God, Burritos, and Perfection

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You can't just say time came into existence, and think that's good enough for athiesm, because that has metaphysical issues which need to be addressed.

Rv- If you're talking about prior to space and time that's metaphysics. Saying there needs to be, or doesn't need to be something prior is a MP claim.

I quite frankly don't know why it even remotely matters. Seriously, it's so far beyond our ability to understand the universe, there's simply nothing to learn on a physical level, and there's nothing to do on the metahpysical level that's worth doing.

 

[Reaver197]

So then tell me how science would observe something prior to space and time.

And athiests saying what happened prior to the BB is pointless is the same as a thiest saying that the free will- omniscience dilemma is pointless. It gets cast aside because they struggle with it.

The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with atheism or theism. It's a scientific theory that exists independent of religious affiliation. It wasn't developed to create a scenario where a god is not necessary, but instead was created to explain the current observations of the universe that we have.

Also, as said before, the Big Bang does not automatically coincide with the start of space and time. It simply coincides with when the universe went from an extremely small and condensed state, so small and condensed that we currently do not have a theory or the mathematics to understand what was happening and the nature of the universe at that point, and then very quickly inflated and grew to the huge, macroscopic size that we see today.

So, once again, to say that time and space STARTED at the Big Bang is to misunderstand what the Big Bang theory (and, really, inflationary theory) is all about. The Big Bang really only delineates when the universe crossed from the boundary of being in a state that we cannot currently grasp or decipher, to the familiar and more classical realm that we understand fairly accurately today.

More ever, to think of "time" as an actual, independent "thing" is probably an outmoded and incorrect way to approach it and envision it. For as fantastically accurate our theory of physics are for the quantum scale and the macroscopic scale, none of them include any directionality of time. According to our laws of physics, things should be able to happen equally as going "backwards" in time as easily as they go "forwards". There is no inherent direction to quantum or classical physics. Famously, in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, the variable for time disappears entirely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–DeWitt_equation

The directionality of time seems to only really come from entropy, and that it is always increasing. The universe started from a very ordered and uniform state, and has been growing more disordered, giving a direction to our physics, and thus the idea of time. It also firmly plants "time" as being an emergent quality of the physical systems of the universe, rather than something that exists independently of matter. Which is partly why in relativity, you can have differing passages of time, since the speed and motion of a system and/or body will effect its relative increase in entropy to other systems.

 

[Dre89]

I know BB does not require a commitment to athiesm.

I just have a problem with people thinking they can just say the universe exists, and think that's good enough for athiesm.

 

[ballin4life]

It kinda is though.

You need a reason to have a belief.

 

[Dre89]

Exactly, you need a reason to believe the universe is self-necessary and is not dependant on an external entity.

 

[ballin4life]

No, you need a reason to believe the universe is dependent on something else.

I perceive the universe. Why does it need to depend on anything?

 

[Dre89]

You need a reason for both, the default position should be uncertainty.

You need a reason because by your logic I could just assume that a chicken existed on it's own account.

Just assuming something is self necessary merely because you perceive it means there is no criteria for determing what is contingent and what isn't. By your logic the chicken is as equally self necessary as the actual first cause.

 

[RDK]

I know BB does not require a commitment to athiesm.

I just have a problem with people thinking they can just say the universe exists, and think that's good enough for athiesm.

You're obviously at that stage where you have this perception of yourself as completely independent and objective-thinking in regards to both atheist and theism, when you're clearly not. You need to make up your mind as to what your position is and stop being disingenuous.

Are you a theist, Dre?

 

[ballin4life]

You need a reason for both, the default position should be uncertainty.

You need a reason because by your logic I could just assume that a chicken existed on it's own account.

Just assuming something is self necessary merely because you perceive it means there is no criteria for determing what is contingent and what isn't. By your logic the chicken is as equally self necessary as the actual first cause.

Yep. You need a reason to assume that the chicken isn't.

 

[Mewter]

Yep. You need a reason to assume that the chicken isn't.

No, the default position is a nonposition. Besides, that is moot since all physical objects are dependent on something else, and so the universe, as a physical system, could not have come about on its own. It follows that whatever did kickstart the universe was nonphysical since it is not bound by that restriction. Whatever exploded in thee the big bang (a monstrous bundle of TNT or some cosmic baking powder experiment) also needs an explanation.

"Time starts at the beginning so there is no time before it" is a fallback explanation with no real merit used to disregard the fact that time itself is a physical process that is just as dependent as any chicken.

 

[ballin4life]

No, the default position is a nonposition.

Yeah, that's what I said.

Besides, that is moot since all physical objects are dependent on something else, and so the universe, as a physical system, could not have come about on its own.

Why? I don't see this as being obvious at all.

It follows that whatever did kickstart the universe was nonphysical since it is not bound by that restriction. Whatever exploded in thee the big bang (a monstrous bundle of TNT or some cosmic baking powder experiment) also needs an explanation.

It follows that there exists something that is not dependent on anything else.

Also, not everything needs an explanation. Some things just are the way they are, with no particular reason. In fact, this has to be the case, since you can form an infinite logical loop if you always require another explanation.

"Time starts at the beginning so there is no time before it" is a fallback explanation with no real merit used to disregard the fact that time itself is a physical process that is just as dependent as any chicken.

Huh? What do you mean by time is a physical process?

I think there are many valid philosophical positions on the nature of time.

 

[RDK]

"Time starts at the beginning so there is no time before it" is a fallback explanation with no real merit used to disregard the fact that time itself is a physical process that is just as dependent as any chicken.

Time is not a physical process.

"Time starts at the beginning so there is no time before it"

I don't think anyone has said that. A better way of stating this is to say "There is no time before this point because time starts at the beginning"; the reverse makes no sense.

 

[Reaver197]

No, the default position is a nonposition. Besides, that is moot since all physical objects are dependent on something else, and so the universe, as a physical system, could not have come about on its own. It follows that whatever did kickstart the universe was nonphysical since it is not bound by that restriction. Whatever exploded in thee the big bang (a monstrous bundle of TNT or some cosmic baking powder experiment) also needs an explanation.

"Time starts at the beginning so there is no time before it" is a fallback explanation with no real merit used to disregard the fact that time itself is a physical process that is just as dependent as any chicken.

Nothing actually "exploded" at the big bang. The term is just used to denote had rapidly and quickly the universe expanded during that time period. There also are several candidate theories to explain exactly what caused the intense inflationary period, the leading theory having to do with Higgs fields.

 

[RDK]

Why? I don't see this as being obvious at all.

Because causality.

Nothing actually "exploded" at the big bang. The term is just used to denote had rapidly and quickly the universe expanded during that time period. There also are several candidate theories to explain exactly what caused the intense inflationary period, the leading theory having to do with Higgs fields.

Why don't you guys use the quote-reply format anymore? I have no idea who the **** you're replying to.

 

[ballin4life]

Because causality.

What is causality?

Please distinguish between necessary cause and sufficient cause in your answer.

By the way, I'm not trying to make an argument here. I'm honestly curious as I don't understand what people mean when they use the word. And yes I have read the Wikipedia article, but it is overly general and difficult for me to understand.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Edit: Never mind. Point already made.

 

[Theftz22]

Recently I've been looking into arguments designed to mirror theistic arguments while reaching some atheistic conclusion, such as the non-existence of god or the self-necessity of the universe. They try to use many of the premises of the original theistic argument in reaching their conclusion, designed to make the theist give up that premise to avoid the conclusion. At least one of them is not sound, but I think they are all interesting regardless. Tell me what you think.

Contingency

Atheistic Argument from Contingency

1. If C1 is the cause of some effect E1, then C1 necessitates E1 (a cause produces its effect, that it what makes it the cause of its effect).
2. So every possible world in which C1 obtains is a world in which E1 obtains. [From 1]
3. So the modal status of a cause C1 of some effect E1 must be equivalent to, or less than, the modal status of its effect E1. For suppose that C1 is contingent, so that it obtains in at least one possible world – then E1 also obtains in that world and is therefore at least contingent. Suppose that C1 is necessary, that it obtains in every possible world – then E1 also obtains in each of those worlds and is necessary. Of course, if C1 is impossible, than the modal status of C1 cannot but be equivalent or greater than that of C1. [From 2]
4. The universe is contingent.
5. So the modal status of any cause of the universe is either contingent or impossible. [From 3 and 4]
6. An impossible cause would be absurd.
7. So the modal status of any cause of the universe is contingent. [From 5 and 6]
8. God is a necessary being.
9. So God is not the cause of the universe. [From 7 and 8]

Citation: An Atheistic Argument from Contingency, by Dace

New Atheistic Argument from Contingency

1. God created the universe (hypothesis).
2. If God created the universe, then he had (sufficient) reason for performing this action.
3. A reason for action is a combination of beliefs and desires – for one to have a reason to act requires that one have beliefs about how reality is, to believe that a particular action would be efficacious in transforming that reality, and to have desires that reality be changed in accordance with that action.
4. So God created the universe because of the beliefs and desires that he had when he chose to create the universe.
5. God is essentially omniscient – that is, in any possible world where God exists, he knows all the truths of that world, and of all possible worlds. He believes all and only those truths.
6. God is essentially omnibenevolent – that is, in any possible world where God exists, he desires the good and only the good.
7. So, for any two possible worlds W1 and W2, if they both contain God, then God has the same beliefs and desires in W1 and W2.
8. God is a necessary being – that is, he exists in all possible worlds.
9. So in every possible world, God has the same beliefs and desires.
10. So in every possible world, God has the same reasons for action.
11. Then in every possible world, God creates the universe.
12. So the universe is a necessary object.
13. But the universe is a contingent object.
14. Therefore, contrary to 1, God did not create the universe.

Citation: Also by Dace on same link.

Kalam

The Kalam Argument Against God

P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing.
P2: Given (1), Anything which begins to exist was not caused to do so by something which exists.
P3: The universe began to exist.
P4: Given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.
P5: God caused the universe to begin to exist.
C1: Given (4) and (5), God does not exist.

Citation: I "Kalam" Like I See 'Em, by TheoreticalBull****

Fine-Tuning

Theistic Argument Against Fine-Tuning

1. If theism is true, then divine causation obtains the combination of physical constants which is necessarily capable of sustaining life.
2. If divine causation obtains the combination of physical constants which is necessarily capable of sustaining life, then all facts of the universe are contingent upon God's act of creation.
3. If theism is true, then life can arise under any possible physical condition. (from 1 and 2)
4. If theism is true, then fine-tuning is invalid. (from 3)

Citation: Iron Chariots on the Fine-Tuning argument, summarizing an argument by Bertrand Russel. I recommend reading the part above the formal syllogism to better understand the argument.

Ontological

Gasking's Proof

1. The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement.
4. The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Citation: Philosopher Douglas Gasking

Ontological Argument for the Non-Existence of God

1. God is the greatest being conceivable.
2. Non-existence is greater than existence.
3. Therefore god does not exist.

I just made this one up to play off the theme of the subjectivity of greatness.

 

[ballin4life]

Why is the universe contingent?

This is one of the mistakes I find in a lot of these "proofs by contradiction". Once a contradiction arises, you know that at least one of your premises is incorrect. Often people jump straight to the one they want to point it out as the offender. But it seems to me that the problem in the first two is the assumption that the universe is contingent. Obviously, if God is necessary then the universe is too.

 

[Dre89]

Uh C1 doesn't necessitate E1. E1 necessitates C1, which changes/undermines the argument. A chicken does not necessitate an egg it lays, but the existence of the egg necessitates the chicken that laid it.

 

[ballin4life]

Uh C1 doesn't necessitate E1. E1 necessitates C1, which changes/undermines the argument. A chicken does not necessitate an egg it lays, but the existence of the egg necessitates the chicken that laid it.

C1 is a sufficient cause, not a necessary cause. In every world where C1 occurs, E1 occurs as well.

 

[Theftz22]

Why is the universe contingent?

This is one of the mistakes I find in a lot of these "proofs by contradiction". Once a contradiction arises, you know that at least one of your premises is incorrect. Often people jump straight to the one they want to point it out as the offender. But it seems to me that the problem in the first two is the assumption that the universe is contingent. Obviously, if God is necessary then the universe is too.

Remember what these arguments are meant to do, the point is not that an atheist would think they are sound, but that a theist would have to reject a premise of his own to deny the conclusion. And if you get the theist to admit the universe is necessary, there goes the Argument from Contingency.

 

[Dre89]

C1 is a sufficient cause, not a necessary cause. In every world where C1 occurs, E1 occurs as well.

In every world there is a chicken an egg doesn't have to follow...

 

[Nicholas1024]

Yeah, the atheist argument from contingency fails at the assumption that God MUST create the universe. You see, you're assuming that every reality will be the same, and therefore God will act the same in each reality. However, that doesn't have to be so. You see, God gave the angels (who also exist outside of the merely physical universe) free will, and depending on their behavior, creating the universe may not be the optimal course of action.

 

[ballin4life]

In every world there is a chicken an egg doesn't have to follow...

Yes, that's why a chicken is a necessary cause, not a sufficient cause. The argument refers to sufficient causes only.

Yeah, the atheist argument from contingency fails at the assumption that God MUST create the universe. You see, you're assuming that every reality will be the same, and therefore God will act the same in each reality. However, that doesn't have to be so. You see, God gave the angels (who also exist outside of the merely physical universe) free will, and depending on their behavior, creating the universe may not be the optimal course of action.

If God is necessary, then his properties are fixed. If his properties are fixed, then any actions he takes must be necessary actions, and thus the creation of the universe must be necessary as well.

 

[Namaste]

Yeah, the atheist argument from contingency fails at the assumption that God MUST create the universe. You see, you're assuming that every reality will be the same, and therefore God will act the same in each reality. However, that doesn't have to be so. You see, God gave the angels (who also exist outside of the merely physical universe) free will, and depending on their behavior, creating the universe may not be the optimal course of action.

Do you mean "realities" as a way to describe Universes? Because the main definition of that would be everything that can effect it. It basically rules out different universes from having a causal effect in another.

 

[Dre89]

God's creation of the universe is not necessary.

That's the problem with deism, creation becomes necessary.

This is why philosohically it makes sense to attribute a will to the first cause, because creation must be contingent. The first cause must freely choose to create.

That's where the idea of a personal God in philisophy comes from, the idea that the first cause must freely choose to create.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't see how a necessary being can have anything but fixed properties. God is necessary for ANY possible universe, yet he will make different choices in each possible universe? How is it the same being then?

Also, this seems to completely destroy the fine tuning stuff, since what are the chances that we happened to get the one where God is being nice and making a livable universe?

Also why is it the case that "creation must be contingent"?

 

[Dre89]

A fixed property of the necessary first cause is that it has a will. This means it freely chose to create, making creation contingent, because it didn't need to be created.

The first cause could not have created the universe out of necessity, because that would be assigning the FC a prior purpose.

 

[ballin4life]

A fixed property of the necessary first cause is that it has a will. This means it freely chose to create, making creation contingent, because it didn't need to be created.

The first cause could not have created the universe out of necessity, because that would be assigning the FC a prior purpose.

That doesn't make sense. For one, HOW is it necessary that the first cause has a will?

And how is it assigning the first cause a prior purpose if it necessarily creates the universe?

 

[Dre89]

The will is a necessary property because creation would need to be contingent.

Creation needs to be contingent because it being necessary ascribes the FC a prior purpose. This is because if it is necessary for something to do something, that necessity is ascribed prior to its existence.

For example the necessary traits of a human are skin, a brain etc. which a person has no control over, a person couldn't choose not be human before they existed. It's pretty straight forward.

 

[ballin4life]

I'm not seeing how this human example relates.

Why can't a necessary trait of God be "creates the universe"? In fact, isn't this the BASIS for your entire argument about God?

You just throw out words like "purpose" without telling me what they mean. Let's say God always creates the universe, so G=>U. How does this give God a "prior purpose"? What does that mean? Why can't a necessary being have a purpose?

Also what is the probability that God decides to create the universe?

 

[Dre89]

The probability of an intellect creating the universe is greater than it coming about by chance.

If it is necessary that God creates the universe that means God would be designed to create the universe. It requires that a separate existence (creation) be necessary for Him to fulfill His role, making Him no longer self-necessary.

If He necessarily has to do something, then He has a specific structure, like how a coffe machine is structured to make coffee. But anything with a specific structure can't be the FC because any complexity
necessitates a prior truth, that's how we arrived at God in the first place.

 

[ballin4life]

The probability of an intellect creating the universe is greater than it coming about by chance.

I don't see why this is the case.

If it is necessary that God creates the universe that means God would be designed to create the universe. It requires that a separate existence (creation) be necessary for Him to fulfill His role, making Him no longer self-necessary.

Creation isn't an existence, it's a process or action.

If He necessarily has to do something, then He has a specific structure, like how a coffe machine is structured to make coffee. But anything with a specific structure can't be the FC because any complexity
necessitates a prior truth, that's how we arrived at God in the first place.

But isn't your definition of God predicated on his creation of the universe. To say that God could choose to not do that takes away the only structure that you have assigned.

 

[rvkevin]

The probability of an intellect creating the universe is greater than it coming about by chance.

I'm curious as to how you figured out the inputs that allow you to make this conclusion. What is the probability of God? What is the probability of a universe given God? What is the probability of a universe given atheism? What is the probability of a universe? In order to make the above claim, you must have answered the above questions. I simply ask that you show your work and to defend the values that you chose. Due to your unwillingness to be transparent, I think its evident by now that this is nothing more than an assertion with no evidence to back it up.

 

[Dre89]

Ballin4death- My argument is predicated on the fact that the universe necessitates a specific type of cause. The act of creation must have necessarily been unecessary, otherwise the creator requires a creator, and it would regress infinitely.

Rv- I'm not using that as an argument for God, I realise there are other variables that need to be taken into consideration. I'm just saying it's more probable that a complex structure was created by a mind rather than by chance.

 

[rvkevin]

Rv- I'm not using that as an argument for God, I realize there are other variables that need to be taken into consideration. I'm just saying it's more probable that a complex structure was created by a mind rather than by chance.

I understand that you are not arguing for God, but you are asserting conclusions that rely on hidden premises. I am simply asking you to reveal the method you used for calculating the values that your claim is based on. I think the main contention that needs to be defended is P(G&U)>P(C&U), where G=God, deistic or otherwise, U=universe as we observe, C=Chance, all naturalistic hypotheses, M-theory, multi-verse, etc., and &=intersection. How are you deciding these values? Are you using logical possibilities or some other method? This would need to be answered if you want to make the claim P(G|U)>P(C|U). If I have misinterpreted what you mean, please formulate it so it is more clear.

 

[Dre89]

So if I say that if I walk into a wall, it's more probable that I hit it, rather than walk through it, do I need to demonstrate my calculations for that as well?

 

[Reaver197]

That's a pretty disingenuous comparison.

Not only do you have the whole of human experience to verify and back up the solidity of walls, it is one that is relatively easy to explain and calculate.

Unlike the "start" of the universe, where no experience or definite calculations have been made. So, putting a claim to the probabilities of such an event would need some very good explaining for what you are even using to calculate the probabilities in the first place.

 

[rvkevin]

So if I say that if I walk into a wall, it's more probable that I hit it, rather than walk through it, do I need to demonstrate my calculations for that as well?

We use a different methodology the evaluate the claim that its more probable that you can't walk through a wall. We're using the observed frequency of all the past attempts. This can't be done with the universe since we have a sample size of one, the origin of which is still disputed so using that as a point of agreement would be begging the question. Even if we knew that this universe was created by a god, we still wouldn't be able to claim with confidence that it is more likely since the error bars would be so large. To make the scenario fit, we would have to look at all the different universes and see which ones were made by a god and which one's weren't, something that we are unable to do. Since the methodologies are not the same, the analogy falls apart.

 

[Dre89]

But I explained that I'm not using it as an argument for God, I acknowledged that there are other factors that need to be considered. I just said it's more probable that a complex structure be designed by a mind than come about by chance.