First-Cause Argument for Existence of God

[EnterTheBowser]

Hurst: I think the next important question is: is the universe something which began to exist?

 

[MrWhy]

EnterTheBowser:

Hurst: I think the next important question is: is the universe something which began to exist?

I agree. That is the key question in this thread, and based on our current level of knowledge about the time riddle it has always existed. “Always” being one of those words that’s only valid as long as there’s time. “As long as” being … We’re a little short on vocabulary and ideas for discussing non-time. Minds trapped in time. Don’t think I have any more time for this thread.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

I also forgot: what is the support for the premise “Everything which begins to exist has a cause”? That is, why should we accept this as true? Is it something we’ve determined from examining the world, or is it something we know through pure reason? If it is an a priori intuition, would it be possible for there to be empirical evidence which would provide reason to suppose that we were wrong in our intuition? Is there some possible world where it does not hold?

(please note that some of those questions are equivalent)

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

It is true that the notion of circle was derivable from the axioms of geometry before anyone ever did so, but I would not think that the concept of a circle existed before anyone did so.

Are you saying it did not exist until the first person did so?

EnterTheBowser:

hurst:

Do you believe that a combination of atoms and electricity in the circuitry of a computer running a program can think?

Yes.

That surprises me, but then maybe your definition of “think” is different than mine.

From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Think : \Think, v. t.

1. To conceive; to imagine.
2. To plan or design; to plot; to compass. [Obs.]
3. To believe; to consider; to esteem.

As a follow-up, do you think such circuitry can do all of the above?

EnterTheBowser:

hurst:

Now, we surely agree that people think. Physically speaking, we are made of atoms, molecules, heat, electricity, etc. Do you believe this combination of matter and energy is thinking on its own?

Yes.

In the time between a person being alive on his deathbed, and minutes later being dead thereon, what happened to this combination of matter and energy that caused it to no longer think? Or do you contend that the same combination of matter and energy is still thinking?

hurst

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

hurst:

1. more fundamentally, the underlying unstated belief that we not only start without that which begins to exist, but also that we do so in an environment of nothingness, as if all happens in a vacuum.

I don’t think that “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” really contains that particular assumption.

Now that we have clarified things, I believe you don’t have that assumption. I cannot say the same about others who have used that statement.

hrust

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

Well, I think that there is a difference between recognizing certain facts to be the case, and what sort of moral guide one has with regards towards what sort of facts one wants to bring about.

And what, do you suppose, is a moral guide? How does it exist? How did a person get one or the other kind of guide? How is it that one can decide not to actually follow whatever guide they may have?

See, on the one hand, it is said that since people are alike, they think alike. Yet, the same kind of combination of matter and energy in another person can be “thinking” something totally different about what it ought to do with itself morally speaking.

Such a discrepancy is an argument against the belief that thought or will emanates from a combination of matter and energy. There must be something else allowing for such divergent results in a relatively homogeneous sampling of creatures.

hurst

 

[EnterTheBowser]

hurst:

Are you saying it did not exist until the first person did so?

To clarify: what exactly do you mean by the concept of a circle?

That surprises me, but then maybe your definition of “think” is different than mine.

From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Think : \Think, v. t.

1. To conceive; to imagine.
2. To plan or design; to plot; to compass. [Obs.]
3. To believe; to consider; to esteem.

As a follow-up, do you think such circuitry can do all of the above?

Properly arranged, yes. The Chinese Room poses some interesting questions about whether the computer would also need to have arms, but that’s really besides the point.

In the time between a person being alive on his deathbed, and minutes later being dead thereon, what happened to this combination of matter and energy that caused it to no longer think? Or do you contend that the same combination of matter and energy is still thinking?

hurst

No, it’s not thinking; what happened is that the neurons in the brain stopped working.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

hurst:

And what, do you suppose, is a moral guide? How does it exist? How did a person get one or the other kind of guide? How is it that one can decide not to actually follow whatever guide they may have?

Humans have sex drives, needs to eat, desires for social belonging; who’s to say that we don’t have a similar moral inclination?

See, on the one hand, it is said that since people are alike, they think alike. Yet, the same kind of combination of matter and energy in another person can be “thinking” something totally different about what it ought to do with itself morally speaking.

Such a discrepancy is an argument against the belief that thought or will emanates from a combination of matter and energy. There must be something else allowing for such divergent results in a relatively homogeneous sampling of creatures.

hurst

While different people might have similar brains, they don’t have the same brain. I could make the same argument that since many computers are very alike, they must all be running the same program… but that should obviously be false.

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

Hurst: I think the next important question is: is the universe something which began to exist?

I am not sure we are at that point yet.

We have, on the one hand, certain knowledge that there is “something” that has always been. We haven’t delved into what else we can possibly know about that “something”, and I think it would be useful. Not only that, I am not sure to what extent you or anyone else has recognized the truth of that conclusion. Before moving forward we should come to some agreement.

On the other hand, we have sensible knowledge of things in our lives, and we can know that some things are caused by other things, and are composed of other things. We can delve into this as well.

Taken together, these two approaches can be taken to their limits and meet somewhere in the middle, which would likely be the beginning of caused existences.

As for whether “the Universe” began, we still need to determine what is meant by the term “Universe”.

hurst

 

[EnterTheBowser]

If we accept the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” then we can probably reach hurst’s conclusion that there are some things which didn’t begin to exist.

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

I also forgot: what is the support for the premise “Everything which begins to exist has a cause”?

As you have shown, that statement is derived from the more understandable “Nothing can come from total nothingness”.

EnterTheBowser:

That is, why should we accept this as true? Is it something we’ve determined from examining the world, or is it something we know through pure reason?

I think it is a logical intuition of sorts. Why should you accept logic? It also accounts for the experience of trying to come up with something without having anything: having dinner without any food; earning money without a job; etc. Why should you accept what you sense around you? Why should you accept what your reason tells you?

Ultimately, a person can reject logic, sense, and reason. Free will is not constrained to follow a logical, sensible, or reasonable path.

So, why should we accept it as true? Because we choose to, I suppose.

Is there anything that is forcing us to accept truth? Perhaps only our decision that we will reject what is false.

EnterTheBowser:

If it is an a priori intuition, would it be possible for there to be empirical evidence which would provide reason to suppose that we were wrong in our intuition?

I don’t really know what an “a priori intuition” is considered to be.

However, wouldn’t it fall under the same category as these:

3 is greater than 2
black is not white
a circle is not a square
something false cannot be true
Nothing can come from total nothingness

EnterTheBowser:

Is there some possible world where it does not hold?

For this particular premise, I don’t think so. Even if you imagined a world, then that world came from your imagination, so it still holds.

hurst

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

To clarify: what exactly do you mean by the concept of a circle?

A concept would be a form of something that might be manifested in thought or as an object, even if only imperfectly.

A circle is something perfectly round. Mathematically, it is a closed shape in which every point is equidistant from the center.

There is no beginning, and no end. For any two points, another can be found between them. Etc.

EnterTheBowser:

hurst:

That surprises me, but then maybe your definition of “think” is different than mine.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Think : \Think\, v. t.
1. To conceive; to imagine.
2. To plan or design; to plot; to compass. [Obs.]
3. To believe; to consider; to esteem.

As a follow-up, do you think such circuitry can do all of the above?

Properly arranged, yes. The Chinese Room poses some interesting questions about whether the computer would also need to have arms, but that’s really besides the point.

I don’t know what the Chinese Room is, but you are saying that you believe a properly arranged circuit can imagine, believe, and esteem.

I for one do not accept that. It does remind me, however, of a book I once read about Artificial Intelligence. One of the chapters was entitled “Forging the Gods”. It brings up the notion of idolatry, which is a sort of belief that a creature can make something greater than himself. It seems intuitive to me that such a thing is impossible and false. Everything made breaks, rusts, or otherwise falls into decay - even with much effort to keep it maintained. I will not bow down to the works of any creature, though I can admire the skill that made it.

But perhaps I can address the issue of free will. Would you say that a circuit made only of matter and energy can possess its own free will?

EnterTheBowser:

No, it’s not thinking; what happened is that the neurons in the brain stopped working.

Ok, so would you say a neuron is what is doing the thinking?

But how many working neurons are needed for thoughts? How many individual neurons can be lost before the collection of them is no longer thinking?

Also, what is directing the thoughts? You did say before,

EnterTheBowser:

Well, I think that there is a difference between recognizing certain facts to be the case, and what sort of moral guide one has with regards towards what sort of facts one wants to bring about.

So this adds “wanting” as distinct from “thinking”, because it directs what is to be thought. But what would you say this “wanting” comes from?

hurst

 

[EnterTheBowser]

hurst:

A concept would be a form of something that might be manifested in thought or as an object, even if only imperfectly.

A circle is something perfectly round. Mathematically, it is a closed shape in which every point is equidistant from the center.

There is no beginning, and no end. For any two points, another can be found between them. Etc.

And what is this “form” you speak of?

I don’t know what the Chinese Room is, but you are saying that you believe a properly arranged circuit can imagine, believe, and esteem.

Chinese Room

I for one do not accept that. It does remind me, however, of a book I once read about Artificial Intelligence. One of the chapters was entitled “Forging the Gods”. It brings up the notion of idolatry, which is a sort of belief that a creature can make something greater than himself. It seems intuitive to me that such a thing is impossible and false. Everything made breaks, rusts, or otherwise falls into decay - even with much effort to keep it maintained. I will not bow down to the works of any creature, though I can admire the skill that made it.

Who ever said that artificial intelligence ought to be revered?

But perhaps I can address the issue of free will. Would you say that a circuit made only of matter and energy can possess its own free will?

What, exactly, do you mean by free will?

Ok, so would you say a neuron is what is doing the thinking?

A whole bunch of them organized into a brain.

But how many working neurons are needed for thoughts? How many individual neurons can be lost before the collection of them is no longer thinking?

There’s no clear line - an interesting paper I once read on a similar subject was “Brain Bisection and the Unity of Consciousness” by Nagel.

Also, what is directing the thoughts? You did say before,

So this adds “wanting” as distinct from “thinking”, because it directs what is to be thought. But what would you say this “wanting” comes from?

hurst

Neurons?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

hurst:

As you have shown, that statement is derived from the more understandable “Nothing can come from total nothingness”.

Yes, the two statements are more or less equivalent.

I think it is a logical intuition of sorts. Why should you accept logic? It also accounts for the experience of trying to come up with something without having anything: having dinner without any food; earning money without a job; etc. Why should you accept what you sense around you? Why should you accept what your reason tells you?

Logic in itself says little (nothing) about causality. I am asking why this particular supposition is reasonable.

…

I don’t really know what an “a priori intuition” is considered to be.

However, wouldn’t it fall under the same category as these:

3 is greater than 2
black is not white
a circle is not a square
something false cannot be true
Nothing can come from total nothingness

Yes, those are all a priori knowledge, I imagine. I’m curious, though - if we saw evidence that apparently countered this statement, would that be evidence against it, or always merely evidence that we weren’t looking hard enough for causes?

For this particular premise, I don’t think so. Even if you imagined a world, then that world came from your imagination, so it still holds.

hurst

That’s a rather silly interpretation of possible-worlds talk. Possible worlds are causally isolated in that I could never, in any way, cause anything to happen in a different possible world.

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

And what is this “form” you speak of?

A non-material actuality.

EnterTheBowser:

Who ever said that artificial intelligence ought to be revered?

It is the work of AI that is too often “revered”.

(BTW, “reverence” is something nonmaterial also.)

EnterTheBowser:

What, exactly, do you mean by free will?

Can that be explained exactly? How might you describe your own free will? I hope you know what I mean.

We cannot give free will to a program or circuit - at least, not the same will as what we ourselves possess.

Free will is an uncoerced agent of control, and the power in man to act on a freely made judgment. It can decide what to remember, what to reason about, and more. I don’t think I could define it exactly. It is certainly a nonmaterial entity, though

EnterTheBowser:

hurst:

Ok, so would you say a neuron is what is doing the thinking?

A whole bunch of them organized into a brain.

At what point would you say these neurons started thinking?

Also, what determines what they think about?

EnterTheBowser:

hurst:

Also, what is directing the thoughts? You did say before,
So this adds “wanting” as distinct from “thinking”, because it directs what is to be thought. But what would you say this “wanting” comes from?

Neurons?

So you believe that neurons both think and direct the thoughts? Does that make sense to you? Is that how you are functioning right now? Am I to believe I am conversing with a mass of brain tissue having a bunch of neurons collectively developing and directing thoughts? Don’t you think there is something more there?

As for “wanting”, isn’t that in the heart?

hurst

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

Logic in itself says little (nothing) about causality.

Maybe I am using that term too loosely. When I say logic, I don’t necessarily mean the formal version of it.

EnterTheBowser:

I am asking why this particular supposition is reasonable.

“Nothing can come from total nothingness” is reasonable because:

1. 
   *] It is easy to understand
   *] It is common sense
   *] It is marked by sound judgment
   *] It provides an ontological focus
   *] It satisfied other reasonable people
   
   
   EnterTheBowser:
   

   I’m curious, though - if we saw evidence that apparently countered this statement, would that be evidence against it, or always merely evidence that we weren’t looking hard enough for causes?

   It would be “evidence that apparently countered” the statement, and we should look harder for causes.
   
   
   EnterTheBowser:
   

   Possible worlds are causally isolated in that I could never, in any way, cause anything to happen in a different possible world.

   My point was that you “caused” them to exist in your imagination, and that one should keep that fact in mind when trying to imagine “uncaused worlds”.
   
   hurst