The priniciple of Causality, Logic & Scientific Observation.

[MindOverMatter]

There’s no possibility of you accepting this? Not even if a logical argument could be made for it, or robust scientific proof was provided?

How can a logical argument be formed to demonstrate that something can come from nothing? This is absurd. I only respond to your lack of thinking for the sake of the weak. Science relies on logic to interpret events. Science cannot prove anything more then how we interpret something.

You are convinced by the argument you have put forward. Fair enough. But from where I’m standing, you have not given any reason I can see why this Unmoved Mover must

I have. You simply refuse to accept it; and you ignore logic in order to achieve your position.

Perhaps I have read them all too thoroughly. And why should this argument lead specifically to the Christian God,

First of all, i said that the God of philosophy must have the attributes of the Christian God. I do not mean to say that Jesus is proof of God. But many of the attributes of the God of Christianity, such as a “will” and “mind”, are necessary in order for the God of philosophy to be intelligible. I apologize if you thought i meant that i had proof that Jesus was God; that was not what i meant.

as you say it must? As far as I can see, any religion that believes in a universe-creating entity can use exactly your argument to prove that their conception of God must necessarily be the correct one.

They can prove that a transcendent being with a will to create exists. Whether or not such a being can be shown to be the God of any particular religion is a subject for a different thread

No . That’s not what I said. Don’t misrepresent me, please. I am saying that I cannot - with my brain bound as it is by the laws of physics - grasp what things must have been like under conditions where there was no time and no space. Acknowledging this limitation, I am certainly not going to do anything rash like attribute human qualitites like will and desire to an entity which, you have demonstrated, must necessarily be completely unlike anything that human beings have encountered before.

This is an excuse that you have invented in order to ignore the facts.

Well if I look at what people seem to be calling the “New Atheist” movement, metaphysical discussions about the origin of the universe is neither first nor the only barrier to belief in a divine entity.

This thread is about the logical foundations that support the proofs for God.

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi Nebogipfel,

Isn’t it ironic that when you suggest that the laws of causality and time may not have applied at the beginning of time, you get called closed minded?

Causality is not dependent on the passage of time.

 

[Nebogipfel]

i noticed that you havent replied to the arguments in post #34.

i was wondering if you would, please.

I will concede those arguments, because as 1holycatholic indicates in his reference there, it appears there may be sound metaphysical reasons why the ontological argument cannot be used to proved the physical existence of the perfect ice cream sundae, and I am not sufficiently versed in those reasons to make a comment on them.

However, from what I have read about the ontological argument, it still seems to boil down to saying, God must exist, because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t be God. This is undoubtedly true, but I don’t see that is grounds for saying, therefore, God definately does exist. Maybe it’s true that to be perfect, a perfect entity would have to exist; but then again, maybe there just are no perfect entities. Looking at the cobbled-together mess that is the world we live in, I would say that’s a very reasonable position to hold.

But as MindOverMatter pointed out, that’s a different thread.

I noticed MindOverMatter has made another post, but I’m afraid it’s long past my bedtime again, so I will have to read it another day.

Nighty night…!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have tried to explain why I am not persuaded this argument that because physical laws cannot apply before the beginning means that “something like a person with a will and a concept of glory” (terms which MindOverMatter has used since) must necessarily be the first cause of the universe. I just do not see how it necessarily follows that you can infer the existence of an entity with a will from that. From where I’m standing, it’s a huge non-sequitor. From where I’m standing, it is you and MindOverMatter who are failing to support their position with rational arguments, and whose theism is based on desire rather than rationalism.

Since it appears that neither of us is going to convince the other, and both are convinced that the other party is being irrational, I don’t see that we can get much further down this road. Do you?

i wasnt refering to you in particular

okey doke then, you dont understand the jump from ‘first cause’ to G-d?

this is more MindoverMatters area, but let me give you my version.

as matter cannot create itself we know that the first cause, what ever it was must necesarily be non-physical.

from there we can ask what options there are for the creative act. there are 2

1. a random act
2. an independant actor

first lets examine the random act.

what all universes are possible? any, any at all.

from one that is completely empty, to one packed from edge to edge with matter, one where time was/is/will be instantaneous, to one that is temporally static, one with no physical laws to one where the laws of physics are so extreme that matter cannot exist.

there are an almost infinite number of possible universes.

yet we have one that through an untellable number of extremely mathematically improbable contingencies has resulted in our conversation here and now.

thats the equivalent of everyone on the planet winning the lottery everday for generations.

all but mathematically impossible.

to believe in that kind of luck take a kind of blind faith, more than any religion requires.

how else could we get this universe?

an intelligent, independent actor could have created it exactly this way.

in fact, getting here through a random act is nearly impossible

so what is more likely? this universe is the result of nearly impossible random act?

or that an independent actor created it, exactly as it is?

obviously, it is many orders of magnitude more likely that we are a creation as opposed to a random act

that said, if you have a refutation, id be happy to hear it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I will concede those arguments, because as 1holycatholic indicates in his reference there, it appears there may be sound metaphysical reasons why the ontological argument cannot be used to proved the physical existence of the perfect ice cream sundae, and I am not sufficiently versed in those reasons to make a comment on them.

However, from what I have read about the ontological argument, it still seems to boil down to saying, God must exist, because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t be God. This is undoubtedly true, but I don’t see that is grounds for saying, therefore, God definately does exist. Maybe it’s true that to be perfect, a perfect entity would have to exist; but then again, maybe there just are no perfect entities. Looking at the cobbled-together mess that is the world we live in, I would say that’s a very reasonable position to hold.

But as MindOverMatter pointed out, that’s a different thread.

I noticed MindOverMatter has made another post, but I’m afraid it’s long past my bedtime again, so I will have to read it another day.

Nighty night…!

ok, then…?

i havent made the ontological argument, i have been making the first cause argument of thomism.

but thats ok.

thanks for responding to #34

 

[Abbadon]

I am going to defend two major contentions.

1. **Out of nothing comes nothing.
   **
   It is logically impossible.

Except God

Okay so lets say that everything in this universe needs a cause and that it wasn’t all just there to begin with (since there is no time there is no point before it, it just it).

THEN we make this giant leap to the cause somehow turning into a god which listens to your prayers, sends down sons to be crucified and rise again, sends you to heaven or hell as he sees fit, blah blah blah, magic magic and more magic.

I’m fine with the idea that the origin of the universe
a) was always there
b) is a simple reaction existing forever outside our universe, where our laws of physics do not apply.
c) spawned from a black hole in another universe.
d) was initiated by an intelligent force in an existence outside our universe.
e) so on and so on…

My answer is sure whatever floats your boat, now what evidence is thier to put you hypothesis above that of any other one?

 

[reggieM]

Maybe it’s true that to be perfect, a perfect entity would have to exist; but then again, maybe there just are no perfect entities. Looking at the cobbled-together mess that is the world we live in, I would say that’s a very reasonable position to hold.

There’s another inference taken from the argument on perfection. It is reasonable to propose that all human beings know what perfection is and have a desire for it, even though it is never fully experienced. So, all of reality appears to have this potential – for perfection, but it is not realised. For some reason, humanity retains the idea of perfection, although it would be more reasonable never to have had the word or to even understand what the concept means.
But the inference from this is that since all human beings know what the concept of perfection is, then perfection does exist.
This is not a direct proof of anything, but it’s an interesting concept. This appeals more to common human experience than to science and philosophy strictly speaking also. Where does this universal knowledge or acceptance of the concept of perfection come from since it has never been directly experienced (everything in the universe lacks perfection in some aspect)?
This is really looking at the desire within all human beings for something perfect (and therefore endless or eternal). It would be easy enough to just get rid of that desire, but it never does go away. Every generation of mankind has the same desire and expresses it through the same concepts: “I will love you forever”.

 

[Abbadon]

an intelligent, independent actor could have created it exactly this way.

in fact, getting here through a random act is nearly impossible

so what is more likely? this universe is the result of nearly impossible random act?

or that an independent actor created it, exactly as it is?

obviously, it is many orders of magnitude more likely that we are a creation as opposed to a random act

that said, if you have a refutation, id be happy to hear it.

Yes all those universes are possible, but since we are here, this is the universe that is that we exist in. We wouldn’t be able to ask that question if we were not here.

The idea that there are these other universes that did not evolve in such an orderly way, could not support life.
…
These other universes don’t have to exist do they? Can we not say that there is any number of possible universes. Most of which don’t permit life as we know it. And one possible universe that does. It happens that the possible universe is also the actual universe, the one we happen to live in. But these other universes don’t have to be anything other than logical possibilities do they?​

Philosepher’s Zone
ABC Radio National
2008-07-12 - Taking God for granted (or not) (9:00-9:38)

I do not know the possibility of creating this universe out of all the possible universes but it may be infinitesimally small. But it is as it is, so no matter how low the probability it still happened.

 

[reggieM]

THEN we make this giant leap to the cause somehow turning into a god which listens to your prayers, sends down sons to be crucified and rise again, sends you to heaven or hell as he sees fit, blah blah blah, magic magic and more magic.

I think you’re making a big jump from the study of the first cause to the details of revelation which come much later in the chain of arguments.

I’m fine with the idea that the origin of the universe …
d) was initiated by an intelligent force in an existence outside our universe.

This proposal comes with many more implications than any of the other ideas which posit only natural causes. Once we’re dealing with an “intelligent force” which actually initiated this universe we can ask questions about that intelligence. What other involvement did that intelligence have in this universe besides simply deciding to create it? What did that creative decision mean? With an intelligence, we also have the possibility of meaning and purpose. The creative act that initiated the universe could have been done for a reason – at the beginning and throughout the creation - but what purpose? What kind of intelligence could have created a universe? Since human beings possess intelligence, is there any relation between our intelligence and that of the “intelligent force” that created the universe? Can human beings communicate with that intelligence?

So again, that proposal is weighted with a lot of possiblities to explore.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes all those universes are possible, but since we are here, this is the universe that is that we exist in. We wouldn’t be able to ask that question if we were not here.

I do not know the possibility of creating this universe out of all the possible universes but it may be infinitesimally small. But it is as it is, so no matter how low the probability it still happened.

ok, im not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing, i assume you disagree.

but how does that change the argument for the most likely of two possibilities being an independent actor?

the nature of the random act is also completely random, as is its outcome.

that leaves you with the same math to get here from there.

same odds, means the same likelyhood.

 

[Abbadon]

I think you’re making a big jump from the study of the first cause to the details of revelation which come much later in the chain of arguments.

This proposal comes with many more implications than any of the other ideas which posit only natural causes. Once we’re dealing with an “intelligent force” which actually initiated this universe we can ask questions about that intelligence. What other involvement did that intelligence have in this universe besides simply deciding to create it? What did that creative decision mean? With an intelligence, we also have the possibility of meaning and purpose. The creative act that initiated the universe could have been done for a reason – at the beginning and throughout the creation - but what purpose? What kind of intelligence could have created a universe? Since human beings possess intelligence, is there any relation between our intelligence and that of the “intelligent force” that created the universe? Can human beings communicate with that intelligence?

So again, that proposal is weighted with a lot of possiblities to explore.

Sure and how do we figure out any of that and how do we separate the fact from the fiction? And why is there only one supernatural cause among a list of several other natural causes?
Why are we assuming only a single possible supernatural event?

Are natural causes not more likely? Should we not wait until we have eliminated the natural causes before jumping so far ahead?

Unless of course are souls are magically endanger of magically being tortured forever because someone said so, then I guess WE HAVE to jump to the conclusion that Islam is the one true religion or else we will be tortured by god for we are the infidel.

OR NOT

 

[Abbadon]

ok, im not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing, i assume you disagree.

but how does that change the argument for the most likely of two possibilities being an independent actor?

the nature of the random act is also completely random, as is its outcome.

that leaves you with the same math to get here from there.

same odds, means the same likelyhood.

Just because something is more likely does not mean it occurred. Also there are far to many variables in an intelligent force that would also need to be calculated that the odds may become even. What kind of intelligence do we need? What if the intelligence varied? How many possible intelligences are there? What if there are 2 or more?

The problem with this is it’s like rolling a dice but you only get one roll. Even though the probability of rolling an even number is .5 as opposed to rolling a 1, which is .17. If you roll a 1…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Okay so lets say that everything in this universe needs a cause and that it wasn’t all just there to begin with (since there is no time there is no point before it, it just it).

THEN we make this giant leap to the cause somehow turning into a god which listens to your prayers, sends down sons to be crucified and rise again, sends you to heaven or hell as he sees fit, blah blah blah, magic magic and more magic.

thats theologically incorrect, as to the nature of G-d and Christianity

I’m fine with the idea that the origin of the universe
a) was always there

violates physics

b) is a simple reaction existing forever outside our universe, where our laws of physics do not apply.

violates sufficiency, requires faith in a nearly mathematically impossible lottery of possible universes. same as faith with out the word G-d.

c) spawned from a black hole in another universe.

violates causality

d) was initiated by an intelligent force in an existence outside our universe.

thats basically our story

e) so on and so on…

My answer is sure whatever floats your boat, now what evidence is thier to put you hypothesis above that of any other one?

if you mean “why Christianity”

thats a matter of multiple convergent prophecies, written by many different people, who lived across many centuries, in many different books, in different langauges,

they came true in the person of Christ. His name, birthplace, lineage, and many activities and fate were prophecised 500-1100 years prior to His birth bydifferent people, who wrote different books in different times and places across many centuries

it is a unique and mathematically precise proof of the validity of Christianity.

if you mean ‘first cause’

the physical universe cannot cause itself, that leaves only non-physical causes as a candidate for first cause

 

[reggieM]

Sure and how do we figure out any of that and how do we separate the fact from the fiction? And why is there only one supernatural cause among a list of several other natural causes?
Why are we assuming only a single possible supernatural event?

The way to figure it out is to follow the arguments for what they are and not jump past them too quickly. You’ve recognized the reasonableness of the possiblity of an intelligent first cause so I think your decision was done by evaluating the evidence thus far. I think after that it’s a matter of asking questions and making inferences.

There are several arguments about why more than one supernatural final cause is not possible but I don’t have them right at my finger-tips at the moment. Basically, it comes down to dependencies and inequalities that cannot exist in infinite, eternal, supernatural being. The qualities of greater and lesser would be impossible for the first cause because those qualities would have to have an origin. The only stable “intelligent force” that could exist infinitely and eternally would be one in the state of completeness (because nothing can be added or removed from an infinite set). This completeness would require perfection and there couldn’t be more than one perfect supernatural being (because with more than one there would be greater and lesser or a “division of power”). The real arguments are far more sophisticated than I just presented, but I’ll have to research them more because I don’t have all of the details.

Are natural causes not more likely? Should we not wait until we have eliminated the natural causes before jumping so far ahead?

Yes, that’s one way to do it. But personally I think it’s important to look at the other possibilities also because you can never fully eliminate one of the causes. It will only be a matter of discovering “which is most reasonable?” – and to do that it’s important to look at the various proposals and consider their arguments together.

Regarding Islam and things like that, again, I think to get there it’s s a totally different chain of arguments than what we’re discussion in this topic.

 

[Abbadon]

thats theologically incorrect, as to the nature of G-d and Christianity

violates physics

Umm really? Link me. I thought energy is proportional to mass and energy is never created nor destroyed. So it is possible that energy existed in some form or another since whenever.

violates sufficiency, requires faith in a nearly mathematically impossible lottery of possible universes. same as faith with out the word G-d.

Refer to my post above this one.

violates causality

Block hole infinity loop? I guess that’s the same as universe always existed in some form or another.

thats basically our story

Basically after adding more accessories than some famous pretentious woman.

if you mean “why Christianity”

thats a matter of multiple convergent prophecies, written by many different people, who lived across many centuries, in many different books, in different langauges,

they came true in the person of Christ. His name, birthplace, lineage, and many activities and fate were prophecised 500-1100 years prior to His birth bydifferent people, who wrote different books in different times and places across many centuries

it is a unique and mathematically precise proof of the validity of Christianity.

Don’t most religions make this claim? And if we start going into all those other problems this becomes a lets refute Christianity debate, which isn’t the thread for this. Suffice to say Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormons all say the same thing, prophecy this, our ones the right one that. Blah blah blah…

if you mean ‘first cause’

the physical universe cannot cause itself, that leaves only non-physical causes as a candidate for first cause.

Sure assuming that it has not always existed in some form or another.
It is more likely that the non-physical cause is a simple one like that of a simple reaction. And it just happened to roll a 1, if there is only one universe

But I really don’t know

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Just because something is more likely does not mean it occurred.

true, but when it is so much more likely as to reasonably preclude the alternative, it doesnt really matter.

it takes a lot of faith to buy the random act scenario.

Also there are far to many variables in an intelligent force that would also need to be calculated that the odds may become even. What kind of intelligence do we need?

that has to do with sufficiency, you obviously need an intelligence sufficient to create a universe, then again maybe this universe aint all that complicated on G-ds scale. so a sufficient intelligence may cover a wide range, our intelligence cant really be the standard by which to measure that.

What if the intelligence varied?

do we have a rational reason to suspect that?

How many possible intelligences are there? What if there are 2 or more?

another case of needing a rational reason to suspect that, i tend to reject it on the grounds that the universe is composed of one substance, energy, at various points along a electromagnetic spectrum. matter and energy are entirely convertible.

when two people make a painting, their individual portions are usually quite obvious, in the same way i expect that if there were more than one G-d we could reasonably expect to see some evidence of it, but we dont.

The problem with this is it’s like rolling a dice but you only get one roll. Even though the probability of rolling an even number is .5 as opposed to rolling a 1, which is .17. If you roll a 1…

? the event isn’t rolling a 1 as opposed to an even number. its rolling any particular number.

the options are all .17

consider if there were only 100 million possible universes your already out to a probablility of 1x10(-7).

now consider the almost infinite number of possiblities… and you can see the problem with expecting a random act to provide a reasonable expectation of this universe occuring.

some rationality in the possibilities is necessary, we could be the creation of purple people eaters, but we dont have a rational reason to suspect that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Umm really? Link me. I thought energy is proportional to mass and energy is never created nor destroyed. So it is possible that energy existed in some form or another since whenever.

google big bang, wmap, etc. observational evidence says it aint so.

we dont know of physical ways to create or destroy matter, but as we know first cause must be non-physical, those rules dont reasonably apply, in fact if they did apply then we wouldn’t have a non-physical first cause. in light of the BB it would seem that they dont from the observational evidence.

we see the sudden appearance of a universe expanding from a regression from current conditions.

we see no singularity, just the sudden creation of energy.

there are other problems to an always existing universe. but its late and im sleepy

Refer to my post above this one.

tell me which one, and ill answer tommorow

Block hole infinity loop? I guess that’s the same as universe always existed in some form or another.

i mean it doesnt avoid the need for a cause.

Don’t most religions make this claim? And if we start going into all those other problems this becomes a lets refute Christianity debate, which isn’t the thread for this. Suffice to say Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormons all say the same thing, prophecy this, our ones the right one that. Blah blah blah…

no, none of them do, its unique to Christianity.

Sure assuming that it has not always existed in some form or another.

we can observe its creation in the BB, anything else is theory.

It is more likely that the non-physical cause is a simple one like that of a simple reaction. And it just happened to roll a 1, if there is only one universe

why do you think the random act is more likely even though the math says it clearly isn’t?

anything acting without a guiding intelligence is essentially random.

are you saying that despite the math you think we just happened to get this particular universe, no matter how bad the odds?

im interested in talking to you more but its late, i will be on after mass. good night.

 

[Abbadon]

tell me which one, and ill answer tommorow

Just because something is more likely does not mean it occurred. Also there are far to many variables in an intelligent force that would also need to be calculated that the odds may become even. What kind of intelligence do we need? What if the intelligence varied? How many possible intelligences are there? What if there are 2 or more?

The problem with this is it’s like rolling a dice but you only get one roll. Even though the probability of rolling an even number is .5 as opposed to rolling a 1, which is .17. If you roll a 1…

 

[Abbadon]

why do you think the random act is more likely even though the math says it clearly isn’t?

anything acting without a guiding intelligence is essentially random.

are you saying that despite the math you think we just happened to get this particular universe, no matter how bad the odds?

im interested in talking to you more but its late, i will be on after mass. good night.

Well your fudging the math ALOT, there is no math, we have no real variables. It’s like the Drake equation, sure we now have less of a margin of error, but were still eating a pile from Sir Drake.

We can like the drake equation dictate variables that would constitute for this probability. But most of it would be made up.

All you’re doing is assuming the probability for a supernatural intelligent force is greater, where as I’m assuming the probability for a simple natural cause is greater.

Either way both of us are clueless as to what this probability even is.

 

[Abbadon]

google big bang, wmap, etc. observational evidence says it aint so.

we dont know of physical ways to create or destroy matter, but as we know first cause must be non-physical, those rules dont reasonably apply, in fact if they did apply then we wouldn’t have a non-physical first cause. in light of the BB it would seem that they dont from the observational evidence.

we see the sudden appearance of a universe expanding from a regression from current conditions.

we see no singularity, just the sudden creation of energy.

there are other problems to an always existing universe. but its late and im sleepy

I started reading big bang theory at talkorigins.org I don’t have time to understand it atm. If you could find some sort of peer reviewed journal article with a sufficient extract or conclusions it would go a long way to swaying me. Off the top of my head the theory doesn’t say anything definitive about the origins of the universe just the evolution of the universe.

If there was no time before the big bang I don’t see why the energy could not have “always” been there since there was no time there was no always, it just was… Get my thinking? I’ll read and understand the theory after Wednesday because I probably don’t, Oh History channel has that documentary I’ll get that.

We see a sudden creation of energy? I thought we couldn’t see that far to the origin of the big bang to say anything definitive.

When I say always existing I do not mean exist as it does now or expanding and collapsing, I just mean in someway or another the energy always was never created nor destroyed.

Perhaps in the future if we discover something/someway that can create or destroy energy then I will definitely change my position. And will wonder if that was what caused our universe to be created.

we can observe its creation in the BB, anything else is theory.

I think you don’t understand the big bang theory and the evidence for it. My knowledge is 4 years old but if we now have observed evidence for the creation of the universe (which would be HUGE) I would love to see a link to it.

no, none of them do, its unique to Christianity.

Nope they all look the same to me, the story of Horus specifically, as translated from the Egyptian book of the dead seems surprisingly familiar… who does it sound like? Hmmmmm… Can’t quite put a name on it…

Did I forget to respond to anything else? Sorry about the response being so chaotic but you can’t stop entropy. kekeke…

Now I must away TO SCIENCE.