A fun puzzle for the forums: The probability of God
Back when I was an undergrad, I wrote what I consider my first real philosophy paper, "The Probability of God". That paper is lost to time, but the ideas are the same. I ultimately determined its conclusion was wrong, but no one else was able to at that time. Can you figure out my flaw? Can you figure out another flaw I didn't think of?
1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which all others follow.
2. We can represent this as answering the question, "Why did X happen?" A prior cause is Y. A first cause is simply X.
3. This leads us to 3 plausibilities.
a. There is always a Y for every X. (infinite prior cause).
b. Y eventually wraps back to an X (infinite looped prior cause)
c. There comes a time when there is only X, and nothing prior to Y (first cause)
4. The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist. In other words, you cannot claim "Its not possible for X to exist." To say there existed such a rule would entail "X exists because of Y". But there is no Y when X is a first cause. This can mean a first cause could be anything without limitation. X as a prime cause does not follow any rules besides the fact of its own existence.
5. The two infinite loop options cannot answer the questions with another cause, "Why is is all of causality infinite? What caused it to be this way, instead of finite?" If we say, "Well X happened because of Y", then we're right back where we started. The only answer that can be given is, "It simply is". X is X, because X exists, and nothing prior. In other words, even if there is an infinitely looped chain of causation within the universe, the reason why it is infinitely looped in its causation, is a first cause. Its like that, because it simply exists that way.
6. Therefore the only conclusion is that there is a "First Cause" to our universe. This means that there is no rule or reason why the universe exists, besides the fact that it does. That being the case, wouldn't it be fun to examine the potential of what a first cause would entail, and see what the probability of a God being that first cause, versus a universe without a God being a first cause?
7. We already know that a God forming as a first cause is possible, because with a first cause, there are no rules. Of course, since we do not know what that first cause is, this also means that a universe could have formed without a God just as easily. In either case, it simply is. At first glance, this might mean that it is equally likely that a universe could have formed on its own, or a God could have formed, and created an identical universe. Lets identify what a specific universe and a God are to make sure.
8. What is a specific universe? It is a universe down to its exact positioning of the smallest molecule. Any deviation in particulates makes it a different universe. For our purposes, let us imagine that the prime cause in our universe is the big bang. We aren't trying to state it is the actual prime cause, we're just using this as an easily understood baseline. So, the big bang happens because it simply does, and our universe as it has happened throughout time is one universe. Any deviation from what happens after the big bang is an alternative universe. For example, a universe in which your dominate hand is the opposite of what it is now.
9. So what is a God? A God would be a being that has the power and knowledge to create a specific universe. Imagine a basic living being like an ant. An ant has the power to lift objects, move them around, and craft tunnels. It is nothing like a human however which has the ability to make far more complex predictions, tools, and manipulate reality.
10. We can simplify this power to think and manipulate environments as a number. An ant has a 4 for example, while a human would have a 400. Among humans there are humans who can envision more complex things, and create them faster and easier than others. We can envision that some humans could be at 399, while others at 401 in their ability to craft and create.
11. When anything is possible, it is possible that a being could be a prime cause that has the power and knowledge to create a specific universe. This being we would call a God. For a baseline, let us say that the power and ability required to create our universe would be 42,000,000. A God would be a prime cause that meets this minimum capability, creates the big bang, and our universe occurs exactly as in the one situation in which the big bang was the prime cause. But couldn’t a being with a greater capability also have formed as a prime cause and created our identical universe? There is no reason it could not. A God rated at 42,000,001 could have been the prime cause. This God is just slightly more capable then the baseline, and they decide to create our universe in its identical form.
13. If we take this to its conclusion, there is nothing to stop a God of greater power being the first cause that creates our universe exactly as it is from its inception. 43 million. 43 billion. An infinite number of beings with the power and capability to create a universe far more complex than our own, and yet they decide to create our specific universe.
14. This leads to an interesting conclusion. It would seem that for every one distinct possible universe that could form without a God, there are an infinite number of possible Gods that could have formed as the primary cause, and created that exact universe!
15. Note that this does not mean we can know anything about this particular God. It may be good or evil, still alive, or ceased to be. There may be one God, or more than one God. Further, if this God or any God still continues to interact with the universe after its inception, it would be indistinguishable from a universe which has no God, but has things in it that make it appear that a God is still involved.
16. But, if we are to gamble and wonder whether our universe formed without a God as a primary cause, versus a God as a primary cause, it is infinite to 1 that our universe was formed by a God instead of simply forming on its own.
Alright, the challenge is on! Where is the flaw I finally found? Can you introduce a flaw I missed?
Edit: After a fantastic discusion with 3017Amen, I reveal the flaw on page 3 of the posts! I still encourage you to think on it on your own first, and see if you can figure it out yourself. I will be keeping an eye on this for a while, and will respond to further questions and guesses.
1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which all others follow.
2. We can represent this as answering the question, "Why did X happen?" A prior cause is Y. A first cause is simply X.
3. This leads us to 3 plausibilities.
a. There is always a Y for every X. (infinite prior cause).
b. Y eventually wraps back to an X (infinite looped prior cause)
c. There comes a time when there is only X, and nothing prior to Y (first cause)
4. The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist. In other words, you cannot claim "Its not possible for X to exist." To say there existed such a rule would entail "X exists because of Y". But there is no Y when X is a first cause. This can mean a first cause could be anything without limitation. X as a prime cause does not follow any rules besides the fact of its own existence.
5. The two infinite loop options cannot answer the questions with another cause, "Why is is all of causality infinite? What caused it to be this way, instead of finite?" If we say, "Well X happened because of Y", then we're right back where we started. The only answer that can be given is, "It simply is". X is X, because X exists, and nothing prior. In other words, even if there is an infinitely looped chain of causation within the universe, the reason why it is infinitely looped in its causation, is a first cause. Its like that, because it simply exists that way.
6. Therefore the only conclusion is that there is a "First Cause" to our universe. This means that there is no rule or reason why the universe exists, besides the fact that it does. That being the case, wouldn't it be fun to examine the potential of what a first cause would entail, and see what the probability of a God being that first cause, versus a universe without a God being a first cause?
7. We already know that a God forming as a first cause is possible, because with a first cause, there are no rules. Of course, since we do not know what that first cause is, this also means that a universe could have formed without a God just as easily. In either case, it simply is. At first glance, this might mean that it is equally likely that a universe could have formed on its own, or a God could have formed, and created an identical universe. Lets identify what a specific universe and a God are to make sure.
8. What is a specific universe? It is a universe down to its exact positioning of the smallest molecule. Any deviation in particulates makes it a different universe. For our purposes, let us imagine that the prime cause in our universe is the big bang. We aren't trying to state it is the actual prime cause, we're just using this as an easily understood baseline. So, the big bang happens because it simply does, and our universe as it has happened throughout time is one universe. Any deviation from what happens after the big bang is an alternative universe. For example, a universe in which your dominate hand is the opposite of what it is now.
9. So what is a God? A God would be a being that has the power and knowledge to create a specific universe. Imagine a basic living being like an ant. An ant has the power to lift objects, move them around, and craft tunnels. It is nothing like a human however which has the ability to make far more complex predictions, tools, and manipulate reality.
10. We can simplify this power to think and manipulate environments as a number. An ant has a 4 for example, while a human would have a 400. Among humans there are humans who can envision more complex things, and create them faster and easier than others. We can envision that some humans could be at 399, while others at 401 in their ability to craft and create.
11. When anything is possible, it is possible that a being could be a prime cause that has the power and knowledge to create a specific universe. This being we would call a God. For a baseline, let us say that the power and ability required to create our universe would be 42,000,000. A God would be a prime cause that meets this minimum capability, creates the big bang, and our universe occurs exactly as in the one situation in which the big bang was the prime cause. But couldn’t a being with a greater capability also have formed as a prime cause and created our identical universe? There is no reason it could not. A God rated at 42,000,001 could have been the prime cause. This God is just slightly more capable then the baseline, and they decide to create our universe in its identical form.
13. If we take this to its conclusion, there is nothing to stop a God of greater power being the first cause that creates our universe exactly as it is from its inception. 43 million. 43 billion. An infinite number of beings with the power and capability to create a universe far more complex than our own, and yet they decide to create our specific universe.
14. This leads to an interesting conclusion. It would seem that for every one distinct possible universe that could form without a God, there are an infinite number of possible Gods that could have formed as the primary cause, and created that exact universe!
15. Note that this does not mean we can know anything about this particular God. It may be good or evil, still alive, or ceased to be. There may be one God, or more than one God. Further, if this God or any God still continues to interact with the universe after its inception, it would be indistinguishable from a universe which has no God, but has things in it that make it appear that a God is still involved.
16. But, if we are to gamble and wonder whether our universe formed without a God as a primary cause, versus a God as a primary cause, it is infinite to 1 that our universe was formed by a God instead of simply forming on its own.
Alright, the challenge is on! Where is the flaw I finally found? Can you introduce a flaw I missed?
Edit: After a fantastic discusion with 3017Amen, I reveal the flaw on page 3 of the posts! I still encourage you to think on it on your own first, and see if you can figure it out yourself. I will be keeping an eye on this for a while, and will respond to further questions and guesses.
Comments (196)
I predicated that there are only two options. Either everything has a cause, or there is a certain point in the causal chain in which there is no prior cause. This is a first cause, and it has no reason for its being besides the fact that it is.
Yet I show that this choice is actually false. That it is necessary and inevitable that even in the idea that there exists an infinite chain of causes, why it is the case this is, cannot be explained by anything else than, "That's the way it is".
I may not be clear enough on this point, which is on me. Lets look at it this way.
Let us say we conclude that there is actually an infinite causal chain of explanations for why anything exists.
Lets call this realization set(infiniteRegress). There is still one question which is not answered.
Why is it that existence has an infinite regress of causality?
We can't say, set(InfiniteR) exists because of Y, which then exists because of Z, which then...
Because it leads back to the samepoint. Set(infintiteRegress2) (which honestly is the same as 1).
And again the question of, "Well why is THAT set of answers an infinite regress of causality over a finite regress of causality?" appears. You can always go outside of that and ask the question. You can take the entire metanarrative of it, and that question remains. The only answer at the end is, "Because it is". The fact of realizing there is an infinite regressive causality (if true) is realizing that its existence has no explanation, besides the fact that it is.
This means that all causality inevitably leads into a first cause. This cause has no prior explanation or rule for why it is, it simply is. And I'm not talking hypothetically, I'm talking logically. It is impossible by how we understand causation for there to exist a cause, that does not eventually up its chain of causation, have a first cause.
Second, its perfectly possible that a God as defined above is a flying magic purple hippopatami. That doesn't counter the logic or the conclusion. The logic embraces it. I note this in point 15.
Quoting tim wood
But I did not state that all beings have causes. All I stated was that since it is true that there must be at least one first cause in the causal chain of existence, and it is necessary that the first cause could be anything, what is the probability that it is a God as I defined it above, or not a God?
Not a worry tim wood, its a new argument A lot of times people want to apply their knowledge of old arguments in this, and miss what I'm trying to say. I presented this to several fellow grad students back in the day, and it took a while before they understood what the argument was trying to say. They weren't slouches, so feel free to ask questions and follow ups.
Its meant to be a fun thinking exercise and awaken that wonder of philosophical exploration again! There are no stupid questions or attacks on it, so feel free to throw anything out there. I also will not be offended, take anything personally, or think anything less of anyone. I just want a good, fun discussion from people who like philosophy. =)
Well right off the bat the first statement you made is an assumption (a popular one ) but an assumption non the less and I'm sorry but a big bang/ 1st cause is a pathetic desperate attempt and not loosing funding and being fired for failing at finding an answer to the beginning of the Cosmos. In other words I'm calling the Big Bang Theory a half-assed concept that was pulled out of the ass of a scientist that was afraid they're going to lose funding and have to go find a different jobs so he cold that fallacious concept out of a place where the sun doesn't shine and presented it and just the right amount of fluff so that people with money would accept it and give the scientists more money.
Yes it was a harsh and very simplistic exclamation butt I want you to read it with a sarcastic undertone of Jim Carrey
Before diving in to the details of your argument, I would ask this. Can you prove that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality? So far, quick first take, my impression is that you just assume this to be true. Welcome a correction if that's not the case.
Hi Hippyhead. So in discussions like these, we assume the norm. If you can show that the norm is wrong in this instance, then feel free. But it kind of like someone saying, "Lets discuss metaphysics" with another replying, "But can you prove you're not an alien first?!" =)
So how to examine this argument? There are premises and definitions I put forward. Assume norms like the fact English is a viable language to discuss this in. Then, run with the logic.
If you cannot find a flaw within the premises and definitions, then take the logic that I put forward to its conclusion. I'll post some hints if you're in the ballpark.
To Mayael, I'm not sure if you were repyling to myself or tim wood. I don't think tim was addressing the big bang, so I'm assuming its me. The big bang is only an example of a first cause that does not entail a God. It does not mean that the big bang IS the first cause. For all we know, its something else. I'm using familiar ideas so that way the argument isn't just an abstract equation, but has something more concrete to relate to as well.
I have no formal training in analytical philosophy, so I'm not qualified to detect flaws, such as unwarranted assumptions, in your argument. So, I'll just note that argumentation in words has the inherent weakness of subjective interpretation of intended meanings.
Perhaps, with that deficiency in mind, scientist & humorist Steven Unwin has written a book that takes Pascal's statistical Wager as a challenge. In The Probability of God, he uses the "universal unambiguous language of science" (i.e. mathematics) to calculate the likelihood of the existence of a traditional universal God, based not on theological Faith, but on logical Math. Unfortunately, even statistical analysis is slightly subject to implicit bias, unless the answer is confirmed by other objective calculators. Unwin's computation found a 67% positive probability. Was your "conclusion" 100% wrong, or some fraction thereof? :joke:
The Probability of God : https://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/mar/08/highereducation.uk1
Thanks for that link! I never know about that. I would definitely say his own bias affects that equation. It notes that he started with a 50/50, and used things like the existence of goodness as positive for a God. That doesn't fly in this argument. There is nothing to state that such a God in my argument would be good, evil, flying spaghetti monster, or even still alive today.
And no worry, you don't need any analytical training in philosophy or knowledge of any specific author. Just take the definitions, take the arguments, and see if the conclusion is correct using the premises of the argument and logic. No fancy word play needed here!
I'm reluctant to tell you where to look specifically, because I may have missed a flaw and would like it pointed out. Also, the exercise should be fun to think through. I've always enjoyed constructing the argument in my head, seeing the puzzle, and determining if the argument works. Once someone starts like saying, "Well on point 5, you can't conclude this because..." then I'll be giving hints.
Of course, it may be that people aren't that interested in reading it and thinking through it. I'll leave it up for at least a week to give people a chance though.
Hi there Philosophim, thanks for engaging.
Say I make claims X,Y and Z by referencing the Bible as the relevant authority. In that case it would be my burden to demonstrate that the Bible is in fact a qualified authority on the subjects of X,Y and Z.
Point being, it's not my burden to prove that the methodology you've chosen is qualified for the task to which you've applied it. It's your burden.
If you wish just to play a logic game while admitting it has no proven relevance to reality, ok, no problem.
All that said, I would agree it's entirely normal, almost universal, for folks to just assume without questioning that human reason is qualified to address any topic, no matter how large. Normal, but not very good philosophy. Imho, if your professors didn't already present you with this challenge (so far it sounds like you've not heard it before), then you should request a refund.
Very nice! I'm subscribed!
My gut reaction relates to logical possibility and logical necessity. When I get more time I'll be happy to add some thoughts... .
I think you are letting your bias against religion cloud your ability to partake in some fun. Or is it you're worried you won't be able to figure out the flaw? If you wish to say, "Well you have to prove with human reason, why we should use human reason," before a topic can be addressed, why think on anything then? Now I COULD dive into a few pages on this topic, but that's not the point of the original post is it? You don't go to other topics and tell them, "You haven't proven logic first, so its pointless!"
Sorry, but I'm going to have the completely unreasonable demand that we will assume human logic is a safe starting point. To participate in even talking about tying your shoes, you need this. Within human logic, where is the flaw in the original post? You can point out where I am being illogical within human reason, but you cannot reason as a human, that using human reason is illogical.
FYI, I have no bias against religion in general. Really, I don't. You'll see this as we proceed.
No, I'm not, because I've already done that. :-)
Actually, I do that all the time. :-) And professional philosophers commenting on religion dodge the challenge all the time, just as you are doing. Very normal.
The post assumes the rules of human reason are binding upon the subject of gods, without questioning such a huge assumption in any way at all, or offering evidence of any kind to support that assumption. This my friend, is human logic at work.
You appear to want me to accept that premise as a matter of faith, just as you are doing, and then confine myself within that illusion. I don't object to the request, I just decline to be a person of faith.
Human beings are immeasurably small. The god idea addresses the very largest questions about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.
You're making a VERY COMMON unwarranted leap from...
Logic is good for many things.
TO:
Logic is good for everything.
Ok, this is better. First, I never claimed logic is good for everything. I claimed logic is good for the argument I posted. Can you explain to me why logic is not good for the argument posted? If you aren't addressing the argument in terms of the topic, then we're off topic. We can agree on that right?
Quoting Hippyhead
Really? Where did I assume that? Can you point out in my post where I did that? I'm pretty sure I did not. Kindly point it out to me.
No. But I have gone through my own reasoning process regarding the probable existence of a Creator God. It was in the form of a layman's non-academic non-mathematical thesis statement, and was based on a variety of modern scientific "facts".
Statistical probabilities may apply only within the mathematical system we observe in our local universe. But, we tend to assume that mathematics is universal, in all possible universes.
Quoting Philosophim
Either infinite intermediate causes or an eternal final Causal Principle.
Final Cause : the purpose or aim of an action or the end toward which a thing naturally develops.
Quoting Philosophim
a> Turtles all the way down
b> Infinite chain of cyclical universes
c> Nothing cannot be a Cause
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, the Creator makes the rules. Our local First Cause could be an Eternal Principle of Causation.
Quoting Philosophim
The only limitation for our human definition of the Creator is that it must make sense to our imperfect logical minds.
Quoting Philosophim
Multiverse theorists tend to take the unexplainable "just is" diversion to avoid further questions that are unanswerable with empirical scientific methods. It's like a parent's answer to a pestering child's
"why" questions : "just because . . ." But philosophers are not bound by empirical evidence, and often speculate based on logical evidence : "this follows from that".
Quoting Philosophim
Would that it were so simple!
The existence of the universe has only one "Why" answer : intentional creation.
But scientists typically dismiss philosophical "why" questions as irrelevant. What they want to know is "how". And the Big Bang, although still debated, is our best answer. Unfortunately, it was rejected at first, because it seemed to imply an intentional "act of creation" rather than a random accident.
My personal G*D theory is based on extrapolations from our knowledge of the Creation to postulate the necessary characteristics of the Creator. We come to know the Artist by examining the Art-work. Our gradually evolving world currently entails a somewhat different kind of Creator from the gods of human societies prior to the Theory of Evolution. Back then, they assumed that the only evolution was negative, in that humans were expelled from the perfect idyllic Garden into a thorny world of blood, sweat & tears.
Quoting Philosophim
a> Does that imply that the First Cause simply popped into existence at an arbitrary point in eternity, for no reason at all? I find that hard to believe. Instead, I think that some Power or Potential or Principle must have always existed, in order for anything to exist. I call that Principle "BEING" : the power to be.
b> Our universe is a chain of cause & effect extending back to a singular point, beyond which we have no idea what existed. But our logical minds tend to assume some prior Cause, even in a timeless state. Spontaneous existence with no precedence is not an idea we have any evidence for. "It simply is" is no answer for a philosopher.
c> If so, the universe itself would have to possess the power of sudden self-creation or eternal self-existence. But the Big Bang put an end to such notions, that assumed the ever-changing physical universe was inherently Eternal. For the physical universe to be self-caused, the theoretical mathematical Singularity would be its First Cause : from Math to Matter?
BTW --- If G*D is an eternal creative principle, it would have the potential to create an infinite number of mini-verses. But the only actual world we have experience with is obviously finite, and bounded by space & time.
Quoting Philosophim
A Specified Universe would be the effect of a specific Cause. But our universe is not completely specified or deterministic. Instead, it seems to have begun with "program" similar to DNA that had the potential for gradually developing into a functioning living thinking "organism", but with the freedom to adapt along the way to random variations. Freedom within Determinism.
Quoting Philosophim
In our real world experience, "Creative Power" is what we call Potential, to bring into existence something that does not yet exist. Intelligent Creative Power would have the power & know-how to create intelligent beings.
Quoting Philosophim
Relative to our imperfect finite universe, the First Cause would have to possess infinite Potential, or at least something like an asymptote to Infinity --- is 67% creative power sufficient to produce a world from nothing?
Quoting Philosophim
See 10 above.
But what "exactly" was the Big Bang? Was it a statistical accident, or a quantum fluctuation, or an act of God?
Quoting Philosophim
Infinite independent-minded Beings instead of a single Infinite BEING? That sounds like Chaos.
Quoting Philosophim
See 13 above.
Quoting Philosophim
Good & Evil are human evaluations of our less than perfect world. But an infinite creator would have to encompass both Good and Evil, which in equal amounts would cancel-out to Neutral. Neither Good nor Evil, just all possible values.
If an intentional divine creation worked like an Evolutionary Program, and operated as designed, without any need for intervention, it would be indistinguishable from the universe we find ourselves in. A properly designed computer program, once executed, would compute its own internal adaptations via feedback loops, until the final solution is found, and the answer printed out : "42" perhaps.
Evolutionary Programming : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
Quoting Philosophim
I'm not quite that optimistic. We don't have enough information to calculate such odds, without making some arbitrary unfounded assumptions. So, I simply say the universe looks like it could be a progressive program created by a Prime Programmer. But what was the question that prompted the program????
Quoting Philosophim
I don't know . . . did I miss something? :joke:
Odds for God : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page51.html
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
But aren't you assuming, without questioning or any evidence, that logic is qualified to address topics the scale of gods? More to the point, isn't such an unexamined assumption extremely common, not just on philosophy forums, but among philosophy professionals as well?
I obviously can't prove that logic isn't qualified to address topics the scale of gods, not being one myself. I'm not claiming logic is unqualified for such investigations, only that it has not been proven so, and to me at least, it seems unlikely that it is.
I'm not challenging your arguments, I'm challenging the foundation your arguments are built upon.
If others wish to ignore the foundation, and play the game you as wish to play it, I have no objection, go for it.
Thank you Gnomon for participating! You spent a good deal of time on your post, and will attempt to honor you in kind. We may come into disagreement at point, but know that it is from a place of respect.
Quoting Gnomon
You note this as a translation to my point "There comes a time when there is only X, and nothing prior to Y (first cause)"
I want to make sure we're on the same page with this. I am not claiming, "Nothing caused X". That would be the continuation of "Y caused X", and would not be a prime cause. Nothing, did not cause X. X simply is, without any reason for its being. This is a key point.
If you believe in a God, then you believe this as well right? You don't believe anything caused a God right? A God simply is. It has no reason for its being, besides that it is. But we're also jumping the gun here.
Quoting Gnomon
Before we even dive into what the definition of a God would be, we have to address the logic of whether there is infinite causality, or a finite starting point first. The points and conclusion that I hold are that there MUST be a first cause, and describe what exactly a first cause must entail.
At this point, I'm not assuming there is a creator, or there is not a creator. I am simply examining whether we can logically conclude that there is an infinite regress of causality, or if there inevitably is a first cause. I conclude based on the logic of what both entail, that all things inevitably arrive at a first cause.
If you believe a creator is a first cause, then that's fine, I say that's a possiblity after the initial logic claim. But it is also possible under the logic that a first cause is NOT a creator. You cannot claim that a creator had to be the first cause, until you can disprove the claim where I show a first cause would not be bound by any rules as to what it had to be.
I'll sum up what you need to disprove first with the below summary.
1. A first cause has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is.
2. As a first cause has no prior reason for its existence, there are no rules that bind it to having to be a particular existence. It simply is.
3. For if you stated, "A first cause MUST be a particular existence", then there is a reason behind that. But if there is a reason behind that, it is not a prime cause, but relies on a previous cause that bounds it to some necessity of being".
I get it, this part trips people up a little until they figure out what is actually being said.
Simplified further.
A = A A is a prime cause.
A -> B is true. A prime cause can cause another.
C -> A cannot be true.
If you say A MUST be X, why?
If A MUST be X
you are claiming X defines -> A, because MUST implies A is limited in what it can be by X. Such a limitation is a rule outside of A, which would then be a cause of A's being.
Since X -> A cannot be true
A is not defined by anything else, and thus can only be understood as its existence, not by something that is not its existence.
Quoting Gnomon
Yep. If you imply there is a reason, you imply something BEHIND that first cause. A first cause does not have a reason. It simply is. And this is not as a cop out btw (I undersood what you meant though). This is a logical conclusion, and in fact, the only conclusion I can draw.
Quoting Gnomon
Until you show the above logic as incorrect, this cannot be claimed.
Quoting Gnomon
No, if it is a first cause, it did not cause itself. It was not, then it was. If it has the power of eternal self-existence, as a first cause, it does, because it does. Remember that each of these points applies equally to a God (as I defined it remember, not any particular God).
Quoting Gnomon
This is a fine way to define it. As long as you understand the underlying concept that at any point of creative power, we can imagine a greater creative power, we're good!
Quoting Gnomon
I don't think this is logical. Think of it this way. I can make a house. But that might be my limit. (The universe). Someone else might be able to make lots of houses. Then houses, skyscrapers etc. We can keep adding more to what is created.
So imagine our entire universe. If we are thinking in terms without limitations as to what a first cause would be, then the first cause could be something with only the power to make one universe, our own. But then a first cause could have formed that could have created two universes, but that's it. Or 3. Or more, or infinite. But of course, the infinitely powerful God is only one of an infinite other possible gods.
Quoting Philosophim
I should have written that as, "An infinite number of possible beings". Remember, we're talking about all the possibilities that entail under the rules of a first cause when we do not know what that first cause is.
Ok, I think that addresses the points that are still pertinent to the start. Feel free to ask for clarifications, and of course, keep trying to find holes!
No its not an assumption. Logic has a proven reliability and usefulness. Its something you can study academically. I dont see how you can defend your statement “assuming, without questioning or any evidence“. Thats clearly not the case, there has been plenty of study on logic.
This is like questioning science (in general, not to include questioning IN science which is part of its method of course).
Ok, sure. What else you got to replace science? What about to replace logic? What do you think would be a better tool than logic in order to determine the existence of a god that's not detectable by science?
So whats this gripe you got with philosophers?
I did a thesis years ago and asked whether God was a subjective or objective truth. After much debate the answer was both ( albeit it was relatively gradient and contextual). Similarly, there might be consideration given to a dipolar God who creates or causes existence/cosmological space-time ex nihilo. Allow me to elaborate.
I think that one of the flaws associated with a causational God not having any attributes could be problematic to some ( your items 4 thru 9). On the one hand I really like that there are no rules in describing its existence. After all, existentially, who really has the logic capable of understanding a first cause and /or the mind of a God concept anyway... . For example, the task of reconciling a Being or metaphysical energy force that is both dependent on time and space for it's existence, yet timeless (outside of time) and unchangeable and therefore not dependent on anything else for it's own existence is paradoxical.
And so (before my point) the reason I bring that up is because of the widely accepted Big Bang theory (as you so well pointed out). And as such a first cause would have to account for the foregoing because for one, mathematics (a changeless and timeless truth) so effectively describes the universe and the Big Bang itself. Which in effect makes a timeless platonic God appealing and certainly plausible. Meaning if the Big Bang was the starting point for time, space and matter (creation ex nihilo) then a dipolar God who was timeless living outside of temporal time (not time dependent for its existence) would have to enter time to create temporal time itself. In other words, what was a timeless platonic God doing before the BB, and what are its attributes.
For those reasons, causation or first cause ex nihilo has to consider a dipolar attribute of some sort.
Nevertheless, I'm still open to your existential (hence paradoxical) treatment to the no-rules argument of a first cause since afterall as suggested earlier, we cannot even understand many things associated with the nature of our own existence (consciousness being one; time being another) much less a super-natural force or a Being with transcendent qualities and attributes.. And so much like multiverse theories, the floodgates are really open as to what might be considered logically possible there. And I take no exception to that.
Otherwise, the other obvious and important flaw I don't have time to discuss (just putting it out there for fodder) is accounting for self-aware, conscious Beings, who happen to be here.
This is the classic error which gets blindly repeated over and over and over again, even by some of the most prominent thinkers. This error is the foundation of atheism for example.
Yes, logic has proven useful for too many things to list at human scale. That is certainly true. But that does NOT automatically equal logic being useful for EVERYTHING, no matter how large the question.
Here's an example. Holy books have provided comfort and meaning to billions of people over thousands of years, an astounding accomplishment which science can't begin to touch. Holy books have proven themselves beyond any doubt to have this ability in very many cases. But that does not automatically equal holy books being qualified for any claim they might make. We can't blindly leap from one proven ability to any claim whatsoever, no matter how large, and label that logic.
Quoting DingoJones
I'd be happy to question science in general, but let's save that for another thread. Start one if you wish, and I'll try to join you there.
Quoting DingoJones
I'm attempting to replace your logic with real logic. Real logic, not ideological assertions made from an emotional attachment to some ideology which perhaps makes you feel superior to somebody else.
I'm just joining them in leaving nothing above inspection and challenge.
You appear to be assuming, like almost all commentators on the subject, that a God can only exist or not, one or the other. Such an assumption is seriously challenged by an observation of reality, which reveals that the vast majority of reality, space, does not fit neatly in to either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" categories.
Imho, this is a very common error, which to be fair to you, is shared by many of the greatest thinkers on these subjects, theist and atheist. You simply assume without questioning that the question at hand (does God exist?) is a valid and useful question, and then build an elaborate chain of sophisticated reasoning on top of that very shaky foundation. All of your effort goes in to your preferred answers, none of it goes in to the question.
What I'm attempting to illustrate in these comments is an efficient philosophical method which I call "going up a level", though surely someone can come up with a better name.
It's easiest to get the "going up a level" methodology when it is applied to some position we don't agree with. To illustrate, imagine the reader is an atheist, and some theist starts a thread claiming something like, "So and so is true, because it says so in the Bible." The efficiently lazy :-) atheist doesn't need to be dragged through a 7 year long analysis of 147 Bible verses, they can just ask the theist to prove that the Bible is qualified to speak to whatever the claim is. The atheist has "gone up a level" from the detailed arguments to the authority the arguments are derived from.
Atheist readers may enthusiastically approve of "going up a level", until that methodology is applied to atheism, then not so much. :-)
I didnt say it does. I’m merely pointing out that we have no reason to think logic would fail at any particular thing. Until we do, the proven reliability of logic means its our best tool. Can you offer anything that shows the limits of logic at the “scale” of god? Or anything where abandoning logic in favour of another tool is the better way?
No one is reflexively using logic in this unthinking way you suggest. If you have something better, Id be happy to use that. I just want the best tool for the job, if you have a better one then please share its wonders.
Quoting Hippyhead
Holy books providing comfort and meaning is irrelevant to making claims about things. Providing meaning/comfort is not something that qualifies anything about claims about existence.
And again, no one is blindly applying logic. This is a strawman. You are asserting with no evidence that logic is being blindly, dogmatically applied.
Quoting Hippyhead
You miss the point. You dont have a better tool to offer, so with science as with logic you have no substance to your argument. All you got is “hey, maybe logic or science isnt the best tool for so and so”. Ok, sure, maybe, but you have nothing to offer as an alternative so now you are just asking people to not rely on logic for no real reason (because you can imagine the possibility it might not be the best tool...no substance).
Quoting Hippyhead
Lol, who are you talking to? You’ve created this phantom strawman. How did you determine what logic I use, how did you determine Im operating on an emotional attachment over “real logic” and what have I said that makes you think I might be trying to exercise a feeling of superiority to anyone else?
Quoting Hippyhead
I dont think you are. Certainly you arent challenging anything, you havent provided any real argument Im sorry to say.
Its pretty clear you have an axe to grind here...did you have some bad experiences with philosophers?
Yes, we do have good reason to suspect that the highly imperfect reasoning ability of a semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves with thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat (an ever present threat it finds too boring to discuss) just might not be capable of generating credible answers to the very largest questions about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, an arena which said species can not define in even the most basic manner.
Apologies, but you are merely chanting atheist ideology dogmas.
Quoting DingoJones
I don't need to provide an alternative, that's not my burden. As an salesman for logic and science it is YOUR burden to prove that such methodologies are qualified for the tasks which you are applying them to. You're advocating the universal qualifications of reason, without actually doing reason yourself. Classic atheist error.
No, we have good reason to think we have no better alternative. Imperfect reasoning sure, but what else fo we have? We b do the best with what we have.
Quoting Hippyhead
Lol, oh youre a real gem. What is an atheist ideology dogma?
Can you name one, so I know what you mean by that?
Quoting Hippyhead
Well, if you are telling me im not allowed or shouldnt use my current tools then Im asking you which ones you would like me to use. If you cant, then I dont see anything wrong or unreasonable about using the best tools I know of and I will do so without making assumptions or by blind faith to logic/science. Happy to discard my tools the second you provide a better one.
You continue to argue against a strawman. Maybe you have in mind some rabid, Idealogical atheist...thats not me so calm down.
And where have I lacked reason? Id like you to point out my lack of reason.
Also, im not a salesmen for logic and science. They dont need a salesmen, they sell themselves. They are our most powerful tools for determining truth...but since im interested in the best tools i would just love to hear about better ones. Even if its just a better tool for this one question about whether there is a god. Do you got one?
Also, logic and science arent only used by atheists on the god question, they are also used by theists and apologists to make their case aa well, so im sorry to say your whole premiss fails before it even starts.
My point is, you're not doing that. You're not following your own chosen methodology.
If a religious person makes a claim from the Bible, you ask them to prove the Bible is qualified, right? Anybody making any claim bears the burden of proving their chosen authority is qualified to speak credibly to the subject at hand. Apparently, you apply this process only to other people's chosen authorities, but not to your own. Thus, you are not doing reason, but ideology.
Quoting DingoJones
You aren't using reason, that's the problem. You're allowed to use reason, you aren't willing, or not able.
Apologies, but this is just too tiresome. Most constructive thing I can do is grant you victory, wish you well, and bow out.
Ooh, good post! Quoting 3017amen
If you think there is a flaw there, can you figure it out? You have to have more than suspicions!
Quoting 3017amen
Excellent conclusion. I can flesh that out within the argument here (I remember having this in the paper years ago, but didn't want to get too in depth on the forum post)
If you recognize that our universe's big bang could have been a first cause, and a God could have been a first cause that created our specific universe through a big bang, then you are realizing that any first cause, could have also created what could have been considered a first cause in another alternative universe.
In other words.
A = First cause
B = has a prior cause
# = possible universe
A=>A (first cause)
But A could also be B in another created universe A0= B1 in another possible universe(B has a prior cause)
In total this means:
A0 => A0
A0 = B1
A1 => A1
A1 => B1
Take that and bring it into the argument above. And that's the next hint!
Hippyhead, it is obvious at this point that you have not read the actual argument. You have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to keep bumping my post, that's fine, but until you stop attacking that straw man in your world over there, I'm not going to consider your posts as having any value to the topic.
Constructive? In what way is that constructive?! :lol:
Intellectual cowardice more like. You cant defend your assertions and have failed on every level of engagement.
Your poorly thought out criticisms and comments have failed and now youre taking your ball and going home.
Other than a Dipolar God, not sure... I'm stumped
Quoting Philosophim
That multiverse is logically possible?
Fair enough. I can say at this point that those points are not where I found the flaw. Quoting 3017amen
Yes, multiverse theory is very possible at this point. Our universe would be a part of it regardless.
Since we do not know the first cause, of our universe, we're thinking about all the possibilities that it could have been, given the logical conclusion of what a first cause would entail.
Take a look again at the logic where A0 could equal B1 in another possible universe. Now think about what my definition of a God is. Then think about what my definition for a specific universe is. Have I missed something?
Yes, conscious existence.
I don't want to say your wrong, but solution is going to be more than a one line answer. I mention a God is a "Being" which could be conscious or non-conscious of its decisions.
I don't believe there's anything obviously wrong that I did in setting up the precepts of a God. But is there anything wrong or unfair that I did in setting up the precepts of a "specific universe"?
Are you sure? I mean it sounds like you are arguing cosmological existence by way of logical necessity, no?
As long as we insist on identifying understanding with rational explanation familiar to science (mathematics and empiricism) we will inevitably end up with turtle trouble; either an infinite regress, or a mysterious self explaining super turtle, or an unexplained string of turtles.
Could it be that our understanding of existence has no explanation in the usual sense? And only that an understanding of existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought? Could there be other possible worlds having a different set of rational thought an explanation (multiverse)?
And so your only alternative is something like Spinoza's logical necessity. But that doesn't unpack or solve one of the main concerns of cosmology; time, change, contingency and eternity associated with an unchanging Being. A Being who exists outside of time who creates time itself.
Therefore, based on your formula/suggestions that there is a causational Being who exists out of logical necessity (the explanation for itself is only contained within itself), then I would have to conclude that Being and consciousness is also a logical necessity. And that seems to lead to, or suggest, that some form of a cosmological anthropic theory should be part of your explanation... .
I'm not saying your theory is wrong, it's just that it doesn't really speak to the why's of existence. Unless you're on a fishing expedition, the fact that you recognize your formula is flawed or incomplete speaks for itself. As such, the foregoing is my basic take away from your OP. You seem to be arguing logical necessity.
(It's kind of like saying: " This statement is false" or "there exists at least one true proposition".) I'm okay with logical necessity, it's just that it lacks meaning and ultimate explanation.
Hm, I am not arguing cosmological existence by necessity. We already know we live in a universe.
What I am arguing is that our universe had at least one first cause. This argument does not address anything outside of our present universe. It does not address anything in regards to time. If you want to wonder if there is time before a first cause, it can be fun to think on, but is irrelevant to the argument. A first cause has no contingency. A first cause might be eternal, or it might not.
The first step is the realization that if we do not know what the first cause is, but we realize that there are no rules on a first cause, that it could have been anything. There are no rules or restrictions on what can be a first cause. If there were, we would ask, "What is causing the first cause to be restricted?" Ergo, we're not really talking about a first cause.
This is truly the logical necessity. Feel free to try and break it, but I nor anyone I have spoken with has been able to. I didn't point this out in the beginning, because I was hoping someone would.
We can conclude from this that if a first cause could be anything, and we do not know what the first cause is, what are the possibilities? They are of course, infinite. Fortunately, we know that our universe exists. At some point there was a first cause of our universe. First, I stated, "Lets use the big bang as the first cause". Doesn't matter if it is or not, the point is we can imagine a first cause that does not require a being as a creator. I conclude however, that there is only one of our universe, and that if there is any alteration in the universe after the big bang (the first cause) from our own, it is actually a different universe.
The first cause could also be a "God". But what is a God? It is simply a being that can create our universe in its identical form. This is a minimum requirement. But of course its also possible a first cause that is a being could have formed with higher than the minimum requirement. In fact, infinitely so.
In the end, this means that for any one universe has a first cause which is not a God, there are an infinite number of possible first causes that would have been Gods instead.
The logic problem is self-contained within the premises of the argument, and will require no outside sources. Somewhere there is a flaw. I've given a few hints.
1. Go back to the formula I gave you to really understand what a first cause entails, and what I mean by a God being a first cause to the big bang, which itself is one possibility of a first cause.
2. Make sure you understand and accept the logic of what it means to be a first cause in the argument. Feel free to zone out for ten minutes or so as your mind explodes with the possibilities. One of the joys of philosophy!
3. Come back to the point in which I narrow those possibilities into two camps. See how I identify a God. See how I identity a universe. See if the relation between the two is fair.
You're doing VERY well by the way. This is not written anywhere else. You have never heard of these concepts before. I hope above all that it is fun and triggers that philosophical itch to tackle something in a new way!
Please don't take it personally, it's not about you at all. The thing is, I'm pushing 70, an old man, doing this very thing for over 20 years, almost daily. I've read everything you're saying, almost literally word for word, about 72 billion times. When I become bored, I get grouchy, and then it's down hill from there. Trying to learn to let it go before that happens.
There is a limitless supply of people you can yell at on the Internuts. :-) I'm not denying you anything you can't easily find immediately in a million other places. Smile and be happy!
Ok, no problem. You've defined the topic narrowly enough so that you can do the logic dance you know how to do. No problem. I'm happy to bow out, and I'm sure others will play the game you wish to play.
FYI, I'm not really challenging you personally so much as I am the philosophy profession at large. If they knew what they were doing, you'd already know everything I'm saying and have plenty to contribute to it.
HippyHead, if you want to write a forum post on attacking philosophy at large, it would probably be a great discussion I would enjoy. I just don't want to distract from what I'm posting here, which you seem to understand. No offense taken, we'll talk on another topic another time. =)
None of that has to do with the topic at hand. I didnt complain about it being personal, or that you were grouchy.
You havent said anything of substance on the topic at hand, nor made an argument. Youve made some assertions and assumptions but no argument. You want to claim you’ve heard everything im saying word for word 72 billion times, yet all of your comments were directed not at what I said but rather at this phantom internet atheist philosophy monster youre determined to battle. Not much I can do with that...you clearly aren’t interested in discussion (why would you right? You already know everything I have to say on the matter lol) and when your rhetoric doesnt land (cuz its incoherent) you get “grouchy” and take your ball and go home. Now your back, trying to...i dont know what, in that last post.
There is another old fart who thinks he knows everything, and forgotten how to learn and listen on this forum, Frank Apisa. Maybe you guys can get together to yell into the wind together and pat yourselves on the back.
Smile and be happy Hippyhead.
Correct. And I'm leaving before I get grouchy. You can be grouchy on your own if you want, that's up to you. :-)
Ok, sounds good!
I suspect that our god models may have a lot in common. The main difference may lie in our starting points. My worldview and god-model are based on my layman's non-academic non-rigorous, yet science-based, Enformationism thesis, not on a critical-logical-philosophical Ontology. So our vocabulary, and some assumptions, may be different, even though we arrive at similar conclusions about the existence and characteristics of a non-empirical metaphysical Ultimate Cause of our imperfect, but progressing, world.
I'm simply sharing some of my own ideas on a topic that still fascinates me, long after I lost my faith in the Bible-God of my upbringing. On this forum, I know better than to expect to win any Yes or No arguments about un-provable opinions or beliefs. Humans have been debating such Transcendent notions since the first creatures looked-up at the sky and began to wonder "why?"
Quoting Philosophim
I too, tried to begin with a blank slate, without any presumptions. And to simply follow the available scientific & philosophical evidence where it led. Unfortunately, our conclusion that logically there must be an uncaused First Cause for this world's sequence of secondary causes is open to question. Some Cosmologists argue that the "ultimate explanation" for our temporal Natural world is an "infinite regress" of Natural worlds (Multiverses). That non-empirical, but reasonable-sounding, possibility allows them to avoid any notions of a Supernatural Cause or Creator. Yet, they may still be uncomfortable with the necessity for Infinities beyond our space-time world.
"Theists and atheists agree there must be some ultimate explanation, some end to the infinite regress. But they disagree over which properties this 'ultimate being' must have".
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=835
Quoting Philosophim
Atheists "disprove" your assertion of a First Cause for our Natural world, by asserting that automatic impersonal random Evolution itself could be a self-existent eternal Cause --- like gravity "it just is". This unfounded presumption gets around the need to debate any miraculous interventions into the progression of the world. But my god-model also accepts Evolution, and denies the need for divine meddling with the ongoing process.
Quoting Philosophim
I suspect that some Multiverse proponents would agree with your logic, but still disagree with your implication that the First Cause has no causal precedent.
Quoting Philosophim
I was merely noting what you had already implied : that an ultimate First Cause would not "pop into existence", since it continually exists forever. The answer to a "why" question must be a reason or intention, not necessarily a "something". But in the absence of a divine revelation, we may have to accept a mere place-holder : a loosely-defined G*D Concept.
Quoting Philosophim
I have no need to refute your impeccable logic. I'll simple define the Causal Creator of our world, whether a> God or b> Multiverse, as the one-&-only answer to why the creation exists. I'm not aware of any other viable answers (e.g super-aliens).
A God Concept : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page34.html
Quoting Philosophim
That's what I said. "Self-creation" is a circular oxymoron notion, like "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". "Self-existence", though, is a viable characteristic of a hypothetical entity that can create new Worlds & Beings, rather than just cause new forms of pre-existing things. Other self-existent beings could exist, but if they are independent minded, like the quarreling Pantheon of Olympus, it would be more like Chaos than Cosmos.
BEING, per se, could be inert immobile existence, equivalent to nothingness. But "Creative BEING" would be able to use its inherent power of existence to cause other beings to exist. No one can deny that our existence implies the "power to be", and the sudden appearance of our world from who-knows-where is impossible without the prior Potential for existence. So I'm simply defining an eternal Law of Being that must logically cause & create all other laws, principles, and things in existence.
Self-existent : existing independently of other beings or causes.
Quoting Philosophim
No. That is the understanding of Atheists who challenge Theists with "who created the creator?" But the "Creative Potential" I have in mind is the Power to Exist, that I call "BEING", for short. There could be no space-time limit on an Infinite Pool of Possibilities. You could imagine that PoP as the eternal law of statistics, governing what is possible in Enfernity (Infinity-Eternity), and what is probable in space-time.
God definition : "a being than which no greater can be conceived" ___Anselm
Quoting Philosophim
I was talking about the infinite Potential (possible creations) of a single omnipotent deity, not a sequence of Creator Gods all-the-way-down. The First Cause (Agent) is also the Final Cause (Design) --- all-in-one.
I hope I misunderstood you. Can the set of [Infinity] logically or mathematically contain an infinite array of [Infinite] sets? [[[[[[[[Infinity]]]]]]] Or were you allowing for a hypothetical infinite regress of First Causes, where each new First Cause would possess some fraction of Total Power? Or did you have in mind something like the Hindu notion of an infinity of universes cycling forever. Anyway, my puny brain can't deal with such mind-boggline un-definable concepts, so I simply use the shorthand of a single graphic symbol : ?.
Quoting Philosophim
For Atheists, that might be true. But for my thesis, a multiplicity of gods is no better, no more powerful, than Creation by Random Accident. And that's not a God by my definition. It's statistical Chance. So, if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on a Unitary Creative Cause, instead of waiting for infinite rolls of the dice. :joke:
Firstly, I will use the term Creator instead of God, because God has too many connotations that can confuse the discussion for me.
I also substitute Creation for Existence, because there are too many arguments about the properties of Existence that make it interfere with the subject.
It is clear to most that a Creator has a single property of "the ability to create" and Creation is simply "that which is created".
By framing it this way, I conclude that the concepts most relevant to the discussion are Agency and Constraint. With Agency being defined as the power to effect. Constraint, therefore, is anything that limits Agency.
Our first Constraints are those imposed by our creation. At birth, we have minimum Agency and gain Agency as life progresses. Agency is only the power to effect and does not imply any necessity to act. Life is really only about the exercise of Agency, and eliminating constraints.
For me, this is the most objective way to approach the subject. To seek a "first cause" is really about determining who or what it is that possesses maximum Agency. The obvious answer would have to be the Creator. The Creator is the one who determines all the attributes that his Creation has. Anyone else has only the ability to interpret the attributes, and act on them in accordance with their own Agency.
Maximum Agency implies fewest Constraints. Ultimately then, we are looking for a being with no Constraints. What do we know that can effect all of existence and even create new existences? Something that exhibits the power of a God?
I have to believe we are referring to Time. And therefore I have to say its probability of existing is 100%
But then, that is just my view.
I would strongly urge you to google logical necessity. You have accepted your logically necessary universe, just just like have accepted your logically necessary first cause. It's as if you've presented a straw man argument.
Look at your items 4 through 9 again. The terms, among others, you repeatedly use to explain existence are 'just is' and 'it simply exists that way' in those explanations.
Again, unless you can explain otherwise, I'm ok with logical necessity. I'm ok with a Dipolar God who exists outside of time (timeless/eternity--like light energy) and creates temporal time. A God who determines his own existence in both an indeterminant and determinant world. Breaking logical rules of things like LEM is perfectly fine. After all, our conscious existence does the same.
I go back to my gut reaction, you're arguing logical possibility and logical necessity. Otherwise, as you said, if the first cause itself can have any and all possible or conceivable attributes, please share what that means or translates to, in your theory.
Ok, we might just be at a semantics or context of use difference here. I'll try to cover what I think you're saying.
To be clear on what is logically necessary.
1. Our universe exists. We wouldn't be chatting otherwise! =) So, irrefutable.
2. I define what it is to be a first cause. By logical necessity, a first cause can have no restrictions as to what it can be. Has yet to be refuted.
3. There is one technical restriction to a first cause however. It cannot contradict itself. I cannot both be, and not be. I think that is a given, but I wanted to make sure that was also understood.
I would say if these are logically necessary, then the argument is sound. If something is not logically necessary, then it is not sound. You seem to state this is a problem but perhaps I'm not fully understanding what the issue is.
How am I breaking the law of excluded middle? LEM is defined as "In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle#:~:text=In%20logic%2C%20the%20law%20of,or%20its%20negation%20is%20true.&text=The%20principle%20should%20not%20be,is%20either%20true%20or%20false.
If it is logically necessary, then the proposition is true. Can you point out specifically where I have introduced something that can neither be true or false?
Now the logical possibility part comes into play when I talk about what is possible. If anything is possible for a first cause, then there you go. Anything is possible. You could have a dipolar God, a polar God, or a God that hates poles. =) The God that created the universe could be evil, it could be long dead, it could be neutral, it could be anything.
The only essential property of a God in the argument is that it has the power to create our universe. That is all. If it cannot, it is not a God. If it can, it is a God. Remove all theistic ideas, and focus simply on that as to what a God must be.
Of course, a first cause does not have to be a God. Remember, I'm using the big bang as an easy starting point for comprehension. There may have been something that caused the big bang, maybe the little pop.
But what I do say at the end is that for every specific possible universe where the first cause is not a God, such as the big bang as the first cause of our universe, there are an infinite number of possible universes in which a different type of God could have come into the picture that created our specific universe. I use the "difference" purely in power and decision to create our universe exactly as it is.
I think you have a general enough understanding of the argument at this point, so I can now say where the flaw is, though I still leave you to figure out why its a flaw. It is NOT that there are an infinite number of possible Gods that could have created a specific universe without a God. It is my conclusion from this point that if we are to predict whether our universe was created by a God, or its first cause was not a God, that it is infinite to 1 that the cause was a God.
Its VERY tricky. A big hint again is in the little logic equation I gave you earlier of A=A, but A0 = B1 (in another universe).
But first, feel free to flesh out all of the points prior to this. I want to make sure you're satisfied that the prior points are logical. Once you do, try to tackle the last part. If you can't get it, its fine. It took me a LOT of time to figure out what was wrong with it. At that point, if you can't figure it out, I'll reveal the flaw.
Hello EdgyRoy! Thanks for taking a stab at it.
I like, and agree, with your changing the terms to fit what works for you. I'll go ahead and clarify "Existince" however. Everything that is, exists. Everything that is not, does not. I as a human can create a rubber ducky. The ducky exists, but so do I. The ducky is the created, but we both still exist. Does that work?
So lets now address a "first cause". At this point, we should not be thinking of a creator. We are simply looking at the logic of whether causality is infinitely regressive, or if there must be a first cause.
I conclude there must be a first cause. Read over the points again if you're unsure how I did it. Then I conclude that the necessary rule of being a first cause, is that there is no constraint on what a first cause has to be. I've tried to flesh this out in a few ways over the posts I reply to 3017amen on. This is probably the most important part of the argument to understand. If you think it is flawed, feel free to point it out. If not, only then can we consider a creator.
Because anything could be a first cause, this means that the big bang itself, could have been a first cause. A first cause does not have to have agency. However, because a first cause could be anything, it also COULD be something with agency.
At first, it seems like it could be a being with agency, or a first cause with no agency at 50%. Just a coin flip. But I started thinking about it more. What would a creator necessarily have to have?
It would need a minimum ability to create the universe as it exists. Of course, a being could be a first cause that also had an ability greater than the minimum. Imagine a being with 42,000,000 as one possible God that creates our universe as it. Then imagine a being with 42,000,001 capability that creates our universe as it is. Up to infinite possible types of God's with greater power, that could have created our universe as is.
If that's the case, then for every one specific universe (ours), there are an infinite number of possible first causes that were Gods that created our universe exactly how it exists today.
But this does mean that one God would be more constrained over the other. Remember, we are building this from the ground up to a God, not from a God down to the ground. Are the premises illogical? Do I make a logic leap somewhere where I shouldn't? Good luck, and have fun thinking about it!
Quoting Gnomon
The argument I am putting for is a logical proof that there must be a first cause. And due to the nature of what a first cause entails, the conclusion is that it could have been anything. Either a God, or a non God. You cannot conclude, "The first cause must be X" from this argument. You can only conclude a first cause is what must be, and that this first cause could be anything.
Quoting Gnomon
If we understand the arguments points then, this argument only backs what I'm saying. I believe the atheists are using this argument as a point to state there is no need for a God, and also to disprove the possibility of a God.
My argument would agree with atheists that yes, their's is one possibility. But it does not disprove the possibility of a God either. And I am not claiming a God could have been the first cause as in, "Well we don't know the start, so you know, maybe it could be." My statement is, "It is logically possible that a God exists from the conclusion that there is a first cause." No atheist can claim that a God is an illogical or impossible being at this point.
Quoting Gnomon
Its a bit of a semantics issue. Technically, if nothing existed prior to the first cause, there is no existence to pop into. We can imagine there being nothing, then being something, but prior to their being something, there was no one to observe the "nothing". That's a WHOLE can of beans for another topic, so I'll just say, "Yes" in the sense of it "appearing". But there is nothing to suggest that a first cause must continue to exist eternally after it has "appeared". There is nothing to say it could not exist eternally either. We cannot know either way through the premises of the argument.
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting Gnomon
I like how you've defined being here. Very nice!
Quoting Gnomon
I wanted to assure you that we do not fall into the "Gods all the way down" argument. You are correct in assuming that when I mean first cause, I mean the first in the "chain". A being that can create a specific universe, but is not a first cause, is not a God according to this argument. Yes, it is possible that we could have beings that create beings that create sets, but the "specific universe" is what comes from the first cause. Whatever happens in that universe is irrelevant.
Quoting Gnomon
In thinking on the possibilities of what a first cause must entail, I can see your possibility as one of many. But that is only within THIS argument, and not within your world view. I appreciate that you added your own world view to the discussion as much as you've addressed the topic. I think it comes from a place of great thought. I also appreciate the links and well informed replies!
I think you have a different definition of a God then I do, which is perfectly fine, and it seems nice. This argument here is more about a pure philosophical God, that is extremely limited in scope. Beyond meeting a minimum threshold of ability to create our specific universe, I cannot define a God in any other way from its morality, intentions, current existence, or any other attribute.
If you disagree with that or are uninterested in that, its perfectly fine. If though you are interested in taking it to its conclusions, does my assessment that if we look at our universe, there is only one possibility that its first cause was not a God, versus an infinite number of possibilities that the first cause was some type of God?
The argument is sound but it lacks its existential meaning, like the infamous a priori ontological argument. Basically, you're saying: 'there exists at least one true proposition". While that's logically necessary, I can just as easily describe anything in that manner, but I can't explain the nature of its existence using a priori logic. There may exist at least one true proposition, but where did the proposition come from and how did it come into existence? What is its nature? ( In large part, those are Metaphysical questions.)
And so in your item 3 above, if you were to parse the attributes of a first cause, you would have to address not only cosmological concepts (just to name a few) such as: determinacy/indeterminacy in physics/nature, contingency (what supports/explains the super-turtle) in nature, timelessness and time dependent (temporal time v. eternity and the beginning of time/BB) but also Being and becoming, consciousness, etc..
LEM/bivalence would relate to a Dipolar/Metaphysical feature of existence and consciousness and subconsciousness working together in an illogical manner (driving a car while daydreaming and crashing/killing yourself--was it your consciousness or subconsciousness driving the car kind-of-questions). Which is what relates to a cosmological Dipolar Being/ God... .
Quoting Philosophim
So, how can you explain a causational Being who presumably is logically necessary who has a consciousness? One of many questions would be, what are its attributes and what were the reasons for its existence? What was it doing prior to the BB? Since you introduced Being, who (what/where/how/why) caused and created existence; the burden is within your theory to provide answers to those questions (and more), using logic.
Quoting Philosophim
Not sure I'm following that...seems counterintuitive to your theory?
The most obvious flaw, broadly speaking, is that the argument is an exercise in creating information ex-nihilo, which is to say it operates on the assumption that stringing some mathematical operations together will somehow result in new information, which isn't actually possible.
There is nothing stopping us from supposing an infinity of "natural" causes to counter the infinity of gods.
A more technical criticism is that the initial dichotomy doesn't seem valid or includes a hidden premise:
Quoting Philosophim
What about the option that nothing has a cause?
There is also the issue that you seem to be flip-flopping on the definition of "cause" a bit. 2 clearly establishes cause as a "why" question, but 3 then sets up 3 "how" answers. And you then go back to a "why" question in 5. This masks the fact that 3 and 5 directly contradict each other. Either there are the three options of 3 or there is only in fact one option. Can't have it both ways.
I did not write this clearly enough, my apologies. My example was to show that the first cause of our universe might have been the big bang, or might have been something else that inevitably lead to the big bang. The "little pop" was just a suggestion to give you a more concrete visual.
Quoting 3017amen
I think it carries plenty of meaning. First, it concludes with certainty that our universe has a first cause. It then concludes a basic tenant of what a first cause must entail; that its being is not bound to anything necessary. A first cause can be anything. That is the logically concluded nature of its existence. Its not a "maybe it could be anything," its the fact that a first cause is not bound by any rules in its existence.
This means that it is actually logical to think that a God is a possibility. It is also logical that the universe formed without a God as well. It actually negates all other cosmological arguments for God, and all other arguments that it is not possible for a God to have created the universe. I would say that's not insignificant.
Quoting 3017amen
If you understand that a first cause is not bound to necessarily be anything, then none of the above are necessary to address. Well, perhaps we could dive into what the idea of a "being" is, but its still unimportant.
If a being is X (whatever we conclude after a long debate)
Then there are an infinite number of X that are possible that could have created our specific universe.
There is only one thing that matters to the definition of a God, and that is that it is a being that has the power to create our specific universe. And of course, the rest that follows from there.
Quoting 3017amen
I never said that this is something that had to be. I'm only talking about what is possible, when anything which does not contradict itself is possible. As long as your definition of such a being is not self-contradictory, it is possible. It does not mean it is necessary or certain, just simply possible.
Quoting 3017amen
1. The being is not logically necessary. I'm just saying its a logical possibility. This is important, because prior to this argument, the idea of of a God being possible has never been actually proven. If a first cause can be anything, then it is possible that the first cause of our universe is a God. That is all the argument says about this.
2. You cannot ask a question, "Why does it exist" if it is a first cause, and look to something else. "Why does it exist" implies there is prior causality to its existence. A first cause has no prior causality. Why does it exist? It simply is, there is no why to its existence, besides the fact that it exists. Not because its an opinion, but because this is logically the only thing which can be. As for its attributes, who knows? All we know is that it had the power to create our universe. We cannot know from this reasoning, anything more than that.
3. What was it doing prior to the big bang? Who knows? Its tertiary to the argument which is being made here. The argument is about possibilities, and what we can predict from those possibilities. It has not conclusion as to what the first cause actually is. That is why the argument is called, "The probability of God".
If you are asking these things of the theory, its not providing that. The only things that the theory is providing is:
There is a first cause to our universe.
There is no rule of what a first cause must be
We do not know what that first cause is, so we can imagine all of the possibilities, and see if we can figure anything out.
There is one possibility of our universe's first cause being a non being.
There are infinite possibilities of our universe's first cause being a being which has the power to create our specific universe.
Therefore if we are to think on the possibilities, it is reasonable to conclude that the first cause of our universe is a God, versus the one chance that the first cause was not a God, or being.
I've already mentioned the flaw is in the conclusion. I don't believe any of the points themselves are flawed, but there are some missing attributes or points in between that if added, means the conclusion cannot hold. That's the puzzle. Great conversation so far btw, I hope I'm explaining the perspective and consequences of a first cause clearly enough for your liking.
No apologies necessary, thank you. We're critiquing here. The universe, before the BB was supposedly in a state of entropy, accelerated expansion, space changes, and so on and so forth. In short, since you are stuck on a causational Being (which is fine by me), I would recommend you consider elements from the Anthropic Principle to incorporate into your theory.
Quoting Philosophim
Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) you are basically saying that a Being known as God is the first cause. That's all you've said to describe that Being known as God, no?
Quoting Philosophim
If that were the case, then what reason is there to invoke God in the first place (no pun intended)? Are we not talking about meaning of life concerns here? Or are you simply discussing a priori kinds of thinking/logical necessary truth's? If it's the latter, what's the point of significance?
Again, you mentioned Being (ontology), I didn't.
I'll offer comments to your other replies momentarily...thank you.
Hello Echarmion, great contribution!
Quoting Echarmion
I don't quite agree with this. What I'm trying to ascertain is what is logically possible, and impossible when thinking about two separate ideas. Finite, or infinite regress of causal events. The conclusion is that any time of causality will, by necessity, resolve to a finite causality.
Now perhaps logic doesn't apply to causality, could be. But we can't argue anything at that point. Assuming that logic can be applied to causality, this is the only logical conclusion which can be made. Now if I'm wrong on that, feel free to point out the error in the logic.
Quoting Echarmion
Close, VERY close. But can you put this in similar terms of the argument? Because in the argument I demonstrate there is 1 specific universe, and any alteration after that first cause would be a different specific universe.
So for example, imagine that the first cause of our universe is the big bang, no God. There are an infinite number of Gods that could have been a first cause that then created the big bang, and created a duplicate universe.
Now imagine that there is another possible universe with a slightly different big bang as a first cause, and your dominant hand is different. That is an entirely different specific universe. But for that specific universe, there would be an infinite number of possible Gods that could be the first cause, that created that big bang that lead to that universe.
This situation is not an equal comparison of infinity to infinity. Cantor proved that you could have greater infinity comparison called cardinality. We can simplify this easily though.
Take our universe, not any other. We can then realize there are an infinite possibilities of a concious being as a first cause creating our universe.
Now take any one of those Gods that created our specific universe. There is one of our specific universe, or a 1 to 1 ratio.
Basically the odds of a God creating our specific universe are an infinity of one-to-one ratios.
Again, you are VERY close to the flaw, but having a general feeling about it, versus being able to put it into logic that confirms it is where the rubber hits the road. I look forward to your reply, you might be the winner!
Quoting Echarmion
Because we know that's not an option. Causality is a necessary condition that results in a necessary outcome. A first cause is a condition that results in a necessary outcome, but the first cause does not have a prior necessary condition for its own outcome, its existence in this case.
Now if you can show that causality has not been proven to exist, feel free, but I'm taking the stance that causality is proven to exist.
I hope my definition of causality above also clears up any concerns you had about why and how.
Why means: This is seeking out a necessary precondition for this current existence, but we do not know how.
How means: This is the understood necessary precondition for this current existence, or the answer to the why.
So on point 3 when I state, "The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist."
There is no understood necessary precondition for why a first cause has to exist.
This can easily be answered with a why question. Why is there no necessary precondition on a first cause existing? It is because there can be no how. If there was, then it would not be a first cause, but there would exist some necessary precondition for the first causes existence.
Thus when I state on point 5, "Why is is all of causality infinite?", I am asking, "Is there a necessary precondition that entails all of causality must be infinite?"
So with this definition fleshed out more, I do not believe there is any contradiction. If you see one though, feel free to point it out!
Exactly my point. What is: "the rest". ??
Sorry for the piecemeal, but that's not true. The conscious and subconscious mind violate rules of Bivalence/LEM. It suggests that you yourself are outside of a logical description from the catagories of human rational thought.. In essence you are illogical. Or, you can make the case whether you or God can transcend logic. Another reason you should explore the Anthropic Principle in your cosmological model.
Cool beans then. =)
Quoting 3017amen
The only way I define a God is a first cause that has the minimum capability to design our specific universe. This is a possible first cause of our universe, not a necessary first cause of our universe. While yes, there is theory that there was something prior to the big bang, the specifics of what that is do not matter. The "big bang" is really just a place holder for "First cause that is not a being" or "First cause that is not a God". What is also important to note is that a first cause that is not a God, is ALSO not a necessary event, but one of many possibilities. I think the part that you might be missing is that is logically possible that a God is the creator of our universe, but it is also logically possible that there was no being that created our universe. That the "Big bang" could have been the first cause as well, (or whatever the first event of time was).
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, you nailed it. This is what is going on here. This was done out of curiosity. I had heard the philosophical arguments for God, but found them lacking. On the other hand, atheists took their lack to mean that a God is something that is not possible. Because we can explain everything in terms of the laws as they are, it is simply irrational to discuss the idea of a God as a possibility.
I also found the definition of a God in these arguments lacking a simple baseline. I felt the problem with many of the cosmological arguments was that "God" had too much assumed prior to the discussion. A God in this argument is an extremely simple baseline to start off of.
Above all, I would like this argument to not be seen as an "attack" on theists or atheists. I like the truth, and truth should not have an agenda.
In the end, though my final conclusion has a flaw (still yet to be revealed!) what this argument does do is,
1. Put an end to the debate about infinite prior causality versus finite causality. Logically, there is a finite causality to our universe.
2. Proves the logical possibility of a God. This is different from a merely imagined God. No one can say, "A God is not possible". No, it is.
3. Changes the dynamic of the God/non-God discussion. I think atheists have denied the possibility of a God, and theists have denied the possibility that a first cause could not be a God, and it has been stuck this way for a very long time. I think they are both wrong. Both are possible, and discussions should go forward with this in mind.
That was my intention from the argument. There are of course many other consequences of this that I did not intend, but nevertheless are. An argument for logic should not be what we want, but for what is most logically sound.
a. The argument does remove the philosophical argument that a God must be good, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. It is not impossible that such a God could be the first cause, but that's only one of many possibilities for a God.
b. If you really delve deep into the idea of a first cause, you realize that it is entirely possible that a first cause happened that appeared to have a prior cause, but in fact, did not. I don't want to get into this now however, this is a major can of worms that deserves its own topic.
c. But if b is true, you may never be able to prove if there is a God, or not a God, only its possibility.
And that leads to my final (and flawed) conclusion! That for any one specific universe, while there is one possibility that its first cause is not a God, there are an infinite number of possibilities that its first cause was a God, due to how I defined a God. It sure sounds right by the points I laid out, but I'm definitely missing or neglecting something. Echarmion might be close in the ballpark if you want to read him.
The rest of the argument that flows from there. After the establishment of the definition of a God, just continue the rest of the argument.
Quoting 3017amen
No worry about the piecemeal, thank you for bringing up anything you're thinking about on this. I am new to the idea of your conscious and unconscious violating the LEM principle. The conscious mind is, and the unconscious mind is to my knowledge. Are you saying they exist in some intermediate phase between is, and is not? If this is too complicated and distracts from the original argument, lets not delve too far into it though. For the purposes of the argument, I am assuming logic, and we'll just have to consider the argument within this logic. If you disagree with logic, that it can in fact be violated, then we can chalk that up as a new flaw I had not considered. But if you want to see the flaw within logic, we'll likely have to remove the idea that logic can be violated to find its end.
Okay now you're changing from a logically necessary, causational Being, to a logically possible Being. Are you going to change your propositional model accordingly? Again I take no exceptions, but I think you need to rewrite your model that discusses that topic.
Quoting Philosophim
Are you telling me we cannot question anyone's theory that God is a first cause? That seems contradictory and/or paradoxical because if you didn't have a sense of wonderment, you wouldn't have posited a causational Being to begin with, correct?
Otherwise once again you're arguing logical necessity. You're basically saying: " there exists at least one true proposition". And so where did this proposition come from, and how does it exist? Is it a byproduct of human consciousness and language and if so, where did humans come from, etc. etc.. Logical necessity has no meaning and cannot uncover the true nature of existence.
Quoting Philosophim
Okay, no exceptions taken. To me, that's in the spirit of logical possibility. But your model needs to provide analogies. What makes it more possible than not? What from physics and metaphysics can provide clues in so-called support of your own model?
I was quite certain that the argument was about possible first causes, and a God being one of them.
I don't believe I ever stated God as a necessary first cause. Can you point out in the argument where I mentioned a God was a necessary first cause? Or at least the point what lead you to believe I was? It very well means I need to emphasize or add examples to certain sections.
Quoting 3017amen
No, you could definitely question if what you are calling a God is a first cause. I didn't mean you couldn't ask the question, but that there is no answer to the question because a first cause has no prior conditions for being.
Under the definition of a God, a God is also a first cause. This is important, because we could imagine a God that creates a being that creates a universe, considering we're dealing in all possibilities here. We would not consider the secondary being a God. Only the first cause being would be considered a God under the definition put here.
Quoting 3017amen
Great, we're reaching the end here then. It's probably been a while, but go and read points 10 through 14 again. That answers why it is more possible than not, and should give you the analogies as to why. The physics is that we can envision a being with the minimum capability to create something. We can then also envision a being with the minimum to create something, + just a little more than that minimum.
Since we know a first cause could be anything, this is within the realm of possibilities. And since there is only one possibility of a specific universe without a God in its entirety, versus the infinite number of possible Gods that could have made that one specific universe, we get the odds of my conclusion.
I hate to keep harping on this but that's precisely logical necessity. The reason for its existence is within itself. That doesn't prove anything. And so if there's no answer to your theory of a causational Being it becomes an ontological existential state of despair.
I would stay away from logical necessity if I were you, and perhaps replace it with synthetic statements about causation. Are you familiar with synthetic a priori knowledge?
Of course. I understand the need to posit or approach causation with the obvious super-turtle concept known as God. But once again you're bringing ontology into your cosmological model and I think it's confusing things.
Being=Ontology
Causation=Cosmology
What else am I to think about besides logical necessity? How can we go forward in the world without this reason? But more importantly, how do you draw a state of despair from all of this?
If the reason for its existence is the fact that it exists, it proves an incredibly important point. That is that a first cause is not bound by necessity to a precondition. This means a first cause could be anything. That leads down into the logic we are considering at this time. I am not merely saying A=A, and leaving it at that. From A=A, I am making a whole host of logical assertions. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "That doesn't prove anything?"
Yes, I am familiar with the idea of a synthetic apriori argument. This argument is not a synthetic argument, but a logical one. This is studying the consequence of what it means that the universe has a first cause, and what by necessity, that means about that first cause. We are doing a math problem from within the limitiations we are aware of. Any attempt to argue for or against a specific God would be another argument entirely.
1.Because you're associating a cosmological God with an ontological God.
2. Think more in terms of synthetic propositions and logical possibility.
3. The state of despair concerns the human condition viz an ontological argument based on logical necessity.
As you can see I'm harping on that.
Precisely why an ontological argument lacks meaning. It's based on mathematics which is a priori. Living life (Being) is not exclusively mathematics and a priori. It's many other things including a posteriori phenomena and induction; not math and deduction.
Perhaps at this point I should just reveal the flaw, because I think you understand the main tenants of the argument to get to this point. I I think you're in that ballpark. Lets sum again.
A=A A first cause has no prior preconditions to its being, therefore has no limitations to its being besides its own existence. For now call A - Big Bang and B specific universe that follows
A => B .
Now we can imagine that instead of our universe forming by the big bang, that a being could have been the first cause that formed and created our universe as it is identically.
This means the big bang (what was a first cause) is no longer the first cause, but a consequent of another first cause, in this case, a God.
A0 => B0 Is our possible universe in which there is no being, or God, as a first cause.
A God as a first cause we'll call A1.
Thus A1 => A0 => B0
But A0 is no longer a first cause. As such, it is now part of the specific universe, so we can simplify this to
(A0 => B0) = B1
A1 => B1
I then say because a God could have more than the minimum needed to create B1, that there are an infinite number of possible Gods.
So A2 => B1 and so on.
But here is the flaw. I stated there needs to be a being that creates the universe. I ascribed some type of being with the minimum power to create our universe.
"But a being doesn't exclude 'not being' from having the same situation"
We can also imagine a first cause that is not a being that would have the power to create the big bang, and our exact universe. Lets call it "the little pop" But I could have a little pop that could create our specific universe...and a little more.
Thus A2 => B1 and so on occur equally with a non-being first cause that would create our first cause universe of A0 => B0
The flaw was not in any of the possibilities, it was in denying the same possibilities to a non-being as I gave a being. Since the ratio is now equal, this leaves the chance of a Being as a first cause versus a First Cause that is not a being at 50%. Of course this still holds a God is possible, just not as possible as my first conclusion held.
Does this ease your issue now? I think you were having trouble processing the idea of what a "being" entailed as I mentioned it, and you were trying to set it apart from "non being". We could call it "consciousness" if you wish, but it honestly didn't matter. I had defined two different identities, being and non-being, and given a special situation to being that non-being had no reason to be excluded from. I think that's what you were beginning to fish for. I didn't want to muddy the waters at that point anymore, because I think you were getting close. Does the flaw make sense?
Take Ontology out of the equation, that would make it more conducive and appropriate for a traditional cosmological argument from physics/science/mathematics, et.al.
Traditional cosmological arguments involve physics (some metaphysics) and science.
It's either that, or if you're set on continuing to include the concept of Being in your God causation model, somehow combine the anthropic principle into your equations.
To me that would be very intriguing.
I think this is a situation outside of the current argument. The argument is only concerned within its own scope. Any scope outside of it is irrelevant to whether the argument is logical and sound within its premises and conclusions.
I think I can see why you might be concerned, but I think that's drawing the cart before the horse.
Quoting 3017amen
An ontological argument lacks meaning if we want to construct specific knowledge from synthetic arguments, yes. But it is not useless if we wish to discuss logical limitations before we begin our synthetic explorations. If someone says, "I don't believe a God is possible, I'm not even going to talk about it," you could give them this argument.
Perhaps as someone who believes a God is possible, you see no value in this argument. But for a person who does not see a God as possible, and believes exploring the idea of a God is a waste of time, this can be used to begin a rational conversation.
Perhaps it is useless to you, but it is not useless to everyone. Even if you do believe it to be useless, the point of the discussion was to see if you could find the flaw, and of course, to think on something new and different. Did you have fun? I really appreciate your dedication, hard thinking, and points you made during this exploration. I know I had a lot of fun! I haven't gotten to chat like this in years with someone, so thank you.
Quoting 3017amen
Feel free to if you like. As I said, this was an argument from several years ago now. I'm long out of the philosophy career. If someone gets an idea from it, I hope they run with it.
Then stay with logical possibility, induction, a posteriori phenomena, metaphysics, existential angst, and other meaningful human condition kinds of concepts and philosophy.
Schopenhauer talked about the metaphysical will in nature. What in the human condition comprises the will to live or the will to die? Is it more than just instinct? Do the feelings and perceptions of one's quality of life impact a person's will to live or die? How do animals instinctively survive through naturally emergent properties? Did consciousness emerge from God's will? What is God's Will?
In Christianity, one could make a case for Jesus being an archetype of love. What is love and how does that impact Being? Is love more than instinct and if it is, what purpose does it serve? Is it partly subjective and metaphysical in nature? And if so is that a bad thing? Does love confer any biological survival advantages when instinct is all that's needed to procreate?
Those kinds of questions are more meaningful than mathematics and formal logic.
Does the ultimate/fundamental origin also have an origin?
I think the problem isn't philosophy but congruence in language.
Perhaps for a next project you could explain why we should care if an argument uses sound logic if the argument has no relationship with reality. Do you conceive of the puzzle you've presented as a kind of card game? You know, a collection of arbitrary rules which are fun to inhabit for awhile? If yes, I have no complaints, but it might be helpful to state that clearly from the start.
Hello BrianW!
Quoting BrianW
I answer all of these questions within the points of the argument. The argument is unique, and does not fall prey to the common trappings. It might look like a pain to start reading, but you might find something new and different out of it to think on.
Let me clarify what that sentence meant in context. 3017Amen was worried about the consequences of the conclusion as an argument as to why I should not conclude that. My reply was intended to note that we cannot use the consequences of an argument, as a reason we shouldn't use the argument.
Think of going to the doctor to get screened for cancer. You might not want to hear the results, but that's not an argument against getting screened for cancer.
While I do admit the conclusion of the argument is flawed (if you've been following along, you know why), I will contend that the argument does apply to our reality in its earlier points. I conclude that it is impossible for our universe to not have had a first cause. I also conclude by logical necessity, that a first cause cannot be constrained in what it is. It does not rely on a necessary prior cause for existence. As such, if we do not know what the first cause is, it is completely logical to think one possibility, is that it is a God.
It also proves it is possible that our universe's first cause was not a God. Plenty of conclusions in reality have been determined by logical limitations and their conclusions. Here is an example:
"The idea of a spherical Earth was floated around by Pythagoras around 500 BC and validated by Aristotle a couple centuries later. If the Earth really was a sphere, Eratosthenes could use his observations to estimate the circumference of the entire planet.
Since the difference in shadow length is 7 degrees in Alexandria and Syene, that means the two cities are 7 degrees apart on Earth's 360-degrees surface. Eratosthenes hired a man to pace the distance between the two cities and learned they were 5,000 stadia apart, which is about 800 kilometres.
He could then use simple proportions to find the Earth's circumference — 7.2 degrees is 1/50 of 360 degrees, so 800 times 50 equals 40,000 kilometers. And just like that, a man 2200 years ago found the circumference of our entire planet with just a stick and his brain."
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/ancient-greeks-proved-earth-round-eratosthenes-alexandria-syene-summer-solstice-a8131376.html
Logic problems cannot only find us solutions that match reality, they can drive us to see if they DO match reality. No one logically concluded the Earth must have been a dyson sphere, so no one really took that approach. But when someone said, "Logically the Earth must be round," it inspired people to either prove or disprove it.
An argument such as this then wasn't a puzzle removed from reality. It is an attempt to logically conclude what reality must be. Do you agree?
Best I can tell, you reach that conclusion using a methodology you decline to challenge.
Seems kind of like a "because it's in the Bible" argument. First the Bible is assumed without questioning to be qualified, and then arguments are built upon that assumption.
The methodology was logic. There are certain things we have to assume as norms to have conversations. Imagine if every time I wanted a logical conversation with someone, I had to prove logic!
What we do is set certain assumptions on the argument. For example, "I and the reader assume that logic is a viable method to think. We have examined the precepts of logic, and have determined to agree, at least for the purposes of this argument, to the rules that logic follows."
We do that every day btw. Think about if you went to a shoe store and a clerk asked you, "What size are you sir?" Would you say your shoe size, or would you say something like, "How can you assume I'm real? What do you even mean by size? Is the size of the shoe I wear my actual size, or is it simply some abstract factory size, so it is THEIR size I am forced to wear and not mine?!
If the store clerk was patient and had lots of free time, they might entertain your questions. But more than likely, because the store clerk is there to sell you shoes, he's not really interested in such metaphysical questions.
I have long ago studied and questioned the validity of logic, and find it to be sound. As such, years later I do not start every argument or proposition with a lengthy explanation of why logic is a sound way to start.
Now if you have not completed that journey, or have found logic to not be sound, then of course you would find it difficult to enter into a conversation about logic. Perhaps you have determined that their factory size is not actually your real size, and so you have sworn off wearing factory made shoes forever. But going into the store trying to tell the man he should not be selling shoes because he has not figured out the metaphysical secrets of shoe sizes, is probably not helpful or appropriate in that context.
Same with this argument. As I stated earlier, if you would like to make a post stating why logic is not sound, I would be glad to join. Maybe you have a point. But I can't do that here when I'm just trying to sell shoes. My customers do not question the metaphysics of shoe size, and just want to buy some shoes. =)
.... But with all due respect we're not selling shoes. We're discussing philosophy viz the concept of a God.
Logic is just a means to an end.
If you're trying to mock my post, I revealed the flaw on page 3 between 3017amen and myself. It was a fun and good discussion. Not everyone enjoys tackling a logic puzzle, but there's no need to come over here and mock those who do right?
Agreed.
Quoting Philosophim
Why? I'm not assuming logic to be qualified for god questions, and I'm still having a conversation.
Quoting Philosophim
But we're not talking about "every time we have a conversation" but instead a specific conversation on the very largest question regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, a realm we can not define in even the most basic manner. The rest of your post just multiplies that confusion.
Apologies, really not meaning to offend, but what's happening here is that you keep defending the universal relevance of human reason, while declining to do human reason yourself. We don't just blindly assume things to be true in philosophy, just because we want them to be true.
Again, in fairness to you, the mistake you're making has been repeated by some of the greatest minds among us on all sides of the question, most likely including all your philosophy professors. And so you are understandably assuming that you are on solid ground in believing logic to be relevant to every question no matter how large.
A side benefit of this conversation could be a re-examination of your relationship with authority. Should you look closely enough, you'll find there is a whole lot of "the emperor has no clothes" going on. Those who have authority positions are typically those with a gift for playing the authority game, a skill which really has little to do with philosophy.
And one can use logic to discover that logic is not an effective means for every desired end.
Absolutely and right-on brother! For one, that's what Phenomenology entails (i.e.: the ineffable experience)!
I'm all for ineffable experiences, but things begin to get a bit dodgy when we start talking about ineffable conclusions.
It's called inductive reasoning; not deduction (which is what the OP is primarily based upon).
How about this?
Skip the reasoning and stick with the experience.
Attempts to explain the experience are really a statement that the experience is inadequate on it's own. Is that true?
Nice! I like that reasoning. Kind of reminds me of the phenomena of love. "I don't really know how to explain it, but I feel so in love".
However, should we share our experiences with other's? Maybe that's the question... . When it all comes down to it, if life is about relationships (platonic, romantic, family, friends, foes, co-workers, etc..) what value is there in sharing experiences with each other(?).
One answer would be for inspirational purposes...
I'm enthusiastic about discussions regarding the practical business of how to have healthy experiences. To me, that seems the serious way to proceed.
Interpreting such experiences is probably inevitable, but taking our interpretations seriously isn't. For me, that works kind of like this. You're laying on your back watching the clouds blow by overhead. Each cloud is some interpretation of experience which has occurred to you. You watch a cloud come, admire it's unique beauty, watch it blow away, and then turn your attention to the next cloud. Some attitude along these lines allows one to be honest about the human need for explanations, but tends to keep the primary focus where it belongs, on the experience.
It seems to me that the more deeply one embraces the experience, the less need there is for explanations. Hmm... Perhaps this merits it's own thread?
I can't even remember what thread I'm in half the time anyway. Is this the thread about Chaturbate? Did I click a wrong link??? :-)
Though I don't know if it's been covered before (you could always do a search) I'd say go for it! I'll certainly support it!
Perhaps the only other question would be what category to put it in. For instance, if you want to relate it to William James, Maslow and others (cognitive science) wherein they wrote books about the religious experience that's one approach. Or in the alternative you could be more secular about it as it were, and approach it more from an epistemological perspective...
What I'd really like to do is transcend the religious vs. secular paradigm, as that's what is implied by devaluing explanations. But yea, where to put it on the forum? Good question, will ponder.
It's just another endless loop, isn't it. Sure, it assumes one unique first cause. However, what does it say about the arising of other unique causes. The logical question that has never been answered isn't the probability of God/first cause or the assumption of such (because if we exist, then an origin is entirely feasible), but the why (purpose) and how (methodology) of it. This is because neither purpose nor method is unique (at least from the perspective of limitless probabilities/possibilities/assumptions).
Logic is about defining the purpose and process alongside the aforementioned what (fact/truth/reality/existence). That's when we deem it to be concrete knowledge/understanding of something. Otherwise, any number of assumptions/probabilities/possibilities become the most likely conclusion, each according to its own narrative. Soon enough, that narrative becomes insufficient (and seeks support - string theory, creation in six days, etc), or worse, boring.
Quoting Philosophim
This statement is the query and its own answer. Logic, reason, common sense, knowledge, understanding, explanations, beliefs, etc, etc, are based on rules (configurations of limits/boundaries).
Since I was not presenting a formal logical argument for academic review, I had more liberty than you in reaching my conclusion. So. I tried to infer what properties a First Cause would have to possess in order to create the world we know.
One of those requirements was that the Prime Cause must be Intentional (non-random), because random chance in our world is incapable of creating organization. Some scientists like to imagine that evolution is a blind random process. But they don't take into account that Natural Selection is a sort of If-then algorithm making on-the-spot choices, based on whatever criteria were programmed into the algorithm in the beginning. Atheists will presuppose that the selection criteria were an accidental result of infinite roiling randomness. I just take it as-it-is in the here & now.
This Natural Algorithm is just one of many facts that led me to conclude that the “Programmer” of our world must have some of the characteristics typically attributed to creator gods. Hence the FC couldn't be "just anything". For example it must have the Potential to create (cause) space, time and mind. If the hypothetical Multiverse has that programming power, then it could be the First Cause.
And it would loosely fit my Real & Ideal definition of G*D. Who, like Spinoza's deity, is both metaphysical (Ideal) and the physical (Real) "substance" of reality. Spinoza arrived at his infinite/eternal Substance concept of God, long before the Big Bang theory dispelled the notion that our world is eternal. So, in my thesis, there is a need for a creative act, but not for a humanoid Person --- merely the power of BEING.
Natural Algorithm : In computer science and operations research, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a metaheuristic inspired by the process of natural selection that belongs to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
Quoting Philosophim
Yes. The famous Atheist, Richard Dawkins once wrote that he had no rational problem with Deism as a religious philosophy. But that was probably because he assumed the non-intervening Deus was a do-nothing deity, and was only a logical possibility (thought-stopper) for those who don't like the idea of a godless world.
For me though, the Deus is not only possible, but the Necessary Being. And my thesis proposes that the Prime Programmer would have no need to tinker with his evolutionary system once it had been executed in the Big Bang. Unfortunately, that also means that humans were provided with sufficient smarts to work-out their own problems, without praying for personal favors.
Spectrum of theistic probability : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
Cosmic Computer Programmer : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page26.html
Quoting Philosophim
Thanks. I didn't think you meant it was “turtles all the way down”. But origin-less causation is a common response to First Cause arguments.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes. After I discovered the basic principle of Enformationism --- that Information was not just dumb data (per Shannon) --- I was no longer content with my Agnostic Deistic "god-of-the-philosophers", who is merely an impotent metaphor, or a statistical probability. My G*D (Enformer) has real world powers, that are dismissed by reductive scientists, because you have to think holistically in order to see the Enforming power working in the natural world. And it's overlooked by most Theists, because they are looking for minor miracles, like a drowning victim who revived. But I am much more impressed by the miracle of creating an autonomous living world-organism from scratch.
My G*D definition is based on a very particular line of reasoning that began with an unusual understanding of the role of Information in the world. Information is not just a container for ideas & values, it is also the cause of new forms of matter (energy). That's why I define G*D, not just as a logical First Cause, but as the active agent Enformer (creator) of everything in the world.
What is Information ? : The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. It's Energy & Matter & Mind
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html
God of the philosophers : What the philosophers describe by the name of God cannot be more than an idea. __Blaise Pascal
Quoting Philosophim
I added the "but" in quotes to make it say what I think you meant : "the First Cause is a God". With that I agree. For several years, I tried to find some alternative to the familiar, but baggage-laden, term "God" to refer to my 21st century Enformer/Programmer notion. So, I compromised with a neologism, G*D, that suggested a deity, but not necessarily the God of Theists.
G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Logically, the bare possibility of a First Cause may be a satisfactory conclusion. But scientifically, I want to know much more about the actualities of Causation. And that is the point of my thesis -- in which I didn't use the term "God".
Enformationism thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page11.html
Enformationism website : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Yes. My Enformationism thesis was intended to provide a reasonable foundation from which to deal with such real-world questions as you mentioned. Unfortunately, it requires people to flip-the-script, and think of the world both Logically & Emotionally, both Scientifically & Philosophically, both Idealistically & Realistically, both Holistically & Reductively. That's why I call it the Bothand Principle.
BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Very nice follow up BrianW. I wondered if someone would consider multiple first causes! Fantastic!Quoting BrianW
This is an axiom. All good arguments must start with an axiomatic foundation if we are to take them seriously. It is from this axiom, that I introduce limits and what must occur from those limitations.
We have our universe, and within the chain of causation, the entire set of this universe must have a first cause.
To your point on multiple first causes, isn't it cool?! Think on it for a few minutes and a whole slew of possibilities show up. If it is the case that a first cause has no reason for its existence, then what is to prevent a first cause from showing up at any time? It doesn't have to be grandiose like a God, it could be something as small as a quark, or some basic particle. But you are correct. Without some type of limitation on the argument, it devolves into infinite possibilities. So let me limit it.
It is not that there could not be further first causes in a universe after its "inception". We are looking at our specific universe as it is. And we are looking at the beginning of it all. The "why" to the set of everything that it is in this universe. That first cause to it all, is the study of the argument.
There is one chance that the first cause was something like the big bang. Any deviation after that would be a different universe. But then we can imagine a being that had the power to create our universe. If there is a minimum ability to create our universe, from the big bang identically down beyond, then it is also possible a being could form that had a slightly greater ability to create the universe, and created our exact universe.
Since there is an infinite to one ratio on Gods to no Gods being the first cause of our universe, I conclude the probability of the first cause of the universe being infinite to one.
You say it becomes an endless loop, but how? I've placed limitations, and come up with a restriction that stops any endless loop. And yet I admit it is still flawed. I have a feeling you might get it.
Thank you Gnomon, a nice read and contribution. What you are doing is looking at the world today, and building back to its origin. Which honestly, is the only way to reasonably discover what that origin was.
My argument is looking at the possibilities of origin itself, with an attempt to see if there was anything we could logically conclude from it. Yes, the being you describe is one possibllity that could be. I do note that the only way the argument can work on probability is if "We do not know the first cause". But naturally if we worked our way up the chain of causality, we would start to eliminate possibilities as actuals enter into play.
I do admit though, that the conclusions of the argument minus the flaw do lead to a few consequences. One such consequence is that it may very well be impossible to prove a first cause. Since a first cause is not bound by anything but its own existence, we would not know if it was a first cause, or we were simply lacking the information of its prior causality.
But to your assessment, that may be unimportant. The second point the argument does conclude is we have to be very careful in claiming what "necessarily" must have been a first cause. I think the argument actually proves it is impossible to prove any first cause as necessary. But again, I think that is unimportant for your general point.
Yourself and Amen are more interested in they relationship and personal aspect of a God. This enriches your life and adds strength and purpose. A mathmatical God is not necessarily inspiring, or going to improve your life. A wise poster on here once linked me information on Budhism. Budha shunned such questions as, "Why are we here, what formed us, etc.", and noted that such questions are born from another need within human beings such as purpose, freedom from suffering, and peace. He felt that those were the things that should be solved first. If someone had solved those, then still desired to ask the cosmological and ontological questions, then he would oblige. But often time once the true need was solved, people's interests in those questions disappeared.
I thought this very wise.
Yep, it also speaks to the concept of a Dipolar God (via physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God).
Cognitively though, it's definately worth mentioning the dangers of dichotomizing truth's versus the benefits of integrating them, which of course, is generally a heathier view. And I think you did that a little bit in your blog about subjective/objective truth.
That's kind of what Kant did. He looked at inductive/deductive reasoning and uncovered/discovered that there was even more possibilities in the form of human intuition, which manifested itself through synthetic propositions.
Nice!
I can't speak for 3017Amen, but I have no need for a personal relationship with God or G*D. My thesis is not a religious tract, but a search for a more complete scientific & philosophical understanding of how the world works. As I said, I don't imagine G*D as a person, in any relatable sense. Instead I refer to the Causal Principle of our world's creation as more analogous to Gravity : it's not a thing, but a property of things, that causes changes in space-time. G*D or First Cause or Logos or BEING is the only "thing" that we can say "simply is". Everything in our world traces back to the Power to Be : the ability to make something-from-nothing. And by "nothing" I mean un-actualized Potential.
The only personal property of G*D is what I call "Intention" --- and others have called "Will" --- the cause of a specific direction to creation and evolution --- as opposed to random chaos. For example, in our world, Time doesn't go around in circles, but in a straight line from Past to Future : from Cause to Effect. I have no idea if G*D is conscious in the same sense that humans are conscious. But, since Consciousness is a property of our world, it must have been a Potential in the Source of our world. My blog --- an extension of the thesis --- has nothing to say about our relationship to a transcendent personal G*D. But it has a lot to say about developing a rapport with the real world, and real people.
So apparently, you still don't Grok what I'm saying about the God Question. Admittedly, it's an unorthodox concept, but I am not alone in seeing Information (EnFormAction) as the essence of Reality. :cool:
Yes. I understand what Davies was talking about : that whatever G*D is, it must be responsible for both Good and Evil. Our real world of many parts is undeniable Di-polar. But I prefer to think of transcendent Deity as unitary : a singular whole, rather than an array of particular values from Good at one pole and Evil at the other. It's us humans trying to make sense of our imperfect world that have analyzed it into Black vs White terms of Good vs Evil. But I doubt that our world was created from a heavenly war between a Good God and an Evil God : Ahura Mazda vs Ahriman, or Jehovah vs Satan. Instead, the world was created with the potential (the freedom) for positive (good) and negative (bad) developments.
So, our human choices are what, collectively, set the erratic direction that the world takes. For example, in the Garden of Eden, there was no Good or Evil : it was just a perfect world for its creatures : the vegetarian Lions lay down with the innocent Lambs. Only when the Power of Reason was unleashed upon that idyllic realm did contrast & conflict become an obstacle to human flourishing. Good & Evil are human values, not G*D qualities.
However, my "un-tethered" imaginings of the Pre-Big-Bang state of things can be summed-up as Infinite Possibility (Potential). In Platonic terms, there was nothing Real until Ideality was Actualized : Logos, the principle of Reason, cut-off a piece of Infinity to create a finite world (Cosmos) from infinite possibilities (Chaos). And one unavoidable result of that division of the whole (Random Chaos contains all possible states from 0 to 100, from Bad to Good, but nothing Actual) is imperfection. So, when our world was "born", we inherited some of those parental possibilities, but not the full range --- in which Positives and Negatives cancel-out to neutral. . . . . Does any of that little myth make sense?
Cosmos from Chaos : Plato & Aristotle argued their theories from the assumption of Logos as the creator of Cosmos from Chaos.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page35.html
Gnomon!
Oh I see. Actually I'm not familiar with his views on Good and Evil. Where could I find that?
What I was actually referring to, was his views concerning cosmology. The concept of a dipolar God combines necessity and contingency chance and choice. A traditional unchanging Being who is part of time (temporal time) but also timeless and eternal.
Quantum uncertainty and Wheeler's cloud are the analogies he uses. These ideas challenge the old school God omni-x3-stuff ( I don't accept Anselm's theory the Church adopted/forces on Christianity ) in favor of Process Philosophy/Theology.
The problem is less with your logic (I pointed out some problems with your reasoning in my previous post) and more with the whole "powerlevel" thing. The latter is a misuse of statistical analysis. You're inventing cases (infinite gods) and are then applying statistical analysis to the cases as if they were actual data. This kind of analysis does generally result in random results.
For example, imagine we have the following self-sorting problem:
"You wake up in a Hotel room with no memory. All the windows and the door are closed. What's the chance that you are in a hotel room with a number from 1 to 10?"
In order to give an even marginally useful answer, you need some empirical groundwork. You'd need to know, for example, what the average number of rooms in a hotel currently is. WIthout such groundwork, you can come to any arbitrary conclusion. Maybe there are infinite rooms? See the "doomsday argument" for a slightly more involved argument with the same problems.
Quoting Philosophim
Since we allow metaphysical first causes, which is to say the "first cause" starts causality, but is not itself part of causality, nothing is stopping us from imagining any number of other ways a specific universe comes to be.
For one, the idea that the physical universe can be completely described based on it's initial state is somewhat outdated, since it assumes a universe working according to classical mechanics, which we now know is not the case.
But apart from that if we take the big bang as the starting point of our specific universe, and assume that every alteration of the makeup of the big bang results in a different specific universe, that does not constrain the metaphysical antecedents of the big bang in any way. Just like a God does not need a specific makeup to create a specific universe, there is no reason to assume that other possible first causes do. We don't have any convenient words for this, as with God, but let's for example assume that some sort of Aether gives rise to a specific universe in some unkown, metaphysical way. There is no reason to assume that only one specific Aether can give rise to one specific universe. Rather, there might be infinite Aethers that all give rise to the same specific universe.
Quoting Philosophim
I would point you to Hume, who has pretty convincingly argued that we don't actually have a way to prove causality exists.
Quoting Philosophim
The problem, which remains not cleared up, is that you say in 2:
"We can represent this as answering the question, "Why did X happen?""
Then in 3 you argue there are 3 (and only 3) answers to that question.
Then in 5 you ask question 2 again, even though you have already concluded that the options in 3 are definitive answers. That's the contradiction.
For example, in looped causality, every question "why did X happen" has an answer. For every X there is a Y. Therefore, looped causality is a valid solution to the initial dichotomy.
What you do in 5. is to then treat causality as a whole as an X, and ask whether that X has a Y. That, however, is not logical, since you're now stepping outside of causality and into metaphysics. And you have not established the metaphysical rule that every X needs a Y, that is there is no reason to assume there is a causality in metaphysics. Indeed you acknowledge that there is no such causality when you say that the (metaphysical) first cause does not need a prior cause.
I haven't studied enough of Hume to know the answer to this question, do you know what Hume said about logical necessity?
The reason I ask is that I wanted to interject an important distinction. While personally I'm not a big fan of logical necessity there is certainly analogous merits to it viz physics. For example, logical necessity is based on formal logic, which in essence, is mathematics. Mathematics describes (not explains the nature thereof) the universe fairly well, as we know.
Generally from there, philosophically, if we are back to Platonic realms of unchanging, eternal, ideas that are seemingly logically necessary, just like unchanging, eternal, mathematical truth's (axioms) and ideas, what are its implications (?).
And so I'm thinking that if someone posits a first cause because something exists (versus nothing exists), they could perhaps simply argue that it just is. I know it's old-school, but it's a source of much debate.
Again, there are a lot of problems with that, which likewise I mentioned to the OP previously. But until mathematic's can arrive at a complete theory of everything, it does hold some merit in and of itself.
What's your take?
I wasn't referring to any particular quotes from Davies on the topic of a Good/Evil deity. The comment was simply my take-away from reading several of his books. I'm not aware that he ever used the term "Di-polar", but my impression was that his god model would fit that definition. The specific concept probably originated in the Process Theism of Whitehead, Hartshorne, etc.
But I had never heard of that notion when I developed my own G*D model from the Enformationism thesis. Our universe can be characterized in terms of Good in some respects, and Evil in other perspectives. Yet, rather than characterizing the original Cause of the world as one or the other, I assume that, what I call the eternal principle of BEING (the power to Be, to Exist), must have the Potential for both Good & Evil, as viewed from the perspective of temporal humans. So, I would say that G*D or Logos is "beyond good & evil", as explained below. :smile:
Dipolar God : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/
Good/Evil G*D : If the creator is omnipotent and omniscient, then why is the creation so flawed? Why should the dichotomy of Good versus Evil “make sense”? Traditional arguments attempting to justify our Yin/Yang situation, have not been convincing to atheists, who find the existence of Evil to be evidence against the biblical portrayal of God. That’s why my PanEnDeist god-model is assumed to be “beyond good and evil”.
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page22.html
Deistic Theodicy : Nevertheless, if G*D is omnipotential, and omnipresent in the real world, then s/he can be logically characterized as both Good and Evil. From the perspective of space-time reality, G*D’s providence is experienced as sometimes Good, and sometimes Evil. But from the vantage of Enfernity, deity encompasses all possible qualities from Best to Worst. The positives & negatives are in balance, and cancel-out. So the overall holistic quality of G*D is neutral, neither Good nor Evil, but BothAnd.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page28.html
I don't know any of that. For me, whether there is one 'first cause'/'being' (God or other) or many of such wherefrom the universe(s) - (if such a limit actually exists) - has its origin, is of little consequence. The aspects of unity and equilibrium which we observe, are just that. Sure, we can tag all of that with names (God, Life, Energy, Vibration, Universe, Spirit, Consciousness, Nature, Laws of Nature, etc) but they don't become anything more than what they already are (even to us).
Can anything compare with the idea of infinite probability? It's like the ultimate cheat code.
Fantastic Escharmon, you nailed it!
Quoting Echarmion
This is EXACTLY it. Nice job!
Yes, Hume can argue that we cannot determine if causality exists. But if does nothing against the argument because then everything is essentially a first cause.
If causality does not exist, then nothing has a necessary precondition for its being. If this is the case, then everything is essentially a "first cause". Which means that anything could happen at any time, and there are no laws which constrain anything. Meaning it is the same conclusion. It is possible a God could exist.
Hm, I'm still not in agreement over your "physics versus metaphysics" point.
Quoting Echarmion
First, if my intention came off that I was trying to assume the three conclusions were facts, my apologies. This was not the original paper, only a rewrite from memory for the forums. Back when I wrote this, this was the topic at the time in a class. There were three propositions of causality, so I decided to include them. If you can come up with more, feel free, that might invalidate the argument.
Second, I am not stepping out of causality. What I'm doing is saying, "Ok, lets assume that causality is an infinite regress. Is there an inherent contradition, flaw, or something we then must realize if we are to assume this is the answer?
X+2 =3. If I say it could be 1, 2, or 3 for x, I can plug it in, then see if it fits right? That's all I'm doing here. Basically I'm pointing out that the idea that everything that exists has a necessary precondition for its existence is impossible to conclude. The entire set of that existence, is still an existence. And there must be a necessary precondition for that sets existence. But, there isn't.
Of course, I might be wrong. Can you think of a situation in which there is a necessary precondition that everything has a prior necessary precondition for its existence? In the end, I can only think of one. "It simply is." Basically you can't claim that everything has a necessary precondition for its existence as there is no other necessary precondition for that entire set of existence (that is physics, not metaphysics) besides the fact that it is an infinitely looped condition of existence. But again, I'm always eager to see a nut like that cracked, maybe I'm missing something.
An understandable way of looking at things. But if I decided to, and classified it as in the argument, does it work?
Quoting BrianW
Heh, yes. And that is the nature of my flaw. I only considered one aspect of infinity, and not any other. The flaw has been posted in post section 3 in detail, and Echarmion nailed it up above in this post section if you want to read it.
Yeah, everything just is. It allows for maximum focus upon oneself (the most significant point of anything that is).
Does this entire thread depend upon time having a sequential linear nature, as every day common sense experience typically suggests?
Yes. The core is about causality, and causality assumes sequential time. You can view causality as a "Prior necessary condition for the current state of a thing". Time would be the way we understand that prior causality.
I'm hardly a physics major, but from documentaries I've watched it sounds like time may be a more complex phenomena than merely a sequence of events. Don't know myself, not sure anybody does.
The point here is that this seems another unproven, unexamined assumption which the thread is built upon. If we assume that X is true, and then build a complex logic chain on top of that assumption, and it turns out that X is not true, then the exercise becomes kind of pointless, doesn't it?
The best solution I see is a disclaimer something like the following...
In that setting, it wouldn't matter if the logic card games rules are built upon unexamined faulty assumptions.
The concept of Time is indeed more complicated since Einstein muddied the waters with his Relativity theories (General & Special). But it's still not so complex & paradoxical that us non-geniuses can't wrap our minds around it --- to some extent.
Relativity says --- and this is my layman's interpretation --- that a> Subjective Time, from the human perspective, is linear and sequential; but b> Objective Time, from a perspective outside the space-time universe, is eternal and unchanging. Unfortunately, subjective Relativity means that the rate of change varies depending on the observer's motion. So our notion of time as a steady flow from Past to Future, is what Einstein called an "illusion". But then, all of our subjective perceptions are illusions, in the sense that they capture only a partial view of the whole system of Reality.
Causality is another subjective "illusion", in that we infer the Cause by imagining an invisible link from the immediate Precedent to the Effect. For all practical purposes that's a useful assumption. But philosophers are sometimes Idealists, and try to comprehend the bigger picture. For Einstein's philosophy of Time, the big picture is as seen from God's timeless Perspective. So, our notion of Causation is an inference, that assumes a god-like omniscience to provide the link between the presumed Cause and the observed Effect. Hume pointed-out the common "illusion" of a "necessary" connection between two sequential events.
Therefore, as Philosophim stated : "The core is about causality, and causality assumes sequential time." Only God or Einstein can see Time & Causation objectively, although Time Scientists are gradually narrowing the gap. For the purposes of this thread on the Probability of God, we are limited to seeing "in a glass darkly" through our subjective telescopes. So yes, no-one knows for sure, but we can speculate based on our "core" assumptions. :nerd:
Block Time : Eternalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
Hume on Causation : Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/
That also may be the flaw in your flaw-finding. There are no other aspects (parts) of Infinity. By "definition" of the word, Infinity is immeasurable & unquantifiable & indivisible & unlimited & undefinable. Ironically, mathematicians, with nothing better to do, have determined that any concept or value of infinity is equal to another, hence no different aspects. There is only one undefined unitary boundless Infinity. Everything else is an analogy with finite measurable Time. Moreover, Infinity is Potential, not Probable. The notion of Probability only applies in a finite measurable system of constant change. So, re-defining Infinities to allow for alternative god-models, is a futile exercise in circular reasoning. Plug any value you want into the equation, and In-finity still equals un-defined.
Brian may think that any reference to Infinity is cheating, because it assumes something outside of our sequential cause & effect space-time. But, correct me if I'm wrong, we are talking about a super-natural or pre-Natural or pre-space-time First Cause here. So we either include Eternity & Infinity in our determinations, or we limit the cause of our existence to Olympian Gods or a turtles-all-the-way-down race of super-intelligent natural Aliens. :smile:
Infinity : a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ?).
Multiple Infinities : two mathematicians have shown that two different variants of infinity are actually the same size.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-measure-infinities-find-theyre-equal-20170912/
Positive or Negative Infinity : it's just as meaningless as plus or minus Zero.
... It is always possible to think of a larger number: for the number of times a magnitude can be bisected is infinite. Hence the infinite is potential, never actual; the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number.
___Aristotle.?Physics 207b8
I might add that an Infinite G*D is Potential, not Actual.
Cantor justifies my initial infinite to 1 probability. https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-measure-infinities-find-theyre-equal-20170912/
Basically its about ratios of infinite growth. You see, in the example we are taking one universe specifically, and comparing its ratio. There is an infinite ratio of Gods to a 1 universe without a God. Now if we consider it all together, yes, even though the ratio is larger per individual universe without a God, there are still infinite possibilities on both sides. So yes, they are the same size. But, once you draw one, then it is no longer an infinite size we are looking at, but the ratio of possibilities.
Quoting Hippyhead
lol Hippy, you seem insistent to come back to this eh? No. I am not claiming this is simply a card game. While the end result has a flaw, I declare an axiom about first causes, and that there is no other possibility that the universe has at least one first cause.
Think about the logical proof by contradiction. Wait, you don't believe in logic. Are you going to start that thread? =P If you would like me to start a thread, I can. I'll post my theory of knowledge, which will show why logic is necessary if you would like. I don't want to steal your thunder though if you have your own idea you wanted to post.
I never said that. Ok, I give up, this is hopeless. Good luck.
Quoting Gnomon
Here's an example which may help to illustrate. It's a useful convention to say that the sun rises and sets, because from our limited perspective on the surface of the Earth, that's what it looks like. But from the bigger picture, the "rising and setting" concept is obviously entirely wrong.
Point being, a great deal of God topic discussion seems to make the mistake of assuming that we can map everyday human scale common sense assumptions on to a vastly larger scale, the scope of god claims.
The "does God exist" question seems a good example. In daily life a simplistic dualistic yes/no answer to the existence of something is reasonable and useful. Does a pencil exist on my desk, yes or no, simple, obvious and useful. But if we shift the focus to the sub-atomic scale we see the pencil is to an overwhelming degree mostly nothing. If we shift the focus to the cosmic scale, to space, the simplistic yes/no formulation falls apart entirely.
So if philosophers wish to comprehend the bigger picture, perhaps they should stop trying to map human scale concepts on to the very largest of scales, ie. scope of god claims.
Quoting Gnomon
I don't see why we are so limited. I think instead it's a deliberate choice to be limited. I'm not arguing against that choice, just suggesting it would be more intellectually honest to state the choice clearly. That's what I was getting at with the card game example.
Members wish to display their talents for doing the logic dance game, and so they ignore anything which gets in the way of that. It's more exciting and glamorous to pretend this logic dancing game is relevant to all of reality, because by doing so the philosopher perceives themselves as being as big as reality itself. Ok, no problem, I get the emotional appeal and am not above it.
But if we wanted to do actual philosophy we might start from the premise that we actually have not the slightest clue how to calculate the probability of God, and probably haven't even formed a useful question, and then proceed from there.
If it's true that we have no idea at all what we're talking about, then what?
Apparently, Cantor was thinking in terms of number lines, which for practical applications we can imagine as a whole, or in parts. So, the mathematicians are comparing sub-sets ("actual" infinities) of Ideal or Theoretical Infinity. But if those sub-sets can be comprehended as isolated entities, they are not truly infinite (incomprehensible). My G*D model is based on the concept of indivisible Theoretical Infinity. So, these other so-called infinities are actually finite, and their Olympian gods would also be only partially divine. And the ratio of Absolute Infinity to Finite Infinity is One to Zero :joke:
Vernacular Infinity : a really long distance
Theoretical Infinity : an un-measurable indivisible distance, without beginning or end
Absolute Infinity is the Set of all sets.
Absolute G*D is the Set of all sets.
Universal Set : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set
In the number set image below, Absolute or Universal Infinity is the white space behind
Actually, our partial-blindness to Reality may not be completely self-caused (deliberate self-obfuscation). Don Hoffman, in his book The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality, plausibly speculates that Evolution itself has selected for just enough perception of the world for its organisms to replicate. But humans, have evolved the rational ability to become aware of their own blind spots, and seek to fill-in the gaps. Unfortunately, we too often color-in those gaps with uninformed imagination, such as Weather Gods to explain tornadoes. :smile:
Against Reality : https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/
That's why I try to limit my G*D postulates to abstract metaphors, like Logos, rather than mapping physical human attributes onto a metaphysical inference from physical evidence. My god-model is like Infinity and Eternity, immeasurable and incomprehensible. I only use that amorphous model as an ideal axiomatic "core assumption" from which to interpret how and why the real comprehensible world works in ways that our limited intelligence can make sense of. :smile:
"The most incomprehensible fact about the universe is that it is comprehensible".___Einstein
Or by imagining that our reasoning powers are relevant to everything everywhere. Such imaginings seem a willful denial of easily proven facts like how incredibly small we are, and how incredibly stupid we are.
Evidence: Let us observe how members of this forum, and more to the point, professional philosophers too, are to an extreme extent so bored by the fact that we have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat that such a subject rarely receives even the briefest attention.
These are the geniuses who think they are clever enough to uncover some previously hidden fact about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere (scope of god claims), a realm no one can define in even the most basic manner.
On subjects of such enormous scale, reason does not lead to ever more clever logic calculations. It leads to a collapse of the entire god debate game.
Again Hippy, you didn't actually read the argument. Coming into my thread, refusing to read the argument, and lambasting everyone who dares to is kind of rude at this point don't you think? I've invited you to start your own separate thread. I've asked you to address the actual topic in your claims, and you haven't done either of those. I've been polite.
The only one playing genius is you. You're telling all of us that we're all full of it, without even entering the debate. You are telling us we should be covering topics you want, because this seems to be all about you doesn't it Hippy? Because you're not seeking to understand or communicate, you're seeking to PREACH. If you want to complain about philosophers, go start a thread complaining about philosophers. But you're off topic and being rude at this point.
But somehow I magically know it is built upon unexamined unproven premises.
What's happening now is that you realize you don't know how to prevail on the logic, so you're trying to change the subject from the post to the poster, where you hope you'll have better luck. No offense taken, I accept your surrender, and you may keep your horse and sidearm.
So yes, your conclusion is magical. Which was fine for a post or two. But you are not coming into the conversation as I have asked you to, or started your own thread on this separate topic as I have asked you to. You might be right on your separate topic. Post it, I will gladly debate you there. Your insistence on not doing either of those is ego and a lack of respect. Am I mistaken? Are you actually a nice person who got a little carried away, and appreciates the reminder and starts their own thread?
If Reason is irrelevant to God questions, what would you suggest : Intuition? Or is it a waste of time to philosophize about such abstract concepts as First Cause? I suspect that the majority of those who believe in God, or gods, do so on the basis of tradition and intuition. Only a few philosophers, driven by reasonable curiosity, actually try to reason out the "Whys" of existence. I'm retired, so these forum speculations beyond reality are an affordable hobby for me. :smile:
Your argument is based upon the assumption that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful useful statements about gods. But you offer no proof. You're essentially making a "because it's in the Bible" type argument, where we are supposed to accept reason's qualifications for this job as a matter of faith just as you do. If we decline to adopt your faith position, then we are declared off topic, various dodge and weave tactics are deployed etc.
My argument applies to the foundation your logic dancing house is built upon. If that foundation is not solid, then there's no point in entering your house and following you around while you show off the furniture.
I'm certainly in the conversation, just not on the terms that you demand. Sorry, but to my knowledge you don't own the forum, this thread, or anybody else's posts. If you don't enjoy a particular post or poster, free scroll bars are readily available on every page.
Quoting Philosophim
No, I'm not a nice person, I'm a wannabe philosopher. :-) As such, my job is to present inconvenient reasoning where I am able, and accept in advance that doing so will not enhance my popularity.
Quoting Philosophim
I never said that. You're arguing against assertions of your own invention here. And as you might have noticed, I'm not having any trouble talking.
And I'm talking specifically to the topic highlighted in the thread title "Probability of God". You're asserting that we are in a position to make that calculation. I'm counter asserting that we are not. It's called debate. Philosophers do that sometimes.
There are two ways out of this box for you.
1) Ignore my challenge and continue to pretend that your faith based belief in the infinite scope of reason is an act of philosophy.
2) Meet the challenge, and explain to us why we should assume as a matter of faith that something as small and imperfect as human reason is qualified to calculate the probability of gods.
BTW, don't take this personally, I routinely present this challenge all over this and other philosophy forums, and it is routinely dodged or ignored, just as you are doing. Just another day in the office.
If you should conclude and publicly state that you sincerely feel that reason is irrelevant to God questions, I would be happy to present alternatives. But there's no point in presenting alternatives to those who are convinced that they already have a suitable methodology. If you would like to pursue the God debate for a couple thousand more years to see if anything new happens that hasn't already happened about a million billion times, ok, go for it, do the experiment, find out for yourself.
If you don't have a thousand years available :-) this forum can provide a useful sample. Have you noticed that there are about a zillion "does God exist" threads on this forum going back years, and that not a one of them has ever proven any position on the topic? What is the rational response to any methodology which has consistently failed to meet it's stated goals over a very long period? Should we keep on trying to pound the round peg in to the square hole, over and over and over again, for even more years? Would that be intelligent?
We don't need an alternative on the table to face the fact that what we're doing is going endlessly round in circles to nowhere like riding a children's merry-go-round.
Quoting Gnomon
Same here. For the better and the worse, forums randomly lump people of every age and every experience all in to one pot, and so the great geezer sages like us :-) are required to learn more about patience than perhaps we are capable of. Well, that's my situation in any case, don't mean to speak for anyone else on that.
See Hippy, I never make a biblical argument even once. There is no faith in the argument. You haven't read the actual argument. This is what I keep harping on, and where its rude of you to criticize something you haven't even read.
My proof that we can reason about a God is in points 1 - 12. I will say this again. Its there. In the argument. Please go read them, quote the portion you disagree with and you think exposes a flaw, and I will happily debate you.
Quoting Hippyhead
I would love it if you would apply actual inconvenient reasoning to the actual argument. I enjoy challenging my ideas to make sure I have something that actually works. You seem like an intelligent person, and it seems wasteful that you are not addressing the actual points. Its not inconvenient, it makes you look confused.
Quoting Hippyhead
If your argument is based on the thread title, and you haven't read the argument, that's not a debate about the argument. That's a debate which avoids the argument. Read points 1-12 Hippy, then we'll discuss your opinion on them.
This isn't a box. I think you have a bias or opinion about these types of arguments, and have leapt to a judgement that isn't there. I will reiterate once again: There is no faith. There is no bible. There is simply logic. You either agree with the stated logic, or you point out the stated logic's flaws. If you can point out its flaws, I will then have something I can discuss with you. Until then, you're just somewhere else Hippy.
The "God questions" I was referring to were philosophical queries, not religious statements of Faith. Intuitive Faith is typically impervious to Logical Reason. Most of the God questioners on this forum are either open to the notion of some kind of supernatural deity, or closed to such non-empirical beliefs. So, they use rational methods, not to prove or disprove the existence of a ghostly god, but to rationalize their own position on the question.
I will state publicly, that Reason is relevant to philosophical god-questions, but irrelevant to religious god-beliefs. My own non-biblical notion of G*D was derived by rational methods, but began as an intuitive feeling that our space-time world is not self-existent, hence some kind of First Cause is logically necessary. The specific nature of that unseen implicit Creator is debatable though, so on this forum we discuss the various logical alternatives. What is your alternative to a pre-Big-Bang origin for our universe? Is that concept based on Reason or Intuition or Speculation? :smile:
First Cause Alternative : Is such a multiverse merely speculation? Certainly it is not as widely accepted by scientists as quantum physics or the Standard Model of particle physics. But it is motivated by real science, and it does follow from the equations of cosmology that optimally explain the origin and structure of our universe.
https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html
Note : My personal eccentric notion of First Cause was "motivated by real science, and it does follow from the equations of cosmology that optimally explain the origin and structure of our universe". But it was also Enformed by Information Theory & Evolutionary Theory & Quantum Theory. Yet, it was sparked by an intuitive feeling that Reductive science can only determine what causes are effective in the real world, so a Holistic approach is necessary to deal with speculations on Causes that are out-of-this-world, such as the self-caused Multiverse, or the organizing Platonic Logos, or Aristotle's all-powerful Unmoved Mover.
I said "because it's in the Bible type argument".
Quoting Philosophim
Your logical points 1-12 are built upon the assumption that logic is relevant to subjects the scale of gods. As example, your point #1:
This is a logical statement, right? Logic is an invention of human beings, right? Human beings are indescribably small in comparison to the reality which is being discussed, right? Can you present any proof that something as small and half insane as human beings can generate useful logical statements about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere (scope of god claims), a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner?
You wish for us to engage your logical points one by one, much in the same way a Bible believer might wish for us to engage their scriptural analysis. But until the Bible believer can demonstrate that the Bible is a qualified authority on the subjects at hand, there is no point in going through their scriptural analysis one by one by one.
The problem we're having is that you believe in the infinite reach of human reason so deeply that you don't realize it's an experience of faith. And thus you're baffled when anyone challenges your faith, because you don't know that you have faith. This is very very common, especially on philosophy forums.
Like the Bible believer, you want us to accept your faith and not challenge it, so that we can proceed immediately to the thing you think you're good at, reason. But if you were good at reason, you'd be challenging the foundation you are attempting to build on before you started construction.
Ok then, so you have a methodology which you believe to be qualified, and therefore aren't in the market for an alternative.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes, this process has been going on for thousands of years in one form or another, has been led by some of the greatest minds among us on all sides, and has proven exactly nothing.
At what point do you feel it would be reasonable to question the usefulness of this process? Another thousand years perhaps? Something else?
Yes. That is what the points continue to show. Each point follows, and eventually does define what a God is within the framework of logical understanding.
Lets start with point one. Is there anything in point one that you disagree with? Do you understand what I mean by causality and a first cause? It can help to read until point 6 to get an overview, but feel free to ask if there is something you do not understand, or find flawed if point one is a hard sticking point.
What if frameworks of logical understanding are not capable of commenting usefully on such large topics?
As example, you can sit your dog down in front of the Internet, and he'll be able to see and hear it. But, even if he is the smartest dog who ever lived, he'll never be able to understand it. Dogs simply aren't able to grasp the level of abstraction necessary to understand the Internet.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes. It's based upon an unproven assumption. :-)
If you continue to read the points, I'm sure you'll get your answer. If my points are unable to comment usefully on that, simply point out why my statements are wrong.
Quoting Hippyhead
Ok, what is this specific unproven assumption? Do you understand what causality is as defined? Do you not believe that causality is real? Do you not like the idea of a first cause? I have already told you I am not making an assumption that logic can lead to the understanding of a God at this point in the argument. I form the logic of this through points 12, but this does not begin at point 1. Be careful not to put your own assumption where there is none.
I respectfully decline to engage the rightness or wrongness of your points until you demonstrate that making logical points is relevant to subjects the scale of gods. You're apparently determined to avoid that at all costs, which I can do nothing about.
I just told you. Points 1-12 explain how this leads to the scale of Gods. I'm not going to retype everything that's already written down. There's my proof Hippyhead. Now you have to read it, and point out if it does, or does not apply to the scale of Gods.
So far, since you cannot, you have not invalidated my claim that logic can enter the scale of Gods. Are you afraid Hippyhead? Are you unable to refute it? Its the only things I can conclude at this point. I've made my claim, I have not avoided your question. Its on you now.
I asked what alternative "X" you would propose. I may or may not be in the market for "X", but you haven't explicitly said what it is. Except to denigrate Reason as a tool for Cosmology. Is Faith in Science or Revelation your "X"?
Cosmology : the science of the origin and development of the universe.
Quoting Hippyhead
I assume that, by "this process", you mean Philosophy. If so, you may think that Empirical Science has made old-fashioned philosophy obsolete. Some prominent scientists would disagree.
What's your problem with rational dialogue on unsettled questions? Hey, It works for me! :joke:
Philosophy Obsolete? : https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/06/30/no-science-will-never-make-philosophy-or-religion-obsolete/#45bddf5d5ef0
Physics Needs Philosophy : by Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/
Yes, that's true. You asked, and I didn't answer. I did try to explain why.
Quoting Gnomon
That's a fair claim, as I do sometimes get carried away with the rhetoric in the attempt to generate engagement. But really all I'm doing is applying the very same test to reason that atheists apply to holy books. No proof, no belief.
Quoting Gnomon
I meant the God debate process, all sides of it. Chanting memorized phrases from holy books, fancy talk logic dancing, debate, conflict, referencing various "authorities" and so on. It's like a children's merry-go-round. There are lots of blinking lights and carnival music which give the illusion of travel, but really the merry-go-round goes eternally round and round in a tiny circle to nowhere. No answer is reached, no one's claims are proven or disproven.
If we were trying to fix our car and our repair strategy failed over and over and over again, sooner or later we'd dump the strategy. It wouldn't take a thousand years, but maybe just an afternoon. Maybe we don't yet have any idea of a better strategy. But we know what's not going to work. So we'd stop doing that. See? Nothing too clever about this, it's just common sense.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm not referring to unsettled questions in general. I'm referring to super huge claims and counter claims regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner. I'm referring to the God debate.
Everyone on philosophy forums seems to want to demonstrate their talent for rational thought, but then they so often insist on continuing to do the same God debate dance over and over, in spite of the fact there is no evidence that debate will ever lead to anything but more of the same.
Um, see what I mean about getting carried away with the rhetoric? :-)
Well, I did exactly that in points 1-12. You have not been able to show this is wrong.
You have in essence done exactly what you accused me of. You have not demonstrated that your assumption about my work has any merit, because you will not evaluate the evidence I have presented in response to your query. Like the Bible believer, you ask me to accept your faith and not challenge it, so that you can proceed immediately to the thing you think you're good at, reason. But if you were good at reason, you'd let me challenge the foundation you are attempting to build on before you started construction. Since you refuse to look or discuss my challenge to your query, you reach that conclusion using a methodology you decline to challenge.
So that's it then Hippy, I gave you what you wanted, but you retreated. Perhaps another day, perhaps another post.
Since it declined into name-calling at the end, I resurrect this thread with trepidation, simply to add my two-cents-worth on the question of gambling odds for God. Apparently, you are placing your bet, based on your calculation of "infinite to one" odds in favor of a Prime Cause. I previously linked to an article reviewing the book by Steven Unwin -- The Probability of God : A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate Truth. The author calculated somewhat more modest 67% odds that our world was created by The Christian God. I must congratulate him on a good try, presented with reason and humor. FWIW, here's my review of the book, posted some time after this faded into infinity. Enjoy! :smile:
The Probability of God : The Hard Question of Divine Existence
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page60.html
The "Fun Puzzle" continues . . . . for those of us who can discuss "god questions" with a sense of humor and fair play.
PS___I never did find your "flaw"
1) First one chooses an authority which one deems qualified, and then...
2) One references that authority to come to various conclusions.
What's happening in this thread is that human reason has been chosen as the authority which is deemed qualified to consider the subject of gods. And then various conclusions have been derived by reference to that authority. The original poster is agreeable to accepting challenges on Step 2, but not on Step 1.
Consider the theist who wishes to have a debate about the correct interpretations of various Bible verses. To them, the only valid debate is one in which one person says the Bible verse means X while another speaker says the Bible verse means Y.
And then you come along and ask, "Where is the proof the Bible is the word of God?" They can not provide proof, which tends to make the Bible verse interpretation game seem kind of meaningless. And so you become an unpopular person who is interrupting the game they wish to play.
Appreciate that for those who are so minded, studying all the efforts from historic times through today might be fruitful mental exercise and might even, for some individuals, lead to some personally useful outcomes, but not much chance (in my view, no chance at all) of answering the question.
So my own question is, are there philosophers who actually expect the question to be answered some day? If so, what's their underlying argument that makes them confident the question will be answerable in some definite way?
I don't accept the Bible as the "word of God". That's why I was interested in an argument that uses Mathematics, instead of Scripture, as evidence for belief in God. It didn't convince me. But it might work for those who accept the authority of both Scripture and Mathematics. :smile:
The author of the referenced book seems to agree with you. The existence of anything invisible & intangible must be inferred from circumstantial evidence : Dark Matter, for example. That's why some religious believers reluctantly admit that Faith comes down to an act of will, or of personal experience, not logical or mathematical reasoning. :nerd:
The Probability of God : "he admits that, according to Catholic doctrine, “it is the human faculty of will, and not reason, that plays the crucial role in achieving faith”. Moreover, “this position is fully consistent with . . . the notion that faith ultimately rests on an accumulation of probabilities”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page64.html
Either way, that still begs my main question, whether effort by philosophers to prove or disprove the existing of god or gods is and endless quest with not hope of a generally agreed proof?
Yes. But then, the "God" question is the ultimate philosophical game. Science asks relatively soft "how" questions that are amenable to hard evidence. But the hard questions are always, not "what" or "how, but the childish "why, why, why." Questions about verifiable facts can be proven to the satisfaction of reasonable people. But questions about "Meaning" are always subjective, and debatable.
That the physical world, "in which we live and move and have our being", exists is (almost) beyond question. But why? That my thinking mind exists, is (almost) un-doubtable. But why? Most animals seem to take existence for granted, so death comes as a surprise, except for humans. But why? So, asking "why" questions seems to come with the human genome.
Yet, after several thousand years of philosophizing, these questions remain unanswered, except for those who take the easy-out of Faith. Yet, what else will human questers find to do with their free time? The search for subjective Meaning is an open-ended non-linear multi-player game. Your move. :cool:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay
And of course I recognise that people with 'faiths' have a view (or an axe to grind) in such debates, though in most cases perhaps not a view based on reasoned and unbiased argument.
That still leaves me wondering whether (and if so why) it's a priority for my taxes to be spent on professional philosophers and pilosophy teachers continuing to debate the existence or otherwise of a god or gods? This certainly is, as you say, debatable.
I've seen arguments for 'philosophy in general' on the basis of "I've learned a lot from it", or "it teaches people how to think more clearly about issues". And I can see no reason why anyone should be constrained from choosing the subects they want to think about.
But why choose "is there a god" when there appears to be no way of getting past "we don't know and never will know". Unless of course "in the afterlife". But that's a matter of belief, not argument . . .
The atheists believe there is no god. Some people of faith believe there is. In my experience neither party brings much fun (or wisdom) to the 'game' of discussing the question.
Philosophy is indeed a mind-game or personal pastime. And some scientists call philosophers "feckless", because their introverted activities typically make no physical difference in the material world. But philosophical investigations are intended to get us "closer to Truth" about the world --- to change minds, not to change material reality. Philosophy refines Beliefs about the world, and those Beliefs and Intentions have Political and Physical consequences in the world. That's why the philosophical game goes on long after the ninth inning. :smile:
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." ___Karl Marx.
Note -- Changing the world is the job of Politics, not Philosophy.
Aboutness : In philosophy, intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/
Closer To Truth : presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
https://www.closertotruth.com/about/overview
The sad fact is that playing this 'game' can also do real damage out in the real world.
Here in the UK we have a long history of young people who, deciding on a career in politics, head to Oxford* to read PPE (politics, philosophy and economics) with a view to 'making it' in politics, where they can make or influence national decisions. They choose PPE because that's how many earlier prime ministers and cabinet ministers got into politics.
Unfortunately, based on the evidence, reading PPE means in most cases that they have little connection with or understanding of the real world; cannot or dare not question 'experts' from other disciplines who present (for example) scientific or statistical evidence; and are not good at assessing candidates for jobs or promotion - for example they'll recruit other PPE graduates rather than risk having to deal with anyone competent in maths or sciences or engineering or business and such. Economists they can of course cope with, given that most economists are not good at maths.
They succeed in politics because they are, of course, good at arguing their case, so long as the case only involves politics, philosophy or economics, and no-one raises any real-world aspects.
*Oxford is a small industrial city in the south midlands of England, where some kind of academic institution is based. The French do it even better - they have a whole academic institution designed to keep prospective politicians and civil servants isolated from the real world.
'God' as a fun topic even beats out poor old Trump; a mere mortal can hardly compete with the Mysterious Fun-With-Da-Mental ways of the curiously invisible proposed Almighty.
Seriously, 'God', as the Fundamental Entity (as often dishonestly claimed to be truth), intentionaly thinks, plans, designs, and implements all that goes on, either utilizing just Himself, as the All, or by forming outside stuff and incorporating it within His All Encompassing Domain.
Surely, then this proposed 'God' Being is a system of mind; but, this Personhood isn't at all in favor of His being fundamental, for, as with any system, the parts would have to be even more fundamental. His probability falls, for what we do see happening is that beings such as ourselves evolved and if we are to evolve higher then this will happen in the future, which thus becomes the right direction to look in, not the past.
We see, indeed, that the deep and deeper past was of the simpler and simpler, unto continuous and partless covariant quantum fields whose quantized excitations are what we call 'particles'.
The Theory of 'God' is not a good one because it assumes a lot and shows nothing, for the 'Supernatural' that is supposed to be everywhere is ever AWOL. Good theories, like evolution, show a lot and assume practically nothing, such as the Standard Model / Quantum Fields which has plenty to show.
More to the point and more seriously… next time, through philosophy, science, and logic… this is just an intro. I have read all the posts.
E = Evidence
P(A/B) = Probability of A given B
P(A) = Probability of A
P(G/E) = [P(E/G) * P(G)]/P(E) according to Bayes' theorem.
I hate to say this--it is merely meant for humor and not to be flippant (blasphemous?)--but it needs to be said in light of the question implied by the title of the post... Answer: 5 to1
Well Antony, the original conclusion is infinite to one. And of course, its wrong. =) I haven't visited this in a while, and its interesting to see some of the replies. Most aren't actually examining the puzzle, but that's fine. The puzzle is difficult and that is not easily digested on a forum.
Quoting Philosophim
Here, have we thought about the possibility that both are the case? And what would it take for that to be a possibility? First, the term "existence" is murky. Can you point to some thing's existence? the existence of a concept? Or, more importantly, what is it to say that something exists? that it is differentiated from another? that it is here rather than not here (and when would we say that)? that, for me, something has value and importance to affect my life? All of these things?
And so what sense of "existence" are we using here? Well, it appears to be (necessarily?) tied to the idea of a cause--maybe what something is made of, how it turns out, or its purpose. Now, it seems possible that we want some control over how things exist (turn out, continue on, are driven, etc.), so we necessitate a "cause" (The proximity of Descartes meditations can not, I would think, be ignored, and his attempt to find/create something fixed in order to try to solve the problem of skepticism.)
Quoting Philosophim
I won't argue whether there is a cause or what started the cause, only ask it be considered whether the idea of "causality" taken back to an initial point starts to thin out. Say I grant that one cause/thing is caused by something prior, etc. When we get back to the First Cause and turn to look forward, yes, we can see possible ripple effects through time (materially, biologically, evolutionarily, etc.); but is every outcome dictated? Morally? Creatively? Aesthetically? Or, in other words, does "everything" have a cause? The 'choice" of the same lunch I have every day? and, even more, a determined one? And where are we drawing the line? Again, what is important about "existence" and "causality" for us in this context? I'm not sure this is exactly an argument against your conclusion (or failed conclusion), so I'm not sure we can call these "flaws" rather than maybe the pitfalls of pre-constructed logic.
Yes. There can be multiple first causes. But what is necessarily concluded is that all causality reduces down to a first cause. There may be separate causality chains that reduce down to separate first causes. This may be a step in countering the conclusion I made, but it alone is not enough to counter the conclusion I made. Can you flesh it out and show why this counters the claim?
If you are going to question the idea of causality, a definition here should clear up what is intended.
Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. If there is no necessary prior state that entails the current state, then the current state is a "first cause" without any prior causality. Does that make sense?
Quoting Philosophim
Well, if we are allowing for "multiple first causes", then it opens the field to say that there are infinite chains. We can say the movement to pick up your cup has at least a biological/physical cause, and that stepping in front of a bullet also has the same cause yet also other causes (sacrifice, love, moral duty). Let's say we grant that there is a First Cause to every chain,and that these two causes are simply separate chains, each with a First Cause, then the question is, for each different chain, what do those First Causes consist of/in? You've give us two answers.
In a sense we are sliding into the question of whether every thought is "intended" or whether every movement is an "action"--is God behind movement or just actions (specific movements recognized as an act)? Or both as different causes? And what is it to say the Devil is the cause? Emerson is asked " 'But these impulses may be from below, not from above.' I replied, 'They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil.' No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it." Are we always acting from the "God" within us? If so, why is Emerson imploring us to rely on that instinct.
Again, is this to refute your claim? I don't think so. But, as I said, perhaps the premises have their own motivations which dictate the form of the answer.
You're on the right train of thought with the first paragraph. You're overthinking it with the second paragraph. This is a philosophical God very strictly defined as "Having the knowledge and power requirements to create a specific universe". There is no mention of anything else. So dismiss all else. Morality? Not important. Immortality? Not important. Old man with beard or Spaghetti Monster? Unimportant. =)
Everything you need to consider to solve the issue is within the strictly defined definitions and words. Anything outside of these terms is irrelevant. So that being the case, consider how I conclude the probability of a God being a first cause is infinite to one. Does having multiple possible first causes negate my reasoning for claiming this?
Quoting Philosophim
Well here I partly beg off. I don't believe philosophy is served by the modern vogue of creating contextless, pre-defined situations (trains and people in trouble as showing us anything about our moral realm)--but I walked into it, so that's on me. I'm trained in Ordinary Language Philosophy, which attempts to flesh out the contexts in which/when we would be talking about, say, causes, in order to see what we want in "strictly defining" the criteria beforehand, say, limiting "[e]verything [ I ] need to consider". If we are not considering "chains of multiple first causes" (moral chains, chains of actions, of identity, etc.) other than the creation of the "universe", then I'm not sure I can help. If the "universe" is just the first thing created, than the question thins out so much as to not hold anything; if you mean the universe to include everything without exception (the "universe" of possible/inevitable things), then everything is caused initially together. Which is to say, this is teetering into a discussion of solipsism/behavioralism and/or determinism/free-will, or devolving due to terms that can mean multiple things without any investigation into what necessitates them here other than adherence to a certain logic. The cart is before the horse I'm afraid, which, again, rigs the game.
No, this won't work. Suppose A was caused by B, but it could alternatively have been caused by C. Neither B nor C are necessary for A to occur.
This is a well-known objection, by the way. I don't know why, but philosophers of the previous century loved thought experiments involving murder. So a counterexample might have run like this: Black arranged to kill Smith by dropping a chandelier on him. Instead, it so happened that the chandelier dropped and killed Smith on its own. So Smith was killed by a chandelier, but neither an accident nor a murder were individually necessary for this to occur.
I started reading your "puzzle," but like @Antony Nickles I immediately got bogged down in questions and objections and didn't even get to the "fun" part. I frankly find topics like causality to be more fun puzzles.
All good, I give you full credit for attempting it! This is actually a classic twist on the cosmological argument for God. Its essentially a logic problem that tries to answer the question, "Is a God necessary or possible?"
Quoting Antony Nickles
I think you still can. The point of the puzzle is this is something original. No one has been trained in it. Its a challenge to tackle that just requires some logical thinking. And no, its not easy. It is no reflection on your capability whether you can, or cannot solve it. It is merely for fun to get you thinking. I will reveal the solution any time you feel like you're finished.
"If the "universe" is just the first thing created, than the question thins out so much as to not hold anything; if you mean the universe to include everything without exception (the "universe" of possible/inevitable things), then everything is caused initially together."
I'll requote where I introduce what a universe is.
Quoting Philosophim
So a good eye on the fact that this does not clarify your concern. That is an excellent criticism. To clarify, no, the universe is not order of things created, it is the sum total of its causal parts. The prime cause of a universe is a first cause. But earlier we noted that there is nothing to prevent more than one first cause. So a universe could have started with two or more first causes. Or a universe could have began, and then first causes happened within that universe with no initial connective causality to anything within the first causal chain.
Even so, the entirety of those chains together would be the "universe". This does force me to tweak my claim I made earlier though. Instead of a universe being formed infinite to one by a God, its more like a first cause is formed with the infinite to one probability of being a God.
So, read over again my logic in how I conclude the infinite to one numbers. Instead of there being a certain power and knowledge requirement to create a specific universe, lets call it a power and knowledge requirement to make a specific causal chain from a first cause. This is a new avenue for me, and could be quite confusing. So if you are willing to explore this, feel free. If not, just request the original answer from me, and I'll gladly give it.
It's essentially an illogical methodology which stubbornly refuses to examine the assumptions it is entirely dependent on, a process it calls "philosophy".
Just thought you might want to be reminded of this one more time.
You're welcome. :-)
Quoting SophistiCat
Let me clarify for you, as I worried people will interpret it that way. I did not mean to imply potential prior states by "necessary". I mean actual prior states. Sure, A could be caused by B or C potentially. But in this case, A is caused by B. Therefore B is necessarily the prior cause of the A. Perhaps a better set of terms would be B is the actual cause of the actual A?
Thus for a first cause, there is no actual prior causality involved for its actual existence. Does this make sense?
Quoting SophistiCat
Well, the entire thing is a puzzle of causality, so keep at it!
I'm surprised to see you back Hippy. The only thing I'm reminded of is that you were soundly and utterly refuted when you could not answer the points I gave you. =) A good memory for sure on my end. But unless you have anything substantial to add to the forum, I'm going to spend my time chatting with people who are willing to have a good discussion.
To you, a good discussion is one where arbitrary boundary lines are carefully drawn so that you don't suffer inconvenience. You want to draw a little circle and then insist that everyone must play within that circle.
What I'm attempting to do here is called philosophy. That is, I'm attempting toinspect and challenge the assumption that your puzzle is built upon, the common notion that human logic is relevant to the subject of gods. If logic were shown to not be relevant, then your little game is spoiled and you don't get to play the role of teacher who will reveal the correct answer when the student is ready.
Sorry, but not really my fault, as philosophy does have the nasty habit of often being quite inconvenient.
No Hippy, what you're attempting to do is a one-sided point of your own ego which has devolved into trolling. I have tried discussing with you at length, but am now done. If you continue to post in this thread, I will report you for trolling. The mods have plenty of our posts to look through here.
You haven't discussed the underlying assumptions of your puzzle at all, you've simply repeatedly insisted that we accept them without question, a process of obedience which you have confused with philosophy.
Gentle reminder, members who start threads don't then own that thread. You have to report me to a mod because, um, you are not one. Neither of us have any ownership rights here at all, not even over our own posts, which a mod can delete at any time without warning.
I think that is people placing their own outlooks into the argument, which sometimes happens in these discussions. This is a new take on the cosmological argument, which uses a philosophical God, and one that I have defined very specifically in the points. Your posts are always appreciated Tim Wood!
No, I am afraid you've lost the thread. Remember, you were trying to define causality:
Quoting Philosophim
Perhaps you should read the points of the OP Tim Wood. A first cause does not necessarily need to be anything, as it is a first cause. First I demonstrate why it is logically necessary that there must exist a first cause. But, this first cause does not have to be a God, I only introduce that after the fact. In looking to my conclusions that there must be a first cause within the line of causality, do you see an error? After that, check out how I define the philosophical God. Is there a problem with that? This is one issue in which the OP itself must be taken into consideration, and not other people's responses.
You'll have to explain where your confusion is a little more carefully. I responded clarifying this.
Quoting Philosophim
Do you understand that by "necessity", I mean actual, and not potential state? For example, for myself to exist now, I had to exist in the the state prior to now, because that state prior to now existed. We are not talking about possibilities, but actuals in this case. For example, I could have 3 possibilities that could cause X to occur, but when X occurs, then one of those causal possibilities is an actuality, and no longer a possible potential.
Does that clarify? And if you're still confused, try to point out in the explanation where I've lost you.
I don't understand why you use modal language if you don't mean it. And if you eschew modality, then what is left of your definition? If we plug 'actual' in place of 'necessary,' we get something like this:
???
Before you had a counterfactual definition of causality, which has its problems (one of which I pointed out), but I think that in this basic form it captures a lot of the common-sense, "ordinary language" meaning of causality. With some work it can perhaps be made into something more robust.
But now I just don't have any idea of what you are trying to get at.
Tim Wood, thanks again for a good analysis. It makes me happy to see people seriously thinking about the issue. Your main issue is with the idea of cause, and first cause. Fantastic. I have not had a good discussion on this. SophistiCat, I hope my analysis below will always clarify what I mean, so feel free to contribute your own thoughts on this.
Let us think of slices of time as "states". At its most simple, we would have a snapshot. But we could also have states that are seconds, hours, days, years, etc. We determine the scale. Within a state, we analyze the existence that has occurred. Causality is the actual prior state, not potential prior state, that existed which actually lead to the current state we are evaluating.
If a state is of a larger scale than a snapshot, then we can subdivide this state. So let us say that I have a state that is two seconds long. I subdivide it into seconds. The first second is the cause of the second. It is not that the second "second" could have have existed without the full first second of time. We might state that in reality, only the last millisecond of existence within the first second, was needed to get the second second of existence. We then might say there were potential states of existence prior to that millisecond, that could have lead to that millisecond, that then lead to that second second.
But in the end, potential is not actual. The actual is what actually happened prior to that millisecond. Despite our idea that we only needed the last millisecond of the first second to have the existence of the second second come into being, the full actual chain of causality in milliseconds is the full first second.
So then what is a first cause? A first cause is when we reach on our scaled state, a state which has no actual prior state. If our scale is in seconds, there is no prior second. If a snapshot, there is no prior snapshot. We can imagine there are prior states. We can float possibilities. But as an actual existence, there is no prior state.
If there is no prior state, then there is no reason for the first state that is, to have existed. For the reason of a current state, is explained by the actual prior state. All we can say as to why a first state existed, is that it did.
So what I do here in determining the logical necessity of a first cause, is examine the entire state of the universe. We know what a finite state universe looks like now, but what about an infinitely regressive stated universe? At this point we are not positing actuals, but potentials. We are trying to see if a first cause is a potential, a contradiction, or a necessity.
When examining the potential of an infinitely regressive universe, if we subdivide it into its finite parts, there of course is no end. Just like I can divide seconds into milliseconds and so on, so can we divide the infinite into whatever scale we want. But we can also do the reverse. Just like I can make a snapshot as the state, I can make the state the sum total of the time of the universe's existence. I can look at the two second universe in the scale of "A universe", That is universe A. I can look at the infinitely regressive state universe and make the scale of "A universe", and call it universe B.
Once this is done I can ask a question. Is there an actual prior state that happened which caused universe A? No. So there is no causality for its existence. I ask the same question about universe B. Is there an actual prior state that happened which caused universe B? No. So there is no causality for its existence. The only thing I can logically conclude from the above premises, is that there is no cause for the existence of any potential universe. Whatever universe exists, exists without prior explanation.
Lets examine this thought process before I move on. Does this clarify my position? Any holes, any questions? It is nice to dive deep like this.
You would have to assume an absolute time for that, that is, something like a Newtonian universe. In a relativistic universe there is no fact of the matter about how the space-time is to be sliced along the time dimension (the technical term for this is foliation). Now, we don't have to commit ourselves to any particular physical framework, but in view of Relativity, neither can we take for granted the existence of an objective foliation.
Quoting Philosophim
This won't do as a definition of causality. Rather, you could restate this to say that given a causal model, it is the case that every state is causally related to an earlier state, if there is an earlier state (but see my note above).
Quoting Philosophim
You are conflating reasons with causes (you do that in the OP as well). They are not synonymous.
Quoting Philosophim
To the extent that this makes any sense, this was a very convoluted path to an uncontroversial conclusion: in a causal model with an initial state, the initial state is the cause of all subsequent states, and there is no cause for the initial state.
Not a problem. This puzzle however is within the causality model of reality. Knowing if causality is a truth of existence, or merely the posit of a human model, is a question of epistemology. That is too deep to go into here. So, I do understand where you are coming from, but to discuss the puzzle, one must at least entertain the idea that causality is a truth of reality that would exist even if human brains did not exist. No offense taken if this is something you are not willing to entertain.
I think you misunderstand. I was using a Newtonian model as the relativistic state. A "second" is an agreed upon unit of existent change. We can apply a "second" in any relativistic model, by taking an outside relativistic stance. For example, a second in Earth time is the same as a second within a black hole, but only differs in comparison to the other. We can invent a third timeframe in which we compare the two time frames and state, this is a second when evaluating the time that passes in comparing the two. This is why we can say a second in Black hole time would be 500 years of Earth time. In comparing the two, we can create a consistent model. Time can be put into units in either case, from an outside perspective.
In other words, the use of the word "second" is simply to convey, "Unit of time that a person wishes to place on the situation". The specifics of that second, whether it is black hole time or Earth time, are irrelevant. If one creates a time frame of a universe's existence, how the parse that up is fine as long as it is consistent. Thus we can take the frame of an entire universes causality, and create a model of division of time within that frame.
I only mention this, as relativity does not negate what I am saying about states. In fact, relativity is essential to my claim about states. Make the unit of time within whatever relative time frame you want. That doesn't negate the point. Regardless, lets not over complicate the issue and make this about relativity.
Quoting SophistiCat
Reasons are explanations as to why things happen a certain way. Reasons are determined by causes, causes do not come from reasons. We understand the reason why water freezes, after observing the cause of water freezing. A cause is the reason played out in history. The reason water freezes is the heat of the water molecules reach 0 degress celcius. If water than freezes, the cause is the actual fact of the water's temperature becoming 0 degrees celcius. A cause is an actualized reason, but a reason does not specify any particular cause. But a reason and a cause are tied together. One way to think of reason and cause, is like the abstract of a house cat, versus an actual house cat named Cloey.
Thus:
Quoting Philosophim
Without any causality, or history of a things existence, then the reason for a things existence cannot be formed on a non-existent history. The reason for a causeless thing, is only the evidence of its existence, and nothing prior.
Quoting SophistiCat
Great! if we are in agreement on this point, then what do you think about my conclusion using the premises of the OP, that it is logically necessary that the universe's origin must have a first cause?
The relevance of relativity is not towards the relativity of duration, but towards the relativity of simultaneity. Your "snapshot" presumably includes all events that are simultaneous with each other. The problem is that in Relativity this designation is fairly arbitrary. Given a particular event in space-time, there are other events in space-time that are objectively earlier or objectively later than this event (events in its past and future light cones), while the rest are neither here nor there: they can be earlier, later or simultaneous, depending on the choice of reference.
There isn't a unique, objective way in which you can slice space-time into snapshots or slices. So "state" ill-defined.
Quoting Philosophim
Some other time perhaps.
Yes, this is what I explained. But the fact of having relative observers does not negate that fact that you can assess time by one observer. Again, I can analyze all of time by Earth time if I wish. I just have to translate it into different observers time if that is important in my analysis. When examining the universe from now to its "beginning", we can easily set the relative time to Earth time, and evaluate the complete universe using that alone. Again, if the relative view point changes, we just math it up to continue to be in Earth time. So again, the state assessment I've noted fits in fine with relativity.
Quoting SophistiCat
Well, that's ultimately the point of the puzzle. If you don't want to engage anymore, no worry.
Certainly. If you have not read the original OP, it will be necessary at this point. I don't want to re-paste the whole thing. =)
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting tim wood
It is easiest to re-read points 1-6 again.
Tim wood, I am not a theologist. Have you read the OP? I get the feeling you are coming to this thread with assumptions and letting it color your outlook. I say this because you do not seem to be addressing the points made. This is why I am reluctant to repost things already written in the OP. It seems you are taking point 4 out of context, when it was intended as a reminder within the context of the argument. Please read points 1 through 6 and point out where the flaw is in the points themselves, otherwise I feel we will both be on different ideas, and inadvertently be discussing straw men.
To Tim's list I would also add
d. Things can exist without a prior cause
Ha ha! I can't make anyone agree to anything. But we can discuss and you can come to your own conclusions. Now that we're on the same page, let me address an earlier point you made.
Quoting tim wood
Here we are entering into Epistemology, and perhaps more specifically, how language represents the world. While this could explode into its own topic, I'm going to try to focus it for our purposes. In short, people can invent any language, words, or concepts they want. These can apply to reality, or they can be what we call "imaginary". Words and concepts that apply to reality and are not contradicted by reality, are considered viable concepts that apply to reality. This is science in a nutshell. While it is impossible to prove that the conceptual overlay is 100% absolutely true, it is the only reasonable conclusion as to what is true that can be drawn from the information at hand.
I have explained causality as essentially a state model of existential history. To break it down into its simple claims: There is history. We can evaluate and divide that history through our concepts of time. We are able to evaluate existence before a point in history, and at a point in history. Causality is the notion that a historical prior point leads to another later point on the timeline. From this we normally construct rules and reasons in the hopes such similar events are able to occur again, and thus we gain a greater control over nature. Physics for example. Without an understanding of physics, we would not be able to type the words on this electronic format that is zipped over elections on the internet.
But let us go even simpler. Causality is the idea that there must be a prior state that causes a current state to be. And that if that prior state did not occur, then the current state of a thing could not be. But perhaps it IS possible that a current state of a thing, does not require the existence of a prior state. Like you say, perhaps causality is not fundamentally necessary. In this case, I use the language, "First cause". Of course, I am assuming that this first cause will cause other things to happen. But what is interesting, is even if I remove the idea that this "first cause" will cause other things to occur, there is still the notion of something "uncaused".
So Tim Wood, I actually agree with you that causality is not fundamentally necessary in existence. Of course, I do not deny that causality also exists, as I see it as something that cannot be disproven. But even if you take issue with the notion of causality, it would seem you must agree with me that there is the potential of something that can exist without causality. And if that is the case, then you agree with my claim that an "uncaused" thing can exist. And if an "uncaused" thing can exist, then we can think about what would logically result from this.
And so point 4 remains unchallenged. If it is the case that there is no causality, no fundamental requirement that something exist prior to a current historical state, then there is no reason why a current state should exist in the way it does, besides the fact of its present existence. Are you in agreement so far, or are there issues you would like to address at this point?
Hello EricH, thanks for contributing! Quantum fluctuations alone do not presuppose or prove an existence without a prior cause. Would you like to point out why you think we do?
To clarify what I meant, if you do not believe that cause and effect is real, then you believe there can exist things that are uncaused. The only options to us are that causality exists, or causality does not exist right? Its either true, or false unless you believe there is something in between. If there is something in between, what do you suppose it is? Or is it an assertion that we are ignorant to it, and can never figure it out.
If causality as a model fits the world, then causality is something within the world. You do not believe that causality as a model fits the world, which is fine. But if that is the case, then by necessity, that means that the world exists without causality, and thus we can examine what a world would necessarily be if causality does not fit the world. If this thinking is wrong, can you explain why you think it is?
Quoting tim wood
While this is poetic, I do not believe this conveys a logical breakdown. Everything that has length can be measured in yards, feet and inches. We do not have to use the man made measurements of yard, feet, and inches, but if we do, they are very real measurements that give us logical conclusions about reality that can give accurate predictions and results. Measurement is an invention of humanity, but its application to reality is concurrent with, and not contradicted by reality either. Thus it is within the world, and not merely an imaginary whim of humanity.
Otherwise are we to say that measuring in yards, feet, and inches is wrong, and does not accurately reflect reality? If so, then there are questions and consequences with this. If you do not believe that causality reflects reality, then there are of course questions, and at least one consequence that there must be reality that exists without causality. I look forward to hearing your take!
Quantum mechanics shows that events at the sub-atomic level are random and "un-caused". These "un-caused" events behave in a statistically predictable pattern, but each event has no prior "cause".
Now if you want to postulate that quantum physics is incomplete and there is some underlying "causality" that science has not yet uncovered , then go for it. But people much, much smarter than you & I have been unable to do so.
BTW - I neglected yet another option
e) The whole notion of "causality" is nonsensical. In other words, we are like dogs looking at a computer screen - we have no idea what's going on out there.
At best, the notion that everything has a "prior cause" is a hypothesis that needs to be proven.
Interesting. I would think the more correct claim is, "We cannot currently find an underlying cause, therefore, there may not be any." Which is perfectly fine.
Quoting EricH
But not for my purposes here. The point that I put forth is that everything has a prior cause, or there are things that do not have a prior cause. I then examine the logic of what it would be like for something to not have a prior cause.
I believe we are talking past each other at this point Tim Wood. You seem to be addressing things that are irrelevant to the puzzle at hand. The first part of the puzzle is me stating, "Either everything has a prior cause, or there are things that do not have a prior cause," and assessing the logical conclusion of what would result if a thing did not have a prior cause.
My point was that if you do not believe there is causality, then you should be at least examining my logical claims of what it would be like for something to not have causality. The point I was making is that doing away with causality, does not negate the points I make when I state that is something that is uncaused. Do you agree or disagree with the logic that I have put forward about an uncaused thing?
I do not ask to convince you. I can tell you are not interested in such things. You also seem highly reluctant because I believe you think this is some theist trap to get you to agree there is a God. It is not. I want to see if I can poke a hole in my own argument. The joy of philosophy for me is not poking holes into other's arguments, but my own at this point.
So please if you will. You may carry on with whatever you believe. I do not care. But please try to address the points I am making and poke holes in them. The main point I am very interested in seeing a challenge to, is my claimed logical consequences of a thing that has no cause for its being besides the fact of its own existence. If you are not addressing that, you really aren't addressing the point of the argument.
In fact, any event can be explained by an infinite variety of mundane causes, and an infinite variety of supernatural ones. And if your criteria is not mundane vs. supernatural but literally anything (i.e blue Ys vs any other colored Ys), you still get infinity on either side. Using this method, the probability is always 50%. Therefore, this method has zero predictive power, and discloses zero information about the world.
The real flaw is, this is not how probabilities are calculated. You don't just enumerate the possibilities and count them, you need to assign weights to them. Merely enumerating possibilities tells you exactly nothing.
Fantastic. You understand the flaw exactly. Well done! Because we are looking at the case of possibilities, and logically cannot assign any weight to one or another, the only thing we can do is enumerate possibilities, and come to the conclusion of infinity on either side.
Thanks for finally revealing the missing piece of the puzzle. Your reasoning is exactly why I defined my hypothetical "First Cause", not as an empirical physical "being". but as meta-physical "BEING per se" (the power to be, to exist). In Physics, all causation is attributed to the mysterious force we call "Energy". But, like all causes, we only know Energy by its effects.
For example, astronomers have tracked a continuous chain of physical events (mostly star creation & destruction) all the way back to a so-called Singularity at the beginning of Time. But where did the Singularity come from? Nobody knows, but we could continue the Cause & Effect sequence (turtles all the way down) back into eternity (Multiverse theory) with no satisfactory end on sight.
Or we could do like those astronomers, and just end the causal train at the furthest point we can calculate (Planck time or Asymptote). And, for convenience, we could call that mythical time-before-time and space-before-space : "the First Cause" or "Ultimate Potential". That's not a thing, or an object, it's merely a Trait of Existence. You can call it "God", if you like, but like the Singularity, it's undefined. We know nothing of its make-up, only its effects : the world we live in. The odds-of-god in that sense are 100%. :smile:
What is energy made of? : Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-is-energy-made-of
Trait : attribute ; feature ; quality (from French "tract" -- to draw out, to create
Singularity : a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined
Ontological Cause : Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone.
Ontology : the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.