How do I respond to this argument?

[hicetnunc]

The universe could have always existed. I have no reason to believe there was a time when the universe did not exist. I certainly don’t understand why you claim it is a fact that the universe did not exist at some point.

Hi Viviphailia; thank you for your comments. Please forgive me for being blunt, but I’d like to throw out a bit of a challenge to you.

You see, this objection of yours has been raised many, many times…both here on Catholic Answers forums, and in treatments by philosophers down through the ages (Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Leibniz, C. S Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne to name a very few indeed).

It seems to me that in the interest of moving dialogue forward we have a bit of a responsibility to reply to answers to our objections instead of simply restating objections that have already been answered as though they were somehow quite novel and interesting.

If you genuinely are unaware of the well-reasoned answers to your objection, I would be very happy to send you some resources which provide detailed answers to this question. Please feel free to message me if you would like these.

Best wishes,

Steve

 

[hicetnunc]

I have no reason to agree with the claim that a non-intelligent cause cannot produce an intelligent effect.

As a matter of fact, complexity emerges from simplicity all over nature. It appears safe to assume that intelligence could have emerged out of a non-intelligent source.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly

Hello again Viviphalia. You seem to be making the assumption that intelligence is something complex and unintelligence something simple. Complexity and simplicity refer to matter because they refer to heterogenous parts found in physical things. There is no complexity in intelligence in the philosophical sense. For this reason, God and spirit is referred to as simple, not complex. The use of these words in philsophy do not correspond to physical objects.

Having no reason to agree with a claim is not the same thing as having a reason. There is very good reason why a non-intelligence cannot produce an intelligence because it is not something but a word used to describe a privation of something. For example, we know that a force can produce acceleration or motion, because force is something and so it can produce an effect consistent with its own nature. A non-force cannot produce anything because it is a privation.

Hope this helps. Happy to discuss this further if you wish.

Best wishes,

Steve

 

[hicetnunc]

I also would like to discuss this issue. What troubles me however is that this discussion will turn into a referrendum on Thomas which I think is unjustified in light of the centuries since his arguments and thinking has been formulated.

Thanks for those thoughts WillP.

I am very happy to leave Thomas’ name out of the discussion if that helps. It seems to me however that we should be evaluating his contributions to the discussion on the merits of what he has to say rather than the age in which he lived. Either what he has said is true or not true, helpful or not helpful.

In fact, with the passage of time, Thomas’ arguments have been put to the test. Some of the things he wrote about can be safely set aside, such as his thoughts on certain medical matters and perhaps the nature of time. But many of his metaphysical insights still endure today and are very much part of the contemporary discourse in philosophy. And I’ll go a bit further and say even some of his metaphysical insights are being borne out by advances in quantum mechanics. For example, Thomas anticipated the Big Bang in the 13th century.

But enough of that for the time being…on to the discussion at hand! Perhaps I could ask you why you designate yourself as a sceptic? Would you consider yourself a total sceptic in reference to everything, or in a Humean sense? In other words, are you sceptical about our ability to know things, metaphysical things?

All the best!

Steve

 

[cc42]

WillP and Viviphilia:

WillP you are correct the argument is Medieval but that doesn’t make it logically invalid. I think it would be beneficial if one of you pointed out a flawed premise and then we can see if the argument works or not.

 

[Viviphilia]

Hi Steve,

It seems to me that in the interest of moving dialogue forward we have a bit of a responsibility to reply to answers to our objections instead of simply restating objections that have already been answered as though they were somehow quite novel and interesting.

If you genuinely are unaware of the well-reasoned answers to your objection, I would be very happy to send you some resources which provide detailed answers to this question. Please feel free to message me if you would like these.

I didn’t claim that my point was novel or interesting. Sometimes reality can be boring, especially when one chooses a parsimonious conclusion instead of an overly complex conclusion. If you’d rather post a citation which you believe makes your point for you, I’ll try to take a look at it.

You seem to be making the assumption that intelligence is something complex and unintelligence something simple. Complexity and simplicity refer to matter because they refer to heterogenous parts found in physical things. There is no complexity in intelligence in the philosophical sense. For this reason, God and spirit is referred to as simple, not complex. The use of these words in philsophy do not correspond to physical objects.

Complexity is a measure of information required to explain a phenomena. I see no reason why that measure would be limited to physical phenomena. It seems counter-intuitive and contradictory to imply that intelligence could be simple. If it were simple, wouldn’t we all have an abundance of it? Wouldn’t intelligence be easy to reproduce in the laboratory if it were simple? If you rely on a special pleading fallacy, anything you want could be looked at as simple.

I’m interested in that concept of a simple God. But I expect it would take a lot of special pleading to get to that conclusion.

Having no reason to agree with a claim is not the same thing as having a reason. There is very good reason why a non-intelligence cannot produce an intelligence because it is not something but a word used to describe a privation of something. For example, we know that a force can produce acceleration or motion, because force is something and so it can produce an effect consistent with its own nature. A non-force cannot produce anything because it is a privation.

Force is defined in several ways, some physical, others more spiritual. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up a “non-force” since I feel it is safe to assume the universe has always existed.

By the way, there is only one “a” in Viviphilia.

 

[Viviphilia]

WillP and Viviphilia:

WillP you are correct the argument is Medieval but that doesn’t make it logically invalid. I think it would be beneficial if one of you pointed out a flawed premise and then we can see if the argument works or not.

Exactly which argument are you referring to - some ontological argument? Of course the age of an argument does not necessarily affect its validity.

 

[WillP]

WillP and Viviphilia:

WillP you are correct the argument is Medieval but that doesn’t make it logically invalid. I think it would be beneficial if one of you pointed out a flawed premise and then we can see if the argument works or not.

Thomas, Anselm and other medieval philosophers produced their proofs for god based upon a form of “wordsmithing” .

The basic idea is the same in all of these cases in that the ontological arguments attempt to show that we can deduce God’s existence from, so to speak, the very definition of God. The syllagisme goes like this:

If the ultimate cause is called God, and, if everything must have a cause then there is a God.

I find the argument charming but what there is in the cosmos, what makes up reality, how it is that there is something and not nothing is better responded to by science.

 

[Viviphilia]

And I’ll go a bit further and say even some of his metaphysical insights are being borne out by advances in quantum mechanics. For example, Thomas anticipated the Big Bang in the 13th century.

Hi Steve,

Excuse my ignorance, but how do you figure Aquinas anticipated the “Big Bang?” A general answer will suffice as opposed to a specific citation.

It’s a common misconception that the Big Bang (BB) hypothesis is an explanation of the creation of the universe. However, all the BB hypothesis really does is explain the phenomena of uniform cosmic microwave background radiation. To put it simply, the Big Bang is as far back in space-time as our telescopes are able to “see.”

I don’t know of any good reason to conclude that the universe did not exist before the BB. The cyclic universe model is one attempt to hypothesize about pre-Big Bang conditions. Of course, the existence of a deity is another hypothesis. I don’t claim to know with certainty which is true. Lacking compelling evidence otherwise, it seems fair to assume the universe existed before the Big Bang.

I try to remind myself that this is one of the most fundamental questions of our existence and it might be better to accept that I’ll never have a satisfying answer, rather than jump to an erroneous conclusion. Until we understand better what really happened, I suppose we’re both looking at the past in a sort of axiomatic way. You seem to have some certainty about the beginning of the universe, and I’m not convinced that there was ever a time when the universe didn’t yet exist. I’m just not convinced that the universe needed to be brought into existence.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your position.

• V

 

[ReapReason]

This presupposes that the universe requires a reason

This presupposes that it is reasonable for a potential evolving universe to have no rational reason for its existence.

 

[tonyrey]

This presupposes that it is reasonable for a potential evolving universe to have no rational reason for its existence.

The reign of unreason remains unrestrained!

 

[tonyrey]

Thomas, Anselm and other medieval philosophers produced their proofs for god based upon a form of “wordsmithing” .

The basic idea is the same in all of these cases in that the ontological arguments attempt to show that we can deduce God’s existence from, so to speak, the very definition of God. The syllagisme goes like this:

If the ultimate cause is called God, and, if everything must have a cause then there is a God.

I find the argument charming but what there is in the cosmos, what makes up reality, how it is that there is something and not nothing is better responded to by science.

Which amounts to having blind faith that science can explain everything - including itself - overlooking the fact that science is the product of reasoning…

 

[cc42]

WillP and Viviphilia:

WillP:

I am not putting forward an ontological argument. My argument is that all things are dependent upon something else for the changes that take place within them, seems reasonable. But this dependence can’t go on forever so there must be something that isn’t dependent. This must be God. From that it just logically follows that God is omnipotent and perfect. I think a problem that sceptics have is they conceptualize consmological arguments as arguing for something like the god Atlas holding the earth on his shoulders. Because if the earth needs Atlas to hold it then what supports Atlas? Rather imagine the analogy to work this way, imagine you’re pumping a bike tire the tire is completely dependent upon you to pump it up but you don’t need to be pumped by another pumper. Likewise the universe is dependent upon God but that doesn’t mean God is dependent upon another god going into infinite regress.

Viviphilia:

So that you know Aquinas would have thought that the Big Bang proves the existence of God but he doubted that science would ever discover or be able to prove it.

The argument that I put forth you can read above and tell me if you find a flaw in it.

The argument is not that the universe needed to have a beginning but that changes in the universe need a changeless being as their ultimate cause. I do think an argument can be made that the universe has to of had a beginning though. Here it is:

If the universe is without beginning then it logically is required to have all of its events go into an infinite series. Is it possible for events to go into an infinite series? I don’t think so because in order for one event to have the features that cause the next then the event must precede the other event. But an event can only come before the event that follows it if it exists prior to it. But if all events exist in an infnite series then events can’t exist before other events because then that would require that the infinite series of events were to increase. But an infinite can’t increase. Therefore if the universe had no beginning then events can’t precede each other and causality would be impossible. Obviously events precede each other and causality exists, so the universe can’t logically exist with no beginning.

If the arguments that I have given are flawed or incoherent please let me know. Thanks

 

[hicetnunc]

Excuse my ignorance, but how do you figure Aquinas anticipated the “Big Bang?” A general answer will suffice as opposed to a specific citation.

Totally excused Viviphilia. We all have to start somewhere!

Father Georges Lemaitre, the Belgian priest and scientist who first proposed what later became known as Big Bang theory was inspired in his search for the cause of the universe by his reading of Thomistic cosmology. You can read more about this and find direction to experts in the field if you’re interested at the Farady Institude for Science and Religion.

It’s a common misconception that the Big Bang (BB) hypothesis is an explanation of the creation of the universe. However, all the BB hypothesis really does is explain the phenomena of uniform cosmic microwave background radiation.

Cosmic background radition is certainly an effect of the Big Bang and certainly not all that is explained by it. Check out the NASA website which has a great primer on how the big bang is understood in contemporary phsycics and astronomy.

You seem to have some certainty about the beginning of the universe, and I’m not convinced that there was ever a time when the universe didn’t yet exist. I’m just not convinced that the universe needed to be brought into existence.

As I suggested in my last post with my friendly challenge, this is an old objection with numerous excellent arguments that have been put forward explaining why the universe has a beginning. Perhaps if you replied to one of those arguments with a new objection we might move ahead a little?

All the best Viviphilia…and thanks for your interesting and thoughtful comments!

Steve

Coeli enarrant gloriam Dei et opera manuum eius adnuntiat firmamentum.

 

[Viviphilia]

As I suggested in my last post with my friendly challenge, this is an old objection with numerous excellent arguments that have been put forward explaining why the universe has a beginning. Perhaps if you replied to one of those arguments with a new objection we might move ahead a little?

If you could just narrow it down a bit by pointing out which argument includes a discussion of empirical evidence of pre-Big Bang conditions, that would be helpful. Thanks.

 

[Viviphilia]

My argument is that all things are dependent upon something else for the changes that take place within them, seems reasonable. But this dependence can’t go on forever so there must be something that isn’t dependent. This must be God.

1. I don’t find “no black swans” arguments to be very persuasive. Also, there are many examples of self-organizing systems in nature. Why couldn’t the universe itself simply have eternal existence and be self organizing?
2. Assume the dependence you mentioned does exist, why can’t it go on forever?
3. Assuming the above two premises, why would I then conclude that there must be some deity, rather than an unintelligent universe?

The argument is not that the universe needed to have a beginning but that changes in the universe need a changeless being as their ultimate cause. I do think an argument can be made that the universe has to of had a beginning though. Here it is:

If the universe is without beginning then it logically is required to have all of its events go into an infinite series. Is it possible for events to go into an infinite series? I don’t think so because in order for one event to have the features that cause the next then the event must precede the other event. But an event can only come before the event that follows it if it exists prior to it. But if all events exist in an infnite series then events can’t exist before other events because then that would require that the infinite series of events were to increase. But an infinite can’t increase. Therefore if the universe had no beginning then events can’t precede each other and causality would be impossible. Obviously events precede each other and causality exists, so the universe can’t logically exist with no beginning.

I’m not sure how you can pull any gods out of your conditions without committing a special pleading fallacy.

Why do you claim that infinity can’t increase?

 

[hicetnunc]

If you could just narrow it down a bit by pointing out which argument includes a discussion of empirical evidence of pre-Big Bang conditions, that would be helpful. Thanks.

Why does it need to be empirical evidence?

 

[WillP]

Which amounts to having blind faith that science can explain everything - including itself - overlooking the fact that science is the product of reasoning…

Science is indeed the product of reasoning. I would think you would recognize that the ability to reason is paramont to our ability to see reality.

How could you possibly argue otherwise?

 

[sw85]

The universe could just as easily be the source of its own existence.

A thing cannot cause itself. Maybe you mean the universe itself is the first cause. Problematically, see Aquinas’ First Cause argument (which understands “cause” differently than it’s being advanced here – Aquinas himself didn’t think the universe necessarily needed explanation).

My point simply is that your cosmological argument arguably supports the proposition that there must be a first cause or untimate principle. Certainly, in the abstract, this proposition has appeal. However, I note that some respected scientists reason that this is not necessarily so (Lawrence Krauss, for example).

Krauss’ book is being badly fisked by everyone. There is nearly no one who thinks it’s good philosophy and few who think it’s good science. For the “why it’s bad science” take, click here. For the “why it’s bad philosophy” take, here.

Nonetheless, that there may be an ultimate principle, as I said, is not an unreasonable position. Thus, having accepted, for the sake of this discussion, that it is so, then why do we “personify” this ultimate principle by adding such anthromorphic “toppings” as love, needs or expectations for devotion, worship, plus the other add-on’s like redemptive objectives?

Quick point, no one thinks God has “needs.”

Second, see Aquinas’ First Cause argument. The actual text of it. Every instance of being derives from an ultimate perfection or plenitude of being. Whatever is, is present in God. Consciousness, volition, goodness, etc., all are, therefore they exist (in their most perfected form) in God.

If, though, you merely posit that there is some ultimate defining principle which makes reality real then I don’t find that implausable. Not something I am really convinced of, but, nonetheless, plausable. The difficulty, which I hope I am now clear concerning, is when one attempts to extropolate off of this plausable proposition and endow this ultimate reality with personhood, investing it with plans, desires, motivations and all the elements which makes up the bulk of religion,.

We’re all aware that the modern hankering for God is that he be faceless, nameless, pointless, blind, dumb, etc., and utterly uninterested in how many times a day we masturbate (or whatever). But it is an ontological impossibility. He cannot not be the plenitude of being and thus possess in its most perfected form every thing that can be said to be. Again, see Aquinas.

 

[Viviphilia]

Why does it need to be empirical evidence?

As I said earlier, I don’t want to jump to erroneous conclusions about such a fundamentally important issue. Logical arguments about the existence of the universe are interesting, but lacking empirical evidence about the premises, one lacks soundness. That is especially true in your argument, where you appear to have some certainty about the origin of the universe.

 

[Needtostop]

“I don’t understand why you think your blind Goddess is real. You’re saying it’s impossible for the universe to have been created by the Supreme Being but it’s perfectly possible for an irrational, purposeless, all-powerful force that has emerged out of a void and knows absolutely nothing to be the source of all truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. It doesn’t quite add up to me.”

I told him this, (not the goddess part), but he keeps insisting that’snot what he saying. But he hasn’t told me what he is saying then.