Belief... or lack thereof

[Bradski]

Let’s take your first “either”: God didn’t do it. Some other (really, really powerful) Entity did. But this Entity also needs an explanation for its existence. Otherwise, it’s…eternal.

No. It might cease to exist as it was creating the universe or after it created it. Why the necessity to be eternal after creation.

God is the only Entity that exists as a result of his own nature.

No. That’s just your definition of God. I can equally say that it’s the definition of my E as well. Neither of us has any proof whatsoever, but if I accept your definition that if God exists then it’s the result of His own nature, then please accept mine as well.

And I’m asking you to argue against this entity without invoking God. If you simply say: ‘Well, it’s not God’, then you are in a tight little circle of argument that goes nowhere. Every time I make a suggestion, your response appears to be: ‘Are you describing God? No? Well, it’s not God then ’. Well…obviously.

But you specifically said that it couldn’t be eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. I’ve given examples where that does not have to be the case. How do you back up your three claims? Just by saying – ‘well, it’s not God’ again?

 

[PRmerger]

They are both tied together. You’ve asked what could cause the universe that wasn’t eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. I’ve suggested that whatever it was doesn’t have to be any of those things.

If that holds, then either God didn’t do it or God doesn’t have to be all those things to have created it.

So why does the universe’s creator have to be eternal, omniscient and omnipotent?

Regarding omnipotence:
Philosopher Douglas Groothius uses this analogy: if a weightlifter can lift 1000 lbs, then we know he can lift 1 lb.

So if an Entity can create something from nothing, then everything else, logically, is doable for him.

Pocaracas: please disappoint me. Don’t make a otiose comment about weightlifters not being comparable to a First Cause Powerful Enough to offer a Creatio Ex Nihilo. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Regarding omnipotence:
Philosopher Douglas Groothius uses this analogy: if a weightlifter can lift 1000 lbs, then we know he can lift 1 lb.

So if an Entity can create something from nothing, then everything else, logically, is doable for him.

Pocaracas: please disappoint me. Don’t make a otiose comment about weightlifters not being comparable to a First Cause Powerful Enough to offer a Creatio Ex Nihilo. Thank you.

And the same model goes for omniscience: if the Entity knows how to create something from nothing, then everything else is easy-peasy.

 

[Bradski]

Regarding omnipotence:
Philosopher Douglas Groothius uses this analogy: if a weightlifter can lift 1000 lbs, then we know he can lift 1 lb.

So if an Entity can create something from nothing, then everything else, logically, is doable for him.

So if E can create a big universe, then we know he could also create little ones. That’s not actually a logical statement either (it may be impossible to create little ones) but it’s as far as your analogy goes.

There is no logical necessity that having created something, you can then control it or know how it is going to evolve. Once started, it could have a life of its own (I know you have kids, so it’s not difficult to imagine).

If you actively control all aspects of creation all the time in every way, then I’d agree you would be omnipotent. But that’s not what I’m suggesting.

Creating it may be the easy part. Controlling it impossible. And there is nothing illogical in that suggestion whatsoever.

 

[PRmerger]

That it would be eternal is not a given.

Of course it is.

Whatever caused the universe (and I’ll use E for ‘the Entity which caused it’ to save typing) might have lived outside of time if time did not exist as we know it before E created it. But why can’t we surmise that E ceased to exist in the act of creation? Another scenario might be E becoming the universe, so is then in time and not eternal.

Trent Horn explains it this way: “If the cause of the universe is uncaused and created time and space, then it could not be affected by those things and would thus be timeless and immaterial. But when things in our universe go out of existence, it’s usually because their parts are dissolved over time. Since God is not in time and he doesn’t have any phsyical parts, there doesn’t seem to be a way for him to go out of existence.”

 

[PRmerger]

No. It might cease to exist as it was creating the universe or after it created it. Why the necessity to be eternal after creation.

Answered above.

No. That’s just your definition of God. I can equally say that it’s the definition of my E as well. Neither of us has any proof whatsoever, but if I accept your definition that if God exists then it’s the result of His own nature, then please accept mine as well.

Sure. I accept it. Now what?

And I’m asking you to argue against this entity without invoking God. If you simply say: ‘Well, it’s not God’, then you are in a tight little circle of argument that goes nowhere. Every time I make a suggestion, your response appears to be: ‘Are you describing God? No? Well, it’s not God then ’. Well…obviously.

We can call it your Creation Entity. CE. That’s fine with me.

But you specifically said that it couldn’t be eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. I’ve given examples where that does not have to be the case. How do you back up your three claims? Just by saying – ‘well, it’s not God’ again?

Already answered.

 

[PRmerger]

But you specifically said that it couldn’t be eternal, omniscient and omnipotent.

Wait…what?

I said specifically that what couldn’t be eternal omniscient and omniscient?

 

[PRmerger]

So if E can create a big universe, then we know he could also create little ones. That’s not actually a logical statement either (it may be impossible to create little ones) but it’s as far as your analogy goes.

Well, if it’s impossible, then it’s impossible. Like a square circle is impossible.
Or a married bachelor is impossible.

And we’ve already established that God’s omnipotence isn’t limited by his putative “inability” to do something that’s logically impossible.

As CS Lewis said, “Putting ‘Can God’ before nonsense doesn’t cease to make it nonsense.”

There is no logical necessity that having created something, you can then control it or know how it is going to evolve. Once started, it could have a life of its own (I know you have kids, so it’s not difficult to imagine).

Really?

You don’t see how if you can lift 1 billion pounds you could lift 1 ounce?

That’s not a necessary conclusion to you?

 

[davidv]

There are infinite sets of numbers which are countable… but there are also those that are not countable.
Time seems to be a continuum, but it also seems to be sliced up in pieces of Plank time. This makes it countable.
If time is countable, then what’s the problem?

Each piece of time gets its chance to be counted. Each one is arrived at, no matter how much time it takes to get there. Each and every one gets their chance to shine. Each and every instance is instantiated, is realized.
You don’t need to get to the end of infinite time to get to any element of time.

Time is the counter not the counted.

 

[pocaracas]

only if you believe non-sentience to be a superior quality to sentience. if not, then you are believing that the lesser produced the greater. since anyone can believe virtually anything, go for it. just believe that non-sentience is a greater attribute of existence than sentience. i will not be joining you in such a belief because it is irrational to me.

I wouldn’t call it irrational… counter-intuitive, perhaps… but our intuition, as fine as it is when helping us navigate through life, is very lacking in helping us understand some of the most fundamental properties of the Universe… let alone beyond it.

 

[pocaracas]

Huh? OK, I think I know what happened: could it be that you are expecting me to have a goal to persuade you that Catholicism is true, God exists etc.? But you didn’t initiate a thread about that - you initiated a thread asking us to point out problems with your (specifically your) atheism.

And that’s what I’m doing. You have claimed that you are withholding judgement. Then you said that atheism is far more likely to be true - and I am pointing out that that’s a judgement. If you were truly withholding judgement, you would be saying that you have no idea what is more likely to be true. As you can see, this my point does not really require your judgement to be wrong, thus your answer doesn’t work.

So, now I’d expect you to revise at least one of your claims to avoid this self-contradiction.

Ah… you’re right… I did pose that challenge…
oh well…

The acknowledgement of a higher likelihood of an event does not mean that I think that event is the one that actually happens.
Take a loaded die… it will tend to fall on a particular face, but not always. That particular face has an increased likelihood of turning up, but at each roll, we can’t tell on which it will land. Do I know where the die will land, prior to throwing it?, no, hence I withhold judgement on that. I’m not much of a gambler.

It is very nice to see that stated so clearly.

So, now let’s move on to examining the reason you have given for this “double standard”.

Thus, first, what other steps are you taking to defend against “self-delusion”? Have you tried thinking of some tests to detect it in yourself or others?

Second, is there some other example of “self-delusion” we could examine? For example, would you say that conspiracy theorists are often deluding themselves?

First, don’t know… What other steps are there?.. just don’t assume the conclusion…

Second… I’m not sure about conspiracy theorists, but maybe, yes… alien abductees, also come to mind… and those Near-Death Experiences…

OK, let’s look at those:

I do not see any “‘would’ ‘could’, ‘may’, ‘can’, etc.” here (of course, feel free to revise those claims, if you’d like to). So, you are saying that:

1. 
   *]Every single religion is supported by very similar evidence.
   *]This evidence is very similar to evidence for wild and untested speculations by physicists.
   
   Now, those are very strong claims. Atheism would only need a claim that evidence for all religions is inadequate. So, if you are trying to avoid all false beliefs, you shouldn’t have accepted those claims without evidence. Let’s investigate further.
   
   Thus, first, what investigation did you personally perform to find out if those claims are correct?
   
   Second, if you really did investigate evidence for different religions personally, how do you explain the fact that you cannot list many miracles for non-Christian religions?

1. 
   First, there’s this book, written in Portuguese, with a title that translates to “The Anthropology of Religions”, by a Portuguese author… I’m sure there’s something similar in English by some other guy… it goes through some of the religions in the world, describes how people in each culture believe in it, how it gets carried from one generation to another, etc… ultimately, they all look very similar.
   
   Second, only interested in how they affect people’s behaviors and beliefs… not interested in such details as the claimed miracles for each deity in each religion…
   

   No, I am pointing out that your claim is not a result of a thorough investigation of evidence for different religions.

   Does it have to be as thorough as you think I should?
   

   Um, you have done so and I have pointed that out. So, I guess, that’s what “we” do about that…

   Ah, but in that case it was “obviously meant to be fictional”. How about those cases when it’s not “obviously meant to be fictional”?
   There are things written that claim to be true accounts of events. How do we discern the ones that are actually true accounts and those that are fictional accounts?

 

[pocaracas]

I don’t know. Why is that relevant?

I said it in a subsequent post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13449626&postcount=351

Why do you have to *assume *there’s a first marble?

You have to start counting somewhere…

We know that you wouldn’t display your marbles until they are all counted.
Your marbles are displayed.

Therefore we know that you have counted all your marbles.

And that means you didn’t have an infinite number of them.

Infinity is another of those strange concepts.
Here’s a TED-Ed video explaining how hard infinity is to grasp: youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3_KqkI9Zo

It doesn’t seem like the hotel manager needs to count all the infinite rooms to have them all booked…

 

[pocaracas]

Pocaracas: please disappoint me. Don’t make a otiose comment about weightlifters not being comparable to a First Cause Powerful Enough to offer a Creatio Ex Nihilo. Thank you.

I’m not one to disappoint… “that analogy is flawed!”

 

[pocaracas]

Time is the counter not the counted.

And how you know that?

 

[davidv]

And how you know that?

Logical deduction from the facts provided.

Marbles are to counting as
Changes are to time

Marble are equivalent to changes and counting is equivalent to time in the analogy proposed.

 

[MPat]

The acknowledgement of a higher likelihood of an event does not mean that I think that event is the one that actually happens.
Take a loaded die… it will tend to fall on a particular face, but not always. That particular face has an increased likelihood of turning up, but at each roll, we can’t tell on which it will land. Do I know where the die will land, prior to throwing it?, no, hence I withhold judgement on that. I’m not much of a gambler.

OK, that harmonises those two. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to work that well with the fact that you have called atheism your “working assumption”… That does seem to be a kind of judgement - especially, given that I fail to see any practical difference between this “working assumption” and holding the belief… It is not like you are going to Mass with probability of, let’s say, 0.001…

First, don’t know… What other steps are there?.. just don’t assume the conclusion…

So, you avoid “self-delusion” by: 1) avoiding to accept any statement that might bring you closer to belief in God and 2) not assuming the conclusion…? That’s it?

Given how specific the first part is (and how vague the second part is), this strategy looks just like a strategy to guard your faith in non-existence of God…

That is, I’m afraid that it can defend “self-delusion” at least as easily, as it can guard against it…

Second… I’m not sure about conspiracy theorists, but maybe, yes… alien abductees, also come to mind… and those Near-Death Experiences…

That was a bit unexpected… So, just to be sure, what exactly do you mean by “self-delusion”…?

First, there’s this book, written in Portuguese, with a title that translates to “The Anthropology of Religions”, by a Portuguese author… I’m sure there’s something similar in English by some other guy… it goes through some of the religions in the world, describes how people in each culture believe in it, how it gets carried from one generation to another, etc… ultimately, they all look very similar.

Second, only interested in how they affect people’s behaviors and beliefs… not interested in such details as the claimed miracles for each deity in each religion…

OK, so, you are saying that you believe that evidence for all religions is very similar, and the basis for that is just 1 (one) book, by an anthropologist (“soft scientist”), and the one that doesn’t even discuss evidence for different religions?

You know, flipping a coin would seem to be a more reliable method to find out the truth and avoid “self-delusion”…

Does it have to be as thorough as you think I should?

If you want to find out if ten sticks have “very similar” length (let’s say, within 1 mm), you have to measure all of them with great accuracy (more accurate than that 1 mm). Likewise, if you want to find out if all religions have “very similar” evidence, you have to check evidence for every single religion.

Or you have to weaken your claim. However, given how you have described your investigation, I’m afraid that it will have to be weakened all the way to “Some religions exist.”…

Ah, but in that case it was “obviously meant to be fictional”. How about those cases when it’s not “obviously meant to be fictional”?
There are things written that claim to be true accounts of events. How do we discern the ones that are actually true accounts and those that are fictional accounts?

How? “With great difficulty”, perhaps…? But, seriously, how is that relevant to this discussion?

 

[PRmerger]

You have to start counting somewhere…

Sure. Try to think in reverse.

The logic still works.

You count from how many you have today and go backwards.

If it’s an infinite number, you’ll never get to the beginning.

But you know that you have already counted the marbles (because they’re on display)…so that means…it CAN’T be an infinite number of marbles you have.

Voila!

You don’t even have to assume there’s a first marble.

#logic
#italwaysworks

 

[Bradski]

And the same model goes for omniscience: if the Entity knows how to create something from nothing, then everything else is easy-peasy.

Let’s try Scenario 1:

For the sake of argument, God is the ultimate cause of the universe. He is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. And being omnipotent, He can logically bring into being an Entity that itself could create the universe. God kinda sub contracts the work out. Now why would He do this? No idea, but as He is God, it is logically possible.

If you say He cannot do this, then he is not omnipotent and not God. And whether He did do this or not is not relevent - we just need to know that it’s logically possible.

So this Entity can create the universe (God has given it that ability) but it isn’t omnipotent otherwise it could do everything that God can and then it would be God.

Neither is it omniscient. It can’t know as much as God otherwise it would be God.

And it isn’t eternal because God brought it into existence.

So now we have a universe that has been created by an entity that is not eternal, is not omnipotent and is not omniscient. Yes, the ultimate cause is still God but there is no logical necessity for whatever specifically created the universe to be eternal, omnipotent or omniscient. It is not a logical requirement.

Scenario 2:

God is eternal and the creator of the universe. So you’d say that it would then be reasonable to propose that having that ability would make Him omnipotent and omniscient. After all, if He can make the universe, He can do anything and must know everything.

So he starts time and creates a universe. But…unfortunately, it doesn’t turn out that well. It only lasts a few seconds and then collapses. Oops.

So He has another go. And this time it survives but doesn’t evolve into anything. Oops again.

And so…He keeps trying. And after a few trillion attempts He gets lucky and manages to get things right and we appear after a few billion years. And some of us go: ‘Wow, check it all out. Whoever did this must be able to do anything’.

And God looks a little sheepish and thinks to Himself: Well, no-one’s going to know…

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s try Scenario 1:

For the sake of argument, God is the ultimate cause of the universe. He is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. And being omnipotent, He can logically bring into being an Entity that itself could create the universe. God kinda sub contracts the work out. Now why would He do this? No idea, but as He is God, it is logically possible.

If you say He cannot do this, then he is not omnipotent and not God. And whether He did do this or not is not relevent - we just need to know that it’s logically possible.

So this Entity can create the universe (God has given it that ability) but it isn’t omnipotent otherwise it could do everything that God can and then it would be God.

Neither is it omniscient. It can’t know as much as God otherwise it would be God.

And it isn’t eternal because God brought it into existence.

So now we have a universe that has been created by an entity that is not eternal, is not omnipotent and is not omniscient. Yes, the ultimate cause is still God but there is no logical necessity for whatever specifically created the universe to be eternal, omnipotent or omniscient. It is not a logical requirement.

Ok. I accept that.

Not sure what you’re attempting to prove here?

What you’ve described is actually reality–just replace “the universe” with “a human person”, and Entity with “parent”.

That is:

God is the ultimate cause of the universe. He is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. And being omnipotent, He can logically bring into being an Entity that itself could create -]the universe/-]a human person. God kinda sub contracts the work out. Now why would He do this? No idea, but as He is God, it is logically possible.

(It’s called: a Parent.)

If you say He cannot do this, then he is not omnipotent and not God. And whether He did do this or not is not relevent - we just need to know that it’s logically possible.

So this -]Entity /-]Parent can create -]the universe/-] a human person (God has given it that ability) but it (the Parent) isn’t omnipotent otherwise it could do everything that God can and then it would be God.

Neither is it omniscient. It can’t know as much as God otherwise it would be God.

And it isn’t eternal because God brought it into existence.

So now we have -]a universe /-]human person that has been created by -]an entity/-] a Parent that is not eternal, is not omnipotent and is not omniscient. Yes, the ultimate cause is still God but there is no logical necessity for whatever specifically created the universe to be eternal, omnipotent or omniscient. It is not a logical requirement

Now what? What does this prove?

 

[PRmerger]

Scenario 2:

God is eternal and the creator of the universe. So you’d say that it would then be reasonable to propose that having that ability would make Him omnipotent and omniscient. After all, if He can make the universe, He can do anything and must know everything.

So he starts time and creates a universe. But…unfortunately, it doesn’t turn out that well. It only lasts a few seconds and then collapses. Oops.

So He has another go. And this time it survives but doesn’t evolve into anything. Oops again.

And so…He keeps trying. And after a few trillion attempts He gets lucky and manages to get things right and we appear after a few billion years. And some of us go: ‘Wow, check it all out. Whoever did this must be able to do anything’.

And God looks a little sheepish and thinks to Himself: Well, no-one’s going to know…

Sure. I will accept this too…as long as you provide…

evidence that this occurred.

Give me some evidence that there have been a trillion failed universes (please offer some reproducible, empirical, peer-reviewed studies for the existence of these failed universes, and I will become a believer! Hey, I’ll even generously decrease my demand for evidence to just a million failed universes. Heck, even if you can provide evidence for 1 failed universe, I promise I will convert to your position.

Otherwise, the scenario #2 sounds very much like a

faith-based assertion. :sad_yes: