Philosophical Proofs For the Existence of God

[N80]

I’m not sure you are giving the problem of evil its due. The problem goes like this:

God is all good and all powerful.

Evil exists

If evil exists than either God is not all powerful or he is not all good.

This is a very valid and very powerful argument. It might seem simple to us because 1) we accept that the logic of man is flawed and limited and 2) we accept that we cannot know the mind and will of God.

The problem is that both of these presuppose something beyond man, which would be defines as a god or God. An argument that presupposes God’s existence is not valid in proving God’s existence. We Christians have a hard time looking at it that way. We know God (through scripture, other revelation, prayer and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit) so it is difficult for us to assume the purely secular philosophical position in this argument.

But this is the very thing that makes Plantinga’s work so brilliant for us and so devastating to secular science and philosophy: He defeated them on their turf and playing by their rules! In other words he uses all the well accepted secular principles of philosophy to disprove the argument from the problem of evil.

To me, this was incredibly liberating. As Christians we are often willing to concede that our religion is based on what Kierkegaard called a “leap to faith”. This is not faith as we are meant to practice it. This is more of a blind leap that is purely illogical and without much basis. Christians seem to have become comfortable with this idea and may even be proud of it, and, if it brings us to Christ it can be effective. But think about it: God gave us minds. God gave us his word, his covenants and promises. God gave us the book of Romans! Romans is in many ways an argument and explanation for Christianity. So it is clear that God intends us to use our minds to help us understand him, follow him and spread and defend the Gospel. He demands complete faith, but not necessarily blind faith. There is a difference. So for years I conceded that my faith was a bit of a blind leap and that I had little or no answers to the challenges that modern science brings to bear against Christianity. Now I don’t concede a thing! Alvin Plantinga essentially erased the last and most difficult philosophical challenge to the existence of God. Modern philosophy has conceded this victory to him. There is little or no challenge to his arguments in contemporary philosophy.

Why wasn’t this a huge event? Why don’t we all know his name? We have it all now. We have our faith, which is hard for the ‘world’ to understand. But now we have also shed the worldly idea that our faith is logically unsupportable. It isn’t. It makes perfect, reasonable and logical sense and we never have to concede that again.

George

 

[cpayne]

I’ve thought about the commonly used Christian philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and I think that there is something most Christian apologists are missing in their logic that I would like to point out.

Firstly, I’d like to talk about the Cosmological Argument.

This is an argument based on logical and scientific inferences from our observations on nature. It is true that nothing which begins to exist caused its own existence, for this is a illogical. Also, I’d like to point out that it is impossible, or at the very least logically unsatisfying, to assume an infinite regress in the chain of causality in the physical plane of matter/space/time. Whether or not a quantum shift, or God, or what have you, is the cause behind the big bang/creation of our universe, it is at the moment unimportant.

The most you can logically deduce from the cosmological argument is this, so far as I can tell.

1. That our universe plainly began to exist at a finite time ago, before which space/time/matter did not exist. This is evident from the big bang, and from the necessity of the illogicality of infinite regressions. Even if you think that maybe there was a big crunch/big bang circling into infinity, this would still constitute a necessarily illogical position due to this simply still being an infinite regression with no end or logically necessary beginning, and this is true for multiple universe theories as well. So really whether or not big bangs/crunches are part of the natural order, those too must necessarily begin at a finite amount of events ago in the past, otherwise the concept of infinity would leave those events without ever reaching the present. In fact I might go so far as to postulate (just my own idea) that infinity is impossibly in the physical world. Thus at the very least we can postulate that the most reasonable position to conclude from logical and scientific evidence is that our universe began at a finite amount of events ago.
2. Since it is illogical, or at the very least scientifically and logically unsatisfying to postulate that nothing caused our universe to begin, we can conclude that something caused the universe to begin. Ultimately this is as far as the cosmological argument will allow us to go.

I feel like Christians take a logical jump at this point, and this is where I feel this argument will fail in their favor. At best, I believe all you can conclude is that it is the most reasonable position to hold our universe began and had a cause to its beginning. Logic and philosophy can only take us this far. To jump from that to say “so clearly God caused the universe” makes a logical and philosophical jump without merit.

Simply from the logic and science, one can only conclude that there must necessarily be a cause, but at the very best all we can say about that cause is that we simply do not and can not, by light of science and reason/logic/philosophy alone, know what that cause is.

Thus the most reasonable position you can hold based on this logic is one of agnosticism. I feel like this is in fact a good starting point for Christian apologetics since you could go on from here to show why you feel the belief in the Christian concept of God is the most reasonable belief about what the unknown cause is, but I feel it is dishonest logically speaking to jump immediately from the position of logically reasonable agnosticism to Christianity. That is all.

First of all: I have not read the entire thread. My apologies in advance if someone else has already pointed out what I’m about to say.

Hi, Fnord. I would argue that in the classical formulation of the cosmological argument (i.e., Aquinas’s), neither one of these two points is made.

(1) First, Aquinas does not assume that our universe began a finite time ago. In fact, he assumes the opposite: that the universe is eternal, since he did not know of the Big Bang. Either way (finite or eternal), it doesn’t matter to his argument.

(2) Because of this, he does not assume that something caused our universe “to begin.” He argues for God as the cause of the universe’s EXISTENCE, not its BEGINNING.

To conclude: Neither one of the points you seem to regard as foundational for the cosmological argument, is in fact part of the cosmological argument.

 

[N80]

I’m no expert and am probably missing St. Thomas’s finer points but this is what I read from the Summa:

Question 46, First Article

“Objection 1: It would seem that the universe of creatures, called the world, had no beginning, but existed from eternity.”

St. Thomas replies, “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal…It is not therefore necessary for the world to be always…”

My understanding is that St. Thomas felt that philosophy could neither prove nor disprove that the world was eternal and that the argument is resolved via divine revelation…not philosophy.

George

 

[cpayne]

I’m no expert and am probably missing St. Thomas’s finer points but this is what I read from the Summa:

Question 46, First Article

“Objection 1: It would seem that the universe of creatures, called the world, had no beginning, but existed from eternity.”

St. Thomas replies, “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal…It is not therefore necessary for the world to be always…”

My understanding is that St. Thomas felt that philosophy could neither prove nor disprove that the world was eternal and that the argument is resolved via divine revelation…not philosophy.

George

Thanks; I should have been more precise. Your last paragraph is what I was trying to say. Aquinas, of course, believed (from the Bible) that the universe began. But he did not think it could be proven (as you say) and it wasn’t essential for his cosmological argument, anyway. So he assumes, for the sake of argument, the more difficult position, that it did not begin (even though that is not necessarily the case).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

OK, I did indeed misinterpret your argument, but then I think what you are actually arguing is even less convincing because either

a) it’s still the fine-tuning argument, it’s just pushed back a step and applied to the conditions under which universes are created, rather than any one particular universe.

or (even worse)

b) you are arguing that it is too improbable that random processes could create a complex structure like a universe. Unless you can put some numbers on those probabilities, this is no different to a creationist arguing that it is too improbable for random processes to create a complex structure like an eye.

hello…?

 

[Nebogipfel]

Can you prove that YOU exist? Can you prove that the Universe exists?

If yes, you have proof that God exists. Existence proves for me that God exists - just as sitting on the branch of a tree inherently tells me that the Tree exists

You wish me to refute the hypothesis that neither myself nor the external universe exists? Very well…

bangs head on table and goes OW!

I refute it thus.

Therefore, God exists…?

Not convinced. Sorry.

 

[Nebogipfel]

thanks for the suggestion, but ive had a few physics classes.


you are confusing observing an effect (cathode rays being deflected) with the cause,(the charge nature of electrons)

my point is that electrons are not physically observable, their nature has been determined by the effects they cause

in the same way we can determine much about the nature of first cause, from its effect, the observable universe.

there is no reason to believe that we cannot use similar tools on similar problems.

Indeed. So if you would like to show me some repeatable, objective experimental results that demonstrate the existence of the unmoved mover…

 

[Nebogipfel]

the argument is simply about the probability of any universe being created by a random act.

as there are an infinite number of possible universes, the chances of any particular uinverse is 1:infinity. this is true no matter what kind of universe we are talking about.

i have assigned it those odds for that reason.

you have been busy trying to refute an argument i am not making,
life, structure, eyes, and protestant creationism have nothing to do with it.

if you don’t understand it i can clarify it further. its really much simpler than you are making it.

Yes, it’s much simpler, and much less convincing. Really, of all the unconvincing “proofs” for the existence of God, that must be the least convincing one. It is about as convincing as Douglas Adams’ “proof” in The Hichhikers Guide To The Galaxy, that the population of the universe must be zero.

Here’s why:

I have a ten-sided die here, sides numbered zero to nine. I throw it ten times and get this:

0 6 4 7 5 6 3 1 0 7

But that can’t be right; the odds of getting that result are - literally - one in ten billion! It surely defies all rationality to think that I could get that sequence by chance alone.

Let’s try again:

1 9 7 4 1 0 9 5 3 8

Another miracle! the odds of getting that precise sequence of numbers is again one in ten billion; and in fact the odds of getting those two sequences one after the other is one one in a hundred billion billion. I could have rolled dice from the beginning of the universe until now, and not got that sequence of numbers.

No, it’s just too improbable for mere random chance to explain those two results. There must have been some intelligent agency influencing the die rolls. There just must have been… mustn’t there?

And really, the difference between one chance in a hundred billion and one chance in infinity does not make a difference here. And if you’re going to argue that only those particular sequences have a meaning, and it’s too improbable that those particular sequences occurred by chance, then we’re back to fine-tuning again.

 

[Nebogipfel]

There’s been a lot of reference to the First Cause argument. Here’s why I’m not convinced by it:

Rests on meaningless premisses
Saying that every physical thing requires a cause, and no physical thing can be the cause of itself, begs the question of what is a “physical thing” as opposed to a “non-physical thing”. Since the definition of “physical thing” seems to encompass the really wierd things like photons, electrons and the vacuum itself, “physical thing” just seems to mean “thing which requires a cause”.
So all the premisses are saying is that everything which requires a cause, must have had a cause, and everything requires a cause except for the things which don’t - a meaningless definition.

Leads to paradoxical conclusions
It would appear that time, space and physical laws as we know them came into existence at the moment of the big bang. Without these concepts, the very notion of “causality” is meaningless; so what sense does it make to talk about an “uncaused cause”?

**
Requires a logical fallacy to get to God.**
Even if it is accepted that an “uncaused cause” created the universe, there is no logical reason to attribute things like “personhood” or “will to create” with this primal entity. This is a complete non-sequitor.

What’s wrong with infinite regress anyway?
The only reason for making the first cause argument in the first place is the queasy feeling one gets when considering an infinite regression. But why is an infinite regression any less (ir)rational than a timeless eternal person-like entity? The sequence of negative integers arranged in ascending order ends at -1, but has no first term (or the first term is “minus infinity”, which is the same thing). Does that make the ascending sequence of negative integers an irrational concept?

So if you’re seriously asking why I don’t consider the First Cause argument airtight proof of the existence of God, then I must seriously answer, it’s because it starts with meaningless premisses and goes to meaningless conclusions by way of a logical fallacy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Indeed. So if you would like to show me some repeatable, objective experimental results that demonstrate the existence of the unmoved mover…

ive never used the words unmoved mover. are you sure you mean me?

thayt said i assume you mean first cause. if that is the case then, i need only point to the fact that a universe exists, the experiment is continual and ongoing, all the constituent parts of the universe need a creator, what leads you to believe that the universe does not.

every effect is preceded by a cause, the experiment you request is repeated an untold number of times per second.

assuming you thought this out, how is it that this instances do not qualify?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, it’s much simpler, and much less convincing. Really, of all the unconvincing “proofs” for the existence of God, that must be the least convincing one. It is about as convincing as Douglas Adams’ “proof” in The Hichhikers Guide To The Galaxy, that the population of the universe must be zero.

i havent read douglas adams since 1983, that said, keep the rhetoric to a minimum.

Here’s why:

I have a ten-sided die here, sides numbered zero to nine. I throw it ten times and get this:

0 6 4 7 5 6 3 1 0 7

But that can’t be right; the odds of getting that result are - literally - one in ten billion! It surely defies all rationality to think that I could get that sequence by chance alone.

if you only threw the die once your odds are 1:10, there is no sequence, the die was thrown once.

try odds of 1:infinity, i dont think you understand that this is the next thing too ‘impossible’ one in ten billion is a laughably small set of odds in comparison.

one in as many zeroes as the entire universe could hold would be a laughable sum in comparison to odds of 1:infinity.

Let’s try again:

1 9 7 4 1 0 9 5 3 8

Another miracle! the odds of getting that precise sequence of numbers is again one in ten billion; and in fact the odds of getting those two sequences one after the other is one one in a hundred billion billion. I could have rolled dice from the beginning of the universe until now, and not got that sequence of numbers.

No, it’s just too improbable for mere random chance to explain those two results. There must have been some intelligent agency influencing the die rolls. There just must have been… mustn’t there?

And really, the difference between one chance in a hundred billion and one chance in infinity does not make a difference here.

that would seem to be the crux of the matter itself. odds on one in infinity make this universe 1 chance away from impossible as the result of a random act.

further, there is no sequence of rolls, the universe was only one roll.

but you dont actually seem to be making an argument here other than to derisively dismiss the odds based on nothing other than an incompatible analogy of multiple rolls concerning a 10 sided die.

the derisive tone of your response tells me that you may not have a rational refutation of my exact argument, you keep giving anti creationism arguments,

you may not agree but i need a mathematical, or logical refutation that fits the exact argument i am making.

it would have been more accurate if you rolled an infinite sided die, just once.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There’s been a lot of reference to the First Cause argument. Here’s why I’m not convinced by it:

Rests on meaningless premisses
Saying that every physical thing requires a cause, and no physical thing can be the cause of itself, begs the question of what is a “physical thing” as opposed to a “non-physical thing”. Since the definition of “physical thing” seems to encompass the really wierd things like photons, electrons and the vacuum itself, “physical thing” just seems to mean “thing which requires a cause”.
So all the premisses are saying is that everything which requires a cause, must have had a cause, and everything requires a cause except for the things which don’t - a meaningless definition.

physical things obey physical laws.

i.e the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, weak/strong nuclear, etc, etc.

or the wiki definition:

Any entities which are composed of matter and/or energy, as well as the physical properties of those entities; and not merely items of thought or belief

Leads to paradoxical conclusions
It would appear that time, space and physical laws as we know them came into existence at the moment of the big bang. Without these concepts, the very notion of “causality” is meaningless; so what sense does it make to talk about an “uncaused cause”?

why should cause be dependent on these things?
why is cause meaningless without the these concepts?

further, why would theoretical physicists search for the cause of the big bang if thse learned men of science thought that no cause was necessary for it?

**
Requires a logical fallacy to get to God.**
Even if it is accepted that an “uncaused cause” created the universe, there is no logical reason to attribute things like “personhood” or “will to create” with this primal entity. This is a complete non-sequitor.

back to the random act argument.

only two possibilities random act or independent actor, and the odds arent with some uncaused random act.(which would be a cause

What’s wrong with infinite regress anyway?
The only reason for making the first cause argument in the first place is the queasy feeling one gets when considering an infinite regression. But why is an infinite regression any less (ir)rational than a timeless eternal person-like entity? The sequence of negative integers arranged in ascending order ends at -1, but has no first term (or the first term is “minus infinity”, which is the same thing). Does that make the ascending sequence of negative integers an irrational concept?

check out the second law of thermodynamics, an always existing universe isn’t possible

So if you’re seriously asking why I don’t consider the First Cause argument airtight proof of the existence of God, then I must seriously answer, it’s because it starts with meaningless premisses and goes to meaningless conclusions by way of a logical fallacy.

ok so to summarize the reasons you doubt first cause.

1. the definition of physical is… im sorry i really cant tell what that argument is, use the dictionary definition
2. the universe doesnt need a cause, because it didn’t exist…that looks a lot more like a statement than an argument.

further, science disagrees with you, they keep looking for a cause.

1. first cause isn’t necessarily G-d… Hey! you made a point here.

i disagree because a random act is all but impossible, that requires a kind of faith you cant fing in church.

1. infinite regress is ok

make up your mind, either the universe needs a cause or it doesnt.

but its refuted anyway by basic sphysics, 2nd law and all

hmmm. reason 1 is nonsense, use a dictionary.

reasons 2 and 4 are contradictory

reason 3 is a rational point, it just requires a massive amount of faith, more than one needs for religion.

stick to 3

 

[Doug50]

Kurt Gödel’s Ontological Argument
stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html

BTW: the argument from evil that atheists like to parade first and foremost assumes that Evil actaully does exists as a matter of Moral Truth.

Within Materialism there are no moral Truths. If only one moral Truth exists (whether an evil or a human right) then Materialism fails as a metaphysical belief.

If you ever get into a debate with an atheist pull that problem onto him/her.

 

[Fnord]

You wish me to refute the hypothesis that neither myself nor the external universe exists? Very well…

bangs head on table and goes OW!

I refute it thus.

Therefore, God exists…?

Not convinced. Sorry.

Just so you know, existence, be it self or external, are axioms and cannot be proven.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Just so you know, existence, be it self or external, are axioms and cannot be proven.

Indeed, but I thought we were talking about **proofs **for the **existence **of God.

If you wish to doubt your own existence, well, then there’s not much really to discuss then, is there…?

Can I prove beyond all **possible **doubt that I am not a brain-in-a-vat? No. Can I prove it beyond all **reasonable **doubt. Certainly.

 

[Nebogipfel]

if you only threw the die once your odds are 1:10, there is no sequence, the die was thrown once.

I have a ten sided die. Assuming that it’s not loaded, then each side has exactly the same chance of coming up on each roll, i.e. 1:10

So:

The odds of throwing a 1 are 1:10.
The odds of throwing a 1 followed by a 9 are 1:10 x 1:10 = 1:100.
The odds of throwing a 1 followed by a 9 followed by a 7 are 1:10 x 1:10 x 1:10 = 1:1000

and so on.

So the odds of throwing the ten digit sequence of a 1 followed by a 9 followed by a 7 followed by a 4 followed by another 1 followed by a 0 followed by another 9 followed by a 5 followed by a 3 followed by an 8, is 1:10 to the power 10, which is (if I’ve counted the zero’s right) 1 in 10,000,000,000; long odds in anyone’s book, yet there it is, right here in this thread, an event with the probability of 1 in 10 billion actually happened.

By your argument, if an event has a sufficiently small probability then you rule out the possibility that it could happen by chance, and that it must - must - have been as a result of the act of an intelligent agent.

So what intelligent agent influenced the dice rolls to produce that result?

try odds of 1:infinity, i dont think you understand that this is the next thing too ‘impossible’ one in ten billion is a laughably small set of odds in comparison.

one in as many zeroes as the entire universe could hold would be a laughable sum in comparison to odds of 1:infinity.

OK, so 1 in 10 billion is too likely. Somewhere, then, between odds of 1 in 10,000,000,000 and 1:infinity there is threshold below which the probability is so unlikely that you’d rule out the possibility that it happens by chance. Where is it?

I think you can see that for any probability you care to name, up to and including 1:infinity, I can roll the dice and get a sequence of numbers which had exactly that (im)probability of coming up. By your argument, that result could not happen without the intervention of an intelligent agent to fiddle the results in favour of producing that particular result.

Surely you can see the flaw in that reasoning?

that would seem to be the crux of the matter itself. odds on one in infinity make this universe 1 chance away from impossible as the result of a random act.
…

it would have been more accurate if you rolled an infinite sided die, just once.

Yes, that illustrates my point quite nicely, although it is impractical to demonstrate. I have a die with an infinite number of sides. Each side has the same chance - 1:infinity - of coming up. I roll the dice, and side number 1,974,109,538 comes up.

But wait, that can’t be right! the odds of side number 1,974,109,538 coming up by chance alone are 1:infinity. But there it is, right in front of me. If you are right, that could not have happened by chance - an intelligent agency must have influenced the roll to produce that result…

Now I don’t claim that this proves that no intelligent agency was involved in the creation of the universe. It doesn’t. But it does demonstrate that there is a flaw in the argument that because it might be very improbable that the universe exists, a intelligent agent must have been involved in its origin.

 

[Nebogipfel]

physical things obey physical laws.

i.e the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, weak/strong nuclear, etc, etc.

or the wiki definition:

Any entities which are composed of matter and/or energy, as well as the physical properties of those entities; and not merely items of thought or belief

Heh. Well, if you want to say that God, being a non-physical thing, is merely an item of thought or belief, you’ll get no argument from me.

This is my point. A “physical thing” is, even by the wiki definition, “something that exists”. So what is a “non-physical” thing? (apart from something that doesn’t exist… which proves my point, rather than yours).

My skepticism would be assuaged a little bit if you could give me an example of a non-physical thing which can be shown to have a real existence, apart from being merely an item of thought or belief.

why should cause be dependent on these things?
why is cause meaningless without the these concepts?

If there is no time - and it seems that “time” as we experience it came into existence with the big bang - how can “cause” be said to “preceed” effect. If “cause” cannot preceed effect, how can one thing cause another?

Again, I’m not saying this actually proves that the universe didn’t have a cause - I just see it as an indication that, where the origins of universes are concerned, we’re dealing with circumstances so far removed from human experience, that mere metaphysical cogitation in the absence of empirical data is not going to be a reliable guide to how things really are.

But apparently there are those who regard that position as unacceptably lazy, dishonest and craven. Too bad.

further, why would theoretical physicists search for the cause of the big bang if thse learned men of science thought that no cause was necessary for it?

Well, if your argument was watertight, then the question of the origin of the universe would already be done and dusted, like the shape of the earth. I guess most cosmologists aren’t that convinced by the first cause argument either.

check out the second law of thermodynamics, an always existing universe isn’t possible

But an always-existing (what shall we call it?) superuniverse? metauniverse? in which the conditions which lead to the creation of our universe existed, could have always existed. This is a least as (ir)rational as positing an eternal God - and has the advantage of not multiplying entities unnecessarily

ok so to summarize the reasons you doubt first cause.

1. the definition of physical is… im sorry i really cant tell what that argument is, use the dictionary definition

Well, as I intimated above, a “physical thing” appears to mean “something that exists”, which makes a “non-physical thing” mean “something that doesn’t exist”. This doesn’t really get us anywhere.

1. the universe doesnt need a cause, because it didn’t exist…that looks a lot more like a statement than an argument.

further, science disagrees with you, they keep looking for a cause.

I’m not saying it doesn’t need a cause. I’m simply saying that under conditions where our concepts of cause and effect may not apply, it’s danged difficult to say anything meaningful. And if there is a cause, it’s more likely to be an unguided, unintelligent cause like a chain reaction or a vacuum fluctuation than something with a personality and a will. Occam’s razor, and all that.

1. first cause isn’t necessarily G-d… Hey! you made a point here.

i disagree because a random act is all but impossible, that requires a kind of faith you cant fing in church.

Yes, it’s the all but part that puts the hole in your argument. And I thought we were talking logic here. If there is no logical reason to give the first cause the attributes of personhood and will, then you cannot use this argument and still claim to be talking about proof of God’s existence.

Once again, Occam’s Razor suggests that whatever the first cause may be, it’s probably not a God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So the odds of throwing the ten digit sequence of a 1 followed by a 9 followed by a 7 followed by a 4 followed by another 1 followed by a 0 followed by another 9 followed by a 5 followed by a 3 followed by an 8, is 1:10 to the power 10, which is (if I’ve counted the zero’s right) 1 in 10,000,000,000; long odds in anyone’s book, yet there it is, right here in this thread, an event with the probability of 1 in 10 billion actually happened

.
and what fraction of infinity is is ten billion?

point being that you cant use a finite set to aproximate a set with no boundaries.

no matter how big the number you assign, it is nothing in comparison to infinity.

By your argument, if an event has a sufficiently small probability then you rule out the possibility that it could happen by chance, and that it must - must - have been as a result of the act of an intelligent agent.

that is not my argument at all.

it could always be that the one universe pulled from a barrel of infinite universes is this one.

so sure, there is exactly one chance out of infinity that this universe occurred from a random act.

meanwhile any independent actor could simply choose to create this particular universe.

its not that a random act is impossible, its that the random act is all but impossible

its literally as close to impossible as an event can be.

not a rational belief.

So what intelligent agent influenced the dice rolls to produce that result?

that doesn’t really matter does it?

OK, so 1 in 10 billion is too likely. Somewhere, then, between odds of 1 in 10,000,000,000 and 1:infinity there is threshold below which the probability is so unlikely that you’d rule out the possibility that it happens by chance. Where is it?

i dont rule out the possibility. its just laughably improbable.

Now I don’t claim that this proves that no intelligent agency was involved in the creation of the universe. It doesn’t. But it does demonstrate that there is a flaw in the argument that because it might be very improbable that the universe exists, a intelligent agent must have been involved in its origin.

once again you misqoute me.

i never said that improbability of this particular universe existing, must mean an independent actor.

only that said improbability rationally precludes a random act as first cause.

you seem to be assuming a lot of the elements of protestant creationism arguments.

we are discussing the metaphysics of non-physical first cause.

 

[1holycatholic]

If there is no time - and it seems that “time” as we experience it came into existence with the big bang - how can “cause” be said to “preceed” effect. If “cause” cannot preceed effect, how can one thing cause another?

Cause does not need to precede effect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Heh. Well, if you want to say that God, being a non-physical thing, is merely an item of thought or belief, you’ll get no argument from me.

yet another thing i didn’t say.

This is my point. A “physical thing” is, even by the wiki definition, “something that exists”. So what is a “non-physical” thing? (apart from something that doesn’t exist… which proves my point, rather than yours).

here is the wiki definition-

Any entities which are composed of matter and/or energy, as well as the physical properties of those entities; and not merely items of thought or belief.

where is it talking about something that exists? that doesnt seem to be the wiki definition. how can it than support your position? what?

it would seem than that a non-physical thing would be something not meeting this definition. in fact if it had any of these qualities, it wouldn’t really be non-physical would it?

My skepticism would be assuaged a little bit if you could give me an example of a non-physical thing which can be shown to have a real existence, apart from being merely an item of thought or belief.

what do you mean by a “real” existence? please tell me what qualifies as “real” maybe i could think of something.

here is the wiki definition-

Any entities which are composed of matter and/or energy, as well as the physical properties of those entities; and not merely items of thought or belief.

where is it talking about something that exists? that doesnt seem to be the wiki definition. how can it than support your position? what?

it would seem than that a non-physical thing would be something not meeting this definition

If there is no time - and it seems that “time” as we experience it came into existence with the big bang - how can “cause” be said to “preceed” effect. If “cause” cannot preceed effect, how can one thing cause another?

and yet we have an obvious occurence, the big bang happened. obviously cause and effect are independant of time, regardless of semantics.

Again, I’m not saying this actually proves that the universe didn’t have a cause - I just see it as an indication that, where the origins of universes are concerned, we’re dealing with circumstances so far removed from human experience, that mere metaphysical cogitation in the absence of empirical data is not going to be a reliable guide to how things really are.

But apparently there are those who regard that position as unacceptably lazy, dishonest and craven. Too bad.

your assumption, concerning time, cause, and effect. dont constitute a reason to believe we lack empirical evidence.

your just making an assumption based on semantics, in turn based on the human interpretation of time.

none of which constitute an inability to use reason and logic in metaphysical inquiry.

Well, if your argument was watertight, then the question of the origin of the universe would already be done and dusted, like the shape of the earth. I guess most cosmologists aren’t that convinced by the first cause argument either.

and yet they continue to look for a cause you claim isn’t necessary.

But an always-existing (what shall we call it?) superuniverse? metauniverse? in which the conditions which lead to the creation of our universe existed, could have always existed. This is a least as (ir)rational as positing an eternal God - and has the advantage of not multiplying entities unnecessarily

who is making that argument? please post it.

first cause is necessacarily non-physical, precluding both infinite regression.

always existing matter is precluded by physics.

2 different situations.

Well, as I intimated above, a “physical thing” appears to mean “something that exists”, which makes a “non-physical thing” mean “something that doesn’t exist”. This doesn’t really get us anywhere.

you read that “something that exists” line into the definition, it isn’t actually there. so its corollary can also be dismissed.

I’m not saying it doesn’t need a cause. I’m simply saying that under conditions where our concepts of cause and effect may not apply, it’s danged difficult to say anything meaningful. And if there is a cause, it’s more likely to be an unguided, unintelligent cause like a chain reaction or a vacuum fluctuation than something with a personality and a will. Occam’s razor, and all that.

vacuum fluctuations require a vacuum, a thing, that needs a cause. a chain reaction also requires physical things to react, they to need a cause. . i dont see why you think they are more likely than an independent actor.

a 1:infinity random act hardly satisfies occams razor.

Yes, it’s the all but part that puts the hole in your argument.

how exactly does that put a hole in my argument, random act is as unlikely as ever, the odds havent changed.

And I thought we were talking logic here. If there is no logical reason to give the first cause the attributes of personhood and will then you cannot use this argument and still claim to be talking about proof of God’s existence.

my logical reason for an independant actor is the exclusion of the random act as ludicrously improbable.

theological issues aside.

Once again, Occam’s Razor suggests that whatever the first cause may be, it’s probably not a God.

are you saying that you believe that a literally, next to impossible random act, is a simpler expalnation than an independant actor, as first cause?

if so why? what makes the all but impossible, a simpler explanation?

occam is spinning in his grave.