A possible new twist on the cosmological argument for the existence of God

[gorillapaws]

Hello everyone. This is my first post on the forum here. I'm an ex-philosophy major of mediocre skill. I came up with the following twist on an old favorite argument for the existence of God and I was wondering if you guys wanted to talk a bit about it. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on some of the issues I will raise, so there may be legitimate science/theory that may solve this puzzle.

Essentially, the cosmological argument states that the universe is a causal place. All causes are themselves the results of other causes. As such there cannot be an infinite regression of causes and there must be a single "uncaused" cause that is God. (I realize that is not exactly how it goes, but that's the gist of it). One of the classic rebuttals is: why can't you have an infinite regression of causation (or even a circular one)?

My addition to this is: Assume the big-bang/most current and best scientific theory is the cause of our universe's existence. However any theory derived from science inherently must be based on scientific principles/laws. These laws must have a cause (in the universe, I'm not referring to the event of their discovery by modern man). By definition, this cannot be infinitely regressive, since an infinitely regressive causation of laws would itself be able to be reduced to a single simple mathematical/scientific equation. This equation would seem to be an uncaused cause. The result seems to be a paradox. In the absence of any good explanation for the origin of the laws of nature, I am inclined to believe that there is an "extra-physical" explanation for their existence. Therefore some "extra-physical" agent is the cause for the existence of the laws of nature I'll call it God. This is not a proof for the traditional western omnibenevolent/omiscient/omnipotent diety, but it does argue for an extra-physical creator.

It's not perfect. I think you can understand the general principle I'm trying to argue here (if not please ask questions and I'd be happy to clarify anything I can). I'm curious to see what you guys think.

One possible explanation is that there are good scientific theories that explain the origin of the laws of nature/math/logic/physics that I am unaware of. I know there's a bit of arguing from ignorance going on here, but I think it may be permissible in the sense that if the argument proves that scientific explanations necessarily yield a paradoxical result, we can assume an extra-scientific source for the origin of the natural laws.

As a bit of a disclaimer: I'm a tentative believer in a higher power, but not particularly religious. My interest in the post is merely for the sake of enjoying philosophy.

[MelBrooksfan]

I know there's a bit of arguing from ignorance going on here, but I think it may be permissible in the sense that if the argument proves that scientific explanations necessarily yield a paradoxical result, we can assume an extra-scientific source for the origin of the natural laws.

I don't think it's much plausible to assume anything. This doesn't really get us anywhere. Let's place the extra-scientific source as a given. Why should it be god? Why not a pink unicorn that speaks sunlight and farts rainbows?

[KingMerv00]

Hello everyone. This is my first post on the forum here. I'm an ex-philosophy major of mediocre skill. I came up with the following twist on an old favorite argument for the existence of God and I was wondering if you guys wanted to talk a bit about it. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on some of the issues I will raise, so there may be legitimate science/theory that may solve this puzzle.

Essentially, the cosmological argument states that the universe is a causal place. All causes are themselves the results of other causes. As such there cannot be an infinite regression of causes and there must be a single "uncaused" cause that is God. (I realize that is not exactly how it goes, but that's the gist of it). One of the classic rebuttals is: why can't you have an infinite regression of causation (or even a circular one)?

My addition to this is: Assume the big-bang/most current and best scientific theory is the cause of our universe's existence. However any theory derived from science inherently must be based on scientific principles/laws. These laws must have a cause (in the universe, I'm not referring to the event of their discovery by modern man). By definition, this cannot be infinitely regressive, since an infinitely regressive causation of laws would itself be able to be reduced to a single simple mathematical/scientific equation. This equation would seem to be an uncaused cause. The result seems to be a paradox. In the absence of any good explanation for the origin of the laws of nature, I am inclined to believe that there is an "extra-physical" explanation for their existence. Therefore some "extra-physical" agent is the cause for the existence of the laws of nature I'll call it God. This is not a proof for the traditional western omnibenevolent/omiscient/omnipotent diety, but it does argue for an extra-physical creator.

It's not perfect. I think you can understand the general principle I'm trying to argue here (if not please ask questions and I'd be happy to clarify anything I can). I'm curious to see what you guys think.

One possible explanation is that there are good scientific theories that explain the origin of the laws of nature/math/logic/physics that I am unaware of. I know there's a bit of arguing from ignorance going on here, but I think it may be permissible in the sense that if the argument proves that scientific explanations necessarily yield a paradoxical result, we can assume an extra-scientific source for the origin of the natural laws.

As a bit of a disclaimer: I'm a tentative believer in a higher power, but not particularly religious. My interest in the post is merely for the sake of enjoying philosophy.

Am I the first to welcome you to the forum then? Neat.

Problems I see with your argument:

1) The Big Bang is merely the earliest event in our timeline that we know of. It does not necesarily mean it was THE origin of the universe. There simply isn't enough information to reach that kind of conclusion. Maybe further study will reveal the answer. Maybe not. Either way, a shrug is the only honest answer.

2) Assume there IS a first cause. Why must it be intelligent? Perhaps there are laws of nature that exist outside our understanding of time that caused the formation of the universe and time as we know it. I have no evidence for these "hypertime laws" but I also have no evidence for God. Occam's razor suggests the former is a slightly better answer for now.

3) You see infinite regression as a problem and use "God" to solve it. If "God" doesn't need a first cause, why does the universe?

[toddjh]

Unfortunately, the cosmological argument is extremely problematic in pretty much any form. It rests on a number of assumptions which are at best unproven, and at worst highly dubious.

As you mention, it makes an unwarranted rejection of infinite causal regression and causal loops -- I see no reason why such things are impossible on their face, and I don't think your addition provides one.

I think the largest problem with the cosmological argument, though, lies in its basic assumption that all events must have causes. In my opinion, that idea is on very shaky ground in the wake of quantum mechanics and other discoveries of the last hundred years.

And even if the argument itself were valid, it simply assigns the label "God" to the putative first cause, which tells us absolutely nothing about the nature of that cause. There's no reason to believe it would have any personal interest in what happens in our universe, or even that it was aware at all.

In the absence of any good explanation for the origin of the laws of nature, I am inclined to believe that there is an "extra-physical" explanation for their existence.

Since you are making this leap "in the absence of any good explanation," I can therefore conclude that it is not a good explanation. ;)

Seriously, I don't think this holds up. This line of thinking rests on the assumption that the universe could have been different, and I'm not convinced that's true. How do we know that a universe of the type we see isn't the only possible type of universe, and there are simply no other options? Trying to answer the question of what created our universe before answering the more basic and general question of why our universe is the way it is seems like putting the cart before the horse.

[gorillapaws]

As I admitted earlier, this isn't an argument for the existence of god in the traditional philosophical definition of God. You ask "why not a pink unicorn that speaks sunlight and farts rainbows?" and my response is that maybe it is. All this argument shows is that there is an extra-physical force that had to have created the laws nature. However, the skeptic should want to deny the existence of any extra-physical creator (be it a farting unicorn or something less bizzare).

to your points kingmerv00:
1. I agree. I was hoping that my argument demonstrated that any scientific explanation will necessarily(and rightfully so) adhere to the principles/laws of science and nature. If there is a legitimate paradox in this system as I think I've shown, than no matter what theory you have, as long as it adheres to scientific principles, will be problematic.

2. saying that there may exist laws that exist outside our notion of time that are themselves the cause of the universe seems problematic for 2 reasons. the first is that if our natural laws are a product of this extra-temporal formula, it wouldn't be very difficult to derive it from what we currently know of the universe. Secondly, your application of Occam's razor seems inappropriate here in the sense that your explanation seems to want to acknowledge the possibility of some radically different notion of the natural laws at some previous time, and mathematical laws that somehow evolve. My view is that the physical universe is as it seems and that an extra-physical entity is infact the source of these laws. It makes sense to assume that that entity is intelligent because this seems like less of a leap than believing that the laws of logic for example, are the product of a less evolved logical system that existed earlier.

3. yes. maybe it's cheap. but I would argue it seems more plausible than the alternatives.

[gorillapaws]

Also, with respect to the infinite regression being a problem, I want to clarify that my argument only really needs to object to infinite regressions occurring with the origin of natural law, but allows for it's possibility elsewhere. It does rest on the assumption that all things have causes as you point out toddjh. Like all inductive arguments, if one can find a counterexample (in this case an uncaused cause) then the argument admittedly collapses. Perhaps quantum mechanics can/has provided this example already. If this is the case we simply need to reference the example, if not, then believing in uncaused causal subatomic particles seems no more strange than believing in flatulent-unicorn universe creators.

Also I admit that this doesn't seem like a good answer to the origin of the universal laws, but I still maintain that it seems simpler than the alternative either a non-causal reality or a causal one that has evolving natural laws of some kind that are extra-temporal.

[toddjh]

Also I admit that this doesn't seem like a good answer to the origin of the universal laws, but I still maintain that it seems simpler than the alternative

I don't think it's simpler than "I have no idea," a competing idea with equal predictive power. :)

[ImaginalDisc]

As I admitted earlier, this isn't an argument for the existence of god in the traditional philosophical definition of God. You ask "why not a pink unicorn that speaks sunlight and farts rainbows?" and my response is that maybe it is. All this argument shows is that there is an extra-physical force that had to have created the laws nature. However, the skeptic should want to deny the existence of any extra-physical creator (be it a farting unicorn or something less bizzare).

This speculated force is unknown, but I'm willing to bet it's not "extra-physical." Every gap in our understand has at one time been assumed to contain some sort of "extra-physical" or mystical force that we could not understand, and yet we have pushed back earlier boundries and found, not mystical forces, but physical ones every time.

[Molinaro]

Will that theory ever lose popularity? You know the one that goes: "We don't understand now, therefore goddidit."

It's been proven wrong over and over again. Yet it keeps getting dragged out for another beating.

[ImaginalDisc]

Will that theory ever lose popularity? You know the one that goes: "We don't understand now, therefore goddidit."

It's been proven wrong over and over again. Yet it keeps getting dragged out for another beating.

No, because both the lazy and coniving love it. The lazy love it because using it as an answer excuses them from thinking, and the coniving love it because it keeps their cults popular.

[gorillapaws]

The problem I'm having with the responses don't address the crux of my argument: that any scientific theory for the creation of the universal laws will necessarily result in the theory adopting either the notion of an uncaused causal law, or some special law from which all the other universal laws evolved or something along those lines. It is logically impossible for an infinite regression of universal laws to exist (we know this because infinite regressions can be mathematically expressed in simple equations which themselves would be of a higher order of causation). Since neither answer is satisfactory, we reject the idea that there can be a scientific explanation for the existence of the natural laws and must therefore an extra-scientific explanation for their existence. I guess that's the argument. From this it seems to me that the skeptic must either produce an example of an uncaused cause or demonstrate how our universal laws could have evolved from other universal laws. Perhaps this is an unfair shift in the burden of proof?

In response to ImiginalDisc, I don't think you've made much of an argument there. It's a poor inductive argument since the kinds of examples one would give to support it are very different from the thing you're claiming cannot exist. Loch-ness, bigfoot, ufo's spiritual healing and other quackery are very different things from an extra-physical creator of the laws of mathmatics, logic, physics, science, etc. It would be like me saying because i've never seen mutilated cows on my farm (or anybody elses for that matter), extra-terrestial life cannot exist.

[ImaginalDisc]

In response to ImiginalDisc, I don't think you've made much of an argument there. It's a poor inductive argument since the kinds of examples one would give to support it are very different from the thing you're claiming cannot exist. Loch-ness, bigfoot, ufo's spiritual healing and other quackery are very different things from an extra-physical creator of the laws of mathmatics, logic, physics, science, etc. It would be like me saying because i've never seen mutilated cows on my farm (or anybody elses for that matter), extra-terrestial life cannot exist.

There has never, ever, been any non-physical force discovered, yet you point to a gap in our understanding and insist that we seriously entertain the idea that the Easter Bunny is in it?

[Bikewer]

One argument against this idea is simple parsimony.

What is simpler?

A complex, eternal being which has always existed, and has the powers/attributes we commonly ascribe to God?

or:

An eternal "void" which has the energetic potential to spawn "bang" events?

I admit, concepts such as "eternity" and "infinity" are pretty difficult to wrap one's head around.

[gorillapaws]

What I'm trying to get at here is that by limiting the causal argument to the scope of the natural laws, there is a fundamental and significant change in the argument from the traditional one. If this one can be reduced to aquinas' then I admit it's junk, but I think there's something here we're overlooking.

[ImaginalDisc]

gorillapaws, I still don't understand your arguement. The universe is causal, and linereally temporal, therefore there must be a first cause that pre-existed the universe and it must be non-physical?

Balderdash.

1: We have no idea what the physical laws of the universe were in the state "before" the Big Bang. I put "before" in quotation marks because "before" implies linear time, and time began at the Big Bang. Time may or may not have existed "before" it. There may be a physical cause we simply lack tools to understand at the moment.

2: You posit a non-physical first cause because you insist that all things require a cause, and yet you simply ignore the issue of the cause of the first cause. If the universe needs a creator, why doesn't the creator need a creator?

[toddjh]

From this it seems to me that the skeptic must either produce an example of an uncaused cause or demonstrate how our universal laws could have evolved from other universal laws. Perhaps this is an unfair shift in the burden of proof?

Yes, I think it is. The skeptic has no role to play except to say "I'm not convinced." It's the responsibility of proponents of the cosmological argument to demonstrate their premises, including the idea that the universe is caused.

Usually the response then is, "Well, why is there something instead of nothing?" To which I respond, "Why should there be nothing?" What is it about the universe we observe that leads you to believe it isn't simply the natural (and, for all we know, only) state of existence?

[crackers]

Yes, I think it is. The skeptic has no role to play except to say "I'm not convinced." It's the responsibility of proponents of the cosmological argument to demonstrate their premises, including the idea that the universe is caused.

Usually the response then is, "Well, why is there something instead of nothing?" To which I respond, "Why should there be nothing?" What is it about the universe we observe that leads you to believe it isn't simply the natural (and, for all we know, only) state of existence?


Yes, it's the responsibility of the non-skeptic to produce an example of a God. Then, we can say "Yes, there is a God and here it is." It's not the responsibility of a skeptic to produce an example of a non-God.

[Senex]

The problem I'm having with the responses don't address the crux of my argument: that any scientific theory for the creation of the universal laws will necessarily result in the theory adopting either the notion of an uncaused causal law, or some special law from which all the other universal laws evolved or something along those lines

Yadda, yadda, yadda... deconstructing the universe to the point there is no conventional wisdom and call that spot where god comes in is simple-minded. There is no god -- I wish there was but there isn't. Enjoy life today because once you die and decay it will be a long time before your remains become a part of anything living again.

I hate to spoil your day but time spent believing in god is time spent foolishly.

Have a great day :D

[gorillapaws]

ok... the reason I'm under the impression that the burden has shifted is that my argument seems to imply something greatly wrong with the current understanding of the skeptic's reality. If you want to maintain that there is no extra-physical creator of the universal laws then you're forced to accept a set of premises that uncaused causes exist (a notion that contradicts intuition, and all know science), or that the Universal laws can somehow evolve from some fundamental extra-temporal law. I'm not saying the skeptic can't simply say, I don't believe in a causal universe. They can, but then they're forced to accept that as fact. Frankly the paradigm of that reality seems stranger than one with an extra-physical creator. Believing in sub-atomic Easter bunnies seems crazier than extra physical ones. The other course is to accept a causal reality but then you would be forced to adopt the equally troubling position that laws somehow evolve. As a student of logic I might ask you: "Mr. believer in the evolution of universal laws, what law did the law of non-contradiction evolve from?"

At the very least it seems like my argument forces the skeptic to adopt one of two equally troubling positions if they want to deny the existence of an extra-physical creator of the laws of the universe. While I now concede that this is not a proof of an extra-physical universal law creator, I think it still may pose problems for the skeptic.

[ImaginalDisc]

As a student of logic I might ask you: "Mr. believer in the evolution of universal laws, what law did the law of non-contradiction evolve from?"


What exactly is that supposed to mean? Laws, in the context of science, are descriptions of observed phenomena. Theories are explainations for those laws. I can't parse that question.

[toddjh]

ok... the reason I'm under the impression that the burden has shifted is that my argument seems to imply something greatly wrong with the current understanding of the skeptic's reality.

The skeptic's reality is simply that he is, well, skeptical of the premises of your argument. Until you establish that those premises are true, there's really nothing to discuss.

Additionally, until your position provides some predictive power, it is no more useful a model than "beats the hell out of me" -- and it's pretty easy to tell which one Occam would favor.

I agree that "Why are things the way they are?" is a legitimate and intriguing question, but I don't believe it's one we can answer through logical argument. In fact, one of my fears is that it will prove to be a question we can't answer at all. We even have to be prepared for the possibility that the answer is simply, "Because."

[gorillapaws]

I'm not really sure what it means, but it seems to be the kind of thing a skeptic who wants to deny the existence of uncaused causes, while simultaneously denying the existence of an extra-physical creator of universal laws would have to accept. i.e. if the natural laws are indeed caused (since this skeptic denies the existence of uncaused causes) then their causes are simpler laws. An example might be how the mathematical laws of multiplication are themselves derived from simpler ones such as addition. If we reducto adsurdam the aggregate of all these universal laws back to the origin of the universe we should have some fundamental and universal force/law that would have governed everything. It seems like our choices become one of an extra-physical easter bunny that creates universal laws, belief in subatomic Easter bunnies that are uncaused causes, or some powerful/primal force/single principle from which all others came. Perhaps there's another alternative here that I'm overlooking.

[toddjh]

i.e. if the natural laws are indeed caused (since this skeptic denies the existence of uncaused causes)

And what if they're not caused at all? What if they just...are?

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm not really sure what it means, but it seems to be the kind of thing a skeptic who wants to deny the existence of uncaused causes, while simultaneously denying the existence of an extra-physical creator of universal laws would have to accept.

If you admit that you don't even know what your question means, how can you insist you know that skeptics must accept it?

[gorillapaws]

that would be advocating uncaused causes.

[ImaginalDisc]

that would be advocating uncaused causes.

That would be a grammatically incorrect setence.

Skeptics aren't advocating any origin of the universe. We do not know what may have "caused" the universe, and neither do we say that it is "uncaused." We don't know, and we don't indulge in idle speculation and then go about on internet fora browbeating others into accepting our suppositions without any evidence.

[gorillapaws]

he would be forced to hold the belief that laws evolve somehow. The question I would ask someone who thinks the idea of a non-physical creator, and uncaused causes is silly but accepts the notion of evolving laws, is how does that work exactly? how does one law evolve from another? I don't know the answer to this question, beyond the most basic of examples like multiplication being derived from addition. There seems to be just as much voodoo in adopting this position as there is in a belief in extra-physical phenomena.

[toddjh]

The only one who has talked about evolving laws is you. I'm still a few pages behind, stuck on the "why must the laws of nature have a cause in the first place?" thing. If you could help me out with an answer to that question, I'd appreciate it.

[ImaginalDisc]

he would be forced to hold the belief that laws evolve somehow

Evolve? Natural laws are not self-replicating organisms. Are you trying to suggest that they change? The naturals laws of the universe do appear to have been very different in the slimest fractions of a second before the Big Bang, which is an event we cannot see past.

The question I would ask someone who thinks the idea of a non-physical creator, and uncaused causes is silly but accepts the notion of evolving laws, is how does that work exactly? how does one law evolve from another? I don't know the answer to this question, beyond the most basic of examples like multiplication being derived from addition. There seems to be just as much voodoo in adopting this position as there is in a belief in extra-physical phenomena.

"One law elvolve from another?" What is that supposed to mean? You're asking questions about the nature of the earliest universe, which was extremely dense, extremely hot, and almost entirely homogeneous, but not quite entirely homogeneous. (If it had been perfectly homogeneous, the universe's overall structure would be more homogeneous, and our universe has clumpy things, like galaxies, planets, and internet posters.)

You think that because the laws of physics changed once, in the first second of time, that it points to a non-physical Easter Bunny simply because it's an area of active research that we don't yet fully understand?

That's as absurd as believing that because you've never seen the back of your own head, there are fairies living on it who project an image of hair and a scalp, and your barber is in on the con. There may not even be a need for a cause for the universe, because causality requires time, and time doesn't seem to have existed before the Big Bang.

[KingMerv00]

to your points kingmerv00:
1. I agree. I was hoping that my argument demonstrated that any scientific explanation will necessarily(and rightfully so) adhere to the principles/laws of science and nature. If there is a legitimate paradox in this system as I think I've shown, than no matter what theory you have, as long as it adheres to scientific principles, will be problematic.

I don't agree that there is a paradox here. I don't assume an uncaused cause, you do. I simply do not understand the origin of the universe and I feel it would be folly to comment on the details. There is no way to make an educated guess.

2. saying that there may exist laws that exist outside our notion of time that are themselves the cause of the universe seems problematic for 2 reasons. the first is that if our natural laws are a product of this extra-temporal formula, it wouldn't be very difficult to derive it from what we currently know of the universe.

I seriously doubt it would be easy. We have enough trouble understanding our own universe for heaven's sake. Another "mother" universe is a whole different ball of wax.

Secondly, your application of Occam's razor seems inappropriate here in the sense that your explanation seems to want to acknowledge the possibility of some radically different notion of the natural laws at some previous time...

The Big Bang screws up everything. General relativity and quantum mechanics collide. The natural laws as we now understand them don't make sense on those scales. I wouldn't be surprised if the laws of nature were different.

My view is that the physical universe is as it seems and that an extra-physical entity is infact the source of these laws. It makes sense to assume that that entity is intelligent because this seems like less of a leap than believing that the laws of logic for example, are the product of a less evolved logical system that existed earlier.

Why do you think a logical universe is such an unlikely outcome? Perhaps that is the only possibility.

3. yes. maybe it's cheap. but I would argue it seems more plausible than the alternatives.

I disagree. You invent an uncaused cause to solve the problem of the uncaused cause and then grant it intelligence. An unintelligent universe makes fewer assumptions than in intelligent one (since we already know that natural laws exist).

[gorillapaws]

I apologize for the grammatical error and any "browbeating" that I may be responsible for. In reality, I've no interest in converting anyone to any form of beliefs, merely to point out some that the denial of certain things necessitates the adoption of others. It's a legitimate logical dilemma that I believe may exist. I acknowledge that there may be a flaw in my logic in establishing this dilemma, but the arguments have not focused on this. They have put forth logical counter arguments to the existence of a God. These are solid arguments, however they stray from my original argument. I thought this would be the appropriate forum to discuss the philosophy of this dilemma.

[gorillapaws]

those last two posts are good. thanks for that perspective. It seems there are other plausable alternatives, and that the dilemma I proposed was indeed a false one. Thank you for speaking to the premises of my argument.

[ImaginalDisc]

It's a legitimate logical dilemma that I believe may exist.


There is no logical dilemma. You, wrongly, assume that the universe must have a "cause." Cause requires time. Time began at the Big Bang. "Before" the Big Bang, time may, or may not, have existed in some other form. Because of the nature of the events at the Big Bang you can no more assume that there was causality "before" than you can assume there were snowballs and dandelions. You have no evidence to suppose that was the case.

Logical dilemmas require that logic, based an assumptions, lead one to a troublesome conclusion. Your assumptions in this case break down at the Big Bang. There is no dilemma, only ignorance on everyone's part about what happened "before."

[toddjh]

merely to point out some that the denial of certain things necessitates the adoption of others.

And this is the sticking point. You are not making it clear why the denial of, say, an "uncaused cause" necessitates some kind of evolution of the laws of nature.

In particular, it would really be helpful at this point if you could answer the question I've asked four or five times now: what makes you think the laws of nature have a cause at all? How do you know that's not "just the way things are?"

[Skeptic Guy]

Who in the heck is saying physical laws "evolve"?

As ImaginalDisc says, laws "in the context of science, are descriptions of observed phenomena. Theories are explainations for those laws." Our understanding of laws may change, somewhat, over time, or rather are further refined based on observation, but the laws, themselves, don't change. I am not aware of one physical law that has "evolved" over time.

We don't know what "caused" the Big Bang and I doubt we ever will, but that doesn't mean we can attribute it to a "non-physical creator". Physical laws existed, in our Universe, from the beginning.

[D'rok]

he would be forced to hold the belief that laws evolve somehow. -snip-

The sceptic is not forced to hold any belief. The sceptic can simply say "I don't know, and apparently neither do you." The difference is that the sceptic is comfortable not knowing, whereas you do not appear to be. Any assertions such as "must", "forced to", or "either/or" about the origins of the universe are unfounded. We. just. don't. know. (Yet)

In other words, we (forgive me for speaking for all - this may be true only for myself) are not sceptical so much about specific claims as much as we are meta-sceptical about the ability to make any coherent claims whatsoever about this subject.

[gorillapaws]

I see where I went wrong here. as far as why I believed that the laws of nature had to have a cause. it was an either/or proposition. Either (a) all things have causes, or (b) all things don't have causes. if (b) then (c)some things are uncaused. I was under the impression that if you denied the possibility of an extra physical creator of the laws of nature then their origin must have been either caused or uncaused. If they were uncaused causes (i.e. they just are and always were) then your position accepts the premise that things can be uncaused causes. If you deny that, then you have to explain what the cause of these laws are (since you believe everything has a cause). I argued that you cannot have an infinite regression of laws causing laws because infinite regressions themselves can be expressed mathematically in simpler equations. Because we cannot infinitely regress with our causations the only way to explain how laws could be caused by other laws is to assume a single law from which all others are derived. At least that's what I was going for. I made several errors though. Namely forgetting that pre-big bang there is no time and without time there is no causality (thanks for pointing that out).

[Senex]

I thought this would be the appropriate forum to discuss the philosophy of this dilemma.

This is the correct forum to discuss your dilemma. The f&#$%&ing Pope can't predict tomorrow's lottery numbers. No one knows what the next minute holds. You need to get used to this philosophy. There is no afterlife. i''m sorry I'm the one to tell you. Prepare for the truth.

[gorillapaws]

I don't know if there's an afterlife or not. Just as I don't really know if there's a God. It's like socrates said, if there's an afterlife, that'll be fun, if not well I'll have a nice long sleep. I do find it odd that some would choose to flat out deny the possibility of an afterlife. It's like you've empirically proven it to not exist, a task we all here would agree to be impossible. Given that, if I was a bit more pessimistic, my claim would be something to the effect of: "given a total lack of credible evidence in favor of an afterlife, I'm inclined to believe that in all likelihood it does not exist." A flat-out denial of it's existence seems just as ludicrous as an unquestioning acceptance based on some perverted notion of blind faith.

[gorillapaws]

But we seem to have strayed from the intended purpose of this argument. I don't have any good arguments for or against an afterlife, and I'm really mostly interested in doing sound philosophy. Again I appreciate you pointing out the errors in my thinking. I'd mulled it over for several weeks now and I think I fell victim to tunnel thinking. Outside perspectives are always refreshing. Thanks for the discussion. I look foreword to more with you all in the future.

[Senex]

But we seem to have strayed from the intended purpose of this argument. I don't have any good arguments for or against an afterlife, and I'm really mostly interested in doing sound philosophy. Again I appreciate you pointing out the errors in my thinking

You really don't appreciate errors in your thinking. You believe in god and nothing posted on this site will change that. You are not open to changing your beliefs. That's OK, but it is noticed.

[KingMerv00]

You really don't appreciate errors in your thinking. You believe in god and nothing posted on this site will change that. You are not open to changing your beliefs. That's OK, but it is noticed.

Aren't you being a bit harsh?

He made a statement and then retracted it.

[gorillapaws]

I think that's an unfair label to place on someone based solely on a single argument and subsequent defense they posted on a public internet forum. For all you know I could simply enjoy playing the devil's advocate. I feel like my admission of error in my argument when it was pointed out to me would be an indication that I am willing to listen to reason and sound argument. As I've stated in the original post, I've got only a "tentative belief in a higher power" and that my interest in this subject was due to it's philosophical interest. I'm sorry you hold the belief that I don't appreciate the errors in my thinking. I can only reaffirm my statement, and thank those who participated and pointed out the errors in my logic. My intent was not to prove to everyone the existence of god, but to explore the philosophy behind a twist I'd come up with on a very old argument.

[triadboy]

If you want to maintain that there is no extra-physical creator of the universal laws then you're forced to accept a set of premises that uncaused causes exist (a notion that contradicts intuition, and all know science), ...

I believe in an ever expanding-imploding universe. I think this follows the evidence nicely. I always thought that was the most elegant solution. Apparently scientists must still find some more matter in the universe to convince themselves the universe will slow down and begin imploding, but I think it will be found. (Didn't they recently spot Dark Matter for the first time?)

I think the next event will be the Big Crunch. (Or course the next event will be when the Andromeda Galaxy collides with the Milky Way, but I am talking Bang events.)

So I have no problem with an uncaused universe - thus I never need a God.

[stamenflicker]

ok... the reason I'm under the impression that the burden has shifted is that my argument seems to imply something greatly wrong with the current understanding of the skeptic's reality. If you want to maintain that there is no extra-physical creator of the universal laws then you're forced to accept a set of premises that uncaused causes exist (a notion that contradicts intuition, and all know science), or that the Universal laws can somehow evolve from some fundamental extra-temporal law. I'm not saying the skeptic can't simply say, I don't believe in a causal universe. They can, but then they're forced to accept that as fact. Frankly the paradigm of that reality seems stranger than one with an extra-physical creator. Believing in sub-atomic Easter bunnies seems crazier than extra physical ones. The other course is to accept a causal reality but then you would be forced to adopt the equally troubling position that laws somehow evolve. As a student of logic I might ask you: "Mr. believer in the evolution of universal laws, what law did the law of non-contradiction evolve from?"

At the very least it seems like my argument forces the skeptic to adopt one of two equally troubling positions if they want to deny the existence of an extra-physical creator of the laws of the universe. While I now concede that this is not a proof of an extra-physical universal law creator, I think it still may pose problems for the skeptic.

I didn't read through everything here. I am a theist and a Christian, but I don't think your argument really tells us much. I see no reason to demand anything extra-physical. Given the various forms of anthropic principle, its likely that we only see the laws that are "seeable" and interpret them specifically because it is "we" that are interpreting them. I think that even though the anthropic priniciple is a contested bit of theoretical physics, it offers the best solution to the issue.

http://anthropic-principle.com/preprints/self-location.html

[stamenflicker]

I believe in an ever expanding-imploding universe. I think this follows the evidence nicely. I always thought that was the most elegant solution. Apparently scientists must still find some more matter in the universe to convince themselves the universe will slow down and begin imploding, but I think it will be found. (Didn't they recently spot Dark Matter for the first time?)

I think the next event will be the Big Crunch. (Or course the next event will be when the Andromeda Galaxy collides with the Milky Way, but I am talking Bang events.)

So I have no problem with an uncaused universe - thus I never need a God.

But unfortunately observation doesn't support your position. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." I don't know of anything that violates this simple law of observation.

[toddjh]

But unfortunately observation doesn't support your position. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." I don't know of anything that violates this simple law of observation.

Quantum fluctuations and virtual particles. They appear out of nothing with no cause in evidence.

[Bob Klase]

I do find it odd that some would choose to flat out deny the possibility of an afterlife. It's like you've empirically proven it to not exist, a task we all here would agree to be impossible. Given that, if I was a bit more pessimistic, my claim would be something to the effect of: "given a total lack of credible evidence in favor of an afterlife, I'm inclined to believe that in all likelihood it does not exist." A flat-out denial of it's existence seems just as ludicrous as an unquestioning acceptance based on some perverted notion of blind faith.

There are many people who might say "there is no afterlife" when what they really mean is "given a total lack of credible evidence, I'm inclined to believe there is none".

It's much like you might say "there is no Santa Claus (or unicorns, fairies, pots of gold at the ends of some rainbows, vampires, etc). For most it's just a shorter way to communicate your non-belief.

For some reason, some people who might find it perfectly acceptable to use that sort of verbal shorthand when talking about fairies, trolls, goblins and dragons, etc, feel that if the topic is god/religion/afterlife then you must use the more cumbersome (although usually more correct) phrasing.

And some people latch onto it as an opportunity to use the "blind faith" comparison just as you did when they would never think of doing that if the subject was unicorns, fairies or vampires).

[Wolfman]

gorillapaws,

An addition to your argument; cause-and-effect arguments must by definition involve a universe that has time, and in which time moves in one direction. True, that definition seems to fit our universe (or what we've observed of it thus far), although some aspects of quantum physics may challenge even that basic assumption.

However, the "Big Bang", or whatever originated our universe, does not need to have come from some place with similar structure/constraints. If one posits an alternate existence/universe/dimension in which time is non-existent, or can move in different directions, then one can have effects without causes, or causes that come after effects.

Let me put it this way...using your argument, you are still left with the problem of "who created the creator"? Inevitably, you must have some force or power that exists somewhere outside of time, immune to the laws of cause and effect. Some people choose to believe that this is some sort of god or supernatural power; I choose to believe that it is simply some other dimension/universe/existence outside of our own, which operates on different laws.

[Apathia]

Scissors-Rock-Paper

[Jekyll]

But unfortunately observation doesn't support your position. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." I don't know of anything that violates this simple law of observation.
Well it's a lot like observing that "Nothing stands to the left of itself."
It's apparently true on a local scale, but when you start considering the global properties of closed universes that wrap round on themselves it gets downright misleading.

Of course, the nice thing about this is that it's all science, so TriadBoy might turn out to be wrong, but that will be because that's not how the universe is shaped and not because of some philosophical argument about causality.

[gorillapaws]

For some reason, some people who might find it perfectly acceptable to use that sort of verbal shorthand when talking about fairies, trolls, goblins and dragons, etc, feel that if the topic is god/religion/afterlife then you must use the more cumbersome (although usually more correct) phrasing.

And some people latch onto it as an opportunity to use the "blind faith" comparison just as you did when they would never think of doing that if the subject was unicorns, fairies or vampires).

I acknowledge that lots of people believing in something does not add any more evidence for it's existence than nobody believing in it. However if you're engaged in a philosophical discussion about the existence of a God/afterlife/etc. I would hope that you would want to be as accurate with your statements of belief as possible. You and I both don't believe in fairies so we can use the "shorthand" when talking about them. But if you were formally arguing for the existence of fairies then I would have to abandon my shorthand and adopt a more technical verbiage.

Furthermore my statement was a response to Senex's statements: There is no afterlife. i''m sorry I'm the one to tell you. Prepare for the truth.

This is an absolute existential statement, not the shorthand for something else. I wanted to point out however that to make the absolute claim that God does not exist (as opposed to believing it extremely unlikely based on a lack of empirical evidence) is a departure from the skeptical position. It's fine to believe that there is no possible way for God to exist, but, in the absence of empirical evidence confirming this, you would not be a skeptic. Claims of this nature involve a kind of faith in the negation of God, just as claims in favor of God's existence do.

[gorillapaws]

sorry double post

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Senex
There is no afterlife. i''m sorry I'm the one to tell you. Prepare for the truth.

This is an absolute existential statement, not the shorthand for something else.

I suppose if you can't to read things in context then it would be easy to take that as a statement of absolute, non-skeptical belief. Particularly if you ignore the obvious sarcasm in the following two sentences which are meaning without the first.

[Beleth]

I haven't read the whole thread; just the first 10 posts or so. Please forgive me if this has been covered.

My addition to this is: Assume the big-bang/most current and best scientific theory is the cause of our universe's existence. However any theory derived from science inherently must be based on scientific principles/laws. These laws must have a cause (in the universe, I'm not referring to the event of their discovery by modern man).


Scientific laws are descriptions of observations, not causes themselves. I don't see why they are assumed to be subject to the same "each cause needs a cause" because of this.

[Kopji]

hi gorillapaws,
Welcome to the forum! Yeah I'm pretty sure we understand your point. I thing that you have summarized it well. Goes something like:

"How can anyone really know anything?"
and if not...
"so why can't God exist?"

I don't think that those kind of questions lead in a meaningful direction. I see the main questions of value as being more like:

"What mindset or philosophy helps us increase our knowledge of the way things really are?"

[gorillapaws]

Scientific laws are descriptions of observations, not causes themselves. I don't see why they are assumed to be subject to the same "each cause needs a cause" because of this.

In the argument that I put forth (which I now acknowledge to be flawed), when I referd to natural laws, I am really referring to the natural behaviors/phenomena that these laws describe. I realize that a law is just a statement of observed behavior itself, my argument had a different understanding of the definition of a law to be more about the actual phenomena/principal, rather than simply a statement of observation about it.

[gorillapaws]

hi gorillapaws,
Welcome to the forum! Yeah I'm pretty sure we understand your point. I thing that you have summarized it well. Goes something like:

"How can anyone really know anything?"
and if not...
"so why can't God exist?"

I don't think that those kind of questions lead in a meaningful direction. I see the main questions of value as being more like:

"What mindset or philosophy helps us increase our knowledge of the way things really are?"

Thanks for welcoming me. I don't think my argument was is an epistemic one, perhaps I'm wrong on that point, but I'm not following where you're getting that impression.

[blobru]

Salut from another forum rookie, gp :)

Your new cosmological twist sounds to me a bit like Leibniz's argument from sufficient reason. As I understand it: any state in a closed consistent system (like the universe) must follow from a previous state; each state can be described by [scientific] laws; there must be an original state (set of laws) which explains the universe; that original state? None other than the big superbeing Himself!!! (Almost a computer science proof for God come to think of it. Leibniz of course wasn't thinking of computers, but his monads do remind me of finite automata, with God supplying the "algorithm".)

Anyway, as other posters have already pointed out, there's no reason to suppose the original set of laws isn't itself a property of the system; besides, quantum mechanics' creation ex nihilo implies Nothing works fine as an original state too.

I agree with your take on "skepticism" btw. Practical certainty okay but absolute certainty avoid like the Inquisition... ;)

[calebprime]

However if you're engaged in a philosophical discussion about the existence of a God/afterlife/etc. I would hope that you would want to be as accurate with your statements of belief as possible.

I do believe that there are some philosophical mysteries. The existence of an afterlife is not one of them.

Humans are part of the natural world. They are made of the same basic stuff as other primates, other animals. It seems unreasonable to grant immortality to every critter, so why grant it to humans?

There is also the complete lack of evidence for an afterlife.

But more compelling is that our identity depends on our physical brains--although identity is more complicated than that. When part of the brain is altered, mental function is altered. Identity depends on mental function.

What sort of immortality would somehow continue the person, but with no memories, no personality, no abilities, etc. in common?

So there are at least 3 arguments against an afterlife, but the neurological one--the last one--is the most compelling.

It is conceivable that a kind of immortality will be possible in the future, when we might somehow be able to map our brains and brain-function, and reproduce it in another physical system--but that's science fiction, for now.

[Kopji]

Thanks for welcoming me. I don't think my argument was is an epistemic one, perhaps I'm wrong on that point, but I'm not following where you're getting that impression.

The ontological argument and its derivatives seem ultimately an argument that all things are possible. You have it both ways: causation is required, except for the uncaused thing.

However any theory derived from science inherently must be based on scientific principles/laws. - gorillapaws

A key scientific principle would be something like 'falsifiability'. The idea of a uncaused or detectable being is a classic example of an unfalsifiable idea, so I don't see the paradox for science. Science does not attempt to assert that all things are possible.

Sorry I was interrupted earlier. My thoughts are along the lines that science needs creative imagination to flourish. Religion teaches false things like 'all things are possible', which is fertile ground for imagination. I do struggle with the notion that religion may be a sort of big lie that helps a truth.

So I do not hold the view (yet, anyway) that religion and science are completely incompatible. I view religion as more like the artistic expression of something more fundamental to our nature that both religion and science draw upon.

My view would be somewhere along the lines that religion distracts us from something better, and can cloud a creative human potential we each have, that thrives in clarity.

[gorillapaws]

Again, I still don't think this is an epistemic argument.
the basic structure is:
(A)an extra-physical being is the creator of the laws of nature OR not A
so we have A v ~A

IF ~A THEN EITHER (B) the laws of nature are uncaused OR (C) they are caused.
This can be reduce to the expression ~A --> (B v C)

I unsuccessfully argued for not B, and not C. If my arguments for these had been successful we would get ~(B v C).

This results is rejecting ~A, Therefore we must accept A.

[D'rok]

Again, I still don't think this is an epistemic argument.
the basic structure is:
(A)an extra-physical being is the creator of the laws of nature OR not A
so we have A v ~A

IF ~A THEN EITHER (B) the laws of nature are uncaused OR (C) they are caused.
This can be reduce to the expression ~A --> (B v C)

I unsuccessfully argued for not B, and not C. If my arguments for these had been successful we would get ~(B v C).

This results is rejecting ~A, Therefore we must accept A.

Nitpick time.

If this is really one of your premises:not B, and not C.Then the symbolization would be: (~B ∧ ~C)

So your argument is:
(A v ~A). (~A --> (B v C)). (~B ∧ ~C) ∴ A

You are using the symbol for the "inclusive or", but I think that logically you are intending to use the "exclusive or". Which would finally make your argument look like this:

(A v ~A). (~A --> ((B ∧ ~C) v (~B ∧ C))). (~B ∧ ~C) ∴ A

I don't see how you can derive A validly from these premises.

I'm not sure whether or not it is precisely necessary to express the first premise exclusively. If so, it would look like this:
((A ∧ ~~A) v (~A ∧ ~A))
That looks counter-intuitive, but logicians tend to be anal about these sorts of things.



ETA: I think the symbol for the exclusive or is + so:
(A + ~A). (~A --> (B + C)). (~B ∧ ~C) ∴ A

ETA: Wow. I have too much time on my hands. I did a truth table for this argument and it appears to be valid. I'm just not seeing the derivation. Oh well.

[triadboy]

But unfortunately observation doesn't support your position. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." I don't know of anything that violates this simple law of observation.

But if the Big Bang is merely a continuation from the Big Crunch - where's the beginning?

In other words - The 'cause' of the Big Bang is the Big Crunch. The cause of the Big Crunch is the collapsing universe. It's a circle - there is no beginning.

[gorillapaws]

Nitpick time.

If this is really one of your premises:Then the symbolization would be: (~B ^ ~C)

Actually they're separate premises
~B
~C
you can combine them with the additive property and get what you've shown, but you don't have to. I've always used the "&" symbol in my basic logic class for what you're using "^" for here I think. Is there a difference in meaning here, I'm assuming not, but please correct me if I'm wrong. As far as the exclusive or vs. the inclusive or, I've never actually studied that I don't think. So maybe you can explain why (B v C) incorrectly describes my intended meaning, and what that logical expression would actually describe. I'm not denying that your expression "((B & ~C) v (~B & C))" is another way of expressing my intended meaning, but again, I fail to see why (B v C) is insufficient.

[Wolfman]

gorillapaws,

Sorry, but I just don't get -- or agree with -- your logic here. Let's say that I do accept your entire argument...well, the "being" that created everything also has its own laws by which it operates, it also has its own existence. So why is it that this entity, in your logic, is allowed to exist without every being created, without ever having some other entity create or describe the laws that govern its existence?

This is the whole problem with this argument, to me...it argues that our universe must have been 'created', because you cannot continue to reduce causes infinitely; yet it requires me simultaneously to accept that there is some 'creator' out there that exists in a state exactly the same as what you say is impossible for our universe.

As I argued above (and you did not reply...perhaps you didn't see it?), I see a valid choice between some "god" that must have created everything, but that itself lives outside our 'laws' of cause and effect, and therefore need not have ever been created; and some other 'dimension' or 'universe' that spawned our own, but which itself exists outside our 'laws' of cause and effect, and therefore need not have ever been created.

To make this simple -- why do you require that the laws of our universe must have been 'created', but the being that created it all is exempt from this same rule/requirement? If you consider it possible/plausible to have such a being, is it not equally possible/plausible to posit an alternate dimension/universe that is also exempt from this rule/requirement? And that our universe sprang from that, rather than from this mystical being?

[D'rok]

Actually they're separate premises
~B
~C
you can combine them with the additive property and get what you've shown, but you don't have to. I've always used the "&" symbol in my basic logic class for what you're using "^" for here I think. Is there a difference in meaning here, I'm assuming not, but please correct me if I'm wrong. As far as the exclusive or vs. the inclusive or, I've never actually studied that I don't think. So maybe you can explain why (B v C) incorrectly describes my intended meaning, and what that logical expression would actually describe. I'm not denying that your expression "((B & ~C) v (~B & C))" is another way of expressing my intended meaning, but again, I fail to see why (B v C) is insufficient.

The inclusive "or" (B v C) means B or C or both. The exclusive "or" (B + C) means B or C but not both. I've never seen "&" used, but I imagine it's the same as "^" . So your argument is:

(A + ~A). (~A --> (B + C)). ~B. ~C ∴ A

And the derivation is simple:

1. Show A Assertion
2. ~A Assumption ID
3. (B + C) Modus Ponens 2, Premise 2
4. C Modus Tollendo Ponens 3, Premise 3
5. ~C Premise 4



Don't know why I didn't see it before. Some days I can't brain because I have the dumb.

[gorillapaws]

I think you have a very valid point Wolfman. At one point I acknowledged that this actually wouldn't be a proof of an extra-physical being. I retreated to a position that if you denied A, your position would be forced to accept one of two other premises B or C. Essentially I was saying you only had 3 options, A v (B v C). At this point my argument was that all 3 of these options necessitated accepting some form of reality that a skeptic would find unacceptable. B meant believing in subatomic "Easter bunnies" that are the uncaused causes, and C leads to having to explain some non-divine central originating law/force from which the others must have come. So you're right in saying that my argument didn't give cause to believe in a God as the uncaused causer. It was more like well if you're willing to believe in subatomic Easter bunnies to explain this phenomena it doesn't seem any stranger to believe in God. or if you're willing to believe in a primal originating non-divine force/law, it doesn't seem any stranger than a divine one. But as you and others have pointed out, there are other alternatives beyond A, B, and C. So, as I have stated many times before, I've scrapped the argument.

[gorillapaws]

The inclusive "or" (B v C) means B or C or both. The exclusive "or" (B + C) means B or C but not both. I've never seen "&" used, but I imagine it's the same as "^" . So your argument is:

(A + ~A). (~A --> (B + C)). ~B. ~C ? A

And the derivation is simple:

1. Show A Assertion
2. ~A Assumption ID
3. (B + C) Modus Ponens 2, Premise 2
4. C Modus Tollendo Ponens 3, Premise 3
5. ~C Premise 4



Don't know why I didn't see it before. Some days I can't brain because I have the dumb.

Thanks for explaining the difference in the inclusive vs. exclusive or. That makes sense. You've correctly shown the logical structure of my argument. I knew it had to at least be valid (you did get me kinda worried there for a second;) ).

[Kopji]

The problem I see is that for the logic to work you assume only one A. You cannot know if there would only be one, or an infinite number of 'uncaused creators'. So this seems like a problem involving the limits of our ability to know: The answer only seems right because you only accept conditions where your answer is right.

[gorillapaws]

I think the argument could be adapted to allow for polytheism without altering the logic of it. I still think the skeptic would have a problem with that position.

[Kevin_Lowe]

The only thing I have to add to this discussion is that Gorillapaws seems to have a slightly off-beam view of skepticism. From what you have written, Gorillapaws, you seem to understand a skeptic to be a person who has a fixed and absolute belief that there are no "extraphysical" causes and no God(s), and who must therefore be troubled somehow by phenomena which have no known cause.

With regard to the beginning of the universe, as I see it a skeptic is a person who is unaware of any good reason to believe anything whatsoever about the matter, and who therefore holds no beliefs about the matter.

[D'rok]

The only thing I have to add to this discussion is that Gorillapaws seems to have a slightly off-beam view of skepticism. From what you have written, Gorillapaws, you seem to understand a skeptic to be a person who has a fixed and absolute belief that there are no "extraphysical" causes and no God(s), and who must therefore be troubled somehow by phenomena which have no known cause.

With regard to the beginning of the universe, as I see it a skeptic is a person who is unaware of any good reason to believe anything whatsoever about the matter, and who therefore holds no beliefs about the matter.


I agree completely with this, but I just have to add......



....Kevin, why oh why did you trade Pronger and Smyth?


(Sorry. Your name is quite famous where I'm from).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Lowe

[gorillapaws]

The only thing I have to add to this discussion is that Gorillapaws seems to have a slightly off-beam view of skepticism. From what you have written, Gorillapaws, you seem to understand a skeptic to be a person who has a fixed and absolute belief that there are no "extraphysical" causes and no God(s), and who must therefore be troubled somehow by phenomena which have no known cause.

With regard to the beginning of the universe, as I see it a skeptic is a person who is unaware of any good reason to believe anything whatsoever about the matter, and who therefore holds no beliefs about the matter.

I think you're correct here. Looking back over my posts I must have been under the impression that the skeptic universally denied the possibility of non-physical phenomena.

I realize this is off topic, but given my apparent incomplete understanding of the skeptical position, could someone explain how the skeptic views the the external world problem? I mean, if you can't trust your observations/sensations how can you trust in science? Since skeptics do believe in science (or at least it appears that way from what I've read on this forum so far), they must have a good justification for believing in the external world/sensory experience. What is it?

[Beerina]

If you want to maintain that there is no extra-physical creator of the universal laws then you're forced to accept a set of premises that uncaused causes exist (a notion that contradicts intuition, and all know science)

That's fine and all, but what you're not getting is this also shoots down the concept of a god as the terminus to this chain of causality.

Why couldn't a "quantum potential" have always existed? While I agree that might not be sufficient, the idea also applies to a god. Why did this or that god always exist? It is a legitimate question as well.

Hence the real problem is still larger than either concept. Why does anything exist, including God?

[Beerina]

But if the Big Bang is merely a continuation from the Big Crunch - where's the beginning?

I believe the current scientific thinking has thrown a monkey wrench into this "Big Bang-Big Crunch repeating cycle" concept. The current thought is the universe is expanding, and accelerating as it does so. This is based on more detailed observations, and is very recent, within the past 10 years or so.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think you're correct here. Looking back over my posts I must have been under the impression that the skeptic universally denied the possibility of non-physical phenomena.

I realize this is off topic, but given my apparent incomplete understanding of the skeptical position, could someone explain how the skeptic views the the external world problem? I mean, if you can't trust your observations/sensations how can you trust in science? Since skeptics do believe in science (or at least it appears that way from what I've read on this forum so far), they must have a good justification for believing in the external world/sensory experience. What is it?

If by the external world problem you mean the problem of radical skepticism of the kind Descartes toyed with ("How do I know that everything I experience is not an illusion created by a demon?"), then the best answer I can offer is that a real, external world is the hypothesis that best supports our observations and so we accept it provisionally.

We aren't entitled to absolute certainty with regard to any belief at all, given that our perceptions and thought processes are known to be imperfect, but we can be as certain of the existence of an external world as we can ever be of anything (except tautologies).

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If by the external world problem you mean the problem of radical skepticism of the kind Descartes toyed with ("How do I know that everything I experience is not an illusion created by a demon?"), then the best answer I can offer is that a real, external world is the hypothesis that best supports our observations and so we accept it provisionally.

We aren't entitled to absolute certainty with regard to any belief at all, given that our perceptions and thought processes are known to be imperfect, but we can be as certain of the existence of an external world as we can ever be of anything (except tautologies).

Let me just add to that to say I see consistancy in what appears to me to be reality. :cool:

[Beerina]

We aren't entitled to absolute certainty with regard to any belief at all, given that our perceptions and thought processes are known to be imperfect, but we can be as certain of the existence of an external world as we can ever be of anything (except tautologies).

Sartre pointed out that the perceptions you experience (the greenness of green) actually exist, and are directly experienced. Hence you may be certain of the perception itself, if not what it's a perception of.

(100,000 words deleted)

...and therefore nobody should read anything but what the Communist Party permits.

[Hourglassmemory]

Am I the first to welcome you to the forum then? Neat.

Problems I see with your argument:

1) The Big Bang is merely the earliest event in our timeline that we know of. It does not necesarily mean it was THE origin of the universe. There simply isn't enough information to reach that kind of conclusion. Maybe further study will reveal the answer. Maybe not. Either way, a shrug is the only honest answer.

2) Assume there IS a first cause. Why must it be intelligent? Perhaps there are laws of nature that exist outside our understanding of time that caused the formation of the universe and time as we know it. I have no evidence for these "hypertime laws" but I also have no evidence for God. Occam's razor suggests the former is a slightly better answer for now.

3) You see infinite regression as a problem and use "God" to solve it. If "God" doesn't need a first cause, why does the universe?


I basically had the same questions in my mind.

I can see the universe as finite....but that does not mean that there is nothing beyond it. I could say that Reality is infinite and simply incomprehensible to us. The universe is just one little thing in all of Reality.

And the 3rd argument is the excact same question I ask religious people over and over again and they never give me a straight answer.

If god didn't need a creator, and if God is complex (to control all of the universe), how come the same logic cannot be applied the universe itself?

Yes we could say that God is simple and controlling an entire universe only seems to us as demanding complexity.

If so you then have to bring the concept of relativity and you would have to find standards for simplicity and complexity.

We could also raise the question "Does God need to CONTROL the Universe?

If so, why?
And if not, you are ultimately anthropomorphising the universe, which is an unnecessary move, as Science shows.
Why does it need a creator when Science shows how it could have come about without one? Why look away from what Science is showing us?

AND! why jump on all of this and say "Oh! God is still above all of that!"
There is nothing but wishful thinking in this.....scream.

[gorillapaws]

I basically had the same questions in my mind.

I can see the universe as finite....but that does not mean that there is nothing beyond it. I could say that Reality is infinite and simply incomprehensible to us. The universe is just one little thing in all of Reality.

And the 3rd argument is the excact same question I ask religious people over and over again and they never give me a straight answer.

If god didn't need a creator, and if God is complex (to control all of the universe), how come the same logic cannot be applied the universe itself?

Yes we could say that God is simple and controlling an entire universe only seems to us as demanding complexity.

If so you then have to bring the concept of relativity and you would have to find standards for simplicity and complexity.

We could also raise the question "Does God need to CONTROL the Universe?

If so, why?
And if not, you are ultimately anthropomorphising the universe, which is an unnecessary move, as Science shows.
Why does it need a creator when Science shows how it could have come about without one? Why look away from what Science is showing us?

AND! why jump on all of this and say "Oh! God is still above all of that!"
There is nothing but wishful thinking in this.....scream.

I think you misunderstood much of my argument. I never advocated that God would need to control anything, simply that a god (not necessarily a Judeo-Christian one one that is actively intervening in our universe) was the origin of the forces (i.e. the natural laws) that control our universe. i.e. that an intelligent force established the rules of the physical/logical/mathmatical game. It wasn't a denial of "what science is showing us" as you put it, since a big bang, or a big crunch (whichever science thinks is most likely) still relies on laws like gravity, the conservation of energy, thermodynamics, it obeys the logical law of non-contradiction etc.

In response to why one should believe in a god as an uncaused cause after arguing against the possibility of uncaused causes, I think the reply requires invoking the omnipotence of god, or acknowledging that even the creator may be caused by other forces (some buddhists believe this).

One problem with arguing anything to a skeptic seems to be the same as arguing with a religious person. When we questioned Dustin on the feasibility of cramming animals into an arc, he ultimately retreated to the position of God did it. Which of course is impossible to logically argue with. Likewise the skeptic can always retreat to the epistemic position of "I don't know, nor will we likely ever know." Given that the existence of the external world is merely a "provisionally certain hypothesis" and that skeptics "aren't entitled to absolute certainty with regard to any belief at all" it seems somewhat futile to engage in philosophical debate. Not that this in anyway legitimizes my failed argument, but I'm curious why a skeptic would be interested in pursuing knowledge, given the fact that it's inherently "unknowable."

[blobru]

One problem with arguing anything to a skeptic seems to be the same as arguing with a religious person. When we questioned Dustin on the feasibility of cramming animals into an arc, he ultimately retreated to the position of God did it. Which of course is impossible to logically argue with. Likewise the skeptic can always retreat to the epistemic position of "I don't know, nor will we likely ever know." Given that the existence of the external world is merely a "provisionally certain hypothesis" and that skeptics "aren't entitled to absolute certainty with regard to any belief at all" it seems somewhat futile to engage in philosophical debate. Not that this in anyway legitimizes my failed argument, but I'm curious why a skeptic would be interested in pursuing knowledge, given the fact that it's inherently "unknowable."

I don't think knowledge requires absolute certainty.

When a skeptic says "I know such and such", she means something like "I have a working hypothesis and can't imagine any reasonable alternative(s)."

For God-talk, the theist with absolute certainty says "God did it." The skeptic counters that that's only an hypothesis, there are reasonable alternatives; so all that can be said [in this case] with absolute certainty is "I don't know." More succinctly -- the skeptic paraphrasing Socrates -- "I know that I don't know".

[RussDill]

I think the best way to put this argument in perspective is to quantify God a little more. Is God rational? Does he have a reason for doing the things he does? Or is he irrational, eg, he does things without reason.

If you argue that God is rational, then you are submitting that he had a reason for creating the universe. eg, cause->effect. Which brings us back to the cause effect chain.

The counter argument would be God lives outside of time. His actions are governed by the timeless laws of good and evil. Unfortunately, the argument works equally well for the universe. The universe is governed by the timeless laws of physics. Who created the laws of physics? Who created the laws of good and evil?

[Paulhoff]

This so-called god thing never answers anything. So what so-called god created the so-called god that created the so-called god that created the so-called god etc.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Likewise the skeptic can always retreat to the epistemic position of "I don't know, nor will we likely ever know." Given that the existence of the external world is merely a "provisionally certain hypothesis" and that skeptics "aren't entitled to absolute certainty with regard to any belief at all" it seems somewhat futile to engage in philosophical debate. Not that this in anyway legitimizes my failed argument, but I'm curious why a skeptic would be interested in pursuing knowledge, given the fact that it's inherently "unknowable."

In all but extremely unusual cases, "provisionally certain hypothesis" and "truth" do exactly the same job and are arrived at in exactly the same way. So the knowledge that is important, scientific knowledge, is exactly as interesting to rational people as it is to believers in the possibility of known, absolute truth.

Similarly, rational people are perfectly capable of assessing ideas in terms of internal consistency, unwanted consequences , logical structure or lack thereof and so forth.

So in any area of philosophy which doesn't depend on assuming things about unknowable things, it is not at all futile to engage rational people in debate.

The only area of philosophy where you could make a case that it's futile to engage a rational person in debate is metaphysics, because it's apparent to a rational person that metaphysics is a total waste of time except as mental exercise. Posters in thhis forum are usually happy to kick metaphysical ideas around for a while as exercise though if that is what you are after.

[The Grave]

The classic fallacy exposed:"Why is there something instead of nothing?"

What a stupid question, which btw could only be asked by a faither.

The point they fail to realise is that there is never 'nothing'. Science says that what is observed is energy changing to mass and back... both forms of the same thing, under different conditions.

A cyclic join.

A god implies an intelligent being that takes part in 'life'. No account is given of It's creation, simply because that would render IT less important...oh, and that won't do, will it?

An uncaused causal law.....

Do we need a causal law to tell us 1 + 1 = 2 ?

Answers on the back of a fag-packet please.

Why is it that every faither's argument relies on basing it around the unprovable area of 'no' knowledge... ie the big bang epoch.

Why, because it allows them time to chat!

Griff...

[KingMerv00]

I think you misunderstood much of my argument. I never advocated that God would need to control anything, simply that a god (not necessarily a Judeo-Christian one one that is actively intervening in our universe) was the origin of the forces (i.e. the natural laws) that control our universe. i.e. that an intelligent force established the rules of the physical/logical/mathmatical game. It wasn't a denial of "what science is showing us" as you put it, since a big bang, or a big crunch (whichever science thinks is most likely) still relies on laws like gravity, the conservation of energy, thermodynamics, it obeys the logical law of non-contradiction etc.

Maybe I missed it, but you never really addressed why a universe that contains ordered laws needs an intelligence. What makes you think order is so darn unlikely and supernatural intervention is needed?

In response to why one should believe in a god as an uncaused cause after arguing against the possibility of uncaused causes, I think the reply requires invoking the omnipotence of god, or acknowledging that even the creator may be caused by other forces (some buddhists believe this).

So god can be created by "other forces" but the universe can't?