Argument for God from Complexity

[Ani_Ibi]

SteakNPotatoes:

Of course we can make guesses as to what is beyond existence, but those conjectures have validity only to the extent that they agree with observed data.

What do you mean ‘only’? By guesses I assume you mean reasonable guesses in which case they would be theoretical science. Theoretical science has validity inasmuch as

a) the equations balance out; and
b) observations confirm their predictions.

SteakNPotatoes:

To my knowledge, there is nothing to suggest a higher entity, a “perfectly simple, necessary being” existing beyond the bounds of this universe.

To your knowledge.

SteakNPotatoes:

All human knowledge? Hardly. If I imagine a 500lb blue troll sitting on my head, is that knowledge?

No, it isn’t human knowledge. And no one is suggesting that it is. Human imaginings create hypotheses. Those hypotheses can then be proven or disproven. The result of proving or disproving hypotheses is new knowledge.

SteakNPotatoes:

Ummm. You lost me there. How does a reference to the big bang require the divine?

See the Big Bang thread.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cor:

Thomas Aquinas would agree with your thought here, more or less. He states that one cannot know through reason alone that the world had a beginning. He says that’s only known through special divine revelation (i.e. by faith).

JP2 says that faith cannot be unreasonable.

Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is a form of reason, in fact is theoretical science.

cor:

Even if something did not come into being, one still needs an explanation for its existence.

Why does one need to explain the existence of something which does not exist?

cor:

If as alluded to above, God had decided to create a universe without a beginning, that universe would still need a cause for its existence.

OK.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

also, there cannot have been an actually infinite number of moments of time before now.

Why not? Can you explain please?

 

[cpayne]

Yikes! How! :bounce:

Well, according to yes that’s right Aquinas, God may supply “intelligible species [particular perceptions]” as a form of knowledge directly, even though humans require sense perception for knowledge. So the knowledge of humans post-mortem (before the Resurrection of the dead) could be analogous to angelic intelligence, which also receives infused knowledge directly from God. Aquinas argues this is not only possible but likely, given that otherwise the nature of cognition would be frustrated (without sense perceptions). So God, angels, and humans after death but pre-Resurrection, all may be non-corporeal intelligences.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Aquinas argues this is not only possible but likely, given that otherwise the nature of cognition would be frustrated (without sense perceptions).

OK. Gotchya. Thanks.

 

[Contarini]

well, so was “you don’t know the universe came into being”; i was just returning the favor.

our best cosmological theories involve an initial singularity at which time began.

also, there cannot have been an actually infinite number of moments of time before now.

that’s how i know the universe has a beginning.

Aquinas would disagree. He did not think that we could prove by reason that the universe had a beginning in time (as opposed to an ontological source in God’s Being). I think this is important because atheists misunderstand the nature of the Thomistic arguments for God’s existence, and this distinction between a temporal chain of efficient causes and ontological causality is key to their misunderstanding.

Edwin

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

What a sad, utterly wrong view of imagination. Imagination inspires, provokes, and sometimes answers. Haven’t you ever heard of the argument from a lack of imagination?

I’ll try to be as clear as I can (admittedly that’s not saying much): Imagination does not equal knowledge. Certainly, imagination can help construct an hypothesis. But an hypothesis can be either right or wrong. Imagination cannot prove an hypothesis. Only facts, data, observable, repeatable evidence (in other words, knowledge) can prove or disprove an hypothesis. Any “knowledge” gained from imagination remains, well, imaginary.

There is, of course, one exception that (perhaps) proves the rule…

Theology = Imaginary Knowledge

Heh. Heh. You’ll get no argument from me there.

Now with regard to the “complex/simple” god hypothesis, if you can imagine that god exists, you could also imagine that god is either complex or simple. You could imagine a god that created every subatomic particle in the whole universe. You could imagine that this god is aware of every particle he created; that he cares about each living thing, and that he can hear our thoughts and forgive us. You can imagine all of this.

Conversely, one can also imagine a universe without a creator, one explained by laws of physics. One can also imagine a world where life just happened; where simple forms of life evolved into more complex forms; where that life continued changing forms and spreading out across the whole world; where eventually a certain form of life appeared, one with an amazing imagination that could imagine a divine entity just like the one mentioned above.

If imagination = knowledge, than one imagined hypothesis is as good as another. But if knowledge is based on facts, evidence, and observation, clearly one of these hypotheses is more reasonable than the other.

Now, am I arguing from a lack of imagination? Or are you arguing from a lack of evidence?

 

[john_doran]

Aquinas would disagree. He did not think that we could prove by reason that the universe had a beginning in time (as opposed to an ontological source in God’s Being). I think this is important because atheists misunderstand the nature of the Thomistic arguments for God’s existence, and this distinction between a temporal chain of efficient causes and ontological causality is key to their misunderstanding.

Edwin

i know he would…but i’m with bonaventure on this point.

that having been said, this is the kalam cosmological argument, not aquinas’ (it deals not with efficient causes, but an actually infinite number of temporal moments).

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SteakNPotatoes:

I’ll try to be as clear as I can (admittedly that’s not saying much): Imagination does not equal knowledge. Certainly, imagination can help construct an hypothesis.

OK.

SteakNPotatoes:

But an hypothesis can be either right or wrong.

Yes.

SteakNPotatoes:

Imagination cannot prove an hypothesis. Only facts, data, observable, repeatable evidence (in other words, knowledge) can prove or disprove an hypothesis.

Yes.

SteakNPotatoes:

Any “knowledge” gained from imagination remains, well, imaginary.

So non sequitur. You so have not demonstrated this claim.

SteakNPotatoes:

There is, of course, one exception that (perhaps) proves the rule…** Theology = Imaginary Knowledge**

Equivocation.

SteakNPotatoes:

If imagination = knowledge, than one imagined hypothesis is as good as another.

I thought we agreed that imagination does not equal knowledge.

SteakNPotatoes:

But if knowledge is based on facts, evidence, and observation, clearly one of these hypotheses is more reasonable than the other.

Yes.

SteakNPotatoes:

Now, am I arguing from a lack of imagination? Or are you arguing from a lack of evidence?

Non sequitur. These two questions do not follow logically from what you have said before in your post. They are unrelated to your premises.

 

[Nullasalus]

Stuff

Ani Ibi has answered as I would have, but more succinctly. I’d simply add that imagination is obviously not ‘knowledge’, but it plays an important role in its acquisition. Deriding it as “mere” is, again, sad.

Now, am I arguing from a lack of imagination? Or are you arguing from a lack of evidence?

I’m not sure you realize what an argument from a lack of imagination is.

 

[john_doran]

Why not? Can you explain please?

on a purely mathematical level, aleph null (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/e/4/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png) is the name of the cardinal number of the first denumerably infinite set (i.e. a set whose members can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers); in a manner of speaking, http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/e/4/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png is the last member of the infinite set. one of the peculiarities of aleph-null is that it has no immediate predecessor. as a result, therefore, one can never reach http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/e/4/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png by successive addition. which means that the series of temporal moments cannot be actually infinite.

on a more mundane level, one can’t count to infinity, simply because no matter ho long or how high one counts, one can always just add one more element. in the same way, the number of moments of elapsed time will never constitute an actually infinite number, since for each moment that passes, one simply need add one more to increase the size of the set of those moments.

basically, there’s no way for us to get to this moment by passing through an infinite number of precedent moments. but here we are. so the number of past moments cannot be infinite.

 

[Mersenne]

God doesn’t violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason because it is held that there are two kinds of beings:

1. Beings that have their explanation outside of themselves.
2. Beings that have their explanation within themselves.

You can’t just make something up and declare it true.

Where’s your evidence that there are being that have their explanation outside themselves and beings that have their explanation within themselves?

If that is the case, then why could not an unintelligent particle that has it’s explanation within itself not have created the universe?

Or why couldn’t a circle of causes have create the universe that isn’t the holy trinity, like 3 particles?

 

[Mersenne]

not true: god is his own sufficient reason, as are all necessary beings.

and that’s not special pleading - it’s logic.

EDIT: sorry - didn’t see that cor had already replied to this post…

No, that’s special pleading, you are saying that god plays by special rules that other things cannot without justifying yourself. That’s special pleading. As I said to another poster, why can’t we just have a non-intelligent particle that causes the universe that is a “necessary being”

 

[Mersenne]

How about the truth contained in true statements? I will agree that the statements themselves are made up of physical actions, chemical reactions, electrons firing, etc. Is the truth contained within the statement also physical in nature? If it is not, according to your definition, it doesn’t exist.

Okay, so your point is that God could exist in the same sense as bugs bunny or santa clause, in the realm of human ideas and abstractions.

1. Everything that is the result of a purely physical process is neither true nor false. It simply is. (Examples: digestion, cloud formation, trees growing, etc. Digestion is not “true”; it just is.)

1. Our thoughts, however, can be true or false.

1. Everything that is the result of a purely physical process is neither true nor false. It simply is. (Examples: digestion, cloud formation, trees growing, etc. Digestion is not “true”; it just is.)
2. Our thoughts, however, can be true or false.
3. Our thoughts are created by physical proccesses.
4. Therefore, the premise, 1, must be false.

Ideas are the ONLY thing that truth or falsehood can be applied to. Rocks, trees, digestion, can’t be true or false because they’re not ideas, it has nothing to do with their basis in physical processes. Everything has a basis in physical processes, your obfuscated non-logic aside.

 

[cor]

on a purely mathematical level, aleph null (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/e/4/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png) is the name of the cardinal number of the first denumerably infinite set (i.e. a set whose members can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers); in a manner of speaking, http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/e/4/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png is the last member of the infinite set. one of the peculiarities of aleph-null is that it has no immediate predecessor. as a result, therefore, one can never reach http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/e/4/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png by successive addition. which means that the series of temporal moments cannot be actually infinite.

But if you arrange a set as {… -2, -1, 0} which is a perfectly legitmate set, the last member of this infinite set would have an immediate predecessor. Under this model, there is no beginning time or beginning event.

basically, there’s no way for us to get to this moment by passing through an infinite number of precedent moments. but here we are. so the number of past moments cannot be infinite.

But in a world with an infinite past, it’s not necessary that we have traversed its infinite past – “we” life finite lives, or at least lives with a finite past. I suppose you could say that the “world” must have traversed its infinite past but “traversing” seems to be something done by a person, not the “world” – only persons traverse time and in a world with an infinite past its possible that each person in that world at any given moment in time traverses a finite amount of time.

And a classical God being outside of time would not have to traverse it; he’d only have to create it from his outside-of-time perspective.

 

[Nullasalus]

Everything has a basis in physical processes, your obfuscated non-logic aside.

Physicalism is a philosophical position, not a fact. You may really, really like the idea, but it doesn’t become a fact as a result.

The assertion reminds me of the argument that ‘all that exists is within our universe, nothing else exists or can even be thought to exist.’ Which has some interesting ramifications for physicists.

 

[Mersenne]

Physicalism is a philosophical position, not a fact. You may really, really like the idea, but it doesn’t become a fact as a result.

I didn’t expect it to become fact by virtue of my liking the idea. But my reasoning doesn’t become invalid simply because you declared my conclusions to be a “philosohpical position” and put words in my mouth.

 

[john_doran]

No, that’s special pleading, you are saying that god plays by special rules that other things cannot without justifying yourself. That’s special pleading.

no, it’s really not. just like it’s not “special pleading” to say that birds can fly and rocks can’t; or that the strong nuclear force doesn’t affect macroscopic bodies.

Mersenne:

As I said to another poster, why can’t we just have a non-intelligent particle that causes the universe that is a “necessary being”

A) necessary beings are non-corporeal, because all material objects are contingent;

B) if the first cause was unintelligent, then the sufficient conditions for the universe would have been around for all eternity; but then the universe would have been around for all eternity, which is false (the universe has a beginning). therefore the first cause must have actualized the universe as the result of something like a free choice. which means that the first cause is rational and intelligent.

 

[cor]

Where’s your evidence that there are being that have their explanation outside themselves and beings that have their explanation within themselves?

Let me present an argument for the existence of Absolute Perfection, independent of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

If one has the intuition that Absolute Perfection has the logical possibility of existing, then one can conclude that there is a possible world in which Absolute Perfection exists. If you are unfamiliar with the term “possible world” read this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

If one furthermore has the intuition that Absolute Perfection entails necessarily existing, then one can conclude using Axiom S5 of modal logic that Absolute Perfection exists in every possible world. You can read this short article on Axiom S5 here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_S5

Since the actual world (see the possible world article above for terminology) is a possible world, it follows then that Absolute Perfection exists in the actual world.

Instead of accepting the argument one might reject the intuition that Absolute Perfection is possible by saying that the nature of Absolute Perfection involves a self-contradiction (for example, by saying that Absolute Perfection entails perfect goodness as well as perfect freedom, including the freedom to be evil but the freedom to be evil is inconsistent with perfect goodness)

The question of whether or not Absolute Perfection exists and the question of whether or not Absolute Perfection violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason are two distinct questions – since one might accept the existence of Absolute Perfection while rejecting the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

I hold that Absolute Perfection is compatible with the Principle of Sufficient Reason as the former’s explanation can be contained within itself. I also have the intuition that such would be the case (contained within itself perhaps by a circle of causes or infinite regression or some other kind of causation) but perhaps you don’t share it.

If that is the case, then why could not an unintelligent particle that has it’s explanation within itself not have created the universe?

I am open to the possibility of there being unintelligent things whose explanations are contained within themselves – that is, I don’t see how they would be logically impossible entities.

But I’ll tell you why they couldn’t have created the universe below.

Or why couldn’t a circle of causes have create the universe that isn’t the holy trinity, like 3 particles?

If one holds to the principle that a cause must be at least as great as its effect and one holds that persons (beings with intelligence) are greater than non-persons, then one would have to reject the notion of the universe being created by 3 particles.

I have the intuition that a cause must be at least as great as its effect, but perhaps you don’t in which case this argument doesn’t work.

I also perceive that things with intellects are greater than non-rational things (like rocks).

 

[Nullasalus]

I didn’t expect it to become fact by virtue of my liking the idea. But my reasoning doesn’t become invalid simply because you declared my conclusions to be a “philosohpical position” and put words in my mouth.

No, no. It’s invalid for a whole lot of other reasons, as is being demonstrated by others.

You’re the one who stated that “everything has a basis in physical processes.” That is a philosophical position. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news here.