How do I respond to this argument?

[tonyrey]

*“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.” *

In that case you’re wasting your time and energy!

 

[tonyrey]

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

To believe science can explain everything implies that reality is entirely physical and everything that can’t be observed by the senses is an illusion.

 

[hicetnunc]

Logical arguments about the existence of the universe are interesting, but lacking empirical evidence about the premises, one lacks soundness.

Really? Then what is your empirical evidence for the claim that “lacking empirical evidence about premises one lacks soundness”?

 

[Viviphilia]

Really? Then what is your empirical evidence for the claim that “lacking empirical evidence about premises one lacks soundness”?

I was talking about logical arguments about the origin of the universe, not all logical arguments in general. Since the universe is a physical matter of fact, it seems reasonable to desire empirical evidence when making claims about its origins. We can both make conclusions about the origin of the universe, but without empirical evidence supporting our conclusions, they lack soundness. From my perspective, such conclusions are inherently weak and we should hesitate to commit.

 

[ReapReason]

I was talking about logical arguments about the origin of the universe, not all logical arguments in general. Since the universe is a physical matter of fact, it seems reasonable to desire empirical evidence when making claims about its origins. We can both make conclusions about the origin of the universe, but without empirical evidence supporting our conclusions, they lack soundness. From my perspective, such conclusions are inherently weak and we should hesitate to commit.

Hello Human, It has been a conclusion of my studies while residing on this planet that you tend to assume that all possible knowledge about the universe is intrinsically empirical in nature. This in itself is a philosophical position that many humans assume to be true but very few show evidence of its justification. In fact there is no empirical justification for it. Also, any empirical evidence about the universe is necessarily going to yield physical results, and so the method is forever biased in favour of natural causes. Thus it really is a circular argument to say that we have only found such and such a cause according to a particular method and that therefore this is the only method that matters.

If a philosopher can show that it is logically and metaphysically impossible for the universe, as a whole, to have a physical cause, then there is no reason not to accept the conclusion unless other possibilities can be shown that negate the conclusion.

By By Human

 

[Fulminedes]

It is a common mistake atheists make - to put the creation before the Creator. If spacetime exists, if cause and effect are valid frames of reference, then what do they exist in relation to? There is quite a bit of secondary and circumstantial evidence that suggests there are deeper and more profound states than the strictly material. This suggests that any creative agency likely exists outside of spacetime, and only influences it when it suits Him. A bit like, to suggest an imperfect analogy, a person standing outside a tapestry, looking at it as it stretches from one side of the wall to the other. It doesn’t PROVE anything, in material terms, but it is more likely, by far, than random chance - which is ultimately the athiests’ position.

 

[hicetnunc]

We can both make conclusions about the origin of the universe, but without empirical evidence supporting our conclusions, they lack soundness. From my perspective, such conclusions are inherently weak and we should hesitate to commit.

Thank you for that, but you haven’t answered my question: what is the empirical evidence that supports such a claim if, without empirical evidence, arguments lack “soundness”?

 

[Viviphilia]

Hello Human, It has been a conclusion of my studies while residing on this planet that you tend to assume that all possible knowledge about the universe is intrinsically empirical in nature. This in itself is a philosophical position that many humans assume to be true but very few show evidence of its justification. In fact there is no empirical justification for it. Also, any empirical evidence about the universe is necessarily going to yield physical results, and so the method is forever biased in favour of natural causes. Thus it really is a circular argument to say that we have only found such and such a cause according to a particular method and that therefore this is the only method that matters.

Why are you falsely attributing to me positions which I have never maintained? It appears you are jumping to conclusions. I’m genuinely surprised at how common that sort of error is on this forum. I’m beginning to think it might be due to an over valuation of a priori knowledge and an undervaluation of a posteriori knowledge.

The universe is a physical matter of fact. It isn’t a logical construct. If it were entirely a logical construct, then *a priori *knowledge might be able to justify a strong conclusion about the universe. However, since the universe is a physical matter of fact, one would expect to have some a posteriori knowledge about it’s origins before claiming certainty about those origins.

If a philosopher can show that it is logically and metaphysically impossible for the universe, as a whole, to have a physical cause, then there is no reason not to accept the conclusion unless other possibilities can be shown that negate the conclusion.

In order for that to be true, one would first need to show that physical things can arise entirely out of logical constructs. I don’t see how that could be possible. Can you show me an example of such a causal relationship where a physical thing arises out of a logical construct? It seems intuitive to assume that physical things can only arise out of physical things and I don’t see how a logical or metaphysical argument could possibly make your point.

 

[Viviphilia]

Thank you for that, but you haven’t answered my question: what is the empirical evidence that supports such a claim if, without empirical evidence, arguments lack “soundness”?

I wasn’t making a general statement about logical arguments. My statement was specifically, “about the existence of the universe.”

I am aware that logical arguments do not always require empirical evidence for soundness. But using a logical argument to attempt to explain a physical phenomena does create a burden for empirical evidence in order to justify any strong conclusions.

 

[Taestron]

I am aware that logical arguments do not always require empirical evidence for soundness. But using a logical argument to attempt to explain a physical phenomena does create a burden for empirical evidence in order to justify any strong conclusions.

I understand what you are saying, but I am unclear on a point. We are claiming to have some sort of knowledge about the beginning of the physical universe which appears to be valid prema facie. Whether or not this fits into a posteriori evidence is irrelevant if there are no a posteriori evidences. So if we have a valid argument, and you have not shown how the alternatives are actually possible (in our opinion), why does this argument lack the evidence it needs to be believable?

 

[Viviphilia]

We are claiming to have some sort of knowledge about the beginning of the physical universe which appears to be valid prema facie.

If you assume the universe had a beginning, then of course it would appear prima facia that the universe had a beginning. What I am saying is that I know of no empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning. Since we are presently unable to “see” past the Big Bang, I am reasonably hesitant to make strong conclusions about what occurred before the Big Bang.

Whether or not this fits into a posteriori evidence is irrelevant if there are no a posteriori evidences. So if we have a valid argument, and you have not shown how the alternatives are actually possible (in our opinion), why does this argument lack the evidence it needs to be believable?

Just because we have not yet uncovered empirical evidence of the events before the Big Bang does not imply that no evidence exists, or that we can jump to conclusions which seem logical. Having a valid a priori argument about the events before the Big Bang is valuable, but it doesn’t really justify strong conclusions. Making the leap from logic to physical explanation appears specious, although it might permit some tentative conclusions. As I said earlier, I’m just not sure what occurred before the Big Bang. It could be that some deity existed and created the universe, or it could be that the universe always existed and did not need to be created, or there could be some other alternative which we aren’t currently aware of.

Why do you feel the need to make certain conclusions about physical facts based entirely on logic? Was I wrong in my understanding that scholasticism is obsolete?

 

[Taestron]

If you assume the universe had a beginning, then of course it would appear prima facia that the universe had a beginning. What I am saying is that I know of no empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning. Since we are presently unable to “see” past the Big Bang, I am reasonably hesitant to make strong conclusions about what occurred before the Big Bang.

Well… I would hesitate to say we have no empirical evidence. Every other physical thing we are aware of has a beginning. Why should the universe be any different?

Just because we have not yet uncovered empirical evidence of the events before the Big Bang does not imply that no evidence exists, or that we can jump to conclusions which seem logical.

The same can be said for any false premise. We must make decisions (or defer decision) based on the evidence available to us. If we are unsatisfied with the evidence, we ought to pursue more evidence, yet this does not excuse us from recognizing what the current evidence says. Having faith in the future ability of science has always struck me as fanciful as my faith in a personal, interested deity must strike my atheist friends.

Having a valid a priori argument about the events before the Big Bang is valuable, but it doesn’t really justify strong conclusions. Making the leap from logic to physical explanation appears specious, although it might permit some tentative conclusions. As I said earlier, I’m just not sure what occurred before the Big Bang. It could be that some deity existed and created the universe, or it could be that the universe always existed and did not need to be created, or there could be some other alternative which we aren’t currently aware of.

Why do you feel the need to make certain conclusions about physical facts based entirely on logic? Was I wrong in my understanding that scholasticism is obsolete?

As to this last bit, I am sure it is obsolete in certain ways, but it thrives in others. If your critique is that purely logical arguments are not convincing and must contain empirical evidence to be believable so scholasticism is obsolete, then I would not disagree with you. However, just because an argument is unconvincing does not mean in is incorrect. Let us take the cosmological argument. Do we at least agree that it is valid? If so then we can quibble on the premises. (which is what we are doing anyway:thumbsup

So we have a logically valid argument. It seems like the premise you most disagree with is “there can be no infinite regress.” So let us honestly look at the empirical evidence. The inductive method tells us that since every physical entity we know has a beginning, the universe should also have a beginning. Science points to “the big bang” which if it didn’t create the universe, it can be described as the point from which science (in our current understanding) can go no further back. Now you might think that the universe has no beginning, but this is not an empirical claim, it is only a claim of possibility. However, since we have evidence, tentative as you think it is, in favor of one of the possibilities and no empirical evidence to the other then we should (tentatively?) hold to the conclusion that the evidence supports until such a time (if ever) when more evidence becomes available.

 

[cc42]

Viviphilia:

Thanks for responding.

This isn’t a “no black swan” argument, which is about a particular. This is about logic and universals. I explained why the universe can’t have eternal existence and why the argument that I gave doesn’t even require the universe to be finite as one of its premises. My argument is that changes are ultimately dependent upon something that doesn’t change and that would have to be God.

In order to be self organizing the universe would have to have a will which requires a mind. Do you think that the universe has a conscious mind?

Infinity means unlimited. Unlimited can’t become more unlimited, so infinity can’t increase.

 

[Perplexity]

Edit** I deleted my last post because it seemed too complicated: here’s an argument I wrote for why I don’t think the universe came into being. (Not sure about the title angry face? lol)

"Some mutakallimiin believe that the universe came into being because it, they allege, had a first state. This directly collides with an aspect of my intuitively held pre-philosophical notion of ‘coming into being’ derived from experience and testimony: when something comes into being, the total amount of existing things thereby increases. Here’s one way of explaining the collision:

1. If the universe came into being because it had a first state, then the total amount of existing things increased as a result of the universe’s first state obtaining.
2. But, the total amount of existing things did not increase as a result of the universe’s first state obtaining.
3. Therefore, the universe did not come into being because it had a first state.

Ignoring the more obvious complications for now, like what a ‘state’ amounts to, (1)’s antecedent seems sufficient for its consequent as its consequent seems necessary for its antecedent. As far as (2), granting that the universe had a first state and that time began at this state (mutakallimiin advance both claims), then unless the universe has failed to exist since then, it’s existed at all temporal indices to now. Thus, it’s always been included in the total amount of existing things, and therefore, that amount never increased as a result of the universe’s existing at any time, let alone its first state.

 

[Taestron]

1. Therefore, the universe did not come into being because it had a first state.

Ignoring the more obvious complications for now, like what a ‘state’ amounts to, (1)’s antecedent seems sufficient for its consequent as its consequent seems necessary for its antecedent. As far as (2), granting that the universe had a first state and that time began at this state (mutakallimiin advance both claims), then unless the universe has failed to exist since then, it’s existed at all temporal indices to now. Thus, it’s always been included in the total amount of existing things, and therefore, that amount never increased as a result of the universe’s existing at any time, let alone its first state.

I am not exactly seeing what your argument is, but this is what I take you to mean. Time began at the first state, so we cannot really talk about “before” the first state of the universe. So if there was not before the first state, the universe did not come into being. Correct?

However, what if we subscribe to some sort of multiverse theory? In this case there may be some value in speaking “before” the universe’s first state as relative to another standard besides this physical universe. Let us assume that God is outside of time as traditional Christian philosophers claim. This gives us an outside standard with which to judge space-time. And then we can say that the universe did in fact come into existence.

 

[Perplexity]

I am not exactly seeing what your argument is, but this is what I take you to mean. Time began at the first state, so we cannot really talk about “before” the first state of the universe. So if there was not before the first state, the universe did not come into being. Correct?

However, what if we subscribe to some sort of multiverse theory? In this case there may be some value in speaking “before” the universe’s first state as relative to another standard besides this physical universe. Let us assume that God is outside of time as traditional Christian philosophers claim. This gives us an outside standard with which to judge space-time. And then we can say that the universe did in fact come into existence.

So long as time began at the first state, the total amount of existing things would not have increased as a result of the universe’s first state obtaining: it’d always have been a member of that amount in the first place. So, assuming, in addition, a multiverse theory, or the existence of an a-temporal creator etc., the total amount of existing things would still have not increased as a result of the universe’s beginning.

This increase being a condition for something’s coming into being, the universe would not have begun to exist. (This is an objection I use against creation ex nihilo also).

Far as I can see, the only way around my argument is to proffer a better analysis of ‘coming into being’, but I’ve not encountered one. (Including WLC’s latest).

 

[Viviphilia]

Well… I would hesitate to say we have no empirical evidence. Every other physical thing we are aware of has a beginning. Why should the universe be any different?

By my humble understanding, every physical thing in the universe emerged from some other physical thing in the universe. The rule is that physical things emerge from physical things. Yet some appear to be positing that a physical thing can be made from a non-physical thing. I don’t know how that could be possible. While I have not ruled it out, I do remain justifiably skeptical since I lack understanding.

The same can be said for any false premise. We must make decisions (or defer decision) based on the evidence available to us. If we are unsatisfied with the evidence, we ought to pursue more evidence, yet this does not excuse us from recognizing what the current evidence says.

I believe I specifically said that some weak conclusions might be justified. For example, my tentative conclusion is that the universe has always existed. That’s not very satisfying, I admit, and I plan to keep my mind open for future arguments.

I’m not sure why you would imply that I have faith in science. While I do think it is likely that some evidence for pre-Big Bang conditions will eventually emerge, I’m not certain of that potential outcome, nor do I claim certainty about the nature of such hypothetical events. My position is essentially speculative, but appears parsimonious. Some feel certain about what happened before the Big Bang, going so far as to claim that a deity must have existed and caused those events. While I find it difficult to rule that out, I find it justified to be respectfully skeptical.

So we have a logically valid argument. It seems like the premise you most disagree with is “there can be no infinite regress.” So let us honestly look at the empirical evidence. The inductive method tells us that since every physical entity we know has a beginning, the universe should also have a beginning. Science points to “the big bang” which if it didn’t create the universe, it can be described as the point from which science (in our current understanding) can go no further back. Now you might think that the universe has no beginning, but this is not an empirical claim, it is only a claim of possibility. However, since we have evidence, tentative as you think it is, in favor of one of the possibilities and no empirical evidence to the other then we should (tentatively?) hold to the conclusion that the evidence supports until such a time (if ever) when more evidence becomes available.

Physical things emerge from physical things. Since the universe is a physical thing, then, if it had a beginning, it seems likely it would have emerged from another physical thing. I might be able to get on board with a physical deity creating the universe, but that appears to lead to infinite regress, as that physical deity itself must have emerged from some other physical thing - possibly another deity, possibly turtles. Not a very satisfying conclusion.

The idea of a non-physical deity, I don’t understand and have nothing to relate to. Faith may suffice for some, but I find it unsatisfying. The parsimonious conclusion here is that the universe has always existed. I find that position somewhat satisfying, but still lacking. Logically, assuming the existence of a deity, I think Spinoza’s God would be the most likely. God IS the universe and has always existed, etc… Is that a heresy in Catholicism? I honestly don’t know. That might be one way for Needtostop to respond to his friend if that view is “approved.”

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

By my humble understanding, every physical thing in the universe emerged from some other physical thing in the universe. The rule is that physical things emerge from physical things. Yet some appear to be positing that a physical thing can be made from a non-physical thing. I don’t know how that could be possible. While I have not ruled it out, I do remain justifiably skeptical since I lack understanding.

I believe I specifically said that some weak conclusions might be justified. For example, my tentative conclusion is that the universe has always existed. That’s not very satisfying, I admit, and I plan to keep my mind open for future arguments.

I’m not sure why you would imply that I have faith in science. While I do think it is likely that some evidence for pre-Big Bang conditions will eventually emerge, I’m not certain of that potential outcome, nor do I claim certainty about the nature of such hypothetical events. My position is essentially speculative, but appears parsimonious. Some feel certain about what happened before the Big Bang, going so far as to claim that a deity must have existed and caused those events. While I find it difficult to rule that out, I find it justified to be respectfully skeptical.

Physical things emerge from physical things. Since the universe is a physical thing, then, if it had a beginning, it seems likely it would have emerged from another physical thing. I might be able to get on board with a physical deity creating the universe, but that appears to lead to infinite regress, as that physical deity itself must have emerged from some other physical thing - possibly another deity, possibly turtles. Not a very satisfying conclusion.

The idea of a non-physical deity, I don’t understand and have nothing to relate to. Faith may suffice for some, but I find it unsatisfying. The parsimonious conclusion here is that the universe has always existed. I find that position somewhat satisfying, but still lacking. Logically, assuming the existence of a deity, I think Spinoza’s God would be the most likely. God IS the universe and has always existed, etc… Is that a heresy in Catholicism? I honestly don’t know. That might be one way for Needtostop to respond to his friend if that view is “approved.”

The idea of a non-physical deity, I don’t understand and have nothing to relate to.

So, you do not understand, so, it does not exist. Isn’t it too much pride of yours? You understand maybe 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 % (and it is already too much) of the physical Universe.

Do you know that you cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the location of an electron in its orbit at a given moment ? That one photon may pass Through 2 holes at the same times and be at 2 places at the same time? Not to say the structure of the cell or the HIV virus or where the Universe ends or which is the last particle of the atom.

 

[cc42]

Perplexity:

I am not sure that I understand your proof, but I don’t know that it disproves creation ex nihilo. If we accept that matter hasn’t increased or decreased after the advent of creation ex nihilo that wouldn’t disprove creation ex nihilo.

 

[Viviphilia]

Hi HisIsTheCrown,

Thanks for posting. I just want to respectfully point out a few errors you made.

So, you do not understand, so, it does not exist.

The statement you made is a certain statement. I did not make such a certain statement. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Isn’t it too much pride of yours?

There is no need to insult me. If you would like to address my argument, please do so.

Do you know that you cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the location of an electron in its orbit at a given moment?

I believe that is false. You are probably misinterpreting the [Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia]Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.](Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia]Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.) What that principle says is that you cannot simultaneously measure with precision both position and momentum.

An interesting way to get around Uncertainty is called “weak measurement.” I’m basically using my own metaphysical interpretation of that idea in this discussion. I have some weak conclusions about pre-Big Bang events and I’m not certain what actually happened.

That one photon may pass Through 2 holes at the same times and be at 2 places at the same time?

That’s because a photon usually exists as a wave, which covers an area, not a point. You’re probably talking about the classic double-slit experiment.

Not to say the structure of the cell or the HIV virus or where the Universe ends or which is the last particle of the atom.

Sorry but I don’t understand what you’re saying there.

I hope you are not offended by this post and I apologize if I seem harsh.

-V