Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[inocente]

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.

I disagreed with his premise that the chattering classes and their schools of “theistic personalism” and so on have anything to do with Christ and it went downhill from there.

The Pope said recently “if understood in the biblical sense, by which God is always a surprise, and therefore we never know where and how we’ll find him, we can’t fix the time and place for meeting with him. We must therefore discern the meeting. For this discernment is critical.”

To me Feser tries exceptionally hard to avoid surprises and thereby lakes discernment.

 

[inocente]

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?

[snip to make reply fit]

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.

Very well, let me critique the contingency argument.

The first problem is that it only uses the word God as a “label to name the ultimate source, cause, or explanation of things”, as Feser points out in the blog helpfully just linked by his greatest fan, Linus .

The second problem is whether the universe is contingent. Everything in it looks like it need not exist, but it’s a fallacy of composition to say that means the whole need not exist. It’s plausible, except that if instead of asking why does something rather than nothing exist, we ask the opposite, could nothing alone exist, we find that question makes no sense, since nothing can’t in any sense have an existence. So it’s also plausible that the universe must exist and must in some form always have existed.

*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.

But the greatest conceivable being relies on who is doing the conceiving. For instance, I’d suggest that a being which can achieve what is logically impossible is greater than a being which is limited to what is logically possible (and even that depends on who is saying what is and isn’t logically possible).

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.

Methinks you missed out the second half of Russell’s statement: “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.”

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.

Not sure what you’re arguing here. We’re not talking about irrational beliefs, we’re talking about various schools of philosophers who make various rational arguments about what is supposedly one single truth, and yet remain in disagreement about that truth.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**inocente

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.**

Russell erred in not being able to conceive of a God who created the very principle of causality. His refutation of the proof for God from causality is therefore inadequate. Conceiving of God does not break the law of causality; God transcends that law, having created it. Ergo, God is not subject to it as Russell liked to imagine. It is truly a limp argument to say that it might as well have been the universe that is eternal rather than God. As Le Maitre argued, the universe is not eternal. The Big Bang proves this. Russell was alive long enough to know about the Big Bang, but perhaps by then not mentally alert enough to make the connection between the idea of Creation versus the idea of Causality.

 

[mytruepower2]

Very well, let me critique the contingency argument.

The first problem is that it only uses the word God as a “label to name the ultimate source, cause, or explanation of things”, as Feser points out in the blog helpfully just linked by his greatest fan, Linus .

Let’s start with this, since you say this is a problem.

Defining God in this way doesn’t seem inconsistent, nor does it invalidate the argument at any point.

How about the first premise; that everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its existence, either through a necessary existence, or due to some cause? Is this premise disproved by the definition of God in this way? No. The first premise doesn’t even involve God at all.

How about the second; that the universe is not necessary in its existence? Again, no reference is made to God here, and once again, defining God in a certain way can have no bearing on this premise.

Neither can defining God in this way disprove the typical third premise of the argument; that the universe exists.

Lastly, from these three premises, it follows that the universe has a cause, and once again, the definition of God that you presented really does nothing to obstruct the logic of the argument. The logic remains valid, and so the argument is still a good one.

So, while you say this definition of God is a problem, I don’t see that it’s a problem with this argument, or even within this argument.

The second problem is whether the universe is contingent. Everything in it looks like it need not exist, but it’s a fallacy of composition to say that means the whole need not exist. It’s plausible, except that if instead of asking why does something rather than nothing exist, we ask the opposite, could nothing alone exist, we find that question makes no sense, since nothing can’t in any sense have an existence. So it’s also plausible that the universe must exist and must in some form always have existed.

“The universe” merely means “all of time and space, considered as a whole.” So, if you want to advance the claim that the universe is necessary in its existence, you must be prepared to say that all of time and space has a necessary existence. In essence, that nothing that exists in the universe could have been anything other than the way it is. As I said, I don’t know of anyone who argues that.

In response to the second part of this objection, the opposite of the question “why does something exist, rather than nothing,” is “why does nothing exist, rather than something?” It is *not *“could nothing alone exist?”

But furthermore, I would say that the question you pose is not at all meaningless, because it has an answer, and the answer is “no,” because the only identifying characteristic of “nothing” is its lack of existence.

Finally, I don’t know where you got the idea that you can prove a claim meaningless by proving that the opposite of the claim is meaningless. This objection is full of problems.

But the greatest conceivable being relies on who is doing the conceiving. For instance, I’d suggest that a being which can achieve what is logically impossible is greater than a being which is limited to what is logically possible (and even that depends on who is saying what is and isn’t logically possible).

The problem with this notion is that just because you can suggest something, or imagine something, doesn’t mean that it counts as a “being.” It isn’t a being unless it is coherent to speak of it.

Achieving what is logically impossible is incoherent, because if something can be achieved, it isn’t logically impossible, and if it’s logically impossible, it can’t be achieved.

Likewise, this notion of “conceiving” again mistakes imagination for logic. As I said, “conceiving” in this sense, is not imagining, but rather, using logic to determine what is possible.

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."

In a sense, I would agree with this, except that we have clear, independent evidence that the world is not necessary in its existence. If it were, it would display different characteristics than it displays, and many avenues of knowledge would very quickly become meaningless to us.

 

[mytruepower2]

Not sure what you’re arguing here. We’re not talking about irrational beliefs, we’re talking about various schools of philosophers who make various rational arguments about what is supposedly one single truth, and yet remain in disagreement about that truth.

Oh, I thought you were talking about the objections and statements that you had presented.

My point was that a person can be irrational, and reject belief in a proposition, even in the teeth of the evidence (as Dawkins so nicely puts it.)

Now, with respect to these various people who’ve proposed rationally-defensible views, it’s important to remember that it is their evidence, not their existence, which matters. The key is to examine their evidence, and then look at the counter-arguments against that evidence, which were presented, in most cases, while they were alive. If the counter-arguments were weak, or badly-defended, the view itself is more likely to be true. If the view itself is badly-defended against its counter-arguments, it’s more likely to be false.

In that respect, the proof is simply in the pudding. When you actually stop being intimidated by names like Dawkins, Russell, Hume, Voltaire, Nietzsche, and so on, and look at their arguments, you find that, in virtually all cases, their arguments were disproved in short order, just after they proposed them. Modern atheism is perhaps at its worst, in terms of just the poor quality of the arguments that atheists have against the opposing view and in defense of their own.

There’s just no way to glaze over this issue without getting your hands dirty. If you want to say that a claim has been rationally justified, you’ve got to say when, by whom, and with what argument. Just because a person used long words and was a famous philosopher doesn’t mean their conclusions ended up being true.

I could go into more on each of these fellows and their arguments, but I feel it would be attacking strawmen, since you still haven’t defended any specific argument by any of them, except Russell, which I’ve already dealt with in the last three replies.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**mytruepower

In that respect, the proof is simply in the pudding. When you actually stop being intimidated by names like Dawkins, Russell, Hume, Voltaire, Nietzsche, and so on, and look at their arguments, you find that, in virtually all cases, their arguments were disproved in short order, just after they proposed them. Modern atheism is perhaps at its worst, in terms of just the poor quality of the arguments that atheists have against the opposing view and in defense of their own.**

I agree with this except in the case of Voltaire, who was not an atheist. As he said in his essay “On Atheism:”

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the [ancient] Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic."

Or were you just including him as an enemy of the Church, which he certainly was?

 

[mytruepower2]

**mytruepower

In that respect, the proof is simply in the pudding. When you actually stop being intimidated by names like Dawkins, Russell, Hume, Voltaire, Nietzsche, and so on, and look at their arguments, you find that, in virtually all cases, their arguments were disproved in short order, just after they proposed them. Modern atheism is perhaps at its worst, in terms of just the poor quality of the arguments that atheists have against the opposing view and in defense of their own.**

I agree with this except in the case of Voltaire, who was not an atheist. As he said in his essay “On Atheism:”

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the [ancient] Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic."

Or were you just including him as an enemy of the Church, which he certainly was?

The latter. I didn’t mean to imply that Voltaire was an atheist, and I apologize if it seemed that way. I just meant that he’s a famous name in philosophy, who can be intimidating at first; especially to a sincere Catholic, and who offered anti-Catholic philosophical arguments.

 

[bben15]

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

Nope, I don’t see any self-creation there.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I disagreed with his premise that the chattering classes and their schools of “theistic personalism” and so on have anything to do with Christ and it went downhill from there.

The Pope said recently “if understood in the biblical sense, by which God is always a surprise, and therefore we never know where and how we’ll find him, we can’t fix the time and place for meeting with him. We must therefore discern the meeting. For this discernment is critical.”

To me Feser tries exceptionally hard to avoid surprises and thereby lakes discernment.

Ah well, you know what they say about horses.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You ladies are going to win because you just wear everyone out :stretcher:.

Linus2nd

 

[SentinelofTruth]

bben15 (in the signature):

It is impossible to pray the Rosary frequently and continue to sin.

Uh, no it’s not.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

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.

Not really, the universe and nature inspire many atheists.

God(s) are self created too, except that plenty of evidences for the universe, where are the evidences for any god?!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Libral

Not really, the universe and nature inspire many atheists.**

Nature must be your god. Your god doesn’t think much about you. Do you think Nature has a mind and heart with which to love? Then why would you have either?

 

[SentinelofTruth]

LiberalAteoJesus:

God(s) are self created too, except that plenty of evidences for the universe, where are the evidences for any god?!

Gods (at least the Christian one) are not self-created, they are uncreated.
Also, arguments as to the existence of God are banned

 

[mytruepower2]

Not really, the universe and nature inspire many atheists.

God(s) are self created too, except that plenty of evidences for the universe, where are the evidences for any god?!

There are more than twice as many of these generally recognized, but the evidences for God that I feel qualified to defend are…

1. The evidence from the dependability of the senses,
2. The evidence of objective morals,
3. The evidence of evil,
4. The evidence of the meaning of life,
5. The evidence of authentic value,
6. The evidence of the teleological argument,
7. The evidence of the ontological argument, and lastly, the one on which my own faith in God is based,
8. The evidence of the contingency argument.

Any one of these is sufficient evidence of the existence of God/a god, considering the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that God does not exist.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

**Libral

Not really, the universe and nature inspire many atheists.**

Nature must be your god. Your god doesn’t think much about you. Do you think Nature has a mind and heart with which to love? Then why would you have either?

No, nature is my home and there is persons who are the result of nature and who think a lot about me, why should the truth be reassuring anyway?

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

There are more than twice as many of these generally recognized, but the evidences for God that I feel qualified to defend are…

1. The evidence from the dependability of the senses,
2. The evidence of objective morals,
3. The evidence of evil,
4. The evidence of the meaning of life,
5. The evidence of authentic value,
6. The evidence of the teleological argument,
7. The evidence of the ontological argument, and lastly, the one on which my own faith in God is based,
8. The evidence of the contingency argument.

Any one of these is sufficient evidence of the existence of God/a god, considering the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that God does not exist.

Are you familiar with Russel’s teapot? of course there is no evidence that God doesn’t exist, same analogy could be applied to the teapot and other supernatural things.

 

[mytruepower2]

Are you familiar with Russel’s teapot? of course there is no evidence that God doesn’t exist, same analogy could be applied to the teapot and other supernatural things.

Yes, I am familiar with Russell’s teapot reply, but there are two big problems with it.

1. It assumes that just because we have no evidence for a proposition, therefore we don’t -require- evidence in order for a proposition to be reasonable. This is false. Obviously, if you have no good reasons to believe something, it’s not reasonable to believe it.
2. We -do- have evidence that Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist. Namely, no one in the United States, or Russia, or China, or anywhere else in the world has launched such a piece of china into space. This, combined with the never-disproven fact that teacups are not naturally-occurring in space provides good reasons to say that Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist.

With regard to how much evidence, and of what type, should be expected of a supernatural thing, that entirely depends on what its properties are, according to its basic definition.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Yes, I am familiar with Russell’s teapot reply, but there are two big problems with it.

1. It assumes that just because we have no evidence for a proposition, therefore we don’t -require- evidence in order for a proposition to be reasonable. This is false. Obviously, if you have no good reasons to believe something, it’s not reasonable to believe it.
2. We -do- have evidence that Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist. Namely, no one in the United States, or Russia, or China, or anywhere else in the world has launched such a piece of china into space. This, combined with the never-disproven fact that teacups are not naturally-occurring in space provides good reasons to say that Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist.

With regard to how much evidence, and of what type, should be expected of a supernatural thing, that entirely depends on what its properties are, according to its basic definition.

1- It doesn’t propose such a thing.
2- You are right, but you can make similar anologies out of other possible invisible things that are far from earth.

 

[mytruepower2]

1- It doesn’t propose such a thing.
2- You are right, but you can make similar anologies out of other possible invisible things that are far from earth.

Of course. For example, you could make a judgment about whether there’s any osmium on Alpha Centauri. We have no evidence at all that there’s osmium on Alpha Centauri, nor should we be expected to have such evidence. However, does that mean that we would be justified in believing that there is no osmium on Alpha Centauri? No. You’d have to withhold judgment, because the evidence for and against that proposition is equal; none.

Now, in the case of the existence of God, we have a great deal of evidence that he exists, so unless we have equally-good evidence that he does not exist, we’re not rationally justified in judging that he does not exist, or even in withholding judgment. You only withhold judgment when the evidence for the truth of a proposition is equal to the evidence against it.