Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[inocente]

So who is doing the “gushing” about influence?

Whether or not you choose to “join” makes no difference to me. Nor does it answer the fact that by permitting Hume’s influence, rather than his lack of compelling argument, to make you question your arbitrary acceptance of Hume’s views on causality at the same time as you want to insist – inconsistently, as it turns out – on a strict set of rigorous causal demonstrations coming from the ID camp, makes your position capricious and arbitrary.

Hume gets the bye because he is “very influential,” but, I suppose – and here is where you are consistent – IDers don’t get the bye because they are not.

So, “influence” is the standard by which arguments are accepted or rejected?

Nice.

So who is really into the “pop stuff?”

The one who drones on about “influence” or the one who does the hard work of making the logical points?

Yes, I know, you won’t argue the matter because… well… “pop stuff” and all that.

Now it’s being “logical” and not “influence” that counts? Nothing like picking and choosing your major.

Hume merely has to be “influential,” but IDers are required to be logically impeccable.

And Feser can still be safely ignored – no matter the quality of his arguments – because he will never be as “influential” as Hume, as far as you can foresee in your crystal ball. I see.

Didn’t I already address where IDers haven’t even made “any arguments” a few posts ago – a point which you promptly ignored – that Meyer uses abductive reasoning in the same way that Darwin did to make an inference to the best explanation?

Oh, yes…

Meyer is not “influential” in the same way that Darwin has been. Different strokes per different folks. I see.

You are correct that the “discussion” would be fruitless, which is why I have no desire for one.

But pointing out the deep inconsistencies of your rhetoric, well…

…we all have to be held to minimal standards lest we become “influential” beyond merit.

Don’t know what those two posts are supposed to be about. Seemed to be personal stuff rather than substantive but that’s the best I could make out.

 

[stewstew03]

I’m as puzzled as Nix. Do you really think that everyone must be a believer or not in every single scenario? And that you must be 100% positive in your belief in every scenario?

If that is the case with you, stew, then you live in a much different world to the one in which I exist.

Is it he case that you either believe something or not without having any information about it? That you make your stand before anyone gets to give you any evidence? And that when you do, you either beleive 100% or…when the evidence tips the scales, disbelieve 100%?

Does the world in which you live not contain statements like: ‘I’m not really sure about that’, ‘I don’t know enough about that to make a decision’, ‘I’ll have to get some more information on that and get back to you’. You’ve never said: ‘I don’t know’?

You sound like my wife…

If you’re on a journey, and still open to discovering the existence of God, then I think that is a beautiful and wonderful thing. I was certainly agnostic (or, a skeptic anyway) in college. But at some point you have to release the anchor and stop wandering aimlessly from port to port. The question of whether or not God exists is either the Ultimate Truth or the most devastating illusion – which makes believers like me either incredibly “lucky” or hopelessly delusional. To paraphrase Pascal – you must wager one way or the other. You’re already a participant in the game.

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t find Bradski’s position weird at all and I don’t think that the default position is necessarily anything to do with ‘feeling comfortable’. It has to do with intellectual honesty, I think. Furthermore I don’t see any wavering in Bradski’s stated position. It’s simply an acknowledgement that each of us may know more tomorrow than we do today.

Consider an analogy: I don’t know if the recent suggestion that there is a ninth planet in our solar system is true or not. I haven’t yet seen any compelling evidence. My default position is therefore to stick with believing that there are eight known planets, although I acknowledge the possibility that there may be more. I will keep this position until I become aware of sufficient evidence for that ninth planet. Do you find this position weird? How is your approach to this question different?

This analogy fails because the gravity of believing in the existence of a 9th planet is nowhere near the belief in the existence of a Creator.

 

[stewstew03]

Ditto. Except that I have seen the evidence for a ninth planet, so default to believing that it exists while accepting the possibility that it does not.

And if it turns out there is no 9th planet… Oh well, carry on…
But if it turns out there is no God…or imagine that tomorrow archaeologists find conclusive evidence that they have discovered the bones of Jesus of Nazareth in a tomb… Those “possibilities” have grave consequences for believers.

 

[inocente]

I have never been a fan because the fallacy is, itself, somewhat of a fallacy.

A “gap” – i.e., an unexplained event – positively requires a sufficient explanation.

What the theist is doing is proposing an explanation – the omniscient, omnipotent cause of all things – as a plausible explanation for the event.

The atheist’s retort is that such an explanation can never actually be the explanation for any event. But how is that known without begging the entire question?

It is an example of letting one’s method determine one’s metaphysics. The atheist has no complete idea of what is required to sufficiently explain every possible event, in the end – perhaps there are legitimate events which can ONLY be explained sufficiently by God. The atheist doesn’t know that a priori, yet that is precisely what they must claim to know to claim God is never required to fill any possible gap.

However, properly understood, the “gap” fallacy should only be invoked to counter methodological shortcuts. It doesn’t function as a metaphysical argument – it can’t because it would then presume to know beforehand what is or is not required for every possible event.

Yet, how does the atheist KNOW, for certain, that God is NOT ever ultimately required to explan some events.

He doesn’t and it is sheer question-begging dogmatism to claim otherwise.

Again, fine as a methodological constraint, but not as a logical or metaphysical one.

The other aspect of the problem is that using “god” as a placeholder in “god of the gaps” simply fails to explicate what it means precisely. In a sense, this undefinable aspect is what makes the “gaps” argument appear to have some cogency.

The same might be made of “will” or “mind” when attempting to explain human behaviour. Perhaps there is, in a very foundational sense, something like “mind” or “will” that grounds human choices and behaviour. Now, an eliminative materialist might claim someone invoking “mind” is merely constructing a “mind of the gaps” argument for mind, but that would be a metaphysical presumption on their part. Their materialistic presumptions might be that a “mind” is never required and every human behaviour can be explained without mind, but until the entire “mechanism” behind human behaviour is understood and explained, to disallow “mind” as explanatory is simply overreach of method.

Ergo, “mind of the gaps” with regard to human behaviour is not a fallacy, it may even be a kind of alternative explanation. Similarly, “god of the gaps” is not a fallacy in a strictly metaphysical sense, it may be presumptuous and possibly blatant overreach, but that does not make the logic of “God,” itself, false. Merely that the conclusion “God” isn’t warranted.

That means proposing “God” as the solution for some events isn’t always incorrect or unwarranted.

Theologians dislike god-of-the-gaps because, in the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.”

Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is about finding God in what we see and understand: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

God’s invisible qualities are clearly seen in every book in the science library. The fundamental question is whether religion is for knowledge or for ignorance. If we think that once science explains something, God is written out of the explanation, then religion is against knowledge, since every increase in knowledge reduces God. But if we see that science explains how God dun it, then religion is for knowledge and against ignorance. Imho.

 

[ynotzap]

If you ask me if God exists, then without running through a few pages of ifs, buts and therefores, I would say that I would consider it a possibility. However, in this case, people present me with what they maintain is evidence and I don’t find that evidence to be credible. So my position, although bending over backwards to allow the possibility, is that my default position is that He doesn’t (although the the possibility still exists - as I said earlier, possibly in another thread, there is nothing that is absolutely certain).

Having said that, if anyone declares anything to be 100% certain, then there is a certain amount of faith inherent in that. Christians declare that God exists. Period. Zero doubt. No question about it. And again, please don’t bombard the thread with examples of atheists also declaring something to be a cast iron certainty. Dig deep enough and there will always be doubt.

Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is absurd. With apologies to Voltaire.

I am reminded of a TV episode featuring William Buckley debating with a group of intellectuals, some, or perhaps all were atheists, I am not sure. By way of introduction, Buckley was a conservative, author and commentator. He was founder of the National Review Magazine (l955), hosted l429 episodes of TV show, “Firing Line” (l966-99), he wrote nationally syndicated newspaper column and numerous spy novels featuring CIA agent Blackford Oakes. George H. Nash, a historian of modern American conservative movement said Buckley was “arguably, the most important public intellectual in the United States in the past half century. Buckley wrote “God and Man at Yale” (l95l) and more than 50 books on writing, speaking, history, and politics. At the end of the debate, one of the members, an atheist, asked Buckley why he didn’t become a member of the group. Buckley said, “Because you don’t even entertain the possibility that God exists.” At that, Buckley walked off the stage. I appreciate Bradski’s honesty, and I agree that there is always room for doubt. Even in the most faithful Christian. Perseverance in Faith is a virtue, saints are known to practice heroic perseverance in Faith, taking God’s word for it. We pray,” I believe Lord, help me in my unbelief…" We can be reasonably certain, and that certainty can be reinforced by God, but we still remain fallible, limited humans and as such doubt can still exist. The thought often entered my mind, that God requires faith from us, taking Him at His word, to counter the pride of mind, that got humanity in it’s mess in the first place. Faith is definitely reasonable, even the German theoretical physicist, Planck stated, “As a result of my research about atoms this much I know, there is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds the most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. Both religion and science require belief in God, for believers, God is the beginning, and for the physicist He is at the end of all”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You do get that both the arguments from a First cause and Intelligent Design take the form “God is a possible explanation for X, therefore God”? :ehh:

The only possible answer to this is that you are using weird logic here.

You are welcome to it, but it’s really weird and I would have expected better of you.

The First Cause and Intelligent Design arguments do not infer a possible God.

They infer a probable or plausible God, whichever adjective you prefer.

In your case, of course, neither. But you are not the whole world and many, including diehard atheist Anton Flew, were won over by more recent developments in science such as the Big Bang and Intelligent Design.

If you are open to reading some arguments by an eminent agnostic, David Berlinski, I would recommend his terrific book, *The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. *

 

[Charlemagne_III]

By definition it’s an appeal to ignorance since it asserts that something is otherwise inexplicable. We could “explain” anything by saying a magical invisible agent did it, that’s not reasoning, that’s an abrogation of reasoning, it’s ignorance beyond ignorance, it’s an exultation of ignorance, it’s worshiping ignorance. And of course it can’t avoid a charge of god-of-the-gaps by renaming God as an intelligent agent, that’s just silly.

We’re not allowed to discuss the theory of evolution but two obvious differences are (a) it explains, which is why it’s used in every biology department, and (b) it’s testable, which is why it’s scientific. Nether can be said of Meyer’s pathetic insult to reasoning. I’m amazed you’d buy into it, let alone try to defend it. Surely it must be the worst ever intelligent design argument, it’s not even worthy of being called an argument.

No need to parody intelligent design when it does such a great job making fun of itself.

As a Baptist, do you believe that God intelligently designed the universe, or do you believe that he foolishly designed it?

You can’t have it both ways.

It can’t be undersigned in science and designed in scripture.

Please try to answer directly instead of posting the usual insulting intellectual calisthenics.

Do you want me to throw Newton and Einstein at you? Again???

I daresay, as usual, you have no answer to them.

 

[DrTaffy]

The only possible answer to this is that you are using weird logic here.

You are welcome to it, but it’s really weird and I would have expected better of you.

Then you should spend more time talking to PR.

The First Cause and Intelligent Design arguments do not infer a possible God.

So, by elimination,they infer an impossible God. And you accuse me of weird logic!

They infer a probable or plausible God, whichever adjective you prefer.

Natch, both of those would be possible Gods, which you have ruled out.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We’re not allowed to discuss the theory of evolution but two obvious differences are (a) it explains, which is why it’s used in every biology department, and (b) it’s testable, which is why it’s scientific. Nether can be said of Meyer’s pathetic insult to reasoning. I’m amazed you’d buy into it, let alone try to defend it. Surely it must be the worst ever intelligent design argument, it’s not even worthy of being called an argument.

Prove you understand Meyer’s argument by actually spelling it out in so many words, then.

Note: There is NO ban on discussing Intelligent Design. What is Meyer’s positive argument if you can characterize it as “not even worthy of being called an argument?” You must know it intimately.

Go.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Note: There is NO ban on discussing Intelligent Design.

No ban at all, but the ban on evolution provides a convenient dodge for those who don’t understand Intelligent Design.

 

[fisherman_carl]

As a Baptist, do you believe that God intelligently designed the universe, or do you believe that he foolishly designed it?

You can’t have it both ways.

It can’t be undersigned in science and designed in scripture.

Please try to answer directly instead of posting the usual insulting intellectual calisthenics.

Do you want me to throw Newton and Einstein at you? Again???

I daresay, as usual, you have no answer to them.

I would actually like to see him explain why he believes in God. Instead of always holding the negative position to any argument for God. But I don’t think he ever will. I am not sure he can do anything except tear down. Or perhaps he is an atheist masquerading.

 

[fisherman_carl]

One thing I see is people arguing about the muktiverse theory. But I don’t see why. This theory doesn’t really solve the problem. At best it explains our universe. But it doesn’t explain itself. Why would a multiverse actually exist? Or are they saying that a multiverse is metaphysically necessary just to explain our universe? At any rate I heard a multiverse would also required a beginning, as well as just as much fine tuning to keep the ‘bubbles’ from colliding into eachother, which would be bad news for life forms. So the problem is only pushed back a step. So next I guess they will be positing a multi-multi-verse in order to explain the multi-verse. This could lead to an infinite regression.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I don’t see a problem with accepting the existence of only one universe until “proofs” of other universes are actually presented. That would seem quite reasonable.

It would also be quite consistent with considering various flavours or ‘multiverse’ being proposed as potential answers to various problems.

I also have no problem with proposing God (an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient ground of Existence Itself), under pretty much the same terms as those physicists propose a multiverse as a potential answer to various problems.

The point being that the God hypothesis need not be a fallacy from ignorance if it not proposed as a conclusion, but, rather (as you say) a proposed solution or answer to various problems.

The real issue is that it is completely disallowed a priori by methology, but that is a shortcoming of methodology when one makes their methodology into their metaphysics. Ergo, “God of the Gaps” is only a methodological fallacy and not one of metaphysics or logic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

By definition it’s an appeal to ignorance since it asserts that something is otherwise inexplicable. We could “explain” anything by saying a magical invisible agent did it, that’s not reasoning, that’s an abrogation of reasoning, it’s ignorance beyond ignorance, it’s an exultation of ignorance, it’s worshiping ignorance. And of course it can’t avoid a charge of god-of-the-gaps by renaming God as an intelligent agent, that’s just silly.

The problem is that “it" doesn’t “assert that something is… otherwise inexplicable,” it asserts that intelligence is a perfectly valid explanation for complex information, in particular where information is coded and decoded within a medium that relies upon some kind of structured coding method to do both.

Intelligence is clearly a valid mechanism for coding and decoding information - we see it active all the time. The software in your computer was not written by a "magical invisible agent,” but it was written by intelligent agents.

Now, it is clearly true that the genesis of intelligence – our intelligence – hasn’t exactly been explained by science, either. That is the reason it appears that ID relies on something “otherwise inexplicable” – intelligence – to explain what requires explanation. Human intelligence hasn’t, when you get right down to it, been explained, either. Your argument essentially misses the point because the existence of human intelligence also hasn’t been explained – which is why it appears that what hasn’t been explained is being used to explain the inexplicable.

That isn’t a problem merely for ID proponents. It is a problem for science, as well. Which is why categorizing appeals to “intelligence” to explain existing phenomena gives the appearance of being an appeal to the inexplicable or to “magical invisible agents” and your “argument" gives the appearance of being a cogent one.

I would suggest that when science can really explain the genesis and existence of human intelligence, you might have a point, depending upon what that explanation turns out to be. Until then, consciousness, intelligence and intentionality are still on the table as plausible causes and your argument is bogus because it relies entirely upon the inexplicability of human intelligence.

You assume “reason” to decry the "abrogation of reasoning,” yet you can no more explain the existence of the ability to reason as the basis for your argument than ID proponents can justify intelligence as the conclusion of theirs.

You just avoid the entire issue by pretending it doesn’t exist for you, but that it does for them.

In the end, you have just as much a problem rationalizing your use of reason that they have justifying their invocation of intelligence. If you were even half honest about it, you would admit as much and stop posturing about how your position is superior in that respect. It isn’t. It merely presumes “reason,” where they presume “intelligence."

 

[ThinkingSapien]

One thing I see is people arguing about the muktiverse theory. But I don’t see why. This theory doesn’t really solve the problem. At best it explains our universe. But it doesn’t explain itself. Why would a multiverse actually exist?

I’m guessing you are talking about the “many worlds” hypothesis, which is one hypothesis of many that receives the label “multiverse.” Sometimes people that mention the “multiverse” on this site are talking about the expansion of the universe making some parts inaccessible and that as this happens each portion in which there can be interaction and observation would be said to be part of an observable universe. There are a few other meanings of multiverse. When you see someone mention one it might be a good idea to figure out which multiverse hypothesis is being referenced.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m guessing you are talking about the “many worlds” hypothesis, which is one hypothesis of many that receives the label “multiverse.” Sometimes people that mention the “multiverse” on this site are talking about the expansion of the universe making some parts inaccessible and that as this happens each portion in which there can be interaction and observation would be said to be part of an observable universe. There are a few other meanings of multiverse. When you see someone mention one it might be a good idea to figure out which multiverse hypothesis is being referenced.

The version I will propose we are talking about is the version that multi-verse is a convenient way to explain the original fine-tuning for life of our own universe, which has always seemed improbable. If there are an infinity of universes the problem of accepting the fine-tuning for life in out universe goes away, and thus human life is made possible in at least one universe … ours, just by the fact that these universes exist not only infinitely, but eternally.

So also the need for a God to explain anything goes away for the atheistic scientist.

But as carl points out, this is not an explanation so much as a fanciful description of the many worlds concept. We still don’t know why there is a multi-verse rather than no multi-verse. If the answer given is, that’s just the way it is, how is that an answer to why.

The retort might be, Why does there have to be a why?

But the retort to that might be:

Why do we need to know what caused the Big Bang?

If we want to know why the universe exists, why should we not also want to know why the multi-verse exists? :banghead:

 

[Bradski]

One thing I see is people arguing about the muktiverse theory. But I don’t see why. This theory doesn’t really solve the problem. At best it explains our universe. But it doesn’t explain itself. Why would a multiverse actually exist?

I assume that you mean ‘how’ as opposed to ‘why’. I’d Google it and read up on the physics that suggests it.

At any rate I heard a multiverse would also required a beginning, as well as just as much fine tuning to keep the ‘bubbles’ from colliding into each other, which would be bad news for life forms.

No, our universe would have a beginning, but the constant formation of other universes may be eternal. And there is doubt that is the proposal is true that there would be any collisions between two universes. However, if there is a chance that that might have happened, then it would leave a signature (like ripples in a pond) and some people are suggesting we look for these ‘ripples’.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am not sure he can do anything except tear down. Or perhaps he is an atheist masquerading.

I feel your pain.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

**No, our universe would have a beginning, but the constant formation of other universes may be eternal. **And there is doubt that is the proposal is true that there would be any collisions between two universes. However, if there is a chance that that might have happened, then it would leave a signature (like ripples in a pond) and some people are suggesting we look for these ‘ripples’.

To be consistent, the constant formation of universes also would have to be infinite.

And they say medieval philosophy was bizarre, as if asking how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?

Does Occam’s Razor ever kick in with you?

Try not to nick yourself.