P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
…if no one wants dessert we could just get the bill…has anyone seen my car keys, and my smokes…
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
The atheist view of creation is a desperate one. Now that the universe, through the Big Bang theory, has been proven not to have existed through all eternity, the atheist has to assume that, there being no Creator, it must be possible that the universe created itself.
Chesterton debunked this kind of logic long ago. When someone challenged him with the view that anything is possible, he replied: “Can you swallow yourself?”
Some things must be impossible. Self creation is certainly one of them.
Chesterton debunked this kind of logic long ago. When someone challenged him with the view that anything is possible, he replied: “Can you swallow yourself?”
Some things must be impossible. Self creation is certainly one of them.
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
Linusth2nd:
This has nothing to do with the OP. I was just defending Heisenberg’s view. See post #246.
I mean it doesn’t exist in itself, ie. it exists insofar as it is perceived.
This has nothing to do with the OP. I was just defending Heisenberg’s view. See post #246.
M
mytruepower2
Guest
Most physicists of whom I’m aware would reject this notion out of hand, either because they insist that causation can’t be nonlinear in nature, or because they believe that the question is incoherent.
I believe the question is an understandable one, and I also believe that nonlinear causality may be possible.
The issue, for me, is that while causality might be -temporally- nonlinear, it makes no sense for it to be -causally- nonlinear.
To put that in another way, when the events of yesterday are placed next to the events of today, and the events of tomorrow on a timeline, we get the following image.
Past -------- Present -------- Future
The past is -temporally- prior to the present, and the present temporally prior to the future. However, each is also -causally- prior to the next, because the events of the past -cause- the present to occur, and the events of the present cause the future to occur.
Issues with this model only arise when nonlinear causality is admitted. Say, for example, that I do something which causes Abraham Lincoln to decide to go to the theater back in 1865. If this could be done, Abraham Lincoln’s death would be -temporally- prior to my action, but my action would be -causally- prior to his decision.
If it’s possible for an object or person to travel through time, they could go back to before they were born, therefore, and be -temporally- prior to themselves, but they still wouldn’t be able to -cause- their own existence, because that implies that without their action, they wouldn’t have existed, and if they didn’t exist, they wouldn’t have been able to go back through time in the first place. Therefore, no being can be causally prior to itself, even if you admit time travel or nonlinear causality.
Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe must be some external cause, and the Contingency Argument remains on solid ground.
I believe the question is an understandable one, and I also believe that nonlinear causality may be possible.
The issue, for me, is that while causality might be -temporally- nonlinear, it makes no sense for it to be -causally- nonlinear.
To put that in another way, when the events of yesterday are placed next to the events of today, and the events of tomorrow on a timeline, we get the following image.
Past -------- Present -------- Future
The past is -temporally- prior to the present, and the present temporally prior to the future. However, each is also -causally- prior to the next, because the events of the past -cause- the present to occur, and the events of the present cause the future to occur.
Issues with this model only arise when nonlinear causality is admitted. Say, for example, that I do something which causes Abraham Lincoln to decide to go to the theater back in 1865. If this could be done, Abraham Lincoln’s death would be -temporally- prior to my action, but my action would be -causally- prior to his decision.
If it’s possible for an object or person to travel through time, they could go back to before they were born, therefore, and be -temporally- prior to themselves, but they still wouldn’t be able to -cause- their own existence, because that implies that without their action, they wouldn’t have existed, and if they didn’t exist, they wouldn’t have been able to go back through time in the first place. Therefore, no being can be causally prior to itself, even if you admit time travel or nonlinear causality.
Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe must be some external cause, and the Contingency Argument remains on solid ground.
P
Phil_Marinus
Guest
Paddy....... I'm starting to like you....
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I
inocente
Guest
There’s never been agreement on any of these so called disproofs or proofs. Bertrand Russell put it like this: “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.”
It’s a paradox and the answer may always be beyond human capabilities to know for sure, so whatever we believe we have to believe it on faith. Or as the psalmist put it: My heart is not proud, Lord, my eyes are not haughty; I do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me. But I have calmed and quieted myself, I am like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child I am content.
Imho
It’s a paradox and the answer may always be beyond human capabilities to know for sure, so whatever we believe we have to believe it on faith. Or as the psalmist put it: My heart is not proud, Lord, my eyes are not haughty; I do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me. But I have calmed and quieted myself, I am like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child I am content.
Imho
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**inocente
There’s never been agreement on any of these so called disproofs or proofs. Bertrand Russell put it like this: “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.”**
Bertrand Russell was a philosopher and you take his word for anything?
The truth is, the argument Russell cites, according to his autobiography, was one he concocted in his teen years. He never seems to have abandoned this childish line of reasoning.
God is the Creator of all, including the principle of causality. Once that is recognized, Russell’s argument falls flat on its face. Notice too that the argument of Russell implies the eternity of the universe. That argument was blasted by the Big Bang theory, which poses a problem for atheists everywhere. How did the universe come into being without a Creator?
Even Darwin acknowledged a Creator.
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).
There’s never been agreement on any of these so called disproofs or proofs. Bertrand Russell put it like this: “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.”**
Bertrand Russell was a philosopher and you take his word for anything?
The truth is, the argument Russell cites, according to his autobiography, was one he concocted in his teen years. He never seems to have abandoned this childish line of reasoning.
God is the Creator of all, including the principle of causality. Once that is recognized, Russell’s argument falls flat on its face. Notice too that the argument of Russell implies the eternity of the universe. That argument was blasted by the Big Bang theory, which poses a problem for atheists everywhere. How did the universe come into being without a Creator?
Even Darwin acknowledged a Creator.
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).
D
Deep_Roots
Guest
I’ve always found such questions fascinating, but also maddening.
Why is there a choice? Must there be a difference between “the Universe created itself” and “God created”…? I don’t see a distinction.
By the way, “Christianity in a Nutshell” starts off with a beautiful synthesis between the scientific explanation of “creation” and the theological.
Why is there a choice? Must there be a difference between “the Universe created itself” and “God created”…? I don’t see a distinction.
By the way, “Christianity in a Nutshell” starts off with a beautiful synthesis between the scientific explanation of “creation” and the theological.
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
Charlemange II:
True, the argument does fall flat on its face, but it’s not because God created the rules of logic. It’s because God is outside of time, so the infinite regression argument doesn’t apply to him.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
There is zero evidence that the universe created itself. How could something that didn’t exist create something that exists? Only God could do that. This is what Thomas Aquinas demonstrates. Yes, the universe is not " philosophical. " It is real, Thomas used philosophical reasoning to demonstrate that is was real and it was God who caused that. Science will never displace philosophical reasoning - except in minds incapable of philosophical reasoning. That is why we have Faith - not science. Faith and philosophy agree…
Linus2nd
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
"True science to an ever-increasing degree discovers God as though God were waiting behind each closed door opened by science." Pope Pius XII
M
mytruepower2
Guest
Agreement isn’t required in order for something to be true. It just needs to conform to reality in order to be true.
Likewise, in order for something to be the most reasonable thing to believe, not everyone needs to agree with it. You just need to have more evidence that the proposition is true than false.
Now, in the case of Russell, his argument is actually somewhat fun to engage with, because he mischaracterizes the contingency argument. The contingency argument doesn’t claim that everything has a cause. Rather, it claims that everything has some explanation of its existence, either because its existence is necessary, or because of some cause.
The universe does not have a necessary existence, and we therefore know it exists due to some cause.
God, however, being the greatest conceivable being, does have a necessary existence, since it’s greater to have a necessary existence than a contingent one.
So the explanation for God’s existence is that he has a necessary existence, which doesn’t require a cause.
The only other way to escape this argument would be to try to provide some evidence that the universe has a necessary existence, but that would be a very radical claim, and I don’t know of too many people who would even try to advance it.
However, maybe I’m wrong about this, and Russell was actually referring to the kalam cosmological argument. I consider that argument to be somewhat dubious, but let’s run with it, for the moment. The problem is still the same; he’s mischaracterized the first premise.
The first premise of the kalam cosmological argument is not “everything has a cause.”
Rather, it’s “everything that begins to exist has a cause.”
I would say that the first premise is ironclad and virtually indisputable. If you want to argue against the kalam cosmological argument, trust me on this. The first premise is by far the stronger.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**mytruepower
God, however, being the greatest conceivable being, does have a necessary existence, since it’s greater to have a necessary existence than a contingent one.**
Not sure I follow this. Aren’t you assuming the validity of Anselm’s ontological argument here? In which case you wouldn’t even need the cosmological argument.
**
The first premise of the kalam cosmological argument is not “everything has a cause.”
Rather, it’s “everything that begins to exist has a cause.”
I would say that the first premise is ironclad and virtually indisputable. If you want to argue against the kalam cosmological argument, trust me on this. The first premise is by far the stronger. **
Yes, the kalam major premise is persuasive, but not if you factor in the infinite regress argument. This is what atheists try to do. They ask why there cannot be an infinite regress of universes each one creating others (multiverses) through all eternity. If that is granted (as the atheist is willing to grant it) then there is no need to speak of all these universes (including our own) as having any more cause than the infinite regress as opposed to God.
The only answer to the atheist argument (that I can see) is that the atheist has no proof that such an infinite regress of universes exists, just because we cannot get before the Big Bang because there was no before the Big Bang (time began with the Big Bang). so the irony is that while the atheist is always demanding proof for God, he cannot come up with the slightest bit of proof that there has ever been an infinite regress of universes. Moreover, this argument of the atheist lacks aesthetic appeal with respect to the scientific preference for Occam’s Razor and smacks of scientific mythology.
God, however, being the greatest conceivable being, does have a necessary existence, since it’s greater to have a necessary existence than a contingent one.**
Not sure I follow this. Aren’t you assuming the validity of Anselm’s ontological argument here? In which case you wouldn’t even need the cosmological argument.
**
The first premise of the kalam cosmological argument is not “everything has a cause.”
Rather, it’s “everything that begins to exist has a cause.”
I would say that the first premise is ironclad and virtually indisputable. If you want to argue against the kalam cosmological argument, trust me on this. The first premise is by far the stronger. **
Yes, the kalam major premise is persuasive, but not if you factor in the infinite regress argument. This is what atheists try to do. They ask why there cannot be an infinite regress of universes each one creating others (multiverses) through all eternity. If that is granted (as the atheist is willing to grant it) then there is no need to speak of all these universes (including our own) as having any more cause than the infinite regress as opposed to God.
The only answer to the atheist argument (that I can see) is that the atheist has no proof that such an infinite regress of universes exists, just because we cannot get before the Big Bang because there was no before the Big Bang (time began with the Big Bang). so the irony is that while the atheist is always demanding proof for God, he cannot come up with the slightest bit of proof that there has ever been an infinite regress of universes. Moreover, this argument of the atheist lacks aesthetic appeal with respect to the scientific preference for Occam’s Razor and smacks of scientific mythology.
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
Charlemagne II:
!
There is an inconsistency is the atheistic view that the big bang created time (and space and matter), because the big bang was an explosion. But an explosion is, by definition, when matter poofs out rapidly. This definition presupposes the existence of all three, so it couldn’t have created any of them.
Exactly
!There is an inconsistency is the atheistic view that the big bang created time (and space and matter), because the big bang was an explosion. But an explosion is, by definition, when matter poofs out rapidly. This definition presupposes the existence of all three, so it couldn’t have created any of them.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
And even if it were possible, the situation would be no different from the eternal universe addressed by Thomas’ five ways. Given one eternally existing universe or an infinite number, each would have had to be eternally created, moved, and sustained as proven by Thomas’ Five Ways. This is the reason why Thomas’ Five Ways are superior demonstrations than the current Kalam arguments.
P.S. Feser has an exceptionally good blog this week.
Linus2nd
M
mytruepower2
Guest
No. Anselm’s ontological argument was based on the claim that if the greatest conceivable being can exist in the mind, it can also exist in reality. The necessity of the existence of God is only one premise in the ontological argument.
However, as the proposed first cause of time and space, it can be argued that God must have a logically-necessary existence, even apart from his definition as the greatest conceivable being. Namely, that if he -did not- have a necessary existence, he would also need a cause, and would therefore not be the creator of all things, and would therefore not be God.
The reason is twofold. Firstly, that it’s impossible for an actually infinite number of things to be formed by successive addition, which is what the atheist is asking us to believe with this suggestion; that an actually infinite number of finite universes were formed by successively adding one or more to the next.
Secondly, that no naturalistic, multiverse model currently exists which is plausible. Most were admitted to be insufficient as far back as the 1960s, and more recently, it’s been discovered that any universe or multiverse, which is expanding by a factor of greater than 0 must have an absolute beginning. The BVG theorem, in particular, helps to clear this up.
No, the only way to truly defend the atheist position in this case is for the atheist to invoke necessary existence in either the universe, or in some pre-existing universe which resulted in our own. However, there are, again, no good models for how this could happen.
That’s also another problem with the multiverse hypothesis. Occam’s Razor indicates that we shouldn’t multiply causes beyond necessity, and yet, the multiverse hypothesis -infinitely- multiplies causes, when a single, first cause explanation is still available. It is the Christian; not the atheist, who is being more scientifically-consistent in the answer he gives.
I
inocente
Guest
The claim that everything must have an explanation for its existence is not a claim about objective reality, it’s just saying wouldn’t it be nice if we could explain everything. Well yes it would be nice, but life’s not like that, we can’t order things not to exist just because we can’t explain them or why they exist.
Again this isn’t a claim about objective reality, it’s merely a claim about what humans can and can’t conceive.
Russell is simply saying that we cannot claim that there is a law that all which exists must be caused, since the first cause must obviously break that law.
Whereas if we claim a law that all which begins to exist must have a cause, then the first cause cannot have begun to exist, it must always have existed, and as such it could be God if that’s what we want to believe, or the Star Wars Force, or the universe itself if that’s what we want to believe.
I’m saying that some people believe one thing, others believe something else, but none of us can prove to the satisfaction of the others that our belief alone is true. It’s always been so - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Of course, but the same thing can be said of Faith and the grounds for Faith.
Your favorite philosopher, Ed Feser, has an especially good blog this week entitled, " Why Is There Anything At All? It’s Simple. " edwardfeser.blogspot.com/
You have to read the whole thing.
Linus2bd
M
mytruepower2
Guest
Now, see, like Russell, you’re mischaracterizing the argument. The premise does not say “Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence that we can comprehend.” Rather, when the argument speaks of an “explanation,” what the arguement is saying is that there is a reason why the thing exists.
But let’s look at your reply, for a moment, because you didn’t really offer any arguments, even against this strawman of the contingency argument. Suppose I agree that there are things which we can’t explain, or truths that we can’t arrive at by way of intellectual explanation. Are we therefore justified in choosing a non-explanation, when a plausible explanation exists?
Clearly, the answer is “no.” We are only justified in refusing an explanation if the weight of the evidence is against it. Therefore, the rational man is only justified in denying a proposition if, to the best of his knowledge, the weight of the evidence is against it.
However, I would say, by that same token, that the rational man is only justified in adopting agnosticism over a proposition (what you propose; the non-explanation,) if, to the best of his knowledge, the evidence is equal for both propositions. I held this position for ten years, because I believed both Christianity and atheism to contain self-contradictions.
If we are to be rational in any sense, and not resort to irrationality, we can’t try to form our world view around what we don’t know, but rather, around what we do. We do know that nothing exists without some ontological explanation for its existence. This metaphysical principle is simply blindingly, glaringly obvious. It’s always confirmed, and never disconfirmed, and therefore, the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly in its favor.
I don’t see, in fact, that you’ve argued against either premise of the contingency argument at all, nor even questioned the validity of its logic.
No, certainly not. The claim is that God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being, and that involves a number of things which follow logically from that.
As I said, however, you can establish this simply by defining God as a “First Cause.” A First Cause cannot be anything other than necessary in its existence.
Finally, I would question whether there is any force at all to this objection. By “conceive,” I don’t mean “imagine,” or “make up.” This isn’t the kind of “intuition,” where you just make up stuff on the spot. I’m talking about the knowledge forms of deductive and inductive logic. What would the greatest being consist of, according to these forms?
Now, if you understand this, and just don’t think that deduction or induction are valid proofs of anything, we can talk about that, but I would say that, at base, such a view would be entirely irrational and contrary to our experiences.
In any case, human perception and experience is a valid proof, unless you have some evidence that the information which it conveys is false.
Right, but if he means for this to be applied to the theism/atheism debate, he’s drawing a strawman, because I don’t know of any serious Christian philosopher or theologian who would claim that, as you put it, “all which exists must be caused.” Because Christians don’t claim that everything must be caused, they would agree with Russell that the claim is an impossible one, and this does nothing to challenge any of the arguments for the existence of God.
As for the making or breaking of laws, laws are just rules of thumb that we develop to explain the universe; patterns that exist within a certain range, and cease to exist outside of it. For example, Newton’s laws of gravity are sufficiently true in certain circumstances, but, as Einstein discovered, not true in others. I once heard a very prominent scientist say that he never trusts a law until it’s limits have been shown.
Right, but I dealt with this in my first sentence when replying. The fact that you are unsatisfied by an explanation does nothing to prove that the explanation is false or questionable.
For example, I’m unsatisfied by the explanation that fire is caused by a chemical reaction, requiring fuel. I would much rather explain it as the result of a “fire being,” which comes into existence when the fire is lit, and disappears once all the fuel is devoured by it. I think this explanation is more satisfying. Does that prove that the explanation is* true*, or even possible? I think the answer is, clearly not.
Even if it’s been absolutely proven, as I think this has, to a mathematical degree, nevertheless, one always has the option of resorting to irrationality, in order to avoid believing the proof.
- Status