The Cosmological Argument: A Debate [Archive]

Esponer

06-03-2007, 02:28 PM

The Cosmological Argument: A Debate

Preface: Philosophical debates regarding the existence of gods very often call upon the cosmological argument, but very rarely have the focus to directly analyse this argument's merits and failures. I would like to propose this thread for all discussion of the argument in all its forms.

Introduction: The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a first cause or first mover. By extension, the argument is used to prove the existence of gods, but it is rarely claimed to be sufficient to prove one specific conception of a god (such as the Abrahamic god of classical theism in any form). A simple and naïve expression of the argument is, "Something must have caused the universe to exist, and so there must have been a first cause, which is God".

There are many formulations of the cosmological argument, including Plato's, Aristotle's, three of St. Aquinas's Five Ways, Leibniz's and the Kalam argument. Equally, many philosophers have posed responses to the argument. Insofar as it is possible, I would like to keep Latin phrases and philosophers out of this discussion so that nobody is excluded from the discussion.

_____________________________

Rules of Discussion: There should be no appeals to popularity or authority, and no personal arguments. There should be no appeals to logical fallacies — if you notice a fallacy, explain the error in judgement and keep Latin phrases and even the word "fallacy" out of it.

I would appreciate it if the discussion strictly kept on topic. This is not for the design argument, or the argument by beauty, nor for the ontological argument or discussion of miracles. Those who are theistic for reasons other than the cosmological argument should not feel the need to defend themselves here, nor should anyone provoke such.

If the response to this thread is overwhelming support for one interpretation of the argument (that it succeeds or fails), I'll try to take the other stance, and others should feel free to do so. The poll exists to judge the demographics of readers. If this thread falls off the first page, I'd tentatively ask that everyone feel free to post in it anyway — especially if you have a new idea or want to defend an unpopular position.

Don't feel the need to read about the cosmological argument deeply beforehand or to use the arguments of other philosophers. If you want to, then sure, but you can make your own arguments too. Make sure you know what the argument is, at least.

Keep it civil, and try your best to include everyone — if you want to tackle Leibniz's theories of sufficient reason, summarise them for everyone first.

Does anyone want to get this started with some introductory definitions and arguments, or shall I start in a few hours?

The Juggernaut

06-03-2007, 04:21 PM

The Simple Cosmological Argument

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

mislead

06-03-2007, 05:59 PM

So I assume this is an attempt to showcase the argument itself, and not an actual debate, right? I can go along with that.

Let's see now...

1. "Something must have caused the universe to exist" - As I understand it, an assumption of causality is made here; "Everything has a cause, and therefore, the universe coming into existence also has a cause.". However, one would have to prove causality before attempting to use it to construct an argument.

2. "First cause" somehow presumes, that while causality applies to the universe itself, it doesn't apply to the "first cause", which, by definition, has nothing preceeding it. It's not that difficult to imagine an infinite string of cause -> effect relationships spanning backwards in time, or even a circular one. Furthermore, if we can stomach that a certain entity (God) has no cause, then why not have the Big Bang as the causeless event? Ockham's Razor would definitely dictate dropping the seemingly unnecessary God and stopping at the unavoidable Big Bang.

3. Even if we can agree that there is a "first cause", we cannot really state anything about it's properties with any degree of certainity. Particularly, nothing suggests that the "first cause" would posess intelligence or self - consciousness, which appear necessary if one wants to equate it with the theistic God.

Am I doin' it rite, Esponer? <3

Juubi

06-03-2007, 06:03 PM

The argument works, if both causality can be proven to be an absolute law of existence, and it can be shown that the universe is not a product of something natural.

impersonal

06-03-2007, 06:19 PM

1. (...)

2. (...)

3. (...)

^
What he said

T4R0K

06-03-2007, 06:33 PM

The Simple Cosmological Argument

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) We still don't know that "cause" for sure and with tangible elements. But we can work (you know, with experiments and science ) on finding out, eventually...

Fixed.
Point 4 is where the logical reasoning stops. I don't go to point 5 until I have tangible elements.

Kyon

06-03-2007, 06:44 PM

Fixed.
Point 4 is where the logical reasoning stops. I don't go to point 5 until I have tangible elements.

I find Occam's Razor logical, but I'm not as intelligent as all of you guys, so...

But really, can you say that logical reasoning stops once you accept the possiblity of a higher power? It is a possibility that should at least be explored.

T4R0K

06-03-2007, 06:50 PM

It is a possibility that should at least be explored.

I don't say otherwise. My point is that immediately jumping to the "God" solution without more is rather unwise, thus the need of exploration and research. Maybe my reply was confusing because english is not my native language.

Seelas

06-03-2007, 07:01 PM

The two major problems that I see with the cosmological argument:

1) That the cause of the universe must necessarily be God. That is, frankly, a pretty crazy and unjustified step to take. All that the first three steps lead is to is the conclusion that there must have been some universe-causing element, but they say nothing about the nature of this element - whether or not it is sentient, to be worshipped, etc. It does seem to be the case that this universe-causing element is beyond our understanding, but "an as-of-yet made scientific discovery" fits that criterion just as well as God does.

2) Viewing the succession of events of the universe in terms of a "first cause" may commit the fallacy of composition. For any particular event that happens, we can trace back a seemingly infinitely long chain events that led to its happening. But just because every one of those particular events needs a cause, does not imply that the chain of events as a whole (the whole of being) requires a cause. If I were to say that everyone in a classroom weighed less than 300 pounds, it would be an egregious leap to say that the classroom as a whole weighed less than 300 pounds. Likewise, just because particular pieces of the universe are viewed in terms of causality, that doesn't imply that causality applies to the universe as a whole.

Marl

06-03-2007, 07:15 PM

Forgive me if I commit a gross error in reasoning below. If I do, please, for God's sake (irony?) correct me.

As I understand it, the cosmological argument is based on the premise that everything that exists was brought into existence (caused) by something else. Following from this, "something" must have created the Universe - God.

If this is the case, what caused God? If God has a cause, then one could argue that he did not create the universe: Whatever preceded God did, because without this God could not have existed, thus implying there is something more fundamental to the universe's existence than God. If this is not the case, then why invoke God at all? Rather than saying "God created the big bang which created the universe", why not simply stop at "the big bang created the universe"?

Upon further inspection, I've basically parroted what Mislead said in his second point, but in my own words. Go me.

mislead

06-03-2007, 07:18 PM

*waits for Esponer to come, and argue in favor of the argument, just like he promised*

Marl

06-03-2007, 07:22 PM

I'll have a go.

In defence of the argument:

Presumably, something with the ability to create the universe would not be bound by the restrictions of the universe being created (because the universe didn't exist yet, and so could not restrict it. Whee, circular logic!). As such, could one not say that causality is a 'restriction' of the universe, and therefore would not apply to whatever force created it?

Holes in my own argument: Excessive use of the words "presumably" and "could". I'll leave you to find the rest. ^^

The Juggernaut

06-03-2007, 07:39 PM

AestheticizeAnalog

06-03-2007, 08:24 PM

My only problem with this argument is the assumptions inherent in the 4th step of the proof. If The assumption of God was removed from the 4th step like T4ROC did then it allows for the Big Bang theory in conjunction with Quantum physics to be considered. This interestingly enough would eliminate the need for a first cause since at sub atomic levels (smaller than 1.6 × 10−35 meters) causality falls apart.

I think another question that this proof ignores that Mislead mentioned is that of causality. Causality is a way of explaining the way certain actions lead to other actions. However, the way that we are made aware of these actions is not through reality and these actions in and of themselves, but through perception. So we can only see that causality occurs in the realm of human perception. If we try to enter the realm of objective reality, we must make a large assumption and say that people can perceive reality for what it is. If we can verify this assumption on a basis other than human evidence and thus provide evidence for perceiving reality objectively than a greater case for causality can be made.

The Juggernaut

06-03-2007, 09:13 PM

I think another question that this proof ignores that Mislead mentioned is that of causality. Causality is a way of explaining the way certain actions lead to other actions. However, the way that we are made aware of these actions is not through reality and these actions in and of themselves, but through perception. So we can only see that causality occurs in the realm of human perception. If we try to enter the realm of objective reality, we must make a large assumption and say that people can perceive reality for what it is. If we can verify this assumption on a basis other than human evidence and thus provide evidence for perceiving reality objectively than a greater case for causality can be made.

I think what your stating if im not mistaken is Kant's concept of the Noominal realm which is the realm that everything exist in before we experience it and the phenomenal which is the realm of experience. If this is what you mean than we can never perceive something in and of itself within the noominal realm because by perceiving something it is changed and becomes part of the phenomenal realm.

AestheticizeAnalog

06-03-2007, 09:30 PM

I think what your stating if im not mistaken is Kant's concept of the Noominal realm which is the realm that everything exist in before we experience it and the phenomenal which is the realm of experience. If this is what you mean than we can never perceive something in and of itself within the noominal realm because by perceiving something it is changed and becomes part of the phenomenal realm.

Yes, I was. Even before I read Kant's metaphysics, I essentially thought the same thing as him. I did not try to steal his ideas, just something we have in common. Nuomena is a fun word to say.

The Juggernaut

06-03-2007, 09:37 PM

Yes, I was. Even before I read Kant's metaphysics, I essentially thought the same thing as him. I did not try to steal his ideas, just something we have in common. Nuomena is a fun word to say.
O okay, I wasn't implying you were stealing his ideas i just wasn't sure if thats what you meant. And i can never figure out how to spell that word lol.

mislead

06-03-2007, 09:43 PM

Esponer

06-03-2007, 09:46 PM

As mislead wishes, I shall do what I can to support the cosmological argument. Note that I believe the argument is a failure, so this is at best simply requiring everyone else to be more careful with their criticisms, or to consider new ideas. I'll begin by expressing the argument in my own way, and then respond to the criticisms made so far.

an intergallactic immortal penguin did it

1. It is an innate truth that phenomena have causes.

Every phenomenon we experience can be shown to be caused by an event or a series of events. This is an undeniable, innate truth which conscious minds inherently accept. It has never occurred that we have perceived some phenomenon whose properties are without cause: the sharp, arbitrary shards of an egg shell inherently suggest to us an event which led the egg shell to be in that form; a child's distress inherently suggests to us that some event caused distress to the child. While there may be a phenomenon whose cause is not immediately apparent, conscious minds accept that some system of causes does explain the state of affairs. This is a basic belief; it is a self-evident axiom.

2. Phenomena are not discrete entities, and are instead combinations of other phenomena whose causes are explained by the cause of the entire group.

However, phenomena we perceive are not discrete entities. We perceive a hairbrush as a phenomenon and so suspect causes explaining its properties, and yet a hairbrush is also the sum of its bristles and its handle. A body of water is a phenomenon, and so we are instinctively led to require appropriate causes, and yet every individual water molecule is a phenomenon itself. We therefore see that just as one small phenomenon has a cause, any grouping of itself and other phenomena also requires a cause. Further, the cause of the grouping contains within it the cause of the phenomenon in question — the precise temperature at which some body of water rests in a road side is explained by some cause, and that cause necessarily also explains the precise temperature of one arbitrarily chosen water molecule within the body.

3. The entire universe over all time is therefore a phenomenon whose cause explains the causes of all phenomena within, and requires a cause.

Therefore, the entire universe can be considered a phenomenon, and its cause contains within it the cause for all other phenomena. Here the universe includes all phenomena we perceive or could perceive, and all causes which interlink these, over all time. Then, from innate conscious expectation, we should expect the universe to have been caused by an event which explains its properties. However, there can be no such event as we have already included every event and every phemonenon: there is no event remaining to cause the universe.

4. This is satisfied only by a cause outside of the universe which cannot be perceived. It is outside of the universe, and so we have no empirical evidence requiring of it a cause.

The only means to satisfy this difficulty is for there to be an event which is in itself not within the universe (and so not a phenomenon we perceive or could perceive over all time). This is free to be the cause explaining the phenomenon of the universe. Does this cause then require a cause itself? We have an innate idea that all phenomenon we experience can be shown to be caused by any event, yet this first cause is not perceivable by definition, and so we have no reason to require a cause of it as we have no empirical evidence suggesting such a transcendant phenomenon requires cause.

There is, therefore, a transcendant first cause to the universe which explains its state of affairs. Further, the universe is a phenomenon defined for all time such that time is merely another measure of extent, and so the first cause explains the universe's state of affairs for all time.

This transcendant first cause we choose to denote with the word god. This proof demonstrates its existence and that it caused the universe, but fails to require of god sentience. This is, as it should always be, not the realm of the cosmological argument. Rather, the teleological argument should now attempt to demonstrate that it is implausible that the first cause was not itself intelligent.

There are several points of note, firstly that many properties assigned to God are satisfied, but require unusual thought. Omnipotence is irrelevant in the ordinary sense, as power suggests the ability to bring change in the universe, which in turn suggests that one is limited by time. God is not limited by time — he is not within time — and so is neither omnipotent nor has any power, but remains the cause of all states of affairs. Omniscience comes immediately once the teleological argument succeeds at requiring sentience, and transcendance comes from definition.

Objections
The first cause has been arrived at by reasoning, and it is certainly not synonymous with any specific gods of theology. The aim of the argument is to create one half of an omnipotent, omniscient deity — the second half must be complete in a teleological argument. The step in this argument from "first cause" to "god" is flawless simply because the latter word is defined as the former: this argument does not even demand sentience. Therefore, Seelas's first criticism holds no weight.

To deny that the universe is a phenomenon as described with respect to the innate truth of causation requires that all phenomena be discrete, which is clearly not true. It follows from induction that the largest grouping of phenomenon obeys the same empirical law as all other phenomena. Therefore, Seelas's second criticism holds no weight.

No cause for god is required because god is not an element in the set for which we have empirical data suggesting, and an innate concept for, causation. An infinite chain of regression is irrelevant by how we composed the universe as a phenomenon, rather than attempting a journey backwards in time tracing causes. The Big Bang, or any other phenomenon which we suppose, is not adequate as a cause of the universe, as it is a sub-phenomenon of the universe, and so can no more cause the universe than I can lift myself into the air with the strength of my arms. (However, until we prove that god must be sentient with a teleological argument, there is little meaningful difference between the god we have arrived at and the Big Bang.) mislead's and Marl's criticisms therefore hold no weight.

Points of Note
Were I some theistic philosopher, I would present this as a companion argument to a formulation of the teleological argument. If both were successful, a final (fairly trivial) proof would take the necessary steps left to prove something similar to the god of classical theism. Some careful rhetoric would be required to give the appearance of requiring omnibenevolence. Also, were I some theistic philosopher, I would recognise that I need a few long books justifying the innate truth the entire argument hinges upon with copious rhetoric and appeals to experience. The journey would almost certainly require a lot of work in epistemology.

The entire thing is bullshit. But have fun!

AestheticizeAnalog

06-03-2007, 09:48 PM

Guys, Esponer is going to spank you for bringing up Kant when he comes back.

On a related note, even if we assume that objective reality is directly observable, it's still impossible to prove causality empirically, because we'd have to use induction to do so, and to use induction we need to assume causality. There, I've just managed to rape Hume's argument and avoid mentioning his name. Yeah.

Does Esponer just hate Kant? Or is it more of a matter of not bringing up ideas of other philosophers because Hume's argument is equally valid. So in that case I should not be spanked on the basis of hate for one philosopher over another. That would not be fair :P.

The Juggernaut

06-03-2007, 09:53 PM

yeah being spanked doesn't sound to fun, just like philosophy thats all.

Esponer

06-03-2007, 09:55 PM

Does Esponer just hate Kant? Or is it more of a matter of not bringing up ideas of other philosophers because Hume's argument is equally valid. So in that case I should not be spanked on the basis of hate for one philosopher over another. That would not be fair.
I was just hoping to keep philosophers out of this, so that nobody would be excluded. It's also a good idea because I come very close to worshipping the ground Hume walks on, and might just get incoherent if people start naming him and criticising him. Criticising his ideas is fine, but don't remind me they're his!

mislead

06-03-2007, 10:06 PM

As mislead wishes, I shall do what I can to support the cosmological argument. Note that I believe the argument is a failure, so this is at best simply requiring everyone else to be more careful with their criticisms, or to consider new ideas. I'll begin by expressing the argument in my own way, and then respond to the criticisms made so far.

1. It is an innate truth that phenomena have causes.

Every phenomenon we experience can be shown to be caused by an event or a series of events. This is an undeniable, innate truth which conscious minds inherently accept. It has never occurred that we have perceived some phenomenon whose properties are without cause: the sharp, arbitrary shards of an egg shell inherently suggest to us an event which led the egg shell to be in that form; a child's distress inherently suggests to us that some event caused distress to the child. While there may be a phenomenon whose cause is not immediately apparent, conscious minds accept that some system of causes does explain the state of affairs. This is a basic belief; it is a self-evident axiom.

2. Phenomena are not discrete entities, and are instead combinations of other phenomena whose causes are explained by the cause of the entire group.

However, phenomena we perceive are not discrete entities. We perceive a hairbrush as a phenomenon and so suspect causes explaining its properties, and yet a hairbrush is also the sum of its bristles and its handle. A body of water is a phenomenon, and so we are instinctively led to require appropriate causes, and yet every individual water molecule is a phenomenon itself. We therefore see that just as one small phenomenon has a cause, any grouping of itself and other phenomena also requires a cause. Further, the cause of the grouping contains within it the cause of the phenomenon in question — the precise temperature at which some body of water rests in a road side is explained by some cause, and that cause necessarily also explains the precise temperature of one arbitrarily chosen water molecule within the body.

3. The entire universe over all time is therefore a phenomenon whose cause explains the causes of all phenomena within, and requires a cause.

Therefore, the entire universe can be considered a phenomenon, and its cause contains within it the cause for all other phenomena. Here the universe includes all phenomena we perceive or could perceive, and all causes which interlink these, over all time. Then, from innate conscious expectation, we should expect the universe to have been caused by an event which explains its properties. However, there can be no such event as we have already included every event and every phemonenon: there is no event remaining to cause the universe.

4. This is satisfied only by a cause outside of the universe which cannot be perceived. It is outside of the universe, and so we have no empirical evidence requiring of it a cause.

The only means to satisfy this difficulty is for there to be an event which is in itself not within the universe (and so not a phenomenon we perceive or could perceive over all time). This is free to be the cause explaining the phenomenon of the universe. Does this cause then require a cause itself? We have an innate idea that all phenomenon we experience can be shown to be caused by any event, yet this first cause is not perceivable by definition, and so we have no reason to require a cause of it as we have no empirical evidence suggesting such a transcendant phenomenon requires cause.

There is, therefore, a transcendant first cause to the universe which explains its state of affairs. Further, the universe is a phenomenon defined for all time such that time is merely another measure of extent, and so the first cause explains the universe's state of affairs for all time.

This transcendant first cause we choose to denote with the word god. This proof demonstrates its existence and that it caused the universe, but fails to require of god sentience. This is, as it should always be, not the realm of the cosmological argument. Rather, the teleological argument should now attempt to demonstrate that it is implausible that the first cause was not itself intelligent.

There are several points of note, firstly that many properties assigned to God are satisfied, but require unusual thought. Omnipotence is irrelevant in the ordinary sense, as power suggests the ability to bring change in the universe, which in turn suggests that one is limited by time. God is not limited by time — he is not within time — and so is neither omnipotent nor has any power, but remains the cause of all states of affairs. Omniscience comes immediately once the teleological argument succeeds at requiring sentience, and transcendance comes from definition.

Objections
The first cause has been arrived at by reasoning, and it is certainly not synonymous with any specific gods of theology. The aim of the argument is to create one half of an omnipotent, omniscient deity — the second half must be complete in a teleological argument. The step in this argument from "first cause" to "god" is flawless simply because the latter word is defined as the former: this argument does not even demand sentience. Therefore, Seelas's first criticism holds no weight.

To deny that the universe is a phenomenon as described with respect to the innate truth of causation requires that all phenomena be discrete, which is clearly not true. It follows from induction that the largest grouping of phenomenon obeys the same empirical law as all other phenomena. Therefore, Seelas's second criticism holds no weight.

No cause for god is required because god is not an element in the set for which we have empirical data suggesting, and an innate concept for, causation. An infinite chain of regression is irrelevant by how we composed the universe as a phenomenon, rather than attempting a journey backwards in time tracing causes. The Big Bang, or any other phenomenon which we suppose, is not adequate as a cause of the universe, as it is a sub-phenomenon of the universe, and so can no more cause the universe than I can lift myself into the air with the strength of my arms. (However, until we prove that god must be sentient with a teleological argument, there is little meaningful difference between the god we have arrived at and the Big Bang.) mislead's and Marl's criticisms therefore hold no weight.

Points of Note
Were I some theistic philosopher, I would present this as a companion argument to a formulation of the teleological argument. If both were successful, a final (fairly trivial) proof would take the necessary steps left to prove something similar to the god of classical theism. Some careful rhetoric would be required to give the appearance of requiring omnibenevolence. Also, were I some theistic philosopher, I would recognise that I need a few long books justifying the innate truth the entire argument hinges upon with copious rhetoric and appeals to experience. The journey would almost certainly require a lot of work in epistemology.

The entire thing is bullshit. But have fun!

A truly beautiful application of false analogies and term bending. Deserves rep and a special place in my heart.

Will deconstruct it later if nobody manages to do it up to that time. Must sleep now.

Tokoyami

06-04-2007, 02:39 AM

Sigh.....I have a book somewhere in here that completley and utterly destroys the first mover and first cause.....Now I just have to find it....

AbnormallyNormal

06-04-2007, 04:51 AM

i dont think you can really understand the idea of causation beyond a certain point and i would say before the origins of the physical universe qualifies as that point

mislead

06-04-2007, 08:53 AM

Mkay, time to end this farce. Actually, I'm impressed by how well the real principle behind this argument is hidden. It's definitely better than anything I could've managed.

1. It is an innate truth that phenomena have causes.

Every phenomenon we experience can be shown to be caused by an event or a series of events. This is an undeniable, innate truth which conscious minds inherently accept. It has never occurred that we have perceived some phenomenon whose properties are without cause: the sharp, arbitrary shards of an egg shell inherently suggest to us an event which led the egg shell to be in that form; a child's distress inherently suggests to us that some event caused distress to the child. While there may be a phenomenon whose cause is not immediately apparent, conscious minds accept that some system of causes does explain the state of affairs. This is a basic belief; it is a self-evident axiom.

Okay, I'll let this be, with one little comment. What has been shown here, is that each perceivable (to adopt the terminology of the proof) phenomenon also posesses a perceivable cause.

2. Phenomena are not discrete entities, and are instead combinations of other phenomena whose causes are explained by the cause of the entire group.

However, phenomena we perceive are not discrete entities. We perceive a hairbrush as a phenomenon and so suspect causes explaining its properties, and yet a hairbrush is also the sum of its bristles and its handle. A body of water is a phenomenon, and so we are instinctively led to require appropriate causes, and yet every individual water molecule is a phenomenon itself. We therefore see that just as one small phenomenon has a cause, any grouping of itself and other phenomena also requires a cause. Further, the cause of the grouping contains within it the cause of the phenomenon in question — the precise temperature at which some body of water rests in a road side is explained by some cause, and that cause necessarily also explains the precise temperature of one arbitrarily chosen water molecule within the body.

Ok. This is an unnecessarily convoluted explanation of phenomena (why it needs to be so convoluted, becomes apparent in the next section), but I'll aceept it for now. Though I'd like to note that a phenomenon necessarily needs a starting point in time - the cause and effect relationship depends on the cause preceeding the effect, and therefore there must exist a moment when the phenomenon is still nonexistant. Of course, one could argue that we can extend the relationship beyond time, but that would be inconsistent with the first section of the proof.

3. The entire universe over all time is therefore a phenomenon whose cause explains the causes of all phenomena within, and requires a cause.

Therefore, the entire universe can be considered a phenomenon, and its cause contains within it the cause for all other phenomena. Here the universe includes all phenomena we perceive or could perceive, and all causes which interlink these, over all time. Then, from innate conscious expectation, we should expect the universe to have been caused by an event which explains its properties. However, there can be no such event as we have already included every event and every phemonenon: there is no event remaining to cause the universe.

Mmm, and this is where the bullshit comes out of hiding. First off, there's a completely reasonable possibility that the universe is eternal, and stretches back in time infinitely. It would make no sense to attribute a cause to such a universe, because it's impossible for anything to preceed it.

4. This is satisfied only by a cause outside of the universe which cannot be perceived. It is outside of the universe, and so we have no empirical evidence requiring of it a cause.

The only means to satisfy this difficulty is for there to be an event which is in itself not within the universe (and so not a phenomenon we perceive or could perceive over all time). This is free to be the cause explaining the phenomenon of the universe. Does this cause then require a cause itself? We have an innate idea that all phenomenon we experience can be shown to be caused by any event, yet this first cause is not perceivable by definition, and so we have no reason to require a cause of it as we have no empirical evidence suggesting such a transcendant phenomenon requires cause.

There is, therefore, a transcendant first cause to the universe which explains its state of affairs. Further, the universe is a phenomenon defined for all time such that time is merely another measure of extent, and so the first cause explains the universe's state of affairs for all time.

This is an unwarranted extension of the established principle of causality. While it's natural to expect a cause for every perceivable event, all the causes we can experience are also perceivable. The assertion that perceivable events can have unperceivable causes isn't obvious, and would require proof; furthermore, since the universe cannot have a perceivable cause, it seems equally reasonable that it has no cause at all. Since we cannot distinguish between "no cause at all" and "unperceivable cause", Ockham's Razor yet again dictates that we drop unperceivable causes altogether.

There. Anything I've missed?

Fulcata

06-04-2007, 04:34 PM

1. You don't need a reason to enjoy spaghetti.

2. Everything (else) has a cause.

3. Nothing can cause itself.

4. Everything is caused by another thing.

5. A casual chain cannot be of infinite length.

6. There must be a first cause.

7. The first cause had no cause.

8. Spaghetti is the only thing that can have no cause, thus must be the first cause.

impersonal

06-04-2007, 05:21 PM

(...)
The entire thing is bullshit. But have fun!

rofl !
I'll try to address that as completely as I can, anyway. But give me some time.

Edit: I'll just add my comments to what mislead already wrote.

1. It is an innate truth that phenomena have causes.

Every phenomenon we experience can be shown to be caused by an event or a series of events. This is an undeniable, innate truth which conscious minds inherently accept. It has never occurred that we have perceived some phenomenon whose properties are without cause: the sharp, arbitrary shards of an egg shell inherently suggest to us an event which led the egg shell to be in that form; a child's distress inherently suggests to us that some event caused distress to the child. While there may be a phenomenon whose cause is not immediately apparent, conscious minds accept that some system of causes does explain the state of affairs. This is a basic belief; it is a self-evident axiom.
Okay, I'll let this be, with one little comment. What has been shown here, is that each perceivable (to adopt the terminology of the proof) phenomenon also possesses a perceivable cause.
Don't forget quantum mechanics. Many scientists believe that some aspects of the behavior of particles can be explained through probabilities. Saying that is the same as saying that their behavior is partially causeless.

Mislead brought up induction. Induction consists in thinking that an effect is the result of a cause, after seeing repeatedly the same effect coming after from the same cause. As Mislead said, induction is the root of causality. However, the fact that two things always come one after the other doesn't mean that one is the consequence of the other. It could be that the two events were caused by a third one.

Some could object that we understand what is the link between the cause and the consequence. "The friction and shock of the bullet made the apple explode". But let me ask, how do you know that friction and shock make things explode? By induction. In fact, we humans first establish what causes what through induction, and then we put big words on it - scientific laws, etc. In the end, we came up with a big system which became our natural way of thinking; we can't think outside the box anymore. That doesn't mean that there can't be another way of interpreting the world that works well. An interpretation which doesn't rely on causality at all...

I'll try to show what is the limit of our box: imagine that all events were caused by a single cause. For example God. I don't mean that God is the first cause, and that afterwards there is a chain of causality. I mean that God sits up in heaven, and manipulates every single event that we see. He is like the animator of a 3-D movie: he is the one who makes the cigarette touch the oil tank, but he is also the one who creates the explosion. All the relations between the events are just illusions created by our habit of seeing them always going together; but if God had wanted to, perhaps oil would turn to water when it meets fire, and we would find it just as natural.

Now we have eliminated all causes, except for one. Just go a bit further: go from "God causes everything" to "nothing causes anything else". By considering the idea from this angle, you can somewhat approach the idea of a world without causality.

In the end, we only use the cause/consequence scheme because it is a good way to understand an infinitely complex world with a limited processing capacity (our brain). Did you notice something? Yes, I just wrote "because". I don't think the human intellect can really work without the notion of "cause" :(.

[I wanted to discuss all the post, but seeing how it took me hours just to discuss causality, I'm going to stop here for today]

Esponer

06-04-2007, 05:39 PM

Mmm, and this is where the bullshit comes out of hiding. First off, there's a completely reasonable possibility that the universe is eternal, and stretches back in time infinitely. It would make no sense to attribute a cause to such a universe, because it's impossible for anything to preceed it.
We do indeed perceive that the cause of a phenomenon, that is the set of phenomena which completely explain all properties of it, if a set of phenomenon which precede it in our perception of time.

However, an infinite universe does not exclude it from appearing to require a cause. Were we to trace phenomena and their causes forever, we would never be able to insist upon a first cause, but that's not what the argument is doing. There is no reason [!] that the universe itself cannot be treated as a phenomenon as we have described, and so irrespective of time a cause is still required to justify it.

Time is an unique aspect of the universe. That causes precede consequences in time within the universe is irrelevant when we are asked what caused something in which time is wholly contained. I maintain that this cosmological argument is not threatened in this manner by an infinite causal chain, as a cause is still required.

[!] indicates, for me, the flaw of the argument — obviously there is one! It is not valid logic to use the pseudo-proof by induction to treat the universe as a single phenomenon in this manner. Rules can appear to apply to all phenomena, only to prove false for phenomena of a certain type we previously did not consider. For instance, Newtonian mechanics fell apart when we considered phenomena moving at high speeds.

It is unjustified to start talking about a phenomenon unlike any we know and expect it to behave just like all other phenomenon, even if we have some quantitative, inductive manner of scaling up from the ones we know to it (a physicist in Newton's time would seem to be being logical in doubling a particle's velocity and requiring of it four times the energy each time, but while it would seem that he had all ground for a proof by induction that would go on forever, in fact he would lose justification once the speed got fast enough).

…
In response to Fulcata's cosmological argument for the existence of divine spaghetti, I shall betray my own suggestion that we not reference philosophers. Do forgive me, me.

The problem, Fulcata, is that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as a modern day Russell's teapot, is only useful if it is precisely as illogical as the argument it wishes to undermine with a reductio ad absurdum, and not more so. Your cosmological argument fails in this endeavour as it is more illogical than the original cosmological argument, as its first premise is particularly inane.

mislead

06-04-2007, 06:02 PM

I still maintain that it's meaningless to consider timeless causality. You establish causality as a fact of our experience - and within our experience, it is naturally containted within the flow of time. We have never experienced a cause that would exist outside of time, and truly, it is a priori impossible for us to experience such causes. Therefore, extending causality in such a way doesn't correspond to your initial argument in favor of the principle, and needs to be established otherwise.

This is where poor Ockham kicks in again. We cannot perceive a cause that is beyond time, and hence have no information whatsoever about the existence of such causes. Therefore it would be preferable to cut them away altogether.

BTW. This argument rests on fishy redefinition of "phenomenon" and a fallacious extension of causality either way.

Fulcata

06-04-2007, 06:27 PM

In response to Fulcata's cosmological argument for the existence of divine spaghetti, I shall betray my own suggestion that we not reference philosophers. Do forgive me, me.

The problem, Fulcata, is that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as a modern day Russell's teapot, is only useful if it is precisely as illogical as the argument it wishes to undermine with a reductio ad absurdum, and not more so. Your cosmological argument fails in this endeavour as it is more illogical than the original cosmological argument, as its first premise is particularly inane.

Russel's Teapot is very different from the FSM. For one, the Teapot floats between Earth and Mars, while the FSM is everywhere. And to be quite honest, my argument is much more plausible than the original, as they are equally illogical, the difference being the existance of spaghetti is an observable fact. Thusly, according to Ockham's Razor, is more plausible.

impersonal

06-04-2007, 06:40 PM

I still maintain that it's meaningless to consider timeless causality.

Agreed. I don't think anyone can even understand what timeless causality is.

"Well, event A caused event B... That is, first their was event A, and then event B appeared as a result... except B existed at the same time as A..." Nonsense. Time disappears, causality disappears.

Similarly, if you set yourself as exterior to time, if you consider things in a 4-dimensional frame, everything just is "already", so nothing needs to be caused. If you look at a landscape, would you say that the mountains that you see in the back caused the plain that you see in the front? If you could look at the universe from a point of view outside of time, id est if you could see all times and ages "simultaneously", all notion of causality would disappear, because the need to predict and explain would disappear.

(PS: To be completely honest, it might be possible that causality still makes sense in a timeless "environment". How would I know? How would anyone know? This is way too far beyond the realm of experience.)

DemonAbyss10

06-05-2007, 01:46 AM

The Cosmological arguement reminds me of another question, so bear with me in my explanation, as i have no clue of my ideas were mentioned by any philosophers or not. I am also gonna throw in a screwball in a sense, in that i will provide evidence that its the point of view that actually affects how the arguements are interpretted. I will also prove that these arguements can actually be shown in boolean...

the cosmological arguement is the following from what i have gathered...

1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

The question im comparing it to is....

Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?

ok, time to elaborate to what im hinting at. THese are what i call looping questions, you can answer the question either way and you can truly end up right back at the starting point because...

THis is what i call a logical "string" with out a "Point of termination". In essence, its a completely "circular" question.

now, how can i relate the cosmological arguement to the chicken question? think of it like this.

If you think of the chicken question, you can argue it both ways and return to the starting point. Ill show you what i mean.

Agruemnt 1 of the cosmological arguement. (this one is gonna start from the first statement.

1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

The first 2 statements are known facts, but number one is debatable if you dont believe in causality, but ill say this from the path of causality.

since the universe exists it must have a cause of existance. thats the point made in statement three, which logically fits into the first 2 statements, and forms a part of a loop, but an unfinished loop as of this point in the discussion.

If you elaborate that said cause is god, then you "could" make it a point that god exists. Now here comes the mindbended that can easily cause mental breakdowns :p

IF god exists AND everything that exists has a cause of its existance. Then said "GOD" must not be the original "cause" is what i gleaned from the information gathered, and thus, it makes a somewhat logical loop that can continue to be pondered over and over again, with no definitive answer.

ARGUEMENT 2: The cosmological argement... In reverse... with my own twist to the arguement possibly.

1)god exists
2)God is the Cause of the universes existance
3)The universe has a cause of existance.
4)The universe does indeed exist
5)everything that exists has a cause of existance.

This version of it will be a bit harder to follow/explain, and ill try explaining it from 2 point of views.

PoV 1: The devout believer

statement 1 would be a known fact to a devout believer of a various theology. so in thier mind its immediately true. Thus in this PoV it shall be considered true.

statement 2 would also be valid according to the devout believers in most situations if they take thier holy books/believes word for word. Thus in thisPoV it would be considered True.

statement 3 is backed up by statement 2, and in the mind of the devout, putting true and true together = true.

statement 4 just reinforces the notion that since the universe exists, then god must exist

statement 5 can reinforce the devout's belief that god created the universe and everything in it.

(please dont take that whole devout point of view as a rash generalization, i was just using it as an example.)

PoV 2: The firm Athiest

1)god exists
2)God is the Cause of the universes existance
3)The universe has a cause of existance.
4)The universe does indeed exist
5)everything that exists has a cause of existance.

Im just gonna quickly summarize this one.

-IF god exists...
-IF God is the cause of the universe's existance
-IF the universe has a cause of existance
-IF The universe exists
-IF everything that exists has a cause for existing...

this is how the whole structure can be viewed in some peoples eyes. (I tried my best to convert it into questions that can be answered in Boolean.)

Ok remember this isnt in absolutes, its a made up example.

If said athiest deems statement A as False, in that god exists is false, said athiest can go thru and say that statement B is false because god does not exist. If the athiests still believes in causality, then statement C would definitively be true. IF they believe the universe exists is an arguement i would prefer to leave out just to simplify the explanation as much as possible... I just hate dealing with free radical style statements than can pop up and cloud a logic string, but in this case ill assume it exists, so thus it would be deemed true. And since said Athiest in this example would believe firmly in Causality, then statement E would be true. THis in turn can be interpretted as evidence to support theorys such as the big bang.

(yes, the point of views were the screwballs i mentioned earlier at the very beginning.)

In essence the whole arguement can be converted into a boolean equation.

If 1 = True AND
If 2 = True AND
If 3 = True AND
If 4 = True
Then the final outcome must be true

Now for the chicken arguement, and how its similar is that it too can be interpretted as a circular arguement also.

Arguement: Which came first, the chicken or the egg.

1)A chicken hatches from the egg.
2)A chicken created the egg.
3)A chicken came before the egg.

this specific version is just like the cosmic arguement, oh wow ^^. All it means is you can apply the same form of logic to this.

If 1 = true and 2 = true, then the final outcome must be true.

This same thing goes for the other sides arguement if you change the wording of each statement to support the other side.

In fact it all proves a point i made earlier that PoV can litterally make you shape your own world by believing.

Also these arguements cant really hold true if ya go to problems on the subatomic scale where quantnum physics/mechanics govern everything.

so really in essence if you believe in causality these statements "can" hold true, and if your dont believe in Causality, then the statements are on a need not apply basis.

cygnus

06-05-2007, 07:06 AM

Esponer

06-05-2007, 10:06 AM

I'd agree that applying induction to the universe to prove that it can be treated as a phenomenon is the key fault of the argument. However, I don't think I agree with your other point as I think that's covered. I don't really have the energy to debate a faux argument though, and I've discovered something interesting about my argument — everyone I speak to has a different problem with it, and what one person seems to think it a fine step, another thinks it the key fault. It's kinda' funny.

DemonAbyss10

06-05-2007, 01:39 PM

well i posted my arguement up there, and esponer, yours does indeed seem plausible, but there is yet something wrong with it, but i cant exactly name what, as i said it "feels" wrong somehow.

Hope ya understand what i meant there esp

Esponer

06-05-2007, 01:59 PM

Of course I understand. I'm an atheist, I wrote it to give people a little food for thought because it's written in an airy, dense way that's more interesting to tear apart. I don't believe a word of it. ^_^

impersonal

06-05-2007, 03:24 PM

Since I already discussed the two other points in my previous post, I only have to comment one final point.

2. Phenomena are not discrete entities, and are instead combinations of other phenomena whose causes are explained by the cause of the entire group.

However, phenomena we perceive are not discrete entities. We perceive a hairbrush as a phenomenon and so suspect causes explaining its properties, and yet a hairbrush is also the sum of its bristles and its handle. A body of water is a phenomenon, and so we are instinctively led to require appropriate causes, and yet every individual water molecule is a phenomenon itself. We therefore see that just as one small phenomenon has a cause, any grouping of itself and other phenomena also requires a cause. Further, the cause of the grouping contains within it the cause of the phenomenon in question — the precise temperature at which some body of water rests in a road side is explained by some cause, and that cause necessarily also explains the precise temperature of one arbitrarily chosen water molecule within the body.

You say that phenomena are not discrete entities; and I agree with that. But then you seem to be satisfied with saying that phenomena just need to be broken down, up to the point where the new ones are small enough to be called "discrete entities".

So far, people have always thought that an object was "a true discrete entity". It's how we work, us humans - if we didn't somehow believe in discrete entities, how would we be able to talk? We have one word for the sun, one word for a person, one word for an atom... Yet, experience has shown that none of these things are discrete entities. All of them can be broken down.

But there is no reason to think that there are discrete entities at all, in the world of objects or in the world of events. Experience, so far, has shown that every time we thought we had found the discrete entity, the smallest piece of matter or time or whatever, we were wrong. So it is likely that there isn't such a thing as a discrete entity - we just have a natural tendency to look for one because of the way we think.

At this point you might think: "alright, but what does it have to do with my argument?". Well, if discrete entities are mere illusions, what does it say about the causal link - which links to entities, the cause and the consequence?

Once again, we have reached the limits of human understanding. This is not very surprising - after all, the objective of this thread was to prove the existence of God, so it was bound to be very metaphysical. And "metaphysics" is the science of what we cannot, ever, know ^^

PS: tell me if you read and enjoyed/disliked/didn't understand my posts in this thread. I spent a great deal of time writing them, but I understand that they are complicated and I'm afraid nobody really read them :(.

Esponer

06-05-2007, 03:28 PM

DremolitoX

06-05-2007, 03:40 PM

I will only say one thing:

Only an advanced civilization with extensive knowledge of the universe would have a real answer for this. Until then, we shouldn't even try.

mislead

06-05-2007, 04:59 PM

Don't worry Hugo, I sometimes read your posts.

I will only say one thing:

Only an advanced civilization with extensive knowledge of the universe would have a real answer for this. Until then, we shouldn't even try.

Real answer for what? It's not like we're trying to solve a problem, but to test the validity of a certain argument. And it apparently fails quite hard.

impersonal

06-05-2007, 05:36 PM

I'm not convinced that that's a threatening line of thought. Clearly, there are no discrete phenomena, but it is evident that we can randomly put a ring around any area of phenomena, call it a phenomenon and then we find that a cause must explain it. Note that the argument does not suggest you can break down phenomena to get discrete entities, but rather that you can make a larger and larger ring, call it a discrete entity and ask a cause of it.

What legitimizes the big cause is the presence of smaller causes, which accounted for actual discrete entities. If the smaller causes are gone, the bigger cause only exists as an abstraction with no hold on reality.

As you say, "we can make up a larger and larger ring, call it a discrete entity and ask a cause for it". We can do that, much like we can write a book and later interpret it in different ways. But that doesn't mean that our interpretation of the book is true; the only thing that is true is the paper with which the book is made, not the story within it.

Similarly, if we imagine a "ring" and then imagine its relation to another ring, labeling one ring "cause" and the other "consequence", we are interpreting the abstraction that we made up ourselves.

Hugiboo

06-06-2007, 11:10 AM

Esponer

06-06-2007, 11:24 AM

sadated_peon

06-06-2007, 12:00 PM

2) The universe began to exist
Yea, this is where you argument isn’t sound.

The second premise is supported both by astronomy and mathematics. Because of modern astronomy we can be quite confident that the universe (the entire spatial-temporal physical reality) began at a specific moment roughly 15 billion years in the past. According to the astronomers, this can be measured to within a fraction of a second (don't ask me, I'm not an astronomer).
Not really, the problem here what you are describing is the big bang, not much is really know about what happened before the big bang.
It can be that there was no time as we know it before the big bang, to there being other universes before the big bang that collapsed into the singularity.

Secondly, Astronomy gives us the second law of thermodynamics, which states that any closed system tends towards equilibrium. Therefore, the universe cannot have had an infinite past, because it is not currently in a state of equilibrium (which it would have to maintain perpetually if it were to have an infinite past).
Not really either, the second law of thermal dynamics talks about reactions happening over time in the context of our universe as we understand it. It only applies to a macroscopic system, and not applicable in context of no time.

The laws of physics at the time of the big bang, are not as they are now, so applying the laws now to before the big bang is flawed reasoning.

If there truly were an infinite past, then the number of days that have passed is infinite, but every day we add one more, proving that yesterday was not the infinith day.
I don’t think you have quite grasped this concept yet.
There are an infinite number of points between 1 and 2, the existence of 3 doesn’t mean that there is no longer an infinite number of points between 1 and 2.

As infinite isn’t an actual number, so there is no infinite day, because there is not a real number.

mislead

06-06-2007, 01:38 PM

Hi, I found this forum by a recommendation from a friend who thought I would be interested in this discussion. I am a Christian and am familiar with the Cosmological Argument, so I will try to make a case for it.

Hello. Intelligent Christians are always welcome, since this section tends to exhibit a strong "liberal bias", as Rild likes to put it. Atheists freely eat newborns, demolish cemeteries, and generally indulge in all sorts of ill activities.

As for the argument itself:

The first premise is based on what is called the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that for any and every fact, there must be a reason. I will not attempt to prove it because it is a self-evident truth (though I will consider arguments against it).

Uh, how is this different from the principle of causality which we have so painstakingly discussed over the last page? Besides, unlike "causality", which is, to some extent, an objective relationship between physical events, "fact" and "reason" are, for the most part, only mental constructs, and not actual properties of physical reality. It has also been pointed out that while certain laws may apply to some objects, they shouldn't automatically be assumed to apply to all objects, even ones of an entirely different nature. (So, while a form of causality may apply to local events inside the universe, it doesn't necessarily need to apply to the universe as a whole. Not until we actually witness a universe being born, at least.)

This is all assuming that your principle is some version of causality (if it isn't, I don't really see how you can defend it, but that's another thing altogether).

The second premise is supported both by astronomy and mathematics. Because of modern astronomy we can be quite confident that the universe (the entire spatial-temporal physical reality) began at a specific moment roughly 15 billion years in the past. According to the astronomers, this can be measured to within a fraction of a second (don't ask me, I'm not an astronomer).

Actually, that's only the "beginning" in common speech. It's just a point beyond which we cannot see, with our current technology. From a scientific point of view, it's just a time when the structure of the universe was different than what it's like now.

Secondly, Astronomy gives us the second law of thermodynamics, which states that any closed system tends towards equilibrium. Therefore, the universe cannot have had an infinite past, because it is not currently in a state of equilibrium (which it would have to maintain perpetually if it were to have an infinite past).

You're reaally trying to stretch the second law of thermodynamics here. Besides, how do you know that the universe isn't in a state of equilibrium right now, or how do you even define such a state for it? That said, I'll let Esponer handle this, since it's his field of expertise.

More importantly, in mathematics infinity is not a real number, but rather a concept to imply a set without limits. Such a number is not an actual possibility. For this reason, infinity cannot be used in mathematical calculations: infinity minus infinity could equal 0 or any number up to and including infinity. If there truly were an infinite past, then the number of days that have passed is infinite, but every day we add one more, proving that yesterday was not the infinith day.

I'd advise you not to use an argument like this, since the only thing it shows is that you don't really know anything about mathematics past high-school level.

Particularly, "infinity" can be used in calculations in some ways, and these don't lead to contradictions. What youre describing is "potential infinity", which was how the Greeks, and then European mathematicians used the concept, until the works of Cantor, Peano, Zermelo, Fraenkl etc. have started gaining recognition. You can try to read the wikipedia entry on cardinal numbers here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_numbers) for starters.

In context of cardinal number theory, it's "infinity" + 1 = "infinity", and so every day is in fact the "infinith" day. Do take note that I'm using "infinity" as in "any cardinal number greater or equal to http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/e/4/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png". Since days are discrete, you can somewhat imagine the set of days over the universe's lifespan as the set of Integers.

Esponer

06-06-2007, 03:38 PM

As sadated_peon and mislead have already begun discussing Hugiboo's argument, I'll give my thoughts.

Cosmological arguments have three essential components. Hugiboo's argument as it stands is only the first component, the origin argument, which attempts to show that the universe has a cause. The cosmological then requires a terminating argument, which shows that the cause of the universe has no cause, and finally an identification argument, which attributes to the cause of the universe properties such that it can be called god. Each successive argument tends to be weaker than the last, so the origin argument is generally the strongest of the three.

As I think we discovered with my argument, it's not a valid step in logic to go from every little thing requiring a cause to the entire universe requiring a cause. Using the word "thing" (in "everything") or "phenomenon" is a tricky way of trying to get us to think of the universe as an object, but this isn't valid. Every object ("that begins to exist") in the universe has a cause preceding it in time, but there is no time preceding the universe — in fact, time is self-contained within the universe, so it is meaningless to ask a cause of the universe under that principle.

We can still insist that the universe must have some cause, but this generally decays back to it having no cause at the terminating argument, because any cause that it might have also requires a cause, and there's no justification for any cause of the universe not having a cause that doesn't in turn justify the universe having no cause.

Also, infinite regression of the universe is possible. There's a poorly understood distinction between the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang is the point before which it is impossible to detect, and from an understanding of the Big Bang we can understand everything after. That doesn't mean there was nothing before, but that it is meaningless to talk about before. So your second premise isn't holding up. Depending on various cosmological constants, the universe is cyclic — expanding, collapsing, big banging and starting all over again. There are other possible scenarios which also would give a universe infinite in time.

Further, the second law of thermodynamics does indeed say that entropy is increasing, but it's an empirical law and it describes behaviour since the Big Bang. Not before. We know there's a finite time between the Big Bang and us, but we also know that the Big Bang need not be the beginning of everything.

I'm afraid your comment about infinities doesn't make any sense, as pointed out. You may have to just take the word of mathematicians for it, or, if you are confident in your understanding of infinity, explain more clearly.

Finally, since the conclusion follows logically from the premises, there must be a cause of the universe. This is not where the argument ends, it does actually go as far as to describe the Christian view of God, but this is where I will stop for now. If anything I said didn't make sense, I will be happy to elaborate.
To be honest, I think that the origin argument on its own is somewhat convincing. All of your points in this argument have been a little shaky, but there's a strong inherent feeling of truth to the statement.

The problem is, how are you going to survive the terminating argument? If there's a cause to the universe, then that cause needs a cause, and so does the next, and this is only satisfied by infinite regression. If you can produce any argument for why there should exist a cause that has no cause, then the origin argument immediately collapses as the most probable case is that it's the universe that requires not cause, and not some unseen cause of it.

impersonal

06-06-2007, 05:19 PM

EDIT @ HUGIBOO: Since I'm next, I would enjoy it if you reply in one time to everything that I have written (in all of this thread if you have time, or since you first appeared if you are in a hurry). Many of the arguments in this post have already been discussed, so it would be pointless to answer them again.

Firstly, let me restate the cosmological argument. The way it has been formulated so far is a quite common misunderstanding of the argument that leaves it open to obvious inconsistencies (as several of you have pointed out). So the Cosmological Argument put simply is:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause

(...)

The first premise is based on what is called the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that for any and every fact, there must be a reason. I will not attempt to prove it because it is a self-evident truth (though I will consider arguments against it).

I would love to read your answers (or anyone else's) to what I have already wrote about causality in general.

2) The universe began to exist

(...)

The second premise is supported both by astronomy and mathematics. Because of modern astronomy we can be quite confident that the universe (the entire spatial-temporal physical reality) began at a specific moment roughly 15 billion years in the past. According to the astronomers, this can be measured to within a fraction of a second (don't ask me, I'm not an astronomer).

How can "the entire spatial temporal physical reality" begin at a specific moment? If there was a specific moment, then temporal reality (=time) already existed. If there wasn't a specific moment, if time didn't exist "yet", then you can't say that it "started".

More importantly, in mathematics infinity is not a real number, but rather a concept to imply a set without limits. Such a number is not an actual possibility. For this reason, infinity cannot be used in mathematical calculations: infinity minus infinity could equal 0 or any number up to and including infinity. If there truly were an infinite past, then the number of days that have passed is infinite, but every day we add one more, proving that yesterday was not the infinith day.

Weird argument. In my opinion, you only managed to show that the concept of infinity is unclear for human intuition, not that it is impossible.

Hugiboo

06-08-2007, 12:16 AM

Hugiboo, are you willing to have your form of the argument (seemingly a combination of Craig's form of the Kalām argument and with reference to Leibniz's form) critically discussed?

Also, I would like to begin by contesting that other forms as misunderstandings. There are various forms of the cosmological argument, and you have stated only one of them (one particular 20th century version).

Hi Esponer. I wouldn't have posted on here if I was not prepared to have my arguments critically discussed. From reading the discussion so far I have seen that most comments are fair and display an attitude of seeking the truth, which is somewhat rare in debates involving religion. I think it is very important in coming to conclusions in such important matters to seek the best possible counter argument to be sure that your own position is as correct as possible.

What you have said about my statement regarding misunderstandings is correct. My version, which you correctly identified as a version of Craig's argument and the Kalām argument, is the one I feel is the strongest. Therefore I feel it is an injustice to one's self to critique a lesser version that is subject to obvious fallacies.

I would like to respond to all of the comments and challenges and hope to do so soon, but I will not be able to give a substantial response right now. I'm working long night shifts this week so I don't have much time, hopefully next week. Thanks for considering my arguments.

AestheticizeAnalog

06-08-2007, 12:49 AM

Hi, I found this forum by a recommendation from a friend who thought I would be interested in this discussion. I am a Christian and am familiar with the Cosmological Argument, so I will try to make a case for it.

Firstly, let me restate the cosmological argument. The way it has been formulated so far is a quite common misunderstanding of the argument that leaves it open to obvious inconsistencies (as several of you have pointed out). So the Cosmological Argument put simply is:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

The first premise is based on what is called the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that for any and every fact, there must be a reason. I will not attempt to prove it because it is a self-evident truth (though I will consider arguments against it)..

I think that Mislead hinted at the issue of reason as a human construct and I would like to elaborate on that. To say that everything needs a reason to exist is to reduce existence to the way in which we think and talk about existence. For example, we exist, this is a self evident. By accepting the teleological argument and stating that existence must have a reason or cause, we are reducing existence to a human construct. We exist prior to creating thoughts dealing with the reasons to exist. Existence is not reducible to the relationship one thing has to another. I think that we can extrapolate from here that since reasons to exists are a human construct to apply them to the absolute version of reality is to make an assumption that our mind reflects the systematic working of the universe.

The second premise is supported both by astronomy and mathematics. Because of modern astronomy we can be quite confident that the universe (the entire spatial-temporal physical reality) began at a specific moment roughly 15 billion years in the past. According to the astronomers, this can be measured to within a fraction of a second (don't ask me, I'm not an astronomer).

Secondly, Astronomy gives us the second law of thermodynamics, which states that any closed system tends towards equilibrium. Therefore, the universe cannot have had an infinite past, because it is not currently in a state of equilibrium (which it would have to maintain perpetually if it were to have an infinite past)..

This is a law based on the perception of reality via the human medium and reflects a view that we percieve reality as it is, in it's absolute form. However, considering that we never have recieved information and concepts from an objective source. They are either derived through perception or logical faculties, it is difficult to say if the paradigm of existence in which we exist reflects reality objectively.

More importantly, in mathematics infinity is not a real number, but rather a concept to imply a set without limits. Such a number is not an actual possibility. For this reason, infinity cannot be used in mathematical calculations: infinity minus infinity could equal 0 or any number up to and including infinity. If there truly were an infinite past, then the number of days that have passed is infinite, but every day we add one more, proving that yesterday was not the infinith day..

I see where you are going with this. I have heard a variation of this argument before. But I would like to clarify what you are trying to say. At this point I see this as a more of a critique of the concept of infinity.

Finally, since the conclusion follows logically from the premises, there must be a cause of the universe. This is not where the argument ends, it does actually go as far as to describe the Christian view of God, but this is where I will stop for now. If anything I said didn't make sense, I will be happy to elaborate.

Ultimately, such a view requires that we are able to know the true nature of reality and thus can apply the laws of causality to the universe. But considering the fact that I have mentioned before that we percieve reality subjectively, we would have to take it on faith that the reality that we percieved is reality in and of itself. And for me this view requires a belief in god, for if one believes in god then one will ask the question why would god design us to not be able to see the true nature of reality? Most people with a belief in god would then come to the conclusion that we percieve reality in and of itself.

And thank you for coming up with these arguments. As has been stated above this forum tends to be one sided, so seeing arguments from the other side is always good.

Hugiboo

06-08-2007, 12:13 PM

Ok, so here is a response to sadated_peon. I'm working on a response to mislead but it is bedtime now. Hopefully I will be able to post it later today.

Yea, this is where you argument isn’t sound.

Not really, the problem here what you are describing is the big bang, not much is really know about what happened before the big bang.
It can be that there was no time as we know it before the big bang, to there being other universes before the big bang that collapsed into the singularity.

I agree that not much is known about what happened before the big bang. But this is because all the evidence points to the answer being nothing. What the big bang describes is the creation of our universe. Whether there was other universes or nothing before makes no difference to the fact that for our universe the big bang was the beginning. There is no evidence, nor is evidence possible, of any universe that existed prior to ours. In any case, you have already admitted my point in talking about what might have been before the big bang. In other words, before our universe began. At this point in the argument, I am not concerned with what might have existed before the big bang, only with the fact that the big bang is the beginning point of the universe.

Not really either, the second law of thermal dynamics talks about reactions happening over time in the context of our universe as we understand it. It only applies to a macroscopic system, and not applicable in context of no time.

The laws of physics at the time of the big bang, are not as they are now, so applying the laws now to before the big bang is flawed reasoning.

I was not applying the laws of physics to before the big bang. I was talking about the belief in an infinite universe that did not begin with the big bang. The point was not to try and determine what would happen before the big bang, but to show that our universe must have began at some point, namely the big bang. If you want to include the possibility of time before the big bang, then you are not talking about our universe, but a theoretical super-universe.

I don’t think you have quite grasped this concept yet.
There are an infinite number of points between 1 and 2, the existence of 3 doesn’t mean that there is no longer an infinite number of points between 1 and 2.

As infinite isn’t an actual number, so there is no infinite day, because there is not a real number.

Your example with numbers is not in the same category as infinite time. Infinity in numbers is purely theoretical, but with time we are talking about an actual infinity. So if there has been an infinite past, this means an actual infinite number of events have already passed. But what are we even talking about? The concept of infinity being real makes no sense. Now if we look at your example with numbers, it is not analogous to time. There are only an infinite number of points between two numbers because the increments can be broken smaller and smaller. We can do that with time just as easy and break down the increments of time between the beginning and present time of the universe and come up with an infinite number of points in time. But having an infinite number of points between two fixed points is not the same as having a point unfixed in time (which is necessary if we are to talk about infinite time). The very idea is self-contradictory: how can a point be unfixed? If it is unfixed it is not a point and we cannot talk about time being infinite as if infinity was a certain distance from our present point.

You said that infinite is not an actual number, and I agree, but if you claim that the universe is infinite years old, you are treating infinite as if it is an actual number, and that is where the problem lies. In any case, the impossibility of an infinite past is only a problem for those who suggest that there was time before the beginning of the universe, as it is quite accepted that the universe began at a specific point in time. But this is well outside of the argument at hand (at this stage anyway), because all I am talking about at this point is the universe itself.

The enemy of logic is strong faith.I couldn't agree more.

I certainly understand the sentiment in your signature, as I have had many conversations with persons of strong presuppositions (religious and otherwise) where it felt like I was beating my head against a brick wall. But it is not having the presuppositions that makes an enemy of logic, but having presuppositions that are held to be above rational inquisition. We all have presuppositions, but it is whether or not we subject those presuppositions to the inquiring eye of reason that determines whether we are narrow-minded.

Hugiboo

06-09-2007, 04:59 AM

Well, here is my reply to mislead's post. I look forward to addressing some of the other comments posted as well as continuing the development of my cosmological argument.

Uh, how is this different from the principle of causality which we have so painstakingly discussed over the last page?

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is different from causality because while causality represents only the physical relationship between two observable phenomena, the PSR represents an objective relationship between any fact whatsoever and it’s objective explanation. Causality is only a part of the PSR, which not only governs phenomena but also any fact, or objective reality. The PSR is basically a way of applying Occam’s Razor to exclude from consideration any theoretical statement of fact that has no justification. It does not matter if such a reason is known, only that there is one, as the PSR is concerned only with objective truth, not what is known by humans. Of course, in our application of the PSR, we will certainly exclude some things out of ignorance that do in fact have a reason behind them (for instance, God :p ). The point is not that we need to know what the reason is for the existence of the universe, only that it must have one. In this case, we can use it to apply a type of causality in the sense that we know that everything that begins to exist has a cause, because what does not exist, cannot effect its own creation, that is, a thing that is non-existent does not have agency. Further, to claim that a thing can begin to exist for no reason whatsoever is to explain, and therefore give a reason for, its existence (if a somewhat self-contradictory reason).

Besides, unlike "causality", which is, to some extent, an objective relationship between physical events, "fact" and "reason" are, for the most part, only mental constructs, and not actual properties of physical reality.

I disagree with your statement that fact and reason are mental constructs at all. Fact is simply the objective reality, and has nothing to do with our subjective mental constructs. Reason is also not a mental construct; it is more like the environment in which we are able to think at all, something like the air we breathe or the pattern that our thoughts are able to follow. The pattern is already there, nobody created it. We have no choice but to breathe that air or die, we can complain all we want that reason limits our ability to see things objectively, but there is no alternative. In that sense, I think we can safely consider reason to be an objective reality of our existence.

It has also been pointed out that while certain laws may apply to some objects, they shouldn't automatically be assumed to apply to all objects, even ones of an entirely different nature. (So, while a form of causality may apply to local events inside the universe, it doesn't necessarily need to apply to the universe as a whole. Not until we actually witness a universe being born, at least.)

The difference of course, in light of what I have already explained, is that the PSR is by definition automatically applied to all objects, no matter their nature. The reason it can do this is because it is not limited in the way causality might be for being purely a physical relationship. The PSR need not anticipate any physical laws of the universe because it is a philosophical principle.

Actually, that's only the "beginning" in common speech. It's just a point beyond which we cannot see, with our current technology. From a scientific point of view, it's just a time when the structure of the universe was different than what it's like now.

Not only can we not see it with our ‘current technology’, but because of the nature of what we are talking about (the beginning of all the matter in the universe), there is no possibility that we could ever be able to scientifically ‘see’. I should clarify what I mean by universe because it looks like we are using different definitions. When I talk about the universe, I am talking about the entirety of physical matter. When you talk about the universe having a different structure before the big bang, you are assuming some kind of super-universe, where our universe (my definition – all matter) is somehow contained within the super-universe. Such a super-universe or ‘time’ before the big bang is highly speculative and I would think that someone who enjoys cutting the unnecessary beliefs away with Occam’s razor as much as yourself would identify this as a prime target.

Let my try to clarify what I am saying here. A lot of this hinges on one’s understanding of time. My understanding of time is this: time is not an objective reality, but is a kind of measurement of change. If change across the universe were to abruptly halt, so too would time. Since the big bang describes the creation of all physical matter, it also describes the beginning of time. Without matter, there is no sense in talking about time because it is a meaningless concept if not connected to matter. It is as absurd as talking about distance without matter.

You're reaally trying to stretch the second law of thermodynamics here. Besides, how do you know that the universe isn't in a state of equilibrium right now, or how do you even define such a state for it?

I don’t think I am stretching the second law of thermodynamics, if so then how? If the universe is a closed system, why should we not expect it to obey the laws of thermodynamics? You can always argue that physical laws are subject to our limited understanding and subject to change as we increase in knowledge, but what good reason do we have to believe that the universe would not obey the known laws of thermodynamics? As for your question, it seems quite obvious that the universe is not currently in a state of equilibrium; as such a state would entail the conclusion of time. Equilibrium means that all matter would have reached a final resting place and would undergo no further change. As I explained above, with no change there would be no passage of time, and clearly neither situation is the case today.

I'd advise you not to use an argument like this, since the only thing it shows is that you don't really know anything about mathematics past high-school level.

Particularly, "infinity" can be used in calculations in some ways, and these don't lead to contradictions. What youre describing is "potential infinity", which was how the Greeks, and then European mathematicians used the concept, until the works of Cantor, Peano, Zermelo, Fraenkl etc. have started gaining recognition. You can try to read the wikipedia entry on cardinal numbers here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_numbers) for starters.

In context of cardinal number theory, it's "infinity" + 1 = "infinity", and so every day is in fact the "infinith" day. Do take note that I'm using "infinity" as in "any cardinal number greater or equal to http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/e/4/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png". Since days are discrete, you can somewhat imagine the set of days over the universe's lifespan as the set of Integers.

I must apologize for my poor explanation. Also I accept your correction; infinity can be used in mathematical calculations except subtraction; that was my error. My argument was intended to show that the concept of an actual infinity in terms of past time is an impossibility. By “actual infinity” I don’t mean a complete infinity as in a set of all integers, but in terms of physical reality (i.e. it is impossible for there to exist an infinite number of physical objects).

The problem with using infinity when dealing with time is that theoretical principles are used in the context of physical reality. To say that there has been an infinite past is the same as to say that there are an infinite number of rocks in space. Taking the set of days over the universe’s lifespan as analogous to the set of integers is to consider a steadily expanding finite set as an equal with an infinite set. It is to equate the actual with the potential.

Another way of explaining why an infinite chain of events is impossible would be to use Aquinas’ argument of causation, which was brought up earlier: namely that without a first cause, there cannot be a series of subsequent causes. Whichever way you go, it should be clear that an infinite chain of events is impossible in reality.

TiGel2.

06-09-2007, 05:11 AM

Hugiboo owns.

impersonal

06-09-2007, 09:54 AM

(I'm not convinced with your distinction between the PSR and causality. Regardless, the arguments used against causality seem to work very well on the PSR).

The PSR is basically a way of applying Occam’s Razor to exclude from consideration any theoretical statement of fact that has no justification. It does not matter if such a reason is known, only that there is one, as the PSR is concerned only with objective truth, not what is known by humans.

The "PSR" is the counterpart to Ockham's razor. When Ockham's razor deters from adding unnecessary elements, the PSR deters from not adding enough elements. So the PSR is NOT a way of applying Ockham's razor; it does the exact opposite of what Ockham's razor does.

Indeed, if we applied Ockham's razor to the extreme, we would very quickly find out that nothing strictly needs to be explained in the first place: "do not include any unnecessary elements" destroys science completely if you do not add "except for those needed to create causal relationships".

The PSR only exists to force people to find out systems which allows to predict events; if we stopped at "this event is causeless", we wouldn't manage to predict anything. So we look for reasons/causes. (As explained previously in this thread, these reasons/cause are merely other events which happen at the same time as the event we try to explain; we can not say for sure that these events are the "reasons" or causes of the event we try to explain.)

Why do we use the PSR? Because otherwise, we'd be stuck to a completely unpredictable world and a completely useless science. For example, quantum physicists left out the principle of sufficient reason when they claimed that the behavior of some particles is strictly probabilist: they say that the particles just happen to do something because of chance.

The PSR doesn't have anything to do with "Objective Truth": the PSR itself cannot be demonstrated to be true! Indeed, why wouldn't the behavior of some particles be completely probabilist? We cannot know. Perhaps it is. But if we want to predict their behavior, we have to presuppose that their behavior is in fact NOT probabilist.

The PSR is a methodological principle, concerned with what is known by humans. Another methodological principle states that theories should be tested through experience: it doesn't mean that untested theories are wrong. In both cases, these methodological principles are a way to force scientists and other "seekers of information" to go further in their attempts to predict events. If we didn't have them, science would probably not be very useful. But it could still be right.

(...)
The point is not that we need to know what the reason is for the existence of the universe, only that it must have one.
(I am here just rephrasing what I have written previously in this post. Consider this as my conclusion).
On the contrary. The point is that we need to know what the reason is for the existence of the universe. Not that it must have one. The principle of sufficient reason is sometimes considered to be a "law of thought", but it is not a law of reality.

Schopenhauer, as quoted in Wikipedia:
The principle of sufficient reason explains things in reference to one another, but it always leaves unexplained something that it presupposes, and the two things that are absolutely inexplicable are the principle itself and the “thing in itself”.

Edit: here's another Schopenhauer quote on the PSR and the laws of thought/laws of nature (damn, this name-dropping makes me sound important):
(...)Law 4: Of everything that is, it can be found why it is.

There would then have to be added only the fact that once for all in logic the question is about what is thought and hence about concepts and not about real things.

In this case, we can use it to apply a type of causality in the sense that we know that everything that begins to exist has a cause, because what does not exist, cannot effect its own creation, that is, a thing that is non-existent does not have agency. Further, to claim that a thing can begin to exist for no reason whatsoever is to explain, and therefore give a reason for, its existence (if a somewhat self-contradictory reason).
Your last sentence could be used to completely ruin your whole point. But I think it is not just "somewhat" self-contradictory but completely self-contradictory, so I'm not going to use it against you. I have no idea what your first sentence means, perhaps it's me being bad at English :/.

sadated_peon

06-09-2007, 12:54 PM

I agree that not much is known about what happened before the big bang. But this is because all the evidence points to the answer being nothing. What the big bang describes is the creation of our universe. Whether there was other universes or nothing before makes no difference to the fact that for our universe the big bang was the beginning. There is no evidence, nor is evidence possible, of any universe that existed prior to ours. In any case, you have already admitted my point in talking about what might have been before the big bang. In other words, before our universe began. At this point in the argument, I am not concerned with what might have existed before the big bang, only with the fact that the big bang is the beginning point of the universe.
But now we get into what it means to say "our universe" it is true that the big bang was the beginning of our universe as before it was a singularity. But as I pointed out that before the singularity is unknown. Therefore the definition of universe become important because if you include void of nothingness and the multiple dimensions.

"There is no evidence, nor is evidence possible, of any universe that existed prior to ours. "
This is true, but you of all people supporting the cosmology argument would not accept that this means the there was no universe prior.

Now if you want to talk about solely our universe as we know it today, that is fine, we can talk about the big bang being the cause of the universe we know today.

I was not applying the laws of physics to before the big bang. I was talking about the belief in an infinite universe that did not begin with the big bang. The point was not to try and determine what would happen before the big bang, but to show that our universe must have began at some point, namely the big bang. If you want to include the possibility of time before the big bang, then you are not talking about our universe, but a theoretical super-universe.
The big bang is just a single example of how you can go to and from a point where the laws of physics do not apply.

Your assumption that the 2nd law of thermodynamics rejects a infinite universe is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are infinitely constant, and your rejection that when huge change occurs it is no longer our universe, it is a super-universe. I do not mind continuing the conversation with the just the current state, but it seems to be outside of the cosmology argument.

Your example with numbers is not in the same category as infinite time. Infinity in numbers is purely theoretical, but with time we are talking about an actual infinity. So if there has been an infinite past, this means an actual infinite number of events have already passed.But what are we even talking about? The concept of infinity being real makes no sense. Now if we look at your example with numbers, it is not analogous to time. There are only an infinite number of points between two numbers because the increments can be broken smaller and smaller. We can do that with time just as easy and break down the increments of time between the beginning and present time of the universe and come up with an infinite number of points in time. But having an infinite number of points between two fixed points is not the same as having a point unfixed in time (which is necessary if we are to talk about infinite time). The very idea is self-contradictory: how can a point be unfixed? If it is unfixed it is not a point and we cannot talk about time being infinite as if infinity was a certain distance from our present point.

You said that infinite is not an actual number, and I agree, but if you claim that the universe is infinite years old, you are treating infinite as if it is an actual number, and that is where the problem lies. In any case, the impossibility of an infinite past is only a problem for those who suggest that there was time before the beginning of the universe, as it is quite accepted that the universe began at a specific point in time. But this is well outside of the argument at hand (at this stage anyway), because all I am talking about at this point is the universe itself.

I would say that it is you that are treating infinite as an actual number as you say you are talking about going past a point, I brought up potential infinity to point out the flaw in trying to establish a point from which infinity began until now. This is essentially what you are doing, you are applying potential infinity of two fix points, and say that one more than the second fix point (today) could not be infinity one after it (tomorrow) is infinity. Where you imply from the beginning infinity to now is infinity, one beyond that can not be infinity.

You say unfixed, but a better word would be unbounded, and that is what we are talking about, the distance in the case is infinite, as from this point to the unbounded point is infinite. When you say, "certain distance" I once again can not draw any conclusion that that you are attempting to put a real number of the span or "distance" in time.

I certainly understand the sentiment in your signature, as I have had many conversations with persons of strong presuppositions (religious and otherwise) where it felt like I was beating my head against a brick wall. But it is not having the presuppositions that makes an enemy of logic, but having presuppositions that are held to be above rational inquisition. We all have presuppositions, but it is whether or not we subject those presuppositions to the inquiring eye of reason that determines whether we are narrow-minded.
You seem to have a fondness for the implication of words past their meaning. As though presupposition is the same as faith. I would consider a presupposition by its very nature to be held before inquiry, and to be tentatively held. While faith is application used during inquiry, and is held as strongly as though by fact.

in other words "having presuppositions that are held to be above rational inquisition" is "strong" faith.

Hugiboo

06-11-2007, 11:31 AM

As I think we discovered with my argument, it's not a valid step in logic to go from every little thing requiring a cause to the entire universe requiring a cause. Using the word "thing" (in "everything") or "phenomenon" is a tricky way of trying to get us to think of the universe as an object, but this isn't valid. Every object ("that begins to exist") in the universe has a cause preceding it in time, but there is no time preceding the universe — in fact, time is self-contained within the universe, so it is meaningless to ask a cause of the universe under that principle.

It depends on why we are making that step. If we try to justify it simply by extending the rule from the individual material object to the collection of materials altogether it seems like an invalid step. However, when we first identify that all individual materials require a cause, we need not make an unjustified jump to the whole collection of materials. Instead, we find that the only possible way that all of the materials can have a cause is if the entire collection of matter initially had a cause. This is the argument from Aquinas, that without a cause you cannot have an effect, and without a first cause you cannot have any subsequent effects. Since we have subsequent effects, there must be a first cause: a cause of the universe.

This however, was not my main method of argument. My method was to simply show (from modern science and the logical impossibility of an actual infinity – actual here referring to a real number) that the universe truly had a beginning, but then this point should really not be a difficult one to accept. Your comment on the nature of time (that it is self-contained within the universe) is a recognition that the universe had a beginning (as long as we are talking about the universe as the total temporal-spatial reality).

We can still insist that the universe must have some cause, but this generally decays back to it having no cause at the terminating argument, because any cause that it might have also requires a cause, and there's no justification for any cause of the universe not having a cause that doesn't in turn justify the universe having no cause.

I can understand why, having this view of the inherent inconsistency of the cosmological argument, you would hold that it must be possible for the universe to have an infinite past. This problem though, is easily dealt with in the terminating argument. In fact, I find that it is not so much an argument necessary to justify the origin argument, but rather a correction of misconceptions of the origin argument (namely that there is even an apparent contradiction). This will be more clear when I post my terminating argument.

Also, infinite regression of the universe is possible. There's a poorly understood distinction between the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang is the point before which it is impossible to detect, and from an understanding of the Big Bang we can understand everything after. That doesn't mean there was nothing before, but that it is meaningless to talk about before. So your second premise isn't holding up. Depending on various cosmological constants, the universe is cyclic — expanding, collapsing, big banging and starting all over again. There are other possible scenarios which also would give a universe infinite in time.

Further, the second law of thermodynamics does indeed say that entropy is increasing, but it's an empirical law and it describes behaviour since the Big Bang. Not before. We know there's a finite time between the Big Bang and us, but we also know that the Big Bang need not be the beginning of everything.

I think this point comes down to your definition of “the universe”. Since I was taking the universe to be the entirety of the temporal-spatial reality, which began with the Big Bang (and you have admitted as much), then under my definition of the universe it is quite obvious that it had a beginning. Now, I do not think it is right to make the immediate jump from the universe requiring a cause to determining that God must have done it (as Aquinas for example). This is where your other theories come in. Perhaps the universe is continually expanding and contracting with an infinite number of Big Bangs. Or maybe there is some kind of super-universe that has an infinite number of universes popping up inside it. All these possibilities must be considered before deciding on the most reasonable one, but this is not part of the origin argument; rather it belongs in the third segment of the argument, the identification argument.

It seems that we both agree that the universe had a cause, though you are reluctant to make such an explicit admission. I happen to think that the cause was God, but you appeal to other non-intelligent causes (i.e. natural cause of a super-universe, cyclical cause of a previous universe). This is probably why you find the origin argument on its own to be convincing; at this point it supports your conclusion. These possibilities must be evaluated along with the proposition of an intelligent, personal cause if we are to make an informed decision.

To be honest, I think that the origin argument on its own is somewhat convincing. All of your points in this argument have been a little shaky, but there's a strong inherent feeling of truth to the statement.

The problem is, how are you going to survive the terminating argument? If there's a cause to the universe, then that cause needs a cause, and so does the next, and this is only satisfied by infinite regression. If you can produce any argument for why there should exist a cause that has no cause, then the origin argument immediately collapses as the most probable case is that it's the universe that requires not cause, and not some unseen cause of it.

What I find interesting is that if the infinite regression problem is a problem for me, it is also a problem for you (if you are willing to admit that the universe had a cause – which I think your argument forces you to do). I don’t think this is in fact a problem for me, as you will see, but it will be for you. I will explain this when I post the termination argument. First I think I will attempt to deal with some of the objections to the origin argument.

maj1n

06-11-2007, 01:21 PM

This however, was not my main method of argument. My method was to simply show (from modern science and the logical impossibility of an actual infinity – actual here referring to a real number) that the universe truly had a beginning, but then this point should really not be a difficult one to accept. Your comment on the nature of time (that it is self-contained within the universe) is a recognition that the universe had a beginning (as long as we are talking about the universe as the total temporal-spatial reality).

No, you cannot say the universe had a beginning, the Big Bang is the earliest event which we can reference, because anything before a certain amount of plank time to which the Big Bang started, science cannot possibly measure.

In other words, we do not know if there was a beginning.

I think this point comes down to your definition of “the universe”. Since I was taking the universe to be the entirety of the temporal-spatial reality, which began with the Big Bang (and you have admitted as much), then under my definition of the universe it is quite obvious that it had a beginning.

No, the Big Bang is the earliest event to which science can infer from evidence, but science cannot infer anything 'before it'.

This does not mean that the Big Bang is the beginning, no more so for the fact that a man looking at the horizon would be mistaken in assuming that was the end or beginning of the land.

It seems that we both agree that the universe had a cause, though you are reluctant to make such an explicit admission. I happen to think that the cause was God, but you appeal to other non-intelligent causes (i.e. natural cause of a super-universe, cyclical cause of a previous universe). This is probably why you find the origin argument on its own to be convincing; at this point it supports your conclusion. These possibilities must be evaluated along with the proposition of an intelligent, personal cause if we are to make an informed decision.

No, it is irrational to believe the first cause was God, no 'intelligent' entity exists to which was eternal, they 'began' at some point, such as humans and being born.

So even by the rationale of induction, God would be an incorrect choice, the more likely is a physical event to which no intelligence is attributable.

Trying to rationalise that a 'first cause' may be true and then arbitrarily designating it as God is irrational.

Faith and logic do not mix.

What I find interesting is that if the infinite regression problem is a problem for me, it is also a problem for you (if you are willing to admit that the universe had a cause – which I think your argument forces you to do). I don’t think this is in fact a problem for me, as you will see, but it will be for you. I will explain this when I post the termination argument. First I think I will attempt to deal with some of the objections to the origin argument.
There is in fact no problem, the easiest answer is this.

We do not know.

Presuming fact where no evidence exists to deduce to the fact is the province of Faith, but it has no place in rational, logical or even common sense.

Hugiboo

06-11-2007, 05:54 PM

I would love to read your answers (or anyone else's) to what I have already wrote about causality in general.

Hi Hugo, thanks for your patience and sorry about cutting off your discussion on causality with my first post. I hope my post isn’t too long, and also I hope I don’t offend you (or others) with my bluntness. I don’t mean to be rude; only to explain myself and critique what I think is wrong. Due to the size restriction of the post, I will have to finish in a second post. I'll try to reply to your last post tomorrow.

How can "the entire spatial temporal physical reality" begin at a specific moment? If there was a specific moment, then temporal reality (=time) already existed. If there wasn't a specific moment, if time didn't exist "yet", then you can't say that it "started".

I agree that the word ‘begin’ is a troublesome word. I think this is because our perspective is from within time, so we can’t really understand what it must be like to be outside of time. Supposing for a minute that the universe was created and time and matter were created in some way. What would that look like? Already my description must be inaccurate because I am using words with tenses that are biased to a temporal reality. To say “created” implies an action that occurs over time, or to say the universe “began” implies there was a ‘time’ in which no universe existed. But that would be inconsistent with the idea of a universe being created in the first place.

Suppose there existed a being outside of time who had agency to act as it chose. Ignoring all of the obvious contradictions arising out of the grammar (with its temporal baggage) we are forced to use to speak of such a being, imagine what this would mean. I don’t think we can really understand what it would be like to exist outside of time, just like we cannot really understand what it would be like to exist apart from matter. But imagine that this being created the universe. We cannot pick a spot from along a spectrum and say this is precisely the point at which the universe was created, implying that before that point there was no universe. Rather, we would say that the ‘point’ at which the universe was created was the first point.

It is only if the power that created the universe was a physical power that the creation of the universe would require a past time at which it did not exist. So you may be right, “started” may be the wrong word, in fact it almost certainly is, but I think it is still the best one we can use because we don’t have the appropriate concept for the beginning of time. Since time is relative to matter, you could even say the universe has always existed in the sense that the only time there is, is the time where matter exists and is changing. This is why I think we cannot pinpoint the moment of creation; because to do so would be to identify a physical cause of the physical reality, which is impossible.

The second law of thermodynamics only works in states of matters that we do understand. If the history of the universe is (for example) a succession of big bangs, this argument is void - we have no idea how matters behave inside a black hole, or how it did in first stages of the big bang.

I realize this paragraph has been edited out, but I already wrote this so I will include it:

This point has been misunderstood by several people, so let me clarify again. The universe (in my understanding) is our spatial-temporal reality. If there were a succession of big bangs, there are two possibilities of how it would work. Either this would be a succession of universes, not one universe, where each universe begins out of nothing and goes back to nothing. This would require either an active agent (i.e. God) to oversee the whole thing or some form of super-universe in which the sequence would take place. The second possibility is that the matter is never destroyed, but continually expands and contracts; causing a big bang every time it re-expands. This possibility I would prefer to deal with when I post my identifying argument section of the cosmological argument. If you are using this model as your definition of universe (without any scientific evidence I might note, Occam would disapprove), it should be noted that my argument for the impossibility of an actual infinite would apply to such a universe, as would Aquinas’ argument from causation.

So far, people have always thought that an object was "a true discrete entity". It's how we work, us humans - if we didn't somehow believe in discrete entities, how would we be able to talk? We have one word for the sun, one word for a person, one word for an atom... Yet, experience has shown that none of these things are discrete entities. All of them can be broken down.

Not necessarily. Nobody thought a house was a discrete entity, but that doesn’t stop us from talking about houses.

But there is no reason to think that there are discrete entities at all, in the world of objects or in the world of events. Experience, so far, has shown that every time we thought we had found the discrete entity, the smallest piece of matter or time or whatever, we were wrong. So it is likely that there isn't such a thing as a discrete entity - we just have a natural tendency to look for one because of the way we think.

At this point you might think: "alright, but what does it have to do with my argument?". Well, if discrete entities are mere illusions, what does it say about the causal link - which links to entities, the cause and the consequence?

I think this relates to your argument about arbitrary lines of phenomena on page 3. I see your point, but I would go the other way. Instead of casting doubt onto whether or not there are discrete entities, I would start at the causal link. I know that if I hit a ball, the force from my hand will cause the ball to move. I may not understand exactly why it does so, or how the parts of my hand transfer the force into the ball, but I know nonetheless that my action causes an action in the ball. From this I can infer that there truly is something objective about the objects in question apart from my perhaps seemingly arbitrary grouping of phenomena (atoms) into larger phenomena (hand and ball) that allows for a causal link to exist. As far as discrete entities go, I may never know, but that should not be able to call into question what I can know about causal links from induction. Now I know that it may be a valid criticism to question the extent that we can have knowledge from induction, but if we go down that road we will have to call all science into question, as the scientific method relies heavily on induction.

Once again, we have reached the limits of human understanding. This is not very surprising - after all, the objective of this thread was to prove the existence of God, so it was bound to be very metaphysical. And "metaphysics" is the science of what we cannot, ever, know ^^

Well, that is one (self-refuting) version of what metaphysics means. Is everything that has been said about this mere speculation? Are there not some metaphysical truths we can grasp? The application of rational thinking is an exercise in metaphysics; your statement that metaphysics is the science of what we cannot ever know is a metaphysical statement. Should we assume you are admitting that this is merely your own speculation on metaphysics and can never be known? My point is not to nitpick here, but if this is your attitude towards metaphysics, why should anyone listen to what you say?

I'll try to show what is the limit of our box: imagine that all events were caused by a single cause. For example God. I don't mean that God is the first cause, and that afterwards there is a chain of causality. I mean that God sits up in heaven, and manipulates every single event that we see. He is like the animator of a 3-D movie: he is the one who makes the cigarette touch the oil tank, but he is also the one who creates the explosion. All the relations between the events are just illusions created by our habit of seeing them always going together; but if God had wanted to, perhaps oil would turn to water when it meets fire, and we would find it just as natural.

Now we have eliminated all causes, except for one. Just go a bit further: go from "God causes everything" to "nothing causes anything else". By considering the idea from this angle, you can somewhat approach the idea of a world without causality.

In the end, we only use the cause/consequence scheme because it is a good way to understand an infinitely complex world with a limited processing capacity (our brain). Did you notice something? Yes, I just wrote "because". I don't think the human intellect can really work without the notion of "cause":( .

That does not make any sense. In your scenario you have not eliminated all causes except for one, you have eliminated the causal relationship between everything else. But everything that happens still has a cause in your scenario; it is caused by God. If you now eliminate God from the picture and try to eliminate causality, you succeed only in eliminating reason. Proposing an alternate possible reality and saying it doesn’t make any sense because we are not able to understand, makes no rational sense. You might as well say it’s possible that matter doesn’t exist but there’s no way for us to know if it were true because we can’t understand such a reality. It’s not useful.

impersonal

06-11-2007, 07:09 PM

Since I know you don't have much time, I'll stick to the essential, along with one gut-reaction. First, the gut reaction:

Well, that is one (self-refuting) version of what metaphysics means. Is everything that has been said about this mere speculation? Are there not some metaphysical truths we can grasp? The application of rational thinking is an exercise in metaphysics; your statement that metaphysics is the science of what we cannot ever know is a metaphysical statement. Should we assume you are admitting that this is merely your own speculation on metaphysics and can never be known? My point is not to nitpick here, but if this is your attitude towards metaphysics, why should anyone listen to what you say?
As long as "my" version of metaphysics is not proven wrong, then all versions of metaphysics (including mine) remain doubtful. Which does not mean that they are proven wrong, but that they cannot be proven right. Why would anyone listen to what I say? Because otherwise everyone's fucked. And that's not self-refuting.

For your credit, the argument you used is very old, which generally means it's not so bad. It exists since the beginnings of Skepticism.

Q: if the skeptic doubts about everything, how can he consider skepticism itself to be sure?
A: the skeptic doesn't consider skepticism itself to be sure.

Dogmatics always thought that, if skeptics doubted about their own ideology, then their ideology had to be bullshit. That's not a valid argument, although I'm sure an average sophist could do wonders with it. Truth is, dogmatics are preferring the idea that makes them feel more secure, so they somehow always managed to reject doubt even when they only had terrible arguments. See Descartes.

you succeed only in eliminating reason

That's the whole point. By showing the possibility of a world void of causality, I am showing the limits of reason. You wrote that causality (or the PSR, that's the same to me) was a law of the world, "an objective truth" (congrats on saying "Objective Truth", that's a brave thing to say in a philosophy forum :nod ). But the PSR is merely a commodity. You didn't demonstrate the PSR. Should we conclude that it is arbitrary?

I was hoping that, instead of trying to stay firmly on your ground, you would have objected that, if everything is relative, we have to build with relative bricks. Which you have not done, so I'm not going to answer that for now ^_^

Tokyo Jihen

06-12-2007, 03:01 PM

fiiuuuuhhhh....

and i'm only at post 55 and it took me two days to read these "bullshits"...interesting bullshit i can say esponer's was. now you're switching eh to your own stand. splendid.

so far i find that hugii and hugo's especially makes sense to me; the one that says metaphysic matter's causality is not provable right now...or something like that.

it's 2 am here and i'm gonna go to sleep. nice thread.

mislead

06-12-2007, 05:50 PM

Howgh. I've kind of been preoccupied by some tivial matters (commonly known as "real life", a popular myth on internet discussion boards), and have apparently missed a lot of things. Some of the refutations to my points have even been refuted better than I could ever have managed by myself (hi Hugo). Anyway, I'll just stick to the other points, as to not cut in on the discussion of the PSR. Also, because I'd obviously make a fool out of myself there.

I disagree with your statement that fact and reason are mental constructs at all. Fact is simply the objective reality, and has nothing to do with our subjective mental constructs. Reason is also not a mental construct; it is more like the environment in which we are able to think at all, something like the air we breathe or the pattern that our thoughts are able to follow. The pattern is already there, nobody created it. We have no choice but to breathe that air or die, we can complain all we want that reason limits our ability to see things objectively, but there is no alternative. In that sense, I think we can safely consider reason to be an objective reality of our existence.

Since that's basically what I meant by "mental construct", I'll just thank you for the clarification here. Also, you seem to use "fact" the same way we have used "phenomenon" up until now, which makes me even happier, since it means that our original critiques of causality can be applied here.

As I understand it, the way you use the PSR is similar to the following metodological statement "Assume everything is comprehensible, since the incomprehensible is meaningless for us", and that's indeed similar to the metodological assumption scientists make. However, do take note that you're trying to infer truth about objective reality from a property of the human mind.

I'd argue that even considering notions such as "outside of time" or "the total of timespace" already breaks this principle, since they're a priori (at least according to Kant) incomprehensible for us. Therefore, instead of trying to integrate these into our arguments, we should perhaps look for ways which fall in line with our ability to comprehend things.

Not only can we not see it with our ‘current technology’, but because of the nature of what we are talking about (the beginning of all the matter in the universe), there is no possibility that we could ever be able to scientifically ‘see’. I should clarify what I mean by universe because it looks like we are using different definitions. When I talk about the universe, I am talking about the entirety of physical matter. When you talk about the universe having a different structure before the big bang, you are assuming some kind of super-universe, where our universe (my definition – all matter) is somehow contained within the super-universe. Such a super-universe or ‘time’ before the big bang is highly speculative and I would think that someone who enjoys cutting the unnecessary beliefs away with Occam’s razor as much as yourself would identify this as a prime target.

Ok, I suppose. If you like to define the universe as the entirety of physical matter, then I guess my idea falls into infinite regression once again, which I'll address in more detail in the part concerning infinity. As a side note, I find the idea of a "superuniverse" similar to the concept of an intelligent creator, wherein the latter requires even more assumptions. Personally, I'm quite content with applying the Razor seriously, and concluding that the universe needs no cause whatsoever.

I must apologize for my poor explanation. Also I accept your correction; infinity can be used in mathematical calculations except subtraction; that was my error. My argument was intended to show that the concept of an actual infinity in terms of past time is an impossibility. By “actual infinity” I don’t mean a complete infinity as in a set of all integers, but in terms of physical reality (i.e. it is impossible for there to exist an infinite number of physical objects).

For the record, why exactly is it impossible for an infinite number of rocks to exist, potentially? Of course, the statement "There exist an infinite number of rocks" is completely untestable, but that doesn't mean it cannot be true (incidentally, according to Hume at least, causation is another thing that's untestable and hence unprovable). I await further clarification here.

The problem with using infinity when dealing with time is that theoretical principles are used in the context of physical reality. To say that there has been an infinite past is the same as to say that there are an infinite number of rocks in space. Taking the set of days over the universe’s lifespan as analogous to the set of integers is to consider a steadily expanding finite set as an equal with an infinite set. It is to equate the actual with the potential.

Uh, but aren't you using theoretical principles (like the PSR) in context of physical reality too? I thought it was fair game in this discussion, since I'm presenting it as an alternative to your explanation. Of course, I'd be happy to drop theoretical principles altogether, and try an empirical approach, but we have already done that with Esponer's initial argument.

Either way, I don't see why I should concede my "infinite rocks in space" while you yourself are happy to use "outside of time" and such. At least my rocks are somewhat comprehensible.

Another way of explaining why an infinite chain of events is impossible would be to use Aquinas’ argument of causation, which was brought up earlier: namely that without a first cause, there cannot be a series of subsequent causes. Whichever way you go, it should be clear that an infinite chain of events is impossible in reality.

I still fail to see why infinite regression is impossible. Why can't there be a chain of causes without a first one? I've presented a theoretical model (the set of integers), and now await a reason, for which it cannot be implemented in physical reality. Accept my pre-emptive apology if it's something obvious which I fail to grasp due to being functionally retarded at times.

Hugiboo

06-12-2007, 06:19 PM

Part 1

The "PSR" is the counterpart to Ockham's razor. When Ockham's razor deters from adding unnecessary elements, the PSR deters from not adding enough elements. So the PSR is NOT a way of applying Ockham's razor; it does the exact opposite of what Ockham's razor does.

Indeed, if we applied Ockham's razor to the extreme, we would very quickly find out that nothing strictly needs to be explained in the first place: "do not include any unnecessary elements" destroys science completely if you do not add "except for those needed to create causal relationships".

I think you have put it better than I did. Yes, I agree that the PSR has the function of not letting Occam’s razor get out of hand, since it assures us that there is a reason for everything, even if we don’t know what it is. At the same time though, I think it also has a limiting effect because it won’t accept (as a complete explanation) explanations that fall short of fully explaining the phenomenon in question. This was the aspect I was thinking of, but I think you have identified its more major purpose. It seems to limit Occam’s razor because while the simplest explanation may often be the correct explanation, it can also often be unreasonable. This is why it is important not to just throw around Occam’s razor whenever we don’t like someone’s argument, but first consider all aspects involved.

The PSR only exists to force people to find out systems which allows to predict events; if we stopped at "this event is causeless", we wouldn't manage to predict anything. So we look for reasons/causes. (As explained previously in this thread, these reasons/cause are merely other events which happen at the same time as the event we try to explain; we can not say for sure that these events are the "reasons" or causes of the event we try to explain.)

If you say the reasons/cause are merely other events which happen at the same time as the event we try to explain, you are precluding the possibility that the events truly are the reasons or causes of the event we are trying to explain. I think you were only trying to say that we can’t have objective knowledge of this causal relationship, but I wonder what is the usefulness of making such a claim? Now I will give you what you wanted me to admit before; of course it is perfectly true (notice the inconsistency? but it doesn’t bother me.) that we cannot have objective knowledge of what we perceive to be a causal relationship, or of anything else for that matter. You wanted me to argue that if objective knowledge is not possible, we must do what we can with subjective knowledge; sure, I will go there (see part two of this post for more on this).

Why do we use the PSR? Because otherwise, we'd be stuck to a completely unpredictable world and a completely useless science. For example, quantum physicists left out the principle of sufficient reason when they claimed that the behavior of some particles is strictly probabilist: they say that the particles just happen to do something because of chance.

The PSR doesn't have anything to do with "Objective Truth": the PSR itself cannot be demonstrated to be true! Indeed, why wouldn't the behavior of some particles be completely probabilist? We cannot know. Perhaps it is. But if we want to predict their behavior, we have to presuppose that their behavior is in fact NOT probabilist.

Why do probabilistic particles contradict the PSR? Isn’t there a reason that those certain types of particles are probabilistic, if they are at all? Are they arbitrarily probabilistic? What evidence do the scientists who think this have that they are probabilistic? There are too many unanswered questions concerning probabilistic particles for me to take them seriously at this time; perhaps at a later date if some of these questions are answered.

I didn’t claim that the PSR “is” objectively true, only that it “is concerned with” objective truth. The PSR claims that there exists objectively a reason for every fact. This is what I mean by “concerned with objective truth”. You are correct that the PSR cannot be demonstrated to be true; I find that irrelevant. It’s not just a matter of wanting to be able to predict the behaviour of the universe, it’s a matter of being capable of dealing with reality at all. If we don’t assume beforehand that there exists a reason for every fact, we would be less capable of dealing with reality. That alone gives the PSR strong support for being true (since we find just what we would expect to find if it was true; that believing it helps us to deal with reality in a competent manner).

But in the end nobody can prove that the PSR is true, and that doesn’t really matter because everyone assumes it is true. I’m just going to assume that the universe is intelligible and that everything does have a reason. You may think that is foolish to do without knowing, but as you said, we can’t know anyway, so it must not be any worse an option than believing the opposite. Or should we sit on the fence and say it’s just a mystery that we can’t know? I’m ok with that, I already admitted we can’t know, and I’m just going to go ahead and believe that the universe does make sense. Agnosticism does not limit us to inaction; despite our lack of knowledge, we still choose to treat the world as if it makes sense or not. I think the latter are generally found in mental asylums. I guess I should end this topic here before my rambling gets less intelligible. :P

The PSR is a methodological principle, concerned with what is known by humans. Another methodological principle states that theories should be tested through experience: it doesn't mean that untested theories are wrong. In both cases, these methodological principles are a way to force scientists and other "seekers of information" to go further in their attempts to predict events. If we didn't have them, science would probably not be very useful. But it could still be right.

Again I will submit that the PSR is a principle that is concerned with the nature of objective truth. It is the only way to rationally understand the universe. While it is possible that the PSR is not true, I think it doesn’t bother me because I’ll never find out anyway. I can live my life as if it is true, and make sense of reality all I please, and if it turns out I was wrong, well then, who cares? This is a really difficult subject to discuss with clarity; probably because it is so foundational to logical thought that it cannot be the subject of rational inquiry. Anyway, I don’t see the point in arguing about it unless you think that the PSR is wrong, which I highly doubt.

(...)
The point is not that we need to know what the reason is for the existence of the universe, only that it must have one.
(I am here just rephrasing what I have written previously in this post. Consider this as my conclusion).
On the contrary. The point is that we need to know what the reason is for the existence of the universe. Not that it must have one. The principle of sufficient reason is sometimes considered to be a "law of thought", but it is not a law of reality.

I think you are jumping ahead of my argument here. I’m not saying this is the main point in my argument; I am saying this is the point of establishing the PSR within my argument. The point thus far is to know that the universe must have a reason for its existence. In the end, I agree with you, what is important is knowing what that reason is, which I will attempt to show with the conclusion of my cosmological argument.

By the way, the reason I did not post the whole thing at once (apart from time), is because I think it is important to digest one piece at a time. This way we can try to deal with the objections in the first part (at least so we understand each other) before continuing the argument which must rely on the beginning of the argument. This also helps to sort out which objections are relevant to which section of the argument. There have been many objections to my initial argument that only apply to the later parts of the argument. This to me, does not indicate an open mind.

There would then have to be added only the fact that once for all in logic the question is about what is thought and hence about concepts and not about real things.[/I]

If you are attempting to show that the cosmological argument is unable to deal with matter by using logical arguments you are going to have to make a much stronger case. This is not an argument, only a statement. Or, if that is not what you mean, then I don’t know what you are saying here.

Hugiboo

06-12-2007, 06:21 PM

Part 2

In this case, we can use it to apply a type of causality in the sense that we know that everything that begins to exist has a cause, because what does not exist, cannot effect its own creation, that is, a thing that is non-existent does not have agency. Further, to claim that a thing can begin to exist for no reason whatsoever is to explain, and therefore give a reason for, its existence (if a somewhat self-contradictory reason).
Your last sentence could be used to completely ruin your whole point. But I think it is not just "somewhat" self-contradictory but completely self-contradictory, so I'm not going to use it against you. I have no idea what your first sentence means, perhaps it's me being bad at English :/.

Good call. What I was trying to get at with the last statement is that the only alternative to accepting my argument is self-refuting. You are correct, the wording I used was too weak for what I was intending. The first sentence was an admission that the PSR can be used in the sense of causality in the cosmological argument I presented. In other words, that the PSR applies in this case to the cause of the universe.

As long as "my" version of metaphysics is not proven wrong, then all versions of metaphysics (including mine) remain doubtful. Which does not mean that they are proven wrong, but that they cannot be proven right. Why would anyone listen to what I say? Because otherwise everyone's fucked. And that's not self-refuting.

True, it’s not self-refuting, but it’s not really saying anything either. You haven’t really given a reason for why anyone would listen to your arguments, especially when you claim all your arguments are unknowable. If you mean this simply in the sense that nothing is knowable, then there wasn’t much point in reiterating it specially for metaphysics was there? If you mean that metaphysics is somehow less knowable than other sciences (for instance, the empirical sciences), then I would argue that you don’t know a whole lot about metaphysics. I would say metaphysical issues are much more knowable than other sciences, but since this is not an epistemology thread we may have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Dogmatics always thought that, if skeptics doubted about their own ideology, then their ideology had to be bullshit. That's not a valid argument, although I'm sure an average sophist could do wonders with it. Truth is, dogmatics are preferring the idea that makes them feel more secure, so they somehow always managed to reject doubt even when they only had terrible arguments. See Descartes.

I’m not saying that just because your argument doesn’t give you a leg to stand on that means it is wrong. I’m saying that because it doesn’t give you a leg to stand on, it won’t get you anywhere. It might still be true, but if it is it doesn’t make much difference. The only way knowledge matters is if skepticism is not true, and for that reason I will assume that it is not true. I realize I am making an unproved and unprovable assumption about knowledge, but I like the odds. It’s kind of like betting that you will live through something; if you lose, you don’t care about the money; but if you win, you win double (because you live). I actually like Descartes’ Foundationalist argument, but I think you have to be a theist in order to appreciate it.

you succeed only in eliminating reason
That's the whole point. By showing the possibility of a world void of causality, I am showing the limits of reason. You wrote that causality was a law of the world, "an objective truth" (congrats on saying "Objective Truth", that's a brave thing to say in a philosophy forum ). It is not; it is merely a commodity necessary for reason.

Ok, but my point is that you haven’t shown the possibility of a world void of causality. Your version still had causality directly from God. To go from that point and saying “let’s take God out of the picture” is not showing the possibility of a world without causality; it is simply saying “let’s imagine a world without causality”. There is a difference.

Also, I don’t see what is so brave about saying “objective truth” in a philosophy forum. The same claim is made over and over in every post that makes a claim to truth. Your reply that causality is not an objective truth is just as much a claim of objective truth as what you think I said (the objective truth that causality is not an objective truth). However, as I explained above, I didn’t claim that causality was an objective truth; only that it is concerned with objective truth. I do believe it is an objective truth; but that only means that I accept the PSR as true, which is not nearly so brave as you make it seem.

I was hoping that, instead of trying to stay firmly on your ground, you would have objected that, if everything is relative, we have to build with relative bricks. Which you have not done, so I'm not going to answer that for now ^_^

Well, I actually don’t think my ground was all that firm. As I admitted previously in this post, I can go partway to where you wanted me to go. I won’t say that everything is relative (I lose all intellectual respect for people who claim that), but I will say that human knowledge certainly is not objective. And yes, we make do with what we have. I think it is a lot closer to objective knowledge than “everything being relative” though.

If knowledge is justified true belief (and it’s at least a lot more complicated than just that – i.e. see the Gettier problem), then we can never truly have knowledge, because we can never be 100% justified in our belief. In order to be 100% justified in our belief, we would have to already have knowledge of its truth, which we cannot have without justification. So what are we left with? Something less than 100% justification of course, but also something well above 0%.

I don’t think it is necessary to get into epistemology though just to deal with the PSR. I will use an example of something not complying with the PSR to show the foolishness of rejecting it. Consider the existence of a being; ‘Bob’. If we are to reject the necessity of the PSR, we could believe that Bob need not have any reason for his existence. This does not simply mean that we do not know it, but that there may in fact be absolutely no reason for Bob’s existence. This means that Bob was not created by anything, and he is not self-existent. Then because Bob cannot be explained by anything, he is neither created nor uncreated, and is therefore non-existent. It seems we are indeed forced to assume the truth of the PSR. Now this does not prove the PSR, it is just an illustration of why we are forced to accept it. I’m pretty sure you accept it too.

impersonal

06-13-2007, 06:29 PM

Ok, but my point is that you haven’t shown the possibility of a world void of causality. Your version still had causality directly from God. To go from that point and saying “let’s take God out of the picture” is not showing the possibility of a world without causality; it is simply saying “let’s imagine a world without causality”. There is a difference.
I was trying to make people appreciate such a world intuitively. I don't think I can prove that the world is causeless anymore than people can prove it follows the principle of causality. The only argument in favor of causality is intuition, so if I can show intuitively a world void of causality, it's enough.

However, as I explained above, I didn’t claim that causality was an objective truth; only that it is concerned with objective truth. I do believe it is an objective truth; but that only means that I accept the PSR as true, which is not nearly so brave as you make it seem.
(...)
This is not an argument, only a statement.
You wrote it is "a self-evident truth", instead of more modestly writing that it is an axiom.

I won’t say that everything is relative (I lose all intellectual respect for people who claim that), but I will say that human knowledge certainly is not objective. And yes, we make do with what we have. I think it is a lot closer to objective knowledge than “everything being relative” though.
Believe what you will, respect who you want - as long as you show respect when discussing with me (which you did so far).

If knowledge is justified true belief (and it’s at least a lot more complicated than just that – i.e. see the Gettier problem), then we can never truly have knowledge, because we can never be 100% justified in our belief. In order to be 100% justified in our belief, we would have to already have knowledge of its truth, which we cannot have without justification. So what are we left with? Something less than 100% justification of course, but also something well above 0%.
I'm not so sure we're anywhere above 0%, but then that's just me.

I don’t think it is necessary to get into epistemology though just to deal with the PSR. I will use an example of something not complying with the PSR to show the foolishness of rejecting it. Consider the existence of a being; ‘Bob’. If we are to reject the necessity of the PSR, we could believe that Bob need not have any reason for his existence. This does not simply mean that we do not know it, but that there may in fact be absolutely no reason for Bob’s existence. This means that Bob was not created by anything, and he is not self-existent. Then because Bob cannot be explained by anything, he is neither created nor uncreated, and is therefore non-existent. It seems we are indeed forced to assume the truth of the PSR. Now this does not prove the PSR, it is just an illustration of why we are forced to accept it. I’m pretty sure you accept it too.
Where did your argument show that Bob was not uncreated?

***

Anyways, it seems we agree that
if everything is relative, we have to build with relative bricks. Which you have not done, so I'm not going to answer that for now ^_^
(replace relative with subjective if you want)

So we can move on from that point if you will. When I make this suggestion, I am offering an argument that I don't have an answer to for now (although I'm going to try to find one). So this could very well give you the final word on the subject of causality. In which case I would have to move on to the other phases of the cosmological argument.

Hugiboo

06-14-2007, 04:29 AM

Hi funkmasterswede. Sorry for the long delay in getting back to your post. I think I have dealt with some of what you said, but I would like to reply to your specific comments to make a few points I haven't covered yet.

I think that Mislead hinted at the issue of reason as a human construct and I would like to elaborate on that. To say that everything needs a reason to exist is to reduce existence to the way in which we think and talk about existence. For example, we exist, this is a self evident. By accepting the teleological argument and stating that existence must have a reason or cause, we are reducing existence to a human construct. We exist prior to creating thoughts dealing with the reasons to exist. Existence is not reducible to the relationship one thing has to another. I think that we can extrapolate from here that since reasons to exists are a human construct to apply them to the absolute version of reality is to make an assumption that our mind reflects the systematic working of the universe.

As I replied to mislead, reason is definitely not a human construct. It is a fact of our intellectual nature; reason is something all humans do; we did not create it. Reason is actually more fundamental to us than our physical senses are; and as such, we should trust reason more than we trust empirical science, which we have good reason to trust. I am not saying “everything needs a reason” but “everything has a reason”. Saying this does not reduce existence to the way in which we think about it, but rather gives insight into something already inherent in existence. Does this mean I am making an assumption that minds reflect the systematic working of the universe? I’m not exactly sure what that means, but I will say that the universe is rational. It operates in set, predictable ways (predictable inasmuch as we are able to understand those ways) that we are able to comprehend because of our rational minds (to some extent). If you think our minds are not accurately able to understand the rationality of the universe (or if you think that rationality does not exist), I wonder how you are able to function in everyday life. This relationship we have with our environment is critical to our ability to survive. If we couldn’t count on nature to be systematic and logical, we would not be able to feed ourselves, prepare for winter, defend against aggressors, or do hardly anything except by accident. We would be equals with vegetables.

This is a law based on the perception of reality via the human medium and reflects a view that we percieve reality as it is, in it's absolute form. However, considering that we never have recieved information and concepts from an objective source. They are either derived through perception or logical faculties, it is difficult to say if the paradigm of existence in which we exist reflects reality objectively.

This type of argument has been used several times in this discussion. To me it comes across as an argument of desperation; a sort of last ditch attempt to win an argument. I’m not saying this is what you or anyone else is attempting to do; this is just what it appears to me. This is what I do when I am arguing stupid things with my brother like “prove to me that you are not a fish”. Once all my stupid arguments are defeated (i.e. fishes can breathe under water, and you can breathe underneath water – as in being beneath a tank of water or being in the rain, therefore you must be a fish), then I pull out my killer argument to force a tie; “you can’t know anything objectively, so your argument is only as good as mine!”

To have an argument like this used by an atheist seems very hypocritical to me. Atheism is supposed to be very rational and supported by the facts (or at least able to account for all the facts without needing to appeal to the divine). So when I bring up logical arguments supporting the existence of a divine creator and someone comes back with the “you can’t know anything objectively” argument, there seems to be no point continuing the debate. After all, you cannot have a debate with someone who shares no common ground; you must have some shared authorities that you can appeal to in order to make your point and without reason there can be no common ground. For this reason, I generally ignore this type of argument or try to show the pointlessness of it.

I see where you are going with this. I have heard a variation of this argument before. But I would like to clarify what you are trying to say. At this point I see this as a more of a critique of the concept of infinity.

The concept of infinity is fine. It is useful for conceptualizing unlimited sets (as in numbers). It is when infinity is held to be actually possible that it becomes self-refuting. Can you even imagine the possibility of an unlimited number of things existing in a finite physical world? If actual infinities were possible, then it would be possible for something like Hilbert’s Hotel (referred to earlier) to exist.

Ultimately, such a view requires that we are able to know the true nature of reality and thus can apply the laws of causality to the universe. But considering the fact that I have mentioned before that we percieve reality subjectively, we would have to take it on faith that the reality that we percieved is reality in and of itself. And for me this view requires a belief in god, for if one believes in god then one will ask the question why would god design us to not be able to see the true nature of reality? Most people with a belief in god would then come to the conclusion that we percieve reality in and of itself.

It is not only the religious who take it on faith that the reality that we perceive is reality in and of itself. Do you ever find yourself believing that the sun will rise in the morning? Or assuming that gravity will remain constant while you throw an object at something? Do you ever assume that other people you know are real and not simply a figment of your imagination? Anyone who answers yes to these questions takes on faith that their perceived reality is true.

And thank you for coming up with these arguments. As has been stated above this forum tends to be one sided, so seeing arguments from the other side is always good.

I likewise enjoy the opportunity to test my arguments against atheist arguments. If I find that my arguments are able to stand, then I am assured that for the moment, I am being intellectually honest in holding the beliefs I do. If I find that any of my arguments fail, or I cannot defeat any counter arguments, I then know where I need to re-evaluate my beliefs. I believe that only the fool and the coward is afraid of learning the truth.

Hugiboo

06-14-2007, 06:14 AM

But now we get into what it means to say "our universe" it is true that the big bang was the beginning of our universe as before it was a singularity. But as I pointed out that before the singularity is unknown. Therefore the definition of universe become important because if you include void of nothingness and the multiple dimensions.

"There is no evidence, nor is evidence possible, of any universe that existed prior to ours. "
This is true, but you of all people supporting the cosmology argument would not accept that this means the there was no universe prior.

Now if you want to talk about solely our universe as we know it today, that is fine, we can talk about the big bang being the cause of the universe we know today.

Great, that is exactly what I want to talk about. So we are agreed that the big bang is the beginning of our universe – “our universe” meaning only this universe that we exist within and can experience. By your lack of argument against my first premise and your acceptance of my second premise, I will assume that for you at least the first stage of the argument has been proved. Since 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause; and 2) the universe began to exist; then 3) the universe must have a cause. So far I have said nothing about what this cause might be; whether it is personal or impersonal; or any other qualities it may have. I hope to get through the objections raised soon and move on to the rest of the argument (though as long as new ideas and arguments are being used, I see no reason to rush – we ought to be as satisfied as possible with the first part before moving on to the second).

The big bang is just a single example of how you can go to and from a point where the laws of physics do not apply.

Your assumption that the 2nd law of thermodynamics rejects a infinite universe is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are infinitely constant, and your rejection that when huge change occurs it is no longer our universe, it is a super-universe. I do not mind continuing the conversation with the just the current state, but it seems to be outside of the cosmology argument.

The reason you can go from a point where the laws of physics do not apply is because we are talking about the event that created all matter, and thus the laws that govern that matter (or the nature of matter). Honestly, the argument from the second law of thermodynamics is very limited; it only applies to our current universe and is meant to reinforce the conclusion that the universe did in fact have a beginning. It cannot be used to deal with any kind of existence other than our universe.

As for whether my limitation of “universe” in this discussion to our universe is outside the cosmology argument, I think you will see that it is not. The origin argument is intended initially only to deal with our universe (at least mine is) and should not be applied from the start to anything outside. We must first consider what possibilities there are as causes of the universe before we consider their likelihood.

I would say that it is you that are treating infinite as an actual number as you say you are talking about going past a point, I brought up potential infinity to point out the flaw in trying to establish a point from which infinity began until now. This is essentially what you are doing, you are applying potential infinity of two fix points, and say that one more than the second fix point (today) could not be infinity one after it (tomorrow) is infinity. Where you imply from the beginning infinity to now is infinity, one beyond that can not be infinity.

You say unfixed, but a better word would be unbounded, and that is what we are talking about, the distance in the case is infinite, as from this point to the unbounded point is infinite. When you say, "certain distance" I once again can not draw any conclusion that that you are attempting to put a real number of the span or "distance" in time.

Since you accept that our universe had a beginning, I think your argument for the possibility of infinity is meant only to apply to a possible super-universe. However, instead of leaving it for later, since we are already on the subject, let me try to clarify my position once more. I think my first paragraph was not quite clear. The main point I was trying to show is that the analogy that you drew between an infinite number of points between two numbers and time doesn’t work because you are not trying to show that there can be an infinite number of points between two fixed points in time.

The analogy with numbers does not apply to how you see time because with time we are talking about an “unbounded” point. If you then change the analogy to show that there can be an infinite number of negative numbers (analogous to past events) you are no longer offering what you attempted to with the original argument, which was to show that it was possible to have an actual unbounded (or infinite) set.

Then, when we look at the new analogy of infinite negative points on the scale of numbers, we will still see that it does not make sense in terms of past events (or time). With numbers we begin at zero and count backwards up as high as we want to go, and potentially to infinity. With time, however, each event must proceed from the last, starting at infinity and ending in zero (the present). But infinity is an impossible starting point. This is not because I am trying to use infinity as a fixed point; the problem arises particularly because we cannot start at a fixed point. Time does not move backwards but forwards, and an infinite past cannot ever lead to the present moment precisely because it is infinite.

Hugiboo

06-14-2007, 06:15 AM

You seem to have a fondness for the implication of words past their meaning. As though presupposition is the same as faith. I would consider a presupposition by its very nature to be held before inquiry, and to be tentatively held. While faith is application used during inquiry, and is held as strongly as though by fact.

in other words "having presuppositions that are held to be above rational inquisition" is "strong" faith.

I probably shouldn’t be going down rabbit trails when I am already struggling to reply to everything that I want to, but I find this to be a very interesting rabbit trail; and I did start it.

I certainly did not explain myself very well, and I apologize for that. Many people assume that faith and blind faith are the same thing, Christians and non-Christians alike sadly. Let me explain the difference as I see it. When I go to sit down at my computer, I have faith that my chair will not collapse. I don’t know for sure, nor can I, but I believe without proof that it will hold me up. And it does. But I have good reasons for having faith in my chair. For one; it is a very sturdy chair, made of wood, four solid legs, it looks very safe to sit on. Also, the chair is not very old, it has held me many times before without even the hint of giving out, and I have seen it hold much heavier weights than myself without problem. Also, I have seen many old or weak chairs and have an eye for a damaged chair or one that looks like it may break, yet none of the telltale signs are present in my chair. Lastly, knowing the history of my chair, I know that it has not undergone rough treatment nor has anyone had a chance to tamper with it since I sat in it last (a few minutes ago).

Many would not call this faith, but instead a reasonable belief. This, I believe, is due to a conception of faith that it is in some way opposed to reason or knowledge and must be. Yet I would say that I have faith in my chair despite not actually knowing that it will hold me. I could very well be wrong about it; perhaps a bolt is loose that I have not noticed and when I sit on it the whole thing will come crashing down. There are many things that could be wrong with it, yet I have good reason to believe that it will hold me. We have similar beliefs about many things; that the sun will rise, that gravity will go on tomorrow as it was today, that the people we see and talk to are real and not the figment of our imagination, etc… These are all examples of reasonable faith. We are having faith when we do not know for sure what the truth is, nor can we know for sure. I suppose knowledge would destroy faith if it was possible to have objective knowledge. Then we would simply know, and it would be no question of faith.

Blind faith on the other hand, is believing in something with no good reason for doing so. Nobody believes something for absolutely no reason. Even those who have blind faith believe for some reason, just not necessarily a good reason. It may be because it feels right, or because someone told them so, or because they want it to be true; these are all poor reasons for believing something, and he who believes for these reasons holds blind faith.

Now, strong faith and blind faith mean very different things. One may have strong rational faith, as I do in my chair, or strong blind faith, as a particular religious fanatic perhaps, but having strong faith does not determine whether it is reasonable or not.

As to your understanding of “presupposition”, I don’t quite agree. I have many presuppositions that I have evaluated and considered before and after holding them. Presuppositions need not be held before inquiry, they are simply the framework that a person is using when reasoning. Some may be held tentatively, others very strongly. For instance, I generally bring to a discussion the presupposition that what I perceive with my senses is real. With this built into my framework, I assume that the person I am talking to is really there and I am not hallucinating. I do not hold this presupposition tentatively, yet there are events that could shake my confidence in such a presupposition (i.e. suddenly I am naked and nobody notices – good chance I may be dreaming). In this way, I do not hold any presuppositions (even the strongest held) above rational inquisition. Therefore, as I said, having faith is not an enemy of logic as long as those presuppositions that we have faith in are subject to rational inquisition. When the presuppositions that we have faith in are not subject to rational inquisition, that is the enemy of logic or reason.

Wow, that turned into quite the rabbit trail. Hope it made sense.

maj1n

06-14-2007, 06:20 AM

Hugiboo

06-14-2007, 07:13 AM

I haven't replied to everything if I felt that I have addressed it in another recent post. It looks like I am nearly finished replying to objections and questions. If there are no new questions raised after this I will post the next section of the argument (contrary to what Esponer mentioned, I find the argument to remain quite strong to the end).

I'd argue that even considering notions such as "outside of time" or "the total of timespace" already breaks this principle, since they're a priori (at least according to Kant) incomprehensible for us. Therefore, instead of trying to integrate these into our arguments, we should perhaps look for ways which fall in line with our ability to comprehend things.

I don’t think these principles are a priori incomprehensible to us. I may not be able to understand perfectly, but “the total of timespace” seems to make sense to me. The concept of “outside of time” is a little less comprehensible, but I think there is a way we can understand a part of concepts like this. As I have said, the idea of existing outside of time is impossible for me to really understand, as in what it would be like. But that does not mean I cannot understand anything about it. For instance, I can know that the ways that we are limited by being within time would not affect something that existed outside of time. I can know that whatever created time, must have been outside of it. These can be useful, even if we cannot completely understand the concept.

Ok, I suppose. If you like to define the universe as the entirety of physical matter, then I guess my idea falls into infinite regression once again, which I'll address in more detail in the part concerning infinity. As a side note, I find the idea of a "superuniverse" similar to the concept of an intelligent creator, wherein the latter requires even more assumptions. Personally, I'm quite content with applying the Razor seriously, and concluding that the universe needs no cause whatsoever.

Supposing we prove that the universe requires a cause, I agree that the idea of a super-universe is similar to the concept of an intelligent creator in that both are possible causes that would exist outside of our universe. We will see which is more reasonable when we consider the possible causes for the universe.

For the record, why exactly is it impossible for an infinite number of rocks to exist, potentially? Of course, the statement "There exist an infinite number of rocks" is completely untestable, but that doesn't mean it cannot be true (incidentally, according to Hume at least, causation is another thing that's untestable and hence unprovable). I await further clarification here.

I agree that “untestable” does not equal “untrue”, but the reason an infinite number of rocks could not exist is quite simple. The universe is finite in terms of matter (even if you want to hold that it has an infinite past); an infinite number of rocks cannot be contained within a finite universe. I would absolutely agree with Hume and add any scientific truth to the list of things that are unprovable in the absolute. Hence, I hold philosophic truths to be much more authoritative than scientific ones (though I still generally accept modern science).

Uh, but aren't you using theoretical principles (like the PSR) in context of physical reality too? I thought it was fair game in this discussion, since I'm presenting it as an alternative to your explanation. Of course, I'd be happy to drop theoretical principles altogether, and try an empirical approach, but we have already done that with Esponer's initial argument.

Maybe I used the wrong words. The theoretical concept of infinity is not analogous to reality in the same way the PSR is. Infinity is used to denote an unlimited set in theory, but it cannot be applied to reality simply because reality is finite (as I showed with the infinite rocks example). This discussion on time I think is more clear in some of my other posts.

Either way, I don't see why I should concede my "infinite rocks in space" while you yourself are happy to use "outside of time" and such. At least my rocks are somewhat comprehensible.

What is wrong with talking about “outside of time”? I find it a simple concept, though difficult to fully understand. It means simply, that which has existence apart from a spatial-temporal reality. We can talk about this and know what it means even if we cannot understand it. The infinite rocks in space on the other hand, are logically impossible.

I still fail to see why infinite regression is impossible. Why can't there be a chain of causes without a first one? I've presented a theoretical model (the set of integers), and now await a reason, for which it cannot be implemented in physical reality. Accept my pre-emptive apology if it's something obvious which I fail to grasp due to being functionally retarded at times.

Aquinas’ argument of causation basically goes as follows. An effect follows from a cause, and a series of causes follows from a first cause. If we remove the cause, there is no effect, and if we remove the first cause, there are no intermediary causes and no final effect. An infinite chain of causes has no first cause; therefore no intermediary causes can follow from it, and no final cause can come about. Therefore, an infinite chain of causes is logically impossible.

For an answer to the model of infinity based on integers, see post #66.

Hugiboo

06-14-2007, 07:21 AM

No, you are wrong Hugiboo, blind faith is belief without evidence or logic/rationale to lead to said belief.

'confidence' faith is believing in something strongly.

Blind faith=any belief of a supernatural issue be it God/afterlife/supernatural creatures/supernatural laws.

Thanks for the clarification maj1n. You are free to believe whatever definition of these words that you like. My definitions at least have reasons behind them, but you can use whatever definitions you like for them. At least when I use the terms you will know what I mean. If you are going to make criticisms you should try to defend your statements and try to understand what you are criticizing. In case you were wondering, I did not reply to your earlier post because the criticisms were either irrelevant or were answered in the post you criticized.

mislead

06-14-2007, 07:04 PM

Since you seem to want to move on with your closing argument, I'll leave the PSR alone (I believe it's pretty solid, if not entirely convincing), and just concentrate on infinite regression (on which I remain unconvinced).

Maybe I used the wrong words. The theoretical concept of infinity is not analogous to reality in the same way the PSR is. Infinity is used to denote an unlimited set in theory, but it cannot be applied to reality simply because reality is finite (as I showed with the infinite rocks example). This discussion on time I think is more clear in some of my other posts.

What is wrong with talking about “outside of time”? I find it a simple concept, though difficult to fully understand. It means simply, that which has existence apart from a spatial-temporal reality. We can talk about this and know what it means even if we cannot understand it. The infinite rocks in space on the other hand, are logically impossible.

I feel like you're twisting your terms a bit here, if I correctly understand your use of "logically impossible". To me, that phrase is equivalent to "contradictory", and the "infinite rocks in space" idea is definitely not contradictory in it's essence. It's true that it's impossible within the physical reality we exist in right now, but so would be the case for "a rock bigger than the universe". I hope this analogy makes my objection clearer here.

Aquinas’ argument of causation basically goes as follows. An effect follows from a cause, and a series of causes follows from a first cause. If we remove the cause, there is no effect, and if we remove the first cause, there are no intermediary causes and no final effect. An infinite chain of causes has no first cause; therefore no intermediary causes can follow from it, and no final cause can come about. Therefore, an infinite chain of causes is logically impossible.

I contest the bold part. It appears to be an assumption (or at least it doesn't trivially follow from the basic principle of causation), and one I simply don't agree to. This argument merely attempts to assume that infinite regress is impossible. What I'd agree with there, would be "a finite series of causes follows from a first cause", but not what the argument puts forth.

Esponer

06-14-2007, 07:08 PM

Just so you know, Hugiboo, I'm still active and reading the thread, but I'm waiting for the rest of your argument before I post a full analysis.

Hugiboo

06-14-2007, 11:54 PM

I was trying to make people appreciate such a world intuitively. I don't think I can prove that the world is causeless anymore than people can prove it follows the principle of causality. The only argument in favor of causality is intuition, so if I can show intuitively a world void of causality, it's enough.

I think a world void of causality is beyond human comprehension. At least in a temporal-spatial universe; apart from that I could begin to imagine it; but it is the inherent nature of physical reality that I think makes the term absurd.

You wrote it is "a self-evident truth", instead of more modestly writing that it is an axiom.

I guess I did say that. What I meant in the last post is that I was not arguing to prove that causality is an objective truth, as I don’t think that can be done. In saying that it is a self-evident truth, I mean that I believe it to be an objective truth which is self-evident; therefore its truthfulness cannot be argued.

I'm not so sure we're anywhere above 0%, but then that's just me.

If we were at 0% you would not be able to function except by accident. Somehow you are able to interact with reality in a way that keeps you alive and well. How can this be if what you think you know is 0% justified? It is quite a coincidence if your beliefs that are 0% justified just happen by random chance to line up with reality in a way that allows you to successfully interact with reality. That is an assumption of a calibre I am not willing to accept.

Where did your argument show that Bob was not uncreated?

The argument shows that Bob is not a self-sufficient being (and therefore, an uncreated but existent being) because that would be a reason for his existence. Anything that is able to explain his existence, be it his dependence on something else or his self-sufficiency is a reason for his existence.

I feel like you're twisting your terms a bit here, if I correctly understand your use of "logically impossible". To me, that phrase is equivalent to "contradictory", and the "infinite rocks in space" idea is definitely not contradictory in it's essence. It's true that it's impossible within the physical reality we exist in right now, but so would be the case for "a rock bigger than the universe". I hope this analogy makes my objection clearer here.

I believe it is impossible in its essence because of the meanings of the terms that define it. The concept of “infinite rocks in space” entails a logical impossibility because the meaning of “space” disqualifies the possibility of “infinite rocks” existing within it. “Space” is referring to the universe which is made of matter. As such, it is finite; as is any possible universe consisting of matter. Therefore, no universe consisting of matter (if it was consisting of something else, I would not really call it a universe) can contain an infinite number of any objects.

I think you are most likely to disagree with my statement that any possible universe would be incapable of containing an infinite quantity of matter. The reason this cannot be the case is because an infinite quantity of matter is not a quantity at all but is a theoretical concept denoting an unlimited set; there is no way to transfer this concept to reality. Universes (in theory), consist of actual quantities of matter, so the extent of the universe is the set of all matter in existence. But the quantity of all matter in existence is an objective fact and must have a value; to say it could be infinite is absurd; it makes no logical sense.

I contest the bold part. It appears to be an assumption (or at least it doesn't trivially follow from the basic principle of causation), and one I simply don't agree to. This argument merely attempts to assume that infinite regress is impossible. What I'd agree with there, would be "a finite series of causes follows from a first cause", but not what the argument puts forth.

Here is the long version, from http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Articles/Philosophy_of_religion/God/five_ways.html:
“The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.” (Aquinas)

In any case, given the PSR, even an infinite causal chain, if possible, would have a reason for its existence. Such a cause would lead us exactly where we are already going with the view that the universe is not infinite, so it would make more sense to accept the more simple view of the universe that it was created with a beginning.

Jackal&Casull

06-15-2007, 01:06 AM

Okay for those of you that believe in God.

Like an addicting drug, God provides us with something we need, that is love or feeling secure or happyness. God takes care of us when we feel down. When there is no one to turn to, there is God. And dont tell me you love God. Because if you truly loved God then he would come before your family and friends. But he doesnt, you need him as a last resort. You only turn to him when YOU need help (of course you may pray for others, but really you pray for them so you dont feel guilty putting yourself infront of others all the time). This selfishness and seeking self esteem through God is just a goofy fucking thing to do.

If that doesnt convince you that God is bullshit, here are things to wonder about. Do you ever pay close attention to the thing you believe in? God is not even a thing, its an idea, its a concept like "home". Home is an abstract idea. Do you ever wonder why you believe in God? Could it be because you believe in "fair" justice? Could it be because you value universal peace and love? Themes, such as justice, equality, and love are sumed up into one word. God. You dont even believe that there is a supreme being, you just value those themes that appeal to you. Trust me, he doesnt help you in anyway. Some of your prays are "answered" and some arent at a 50-50 rate.

Another thing. These athletes who thank God when they do good. What the fuck is going on here. Are these people out of their fucking minds? Do you actually believe that GOD is on YOUR side when you run a race? Holy fuck your selfish! However you never hear them blame God when they loose. You never hear them say "Jesus made me drop the ball". HMMM? Why is that? I tell you why, NO GOD.

Esponer

06-15-2007, 01:12 AM

Please be on-topic, Jackal&Casull. Your comments are not responses to the cosmological argument, and if you wish to discuss them I would recommend you post a thread to do so. I'd strongly encourage nobody to respond to his points in the thread, either: PM instead.

Jackal&Casull

06-15-2007, 01:17 AM

Basically I was saying that the universe is not created by God. If you would like to respond private message please.

maj1n

06-15-2007, 05:29 AM

Thanks for the clarification maj1n. You are free to believe whatever definition of these words that you like. My definitions at least have reasons behind them, but you can use whatever definitions you like for them. At least when I use the terms you will know what I mean. If you are going to make criticisms you should try to defend your statements and try to understand what you are criticizing. In case you were wondering, I did not reply to your earlier post because the criticisms were either irrelevant or were answered in the post you criticized.
The reason why your argument is not valid is your trying to confuse exactly what is 'blind faith' because blind faith has negative connotation of being irrational.

Your saying blind faith is faith 'without good reason', then you at the end choose to conclude with.

Therefore, as I said, having faith is not an enemy of logic as long as those presuppositions that we have faith in are subject to rational inquisition. When the presuppositions that we have faith in are not subject to rational inquisition, that is the enemy of logic or reason.

Which faith are you now talking about? this seems purposefully ambigous, considering your efforts to differentiate types of faith.

Faith, or a belief without evidence, is the enemy of logic, logic requires true presuppositions and a valid deduction for its conclusion to be valid especially in reality.

maj1n

06-15-2007, 05:36 AM

Here is the long version, from http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Articles/Philosophy_of_religion/God/five_ways.html:
“The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.” (Aquinas)

In any case, given the PSR, even an infinite causal chain, if possible, would have a reason for its existence. Such a cause would lead us exactly where we are already going with the view that the universe is not infinite, so it would make more sense to accept the more simple view of the universe that it was created with a beginning.
Wrong.

Why?

All instances in which we say something is 'created' is not literal creation in the same sense as the making of physical reality.

'Creating' in any way you use it contemporarily, means simply the starting point of an arbitrary type of 'structure' to an object, it is not literally the creation of a physical object on the same terms as physical reality.

In other words, 'creating a chair' is merely the shaping of wood into a structure that resembles what we think is a 'chair'.

The creation of physical reality is different, this implies a creation actually from nothing we know before it, a type of 'nothing into something'.

This i do not believe humanity has ever witnessed, there is no precedant.

To put it even to a better perspective, under that argument you propose, when scientists create conditions for 'green light' are they making 'light' in that sense? no, 'green' light is merely part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

But in common usage, it would be acceptable to say i created that green light, it merely means i made conditions that allowed existing matter shaped into a particular structure, which i deem 'green' light.

In fact if your going to use induction, which is what your website is trying to do, then it actually implies MATTER IS ETERNAL, because matter insofar as we know, has ALWAYS existed, in any shape or form, that we could never create actual matter if you use induction would imply more that matter is eternal, and needs no creator.

Hugiboo

06-15-2007, 11:40 AM

I am now ready to present my terminating argument in the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. Thank you for your patience and your respectful criticisms. I will of course still attempt to answer any new questions or criticisms of the previous part of the argument.

Now that we have established that the universe has a cause, we should deal with the problem of whether this cause also needs a cause. I find this objection to be mostly raised out of ignorance of what a cause of the universe entails, however, considering it does raise some worthwhile points.

The simple objection is: “if God created the universe, who created God?” We are not nearly so far in our argument as to call the cause of the universe “God” or anything else, but the question remains valid, in a sense. The question arises from the PSR; there must be a reason for the existence of any fact; including the fact that there is a cause of the universe – the existence of that cause must also be explained. For the sake of clarity, let’s use the term “Cause” as a neutral label for whatever it is that is the cause of the universe (the name we use is not important here, we might just as well choose something else).

Firstly I should point out that posing the question does not negate the necessity of the Cause’s existence. Unless the origin argument can be shown to be unsound (i.e. either one of the premises are false or the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises), we must accept the previously established fact that there exists a Cause of the universe. Yet if the origin argument is truly sound, there must be an answer to the question.

Secondly, we must note that what is required to satisfy the question is an explanation or reason, not a cause. A cause is one type of reason that is only necessary for that which begins to exist, yet the cause of time itself can hardly be said to begin to exist, for to do so would require that our Cause exists within a temporal reality outside of our universe – some kind of super-universe. Following the same logic as the origin argument, we would then be forced to admit that the Cause’s universe also has a cause (being a spatial-temporal universe like ours). This could continue indefinitely, and yet our question would never be answered. (Now that we are talking about the possibility of an infinite regress of supernatural causes, the absurdity of an infinite causal chain may be more evident to some.) As is commonly understood in epistemology, an infinite regress cannot have adequate justification; and similarly in causation, an infinite regress cannot give adequate justification for the final cause. It is intellectually unfulfilling; never providing a reason for the final cause.

As I mentioned earlier, this is as much a problem for the theist as it is for the atheist. For an intelligent Cause is no more in need of explanation than an unintelligent Cause. At this point, I think it would be helpful to consider another of Aquinas’ arguments for God. The argument states: 1) every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being; 2) not every being can be a dependant being (due to an infinite regress of dependency, which we have already seen to be impossible); 3) therefore, there exists a self-existent being. The reason I do not like to use this as my main argument is that it does not prove nearly so much as Aquinas intended it to do.

We saw above that to posit an infinite regress of dependent ‘Causes’ does not provide the necessary reason for the existence of the universe. However, just because this infinite regress cannot solve the problem, does not excuse us from the problem. The argument remains, that the universe has a cause. The argument made here provides a possible solution to the regress problem. Premise one is a self-evident proposition in the form, everything is either A or not A; there are no other logical possibilities. Premise two comes from the fact that an infinite regress of dependent beings violates the PSR, as we have just seen with the example of an infinite regress of dependent 'Causes'. Therefore, the conclusion follows logically, that there must exist a self-existent being (just to be clear, a “being” does not entail an intelligent cause – a rock is a being). This is the only possible way to fulfill the PSR concerning the existence of the universe.

The next step after this will be to show that the Cause of the universe is in fact the God of Christianity. First though, we should discuss this part of the argument and work out the kinks. :)

maj1n

06-15-2007, 11:50 AM

Hugiboo

06-15-2007, 12:27 PM

The reason why your argument is not valid is your trying to confuse exactly what is 'blind faith' because blind faith has negative connotation of being irrational.

Since this really is a rabbit trail, we really should not be debating this here. I did not bring it up to debate but to offer a different perspective. But since you are confused about what I said, and since I did bring it up in the first place, I will try to clarify briefly the points you have misunderstood. I’m afraid I cannot make it any clearer than this, and since it is not on topic, I will not be responding to any further comments on this (unless it is relevant to the topic).

I think I was very clear about what blind faith is. I am not trying to paint it in a better light or confuse what it means. Blind faith is faith without good reason (i.e. “that’s what I was taught” or “I want it to be true”). These are still reasons, but they are not good reasons. As such, this type of faith – blind faith – is foolish. I don’t like it any more than you.

Which faith are you now talking about? this seems purposefully ambigous, considering your efforts to differentiate types of faith.

Faith, or a belief without evidence, is the enemy of logic, logic requires true presuppositions and a valid deduction for its conclusion to be valid especially in reality.

If I was being purposefully ambiguous, that would mean that I felt I had to trick you into believing something that there is otherwise no reason to believe. If I thought there was no reason to believe it, why would I try to convince anyone? A little bit of advice; when arguing with someone, don’t accuse them of purposefully making confusing arguments. Always give the benefit of the doubt and you won’t look like a fool. You can simply say when you don’t understand an argument, and then the other person will try to make it more clear.

I did go into quite a lot of detail so that you would not make the very obvious misunderstandings you are now making. In the end I was simply saying that faith – any kind of faith – is not the problem when it comes to logic. As I said before, blind faith is certainly foolish in that it does not seek confirmation from reality. But this alone is not the enemy of logic. As I said, the enemy of logic is presuppositions (whether held by blind faith or rational faith) that are held to be above rational inquisition. In effect, if you have any presuppositions that you will never allow to be challenged, no matter how you came to hold those presuppositions, you are being narrow-minded. This is what the enemy of logic is.

I have very strong faith in Christianity, but show me an example of my faith getting in the way of my ability to reason.

I don't think you know what a universe is.

Here:

The Universe is defined as the summation of all particles and energy that exist and the space-time in which all events occur
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Observable_portion

That is exactly my definition of what a universe is. It's nice to know you read my posts before criticizing them.

Firstly, i don't get where you concluded that the universe has or had a cause, there is no evidence to deduce to this, nor can you use induction saying 'everything had a cause' for there is absolutely no precedant in the creation of matter-energy.

You may understand my argument better if you read it.

All our 'creations' are in fact just transformations of matter-energy.

Secondly, as per the definition of universe above, if you begin to argue the cause was any matter-energy construct (and stop using the word 'being' your being purposefuly misleading) or an intelligent entity, they would necessarily be part of the universe.

I see that you are not understanding most of what I said. If you can bring yourself to ask respectfully specific questions about what you don't understand, I will try to simplify it. If you are unable to be respectful, then I think you do not care what I have to say, and I might as well not talk to you.

impersonal

06-15-2007, 03:03 PM

I’m afraid I cannot make it any clearer than this, and since it is not on topic, I will not be responding to any further comments on this (unless it is relevant to the topic).
Indeed. Don't let him derail this thread. Prepare your self control, because he will respond aggressively to your last message.

(...) That is an assumption of a calibre I am not willing to accept.
I'm afraid I haven't been very clear. When I wrote "but then that's just me", it meant I didn't want to argue on this subject. However, if you really want to impose this discussion, I'll have to comply, although I would consider this to be rude. Now if you really want to know about the reasons of my position, we can proceed to argue over it. I wouldn't want you to think I'm refusing discussion because I don't have the means to answer.

The argument shows that Bob is not a self-sufficient being (and therefore, an uncreated but existent being) because that would be a reason for his existence. Anything that is able to explain his existence, be it his dependence on something else or his self-sufficiency is a reason for his existence.

You wrote that if Bob was not created (=caused by something exterior), then he had to be self-sufficient (a word which literally means: caused by himself). This dichotomy is true if the PSR and causality are true in the first place, so you are making a circular reasoning.

You have merely shown that if Bob was not created by something exterior to him, then he did not create himself either. You only managed to show that Bob was, indeed, not created, and causeless.

This is the second time you do this. You claim that being causeless is the same as being caused by causelessness. This is a language trick, not an argument. This is bullshit. I'm sure you got my point the first time I called you on this one, so it makes me mad to see it again now. MAD.

I thought we had agreed to stop our argument at "if we are powerless in a causeless universe, it is best to pose it as a convention that everything in the universe has a cause". I am not completely convinced by this idea, but I think this is a very strong argument and my objections against it are not strong enough to counter it; besides, I want to know about the rest of your version of the cosmological argument.

However, if you want us to fight to death over Bob and the quantity of knowledge reachable by men, you have put me in the right state of mind. In case you want us to have this debate, proceed. I'll start discussing the second part of your argument anyway.

mislead

06-15-2007, 03:21 PM

I believe it is impossible in its essence because of the meanings of the terms that define it. The concept of “infinite rocks in space” entails a logical impossibility because the meaning of “space” disqualifies the possibility of “infinite rocks” existing within it. “Space” is referring to the universe which is made of matter. As such, it is finite; as is any possible universe consisting of matter. Therefore, no universe consisting of matter (if it was consisting of something else, I would not really call it a universe) can contain an infinite number of any objects.

I think you are most likely to disagree with my statement that any possible universe would be incapable of containing an infinite quantity of matter. The reason this cannot be the case is because an infinite quantity of matter is not a quantity at all but is a theoretical concept denoting an unlimited set; there is no way to transfer this concept to reality. Universes (in theory), consist of actual quantities of matter, so the extent of the universe is the set of all matter in existence. But the quantity of all matter in existence is an objective fact and must have a value; to say it could be infinite is absurd; it makes no logical sense.

You keep repeating it's absurd and makes no logical sense, but I have yet to see a concrete argument in favor of that stance. If it's absurd, then show me how it leads to a contradiction.

The argument you have presented here, for example, fails because you're trying to show that "infinite quantity" doesn't make any sense. That's true, of course, but it's irrelevant to the point at hand. Attributing an infinite universe with "quantity of matter" is meaningless, it has no such thing. The only thing you've shown is that infinity isn't a natural number, which we have agreed to some time ago. Also "the quantity of all matter in existence is an objective fact and must have a value" is yet again an assumption, and is equivalent to "there is a finite amount of matter in existence".

Here is the long version, from http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Articles/Philosophy_of_religion/God/five_ways.html:
“The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.” (Aquinas)

Point is, it makes no sense to use the word "intermediate" if the causal chain is infinite. If anything, a backwards infinite chain would consist of an infinite amount of "intermediate" causes, thus rendering the premise of the argument void. The criticism from my previous posts still holds here.

Actually, I don't think you can prove that infinite regression is impossible with the principle of causation by itself; you'll need some more assumptions. My argument in favor of this opinion is almost totally mathematical, and I can put it forth if you want me to.

Finally, I believe that the misunderstanding we've arrived at here is based on individual intuition. An infinitely regressing causal chain makes perfect sense to me, while it appears as absurd to you. However, in this specific situation, the burden of proof rests on you.

In any case, given the PSR, even an infinite causal chain, if possible, would have a reason for its existence. Such a cause would lead us exactly where we are already going with the view that the universe is not infinite, so it would make more sense to accept the more simple view of the universe that it was created with a beginning.

Ah, but how can we attribute something that stretches infinitely backwards with something like "a reason". The reason -> fact relationship also requires that the reason precludes the fact in time; if we have no time, I cannot even begin to imagine how the relationship could work. Actually, this is another problem we've already discussed somewhat, on page 2 if I'm not mistaken.

impersonal

06-15-2007, 05:12 PM

The simple objection is: “if God created the universe, who created God?” We are not nearly so far in our argument as to call the cause of the universe “God” or anything else, but the question remains valid, in a sense. The question arises from the PSR; there must be a reason for the existence of any fact; including the fact that there is a cause of the universe – the existence of that cause must also be explained. For the sake of clarity, let’s use the term “Cause” as a neutral label for whatever it is that is the cause of the universe (the name we use is not important here, we might just as well choose something else).

Firstly I should point out that posing the question does not negate the necessity of the Cause’s existence. Unless the origin argument can be shown to be unsound (i.e. either one of the premises are false or the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises), we must accept the previously established fact that there exists a Cause of the universe. Yet if the origin argument is truly sound, there must be an answer to the question.

Secondly, we must note that what is required to satisfy the question is an explanation or reason, not a cause. A cause is one type of reason that is only necessary for that which begins to exist, yet the cause of time itself can hardly be said to begin to exist, for to do so would require that our Cause exists within a temporal reality outside of our universe – some kind of super-universe. Following the same logic as the origin argument, we would then be forced to admit that the Cause’s universe also has a cause (being a spatial-temporal universe like ours). This could continue indefinitely, and yet our question would never be answered. (Now that we are talking about the possibility of an infinite regress of supernatural causes, the absurdity of an infinite causal chain may be more evident to some.) As is commonly understood in epistemology, an infinite regress cannot have adequate justification; and similarly in causation, an infinite regress cannot give adequate justification for the final cause. It is intellectually unfulfilling; never providing a reason for the final cause.

If you accept reasons as a cause, don't forget the next step... which is to ask: if everything follows from the rules of logic, what make the rules of logic legitimate in the first place? Computer science has shown that it is possible to implement logical systems arbitrarily; neurobiology is explaining more and more about our minds, from a purely mechanical basis. So, why would our logic be objective when the logic we implement in computers is purely arbitrary?

The big problem with that question is that when you ask it, you also negate all possible answers. Much like the universe can only be caused by something outside of it, the justification of reason can only be found outside of it. But we don't have anything outside of reason.

Basically, what I just wrote is a consequence of what we have discussed together previously: reason is axiomatic, and certainly not objective. We had also found a counter-argument: since reason is everything we have, we are forced to have blind faith in it.

Maybe we should only start to work on this "little" problem once we are convinced that reason has found a logical solution to the infinite regress problem.

As I mentioned earlier, this is as much a problem for the theist as it is for the atheist. For an intelligent Cause is no more in need of explanation than an unintelligent Cause. At this point, I think it would be helpful to consider another of Aquinas’ arguments for God. The argument states: 1) every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being; 2) not every being can be a dependent being (due to an infinite regress of dependency, which we have already seen to be impossible); 3) therefore, there exists a self-existent being. The reason I do not like to use this as my main argument is that it does not prove nearly so much as Aquinas intended it to do.
Isn't "self-existence" a particular form of infinite regress?
Q: "How does God exist?"
A: "He makes Himself exist."
Q: "To do that, just like to do anything else, He needs to exist. How does God exist, which in turn allow Him to make Himself exist?"
etc.

Secondly, can you explain how/why does God creates God? I mean, you cannot simply say "because if it were true, it would be the only solution to our problem". That would be the same as saying "the universe created God because it needed to be explained".

As you can see, I think it is possible for infinite regress to find its way out of the circular trap of "self-existence": either by making circles infinitely inside the concept of "self-existence", or by breaking out of the trap. Infinite Regress is not an ordinary prey, it has the endurance of an Ethiopian runner and the power of a Russian free-fighter :amuse.

This is the only possible way to fulfill the PSR concerning the existence of the universe.
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out all alternatives... If I was on a ring in front of a mix of Kenenisa Bekele and Fedor Emelianenko, I wouldn't try to trap him at all. I would leave him alone, and try to find a way out of this ring...

In other words, it seems to me that there is more hope to find a way to discredit the PSR than to find a way to trap Infinite Regress. However, I have to admit that either way, we're in trouble.

maj1n

06-15-2007, 10:19 PM

I did go into quite a lot of detail so that you would not make the very obvious misunderstandings you are now making. In the end I was simply saying that faith – any kind of faith – is not the problem when it comes to logic. As I said before, blind faith is certainly foolish in that it does not seek confirmation from reality. But this alone is not the enemy of logic. As I said, the enemy of logic is presuppositions (whether held by blind faith or rational faith) that are held to be above rational inquisition. In effect, if you have any presuppositions that you will never allow to be challenged, no matter how you came to hold those presuppositions, you are being narrow-minded. This is what the enemy of logic is.

Blind faith is holding presuppositions above rationale, this is because you ASSUME things without evidence.

There are only 2 ways logic fails, first, the deduction is flawed, second, the deductions may be reasonable but the presuppositions are not valid.

Blind faith is the latter.

I have very strong faith in Christianity, but show me an example of my faith getting in the way of my ability to reason.

Sure.

Must you follow Jesus' words?

Must you follow the Old Testament?

You may understand my argument better if you read it.

evasion.
Btw, this is not proper debating.

I see that you are not understanding most of what I said. If you can bring yourself to ask respectfully specific questions about what you don't understand, I will try to simplify it. If you are unable to be respectful, then I think you do not care what I have to say, and I might as well not talk to you.
Evasion, and again, you are not doing proper debating.

You cannot use any 'first cause' argument for the universe, there is flatly no precedent nor any scientific evidence that can infer the universe had a beginning therefore was created somehow.

Everything we know of 'causes' is merely the transformation of matter-energy into a particular structure, there is no precedent and hence you cannot use induction to say matter-energy itself may have been caused to exist.

edit: i have heard many times and read a bit about Quantum Mechanics already achieved various 'uncaused' events, not sure this is true as i am not a physicist, but food for thought, some of them are radioactive decay and particles springing into existance from a vacuum fluctuation.

At the very least, there is evidence that 'everything must have a cause' may in fact be wrong, if this is so, the universe could be eternal OR could have just begun to exist.

Not intuitive, but evidence does not rely on intuition.

sadated_peon

06-18-2007, 12:55 PM

Great, that is exactly what I want to talk about. So we are agreed that the big bang is the beginning of our universe – “our universe” meaning only…

The reason you can go from a point where the laws of physics do not apply is because we are talking about the event that created all matter,…

Ok, we have establish that our universe, was not infinite, and had a cause. I will then move on to your next part, when you expand on this.

Since you accept that our universe had a beginning, I think your argument for the possibility of infinity is meant only to apply to a possible super-universe. However, instead of leaving it for later, since we are already on the subject, let me try to clarify my position once more. I think my first paragraph was not quite clear. The main point I was trying to show is that the analogy that you drew between an infinite number of points between two numbers and time doesn’t work because you are not trying to show that there can be an infinite number of points between two fixed points in time.
But that is what you were doing. That is why I brought it up.

The analogy with numbers does not apply to how you see time because with time we are talking about an “unbounded” point. If you then change the analogy to show that there can be an infinite number of negative numbers (analogous to past events) you are no longer offering what you attempted to with the original argument, which was to show that it was possible to have an actual unbounded (or infinite) set.

Then, when we look at the new analogy of infinite negative points on the scale of numbers, we will still see that it does not make sense in terms of past events (or time). With numbers we begin at zero and count backwards up as high as we want to go, and potentially to infinity. With time, however, each event must proceed from the last, starting at infinity and ending in zero (the present). But infinity is an impossible starting point. This is not because I am trying to use infinity as a fixed point; the problem arises particularly because we cannot start at a fixed point. Time does not move backwards but forwards, and an infinite past cannot ever lead to the present moment precisely because it is infinite.
But you don’t begin at zero, and count backward. Time wasn’t created today and started moving into the past, and the present in opposite directions.

You are correct, you can not start at infinite past. Because there is no start.

You are incorrectly describing the infinite relationship, 0 is not a starting point, but instead just a point on an infinite line.

You say you can not reach 0 from negative infinity because there are infinite number of points between. Once again I will tell you that you are treating this as two points, claiming the distance is not possible to be crossed. Once again, my analogy to 1 – 2 reach to 3 comes into play.

The problem you seem to be having is trying to deal with infinity as a real number, where although time is accept to be infinite, your dealing of the universe existence in infinite time isn’t.

Many would not call this faith, but instead a reasonable belief.

Yes, as would I.

You seem to acquaint faith, with inductive logic. This to me is incorrect.
I will state my position and them attempt to come to an understanding on terms with you.

Faith, belief with out evidence.
Blind faith, belief against evidence.

Now I know you disagree, so let us try and establish base action for which you considered faith, and then apply a unified definition to them.

I have your chair example, but this is moving away from the heart of what faith is about and that is religion, or god.

So let me ask you,
You say god exists, and you say you have faith that this is true.

I would say that you believe god without evidence of god.

Can you show me evidence of previous times where god has existed? Can you show me evidence of god? Can you show me the telltale signs of god?
You have sat in your chair many times, you see your chair is in good quality, you see the telltale signs that it will hold.
You see the sun rise every day, you know the physics behind it. You feel gravity every moment of your life, you know the physics behind gravity.

These things are evidence, they can be observed and tested.

Basically, by definition of faith that you have described you don’t have faith in god.

Now, strong faith and blind faith mean very different things. One may have strong rational faith, as I do in my chair, or strong blind faith, as a particular religious fanatic perhaps, but having strong faith does not determine whether it is reasonable or not.
It may make more sense to you why I consider strong and blind faith the same thing now. For faith become strong faith(blind faith) when it is presented with contradictory evidence and yet is still held. Strong being an enhance conviction in light of resistance.

As to your understanding of “presupposition”, I don’t quite agree. I have many presuppositions that I have evaluated and considered before and after holding them. Presuppositions need not be held before inquiry, they are simply the framework that a person is using when reasoning.
Well it is before the inquiry by the very nature of the word Pre- as in previous.

Some may be held tentatively, others very strongly. For instance, I generally bring to a discussion the presupposition that what I perceive with my senses is real. With this built into my framework, I assume that the person I am talking to is really there and I am not hallucinating. I do not hold this presupposition tentatively, yet there are events that could shake my confidence in such a presupposition (i.e. suddenly I am naked and nobody notices – good chance I may be dreaming). In this way, I do not hold any presuppositions (even the strongest held) above rational inquisition.
Now I would say that just because you identify something as a presupposition doesn’t mean they are one. A presupposition is a tentative because it deals with supposing. It is tentative by nature because it deals with an assumption before hand. To hold a supposition as fact negates the need for establishing fact.

yet the cause of time itself can hardly be said to begin to exist, for to do so would require that our Cause exists within a temporal reality outside of our universe – some kind of super-universe. Following the same logic as the origin argument, we would then be forced to admit that the Cause’s universe also has a cause (being a spatial-temporal universe like ours).
Now we get back into the problem I was discussing before.

You have made the assumption that the super-universe needs a cause because our universe needs a cause. Also you have assumed that is spatial-temporal like our. Both of which are not certain or known.

This could continue indefinitely, and yet our question would never be answered. (Now that we are talking about the possibility of an infinite regress of supernatural causes, the absurdity of an infinite causal chain may be more evident to some.) As is commonly understood in epistemology, an infinite regress cannot have adequate justification; and similarly in causation, an infinite regress cannot give adequate justification for the final cause. It is intellectually unfulfilling; never providing a reason for the final cause.
Infinite regression is not a necessity, when considering a independent universe to which this super-universe could be.

You have no physics to describe the super-universe, nor no establishment of its causes or lack there of, certainly not based on our own.

You have taken the big leap of infinite regression without justification, you claim that our universe is the same as all before it, then say therefore there must be a god(independent being), but this is not any more valid than saying, there must have been an independent universe or infinite universe. Neither are known through evidence, and both are just a reaction to stop dependency.

But as for infinite regression, if one deals with creation instead of always existing this is a problem. But to consider that matter in a form as always existed, then regression does not exists.

Basically you don't know.

Freiza

06-18-2007, 03:02 PM

You can't get something out of nothing no matter how you slice it.

Marl

06-18-2007, 03:49 PM

You can't get something out of nothing no matter how you slice it.

Hi, vacuum fluctuations would like to have a word with you.

Hugiboo

06-19-2007, 09:07 AM

Indeed. Don't let him derail this thread. Prepare your self control, because he will respond aggressively to your last message.

I was caught in the dilemma of my signature. Do I rebuke the fool or not; the point of the proverb is that you must apply wisdom and choose the correct option depending on the circumstance.

I'm afraid I haven't been very clear. When I wrote "but then that's just me", it meant I didn't want to argue on this subject. However, if you really want to impose this discussion, I'll have to comply, although I would consider this to be rude. Now if you really want to know about the reasons of my position, we can proceed to argue over it. I wouldn't want you to think I'm refusing discussion because I don't have the means to answer.

I think we have enough discussions going without adding unnecessary ones. I apologize; I didn’t mean to pressure you into a discussion on this topic.

You wrote that if Bob was not created (=caused by something exterior), then he had to be self-sufficient (a word which literally means: caused by himself). This dichotomy is true if the PSR and causality are true in the first place, so you are making a circular reasoning.

You have merely shown that if Bob was not created by something exterior to him, then he did not create himself either. You only managed to show that Bob was, indeed, not created, and causeless.

This is the second time you do this. You claim that being causeless is the same as being caused by causelessness. This is a language trick, not an argument. This is bullshit. I'm sure you got my point the first time I called you on this one, so it makes me mad to see it again now. MAD.

I thought we had agreed to stop our argument at "if we are powerless in a causeless universe, it is best to pose it as a convention that everything in the universe has a cause". I am not completely convinced by this idea, but I think this is a very strong argument and my objections against it are not strong enough to counter it; besides, I want to know about the rest of your version of the cosmological argument.

However, if you want us to fight to death over Bob and the quantity of knowledge reachable by men, you have put me in the right state of mind. In case you want us to have this debate, proceed. I'll start discussing the second part of your argument anyway.

I have to disagree with your understanding of “self-sufficient”. It does not mean caused by oneself, which is a logical contradiction, but simply possessing existence and being without beginning or cause (this will become relevant when talking about the Cause of the universe; as something without beginning needs no cause – and something that exists outside of time need not have beginning). Yes, in a sense I am using circular reasoning here. I have not proved the PSR with this example, but merely shown that we are forced to accept the PSR, because without it reason breaks down. This is like using reason to prove reason, which is impossible and futile, but I was trying to come as close to a proof for the PSR as possible. Like I said before, I believe that the PSR is a self-evident truth; this example was only supposed to make its self-evident nature more obvious. I only used it to attempt to deal with the epistemological concerns you raised. If you find it unhelpful, then forget it.

Freiza

06-19-2007, 11:12 AM

Hi, vacuum fluctuations would like to have a word with you.
........so what youre saying is that, you CAN get something?

Esponer

06-19-2007, 11:17 AM

Again, I'll post a full analysis once I've seen this play out more fully.

........so what youre saying is that, you CAN get something?
Yes. Energy can appear from nothing, providing it ceases to exist sufficiently quickly, as related inversely to the quantity of energy spontaneously appeared. This comes from the Uncertainty Principle, and explains radioactive decay and various other stuff.

Marl

06-19-2007, 02:19 PM

........so what youre saying is that, you CAN get something?

As Esponer said: Yup.

Sucks when your world view is overturned like that. 's cool. Happens to all of us eventually.

impersonal

06-19-2007, 03:26 PM

Like I said before, I believe that the PSR is a self-evident truth; this example was only supposed to make its self-evident nature more obvious. I only used it to attempt to deal with the epistemological concerns you raised. If you find it unhelpful, then forget it.
It's already forgotten ^^

I think we have enough discussions going without adding unnecessary ones. I apologize; I didn’t mean to pressure you into a discussion on this topic.
Apologies accepted. I was a bit mad the other day, I don't remember why (too much work probably). Hence the extra aggressiveness. Sorry about that. Now we can move on to the other part of the argument !! :nuts

Sucks when your world view is overturned like that. 's cool. Happens to all of us eventually.
Well, except that scientists are currently working hard trying to find out something from which it came... and if they accepted that, indeed, something came out of nothing, they'd have a big problem. If you accept that something comes out of nothing, how do you predict it?

Most importantly, if you accept that one thing came from nothing, why not generalize? Methodologically, scientists cannot accept this statu-quo and say that something came out of nothing. The PSR might not be a rule of reality, but it is a rule of scientific investigation.

Marl

06-19-2007, 04:13 PM

Well, except that scientists are currently working hard trying to find out something from which it came... and if they accepted that, indeed, something came out of nothing, they'd have a big problem. If you accept that something comes out of nothing, how do you predict it?

Most importantly, if you accept that one thing came from nothing, why not generalize? Methodologically, scientists cannot accept this statu-quo and say that something came out of nothing. The PSR might not be a rule of reality, but it is a rule of scientific investigation.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. My statement still stands: It DOES suck when something challenges your world view and you can't explain it, and it does happen to everyone who asks enough questions. As for the questions in your post, do you want me to try and answer them? Are you just, I don't know, "angry" that such an anomaly exists and we can't really explain it? Some of these questions seem rather rhetorical: if you accept that something comes out of nothing, how do you predict it?, for example. If something comes out of something, how do you predict it?

If I had the answers, I'd also have a Nobel prize to my name. I don't, and so I don't. I just wanted to point out that, in fact, something can come to be from a vacuum. I don't know "how" or "why". Borrowing particles/energy from alternate universes, perhaps? I favour the view that actually, "something from nothing" is in fact "something from something", and that what we like to call "nothing" is actually "something", of a different nature. If "nothing" is "something", then that eliminates the problem that something cannot come from nothing, because it would mean that "classical nothing" is a physical impossibility, because a vacuum would be "something".

I might need to edit that last bit a few times before it's coherent. I'm not entirely sure it makes sense at the moment. >.>

impersonal

06-19-2007, 04:33 PM

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Indeed, you didn't understand, so I'm not going to reply word for word to all of your post. In this thread, I have been arguing since 4 pages that it is perfectly possible for something to be causeless, or, if you prefer, to come from nothing.

What I have written in my previous may seem contradictory with my other posts in this thread. But it is not. I am not saying that everything has a cause, but merely that scientific investigation has to suppose that everything has a cause, that everything comes from something.

If scientists didn't make such baseless assumptions, they would already be done with science.

Question: Where will lightnings appear and what will they hit?
Answer: Lightnings happen randomly from nothing, usually when the weather is cloudy, and hit high a random target among objects placed on heights.

Question: Where does the "energy of the void" come from, and where will it appear?
Answer: It appears randomly from nothing, and usually disappears as quickly as it appeared.

See what I mean? Scientists have to assume that everything has a cause, otherwise they will not find this cause, they will settle for "it's random". That doesn't mean that scientists will not one day be trapped into searching a cause when there is none, and it doesn't even mean that all causes discovered so far are actually "causes". Well, at least in my opinion. If you're interested, read the whole debate between me and Hugiboo.

My statement still stands: It DOES suck when something challenges your world view and you can't explain it, and it does happen to everyone who asks enough questions.
It fucking ROCKS to get your world view turned upside down ! But typically you'll need more than quantum fluctuations to flip over someone's world view. Einstein and Galilee might have what it takes.

Marl

06-19-2007, 05:02 PM

Ah. This is where the confusion arises. I understand what you're saying perfectly (in fact, I agree that it is possible to have a causeless event - indeed, both sides of this particular argument must agree on this. After all, God is causeless, right?).

I don't understand why you decided to reply to my statement with it, however. THAT is why I didn't understand your post.

impersonal

06-19-2007, 06:38 PM

Freiza

06-20-2007, 03:47 AM

Yes. Energy can appear from nothing, providing it ceases to exist sufficiently quickly, as related inversely to the quantity of energy spontaneously appeared. This comes from the Uncertainty Principle, and explains radioactive decay and various other stuff.
prove it
As Esponer said: Yup.

Sucks when your world view is overturned like that. 's cool. Happens to all of us eventually.it does but prove it

Marl

06-20-2007, 09:31 AM

prove it
it does but prove it

Lamb shift.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons. Quantum physics dictates that every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. Source: Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? (http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?chanID=sa005&articleID=0004D0F8-772A-1526-B72A83414B7F0000&topicID=13)

This predicted shift can be measured and observed, and is called the Lamb shift. I believe it was first proposed during the 1940s. It's been measured, which means Lamb shift does occur (and therefore virtual particles do, in fact, exist. The name's a bit misleading).

You can also go look up the Casimir effect. Basically, you set up two perfectly parallel metal plates in a vacuum and you can observe that the forces between them are modified by the presence of virtual particles (vacuum fluctuations). This has also been measured.

Happy? If not, go read about them yourself.

Esponer

06-20-2007, 09:38 AM

If everyone is comfortable doing so, could we steer away from questioning quantum mechanics? Cryogenic Blaze, I understand your dubiousness, but any proof you are shown will not be something you can understand without a year's worth of other material.

Hugiboo, when you're free and if you still wish to debate, do you want to show the third part of your argument?

Freiza

06-20-2007, 05:20 PM

Lamb shift.
:thumbs sounds like food.
Cryogenic Blaze, I understand your dubiousness, but any proof you are shown will not be something you can understand without a year's worth of other material.
What are you trying to say?

Hugiboo

06-21-2007, 11:23 PM

Hugiboo, when you're free and if you still wish to debate, do you want to show the third part of your argument?

Sorry, I've been really busy lately. I'll try to get on it soon.

Esponer

06-21-2007, 11:36 PM

Take as long as you need. Oh, and you're practically my hero for making this debate a success so far.

Hugiboo

06-29-2007, 10:56 AM

Sorry about the long delay. I've been working long night shifts lately, hopefully I will be done soon so I can go back to living like a normal person. Anyway, I will try to address some of the comments so far before moving on to the last section of the argument. This shouldn't take too long, since there hasn't been a whole lot of new arguments posted (on topic).

You keep repeating it's absurd and makes no logical sense, but I have yet to see a concrete argument in favor of that stance. If it's absurd, then show me how it leads to a contradiction.

The argument you have presented here, for example, fails because you're trying to show that "infinite quantity" doesn't make any sense. That's true, of course, but it's irrelevant to the point at hand. Attributing an infinite universe with "quantity of matter" is meaningless, it has no such thing. The only thing you've shown is that infinity isn't a natural number, which we have agreed to some time ago. Also "the quantity of all matter in existence is an objective fact and must have a value" is yet again an assumption, and is equivalent to "there is a finite amount of matter in existence".

I’m not sure that I need to defend my point, since you essentially admitted it. We were talking about why the concept “infinite rocks in space” is absurd. I think you are applying my argument to time again, but I think we have already gone over that topic enough. In this case I was only talking about why an infinite number of rocks in space is a logical contradiction in terms. You didn’t really disagree with anything I wrote, so I will ignore this unless you want to clarify.

Point is, it makes no sense to use the word "intermediate" if the causal chain is infinite. If anything, a backwards infinite chain would consist of an infinite amount of "intermediate" causes, thus rendering the premise of the argument void. The criticism from my previous posts still holds here.

Even an infinite number of intermediate causes must proceed from a prior cause. This is the point, an infinite number of intermediate causes has no first cause, and without a first cause it denies the PSR; but also, an infinite number of intermediate causes requires a logically impossible actual infinite number of things. You are talking about an infinite number as if this were a possibility; it’s not. You have admitted this yourself, saying earlier that we’re not talking about an infinite number of events, but to talk about infinite time we are forced to talk about an infinite number of events – exactly like you do here.

Actually, I don't think you can prove that infinite regression is impossible with the principle of causation by itself; you'll need some more assumptions. My argument in favor of this opinion is almost totally mathematical, and I can put it forth if you want me to.

I’m confused; is your argument in favour of infinite regression or in favour of the impossibility of infinite regression? I would be happy to see the argument. I can’t promise I will be able to understand it though.

Finally, I believe that the misunderstanding we've arrived at here is based on individual intuition. An infinitely regressing causal chain makes perfect sense to me, while it appears as absurd to you. However, in this specific situation, the burden of proof rests on you.

The burden of proof does rest on me in my attempts to make my case. However, if this is one of the points that you rely on to escape from the conclusion of my argument, then your claim is as strong as mine, and the burden of proof rests on you to prove your case. Considering the gravity of the issue – whether or not there is a God – this is much too important a subject to hold onto possibilities. So if in the end you cannot find proof or disproof for either case, you are left with choosing to believe the more reasonable side. I think you are inclined to think that Occam’s razor will side with Atheism, but I intend to show that in fact, it sides with Theism.

Ah, but how can we attribute something that stretches infinitely backwards with something like "a reason". The reason -> fact relationship also requires that the reason precludes the fact in time; if we have no time, I cannot even begin to imagine how the relationship could work. Actually, this is another problem we've already discussed somewhat, on page 2 if I'm not mistaken.

Why must a reason preclude the fact in time? You are assuming that reasons are strictly natural, but what about the PSR leads you to believe that reasons are contained to the natural universe. It cannot be that you reject the supernatural, because you have already indicated your willingness to believe in a supernatural universe beyond ours (which, if true, would provide us with an instance of reasons not being contained to the natural universe). I don’t think it is necessary to understand ‘how’ the relationship would work, but it is possible to understand ‘that’ it works and what this entails. For instance, I cannot understand how the force of gravity works apart from the fact that it does, yet this does not inhibit my ability to understand that it does in fact work, and what the effects are.

Hugiboo

06-29-2007, 12:13 PM

If you accept reasons as a cause, don't forget the next step... which is to ask: if everything follows from the rules of logic, what make the rules of logic legitimate in the first place? Computer science has shown that it is possible to implement logical systems arbitrarily; neurobiology is explaining more and more about our minds, from a purely mechanical basis. So, why would our logic be objective when the logic we implement in computers is purely arbitrary?

That is actually a very good question. I have an answer, but do you? My answer is the Theistic answer; our human reason is something we can trust because it is given to us by our creator, God. I would ask you the same question, how can you trust your reason if not for God? The fact is that you do trust your reason, but Atheism gives no grounds for doing so; in fact, consistent Atheism negates the possibility of trusting in reason. This is actually part of what I consider a much stronger argument for Theism: The Transcendental Argument.

Isn't "self-existence" a particular form of infinite regress?
Q: "How does God exist?"
A: "He makes Himself exist."
Q: "To do that, just like to do anything else, He needs to exist. How does God exist, which in turn allow Him to make Himself exist?"
etc.

No, it’s not a form of infinite regress. Your assessment is inaccurate because you describe God as the cause of His own existence. Here, you are equating “cause” and “reason”. A cause is a reason, but a reason is not necessarily a cause. The PSR calls for a reason, not necessarily a cause; and God does not have a cause at all because He never began to exist. So God does not make Himself exist at all; He just does exist. This is not a logical contradiction; it is only a logical contradiction when we talk of something creating itself or being its own cause. The PSR demands this “first cause”; it is naturally inclined to lead to a source of all reason. Now, by talking of “God” here we are getting ahead of ourselves for the moment as I have not yet shown that this Cause must be God.

Secondly, can you explain how/why does God creates God? I mean, you cannot simply say "because if it were true, it would be the only solution to our problem". That would be the same as saying "the universe created God because it needed to be explained".

As you can see, I think it is possible for infinite regress to find its way out of the circular trap of "self-existence": either by making circles infinitely inside the concept of "self-existence", or by breaking out of the trap. Infinite Regress is not an ordinary prey, it has the endurance of an Ethiopian runner and the power of a Russian free-fighter :amuse.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that infinite regress is not a logical problem? Any argument that relies on circular arguing or infinite regress is unsound. It doesn’t mean the conclusion is not true, just that the argument boils down to nothing more than “this is what I think” and “if it is true, then it is true”.

I wouldn't be so quick to rule out all alternatives... If I was on a ring in front of a mix of Kenenisa Bekele and Fedor Emelianenko, I wouldn't try to trap him at all. I would leave him alone, and try to find a way out of this ring...

In other words, it seems to me that there is more hope to find a way to discredit the PSR than to find a way to trap Infinite Regress. However, I have to admit that either way, we're in trouble.

If you want to try to discredit the PSR go right ahead, and throw out all reason while you are at it. The point is not whether or not we should try to trap infinite regress. Infinite regress is a problem; there is no way to coexist with it. Whether you run from it or try to coexist with it, it will only eat your argument and leave you with nothing. The only way to succeed in an argument is to show that there is no infinite regress at all. So for your odd analogy, I wouldn’t get into the ring in the first place.

Freiza

06-29-2007, 02:26 PM

impersonal

06-29-2007, 05:55 PM

That is actually a very good question. I have an answer, but do you? My answer is the Theistic answer; our human reason is something we can trust because it is given to us by our creator, God. I would ask you the same question, how can you trust your reason if not for God? The fact is that you do trust your reason, but Atheism gives no grounds for doing so; in fact, consistent Atheism negates the possibility of trusting in reason. This is actually part of what I consider a much stronger argument for Theism: The Transcendental Argument.

What you want to do is to prove that we can trust our own reason. But to trust the proof, you would have to trust your reason in the first place. This "transcendental argument" is circular.

No, it’s not a form of infinite regress. Your assessment is inaccurate because you describe God as the cause of His own existence. Here, you are equating “cause” and “reason”. A cause is a reason, but a reason is not necessarily a cause. The PSR calls for a reason, not necessarily a cause; and God does not have a cause at all because He never began to exist. So God does not make Himself exist at all; He just does exist. This is not a logical contradiction; it is only a logical contradiction when we talk of something creating itself or being its own cause. The PSR demands this “first cause”; it is naturally inclined to lead to a source of all reason. Now, by talking of “God” here we are getting ahead of ourselves for the moment as I have not yet shown that this Cause must be God.

So your argument is not so much a cosmological as an ontological argument: God is the reason of His own existence.

Why didn't you say: "The universe is the reason of its own existence" ? I have no idea how the universe would do that, but the same goes for God in your argument. Unless you explain how God is the reason of His own existence, your argument isn't worth much.

So, how is God the reason of His own existence? I asked this already in my previous post, but you dodged. If this is what you plan to explain in your final post, please say it now and I'll avoid this subject for now.

I have an argument that I have not thrown in yet, so I'd like us to move on quickly. (I don't want to discuss it at the same time as the current one, because it would make things very messy).

I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that infinite regress is not a logical problem?

That's not at all what I meant. I meant that infinite regress was not as easily stopped as you seem to think.

If you want to try to discredit the PSR go right ahead, and throw out all reason while you are at it.
Man, I shouldn't have said that in the first place and bring back our debate about the PSR. I'm sorry about that. Obviously I have not changed my mind, but since we agreed to stop discussing this issue, I'm just going to ignore what you wrote there.

mislead

06-29-2007, 10:21 PM

I’m not sure that I need to defend my point, since you essentially admitted it. We were talking about why the concept “infinite rocks in space” is absurd. I think you are applying my argument to time again, but I think we have already gone over that topic enough. In this case I was only talking about why an infinite number of rocks in space is a logical contradiction in terms. You didn’t really disagree with anything I wrote, so I will ignore this unless you want to clarify.

No, you misunderstood my point. Your reasoning went as follows (correct me if I understand it incorrectly):

1. Universes consist of actual quantities of matter.
2. "Infinite" is not an actual quantity.
3. Therefore, a universe must contain a finite amount of matter.

First off, I disagreed with the premise. In fact, I believe it's merely rephrasing what you were trying to prove. As a side note, I remarked that what you view as a logical contradiction - the phrase "infinite amount" - I see as a linguistic error, not a logical one. If we were to apply your conclusion seriously, it becomes impossible to use the concept of infinity altogether. Of course, I can skip terms like "quantity" and "amount", and bring forth a statement such as "Space is infinite.". How would you go about proving this one false, taking into account that you can't assume space actually has volume?

Even an infinite number of intermediate causes must proceed from a prior cause. This is the point, an infinite number of intermediate causes has no first cause, and without a first cause it denies the PSR; but also, an infinite number of intermediate causes requires a logically impossible actual infinite number of things. You are talking about an infinite number as if this were a possibility; it’s not. You have admitted this yourself, saying earlier that we’re not talking about an infinite number of events, but to talk about infinite time we are forced to talk about an infinite number of events – exactly like you do here.

Wait, wait, the PSR only requires a cause for things, which actually begin, which isn't the case for infinite regression. Of course, a backwards infinite chain of events cannot have a first cause, but it doesn't need one, since it doesn't actually begin.

Also, refer to my reply to the "infinite rocks" problem. As I see it, you're trying to twist around semantics in such a way, that it becomes completely impossible to even talk about infinity. You insist on using phrases like "infinite number", "infinite quantity", and such, and then proceed to claim that they're inherently contradictory, by suddenly enforcing a very strict definition of "quantity" and "number". However, these are merely linguistic constructs do denote an infinite set; picking them apart as not sufficiently formal (that's how I see what you're doing) doesn't really prove anything, and it definitely doesn't establish any kind of contradiction. If you want me to use formal logic to communicate my thoughts, I can do that too; it'll just make the discussion extremely cumbersome.

Incidentally, time is continuous, so I don't think you want to use "number" here.

I’m confused; is your argument in favour of infinite regression or in favour of the impossibility of infinite regression? I would be happy to see the argument. I can’t promise I will be able to understand it though.

My argument is supposed to show that it's impossible to prove infinite regression to be impossible with PSR being the only assumption. I don't really want to derail this debate any further by posting it now; I hope it's basic idea will become apparent as our discussion continues further.

The burden of proof does rest on me in my attempts to make my case. However, if this is one of the points that you rely on to escape from the conclusion of my argument, then your claim is as strong as mine, and the burden of proof rests on you to prove your case. Considering the gravity of the issue – whether or not there is a God – this is much too important a subject to hold onto possibilities. So if in the end you cannot find proof or disproof for either case, you are left with choosing to believe the more reasonable side. I think you are inclined to think that Occam’s razor will side with Atheism, but I intend to show that in fact, it sides with Theism.

Don't assume anything about my place on the Atheism/Theism scale; that I feel God is unnecessary as far as the problem of the universe's origins are concerned, doesn't mean I reject him completely. Also, Ockham's Razor is a useful tool in debates like these, but it's merely a methodological principle; there's nothing deep or profound about it.

Why must a reason preclude the fact in time? You are assuming that reasons are strictly natural, but what about the PSR leads you to believe that reasons are contained to the natural universe. It cannot be that you reject the supernatural, because you have already indicated your willingness to believe in a supernatural universe beyond ours (which, if true, would provide us with an instance of reasons not being contained to the natural universe). I don’t think it is necessary to understand ‘how’ the relationship would work, but it is possible to understand ‘that’ it works and what this entails. For instance, I cannot understand how the force of gravity works apart from the fact that it does, yet this does not inhibit my ability to understand that it does in fact work, and what the effects are.

First off, I merely stated that I consider the possibility of a supernatural universe as simpler than the God hypothesis. When I argue in favor of infinite regression, I imagine it as a cyclic physical universe, eternally inflating and deflating like a cosmic baloon of sorts.

Second, you have established the PSR as a "self-evident truth", and it is truly quite intuitive and sensible as long as we operate within the total of space-time. When you wish to apply it outside of time, it loses all of it's self-evidency in my eyes. I see a contradiction between giving something the status of a "self-evident truth" and later declaring that one can't imagine how it would work in certain circumstances. Similarly, I could wish to establish gravity as a "self-evident truth", and then argue that it would also work outside of space.

Oh, and another thing - the PSR refers to events that "begin"; but for something to begin, it already must be contained within time. Unless you'd like to extend that term too, that is.

impersonal

07-02-2007, 03:24 PM

Second, you have established the PSR as a "self-evident truth", and it is truly quite intuitive and sensible as long as we operate within the total of space-time. When you wish to apply it outside of time, it loses all of it's self-evidency in my eyes.
It looks like one of the simplest yet strongest arguments in this thread so far. I'm curious as to what hugiboo will answer. If anyone else has objections to mislead's argument, they should speak up - I'm interested as to how strong the argument really is. I believe Kant used this argument in his criticism of pure reason - and if he didn't, he should have done it...

mislead

07-02-2007, 06:37 PM

Well, I ultimately do see this argument as an application of Kant's ideas - that even speaking of things like "outside of time" is meaningless for us, since time is a property of our perception which we cannot free ourselves from. In reality, it's one of the reasons I'm so vehement on discussing the infinite regression possibility - it's the only one that doesn't force us to consider "the beginning of time", which is, if you think about it, quite a troublesome event. I even have trouble imagining how something that isn't already contained in time can even begin.

Now, if Hugiboo manages to show me solid, clear proof that infinite regression is impossible, we're going to have a lot of trouble regardless of the hypothesis we consider, because we'll be forced to consider an event that lies completely beyond our perception.

impersonal

07-02-2007, 07:15 PM

[to be edited]

Hugiboo

07-03-2007, 09:49 AM

Part 1

But you don’t begin at zero, and count backward. Time wasn’t created today and started moving into the past, and the present in opposite directions.

You are correct, you can not start at infinite past. Because there is no start.

You are incorrectly describing the infinite relationship, 0 is not a starting point, but instead just a point on an infinite line.

You say you can not reach 0 from negative infinity because there are infinite number of points between. Once again I will tell you that you are treating this as two points, claiming the distance is not possible to be crossed. Once again, my analogy to 1 – 2 reach to 3 comes into play.

The problem you seem to be having is trying to deal with infinity as a real number, where although time is accept to be infinite, your dealing of the universe existence in infinite time isn’t.

I think we cannot come to an agreement because of our difference in understanding of the fundamental nature of time. I cannot conceive of a universe with infinite time, so try as I might, I cannot see your arguments except through my own understanding that time cannot be infinite. Yesterday was 1 day ago, last week was 7 days ago, and last month was 31 days ago. No matter how far into the past we go, we are always talking about real numbers. The universe was created 15 billion years ago, but if it hadn’t been, we could talk about what happened 15 billion billion years ago. Because time is a function of matter, each and every moment that goes by is one of the total, which in my understanding must be a real number. How can you talk about an unreal number of real events? It is absurd to my reason. I can imagine (barely) what it would mean to have a form of existence that is eternal – meaning without time altogether – though I cannot imagine what this would be like. But to talk about infinite time is like talking about square circles to me. As long as we disagree on such a fundamental level, there is really no point debating this point anymore, because there is no common ground at a more fundamental level that we can appeal to.

Yes, as would I.

You seem to acquaint faith, with inductive logic. This to me is incorrect.
I will state my position and them attempt to come to an understanding on terms with you.

Faith, belief with out evidence.
Blind faith, belief against evidence.

Now I know you disagree, so let us try and establish base action for which you considered faith, and then apply a unified definition to them.

I have your chair example, but this is moving away from the heart of what faith is about and that is religion, or god.

So let me ask you,
You say god exists, and you say you have faith that this is true.

I would say that you believe god without evidence of god.

Can you show me evidence of previous times where god has existed? Can you show me evidence of god? Can you show me the telltale signs of god?
You have sat in your chair many times, you see your chair is in good quality, you see the telltale signs that it will hold.
You see the sun rise every day, you know the physics behind it. You feel gravity every moment of your life, you know the physics behind gravity.

These things are evidence, they can be observed and tested.

Basically, by definition of faith that you have described you don’t have faith in god.

A few problems I see with your definitions. 1) Blind faith is defined by being blind (i.e. not knowing or having reason), yet one could have blind faith in something that happens to be true (i.e. not against evidence). For instance, if I just choose to believe that your name is “Tom”, this is blind faith because the nature of my belief is blind – having no cause to believe it. It could be that your name happens to be “Tom”, so my blind faith could be true, but it is still blind. However, if I noticed other forum members referring to you as “Tom”, and if I noticed you mentioning common activities with those people(i.e. “want to hang out on the weekend?”), I could reasonably infer that those people actually know you, and they are accurate in calling you “Tom”. This would be reasonable faith – faith still because I still could be wrong, but reasonable (at least to some degree) because I actually have (some degree of) grounds for believing it. Is there anything stronger than this? I doubt it, as even self-evident truths are held as beliefs; and all beliefs, whether reasonable or blind, have the possibility of error. So what is faith in the face of reason then? I would call that stupidity (probably more accurately “narrow-minded”). If anyone believes something irrationally, they are simply failing to use their reason correctly, in accordance with the information they have, to come to a logical conclusion.

Ok, so why do I think my faith in God is reasonable? 1) I have experienced Him in my life. This is my strongest proof but can only be evidence for me, because nobody else can experience my experiences; therefore I do not expect this to hold any weight with anyone else. This includes “spiritual experiences”, intuition, and the fact that my life has been transformed in a way that is unexplainable. 2) The fact that the Christian worldview is the most reasonable and can account for the existence of transcendental realities like morality, truth, reason, and love; and the fact that no other worldview can do so. (i.e. Transcendental Argument). 3) The fact that reason itself forces us to admit there is a creator (i.e. Cosmological Argument). 4) The incredible complexity and beauty of creation (i.e. Intelligent Design data/experience – I will not call this an argument and use it on the same level of evidence as the previous two) that is attested to by such people as Charles Darwin (a Deist, not an Atheist) and Richard Dawkins.

I do not believe that all of these are necessary to have reasonable faith in Christianity though, because I believe that all people do have the understanding, deep down, that God exists. However, as Romans 1 says, people suppress the truth and reject God. Essentially I believe that only the first reason is necessary, and is attainable for every person – the others are just gravy. But, since we cannot really discuss the first reason, why not appeal to the others to see if my faith is reasonable? And this is what I am attempting to do in this discussion; to show that the Cosmological argument provides reasonable justification for belief in God, so that it need not be considered “blind faith”.

Even if you don’t like how I have defined “faith” and “blind-faith”, I think the categories I have used are fairly sound, so even if you want to give them other names, the essence of what I have said should make sense. At a certain point, specific labels like “fundamentalist” change their meaning so much (through faulty use) that they ought better to be dropped. I don’t think “faith” is there yet, but it may yet happen that we need a new term because the old one is corrupted.

Hugiboo

07-03-2007, 09:51 AM

Part 2

It may make more sense to you why I consider strong and blind faith the same thing now. For faith become strong faith(blind faith) when it is presented with contradictory evidence and yet is still held. Strong being an enhance conviction in light of resistance.

I can see why you would see it that way, but I think there is still a place for strong faith without becoming blind faith. In Christian circles you might hear of someone encouraging a person to have faith even when it is hard, and this would likely make you think having faith is about holding onto what you believe despite the contradictory evidence; but this is not at all what it means. Christian faith is not just holding a belief, but it is being committed to Jesus as our Lord (or master). To have faith when it is hard simply means holding onto that commitment when we are tempted to give in to our selfish desires (in other words, to break faith as in breaking a promise). This doesn’t mean that a person with strong faith will be morally superior to others (though they should be better than they would otherwise be with weak faith), but when they do fail to fulfill their commitment to God (which is generally every day – to a greater or lesser degree), they would genuinely seek forgiveness and reaffirm their commitment to God. Now I’m not sure how much of this made sense (Christians have a way of talking about Christianity that is often difficult for non-Christians to follow), but I hope you can see why I believe strong faith need not be seen as blind faith (after all, we already have a word for that).

Well it is before the inquiry by the very nature of the word Pre- as in previous.

Yes, it is before the present inquiry, but it need not be before any inquiry (and should definitely not be ‘above’ our present inquiry – or unchallengable). For instance, many of the presuppositions I have used so far on this thread I have previously examined (the rest I hold as self-evident, though many of those I have examined as well), yet even though I come with presuppositions, I am willing to consider criticisms for those presuppositions and if necessary, drop them. Everyone has presuppositions, but as I said before, it is whether or not you hold them to be above rational inquiry that determines if you have blind faith or not.

Now I would say that just because you identify something as a presupposition doesn’t mean they are one. A presupposition is a tentative because it deals with supposing. It is tentative by nature because it deals with an assumption before hand. To hold a supposition as fact negates the need for establishing fact.

My point is that everything we believe is to some degree tentative because of our inability to achieve objective knowledge of something. You said to hold a supposition as fact negates the need for establishing fact, and of course, this is how we operate. We don’t set out to prove every single presupposition when we debate because there is a large body of assumed presuppositions in common. However, when one of them is challenged, then a need to establish it as fact arises in order for such a presupposition to count as evidence. If you were to accept my presupposition that an infinite causal regression is logically impossible, I would not need to defend it and we could use it as evidence to be considered in the argument. However, the second you challenge that presupposition it cannot be counted as evidence, because only what is evident to us both can be considered evidence (without common ground we might as well be arguing with a wall). If you then give me reasons for rejecting my presupposition about infinite causal regression, and I stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the challenge, I am having blind faith in my presupposition (because I am holding it to be above reason).

Now we get back into the problem I was discussing before.

You have made the assumption that the super-universe needs a cause because our universe needs a cause. Also you have assumed that is spatial-temporal like our. Both of which are not certain or known.

This is a good example of what I mentioned above; yes I did make that assumption, and now that you have challenged me on it I must provide reasons for holding this assumption. This is why I would assume that a super-universe must be spatial-temporal like ours: Essentially I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the Atheist who wants to believe in natural causes; if we say that the super-universe is not a material universe, then we end up with something very much like what my worldview suggests, not the Atheist. The alternative to a material universe is a non-material universe (i.e. a spiritual universe – you may not like this word because of its religious connotations, but “spiritual” essentially means “non-material”). I’m perfectly happy with supposing that the super-universe is a non-material universe, because in this view the existence of a divine being is not at all difficult to accept. A supernatural being existing within a supernatural universe/existence is what is necessary under the nonmaterial universe view, and this is exactly what Christians say is the case with the existence of God. Believe me, if you are going to hold a super-universe as a way to get around God, you want it to be a material one.

This super-universe would not necessarily have to have all the same physical laws (i.e. constants) that ours has, but being a temporal/spatial universe, it would have the same limitations that arise out of those characteristics. This is where my argument for the impossibility of infinite time comes in, and why it has been so important in my argument (I don’t think it is critical, but certainly important).

Infinite regression is not a necessity, when considering a independent universe to which this super-universe could be.

You have no physics to describe the super-universe, nor no establishment of its causes or lack there of, certainly not based on our own.

You have taken the big leap of infinite regression without justification, you claim that our universe is the same as all before it, then say therefore there must be a god(independent being), but this is not any more valid than saying, there must have been an independent universe or infinite universe. Neither are known through evidence, and both are just a reaction to stop dependency.

But as for infinite regression, if one deals with creation instead of always existing this is a problem. But to consider that matter in a form as always existed, then regression does not exists.

Basically you don't know.

I understand why you have a problem with this. You feel that the laws of this super-universe would be wholly unknowable and therefore an infinite past would be a possibility we cannot rule out. As I have shown, certain aspects of a super-universe are knowable simply by what the concept of a material universe entails. We can always throw out the physical super-universe and go with a non-physical one, but that will only help my argument and hurt yours; I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Any physical universe would be a temporal-spatial universe that would be subject to the workings of time. However, even if an infinite past were possible on this super-universe, we still run into an infinite regression when we try to apply the PSR in that the super-universe itself remains without reason. Why should we believe in something without reason? Now, several people have made comments about the PSR not necessarily being a law about reality (we are not capable to know if it does objectively reflect reality or not) but a law about reason. And maybe it is the case that something can exist without reason, but even so, to believe such a thing is intellectual suicide.

Secondly, getting rid of creation and seeing the universe as having always existed (or doing the same to a super-universe) does not at all get away from infinite regression. Infinite regression certainly exists with an infinite past because we have a causal chain where each event can be explained by the previous event on to infinity, but the whole chain altogether has no reason to explain it; it simply exists. Again, to believe in something that has no reason is intellectual suicide, and is precisely the thing Christians are accused of doing for believing in God.

notcomawhite

07-03-2007, 10:12 AM

Something can't come from nothing, but that doesn't mean a God exists that created it. Why is it so hard for people to believe that maybe the matter has always existed. Or is there always a never ending chain of, "who made the universe" "how did god come into being?" "how did that happen" ?

Hugiboo

07-03-2007, 10:30 AM

:pwned. I never thought of anything like this, man you have my support :thumbs

Thanks. If you are interested in this argument, here is a link to a debate between Christian, Greg Bahnsen, and Atheist, Gordon Stein. Bahnsen uses the transcendental argument; it is most excellent:) :
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/index_apol.html
To find it you have to scroll down to the 6th from the bottom, it’s called “The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein.” Here is a PDF transcript of the debate:
http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

Hugiboo

07-03-2007, 10:31 AM

Fulcata

07-03-2007, 10:33 AM

notcomawhite

07-03-2007, 10:50 AM

You should go back and read the last couple pages. All of those questions are answered.

I read it.
I guess in my post I should have said I agree with sadated peon.

There's always going to be one thing that comes from nothing if nothing just simply existed forever.

Hugiboo

07-03-2007, 11:19 AM

What you want to do is to prove that we can trust our own reason. But to trust the proof, you would have to trust your reason in the first place. This "transcendental argument" is circular.

Actually it’s not circular. Circular reasoning would use the conclusion as a premise to prove itself. I am not attempting to prove that reason is reliable, I am assuming that it is. My argument is that we both assume that it is reliable, but the non-Christian worldview is essentially irrational. I can at least say, reason makes sense in my worldview, but all you can do is accept it even though it doesn’t make sense. Check out the debate I posted if you like, Bahnsen can state it much better than I can.

Why didn't you say: "The universe is the reason of its own existence" ? I have no idea how the universe would do that, but the same goes for God in your argument. Unless you explain how God is the reason of His own existence, your argument isn't worth much.

So, how is God the reason of His own existence? I asked this already in my previous post, but you dodged. If this is what you plan to explain in your final post, please say it now and I'll avoid this subject for now.

I didn’t say the universe is the reason of its own existence because being a physical thing it cannot logically be the reason of its own existence (we already went over this). The universe had a beginning, and therefore had a cause outside itself. So how do we know that the cause of the universe did not have a beginning? Because logically there must exist some self-existent being or there would be an infinite regress of dependence. Since an infinite regress of dependence would be logically impossible, we must assume that there is no infinite regress, and therefore there is a self-existent being.

That's not at all what I meant. I meant that infinite regress was not as easily stopped as you seem to think.

Ok, but then show me where I made a mistake. I don’t know if I really buy that though, you say I cannot overcome infinite regress so my argument doesn’t make sense, but what is your alternative? To say, the universe is infinite and infinite regress is apparently not a problem? You need to pick; if it’s a problem for me it’s also a problem for you.

Man, I shouldn't have said that in the first place and bring back our debate about the PSR. I'm sorry about that. Obviously I have not changed my mind, but since we agreed to stop discussing this issue, I'm just going to ignore what you wrote there.

Fair enough.

Hugiboo

07-03-2007, 11:24 AM

The Scientific Method and Empirical Evidence?
You're right, Athiesm gives no reason to trust your own reasoning, but science does.

Atheism relies on the Scientific Method, but the Scientific Method makes assumptions not supported by Atheism. Essentially, Atheists are forced to 'borrow' from the Christian worldview in order to be able to believe in things like truth, morality, logic... Some of these are essential for the Scientific Method, so Atheists cannot use the Scientific Method and remain consistent Atheists. If you want it better explained, check out the debate.

impersonal

07-03-2007, 03:16 PM

Actually it’s not circular. Circular reasoning would use the conclusion as a premise to prove itself. I am not attempting to prove that reason is reliable, I am assuming that it is. My argument is that we both assume that it is reliable, but the non-Christian worldview is essentially irrational. I can at least say, reason makes sense in my worldview, but all you can do is accept it even though it doesn’t make sense. Check out the debate I posted if you like, Bahnsen can state it much better than I can.

Wait - that argument is 240 years old, and back then it took only a few weeks before someone gave the objection that I gave. Since 240 years, the objection is thought to be a correct rebuttal of the argument. What have you said that makes your argument any different?
I am assuming that [reason] is [reliable]

(...)

our human reason is something we can trust because it is given to us by our creator, God.
You assume that our reason is reliable. You make an argument based on this premise, and the conclusion is that we can trust our reason.

It looks like a circular reasoning to me.

I would ask you the same question, how can you trust your reason if not for God? The fact is that you do trust your reason, but Atheism gives no grounds for doing so; in fact, consistent Atheism negates the possibility of trusting in reason
If, like you, I assume that reason is reliable in the first place, then I can certainly trust it.

It's already the third time I'm asking this question:

So, how is God the reason of His own existence? I asked this already in my previous post, but you dodged. If this is what you plan to explain in your final post, please say it now and I'll avoid this subject for now.
Do you plan to answer?!

impersonal

07-03-2007, 04:36 PM

Alright, that said, let's move to Kant once again. Hugiboo, I'm sure you know about the ontological argument. Kant famously reduced all arguments for the existence of God to the ontological argument. Sadly, I have not read the "critic of pure reason" so I don't know how Kant reduces the cosmological argument to the ontological argument.

Once Kant reduced the cosmological argument to the ontological argument, he goes on to show that the ontological argument is incorrect. The ontological arguments proves that God necessarily exists, from the sole concept of God. Typically, the ontological argument says :
1) God is perfect.
2) It is more perfect to exist than to not exist.
3) If God doesn't exist, then it is possible to conceive a more perfect God, one which does exist. This is a contradiction.
4) Therefore, God exists.

Kant's rebuttal is:
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/A2%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/objections_ont_arg.htm#Immanuel%20Kant

Kant tackles Descartes' argument in two ways. Firstly, he argues that in an analysis of the statement, 'God exists', 'existence' cannot operate as a predicate of 'God' in the same way that 'omnipotence' might. If the statement, 'God exists' is analytic, then it is a tautology. It is regarded as self-evident, by a simple analysis of the concepts, in that 'existence' (description) is contained in the subject ('God'). However, this simple act of analysis might also be performed by someone who does not believe God exists, and so the statement, 'God does not exist', is equally analytic for them. Furthermore, in denying the existence of God, all discussion ends ('But when you say, God does not exist, neither omnipotence nor any other predicate is affirmed; they must all disappear with the subject, and in this judgement there cannot exist the least self-contradiction.'). Kant's point appears to be this: If one rejects the predicate of a subject, another may be invoked to form a contradiction. However, if one rejects both the predicate and subject, then no contradiction can be invoked. For what is the contradiction (antinomy) of something that does not exist ('To suppose the existence of a triangle and not that of its three angles, is self-contradictory; but to suppose the non-existence of both triangle and angles is perfectly admissible. And so is it with the conception of an absolutely necessary being. Annihilate its existence in thought, and you annihilate the thing itself with all its predicates; how then can there be any room for contradiction?')?

Kant's other concern with Descartes' ontological argument is that 'existence' is not an attribute that can be added to something. He writes, 'The real contains no more than the possible. A hundred real dollars contain no more than a hundred possible dollars'. In other words, the difference between a hundred real dollars and a hundred imaginary dollars, is that one exists, and one does not. 'Existence' is not a quality, or attribute, that something may have or lack. One cannot say "Put all the dogs that exist in one cage, and all the dogs that do not exist in the other". However, one can say "Put all the brown dogs in one cage, and all the black dogs in another". In terms of the existence of God there is a logical difference between saying "God is x" and "God is". The difference being not what God is like (e.g. omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent etc.), but whether God exists per se. As far as Kant is concerned, Descartes' ontological argument simply tells tells us that if God existed, God would exist, but cannot do any more than that (i.e. show us whether God really exists (or could exist), in reality). Furthermore, going back to Kant's example, if I actually had one hundred dollars in my hand, the actual dollars do not contain in them any more than an imaginary one hundred dollars, just because they exist. 'Existence' is not something that fundamentally changes the constitution of an object. If it did, then it would no longer be the original object as conceived. Something either exists, or it does not ('Now, if I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (omnipotence being one), and say: God is, or, There is a God, I add no new predicate to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with all its predicates.'). Thus Kant concludes, 'The celebrated ontological or Cartesian argument for the existence of a Supreme Being is therefore insufficient; and we may as well hope to increase our stock of knowledge by the aid of mere ideas, as the merchant to augment his wealth by the addition of noughts to his cash account'.

By now you might be convinced that Kant has proven the ontological argument wrong, but I bet you are not convinced that the cosmological argument can be reduced to the ontological argument. I said I don't know how Kant makes this reduction, but that doesn't mean I'm not able to make it on my own.

Hugiboo, you reached a point at which you built one system consisting of two entities, God and the Universe. You also wrote that God is the reason of the whole system.

However, that doesn't explain why we have God and the rest of the system. Indeed, your solution doesn't explain why there is anything at all. Your system is consistent; but it is not necessary. It is not a sufficient reason. If you want to be consistent with the PSR, you have to work this out.

The only way to avoid this difficulty is to create a reason for the existence of God that works even when God isn't here in the first place. This reason would make the absence of God illogical, rather than merely explaining why his presence is possible.

If we don't manage to find any such reason, we are still not out of infinite regress - because we didn't manage to give a satisfying answer the question "why does God exist?".

The only way to prove that something exist without relying on anything else than this the concept of this thing is the ontological argument.

I hope this post was clear.

Freiza

07-04-2007, 01:09 PM

Thanks. If you are interested in this argument, here is a link to a debate between Christian, Greg Bahnsen, and Atheist, Gordon Stein. Bahnsen uses the transcendental argument; it is most excellent :
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/...ndex_apol.html
To find it you have to scroll down to the 6th from the bottom, it’s called “The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein.” Here is a PDF transcript of the debate:
http://www.bellevuechristian.org/fac...Transcript.pdf
cool thanks i look into it. :)

Hugiboo

07-09-2007, 12:04 PM

Part 1

No, you misunderstood my point. Your reasoning went as follows (correct me if I understand it incorrectly):

1. Universes consist of actual quantities of matter.
2. "Infinite" is not an actual quantity.
3. Therefore, a universe must contain a finite amount of matter.

First off, I disagreed with the premise. In fact, I believe it's merely rephrasing what you were trying to prove. As a side note, I remarked that what you view as a logical contradiction - the phrase "infinite amount" - I see as a linguistic error, not a logical one. If we were to apply your conclusion seriously, it becomes impossible to use the concept of infinity altogether. Of course, I can skip terms like "quantity" and "amount", and bring forth a statement such as "Space is infinite.". How would you go about proving this one false, taking into account that you can't assume space actually has volume?

This is the point I meant that you were admitting: …you’re trying to show that "infinite quantity" doesn't make any sense. That's true, of course…” Ok, so you agree that “infinite quantity” doesn’t make any sense, but you don’t think universes consist of actual quantities of matter. What do they consist of then, potential or theoretical quantities of matter? It is a contradiction in terms; if it’s not an actual quantity, it must be a potential quantity, and you must realize that a potential quantity of matter cannot describe a physical reality. You are essentially saying that physical matter exists potentially but not actually. My argument is that because a universe is a physical reality, what exists within it does so in actuality, not potentiality. This is why I assume that there is an actual quantity of matter in the universe; because it is self-evident by the terms we are using. You can’t mean anything by the word “universe” if not a physical reality consisting of actual matter.

Wait, wait, the PSR only requires a cause for things, which actually begin, which isn't the case for infinite regression. Of course, a backwards infinite chain of events cannot have a first cause, but it doesn't need one, since it doesn't actually begin.

That’s right, according to the PSR, assuming that a chain of causality was infinite, the PSR would not demand a cause because it doesn’t begin to exist. But the only way you can make that argument is by assuming you are right in the first place. Only after you assume that an infinite chain of events is possible, can you justify the position by showing that it is not inconsistent. The problem is, the assumption you made to get to the position in the first place is inconsistent, so it doesn’t matter if the conclusion is consistent. You obviously are not convinced that an infinite chain of events is logically impossible, but the only argument you seem to be making is that you don’t understand mine. It is quite simple. Events are real things; they are signified by real physical matter changing in some way (which marks the passage of time, or moments). An infinite chain of events entails an infinite quantity of real things, but as you have admitted yourself, such a concept is logically impossible. I fail to see where the difficulty lies.

Also, refer to my reply to the "infinite rocks" problem. As I see it, you're trying to twist around semantics in such a way, that it becomes completely impossible to even talk about infinity. You insist on using phrases like "infinite number", "infinite quantity", and such, and then proceed to claim that they're inherently contradictory, by suddenly enforcing a very strict definition of "quantity" and "number". However, these are merely linguistic constructs do denote an infinite set; picking them apart as not sufficiently formal (that's how I see what you're doing) doesn't really prove anything, and it definitely doesn't establish any kind of contradiction. If you want me to use formal logic to communicate my thoughts, I can do that too; it'll just make the discussion extremely cumbersome.

If you think the concepts we are using cannot adequately be discussed using language, perhaps you should use formal logic. I’m not simply using semantics to create an apparent problem; if the words are accurate, then logical inconsistencies in semantics transfer to logical inconsistencies in concepts. However, feel free to redefine your terms as you like; it won’t change the fact that the concepts themselves are inconsistent. Why do I insist on using phrases like “infinite number” and “infinite quantity”? Simple, I use these phrases because they accurately describe what we are talking about. When you say the set of integers is infinite, this means that there is a potential infinite number of items in the set. The infinite quantity is only potential or theoretical though, yet you want to use the number as if it could describe reality. This is what I have a problem with. It cannot be used to describe physical reality, only theoretical potentials.

Let’s go back to your “space is infinite” example (I forgot to answer your challenge above, but I think it fits better here anyway). You asked how I would attempt to prove that this is false. Well, I don’t need to prove it false, because you are not talking about matter. When you say “space” you essentially mean “nothing”, and what is the logical inconsistency with stating that there can be infinite nothing? Zero times infinity is zero, so there is no problem, but when you start putting a real value in place of the zero (like events), then we have a problem as I explained above. With the “infinite space” example, you are using the concept of infinity correctly – as a potentiality – so there is no contradiction.

Incidentally, time is continuous, so I don't think you want to use "number" here.

If you are fine with using “number” with a continuous spectrum like numbers, then I’m fine with using “number” with a continuous spectrum like time. The continuousness is similar and the concept of the number spectrum lends itself well to dealing with the concept of time. Obviously it is not a perfect similarity, as the number spectrum is theoretical and thus has a wider scope than time, which is actual.

Hugiboo

07-09-2007, 12:05 PM

Part 2

Don't assume anything about my place on the Atheism/Theism scale; that I feel God is unnecessary as far as the problem of the universe's origins are concerned, doesn't mean I reject him completely. Also, Ockham's Razor is a useful tool in debates like these, but it's merely a methodological principle; there's nothing deep or profound about it.

I’m only basing what I said on the necessities of your argument. I understand that not only Atheists find the Cosmological Argument to be incapable of proving God’s existence. Yet for you to deny that my argument succeeds purely on the grounds that my argument is at worst unproven (i.e. the burden of proof is on me), then you are putting the outcome of the argument up to the likeliest conclusion (if all possibilities are unproven, then the most reasonable conclusion is the best choice right?). To this end, I was simply claiming that my conclusion is the most reasonable given the evidence. I was simply using a common Atheist/Agnostic (or weak Atheist) argument in reverse. It is commonly said that if the existence of God cannot be proven, then any natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural explanation (Occam’s razor – which need not be profound to make sense). Well, in our debate we have already seen that our explanation is supernatural (whether God or super-universe, the Cause is supernatural), and my point is that we should see by the end that any answer apart from the Theistic answer is much less reasonable to account for the universe.

First off, I merely stated that I consider the possibility of a supernatural universe as simpler than the God hypothesis. When I argue in favor of infinite regression, I imagine it as a cyclic physical universe, eternally inflating and deflating like a cosmic baloon of sorts.

Second, you have established the PSR as a "self-evident truth", and it is truly quite intuitive and sensible as long as we operate within the total of space-time. When you wish to apply it outside of time, it loses all of it's self-evidency in my eyes. I see a contradiction between giving something the status of a "self-evident truth" and later declaring that one can't imagine how it would work in certain circumstances. Similarly, I could wish to establish gravity as a "self-evident truth", and then argue that it would also work outside of space.

I don’t have difficulty imagining how the PSR would work in other circumstances (I did say that I have difficulty imagining what existence outside of time would be like, but this is not relevant to the matter of the PSR being a self-evident truth. I think you are a little too eager to abandon logical principles in the face of the transcendent. Logical principles are themselves transcendent, or at least we understand them in such a way, so why should we not continue to apply them when dealing with the transcendent? Gravity is a bad example because 1) it’s not a self-evident truth; 2) physical laws are too different from logical laws to make an appropriate comparison; and 3) it is inherent in the concept of gravity that it cannot be possible outside of space.

Oh, and another thing - the PSR refers to events that "begin"; but for something to begin, it already must be contained within time. Unless you'd like to extend that term too, that is.

You keep saying this and I keep telling you the PSR refers to any and all facts of existence, not only those things that “begin”. You are confusing causality and reason. Secondly, what is inherent in the concept “to begin” that there must have been some time “before” or in the past? I see no logical contradiction to the universe beginning out of nothing. Instead of saying there is a requirement of time, I would say there is a requirement that there be a difference in existence. This is incredibly difficult to talk about accurately with human language because time is a concept that permeates our whole existence, but I think it is something we can understand to some degree. My “temporal nature” wants me to say things like “we can say the universe began, because there was a difference of existence between the universe before and after its creation. But even though these terms are not quite accurate, we can see the way in which they do not accurately describe what we mean. The problem is not that the concepts are inconsistent, but that we don’t have the right kinds of terms to describe it. We can understand certain things about it; which is why we use the word “begin” because it does accurately describe it in a limited sense. It’s almost like the word “begin” is too small a word and we don’t have a bigger one but we know we need one. The best I can describe it is to say that “begin” is an accurate term in that we can speak about the universe beginning in a logically consistent way. In other words, there is much that makes sense about it, despite the little that doesn’t – but the little that doesn’t can be attributed to our “temporal bias” in a sense corrupting, or limiting the real meaning of the word. I’m pretty sure you won’t like the explanation above, but simply put, there doesn’t seem to be any logical inconsistency with the concept of the creation of the universe from nothing.

impersonal

07-14-2007, 08:44 AM

Hugiboo, are you still interested in this thread? It's been a week :(

sadated_peon

07-14-2007, 12:38 PM

I think we cannot come to an agreement because of our difference in understanding of the fundamental nature of time. I cannot conceive of a universe with infinite time, so try as I might, I cannot see your arguments except through my own understanding that time cannot be infinite. Yesterday was 1 day ago, last week was 7 days ago, and last month was 31 days ago. No matter how far into the past we go, we are always talking about real numbers. The universe was created 15 billion years ago, but if it hadn’t been, we could talk about what happened 15 billion billion years ago. Because time is a function of matter, each and every moment that goes by is one of the total, which in my understanding must be a real number. How can you talk about an unreal number of real events? It is absurd to my reason. I can imagine (barely) what it would mean to have a form of existence that is eternal – meaning without time altogether – though I cannot imagine what this would be like. But to talk about infinite time is like talking about square circles to me. As long as we disagree on such a fundamental level, there is really no point debating this point anymore, because there is no common ground at a more fundamental level that we can appeal to.:

Yes, there is no reason to continue, infinite is a unreal number, if you are unable to conceive of the concept then you can not grasp this.

A few problems I see with your definitions. 1) Blind faith is defined by being blind (i.e. not knowing or having reason), yet one could have blind faith in something that happens to be true (i.e. not against evidence). For instance, if I just choose to believe that your name is “Tom”, this is blind faith because the nature of my belief is blind – having no cause to believe it. It could be that your name happens to be “Tom”, so my blind faith could be true, but it is still blind. However, if I noticed other forum members referring to you as “Tom”, and if I noticed you mentioning common activities with those people(i.e. “want to hang out on the weekend?”), I could reasonably infer that those people actually know you, and they are accurate in calling you “Tom”. This would be reasonable faith – faith still because I still could be wrong, but reasonable (at least to some degree) because I actually have (some degree of) grounds for believing it. Is there anything stronger than this? I doubt it, as even self-evident truths are held as beliefs; and all beliefs, whether reasonable or blind, have the possibility of error. So what is faith in the face of reason then? I would call that stupidity (probably more accurately “narrow-minded”). If anyone believes something irrationally, they are simply failing to use their reason correctly, in accordance with the information they have, to come to a logical conclusion.
Once again, we have already established what you consider to be faith, and blind faith, only that these definition don't apply to your belief in the Christian god.

Ok, so why do I think my faith in God is reasonable? 1) I have experienced Him in my life. This is my strongest proof but can only be evidence for me, because nobody else can experience my experiences; therefore I do not expect this to hold any weight with anyone else. This includes “spiritual experiences”, intuition, and the fact that my life has been transformed in a way that is unexplainable. 2) The fact that the Christian worldview is the most reasonable and can account for the existence of transcendental realities like morality, truth, reason, and love; and the fact that no other worldview can do so. (i.e. Transcendental Argument). 3) The fact that reason itself forces us to admit there is a creator (i.e. Cosmological Argument). 4) The incredible complexity and beauty of creation (i.e. Intelligent Design data/experience – I will not call this an argument and use it on the same level of evidence as the previous two) that is attested to by such people as Charles Darwin (a Deist, not an Atheist) and Richard Dawkins.
1) many people from many different religious beliefs claim the same things, about completely different entities. Therefore this can not possible be considered evidence of god. As it leads to contradicting conclusions.
Though if you want me to try and explain it, go ahead and tell me.

2) This is not evidence of Christian god, it is a flawed argument. it is circular logic.

3) The cosmological argument does not prove god, as I have been demonstrating.

4) Right this is not an argument, complexity has many explanation none of which are god, and none of which are the Christian god.

So far you have no evidence for believing in god, therefore when you say you have faith in god, you fit your definition of "blind faith" in god.

I do not believe that all of these are necessary to have reasonable faith in Christianity though, because I believe that all people do have the understanding, deep down, that God exists. However, as Romans 1 says, people suppress the truth and reject God. Essentially I believe that only the first reason is necessary, and is attainable for every person – the others are just gravy. But, since we cannot really discuss the first reason, why not appeal to the others to see if my faith is reasonable? And this is what I am attempting to do in this discussion; to show that the Cosmological argument provides reasonable justification for belief in God, so that it need not be considered “blind faith”.
The first, has existed throughout humanity very true, but he has been shown to give contradictory answers usually based on ignorance of the world around us, not the presence of a god.
The others are know and flawed arguments for god, none of which are evidence of god, and especially not of a Christian god.

Even if you don’t like how I have defined “faith” and “blind-faith”, I think the categories I have used are fairly sound, so even if you want to give them other names, the essence of what I have said should make sense. At a certain point, specific labels like “fundamentalist” change their meaning so much (through faulty use) that they ought better to be dropped. I don’t think “faith” is there yet, but it may yet happen that we need a new term because the old one is corrupted.
Now that I have establish that your belief in god is in fact "Blind Faith"(by your definition) instead of "Faith"(by your definition) I either expect you to change your definition of the word to mine, or to stop referring to your belief in god as "faith" or use "blind faith" instead.

I can see why you would see it that way, but I think there is still a place for strong faith without becoming blind faith. In Christian circles you might hear of someone encouraging a person to have faith even when it is hard, and this would likely make you think having faith is about holding onto what you believe despite the contradictory evidence; but this is not at all what it means. Christian faith is not just holding a belief, but it is being committed to Jesus as our Lord (or master). To have faith when it is hard simply means holding onto that commitment when we are tempted to give in to our selfish desires (in other words, to break faith as in breaking a promise). This doesn’t mean that a person with strong faith will be morally superior to others (though they should be better than they would otherwise be with weak faith), but when they do fail to fulfill their commitment to God (which is generally every day – to a greater or lesser degree), they would genuinely seek forgiveness and reaffirm their commitment to God. Now I’m not sure how much of this made sense (Christians have a way of talking about Christianity that is often difficult for non-Christians to follow), but I hope you can see why I believe strong faith need not be seen as blind faith (after all, we already have a word for that).
Faith is the belief without evidence, for this to be more difficult means that it becomes harder to accept, for something to be harder to accept without evidence means that something contradictory has been applied that requires stronger conviction.

sadated_peon

07-14-2007, 12:40 PM

Yes, it is before the present inquiry, but it need not be before any inquiry (and should definitely not be ‘above’ our present inquiry – or unchallengable). For instance, many of the presuppositions I have used so far on this thread I have previously examined (the rest I hold as self-evident, though many of those I have examined as well), yet even though I come with presuppositions, I am willing to consider criticisms for those presuppositions and if necessary, drop them. Everyone has presuppositions, but as I said before, it is whether or not you hold them to be above rational inquiry that determines if you have blind faith or not.
But we are not dealing with ANY inquiry we are dealing here with existence of god. Therefore your "presupposition" of god existence can not be a "presupposition" because it is the center of inquiry which you are holding.

My point is that everything we believe is to some degree tentative because of our inability to achieve objective knowledge of something. You said to hold a supposition as fact negates the need for establishing fact, and of course, this is how we operate. We don’t set out to prove every single presupposition when we debate because there is a large body of assumed presuppositions in common. However, when one of them is challenged, then a need to establish it as fact arises in order for such a presupposition to count as evidence. If you were to accept my presupposition that an infinite causal regression is logically impossible, I would not need to defend it and we could use it as evidence to be considered in the argument. However, the second you challenge that presupposition it cannot be counted as evidence, because only what is evident to us both can be considered evidence (without common ground we might as well be arguing with a wall). If you then give me reasons for rejecting my presupposition about infinite causal regression, and I stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the challenge, I am having blind faith in my presupposition (because I am holding it to be above reason).
This is a moot point. You are trying to warp the meaning of tentative to stretch its uncertainty to include all things, when that is not how the context of the definition is written. A supposition is not the state of uncertainty inherent in our inability to objective knowledge, it is uncertainty beyond this to being highly questioned and in need of supporting.
There is a level of uncertainty that the sun will rise to morrow, but it is not a supposition that the sun will rise to morrow.

This is a good example of what I mentioned above; yes I did make that assumption, and now that you have challenged me on it I must provide reasons for holding this assumption. This is why I would assume that a super-universe must be spatial-temporal like ours: Essentially I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the Atheist who wants to believe in natural causes; if we say that the super-universe is not a material universe, then we end up with something very much like what my worldview suggests, not the Atheist. The alternative to a material universe is a non-material universe (i.e. a spiritual universe – you may not like this word because of its religious connotations, but “spiritual” essentially means “non-material”). I’m perfectly happy with supposing that the super-universe is a non-material universe, because in this view the existence of a divine being is not at all difficult to accept. A supernatural being existing within a supernatural universe/existence is what is necessary under the nonmaterial universe view, and this is exactly what Christians say is the case with the existence of God. Believe me, if you are going to hold a super-universe as a way to get around God, you want it to be a material one.
No, this is a logical fallacy, it is a false dilemma. Having a non-material world, does not mean that we now have a world that supports YOUR religious views in any way. Nor is a different material world outside of our current understanding of a material world out of possibility. The super-universe unlike our own, does not support the Christian world view.

I can see no support for you belief that a non-material universe is the Christian world view, nor that a non-material universe is required for the super universe. What existed before the big bang is unknown, and you claim upon that knowledge are inherently flawed. Your argument is a fallacy.

This super-universe would not necessarily have to have all the same physical laws (i.e. constants) that ours has, but being a temporal/spatial universe, it would have the same limitations that arise out of those characteristics. This is where my argument for the impossibility of infinite time comes in, and why it has been so important in my argument (I don’t think it is critical, but certainly important).
No, your are making assumptions again without anything to back them up. You can give no logical reason for you application of characteristics on a unknown super-universal state. Nor have you shown an argument against infinite time other than your inability to grasp it.

I understand why you have a problem with this. You feel that the laws of this super-universe would be wholly unknowable and therefore an infinite past would be a possibility we cannot rule out. As I have shown, certain aspects of a super-universe are knowable simply by what the concept of a material universe entails.
No, you have assumed that, you have not shown that. A flawed and baseless assumption.

We can always throw out the physical super-universe and go with a non-physical one, but that will only help my argument and hurt yours;
No, this is a false dilemma derived from your lack of knowledge.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Any physical universe would be a temporal-spatial universe that would be subject to the workings of time. However, even if an infinite past were possible on this super-universe, we still run into an infinite regression when we try to apply the PSR in that the super-universe itself remains without reason. Why should we believe in something without reason? Now, several people have made comments about the PSR not necessarily being a law about reality (we are not capable to know if it does objectively reflect reality or not) but a law about reason. And maybe it is the case that something can exist without reason, but even so, to believe such a thing is intellectual suicide.
PSR is a interesting concept for which we run into the problem of the reason being subject to criticism of the reason. Give me a any reason for an independent god, I will reject it out of hand, and I have defeated that your God conforms with PSR.
If were to tell you that a super-universe was its own reason, and you reject it out of hand, does that hold wait to me?

Secondly, getting rid of creation and seeing the universe as having always existed (or doing the same to a super-universe) does not at all get away from infinite regression. Infinite regression certainly exists with an infinite past because we have a causal chain where each event can be explained by the previous event on to infinity, but the whole chain altogether has no reason to explain it; it simply exists. Again, to believe in something that has no reason is intellectual suicide, and is precisely the thing Christians are accused of doing for believing in God.
You seem to excuse this fact for god, so obviously you don't reject this on principle only on application.

Hugiboo

07-16-2007, 06:17 AM

Hugiboo, are you still interested in this thread? It's been a week
Sorry, crazy week (plus I got distracted by other threads). I’m back for now but I can’t promise I will be able to post much in the coming week.

Well, I ultimately do see this argument as an application of Kant's ideas - that even speaking of things like "outside of time" is meaningless for us, since time is a property of our perception which we cannot free ourselves from. In reality, it's one of the reasons I'm so vehement on discussing the infinite regression possibility - it's the only one that doesn't force us to consider "the beginning of time", which is, if you think about it, quite a troublesome event. I even have trouble imagining how something that isn't already contained in time can even begin.
I will go so far as to agree that the concept of “outside of time” is difficult to conceive, but I think the fact that you can recognize how difficult a concept it is shows that it is not meaningless. We can still conceive of the more basic concept of existence, without specifying whether this is a temporal or non-temporal existence. Either way, there is something real or true about what is said to have existence. In fact, our experience is one that constantly deals with transcendental principles like truth, logic, and morality, so I think it is far from being meaningless.

Now, if Hugiboo manages to show me solid, clear proof that infinite regression is impossible, we're going to have a lot of trouble regardless of the hypothesis we consider, because we'll be forced to consider an event that lies completely beyond our perception.
If I haven’t convinced you by now, I’m pretty sure nothing more that I say on this subject will change your mind. We seem to have a fundamental problem in accepting each other’s logic as valid. I am convinced that the problem lies in a lack on one of our parts to understand the concepts involved. I cannot accept your understanding and you cannot accept my understanding. One of us is certainly wrong, but we have run out of common ground by which to determine which of us it is, so to continue debating the point would be futile.

You assume that our reason is reliable. You make an argument based on this premise, and the conclusion is that we can trust our reason.

It looks like a circular reasoning to me.
That’s not quite right. You are right that I assume that our reason is reliable, but my conclusion was not that we can trust our reason. You missed the point; the conclusion was that Christianity is internally consistent, while Atheism is not. My point is that the presuppositions of Atheism are logically inconsistent with things like truth, morality, and logic; while the presuppositions of Christianity are consistent with them. There is no contradiction between Christianity and these concepts, but there is between them and Atheism. This is not circular reasoning at all. It’s not that I think you need grounds for accepting reason; it is the process that justifies and so cannot be justified itself, but what I was trying to say is that the logical consequences of Atheism are the negation of transcendental concepts like truth, morality, and logic. Since the vast majority of Atheists do not reject these things, they are holding an inconsistent world view, in which they borrow logic, morality, and truth from the Christian world view (where these things are consistent), and try to fit them into an Atheistic world view (in which they are not consistent).

It's already the third time I'm asking this question:

So, how is God the reason of His own existence? I asked this already in my previous post, but you dodged. If this is what you plan to explain in your final post, please say it now and I'll avoid this subject for now.
Do you plan to answer?!
I actually answered this question in my original post (post 79). You cannot accept my explanation because it depends on the logical necessity of the PSR for some being to be self-existent (or the reason for its own existence), which is necessary to avoid an infinite regress. Only if you accept my premise that an infinite regress is a logical absurdity and cannot be true, (which I take to be self-evident and have not been shown that it is not true) will my explanation make sense to you. Otherwise you will continue to feel that I am avoiding the question. I cannot tell you how it works, only that it is a logically necessary truth. Many things are like this (for instance, morality).

Alright, that said, let's move to Kant once again. Hugiboo, I'm sure you know about the ontological argument. Kant famously reduced all arguments for the existence of God to the ontological argument. Sadly, I have not read the "critic of pure reason" so I don't know how Kant reduces the cosmological argument to the ontological argument.

Once Kant reduced the cosmological argument to the ontological argument, he goes on to show that the ontological argument is incorrect. The ontological arguments proves that God necessarily exists, from the sole concept of God. Typically, the ontological argument says :
1) God is perfect.
2) It is more perfect to exist than to not exist.
3) If God doesn't exist, then it is possible to conceive a more perfect God, one which does exist. This is a contradiction.
4) Therefore, God exists.
Yes, I am familiar with the ontological argument, and I agree with Kant that it relies on very obviously flawed logic. In my opinion, the ontological argument is a dishonest attempt to make the illusion of having proven the existence of God. To me it seems that those who use it are more concerned with winning the argument than with intellectual integrity. Still, I would have to see how the cosmological argument is supposed to be reduced to the ontological argument before I could comment on it (you don’t really show this in this post).

By now you might be convinced that Kant has proven the ontological argument wrong, but I bet you are not convinced that the cosmological argument can be reduced to the ontological argument. I said I don't know how Kant makes this reduction, but that doesn't mean I'm not able to make it on my own.

Hugiboo, you reached a point at which you built one system consisting of two entities, God and the Universe. You also wrote that God is the reason of the whole system.

However, that doesn't explain why we have God and the rest of the system. Indeed, your solution doesn't explain why there is anything at all. Your system is consistent; but it is not necessary. It is not a sufficient reason. If you want to be consistent with the PSR, you have to work this out.
Again, I did provide this in my original post dealing with this (post 79).

The only way to avoid this difficulty is to create a reason for the existence of God that works even when God isn't here in the first place. This reason would make the absence of God illogical, rather than merely explaining why his presence is possible.

If we don't manage to find any such reason, we are still not out of infinite regress - because we didn't manage to give a satisfying answer the question "why does God exist?".
What you are asking for is impossible. If God exists, then He is His own reason for existence. His existence precludes the possibility for some outside reason to justify His existence. Why is the reason “God is self-existent” not a satisfying answer to the question “why does God exist?” You don’t seem to have a problem with using a similar answer for why the universe exists. I’ve already explained why that answer cannot be used to justify the universe, but I suspect you will ask me again.

Hugiboo

07-16-2007, 06:20 AM

1) many people from many different religious beliefs claim the same things, about completely different entities. Therefore this can not possible be considered evidence of god. As it leads to contradicting conclusions.
Though if you want me to try and explain it, go ahead and tell me.

2) This is not evidence of Christian god, it is a flawed argument. it is circular logic.

3) The cosmological argument does not prove god, as I have been demonstrating.

4) Right this is not an argument, complexity has many explanation none of which are god, and none of which are the Christian god.

So far you have no evidence for believing in god, therefore when you say you have faith in god, you fit your definition of "blind faith" in god.
1) This is why I did not put this forward as evidence for others. Whether or not it is sufficient evidence for me, you are not capable to judge. Remember also, one can be justified and still believe wrongly. I can have good reasons to trust a chair and it may still break. I never claimed that this was sufficient proof that anyone who claims a similar experience must be right.

2) I would be happy to debate the transcendental argument at some other time; for now I have already shown why it is not circular logic. The proof it gives depends on the arguments made, of which I have not put forth any so far.

3) You have not demonstrated to me that it does not prove God. If I am convinced that it does, and even if I make logical errors, I still have reasons to believe (though erroneous ones) and therefore still have reasonable faith. A person cannot be faulted for what he does not know; so unless I am explicitly ignoring some reason for why the argument fails, my faith remains reasonable. Like the chair example, if I cannot discern by looking at it that it is made of weak material, I am still justified in believing it will hold me up.

4) Complexity, being a physical state of being, cannot have God as its cause unless we are to say that God created it fully formed. I believe that, for the most part, physical states have physical causes. This is what I believe is flawed in the ID movement; they propose no physical method for how things came to be as they are, claiming simply “God did it”. Though I agree with their conclusion, it is an answer to a question that is not being asked. The part of Intelligent Design that I find compelling is the fact that the universe looks designed. Yes it could be a coincidence, but what are the chances? Many would say “infinitely higher that it was natural causes than supernatural”, but we can skip that argument altogether because we have already established that the cause of the universe was supernatural.

Now that I have establish that your belief in god is in fact "Blind Faith"(by your definition) instead of "Faith"(by your definition) I either expect you to change your definition of the word to mine, or to stop referring to your belief in god as "faith" or use "blind faith" instead.
It’s ok; I didn’t expect you to understand. I figured it was worth a shot, something to think about. You can go ahead and think that my faith is blind if that makes you happy.

Faith is the belief without evidence, for this to be more difficult means that it becomes harder to accept, for something to be harder to accept without evidence means that something contradictory has been applied that requires stronger conviction.
Again, I would actually be surprised if you had understood what I meant. It has nothing to do with contradictions, but with the sinful heart (I already said that contradictions should never be ignored). I’m pretty sure you have to be a Christian to understand this. “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) I can certainly see why religious faith seems like foolishness to you.

But we are not dealing with ANY inquiry we are dealing here with existence of god. Therefore your "presupposition" of god existence can not be a "presupposition" because it is the center of inquiry which you are holding.
Is that what’s bugging you? There is a difference between presuppositional beliefs held in general, and presuppositions that form the foundation of a debate. If you are trying to convince someone of something, you need not suspend your belief in what you are trying to prove (that would be silly), but you just use evidence that can be agreed on by both parties (i.e. common ground). Therefore, it shouldn’t matter what your presuppositions are unless they are used as premises for arguments. Have I done this?

No, this is a logical fallacy, it is a false dilemma. Having a non-material world, does not mean that we now have a world that supports YOUR religious views in any way. Nor is a different material world outside of our current understanding of a material world out of possibility. The super-universe unlike our own, does not support the Christian world view.
I was simply saying that my position is that the cause of the universe is non-material, so if you want to go there right away that’s fine by me; then I will just have one less step in arguing that the cause is the Christian God. Is a different material world outside of our current understanding of a material world out of possibility? That depends on what you mean by “outside of our current understanding of a material world.” There are many physical laws and constants that could have been very different in a different physical universe. However, logically we can extend what we know about spatial-temporal existence to any such universe, no matter how different it may be in other ways. Its temporal dimension would function the same way that ours does. I expect that you won’t agree with this point, but there’s not much I can do about your inability to understand this. If you like, you can try to explain how it would be possible for the temporal-spatial dimension of another universe to be different. Just because you can say it isn’t good enough (I can say I can imagine the possibility of a “square circle”, but it is still a logical contradiction).

PSR is a interesting concept for which we run into the problem of the reason being subject to criticism of the reason. Give me a any reason for an independent god, I will reject it out of hand, and I have defeated that your God conforms with PSR.
If were to tell you that a super-universe was its own reason, and you reject it out of hand, does that hold wait to me?
I don’t understand the point you are making in the first part. In the second part, I would not reject that statement out of hand because that is being deliberately close-minded. I have already explained why I do not accept it, but I don’t think it stuck.

Secondly, getting rid of creation and seeing the universe as having always existed (or doing the same to a super-universe) does not at all get away from infinite regression. Infinite regression certainly exists with an infinite past because we have a causal chain where each event can be explained by the previous event on to infinity, but the whole chain altogether has no reason to explain it; it simply exists. Again, to believe in something that has no reason is intellectual suicide, and is precisely the thing Christians are accused of doing for believing in God.
You seem to excuse this fact for god, so obviously you don't reject this on principle only on application.
I’m not going to try to explain this anymore because you’re obviously not listening.

impersonal

07-16-2007, 03:56 PM

Sorry, crazy week (plus I got distracted by other threads). I’m back for now but I can’t promise I will be able to post much in the coming week.
No problem and no need to apologize. I was just worried that this thread might die ^^

That’s not quite right. You are right that I assume that our reason is reliable, but my conclusion was not that we can trust our reason. You missed the point; the conclusion was that Christianity is internally consistent, while Atheism is not. My point is that the presuppositions of Atheism are logically inconsistent with things like truth, morality, and logic; while the presuppositions of Christianity are consistent with them.
Your point was that God proved reason... And it was circular. But I have no problem debating the consistency of atheism.

There is no contradiction between Christianity and these concepts, but there is between them and Atheism. This is not circular reasoning at all. It’s not that I think you need grounds for accepting reason; it is the process that justifies and so cannot be justified itself, but what I was trying to say is that the logical consequences of Atheism are the negation of transcendental concepts like truth, morality, and logic. Since the vast majority of Atheists do not reject these things, they are holding an inconsistent world view, in which they borrow logic, morality, and truth from the Christian world view (where these things are consistent), and try to fit them into an Atheistic world view (in which they are not consistent).
Logic, morality, truth are much older than the Christian world view - so it is wrong to say that they were borrowed from it.

There are many atheists who take morality, truth and logic as axioms, like you do. You then add another axiom, God, which in turn states that all the other axioms are true.

That doesn't make your world view more consistent ! You just managed to build a more complex, yet consistent world view.

Please note that none of these world views are complete.

I actually answered this question in my original post (post 79). You cannot accept my explanation because it depends on the logical necessity of the PSR for some being to be self-existent (or the reason for its own existence), which is necessary to avoid an infinite regress. Only if you accept my premise that an infinite regress is a logical absurdity and cannot be true, (which I take to be self-evident and have not been shown that it is not true) will my explanation make sense to you. Otherwise you will continue to feel that I am avoiding the question. I cannot tell you how it works, only that it is a logically necessary truth. Many things are like this (for instance, morality).

No you didn't. You said: God is the reason for His own existence. I'm not asking "Is God the reason for His own existence?". I'm asking "How does God manage to be the reason for His own existence?".

The point being that until you've answered this, I can just as well say "I'm the reason for my own existence", and then fail to answer when you ask me how.

Again, I did provide this in my original post dealing with this (post 79).

What the hell? Are you sure you understood what I wrote?

Indeed, your solution doesn't explain why there is anything at all [ie, why there is the system God + Universe]. Your system is consistent; but it is not necessary [ie, "nothing" would also be a possible, consistent system, and perhaps we could find other consistent systems which could have existed instead of the one described here]. It is not a sufficient reason. If you want to be consistent with the PSR, you have to work this out.
My point is that you have not quite solved infinite regress yet.

What you are asking for is impossible.
That's the whole point of cornering someone in a debate. Show him that his position leads to something impossible. That's why the conclusion consists in asking you to do something impossible.

I’ve already explained why that answer cannot be used to justify the universe, but I suspect you will ask me again.
Was it because the universe had a beginning? Since the Big Bang is supposed to be the "beginning of time" (a statement which doesn't really make any sense actually), that would mean that the universe didn't begin at a point in time. And that the universe contains time.

You don’t seem to have a problem with using a similar answer for why the universe exists.
Come on. I'm using a self-existing universe as logical tool. That's doesn't mean I believe in it. You should know by now that I'm rather skeptics on most things.

impersonal

07-16-2007, 04:15 PM

His existence precludes the possibility for some outside reason to justify His existence.
I'd be interested read more about that. Do you mean that God is above, outside logic? In that case, how is truth possible? And what remains of logic, and of the PSR?

mislead

07-17-2007, 07:27 PM

Necro. :) Been away, having a life.

This is the point I meant that you were admitting: Ok, so you agree that “infinite quantity” doesn’t make any sense, but you don’t think universes consist of actual quantities of matter. What do they consist of then, potential or theoretical quantities of matter? It is a contradiction in terms; if it’s not an actual quantity, it must be a potential quantity, and you must realize that a potential quantity of matter cannot describe a physical reality. You are essentially saying that physical matter exists potentially but not actually. My argument is that because a universe is a physical reality, what exists within it does so in actuality, not potentiality. This is why I assume that there is an actual quantity of matter in the universe; because it is self-evident by the terms we are using. You can’t mean anything by the word “universe” if not a physical reality consisting of actual matter.

What I'm saying, is that by attributing a universe with a "quantity of matter", you're already assuming that it's finite. Hence, my remark that you're merely rephrasing what you were trying to prove. Allow me to present an analogous argument - assume I was trying to prove that colourless objects may exist. Then your reasoning would boil down to:
1. Every physical object must necessarily have an actual colour.
2. "Colourless" is not an actual colour.
3. Therefore, colourless objects do not exist.
And, after me replying that I do not agree with 1, you come back with "But if they don't have an actual colour, they can only have a potential colour...(...)". As you can see, your reasoning already rests on the assumption of what you're trying to prove - that everything must necessarily have a colour.

That’s right, according to the PSR, assuming that a chain of causality was infinite, the PSR would not demand a cause because it doesn’t begin to exist. But the only way you can make that argument is by assuming you are right in the first place. Only after you assume that an infinite chain of events is possible, can you justify the position by showing that it is not inconsistent. The problem is, the assumption you made to get to the position in the first place is inconsistent, so it doesn’t matter if the conclusion is consistent. You obviously are not convinced that an infinite chain of events is logically impossible, but the only argument you seem to be making is that you don’t understand mine. It is quite simple. Events are real things; they are signified by real physical matter changing in some way (which marks the passage of time, or moments). An infinite chain of events entails an infinite quantity of real things, but as you have admitted yourself, such a concept is logically impossible. I fail to see where the difficulty lies.

First off, I haven't admitted it, and find it somewhat insulting that you ignore a detailed explanation concerning that statement, and just act as if it wasn't there. We're in the middle of discussing the issue, don't act like it's already decided.

Aside from that, it seems that your only remaining argument against infinite regression rests on the logical impossibility of anything actually infinite existing in the physical universe. Is that correct?

If you think the concepts we are using cannot adequately be discussed using language, perhaps you should use formal logic. I’m not simply using semantics to create an apparent problem; if the words are accurate, then logical inconsistencies in semantics transfer to logical inconsistencies in concepts. However, feel free to redefine your terms as you like; it won’t change the fact that the concepts themselves are inconsistent. Why do I insist on using phrases like “infinite number” and “infinite quantity”? Simple, I use these phrases because they accurately describe what we are talking about. When you say the set of integers is infinite, this means that there is a potential infinite number of items in the set. The infinite quantity is only potential or theoretical though, yet you want to use the number as if it could describe reality. This is what I have a problem with. It cannot be used to describe physical reality, only theoretical potentials.

Ah, but you do agree that the concept of infinity by itself isn't contradictory, right? What I want, is a definite, clear property of physical matter, that disallows it to be described with the concept of infinity. Up to now, the only thing you've provided, are elaborate reasonings that merely try to assume it in the first place, and hide it under a layer of unnecessary terminology.

I find it particularly amusing that you so vehemently deny that a completely consistent and rather intuitive concept of infinity can be reflected in reality, while you yourself insist on considering states like "beyond time". I may as well state that the concept of "beyond time" is entirely theoretical and cannot be used to describe any kind of reality. In fact, the reason for which I'm so stubborn about infinite regress, is that I find an infinitely backwards stretching time a lot more intuitive than a complete lack of it.

As a side note, when I say "this set is infinite", I don't mean anything beyond "this set is not finite". I have no use for the word "potential", and find it unnecessary. This is, if I recall correctly, the canon set theoretical definition too.

If you are fine with using “number” with a continuous spectrum like numbers, then I’m fine with using “number” with a continuous spectrum like time. The continuousness is similar and the concept of the number spectrum lends itself well to dealing with the concept of time. Obviously it is not a perfect similarity, as the number spectrum is theoretical and thus has a wider scope than time, which is actual.

I am? I don't recall using "number" to denote anything beyond an integer, but then again my memory may be failing me. Also, when you use "number" in an expression such as "number of moments", then you're somewhat implying that what you're referring to is discrete. Or aren't you? My english may be failing me here.

mislead

07-17-2007, 08:06 PM

I’m only basing what I said on the necessities of your argument. I understand that not only Atheists find the Cosmological Argument to be incapable of proving God’s existence. Yet for you to deny that my argument succeeds purely on the grounds that my argument is at worst unproven (i.e. the burden of proof is on me), then you are putting the outcome of the argument up to the likeliest conclusion (if all possibilities are unproven, then the most reasonable conclusion is the best choice right?). To this end, I was simply claiming that my conclusion is the most reasonable given the evidence. I was simply using a common Atheist/Agnostic (or weak Atheist) argument in reverse. It is commonly said that if the existence of God cannot be proven, then any natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural explanation (Occam’s razor – which need not be profound to make sense). Well, in our debate we have already seen that our explanation is supernatural (whether God or super-universe, the Cause is supernatural), and my point is that we should see by the end that any answer apart from the Theistic answer is much less reasonable to account for the universe.

Fair enough. Apart from your annoying habit to treat issues that are still being discussed as resolved in your favor.

I don’t have difficulty imagining how the PSR would work in other circumstances (I did say that I have difficulty imagining what existence outside of time would be like, but this is not relevant to the matter of the PSR being a self-evident truth. I think you are a little too eager to abandon logical principles in the face of the transcendent. Logical principles are themselves transcendent, or at least we understand them in such a way, so why should we not continue to apply them when dealing with the transcendent? Gravity is a bad example because 1) it’s not a self-evident truth; 2) physical laws are too different from logical laws to make an appropriate comparison; and 3) it is inherent in the concept of gravity that it cannot be possible outside of space.

I'm not abandoning the PSR, merely limiting it . :) Of course, from your perspective, I'm cutting off the most important part, but I still retain a good part of it. Also, would you please put forth some criteria that a statement must meet to be considered "self-evident". Because to this poor, unimaginative non-theist, applying the PSR outside of time is horribly unintuitive, and hence not really evident.

You keep saying this and I keep telling you the PSR refers to any and all facts of existence, not only those things that “begin”. You are confusing causality and reason. Secondly, what is inherent in the concept “to begin” that there must have been some time “before” or in the past? I see no logical contradiction to the universe beginning out of nothing. Instead of saying there is a requirement of time, I would say there is a requirement that there be a difference in existence. This is incredibly difficult to talk about accurately with human language because time is a concept that permeates our whole existence, but I think it is something we can understand to some degree. My “temporal nature” wants me to say things like “we can say the universe began, because there was a difference of existence between the universe before and after its creation. But even though these terms are not quite accurate, we can see the way in which they do not accurately describe what we mean. The problem is not that the concepts are inconsistent, but that we don’t have the right kinds of terms to describe it. We can understand certain things about it; which is why we use the word “begin” because it does accurately describe it in a limited sense. It’s almost like the word “begin” is too small a word and we don’t have a bigger one but we know we need one. The best I can describe it is to say that “begin” is an accurate term in that we can speak about the universe beginning in a logically consistent way. In other words, there is much that makes sense about it, despite the little that doesn’t – but the little that doesn’t can be attributed to our “temporal bias” in a sense corrupting, or limiting the real meaning of the word. I’m pretty sure you won’t like the explanation above, but simply put, there doesn’t seem to be any logical inconsistency with the concept of the creation of the universe from nothing.

First off, true, my mistake for confusing the PSR with your later constructed argument based on it.

Second, true, I don't like the explanation, and it seems like you're finally admitting that "the beginning of time" and "outside of time" produce some difficulties, if only of a linguistic nature (this nicely reflects the infinities discussion, where the roles are reversed). I'm not going to try and pick apart your use of our limited language in this explanation (particuarly the use of the word "difference" probably leads to some strictly temporal concepts), but I do stand by my point - If we can't even imagine (or can't even describe) a state of timelessness, then wouldn't it be preferrable to simply cut it off with the Razor?

Of course, if you manage to prove that infinite regress is impossible, then this would be our only alternative. In that case though, I'd probably choose not to discuss it further anyway - if I can't even imagine "timelessness", then imagining a sentient being existing in such a state would be completely beyond my comprehension anyway.

sadated_peon

07-18-2007, 12:58 PM

1) This is why I did not put this forward as evidence for others. Whether or not it is sufficient evidence for me, you are not capable to judge. Remember also, one can be justified and still believe wrongly. I can have good reasons to trust a chair and it may still break. I never claimed that this was sufficient proof that anyone who claims a similar experience must be right.
That you can convince yourself of something doesn’t make your argument sound. If you don’t believe that this is sufficient proof I wonder why you brought it up.

2) I would be happy to debate the transcendental argument at some other time; for now I have already shown why it is not circular logic. The proof it gives depends on the arguments made, of which I have not put forth any so far.
I don’t remember where you showed it wasn’t circular? Though an impossible feat as the transcendental argument is inherently circular.

3) You have not demonstrated to me that it does not prove God. If I am convinced that it does, and even if I make logical errors, I still have reasons to believe (though erroneous ones) and therefore still have reasonable faith. A person cannot be faulted for what he does not know; so unless I am explicitly ignoring some reason for why the argument fails, my faith remains reasonable. Like the chair example, if I cannot discern by looking at it that it is made of weak material, I am still justified in believing it will hold me up.
I don’t have to prove to you that it does not prove god, you have to prove to me that it does. The cosmological argument was not assumed to be true.
Any reasons that you can not justify, do not establish reason for a belief.
You are ignoring reasons as to why your argument fails, I already showed this.

4) Complexity, being a physical state of being, cannot have God as its cause unless we are to say that God created it fully formed. I believe that, for the most part, physical states have physical causes. This is what I believe is flawed in the ID movement; they propose no physical method for how things came to be as they are, claiming simply “God did it”. Though I agree with their conclusion, it is an answer to a question that is not being asked. The part of Intelligent Design that I find compelling is the fact that the universe looks designed. Yes it could be a coincidence, but what are the chances? Many would say “infinitely higher that it was natural causes than supernatural”, but we can skip that argument altogether because we have already established that the cause of the universe was supernatural.
I would say, that patterns do not equate to design. Simple patterns can result in complex results, and it is a trick of the human mind to associate design to randomness.

And I have shown you how your argument for a supernatural cause for the universe is flawed.

It’s ok; I didn’t expect you to understand. I figured it was worth a shot, something to think about. You can go ahead and think that my faith is blind if that makes you happy.
As you seem to have abandoned our rational discourse to establish your incorrect application of faith, I will have to go to sources.

Fideism, is a Christian concept about the establishment of god. The establishment goes "the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth." The fideist therefore "urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious,"

A clear understanding that faith, even in the specific case of Christianity, is not based on reason.

Or if you want a contemporary example.

A man says to God, "Prove you exist." God says to the man, "I refuse to prove I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." So the man says to God, "Well, the existence of the Babblefish, which could never have evolved and must have been created, proves you exist; therefore you don't!" And poof! God disappears in a puff of logic. - DA

Again, I would actually be surprised if you had understood what I meant. It has nothing to do with contradictions, but with the sinful heart (I already said that contradictions should never be ignored). I’m pretty sure you have to be a Christian to understand this. “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) I can certainly see why religious faith seems like foolishness to you.
Wait, so now you are going to try and claim that strong faith is a solely Christian concept? Faith, and strong faith, are not reliant on Christian dogma, they are concept that span many and varied topics.

You seem to have no understanding on what faith and strong faith is, if you believe it is a concept of only the Christian faith.

Is that what’s bugging you? There is a difference between presuppositional beliefs held in general, and presuppositions that form the foundation of a debate. If you are trying to convince someone of something, you need not suspend your belief in what you are trying to prove (that would be silly), but you just use evidence that can be agreed on by both parties (i.e. common ground). Therefore, it shouldn’t matter what your presuppositions are unless they are used as premises for arguments. Have I done this?
My problem, is your attempt to try and pass faith off as a presupposition. Your then extensive attempts to warp the meaning of words through context to get the two different concept to mesh.

I was simply saying that my position is that the cause of the universe is non-material, so if you want to go there right away that’s fine by me; then I will just have one less step in arguing that the cause is the Christian God.
But you didn’t just state this, you went beyond to say that a non-material universe is the Christian position. This is incorrect, a non-material universe could be contradictor to the Christian world view, the establishment of a non-material world doesn’t support a god or any supernatural aspects, and definably not a Christian view.

Is a different material world outside of our current understanding of a material world out of possibility? That depends on what you mean by “outside of our current understanding of a material world.” There are many physical laws and constants that could have been very different in a different physical universe. However, logically we can extend what we know about spatial-temporal existence to any such universe, no matter how different it may be in other ways. Its temporal dimension would function the same way that ours does. I expect that you won’t agree with this point, but there’s not much I can do about your inability to understand this. If you like, you can try to explain how it would be possible for the temporal-spatial dimension of another universe to be different. Just because you can say it isn’t good enough (I can say I can imagine the possibility of a “square circle”, but it is still a logical contradiction).
If you want an example, then look at current scientific theory about the state of space time of a singularity.

I don’t understand the point you are making in the first part. In the second part, I would not reject that statement out of hand because that is being deliberately close-minded. I have already explained why I do not accept it, but I don’t think it stuck.
I am talking about the limited nature of PSR to be subject to the criticism of opinion. I didn’t see an explanation of why you don’t accept it in our conversation. But of course this doesn’t matter because if the rejection or establishment of reason can be done by opinion, you will always fail to establish PSR as logic, for it is only opinion.

I’m not going to try to explain this anymore because you’re obviously not listening.
I only see someone who is unwilling to put critical analysis to their own views.

Hugiboo

08-02-2007, 08:42 PM

Your point was that God proved reason... And it was circular. But I have no problem debating the consistency of atheism.
I apologize if I did not explain myself well. The argument I meant to put forward was that the existence of transcendental truths (and widespread acceptance of these truths) shows that Atheism is internally inconsistent because it relies on these truths while at the same time rejecting them. Christianity on the other hand is consistent with these truths. I do not mean to attempt to prove that these truths do exist. Since they are generally accepted by everyone, there is no need to. I guess to simplify, the argument starts with these truths and goes “given that transcendental truths exist (or are accepted), Atheism is ruled out but Christianity is not.”

Logic, morality, truth are much older than the Christian world view - so it is wrong to say that they were borrowed from it.
You can only claim that by assuming the Christian world view is false in the first place. If it is true, then it is the oldest world view in existence because it claims to trace back to the first human beings. Remember, Christianity (according to itself) did not suddenly begin at 33 AD, but is the continued revelation from God to humanity that started with the first humans created and is traced eventually to the Hebrews and then more specifically to the Jews.

There are many atheists who take morality, truth and logic as axioms, like you do. You then add another axiom, God, which in turn states that all the other axioms are true.

That doesn't make your world view more consistent ! You just managed to build a more complex, yet consistent world view.
You see the addition of an axiom of the existence of God as an unnecessary addition to an otherwise consistent worldview. I see it as the necessary conclusion of the axioms of morality, truth, and logic. To deny the necessary conclusion is to reject the axioms in the first place. Since Atheism does not admit the necessary conclusion, God, nor does it reject the initial axioms that lead to God, I say it is internally inconsistent.

You said: God is the reason for His own existence. I'm not asking "Is God the reason for His own existence?". I'm asking "How does God manage to be the reason for His own existence?".

The point being that until you've answered this, I can just as well say "I'm the reason for my own existence", and then fail to answer when you ask me how.
You are asking a valid question, but making an invalid point. The reason you cannot just as well say “I’m the reason for my own existence” is because it can be shown that you are not the reason for your own existence. So then it will seem that I can only safely claim this about God because it is unfalsifiable. But this is now why I claim this about God. The reason I claim this about God is because it is logically necessary based on the PSR. Again, the argument was: 1) All beings are either dependent beings, or self-existent beings (i.e. they either have an external reason for their existence, or they are their own reason for existence); 2) Not all beings can be dependent beings (because this would result in an infinite regress of dependence, which is logically absurd); 3) Therefore, there must be some self-existent being. The argument shows that there must be at least one; there may be more but there is no reason to assume there is; all we can logically assume is that there is one such being.

Now, you want to know how self-existence works. You claim that if I can’t explain how it works, I have no right to claim that it is true, but this is absurd. I can’t explain how a microwave works, but I know that it does; I can’t explain the workings of my brain, yet I can know many things that depend on this. I have already shown that it is logically necessary to assume that there exists some self-existent being, so to now say that you can’t accept this unless I can explain how it works is to reject the logically necessary. If you can show me some error in my logic, then fine, but don’t come with excuses that you can’t understand the conclusion. Whether or not we understand the conclusion, it still stands. I’ve already shown you why this self-existent being (which has logically been shown to be the cause of the physical universe) cannot be some kind of physical universe itself.

The only way to avoid this difficulty is to create a reason for the existence of God that works even when God isn't here in the first place. This reason would make the absence of God illogical, rather than merely explaining why his presence is possible.

If we don't manage to find any such reason, we are still not out of infinite regress - because we didn't manage to give a satisfying answer the question "why does God exist?".What you are asking for is impossible.That's the whole point of cornering someone in a debate. Show him that his position leads to something impossible. That's why the conclusion consists in asking you to do something impossible.
Fair enough, but you have not shown that it is necessary to do something impossible to justify my position, you have only claimed that it is necessary. Why is it necessary to create a reason for the existence of God that works even when God isn’t here in the first place? You say because we need a satisfying answer to the question "why does God exist?" You forget how the PSR works. Firstly, who said the answer needs to be satisfying to us? Secondly, why is the answer that God is self-existent not an answer to the question, "why does God exist?" If this is a limitation to the PSR, then so be it, it is a necessary one that stems forth from the PSR itself.

You agree that my position is self-consistent, but then you ask for evidence of my position that would be inconsistent with my position. This does not show that the existence of God is inconsistent, but only that it is inconsistent with a worldview that rejects the existence of God; which is to say, nothing. You might as well have saved your time and not bothered to ask me to presuppose Atheism in order to prove Theism.

You want a reason for the existence of God? I can give you a reason for believing in the existence of God (i.e. the PSR makes it necessary that there exists a self-existent being), but the ontological reason for God’s existence remains Himself. There could not possibly be any other answer. Your only hope for avoiding the logical necessity of a self-existent being is to disprove the PSR, which is impossible.

But again, we are getting ahead of ourselves here. I have only shown the logical necessity of a self-existent being. Why must this being be God? I have not shown this yet, but I think you see that it is imminent, which is why you are arguing as if I have shown this already.

I’ve already explained why that answer cannot be used to justify the universe, but I suspect you will ask me again.Was it because the universe had a beginning? Since the Big Bang is supposed to be the "beginning of time" (a statement which doesn't really make any sense actually), that would mean that the universe didn't begin at a point in time. And that the universe contains time.
You’re close. Yes, it is because the universe had a beginning. I know that our concept of “beginning” assumes a previous time, but we are talking about the beginning of time itself, which seems a logical contradiction. We have already been over this, “beginning” is not an accurate concept to describe what we are talking about, we need a concept that can describe a timeless beginning. The reason it is hard to conceive is not because a timeless beginning is difficult to comprehend, but because timelessness itself is difficult to comprehend. But again, as I said before, we can talk about something, and know what we are talking about, without being able to understand how it works. This is something you seem to not want to get past, but I think you can. If you truly could not get past this problem, you would simply throw up your hands at the point of creation and say “it is totally other and we cannot know”. But you do a lot more than this, so I do not believe that you cannot follow me here.

Anyway, I don’t think I’ve quite answered the question yet (this time). Why can’t the universe be its own reason for existence? For the same reason you can’t be the reason for your own existence. Anything that has a beginning cannot be self-existent (or the reason for its own existence) because it is logically impossible for a thing that does not exist to act in any way, including bringing about its own existence. Perhaps this is why you object to God being self-existent. If you think this means God must be the cause of His own existence you are confusing “cause” with “reason”.

Come on. I'm using a self-existing universe as logical tool. That's doesn't mean I believe in it. You should know by now that I'm rather skeptics on most things.
My point is that you can use a self-existing universe as a logical tool only so long as you accept it as a possibility. In fact, by using such a logical tool, you are only affirming my use of the same logical tool in support of God being self-existent. You may use it simply to show that my logical tool can be used against me (which may be what you were trying), but as I have shown above, it cannot be applied to a universe.

Hugiboo

08-02-2007, 08:48 PM

I apologize for my absence. I know this thread can only move so fast as I can respond, and I would love to have more time to do so, but I just haven't had enough time to post here for quite a while. Anyway, I hope you haven't all forgotten about this thread, and I will try to post the remainder of my argument before I leave for two weeks (next thursday). Sorry for keeping you so long Esponer, I know you are waiting for me to finish before you respond. I am interested to see your response.

I'd be interested read more about that. Do you mean that God is above, outside logic? In that case, how is truth possible? And what remains of logic, and of the PSR?
It means simply that the Christian worldview (which you apparently take as internally consistent, if unnecessarily complex) holds that God is the source of logic, truth, morality and the like. I wouldn’t say that God is above these things, necessarily, but neither would I say they are separate. These things have their source in God’s nature. So how is truth possible, and what of logic and the PSR? I don’t understand the question, how are these things not possible? Under the Christian world view these things do not exist arbitrarily, but are grounded in the highest possible authority of reality. Instead I would ask how are these things possible in an Atheist worldview, where they simply exist arbitrarily?

Hugiboo

08-02-2007, 09:50 PM

What I'm saying, is that by attributing a universe with a "quantity of matter", you're already assuming that it's finite. Hence, my remark that you're merely rephrasing what you were trying to prove. Allow me to present an analogous argument - assume I was trying to prove that colourless objects may exist. Then your reasoning would boil down to:
1. Every physical object must necessarily have an actual colour.
2. "Colourless" is not an actual colour.
3. Therefore, colourless objects do not exist.
And, after me replying that I do not agree with 1, you come back with "But if they don't have an actual colour, they can only have a potential colour...(...)". As you can see, your reasoning already rests on the assumption of what you're trying to prove - that everything must necessarily have a colour.
Perhaps I used the wrong word by calling it an argument. Yes, I am already assuming that its finite because this concept is necessarily attached to a “physical reality consisting of actual matter” (is this an unfair description of what ‘universe’ means? So I don’t understand where your disagreement lies. Do you reject my definition of universe or do you reject my association of ‘finite’ with such a definition? If you don’t accept my definition of a universe, what would you propose instead?

First off, I haven't admitted it, and find it somewhat insulting that you ignore a detailed explanation concerning that statement, and just act as if it wasn't there. We're in the middle of discussing the issue, don't act like it's already decided.

Aside from that, it seems that your only remaining argument against infinite regression rests on the logical impossibility of anything actually infinite existing in the physical universe. Is that correct?
I apologize if I have misrepresented your statements. It can be confusing sometimes to try and keep straight who said what or remember exact arguments from weeks ago (or to try and find them amid over 100 posts). Are you saying that you do not agree that the concept of an infinite quantity of real things is logically impossible? If you do not agree, I’m afraid I don’t have much to say to you, as you are subscribing to a different version of logic than I am. If we cannot even agree on the simple rules of logic, how can we expect to understand each other in more complex things?

Also, I’m sorry if my tone irritates you. If I feel that a point I made in the past was unchallenged, or undefeated by challenges, I may assume that it is a decided point. I can’t keep track of every single objection to my arguments, and I refuse to pretend every objection is valid when many are not. I do not expect everyone to agree with me that a point is decided in my favour, but for my own purposes, I will consider it to be so unless I have solid objections that I find to have merit. There are certain points where we have reached rock bottom and cannot agree. From my perspective you simply can’t understand, (you probably think the same for me). There’s not much left to do but move on. The judgement of who is correct will have to be left up to others to make for themselves.

In answer to your question; yes, I think it is fair to say that my argument against infinite regression (at least, concerning time) relies on the logical impossibility of anything actually infinite existing in the physical universe.

Ah, but you do agree that the concept of infinity by itself isn't contradictory, right? What I want, is a definite, clear property of physical matter, that disallows it to be described with the concept of infinity. Up to now, the only thing you've provided, are elaborate reasonings that merely try to assume it in the first place, and hide it under a layer of unnecessary terminology.
Let me ask you a similar question. What I want, is a definite, clear property of matter that disallows it to be described with the concept of nothing. The only thing you can offer is that it is ontologically contradictory, and that is exactly what I tell you. I don’t need to find some property of matter that is contradictory with the concept of infinity because matter itself is contradictory with the concept of infinity. The fact is, infinity is not a number. If there existed an infinite amount of matter and you were omniscient and I asked you how much matter there is, you could not tell me because infinite is not a specific quantity. It’s not for lack of numbers, we have an infinite amount of numbers (this is theoretical, we don’t actually have an infinite amount of numbers, just infinite access to numbers) but still there is no number that can describe an infinite amount of matter. Why is this? If there is a specific amount of matter, there should be a specific number that corresponds to it. So is there not a specific amount of matter?

I feel like I’m banging my head against a wall here. This is like trying to explain to someone why you can’t talk about something in terms of nothing. Or why you can’t talk about color in terms of sound. There is a point where you have to simply say “I cannot help you understand this, it doesn’t work and that is a brute fact. It is self-evident, and if you can’t see that, I can’t do anything to make it more evident.”

I find it particularly amusing that you so vehemently deny that a completely consistent and rather intuitive concept of infinity can be reflected in reality, while you yourself insist on considering states like "beyond time". I may as well state that the concept of "beyond time" is entirely theoretical and cannot be used to describe any kind of reality. In fact, the reason for which I'm so stubborn about infinite regress, is that I find an infinitely backwards stretching time a lot more intuitive than a complete lack of it.
When I say that infinity cannot be used to describe reality, I’m talking about physical reality. The nature of physical reality is that it is finite so it is a direct contradiction. I’m not arguing circularly, I’m just stating a contradiction. “Beyond time” on the other hand, is not self-contradictory in any way. It is not used to describe physical reality, and in fact it would be just as self-contradictory as infinite matter if it were used to describe physical reality. Regardless of what you find more intuitive, if it’s self-contradictory, it’s worthless.

As a side note, when I say "this set is infinite", I don't mean anything beyond "this set is not finite". I have no use for the word "potential", and find it unnecessary. This is, if I recall correctly, the canon set theoretical definition too.
I don’t see how this distinction has any use. The reason I find the word “potential” of use is because only by using it am I able to deal with the concept “infinite” at all. Is there really an infinite number of numbers? Well, they’re not really “there” as in being in existence, but we have access to an infinite supply of numbers because they are a part of a (theoretical) set without limits.

I am? I don't recall using "number" to denote anything beyond an integer, but then again my memory may be failing me. Also, when you use "number" in an expression such as "number of moments", then you're somewhat implying that what you're referring to is discrete. Or aren't you? My english may be failing me here.
I’m not quite sure what the problem was here. When I use “number” as in “number of moments” I am arbitrarily dividing time into a specific but unspecified (as opposed using words like seconds, minutes…) quantity of time. I am not implying that there is a discrete quantity of time that we could talk about, and I doubt that such a discrete quantity exists.

In any case, I really think it is pointless for us to debate infinity any longer unless you somehow come to the same understanding as I have. I do not believe it is possible for me to understand infinity in the way that you do.

Hugiboo

08-02-2007, 09:52 PM

I'm not abandoning the PSR, merely limiting it . :) Of course, from your perspective, I'm cutting off the most important part, but I still retain a good part of it. Also, would you please put forth some criteria that a statement must meet to be considered "self-evident". Because to this poor, unimaginative non-theist, applying the PSR outside of time is horribly unintuitive, and hence not really evident.
I don’t know if it is possible to put forth criteria for a statement to be self-evident. The nature of self-evident truths is that they are not based on any criteria but as Descartes said, they are statements which the denial of is not possible. I cannot conceive of the denial of the PSR applying outside of time, so to me this is a self-evident truth. Why can’t I conceive of it not being true outside of time? I suppose because the PSR is concerned with reality (i.e. anything and everything that is exists in any way); so to not apply it for situations concerned with what exists outside of time seems to be a rejection of the PSR. Without the PSR to govern speculation about what exists outside of time, you must logically be forced to abstain from commenting on this area. Doing this may save you from admitting the logical necessity of my conclusion, but it also limits your ability to raise any conclusion over another. Maybe you are happy with this agnosticism, and maybe it is all we can rightly claim, but that is still not the end of the story. There is much more evidence to be seen in determining the truth of Christianity (that is not applicable to this discussion).

First off, true, my mistake for confusing the PSR with your later constructed argument based on it.

Second, true, I don't like the explanation, and it seems like you're finally admitting that "the beginning of time" and "outside of time" produce some difficulties, if only of a linguistic nature (this nicely reflects the infinities discussion, where the roles are reversed). I'm not going to try and pick apart your use of our limited language in this explanation (particuarly the use of the word "difference" probably leads to some strictly temporal concepts), but I do stand by my point - If we can't even imagine (or can't even describe) a state of timelessness, then wouldn't it be preferrable to simply cut it off with the Razor?

Of course, if you manage to prove that infinite regress is impossible, then this would be our only alternative. In that case though, I'd probably choose not to discuss it further anyway - if I can't even imagine "timelessness", then imagining a sentient being existing in such a state would be completely beyond my comprehension anyway.
I think I agree very much with most of this. I would admit, if we can’t even imagine a state of timelessness (in any way, I would add), then surely we ought to ignore it as a possibility. Not that it becomes an impossibility, but if we are totally unable to deal with it, what more is there to do than to ignore it. However, I do not think we are totally unable to deal with it as I have explained before. I do believe that this is our only choice, because of the absurdity of the infinite regress alternative. I think you do not give yourself enough credit though, I think you can understand “timelessness” at least in part, which should be enough to be able to deal with it to the extent that is necessary to talk about God.

Hugiboo

08-03-2007, 05:43 PM

Part 1

That you can convince yourself of something doesn’t make your argument sound. If you don’t believe that this is sufficient proof I wonder why you brought it up.
Now you’re just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. I do believe my personal experience is sufficient proof, and as I said it is my greatest proof (for me); yet I also understand that something of this nature can only ever be proof for me and cannot convince anyone else. Why did I bring it up? Because I was asked for the reasons that I believe. I don’t need to justify my beliefs to anyone else to be sure they are rational. For instance, generally senses are trustworthy and you may claim to have seen me at a certain place at a certain time (supposing you knew me). You would be justified in your belief that you saw me, even though your evidence is available only to you. This is a similar case, where the evidence that I have to justify my claim is available only to me. From your perspective, I see why this is very doubtful evidence, because contradictory claims are made all the time by different people using a similar justification. But just because there are contradictions between people using a similar justification does not mean that they are all wrong; it only means some of them are wrong.

I don’t know why you are bothering to cast doubt on a justification that you have absolutely no access to. As I said, this cannot be used to prove to others that my faith is reasonable, but it can be used by me to justify my beliefs.

I don’t remember where you showed it wasn’t circular? Though an impossible feat as the transcendental argument is inherently circular.

What you want to do is to prove that we can trust our own reason. But to trust the proof, you would have to trust your reason in the first place. This "transcendental argument" is circular.Actually it’s not circular. Circular reasoning would use the conclusion as a premise to prove itself. I am not attempting to prove that reason is reliable, I am assuming that it is. My argument is that we both assume that it is reliable, but the non-Christian worldview is essentially irrational. I can at least say, reason makes sense in my worldview, but all you can do is accept it even though it doesn’t make sense. Check out the debate I posted if you like, Bahnsen can state it much better than I can.
As I explained to Hugo, circular reasoning assumes the conclusion in the premise, thereby attempting to be its own justification. The transcendental argument does not offer proof for the existence of transcendental realities; it assumes them just as Atheism does. The argument offered is that Christianity is consistent with these realities and Atheism is not. I will not present the Transcendental Argument here though because it is not on topic. You may subscribe to the dogma that the transcendental argument is circular, but don’t think that your stating this dogma will convince anyone. For me, I was not trying to convince anyone, but to mention some reasons I find Christianity to be the most reasonable world view.

3) You have not demonstrated to me that it does not prove God. If I am convinced that it does, and even if I make logical errors, I still have reasons to believe (though erroneous ones) and therefore still have reasonable faith. A person cannot be faulted for what he does not know; so unless I am explicitly ignoring some reason for why the argument fails, my faith remains reasonable. Like the chair example, if I cannot discern by looking at it that it is made of weak material, I am still justified in believing it will hold me up.
I don’t have to prove to you that it does not prove god, you have to prove to me that it does. The cosmological argument was not assumed to be true.
Any reasons that you can not justify, do not establish reason for a belief.
You are ignoring reasons as to why your argument fails, I already showed this.
This is what happens when you take a quote out of context. In the grand scheme of this thread, your post makes sense, but in the specific context of the quote you used it makes no sense. Let me explain. Firstly, yes you are right, in the context of this thread the cosmological argument is not assumed to be true and the burden of proof is on me.

Now to what my post was actually saying. The quote you used was in the context of whether or not my faith is justified. This goes much beyond the limits of this thread; no longer are we talking about me proving my faith to you or anyone, but we are simply talking about whether my faith is held on reasonable grounds. You don’t seem to understand that a person can have reasonable grounds for believing something even if it is not obvious to everyone else. Now, what I was saying is that even if my beliefs are wrong, they are still held on reasonable ground because I have no good reason to believe the contrary and much reason for what I do believe. You may claim that my reasons for believing are poor reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless, and what is reasonable to me may not be what is reasonable to you.

For instance, suppose we each counted the number of coins on a table and you counted 19 but I counted 20. We each have reasonable grounds to believe opposing truth statements concerning the number of coins on the table (unless one of us knows that their counting is much less reliable than most people’s). Now, if I want to convince you that there is 20 coins instead of 19, the burden of proof is on me (and vice versa if you want to prove there are only 19 to me). But neither of us need prove anything in order to consider our own belief to be reasonable, and I would not doubt that your belief was reasonable just because you were wrong (according to my belief). Being wrong does not make a belief unreasonable unless it is known to be wrong.

I would say, that patterns do not equate to design. Simple patterns can result in complex results, and it is a trick of the human mind to associate design to randomness.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to refute each of my reasons for faith, when doing so cannot show that my faith is unreasonable. Well, perhaps you believe that these answers are sufficient proof to show that my faith is unreasonable, or perhaps you feel threatened by the mentioning of reasons for my faith. Either way, your response is kind of pointless because all it amounts to is an opinion that I am wrong, which I already knew you thought.

And I have shown you how your argument for a supernatural cause for the universe is flawed.
Have you? The only way you could do that would be to show that the universe does not have a cause at all. But as soon as we admit a cause, it must necessarily be a supernatural cause by definition of the word supernatural. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with this word because it is so often associated with religion. All that supernatural means, is beyond nature; therefore if we admit that the universe has a cause, then since a thing cannot be the cause of itself, the cause must be supernatural. In any case, you certainly have not shown that the universe has no cause (you may hold such a belief, but it is an unprovable one).

impersonal

08-03-2007, 10:11 PM

It seems pretty obvious to me that "a timeless beginning" is contradictory (much like a space-less width), so we'll leave it at that. When it comes to writing such things as "You may subscribe to the dogma that the transcendental argument is circular, but don’t think that your stating this dogma will convince anyone", there is no point in discussing anything anymore. Let's not drag the level further down, let's stop debating here, hugiboo. (I don't want our discussion to go down to the level of sadated_peon, we're both better than that aren't we? ;))

Besides, important differences have been shown already between our respective points of view, and your answers weren't satisfying - especially regarding the problem of the confusion of rules of thought with rules of being, but also on many other points. So no more discussion.

However I'm very curious as to what the 3rd part of your argument was going to be - the part in which you show that God is actually the christian God and no other.

MartialHorror

08-04-2007, 08:45 AM

Hugi:

"I do believe my personal experience is sufficient proof, and as I said it is my greatest proof (for me); yet I also understand that something of this nature can only ever be proof for me and cannot convince anyone else."

This is a unique point. Debating with Atheists and theists is interesting because both seem to think their right only because of their personal experiences.

I have a friend who is a devout Christian who stresses this.

The same can be said for me but it brings up a question "are we all just that arrogant to think just because we think so, it is?"

This argument though is questionable because even Hitler felt he could his beliefs to himself.

What is your faith anyway?

Imo, the idea of God is very reasonable, perhaps even more reasonable than the absence of God.

But as religious as I am, the exact nature of God is just guessing and religion in itself is probably illogical(doesn't mean its wrong though)

Hugiboo

08-05-2007, 04:45 AM

*Forum quit working on me when I tried to post this friday; I'll try again.

Part 2

As you seem to have abandoned our rational discourse to establish your incorrect application of faith, I will have to go to sources.

Fideism, is a Christian concept about the establishment of god. The establishment goes "the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth." The fideist therefore "urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious,"
Is Fideism found in the Bible? If not, it is quite irrelevant what stance one or another Christian groups decide on the subject of faith and reason. You may be able to find Scripture that seems to be in support of that (I know of a few), but they do not support your current understanding of Christian faith. If you would like to bring them up, I will try to explain for you.

A clear understanding that faith, even in the specific case of Christianity, is not based on reason.

Or if you want a contemporary example.

A man says to God, "Prove you exist." God says to the man, "I refuse to prove I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." So the man says to God, "Well, the existence of the Babblefish, which could never have evolved and must have been created, proves you exist; therefore you don't!" And poof! God disappears in a puff of logic. - DA
Some Christians will argue that faith and reason are mutually exclusive, but then some Historians will argue that the Holocaust never happened. Just because one person says something does not mean they speak for the entire group. The only authoritative source you can use for what Christianity believes (that I will accept) is the Bible.

Wait, so now you are going to try and claim that strong faith is a solely Christian concept? Faith, and strong faith, are not reliant on Christian dogma, they are concept that span many and varied topics.

You seem to have no understanding on what faith and strong faith is, if you believe it is a concept of only the Christian faith.
So now you’re just going to tell me what I believe instead of waiting for me to say? You may find arguments will be much easier when you do this, as we can see here, but who are you arguing with?

My problem, is your attempt to try and pass faith off as a presupposition. Your then extensive attempts to warp the meaning of words through context to get the two different concept to mesh.
I’m not sure why you insist on totally separating the concept of “faith” from the concept of “belief”, except a desire to claim that faith is inherently unreasonable. If I were to accept your definition of faith, it would become an useless word for me. I already have perfectly good words to describe what you want it to mean: blind faith, irrational beliefs, narrow-mindedness, self-delusion; but then I would have to find a new word for what I mean by faith. It is quite annoying when words like this are hijacked and made to mean something else.

But you didn’t just state this, you went beyond to say that a non-material universe is the Christian position. This is incorrect, a non-material universe could be contradictor to the Christian world view, the establishment of a non-material world doesn’t support a god or any supernatural aspects, and definably not a Christian view.
Well, actually no I didn’t say that, but I thought we already cleared up the misunderstanding that that is what you thought I was saying.

If you want an example, then look at current scientific theory about the state of space time of a singularity.
You are the one claiming that it would be possible for the nature of a spatial-temporal universe to be different than ours; the burden of proof is on you. If you want to explain your objection then go ahead but don’t ask me to do it for you.

I am talking about the limited nature of PSR to be subject to the criticism of opinion. I didn’t see an explanation of why you don’t accept it in our conversation. But of course this doesn’t matter because if the rejection or establishment of reason can be done by opinion, you will always fail to establish PSR as logic, for it is only opinion.
Don’t make the mistake to assume that things that are accepted by common opinion are nothing more than opinion. On reading your other post again, I think you don’t have a very good grasp on the concept of the PSR.

I only see someone who is unwilling to put critical analysis to their own views.
What is the point in replying when you don’t understand the reply? I see very clearly what you are saying, and I also see very clearly why it is a comment made in ignorance. The statement was that I am applying an argument that an infinite universe fails the PSR because it has no reason for its existence, while at the same time ignoring this requirement for the existence of God (of whom I have not yet argued for). The claim is groundless because as I explained, God (or the Cause, as I called this being – as there was not yet enough evidence to jump from cause of the universe to God; but hey, if you want to jump there already that’s fine by me) is the reason for His own existence. Please don’t respond that you don’t like this explanation, I have just explained it in one of the posts yesterday. If you have a problem with it, respond to that.

Hugiboo

08-24-2007, 04:36 PM

Part 1

Hey everyone, sorry about the delay. I was hoping to be able to post this on the 8th before I left for the Northwest Territories (which was awesome!). Anyway, I finally finished it, so let me know what you think. I am especially interested Esponer in what you have to say since you have not commented yet on my argument.

3rd part of Cosmological Argument

I know that much of my arguments thus far are still disputed, but in the interest of the continuity of my argument, I will assume that they are not disputed. Please do not take this as an assumption that I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt for everyone the truth of my past assertions. If you still have a problem with a past argument, I think you will still be able to appreciate the arguments that build on them, despite believing them to be based on unfounded assumptions. For the record, I do believe that my past arguments have stood up to the challenges made, and that any further arguments that build on them are therefore well grounded. You may judge for yourselves how my further arguments stand on the assumption that my past arguments are sufficiently grounded.

Established thus far:
1) The universe has a cause (Origin Argument) (http://forums.narutofan.com/showpost.php?p=8766550&postcount=43).
2) The ‘Cause’ of the universe must be transcendental (or supernatural – I know some of you do not like this word) in that the cause of a thing cannot be contained within the thing itself.
3) The ‘Cause’ of the universe must be a self-existent being, or must be itself caused by a chain of causation beginning with a self-existent being – for simplicity’s sake, we will assume the ‘Cause’ is itself the self-existent being (Terminating Argument) (http://forums.narutofan.com/showpost.php?p=8918245&postcount=79).

Now, we all know what my position is, and what I am eventually leading the argument to prove; that the ‘Cause’ of the universe is none other than the personal God of Christianity. While many of my arguments may be used to champion the cause of all forms of Theism and Deism (and many other un-Atheistic beliefs at times), I believe that to follow the logical conclusion of the argument leads ultimately only to Christianity. In that sense, I will gladly side with the Atheist in arguing against other forms of Theism, such as Judaism and Islam, and the many Christian cults (i.e. Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, and debatably, Roman Catholicism, among others). Now, before I get into the arguments for why the ‘Cause’ must be the Christian God (hereafter referred to simply as “God”), let me tie up some loose ends with regards to some proposed Atheistic alternatives.

The main distinction that an Atheistic alternative for the identity of the ‘Cause’ has is that it must be an impersonal being. Remember that “being” simply refers to anything that has “being”, or in other words, “some thing”. Now, the best theories I have heard of (feel free to provide better ones), are the Oscillating Universe Theory and the Multiverse Theory.

Oscillating Universe Theory

Now, the Oscillating Universe Theory states that the universe as we know it is continually expanding and contracting, that it has been doing so for eternity and will continue for eternity (for if the first is true, the second must be true also). The idea is that the rate of expansion eventually slows down and the universe collapses in on itself, whereby it explodes once more and expands again.

Closed System – “the Universe is all there is”
If this were all to occur within one unbroken temporal-spatial system, it would be entirely impossible given the science involved. The second law of thermodynamics states that any closed system will tend towards equilibrium (where nothing changes any longer – essentially the end of time), and a universe certainly qualifies as a closed system (being described as “everything there is, physically”). Therefore, if this were to occur for eternity, equilibrium would already be reached; but, since it hasn’t been reached, the Oscillating Universe Theory cannot be accurate if applied as an unbroken chain of expanding and contracting within a closed system.

Secondly (and what I consider a better argument, though I know this is disputed), this would require an actual infinity; an infinite quantity of physical events must have occurred already, which is simply a physical impossibility.

Also, there is no evidence that the rate of expansion of our universe will ever slow down enough to reverse. Actually, I believe the evidence is in favour of the opposite happening; that the universe will continue expanding for ever (let me know if you know of evidence supporting an eventual collapse if you like, though doing so cannot save the Oscillating Universe Theory because of the other problems). Further, there is no known physical mechanism (that I’m aware of, tell me if I’m wrong) that could possibly cause the explosion of the universe once it had collapsed. Essentially, the whole universe would form one giant black hole, and then… nothing.

Oscillating Universe with help – within a super-universe
The only way I can think of to try to save the Oscillating Universe Theory is to scrap the idea that it is self-contained, since that simply doesn’t work, and propose that the oscillating universe exists within some larger system, which keeps it going. This system must either be physical or non-physical.

First, assuming a physical universe, can we save the theory? Well, being a physical universe, this super-universe would suffer from many of the same problems. Most importantly, being a temporal-spatial universe (or, physical), means it would be subject to the same limitations deriving from this fact in our own universe. Therefore, it would be physically impossible for there to exist an infinite past in this super-universe, just as in our universe. Thus, if the super-universe is a physical universe, by the PSR we know it must have a cause (just as our universe was shown to have a cause).

Second, assuming a non-physical ‘universe’ (or reality) as the “super-universe”, can we save the theory? This means that there exists some impersonal “force” or power that causes our universe to continually expand and contract. Now, apart from the fact that we are now appealing to a line of justifications that the Atheist condemns the Theist for, it seems that this impersonal force might just be able to justify the Oscillating Universe Theory. I want to come back to this after dealing with the Multiverse Theory (see “Personality” section).

Multiverse Theory

The Multiverse Theory suggests that within some kind of super-universe, an infinite number of universes like ours are created naturally (through some kind of force field or other universe generator). This could take two forms. The first is that they all exist within the same infinite space of the super-universe. The second is that each is created with their own infinite space with which to expand.

Multiverse all in same space
The first would naturally be very troublesome, as an infinite number of universes which all expand would eventually collide with each other. Supposing an infinite past for the Multiverse (and if we don’t it is pointless because it admits a creator immediately), the multiple universes would have to have collided by now, if it is possible at all, because after an infinite amount of time all possibilities will have been realized. Of course, this is simply a stage in the eventual state of equilibrium that we would expect the multiverse to reach after infinity. Since neither is the case, this version of a Multiverse must not be true.

The objection might be raised that we can’t know how the physical laws and constants will work in an alternate reality to our own (and therefore, we can’t predict that these other universes will be like our own and expand into each other). However, in such a system where universes are constantly being made by natural forces, assuming uniformity in the natural forces which produce the universes, we should expect uniformity in the results. Not that each random chance would go exactly the same in each universe, and the resulting universes would be identical, but that the thing produced, the universe, would be created into the same state as all other universes created by the same process. Not that this is a solid proof, I will not pretend that this makes it logically impossible for there to be significant differences; yet if we allow for infinite time, the mere possibility that a universe would collide with ours makes it a necessity. In infinite time, all possibilities are realized (which again leads to the state of equilibrium, because it is a possibility).

Multiverse creates infinite space for each universe
The other possibility I think is more desirable because it doesn’t have the problems from all universes existing in the same space. However, it is not free from contradictions. So, supposing that the Multiverse creates an infinite number of universes each separate from each other, it might seem reasonable that one should turn out exactly as ours has. However, we still have the problems that come with proposing an infinite past (which is a problem for both versions of the Multiverse Theory). The same criticism to show why our universe cannot logically have an infinite past turns out to be the reason why a Multiverse cannot logically have an infinite past. This takes away the only reason the Multiverse was a desirable theory.

Hugiboo

08-24-2007, 04:37 PM

Part 2

The Attributes of the God
From this point on, I will generally refer to the ‘Cause’ as God because I am now specifically arguing for the identity of the ‘Cause’ as God.

Personality
As I mentioned earlier, it is the personality of God that distinguishes Him from a mindless “force” that Atheists could accept. So why must the ‘Cause’ be a personal being? If the ‘Cause’ of the universe were impersonal, it would be nothing more than a force and would lack creative agency. To posit the existence of an impersonal creator would require that such a 'force' was set up in such a way that it would necessarily create the universe. However, once again the PSR would require a reason that the impersonal creator would be forced to create the universe. Unless we want another infinite regress, the ‘Cause’ of the universe must come from a personal being that has free agency to create. This way, the reason for the creation, is that the personal creator willed it, and no contradiction occurs.

Thus the impersonal force we ended with in the Oscillating Universe Theory, or even if we accept the impersonal Multiverse as the ‘Cause’ of the universe, we end up with an impersonal force that is predestined to create the universe. But the very fact that it is not free to create leaves the question of the reason for creation unanswered. Therefore, the creator of the universe must be a personal being, who has agency to create.

Omnipotence
Since God is the Creator of everything in existence besides Himself, He is for all intensive purposes, all-powerful. There is nothing we can imagine that God cannot do. Now, someone will want to bring up logical impossibilities like, “can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?” Or, “can God create a round triangle?” The problem with cases like these is not that it limits God’s power, but it is not actually describing anything. Tell me what a round triangle would be like, and I guarantee you God can make one, but you can’t because it’s not actually anything. The rock example seems like it makes sense, but it is the equivalent of saying, can you lift a three pound rock that weighs a ton? Well, based on the question, technically yes and no. I can lift a three pound rock, but not if it weighs a ton; but then if it weighs a ton it’s not a three pound rock. Hopefully nobody here is ignorant enough to think that logical impossibilities pose a limit to God’s power (not that there is anything wrong with being ignorant, it just makes explaining these things tedious).

Omniscient
Since God created all and is all-powerful, He must know everything about His creation. If He wasn’t all-knowing, He wouldn’t be all-powerful.

Omnipresent
Since God is a non-physical (or spiritual) being, and does not exist within time, He is not limited in any way by physical space. Therefore, He has the ability to be present anywhere at any time. By His omnipotence He can “appear” to us in spiritual form or any other form He chooses (i.e. through a burning bush, by incarnating Himself in human form).

Omni-benevolent
This is the trait that rules out Deism. This attribute actually needs the Transcendental argument to fully explain it, but basically God is the foundation for morality. Without a universal transcendent standard of morality, the concept of morality is completely meaningless. Morality would simply amount to social convention, which might just as well praise murder and betrayal as kindness and love. The reason it rules out Deism is because of the Atheistic argument against Christianity, the problem of evil. The problem of evil is a valid argument against Deism, but not against Christianity.

Deism is the idea that God made the universe and then left it all to itself. It is essentially an Atheistic Theism – all the comfort of a universe that makes sense (having justification for transcendental truths and an explanation for the apparent design of the universe), without the bother of a God who tells us what to do. Unfortunately, Deism cannot provide an adequate answer to the problem of evil because with Deism there is no greater purpose for the evil that exists in this world; God knows about it but doesn’t care. Therefore the God of Deism is an evil God; which is itself a logical contradiction.

Other Attributes
From omni-benevolence we then get many more attributes of God such as justice, mercy, compassion, righteousness and the like. God must be the source of these attributes, because if He derives them from some outside source He is not the creator of all, and if not the creator of all we could yet trace these attributes back to a source that would be greater than God (since He would derive His attributes from it). Therefore, the attributes of God reach perfection in God, since He is the source of these attributes. He is therefore not only just and compassionate and merciful and loving, but perfectly just and compassionate and merciful and loving, and all of His other attributes as well. An interesting side note, it should be easy to see why humans are said to be made in the image of God, for we share all of His attributes in some lesser degree, while no other creature does.

Hugiboo

08-24-2007, 04:39 PM

Part 3

The Christian God
So far we have a God that matches that of the three major monotheisms; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Notice that all three trace their roots to the same source; the God of Judaism. Christianity and Islam claim that the Jews did not accept the further revelation of God and so have only part of the truth, and Islam claims this again about Christians, but notice that we have only one source for these three religions. Now there are literally thousands of ancient peoples throughout the world who have had a belief in a monotheist God, often overlaid with more recent polytheisms and pagan beliefs (see “Eternity in their Hearts” by Don Richardson). I don’t think this fact takes away from the common source of the three main monotheisms (I think they also share the same source), but the point I was making is that the three main monotheisms do not have fundamentally different conceptions of God, in terms of His character and attributes. There is major differences, for instance the Christian understanding of Trinity, but these are not contradictory in the fundamental nature of God. Anyway, with what we know about the necessary nature of God, we have essentially narrowed down our search for the truth about the nature of God to three main branches; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This makes it a whole lot easier for the seeker of truth to know the truth about God, because he need not waste his time with religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, New Age religions, or the like.

So why Christianity and not Judaism or Islam? Well, the best place to start would be the dividing point between Judaism and Christianity; whether or not Jesus is who he said he was and did what he claimed to do. If he was the incarnate Son of God (and God in nature), then Christianity is true, and Judaism and Islam are both false. If he was not who he claimed to be, then Christianity is false and either Judaism or Islam must be true, or possibly there is some other answer and none of these is true.

Was Jesus the divine ‘Son of God’?
The fact that he made this claim is virtually indisputable (though many on this forum don’t seem to have gotten the memo). The general consensus of scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) is that the four Gospel accounts in the Bible – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – are historically reliable. Besides this, there are several other good non-biblical sources confirming much of the same information; namely that Jesus had a large following, was a spiritual teacher, was crucified and died, that his body went missing shortly after, and that his followers worshiped him as God.

The Gospel Story
Basically, for those who don’t know, here is the Gospel story. Jesus was incarnate in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit (Mary was still a virgin, and no God did not have sex with her). Jesus grew up as a normal human being but was completely sinless his entire life. When he was 30 he began publicly teaching and collecting followers (30 was generally the age when a spiritual teacher began his public ministry), including 12 close disciples. He taught that he was God incarnate, and was nearly killed for blasphemy many times. He taught that he had come to forgive the sins of humanity, and that by his death we could all be forgiven. He told his disciples that he would be killed, and that on the third day he would rise back to life. When he was crucified, his disciples went into hiding until they discovered that on the third day he had risen from the dead (they had not believed him). Jesus appeared to his disciples several times after his death in bodily form (he ate food and they touched him), as well as to over 500 other followers. After this he ascended into heaven and commanded his followers to spread the good news of his life and death and resurrection, making disciples of all nations. They spent the rest of their lives doing this, and all but one died a martyr’s death for their faith.

If Jesus did rise from the dead as he predicted, that gives very strong credibility to what he taught – that he was God. It seems highly unlikely that God would raise from the dead such a blasphemer. So if his resurrection is genuine, it seems we are forced to admit that what he taught was true. Now, the apostles were in a position to know for a solid fact, whether or not his resurrection was genuine. After all, the gospels tell us that they saw him and touched his wounds and saw him eat food after his death. They must have known, with 100% accuracy if his resurrection was genuine. And then what did they do? They spend their whole lives spreading the news that it was genuine. Most of them died for this in horrible ways (some were crucified, some beheaded, some stoned to death). Why would they die for a lie if it was indeed a lie? They had absolutely nothing to gain, but instead gave up everything they had to spread this message to others.

Other Possibilities
Now what are some other possible scenarios? Suppose Jesus was not really dead after the crucifixion, and he simply recovered from his wounds and fooled his apostles? This is not really a possibility because of what was done to him. First he was beaten and whipped very severely, then he was nailed onto a cross through his wrists and ankles. Then he was hung on the cross, which basically makes it so you can’t breathe unless you push up with your feet . This is how people are killed on the cross, they die of asphyxiation because they eventually don’t have the strength to push up and breathe. Sometimes it took as long as 3 days to die this way, but Jesus was already so weak from the beatings that he would not have lasted long. Besides this, the soldiers wanted to finish the job early so they broke the knees of the two criminals crucified alongside Jesus, but since he was already dead by this point they made sure he was dead by thrusting a spear into his side. Even with the latest medical technology and care, no human could survive such an ordeal, especially within three days (which was actually shorter by the Jewish way of counting a day or part of a day). Even if it was possible, there is no way he could have inspired his followers to believe that he was raised from the dead if he was barely alive. The gospels describe him as being perfectly healthy despite having holes where he had been nailed to the cross, and a hole in his side where the spear had pierced him.

What about the theory that Jesus’ disciples stole the body and claimed that he had risen? This means that they then proceeded to die for this lie, with nothing in it for them. There was no wealth or fame in it for them (at the time), only persecution and death, yet none of them turned back (except Judas who betrayed Jesus to his death, and then hanged himself).

How about the theory that Jesus’ body was misplaced or that the disciples went to the wrong tomb? Sounds like a good theory except that the gospels also record the Pharisees making up a story that the disciples had stolen the body, apparently to justify the fact that the body had indeed gone missing. They would have known where the body was, there were Roman soldiers guarding it after all, and the fact that they had to come up with a reason for why the body was missing confirms that the body was in fact missing.

How about the Muslim position that it wasn’t Jesus who died on the cross? Now, I’m not quite sure if they say he was saved at the last minute by an angel or if they say that someone else was crucified instead of him, but either way it doesn’t fit with what I have already stated. Jesus appeared to his disciples after his crucifixion bearing the marks of his death. Again, his disciples knew the facts of his death and resurrection, and died for the belief that it had happened.

Are there any other theories I have missed? I understand that for an Atheist, any theory, no matter how far-fetched, is more likely than the one I believe, because they presuppose that there is no God and that miracles can’t happen. But this is begging the question. Without a presupposition of Atheism, the most reasonable explanation is to believe the apostles who saw this all first-hand and died for their belief that it was real.

-----

There are many other reasons for believing Christianity to be true. I think the Transcendental Argument compliments the Cosmological Argument very well in showing the necessity of the truth of Christianity. In any case, it does not matter how much evidence there is because it will always be possible for someone to say simply “I don’t accept that evidence/argument”. I believe, as the Bible states, that everyone knows the truth of God’s existence. But since we are by nature sinful human beings, we desperately want to be masters of our own life. I see this objection all the time, that even if God is real, “I still would not follow him because I want to be in control of my own life”. Everyone will at some point break down and pray to ‘someone or something’. They may think it means nothing, but I think it shows how deep down we know that God is there, we are aware of His presence even as we genuinely believe there is no God. My hope is that you can someday see that He cares about you and wants to forgive you of all your sins and have a relationship with you. Don’t get me wrong, my purpose in debating this is not to “convert” anybody, but to challenge myself to have answers for challenges against Christianity. If anyone is convicted of the truth of Christianity and chooses to submit his/her life to God, it won’t be my doing but His.

Thank you for your patience, and I await your criticisms.

sadated_peon

08-25-2007, 10:52 AM

I forgot about this,

Now you’re just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. I do believe my personal experience is sufficient proof, and as I said it is my greatest proof (for me); yet I also understand that something of this nature can only ever be proof for me and cannot convince anyone else. Why did I bring it up? Because I was asked for the reasons that I believe. I don’t need to justify my beliefs to anyone else to be sure they are rational. For instance, generally senses are trustworthy and you may claim to have seen me at a certain place at a certain time (supposing you knew me). You would be justified in your belief that you saw me, even though your evidence is available only to you. This is a similar case, where the evidence that I have to justify my claim is available only to me. From your perspective, I see why this is very doubtful evidence, because contradictory claims are made all the time by different people using a similar justification. But just because there are contradictions between people using a similar justification does not mean that they are all wrong; it only means some of them are wrong.

I don’t know why you are bothering to cast doubt on a justification that you have absolutely no access to. As I said, this cannot be used to prove to others that my faith is reasonable, but it can be used by me to justify my beliefs.
No, you were asked to provide evidence to support your faith, anything that you accept is meaningless to me in not evidence to support your faith.

Let me expand on your example, I tell you that I saw you. You ask, when and where? I respond, I don't know when, I don't know where, I don't know anything about the instant that can be used in anyway to corroborate what I just said.
Evidence in this case that I saw you wouldn't be your word, as there is nothing about your word that can be substantiated.

If I told you that my post was not written by me, but instead written by space aliens, would you consider that evidence of the fact?

As I explained to Hugo, circular reasoning assumes the conclusion in the premise, thereby attempting to be its own justification. The transcendental argument does not offer proof for the existence of transcendental realities; it assumes them just as Atheism does. The argument offered is that Christianity is consistent with these realities and Atheism is not. I will not present the Transcendental Argument here though because it is not on topic. You may subscribe to the dogma that the transcendental argument is circular, but don’t think that your stating this dogma will convince anyone. For me, I was not trying to convince anyone, but to mention some reasons I find Christianity to be the most reasonable world view.
I do not read the replies you give to other people.
Lets try this simply, Christians believe a world view with a god, so there must be a god to them, because Christians believe there is a god. Now you add, atheists next to Christians, and you have TAG. Just because you want to(incorrectly) establish that atheists world view can only exist with a god, does not mean there is a god.

I will not accept this as evidence that there is a god, once again, you have shown no evidence for you belief in god.

This is what happens when you take a quote out of context. In the grand scheme of this thread, your post makes sense, but in the specific context of the quote you used it makes no sense. Let me explain. Firstly, yes you are right, in the context of this thread the cosmological argument is not assumed to be true and the burden of proof is on me.

Now to what my post was actually saying. The quote you used was in the context of whether or not my faith is justified. This goes much beyond the limits of this thread; no longer are we talking about me proving my faith to you or anyone, but we are simply talking about whether my faith is held on reasonable grounds. You don’t seem to understand that a person can have reasonable grounds for believing something even if it is not obvious to everyone else. Now, what I was saying is that even if my beliefs are wrong, they are still held on reasonable ground because I have no good reason to believe the contrary and much reason for what I do believe. You may claim that my reasons for believing are poor reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless, and what is reasonable to me may not be what is reasonable to you.

For instance, suppose we each counted the number of coins on a table and you counted 19 but I counted 20. We each have reasonable grounds to believe opposing truth statements concerning the number of coins on the table (unless one of us knows that their counting is much less reliable than most people’s). Now, if I want to convince you that there is 20 coins instead of 19, the burden of proof is on me (and vice versa if you want to prove there are only 19 to me). But neither of us need prove anything in order to consider our own belief to be reasonable, and I would not doubt that your belief was reasonable just because you were wrong (according to my belief). Being wrong does not make a belief unreasonable unless it is known to be wrong.
Once again I asked you to provide evidence to substantiate your belief. If you want to use the Cosmological argument as evidence then you must prove that it is correct. For your faith to be rational it must not just be accepted by you, it must be able to be proved to others. Nothing about your belief in something makes it sound.

Once again you seem to move away from providing evidence and instead just saying things you believe to be true.

Your example is flawed, I asked you to provide evidence of your faith. Evidence that the number of coins is 20 lands the burden of proof on you. It is you who are trying to establish evidence to support your belief, you are not just here to state your belief.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to refute each of my reasons for faith, when doing so cannot show that my faith is unreasonable. Well, perhaps you believe that these answers are sufficient proof to show that my faith is unreasonable, or perhaps you feel threatened by the mentioning of reasons for my faith. Either way, your response is kind of pointless because all it amounts to is an opinion that I am wrong, which I already knew you thought.
Once again, I asked you to show evidence of your belief, not just to state why you believe. If you are unable to show evidence of your belief to me, then I will count them as unreasonable.

Have you? The only way you could do that would be to show that the universe does not have a cause at all. But as soon as we admit a cause, it must necessarily be a supernatural cause by definition of the word supernatural. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with this word because it is so often associated with religion. All that supernatural means, is beyond nature; therefore if we admit that the universe has a cause, then since a thing cannot be the cause of itself, the cause must be supernatural. In any case, you certainly have not shown that the universe has no cause (you may hold such a belief, but it is an unprovable one).
Yes, I have.
You tried to jump over steps to associate cause of this universe with supernatural origin. I showed the flaw in the reasoning.

sadated_peon

08-25-2007, 10:57 AM

Is Fideism found in the Bible? If not, it is quite irrelevant what stance one or another Christian groups decide on the subject of faith and reason. You may be able to find Scripture that seems to be in support of that (I know of a few), but they do not support your current understanding of Christian faith. If you would like to bring them up, I will try to explain for you.
Once again, we are talking about faith in general. This is an example to show the application of faith, and therefore your incorrect usage of the word. The fact that they were Christians was just added context.

Some Christians will argue that faith and reason are mutually exclusive, but then some Historians will argue that the Holocaust never happened. Just because one person says something does not mean they speak for the entire group. The only authoritative source you can use for what Christianity believes (that I will accept) is the Bible.
This is a discussion on faith, your attempts to try and pidgeon hole the concept of faith into some sort of Christian dogma is flawed.
You have refused to continue the discourse about the application of the faith, and refuse to the many examples that show your definition as wrong.

I don't know where else to go from here, you are unwilling to see the obvious, and doggedly persist on your own belief without reason.

So now you’re just going to tell me what I believe instead of waiting for me to say? You may find arguments will be much easier when you do this, as we can see here, but who are you arguing with?

You said "I’m pretty sure you have to be a Christian to understand this"
You are pretty sure you have to be a Christian to understand strong faith. You stated clearly what you believe, and it is flawed, you just don't like it being pointed out to you.

I’m not sure why you insist on totally separating the concept of “faith” from the concept of “belief”, except a desire to claim that faith is inherently unreasonable. If I were to accept your definition of faith, it would become an useless word for me. I already have perfectly good words to describe what you want it to mean: blind faith, irrational beliefs, narrow-mindedness, self-delusion; but then I would have to find a new word for what I mean by faith. It is quite annoying when words like this are hijacked and made to mean something else.
I totally separate them because they have two different meanings.
The problem I have is not with the words but with your application of the words as I already said. I don't mind if you hold to your definition of faith, as long as you accept that by your definition of faith, you don't have faith in god you have blind faith in god.

Well, actually no I didn’t say that, but I thought we already cleared up the misunderstanding that that is what you thought I was saying.
Yes, you did say this let me quote you.

"if we say that the super-universe is not a material universe, then we end up with something very much like what my worldview suggests, not the Atheist."
"A supernatural being existing within a supernatural universe/existence is what is necessary under the nonmaterial universe view, and this is exactly what Christians say is the case with the existence of God."

You are the one claiming that it would be possible for the nature of a spatial-temporal universe to be different than ours; the burden of proof is on you. If you want to explain your objection then go ahead but don’t ask me to do it for you.
And I gave you an example of a singularity in which current understanding of physics breaks down.

Don’t make the mistake to assume that things that are accepted by common opinion are nothing more than opinion. On reading your other post again, I think you don’t have a very good grasp on the concept of the PSR.
It has to do with the inability to come to a logical representation of what makes up a reason for a entity, event, and proposition. It comes from it being used to try and associate the reason for entity, event, and proposition with design.

What is the point in replying when you don’t understand the reply? I see very clearly what you are saying, and I also see very clearly why it is a comment made in ignorance. The statement was that I am applying an argument that an infinite universe fails the PSR because it has no reason for its existence, while at the same time ignoring this requirement for the existence of God (of whom I have not yet argued for). The claim is groundless because as I explained, God (or the Cause, as I called this being – as there was not yet enough evidence to jump from cause of the universe to God; but hey, if you want to jump there already that’s fine by me) is the reason for His own existence. Please don’t respond that you don’t like this explanation, I have just explained it in one of the posts yesterday. If you have a problem with it, respond to that.
Once again, you only continue to establish what I already said. That you are willing to accept it with god, but not for an always existing super-universe.
You establish that and I agree that our universe began. But that does not apply to the super-universe, and you go onto then assume that it has infinite regression. I point out a always-existing super-universe (always existence NOT infinite regression) but you dismiss this, and presume infinite regression by necessity and refuse to apply your requirements of infinite regression to your own god.