on the knife' evidence in no way increase the chances of him being innocent
BTW, if you really believe that science has completely accurately determined the Big Bang right back to just after the Plank era (just after the singularity) - then you need to see a shrink!
Those numb nuts could not even work out that time has a start! Why should I believe they have the BB absolutely correct to the Nth level of detail?
I'm not saying that the evidence increases the chances of him being innocent. I'm saying that your method entails this. This is why your method doesn't work. The way you add probabilities like this is nonsense.
If we have no other evidence than a knife that suggests 50% guilt then there's a 50% chance of guilt, and that's it. We don't "add" it to the initial 50/50 assumption based on no evidence to somehow derive a 75% chance of guilt. Again, it's nonsense.
ANYONE reading this thread quickly realizes that NO ONE HERE can show that "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...using science and/or logic.
Only a few are willing to acknowledge they cannot. Most want to insist they can, despite the fact that none have actually done so.
None of this is unexpected, because the greatest minds that have ever lived on the planet have tried over the years...and also have not done so. To suppose it could be done here in a rather small Internet forum by what are essentially amateurs, is not astonishing.
If someone actually could do it...the Nobel Committee would undoubtedly offer an award to the person doing it. No Nobel Prize earned here.
My method certainly does not entail this - and you clearly do not understand my method - just because you don't understand it, does not mean that its nonsense.
Quoting Michael
No. If we are considering a question with a 90% / 10% initial distribution of probabilities then we can't just ignore that distribution and start at 50%.
Obviously there is a 1 in 6 chance it will.
Contrast that to the 'is he guilty?' question, where we start with a 1 in 2 (50%) chance of guilt/innocence.
So boolean questions have an answer distribution space inherent within them - and we have to take that distribution into account when combining with other probabilities - it is not always the same distribution.
As (also already) mentioned, your and my belief don't matter; sorry, but we don't get to tell it all what it is, rather we adjust our belief accordingly.
Quantumatics and relativity are established (already posted an example).
You're free to keep re-re-repeting your assertions, call the subject matter experts names, and dismiss established theories with a hand-wave, none of which make your belief so.
If that's the extent of your investigation, then maybe the opening post is sort of not really in good faith? :-/
I'd bet my house on causality, can't say the same for quantum cosmology.
That's precisely the point. You cannot just say "Since we do not know if it is this guy, the probabilities are 50/50". And yet that is exactly how you proceeded.
That is fine because "guily" or "not guilty" are a complete set of options. There are uncountably many more options than "God did it", which is a silly non-option. Saying "God did it" is 50/50 is exactly the same as saying the probability of the unseen die roll yielding a 1 is 50/50.
We roll a 10-sided dice. If it rolls a 1 or a 2 I will place a red ball in a box.
Before you check the box you consider that the initial probability that the dice rolls a 1 is 10%.
You check the box and find a red ball. You know from this that there's a 50% chance that the dice rolled a 1 and a 50% chance that the dice rolled a 2.
Do you then add the initial 10% to this second 50% using your method to come up with some new likelihood that it rolled a 1? Or do you just accept that it's 50%?
Harsh. This is what religious indoctrination does to most people. It puts up mental barriers to true things that don't fit the pedagogically-derived rules while maintaining an open-door policy to doctrine that is clearly unjustifiable or incompatible with evidence. Abusing or inventing mathematics to make it fit the desired answer is probably a perfectly understandable thing to do if you start from the idea that any mathematics that yields the wrong answer is necessarily incorrect. Every creationist I've met thinks this way; I don't think it's a choice.
We have no data on the distribution of the answer space for 'was the universe a creation?' - so assuming it is normally distributed (50%/50%) is correct.
So that is inventing the "fact" that it is binary. That is mathematically invalid.
This does not really seem related to my calculation. My calculation is for combining separate pieces of non-overlapping evidence that support a particular conclusion into a single, combined probability estimate.
Its a binary question, we have no data on the likely distribution of the answer space, which of the following initial assumptions is most reasonable:
1. Assume a 0% chance that the universe is a creation
2. Assume a 100% chance that the universe is a creation
3. Assume 50% / 50%
If you go for [1] or [2], then you are biasing one way or the other based on no evidence. We really can't do that for 'is the universe a creation?' - we have no evidence - we can't for example say that 90% of known universes are actually creations - there is only one universe we know of - and we don't know whether it's a creation or not - so 50% / 50% is the only reasonable assumption.
Then with my calculation, I adjust this initial estimate to allow for the evidence we do have, which gets me to about 95% likely that the universe is a creation.
It's exactly related to your calculation:
Quoting Devans99
In my example the initial distribution is 90% the dice roll is > 1 and 10% the dice roll = 1 and the first piece of evidence (the red ball) is 50% likely that the dice roll = 1, so using your reasoning above there's either 10% + 90% x 50% = 55% probability that dice roll = 1 or 90% + 10% x 50% = 95% probability that dice roll = 1 (which one is it exactly? Do I multiply the 50% by the 10% chance of 1 or by the 90% chance of not 1)?
Forgive me for interrupting, but what exactly is the analogy to causation? Are you guys relating quantum physics to probability/the likelihood of a type of Heraclitus Logos, an objective cosmic law, etc.?
Otherwise, there will always be an element of uncertainty in nature; determinism and indeterminism, chance and choice, changing and unchanging, etc. Sure, QM as an element of both. The quantum uncertainty of an electron cannot have a well defined position and momentum at the same time. You can make measurement of the position to obtain a value, but the value of the momentum is completely uncertain. So for a general quantum state, it is apparently impossible to say in advance what value will be obtained by a single measurement, only probabilities can be assigned.
In that sense, yes, the Logos of causation appears that there are only ranges of outcomes available. But here's the important part. The system of QM is indeterministic as well as contingent. Yet, on the other hand, the experimenter determines whether the measurement shall be of position or momentum, so the range of alternatives is decided by an external agent. And so as far as the electron is concerned, the nature of alternatives is fixed necessarily, and the actual alternative adopted is contingent.
To me, one of many implications of the quantum state of affairs is that it eliminates complete randomness and chaos from the universe/existence. It combines choice and chance/contingency and necessity. It suggests yet another dipolar driving force in nature. The world is neither wholly determined or arbitrary.
This also suggests, in my view, that a participatory anthropic involvement of causation is at work. Kind of like cognitive science/our stream of consciousness. Random thoughts appear to us; it is our choice to choose which thoughts are of value. Causation, in this way, has intrinsic metaphysical value to humans, no?.
Its really not related - the first piece of evidence - the probability of 10% because it is a 10-sided die, is replaced completely by the second piece of evidence - the probability of 50% because of the red ball - so we have a probability of 50% that it was a one.
My method is for combining separate, unrelated pieces of evidence into a single probability estimate.
The example you have given does not require any combining of probabilities - the second piece of evidence overlaps and supersedes the fact that it is a 10-sided die.
It's the same binary question as "Is the die showing a 1" The answer then is not 50/50.
Saying "the probability of God creating the universe is 50/50" is identical to saying: "there are precisely two ways the universe can have been created and we know not which". Not knowing the possible means of the universe being created is not leave to invent the non-fact that there were precisely two. It sounds like this has been explained to you before.
The rest of your "calculation" proceeds from this error and introduces myriad more. There is no point treating it, since the root of your problem is right at the start.
So why doesn't the first piece of evidence (the finger prints on the knife) replace the initial, uninformed probability of 50% guilt based on lack of any evidence one way or the other?
And do you even know what it means to say that the evidence suggests a 50% chance of guilt? It means that it is equally likely that there is an innocent explanation as there is a guilty explanation, and as such cannot be used to either suggest guilt or to suggest innocence.
It's like taking a 50% chance of heads as evidence to increase the likelihood that it's heads. That's nonsense.
I assigned an initial probability estimate of 50% / 50% to the question 'is the universe a creation?'.
Let me ask you, what initial probability estimate would you yourself assign to this question?
Yep.
Yes, I know, that's what I and a bunch of other people are telling you is wrong. It is an invalid starting point for Bayesian inference.
Quoting Devans99
Me personally? Zero, since only possible causes should be included and God has not been shown to be even possible. But if I were to attempt Bayesian inference and include the God hypothesis as one, I would need to know all of the possible options, not just those known today, but those known in the future and those never figured out. These would need to be cast into mutually exclusive categories. Then whatever number of categories N I ended up with, the probability of intelligence creation would be generously assigned the value 1/N.
The extent to which this cannot be done is the extend to which your methodology is invalid. It doesn't become valid just because one of the options you do know about happens to be the one you want.
1) There is an initial estimate of 50%/50% based on the fact that people at trials are 50% likely to be guilty.
2) Then the initial estimate is adjusted to reflect the first piece of evidence.
3) Then that estimate is adjusted to reflect the first piece of evidence
So no piece of evidence replaces any prior piece of evidence - that would not be combining probabilities into a single estimate - instead the probability estimate is adjusted in the light of subsequent evidence.
Quoting Michael
'prints on the knife' implies a 50% chance someone is guilty. The fact that there are 'prints on the knife' does not imply a 50% chance of innocence.
Think what you are saying - there are prints on the knife so we can increase the probability estimate he is innocent - that's clearly wrong.
The fact that there are 'prints on the knife' does not imply a 50% chance of innocence.
Tell me what you think it means for evidence to imply a 50% chance that someone is guilty.
Thank God you're not a juror. This is crazy.
Thats just bonkers - spacetime cannot have existed forever - so how exactly do you have it a 'not a creation'?
I didn't say it doesn't have a creation, I said it wasn't created by an intelligent deity.
I am trying to combine separate pieces of evidence into a combined probability estimate:
1) We have a completely independent first piece of evidence. If this piece of evidence was presented on its own, it would imply a 50% chance of guilt.
2) Then another completely independent second piece of evidence implies separately a 25% chance of guilt.
So [1] by itself implies a 50% chance he is the killer. And [2] separately implies a 25% chance he is the killer. The question is how do you combine these into a single probability estimate?
It is clear the combined probability estimate must be higher than the 50% alone we have for the first piece of evidence. I can see no other way of doing the calculation than:
50% guilty + 50% innocent X 25% = 62.5% guilty.
Think about it geometrically, we can represent the 50%/50% probability space as a square - half of it marked guilty, the other half marked innocent.
We then take the 50% innocent and say well actually we have evidence that he is 25% likely to be guilty - so we take 25% of the innocent half of the square and add it to the 50% guilty part of the square - giving 62.5% guilty.
Quoting Michael
Well at least I have a clue how to combine separate pieces of evidence into an overall probability estimate - you seem to have no idea whatsoever.
I don't believe in random so that just leaves the creation of spacetime as a deliberate act.
Before we continue, clarify something for me. If the initial distribution is 60% chance he is guilty, which of these is correct:
1. 60% guilty + 40% innocent x 25% = 70% guilty
2. 40% innocent + 60% guilty x 25% = 55% guilty
Then if that were true, the only possibility would be intelligent creation which would be 100%, not 50%. And your argument reduces to:
Given that the universe had a beginning
And I don't believe anything other than an intelligent creator could've done it
God exists
Not very compelling.
Could be.
I try to converse with everyone, but some conversations ARE harder than others.
In my opinion, any discussion of whether any gods exist or not...
...is pretty much a waste of time.
But I am in those kinds of discussions all the time, which belies that opinion.
Oh well.
BOTTOM LINE in my opinion: We do not know and cannot logically estimate the likelihood in either direction.
Look at it this way - spacetime is either a deliberate or random creation. If its random, then it resulted in the start of time, the Big Bang and the fine tuning of the universe. I just don't buy that. No quantum fluctuation does that kind of thing.
[1] is the approach I am using.
Not quite sure what you mean with [2].
I'm multiplying the evidence of guilt given by the first piece of evidence (the initial distribution) by the evidence of guilt given by the second piece of evidence (the knife).
Your approach (1) multiplies the evidence of innocence given by the first piece of evidence (the initial distribution) by the evidence of guilt given by the second piece of evidence (the knife).
I admire the alacrity with which you adopt overwhelming authority on subjects you're clearly not remotely informed on, but there's a whole bunch of actual quantum theorists out there who know you're wrong. Now maybe to you this seems very biased, but in evaluating the likelihood of a scientific theory of genesis, I'm going to err on the side of the physcists, not the creationist.
Anyway, where are we up to with this proof?
The universe must have had a beginning.
I just don't buy that it could be anything other than God who started it.
Therefore God exists.
Basically sums it up nicely.
@Devans99, could you do me a favour and 'just not believe' there could be any less than ten grand in my savings account, there's a dear.
Quoting Michael
Approach [2] does not make sense to me - we have 60% guilty to start with. Then we say a piece of evidence additionally makes it 25% likely that he is guilty. So the initial guilt estimate of 60% has to increase rather than decrease (to 55% as in [2]).
Quantum cosmology is the synergy of GR and QM - two completely incompatible theories. So quantum cosmology is on shaky foundations. Quantum cosmology based theories are therefore very speculative and have a low probability of being correct.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Well, give me your explanation for how a random event caused the start of time, the BB and the fine tuning of the universe please.
Now that've you've answered my previous question, let's consider a real example.
We start from your initial distribution of 50% probability of guilt.
We then look at the first piece of evidence; the defendant was driving the car that hit and killed the girl. He claims that the girl jumped out in front of the car and he was unable to move but the prosecutor claims that he intentionally drove into her. Given no other information and given your views on the initial distribution, you would likely consider this to be "a binary question"; there's a 50% chance that he hit her intentionally and a 50% chance that it was an accident. So using your reasoning above, there's a 75% chance that he's guilty of murder:
50% guilty + 50% innocent x 50% = 75% guilty
Now, does that seem sensible to you? Somehow you've gone from "there's a 50% chance that he hit her intentionally" to "there's a 75% chance that he's guilty of murder".
1. The prior distribution is not evidence, it is the distribution in the absence of evidence, when no option is more likely than the other.
2. The second fact is the first piece of evidence. It shows us that the criminal is more likely to be innocent than guilty (75/25), those being the only two options.
3. We then adjust our prior estimate to take account of this new fact, so in this case we lower it to 25% because the only piece of evidence we have says the chance is 25%.
If all the evidence we have says the chance is 50%, all that does is provide more and more confirmation that the chance is 50%. It doesn't make it more and more likely each time, that's just not how probability works in any conception ever.
- Say 90% of people up for trial are actually guilty
- Then we have a piece of evidence saying, by itself that there is a 50% chance of guilt.
Its wrong just to say there is therefore an overall 50% chance of guilt - 95% chance of guilt is correct.
Your evidence is just:
1. 50% of people who are charged with murder are guilty
2. He drove the car that killed he, and it was either intentional or an accident
If that's sufficient for you to think it likely that he's guilty then I hope to God that you're never a juror.
1) We have evidence that 50% of people up for trial are in fact guilty.
2) Then we have separate evidence that indicates 50% likelihood of guilt (prints on the knife).
I do not think you can just disregard the evidence of [1] - it has to be taken into account in the calculation.
If you think about it [1] says there is a 50% chance of guilt.
[2] says separately that there is ADDITIONAL evidence giving a separate 50% chance of guilt
So the combined probability of him being guilty must be higher than 50%.
75% in fact.
How do you know this? Or are you saying that 90% of people up for trial are found guilty? Because that's not the same thing. In fact your reasoning will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy; jurors will assume guilt from the start, regardless of any subsequent evidence, and so find them guilty, which in turn will make it more likely that subsequent jurors will assume guilt from the start.
This honestly is one of the craziest things I've heard on here. Your evidence is just:
1. 50% of people who are charged with murder are found guilty
2. The defendant drove the car that killed her, but he claims it was an accident
You conclude that there's a 75% chance that he's guilty. And this will be true of every single person who accidentally drives into someone. That's ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is that nothing here tells us the likelihood that he's guilty.
You are just not getting it! Try this:
- We have a die with 10 sides - 10% chance of getting 10
- It is weighted towards landing on 10 - represented by an additional 20% chance of getting 10.
Then the combined chance of getting 10 is:
10% + 90% X 20% = 28%
With your approach, you would conclude that the chance of getting a 10 is 20% which is wrong - it must be higher than 20%
What do you mean by "an additional 20% chance"? Do you mean that there's a (10 + 20) = 30% chance or that there's a (10 * 1.2) = 12% chance?
Quoting Devans99
Because what you're arguing is an incoherent mess.
Whats your problem with the OP? Hes not a Christian last time i checked (last time i checked). The forum moderator said i have to turn the other cheek. People like me are held to a higher standard.
No. I am trying to construct an example where there is a boolean question with a skewed distribution and then there is a completely separate piece of evidence for which we have a completely separate probability estimate for.
So I mean:
- There is a 10% chance of a 10
PLUS
- An additional 20% chance of a 10 due to the die being weighted.
You can't just add 10% and 20% to get 30%. If you think about it a different way:
- 20% of the time the die gets a 10 - due to it being weighted
- 10% of the time it would have a 10 anyway (because its a 10 sided die)
- So 20% X 90% = 18%
- Then we have to add that to the 10% (because its a 10 sided die)
- Giving 28%
Which agrees with my method.
Excuse my French, but what the fuck?
Honestly, if the above is your reasoning then you're beyond reasoning with.
If a die has a 20% chance of landing on 10 due PURLEY to the fact it is weighted.
You also have to allow for the addition 10% chance of a 10 (due to the fact it has 10 sides).
No, you don't. If a die has a 20% chance of landing on a 10 because it's weighted then the die has a 20% chance of landing on a 10.
Just wow.
You are missing the whole point of my argument! I'll try one more time:
1) The die has a 10% chance of landing on 10 (because its 10 sided)
2) IN ADDITION to [1], there is also an ADDITIONAL 20% chance of 10 (because its weighted)
If you think about it, the chance of the die getting 10 is not 10%, not 20%, not 30%, it 28%.
I think you need to read through the examples I've given you again.
I don't have alot of room to play with considering my username and this is a typical online philosophy room. I agree with the OP 90% to 95%. What you said is somewhat fair (to some extent).
And I asked you to explain what you mean by there being an additional 20% chance of it landing a 10. The only coherent interpretations of this are 10 + 20 = 30 or 10 * 1.2 = 12. So the probability is either 30% or 12%, depending on what you actually mean.
But then you answered with "20% of the time that the die gets a 10 - due to it being weighted" and "a die has a 20% chance of landing on 10 due PURLEY to the fact it is weighted". But this isn't additional to the initial 10%. You're just saying "this dice is weighted such that for every ten times it is rolled it will roll a 10 twice (in the long run)". So the probability is 20%.
How you get to 28% is beyond me. Your reasoning makes no sense at all.
So it has a 10% chance of 10 because it has 10 sides.
But there is an ADDITIONAL 20% chance of 10 because its weighted.
You can't just add 10 and 20 and get 30 - that's wrong!
Quoting Michael
Say the die lands on 10 20% of the time because it's weighted.
Then 10% of those 20% times, the die would land on 10 anyway (because it 10 sided)
So it is absolutely not 20%+10%=30%.
If the dice lands on a 10 20% of the time because it's weighted then the probability that the dice will land on a 10 when it's rolled is 20%.
Because you're no longer talking about an additional 20%. You're saying that it's weighted such that the probability increases to 20%.
You're saying that there's an additional 20%, so somewhere I need to add 20%. Otherwise what do you mean by saying there's an additional 20%? I can either interpret this as an absolute increase of 20%, and so add 20% to 10% and get 30% or I can interpret this as an increase relative to the initial 10%, and so add 2% (20% of 10) to 10% and get 12%.
If you don't mean either of these then you need to explain what you mean by an additional 20%, because as it is stands you're not using it in any standard way.
No I am not saying that the 'probability increases to 20%'.
I am saying that there is a 10% probability of a 10 (because of 10 sides) and
AN ADDITIONAL 20% probability (because its weighted)
- So we take the 20% first.
- Say we roll the die 100 times.
- 20 times it gets 10 due to the fact it was weighted
- Out of the 20 times it gets 10, it would have got 10 twice anyway (because it has 10 sides)
- So its actually has to be 18% + 10% = 28%
He means there is an additional, separate percent chance not two percent chances that need to be added together.
They only get combined together later in his attempt to account for the two, separate percent chances into a single calculation.
I have no explanation that includes fine-tuning, because that's a creationist myth. That aside, the constants of the universe being as they are only demand an explanation if a) they are seemingly at odds with other evidence; b) it happens with some regularity. The fact that the universe only started once relieves us of the requirement to explain its improbability: the constants are as likely as any other particular set.
To illustrate, role a die. Whatever value you get had a low probability of occurring compared with it not occurring. This is not evidence that the die is loaded. It's just that you only rolled the die once. Refer to the anthropic principle for the rest.
The best theory imo is the inflaton field, which solves not just your mystery but a great deal many other mysteries in cosmology. "God" doesn't have the power to explain anything without just making stuff up, and even then fails as an explanation.
Recurring eternal inflation explains not only that our current physical laws are as likely as any other, but also that, if our current set of laws is possible (an empirical fact), they are inevitable. It explains how a hot Big Bang could occur, why there was an initial period of massive expansion, and it does so with an "agent" that meets the criteria of being outside of time.
But is it likely?
Well, we start with a 50% probability in the absence of evidence.
Can create universes, consistent with the existence of a universe: increase to 75% probability.
Can create all possible universes, consistent with the existence of our universe: increase to 87.5% probability.
Can create initial conditions hot enough to polarise fermionic fields and create matter like the matter in our universe: increase to 97.3% probability.
Creates inflaton excitations that will yield massive inflation before they decay, yielding a homogeneous universe: increase to 98.65% probability.
Pretty likely, I guess.
I really don't know how to explain this to you more simply than I already have. Look at steps 2 and 3:
- Say we roll the die 100 times.
- 20 times it gets 10 due to the fact it was weighted
You've rolled the dice 100 times and it's landed on a 10 20 times because it's weighted.
Therefore there's a 20% chance that the dice will roll a 10. It's right there in your own description of what happens. The next two steps make absolutely no sense:
- Out of the 20 times it gets 10, it would have got 10 twice anyway (because it has 10 sides)
- So its actually has to be 18% + 10% = 28%
What's the rationale for doing this? And what do you think it means to say that the probability is 28%? It means that if you rolled the dice 100 times then it will land on a 10 28 times. But as you've already said in step 3, it actually landed on a 10 20 times. Your conclusion contradicts one of your premises.
So forget steps 4 and 5. They're nonsense. The dice landed on a 10 20 times, and so therefore the probability that it will land on a 10 is 20%.
"Seek the thread and you shall find."
(sorry, too lazy to start finding the links to the comments)
- there is a 25% chance that he's guilty because of fingerprints on the knife
- there is a SEPARATE 50% chance he's guilty because of blood on his cloths
So you can't just do 25%+50%=75% chance he's guilty.
Because out of the 50% of times that he's guilty (because of blood on his cloths), he is already guilty 25% of that time (because of fingerprints on the knife).
I would rather put it as: 'fine tuning does not exist' is a scientific myth.
But that has all been covered above.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
But that's all the evidence we have about the universe!
Sure we can't say for sure that the universal die (that determined all the constants) was loaded towards deliberate fine tuning for life - we'd have to inspect the die (talk to God) to prove that.
All we know is that the universal die rolled sixes 20 times in a row, and came up with a life supporting universe!
What is a betting man meant to conclude?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
It does not explain fine tuning - the multiverse (if it exists) MUST BE FINE-TUNED for life - many of the fine tuned parameters are multiverses level parameters.
And it also implies a first cause - eternal inflation was caused by something.
If you were God, would not you consider it a mighty deed to create a whole multiverse of life supporting universes?
He's incorrigible. Can't stop talking, even now. Well, he was a lawyer.
Not to make silly generalisations from one event.
Quoting Devans99
It doesn't need to. It ceases to be a meaningful question.
Quoting Devans99
Nope, by definition it is eternal.
Quoting Devans99
Especially if I didn't exist. Creating a universe while not existing is hugely impressive.
But there is no option with the fine tuning argument - the BB happened once and will not be repeated for our edification. And the 20 or so fine tuned parameters - sort of count as 20 separate events / instances of fine tuning. Both the WAP and SAP are rubbish. Fine tuning for life is a strong argument.
But its fundamentally a probabilistical argument, so no-one has any option but to be a betting man on fine tuning for life.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Eternal inflation has all the matter of our universe being created in the inflation field. The cause of this is given as a piece of anti-gravity material.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
It is in actual fact claimed by its creator (Guth) to be 'future eternal' but not 'past eternal'. I can't really go into this on this thread - its too busy - I will do a separate thread later.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
As an aside, you can never prove that God does not exist!
Snookered! as they say in my parts...
That's not a betting man's argument, that's a missionary's argument, based on ignorance and bad logic. Even with only one universe, the parameters of that universe only need an explanation at all if life is some kind of desired outcome from the start. That's why creationists can't get their heads around it. It has to be about me...
I've gone over this before. If there's a 25% chance that he's guilty given the first evidence then there's a 75% chance that he's innocent given the first evidence, and if there's a separate 50% chance that he's guilty given the second evidence then there's a separate 50% chance that he's innocent given the second evidence.
The way you then add the guilty probabilities together can also be used to add the innocent probabilities together, and these lead to the contradictory result that both the probability of guilt and the probability of innocence are > 50% which is a contradiction.
Consider this example:
1. Evidence A shows that there is a 50% chance that John is the shooter and a 50% chance that Mary is the shooter.
2. Evidence B shows that there is a 50% chance that John is the shooter and a 50% chance that Mary is the shooter.
3. I use the reasoning you've used before and say that there's a 50% + 50% * 50% = 75% chance that John is the shooter.
4. I use the reasoning you've used before and say that there's a 50% + 50% * 50% = 75% chance that Mary is the shooter.
5. There is a 75% chance that John is the shooter and a 75% chance that Mary is the shooter.
6. Given that iff John is the shooter then John is guilty and iff Mary is the shooter then John is innocent, there is a 75% chance that John is guilty and a 75% chance that John is innocent.
The conclusion is contradictory.
I don't agree. If you found a watch on the beech that told the time, would you conclude:
A) By some random co-incidence, particles have arranged themselves into a functioning watch?
Or
B) Someone made that watch?
Good effort!
But that's two separate propositions:
- Is John the shooter?
AND
- Is Mary the shooter?
Its just fine for it to be 75% probability for BOTH of these separate propositions are true.
I think also there maybe a problem with your evidence. It seems contradictory to state that one piece of evidence can both support and deny the conclusion that John is the shooter. I would say that 50% John. 50% Mary, cancel out - there is a 50% chance that John did it and a 50% chance that John did not do it - giving a 0% chance that John did it.
This appears to be the irreducible complexity argument borrowed from anti-Darwinist creationists. It a) is no less ridiculous than the prior arguments and b) has no bearing here since there's no sense in which the particular universal constants we have can be said to be complex in themselves.
It isn't fine. If Mary is the shooter then John isn't the shooter, so if there is a 75% chance that Mary is the shooter then there is a 75% chance that John isn't the shooter, which contradicts the other conclusion that there is a 75% chance that John is the shooter.
Quoting Devans99
Your reasoning also entails that there is 50% chance that Mary did it and a 50% chance that Mary didn't do it, giving a 0% chance that Mary did it. So despite the evidence being that there's a 50% chance that John did it and a 50% chance that Mary did it, it's actually the case that there's a 0% chance that either of them did it.
So the evidence that one of them did it is evidence that neither of them did it. Yet another contradiction.
Your understanding of probability is deeply flawed.
Well a lot of factors go into making a watch. It's incredibly unlikely to happen by chance.
And a lot of factors go into making a life supporting universe. Thats also incredibly unlikely to happen by chance.
We will maybe have to agree to disagree on the fine tuning argument, I'm not sure we are getting anywhere?
Quoting Devans99
There's that fallacy once again, repeated unabated as if never having been pointed out before.
Comments suggests you started out with the divine fallacy.
Start over. Try something more defensible. (Could at least respond to prior replies.)
They could both be the shooters.
Quoting Michael
You do just not read my posts properly I think...
50% chance Mary did it = 50% chance John did not do it
So when you say:
Evidence A shows that there is a 50% chance that John is the shooter and a 50% chance that Mary is the shooter
You are actually saying:
Evidence A shows that there is a 50% chance that John is the shooter and a 50% chance that John is NOT the shooter
Which clearly cancels out to 0%
Not in this case. Evidence C shows that there is a 100% chance that there is only 1 shooter.
Yes, and I'm also saying:
Evidence A shows that there is a 50% chance that Mary is the shooter and a 50% chance that Mary is NOT the shooter
No it doesn't. There is a 50% chance that a coin lands heads and a 50% chance that a coin lands tails. This is the same as saying there is a 50% chance that a coin lands heads and a 50% chance that a coin does not land heads. Therefore this "cancels out" to there being a 0% chance that the coin lands heads? Surely you can see how wrong that is?
Can you disprove the existence of unicorns for me please?
Have you been there then? Which holiday agency was that?
Well I admit this is where I am stuck. I have possibly in mind that an atemporal being maybe like a brick - the brick is timeless - so the left side of the brick is static, but the right side of the brick can grow to accommodate additional actions.
The actions it performs only need to be expressed in spacetime.
But we must combine evidence here:
- We know that the chance of heads is 50%
- You have introduced additional evidence that the chance of heads is 50% and the chance of not heads is 50%
- That is not evidence - it cancels out
- So the chance of heads remains at 50%
I'm not introducing additional evidence. I'm stating the known fact that there is a 50% chance that the coin will land heads and a 50% chance that the coin will not land heads. This doesn't "cancel out" to there being a 0% chance that the coin will land heads.
If you don't understand this post and if you continue to talk about these kind of probabilities "cancelling out" to 0% then my attempts to educate you are futile and so I won't waste any more time. I suggest you do some research into probability theory. This is really basic stuff.
They do exist — in children's stories and fantasies.
Unless that's what your god is supposed to be, the onus probandi still remains in your court (along with the increasing fallacy-count).
Quoting Devans99
The other day. A dull place. Inert and lifeless. Half a star out of five.
Devans!
How does that square with the Multiverse theory ? In quantum uncertainty, we know there are things that exist that we cannot observe, so can the atemporal and temporal exist within this realm?
BUT MY WHOLE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT INTRODUCING NEW EVIDENCE!
Quoting Michael
You are just not reading or understanding my posts at all!
Not sure there is much point continuing this either. The idea I am using is NEW TO PROBABILITY - get it! If you won't even take the time to properly read my posts, then we cannot discuss it meaningfully.
Right, got it. You're a kook. I wish you'd started with this.
I'm just pointing out that if you cannot possibly disprove something as incredibly unlikely as a unicorn, how can you possibly disprove intelligence behind the universe?
Quoting jorndoe
It can't logically be that way. Nothing in time is permanent and the existence of anything requires something permanent, so that thing must have somehow caused time.
You think I'm a 'kook'! Thats funny. Take this! (please kindly read it carefully and think it through - its important):
1) Mathematics defines points to have zero length.
2) How many points are there on a line segment length one?
3) Line length / point length = 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED.
4) That can’t be correct
5) So Euclid, Cantor and co MUST HAVE IT WRONG!
6) QED I am not a kook!
Did you not read my reply? This is not a proof, not a reductio, not a successful way to establish something as logically impossible, even in principle: you need to derive a contradiction. Not only do you not derive a contradiction, this argument is explicitly circular and question-begging: infinite sequences going on forever cannot be the premise for rejecting an infinite past (its your 2nd premise in the above) since whether the past can be infinite is precisely the claim that is in dispute.
So all you've done here is merely restate your faith in a finite past... a bit of personal trivia (Devans99 believes in a finite past), not an argument much less a proof and not especially philosophically interesting. This entire thread is like a bad parody of Thomas or William Lane Craig- and that's saying alot since their own apologetics/natural theology are rather comical in their own right.
There is absolutely NO WAY to arrive at that conclusion using LOGIC, REASON, SCIENCE, OR MATH.
This is an interesting thread, especially the side-bars. But the initial assertion is nothing more than, "I 'believe' (in) GOD."
Okay...you "believe" a god exists...and that that god is the god you worship.
So...do you think that The Godfather or The Godfather II was the better movie?
What are you talking about! Look at the statement:
'Nothing can be greater than all finite numbers; they go on forever'
That means:
'Something must be greater than all finite numbers but nothing can be greater than all finite numbers'
Thats a contradiction!
Have you honestly never even taken a basic intro to logic? Not a contradiction with something you said (that there can be nothing greater than all finite numbers), but a self-contradiction. If X is logically impossible, that means X entails a contradiction: it is self-contradictory. But you have not even attempted to derive any self-contradiction from an infinite past, you've only contradicted it with your own assertion to the contrary.
And that last is the real fly in your pudding here- your premise is the same as the conclusion; infinite past cannot exist, because infinite sequences cannot exist. But whether infinite sequences or an eternal past can exist is the claim in question, so taking as a premise that it cannot (as an argument for why it cannot, no less) is viciously circular and question-begging: you aren't even providing a substantive argument at all, just a restatement of the conclusion, making this all amount to no more than a bit of personal trivia about your own personal articles of faith. And that's great... its just not philosophically interesting and so you're operating with the benefit of extreme forbearance of the moderators here.
You are not paying attention clearly!
If you wish to establish how many points are on a line, its LINE LENGTH / POINT LENGTH.
For a line segment length 1 with 0 lengthen points, that 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED.
Quoting Michael
Maybe that is the problem! You have to read through my arguments carefully and think about them - they demonstrate major flaw in our understanding of maths - so they challenge well established assumptions - hence you need to think about this stuff from first principles.
I can safely say that Cantor and Euclid know more about maths than you do. Otherwise you would be publishing your ground-breaking thesis right now, not making terrible arguments on here.
Quoting Devans99
Look how can something be BOTH:
- Greater than than X
- And not greater than X
At the same time? - that's a contradiction!
You have not understood my arguments. None of your counter arguments have had any merit.
A contradiction- between your assertion (that nothing can be greater than "all finite numbers"), and the proposition in question (an infinite sequence). So, not a self-contradiction. So, no proof, no reductio, no logical impossibility. Show that an infinite past or infinite sequence contradicts itself, not that it contradicts your personal views on the matter.
Oh my...
How can something be larger than something that goes on for?
Think it through carefully please!
I haven't understand your arguments because they are nonsense as shown here and here.
How exactly can you demonstrate something is nonsense if you don't even understand it?
Nonsense can't be understood, that's why it's nonsense.
My guess is its all randomly generated - God initiated it (the BB) - what he initiated was brute force generation of life.
The idea being that we would sort of work things out for ourselves.
As time goes on, life gets better, so it seems reasonable.
WHERE EXACTLY ARE YOUR COUNTER ARGUMENTS?
I just demonstrated perfectly that infinite past time leads to a contradiction.
You have not pointed out a single flaw in my argument!
Other people on the forum got it. One did anyway - he said so.
Your problem is that you are not willing to spend sufficient time considering ideas outside established dogma.
[b]How about this:
?+1=?
implies
1=0[/b]
I've pointed out your continued failure to derive a self-contradiction from, or provide a non-circular or question-begging argument against, an infinite sequence or eternal past. Which, given the nature of your argument, means the argument fails.
So not only a flaw, two fatal ones. But at this point it really doesn't look like you're familiar enough with this subject matter to be able to hold up your end of any serious discussion here. And I'm certainly not interested in playing games, which is what it appears this is devolving into.
WHERE?
Quote it for me... I will demonstrate you are wrong!