Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[Bradski]

This seems to suggest you have NOT examined the classical arguments for God’s existence.

How odd.

Why would someone whose basic principle is “I believe based on evidence alone” assert, “There isn’t any credible evidence for God’s existence”, yet also not have examined the evidence?

I am unaware of any evidence that has not been presented. As far as I know, the case for the prosecution has put forward all it has. It has been picked apart and discussed in the jury room (inside Bradski’s head no less). And rejected.

As I have said more times than I should have had to, my lack of belief is not based on evidence I have. It is based on the evidence that is presented. I am not appearing as council for the defence. My position is as a member of the jury.

And the jury is in. Well, has been in for quite some considerable time. The prosecution has failed to make its case beyond reasonable doubt.

But if you want to discuss something other than the creation of the universe as a starting point for the belief in the existence of God, then start another thread and I’ll join in. I’m absolutely certain that you won’t have anything new, but I don’t mind joining in the discussion.

Personally, I think I’ve said about as much as I can on this topic without repeating myself.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Bad, bad wording. The major error is highlighted. The correct wording would be: “…something to exist without explanation…” (Again, not “occur”, rather “exist”.)

This is elementary. And we don’t even need “omniscience” to understand it. Simple logic will do. An “explanation” is reducing something unknown to something else, which is already known or partially known. This chain cannot extend to infinity. Therefore there must be an “end” to it, something that needs no explanation, something that just “is”.

In the abstract sciences this “end” is the set of axioms which need no explanation. In the physical sciences the “end” is the universe. Real physics (not some “metaphysics”) shows that there is no “space”, no “time”, no “causality” outside the universe. The universe is a brute fact.

Well no, actually. If “something just is” can ever suffice as an explanation, then it would meet the criterion of “sufficient” right from the get-go. Nothing would need any explanation whatsoever because it would be sufficient merely to say of anything that was asked about, “it just is, no other explanation is necessary.”

That is where your whole “brute fact” theory simply gets blown out of the water.

Believers try to peddle this final “something” as God. For them God is a “brute fact”. But while we experience the universe, and as such there is no doubt that the universe exists, there is no way to experience God.

You are confusing what non-believers are willing to accept as “explanatory” and what believers insist must be true of what could count as sufficiently explanatory. Brute facts do not even make the short list. This is another example of you reading into theism what you suppose is there.

 

[DrTaffy]

Would be interesting to see what are those “classical” arguments in YOUR OPINION?

Exactly. The whole point of debating an issue with those who disagree with you is to hear their explanation of their point of view. Assuming, that is, that constructive debate is in fact the aim.

Consider, for example, why we have universities rather than just mailing a crate of textbooks to prospective students and only calling them in for final exams. It is very easy to misunderstand a written point of view if there is no interaction with another person who disagrees with you.

It would seem, for example, that a lot of those posting here do not understand the lower-case-‘a’ ‘atheist’ physicist’s answer to many of the questions raised here - and they are unlikely to learn better (or indeed prove me wrong on that) if they do not engage in sincere debate. Just reading Krauss might do it, but actual human interaction is far surer.

 

[DrTaffy]

Why do I have the distinct impression from you that if I introduced you to God in person, that would be coming up short, as you would explain God as a hallucination?

In other words, there is no evidence, credible or not, that would convince you.

You have decided the matter even before the evidence is presented, as all atheists tend to do until their heart is opened to truth.

Since you are refusing to present the evidence, you would seem to be the one who has explicitly “decided the matter even before the evidence is presented” - you have decided that no atheist will be convinced by your evidence. Which doesn’t bode well for the strength of that evidence.

 

[DrTaffy]

I thought I made it clear by telling you that I couldn’t go into a lot of detail, because I wasn’t allowed to by the forum, and other reasons. .

I assume that this refers to the proof of mind existing without a body issue, not the linking to other posts issue that you quoted just before?

If so, fine. If you cannot present the evidence you cannot. But that still would leave me in the situation of not having been shown any such evidence.

I appreciate your info, believe me, if I knew how to use it, I would. It took me a long time to learn how to block.

Well, if I understood which part is giving you trouble I would try to be more helpful. But if you cannot do it for whatever reason, don’t worry about it.

I agree, I recognize God as “Intelligence” in other words He is His attributes. He has no need of a mind as we understand it, we have intelligence, the ability to comprehend, to know, we understand Him to be Omniscient. .

So, an ‘intelligence’ without a mind as well as without a body? So far this is getting further and further away from my experience and from what I would understand as a god. Who suggests a mindless ‘God’? (Other than HP Lovecraft)

You will have to explain to me what is the apparent problem, where, and what. I thought you understood.

Simply that the anecdote you referred to did not include any mention of a mind existing without a body, space or time.

 

[PRmerger]

I am unaware of any evidence that has not been presented. As far as I know, the case for the prosecution has put forward all it has.

It would be a mistake to think that what has been presented here on the CAFs is the case for the prosecution.

Rather, Bradski, you should examine all the classical arguments for God’s existence, AND THEN determine whether the evidence is far more in favor of God’s existence than against.

Why are you so resistant to examining the evidence?

What would it mean for you if you did so and came to a different conclusion than what you have, after only looking at a few summaries of the position?

Imagine if I had come to the CAFs and read some really interesting things about vaccines from knowledgeable, articulate pro-vaccination folks but said, “I’m not compelled by the evidence you’ve provided. I will not vaccinate my children!”.

That would be foolish, no?

Rather, if I am a woman of science, logic, reason who wants to make a fully informed decision, I should read as much as I can on the issue–preferably from the CDC, AAP, AMA–and then make a decision.

 

[Solmyr]

If “something just is” can ever suffice as an explanation, then it would meet the criterion of “sufficient” right from the get-go.

Except it is not offered as an “explanation”, it is just a statement of a fact. Do you insist that the axioms of mathematics need a “sufficient explanation”? You can’t have it both ways; either the chain of explanations descend into infinity, or there is a stopping point - which is a brute fact.

The frequently used phrase “explains itself” is just a logical and linguistic nonsense.

 

[Solmyr]

It would be a mistake to think that what has been presented here on the CAFs is the case for the prosecution.

You mean you are unable or unwilling to present the case for your side? Very strange admission. What is the point of your apologetic efforts? Aren’t you “called” to evangelize the heathens?

Imagine if I had come to the CAFs and read some really interesting things about vaccines from knowledgeable, articulate pro-vaccination folks…

Well, if I wanted to learn about vaccines, I would visit a website dedicated to chemistry and medical science. But if they would insist that ailments (for example epilepsy) are caused by evil demons, I would reject that “explanation”.

This website is dedicated to and specializing in “defending the faith”. Now you just said that you are incapable / unwilling to present a coherent case for your “prosecution” and now call yourself “knowledgeable and articulate”? A healthy dollop of humility would do a whole lot of good to your superiority complex.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Except it is not offered as an “explanation”, it is just a statement of a fact. Do you insist that the axioms of mathematics need a “sufficient explanation”? You can’t have it both ways; either the chain of explanations descend into infinity, or there is a stopping point - which is a brute fact.

The frequently used phrase “explains itself” is just a logical and linguistic nonsense.

Sheer bald assertion.

Provide evidence for thinking any of the above is true.

To hold that nothing can explain itself means, essentially, that nothing can be sufficiently explained because whatever exists must be explained by something else, if it cannot explain itself. You are committed to a “descent into infinity” or making bald assertions (aka resorting to “brute facts”) by the fact that you don’t suppose at least Ipsum Esse Subsistens can sufficiently explain its own existence.

Axioms of mathematics are internally consistent and prove themselves true by what follows mathematically from them, just as logical principles are proved true by what can be known deductively from them. These would only be considered “brute facts” by, well… I am sure you can complete the inference.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It would seem, for example, that a lot of those posting here do not understand the lower-case-‘a’ ‘atheist’ physicist’s answer to many of the questions raised here - and they are unlikely to learn better (or indeed prove me wrong on that) if they do not engage in sincere debate. Just reading Krauss might do it, but actual human interaction is far surer.

Reading Krauss might do something to trigger sincere debate on the part of those who recognize that what he has to say might fool some of the people all of the time. However, most philosophers and physicists worth their salt are simply moved to shaking their heads and soft guffaws.

You must have missed this post…

Well, no, actually. It was claimed to have been answered “ages ago,” but the answer has been shown to lack any kind of compelling force.

The responses to the “answer” – by philosopher David Albert – here…
nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=3

…and – by astrophysicist Luke Barnes – here…

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/of-nothing/
…and here…
letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/more-sweet-nothings/

…are far more thoughtful and convincing.

Hopefully, Brad we won’t see this brought up again as if these refutations were never made available to you.

They now have been. No more rehashing the hash, so to speak.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum

"The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm.

I am not denying that you are affected by light, JK; but I say that you don’t see it as electromagnetic waves. In order to know it as a wave, you need to exercise your reason, or simply believe on the authority that other persons have upon you and who say that it is so.

"You probably wouldn’t need the full theory. You would need to go into the experiment with the following idea:

If I do the exact same thing twice, I should get the same result both times. This is analogous and related to the PSR because the PSR is telling us that we should not have two different effects with the exact same sufficient reasons.

Then you could run the experiments with the exact same conditions, and observe that there are different effects each time.

Now obviously there are a number of issues involved there. To do this yourself, you’d need some background in how the equipment worked. You’d need some background to know what set of conditions you’re talking about when you say that the experiment was carried out under the exact same conditions. You’d need some background to know how accurate your measurements were, and whether or not your measurements were biasing your results. All of that background involves more reasoning and experimentation and theory.

Of course! I would need to be acquainted with the theory (or at least with part of it, as you say) to be able to interpret the experiment and its results! Our interaction with the world is not enough to do it. We need to use our reason; and the question is “what are the principles of our reason and what is their scope?”. In the case of the experiments you are alluding to, you need to understand what are the rational principles involved to produce the theory, and then ask yourself if you are allowed to deny the principle of sufficient reason or not based on the experimental results. I guess Leibniz would have said to himself: “Which can be the conditions that are not the same from one experiment to the other besides those that I am trying hard to keep under control? There must be at least one. I need to look for it”. On your side, you definitely conclude: “I know absolutely all the variables which are relevant for this experiment and I am keeping all of them under absolute precise control: therefore, the PSR does not work”. This is too audacious.

1. • I’m actually a little skeptical of the philosophical usefulness of the traditional concept of “knowledge.” I prefer to think about knowledge as a spectrum of beliefs and justifications. The issue I take with the traditional definition of “knowledge is justified true belief” is that in order to categorize something as knowledge, we’d need a way of determining the truth value of that thing other than justified belief. If all we had was justified belief, then knowledge is just “justified (-]true/-] agreeing-with-some-other-justified-belief) belief.” We can obviously set up situations where we do have that kind of external access to the truth values (e.g. when we set up thought experiments, we have control over what is true in the experiment.) Unfortunately, we don’t have that kind of access to the truths about the world we live in. Essentially this is a tacit admission that I don’t think you can defeat pure skepticism in an a-priori sense and so everything we believe has some degree of doubt, even if that doubt is highly unlikely (e.g. last-thursdayism.) The best we can do is to carefully keep track of our reasonings and evidence and assign our various beliefs and justifications probabilities of being correct.
   • Things that contradict reason get a lower probability of being correct. I.e. they have a weaker justification.
   • Yes, they need reason to do mathematical analysis, generate hypotheses, and figure out how best to collect the data that will distinguish between their hypotheses.
   • Their epistemic methods are different.

1. 
   Well JK, I did not ask you what knowledge is, but what is “to know”, and it is this question what I would like you to answer. Nevertheless, it seems that your spectrum of beliefs and justifications contains these beliefs:
   • We don’t have access to the truth about the world we live in (I guess this includes you, JK, even in the case that you are a man who does science).
   • The best we can do is to carefully keep track of our reasonings and evidence and assign our various beliefs and justifications probabilities of being correct.
   • As we don’t have access to the truth about the world, “empirical evidence” is just a fantasy that we need to discard from our thoughts.
   • It is not possible to defeat pure skepticism using only reason (but we, skeptics included, don’t have any more except reason).
   • Still, we infallibly know light is an electromagnetic wave without having to use our reason.
   • Things that contradict reason get a lower probability of being correct. I.e. they have a weaker justification.
   • Quantum mechanics contradicts reason, but it gets a higher probability of being correct, because there is “empirical evidence” that supports it.
   • Scientists use their reason to figure out how best to collect “empirical data”.
   • Even though reason is the only thing we all have to know, scientists and philosophers use different epistemic methods.
   And this makes me think that you need to work hard to straighten your thoughts and make them correct.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Believers try to peddle this final “something” as God. For them God is a “brute fact”. But while we experience the universe, and as such there is no doubt that the universe exists, there is no way to experience God.

No, actually, this is NOT what believers try to do. This is what those interested in peddling caricatures of what believers try to do as representative of what believers try to do.

Edward Feser addresses this point precisely, here…

Even if it were suggested that “God” so conceived has no cause and that it is just a “brute fact” or a matter of sheer chance that the composite exists, we will for that very reason be talking about something that could in principle have had a cause and might not have existed. Why anyone would want to call that “God” I have no idea; certainly it bears no relationship to what classical theists mean by “God,” and by virtue of being composite, contingent, etc. it would in fact be the sort of thing classical theists would regard as creaturely rather than the Creator. You might as well worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2014/10/could-theist-deny-psr.html#more

In other words, God as “brute fact” cannot be God as “sufficient reason” precisely because “brute facts” do not have in themselves any principle for sufficiency. They exist for NO reason than they just are, which is not sufficient to make them necessary nor explanatory precisely because they are not necessary. It is entirely conceivable that any and all “brute facts” NOT exist – which is what makes them “brute” and inexplicable. They happen to be in this instance, but might not have been in another – ergo, they sufficiently explain nothing since they do not and CANNOT explain their own existence. They exist for no reason, therefore, they might not have existed for the very same no reason – they have no reason for existing. therefore, they cannot explain anything whatsoever.

A fuller debunking of “brute facts” is found here…
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2014/03/can-you-explain-something-by-appealing.html

 

[DrTaffy]

Reading Krauss might do something to trigger sincere debate on the part of those who recognize that what he has to say might fool some of the people all of the time. However, most philosophers and physicists worth their salt are simply moved to shaking their heads and soft guffaws.

No philosopher or physicist worth their salt would think that such a condescending and ill mannered response constituted sincere constructive debate. These would only be considered “philosophers and physicists worth their salt” by, well… I am sure you can complete the inference.

You must have missed this post…

Nope - rather, I recognise it as a great example of what I mean by people not understanding the point made by their interlocutor. Bradski did not refer to Krauss. Further, many of the alleged points for are addressed in Krauss’ book, yet his critics act as though he has not even considered them.

Now, given that the whole point of my post was to appeal for constructive debate, it is ironic that you have chosen to ignore that entire section of my post in order to pick out one phrase that allows you to sneer at and insult an atheist.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No philosopher or physicist worth their salt would think that such a condescending and ill mannered response constituted sincere constructive debate. These would only be considered “philosophers and physicists worth their salt” by, well… I am sure you can complete the inference.

Except that Albert and Barnes do address Krauss’ points and find them less than compelling.

Now it really is up to you to defend those points on behalf of Krauss if you have a mind to.

Nope - rather, I recognise it as a great example of what I mean by people not understanding the point made by their interlocutor. Many of the alleged points for example are addressed in Krauss’ book, yet his critics act as though he has not even considered them.

Now, given that the whole point of my post was to appeal for constructive debate, it is ironic that you have chosen to ignore that entire section of my post in order to pick out one phrase that allows you to sneer at and insult an atheist.

This is an easy claim to make, in general. You might try actually bringing up one of Krauss’ points and see how well it stands up to scrutiny. Gesturing at his “book” as if it makes an argument merely by being a “book” is hardly convincing.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;13631344:

No philosopher or physicist worth their salt would think that such a condescending and ill mannered response constituted sincere constructive debate. These would only be considered “philosophers and physicists worth their salt” by, well… I am sure you can complete the inference.

Except that Albert and Barnes do address Krauss’ points and find them less than compelling.

How on earth does that answer my point about the emptiness and rudeness of ‘guffaws’ instead of constructive debate?

Now it really is up to you to defend those points on behalf of Krauss if you have a mind to.

ah, so another demand for us to provide yet more argument and evidence while you provide nothing but abuse and mockery.

DrTaffy;13631344:

Now, given that the whole point of my post was to appeal for constructive debate, it is ironic that you have chosen to ignore that entire section of my post in order to pick out one phrase that allows you to sneer at and insult an atheist.

This is an easy claim to make, in general.

Easy, obvious, true. Why are you posting empty ad hominem yet are apparently terrified of trying to articulate an argument yourself?

You might try actually bringing up one of Krauss’ points and see how well it stands up to scrutiny. Gesturing at his “book” as if it makes an argument merely by being a “book” is hardly convincing.

Yet you merely gesture at creationist blogs and articles rather than bringing up and articulating a point yourself? Why should I raise yet more points while you are still ignoring points I have already raised?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Believers try to peddle this final “something” as God. For them God is a “brute fact”. But while we experience the universe, and as such there is no doubt that the universe exists, there is no way to experience God.

There is a way to experience God, but only if you open your heart to God.

Atheists refuse to do this.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Since you are refusing to present the evidence, you would seem to be the one who has explicitly “decided the matter even before the evidence is presented” - you have decided that no atheist will be convinced by your evidence. Which doesn’t bode well for the strength of that evidence.

The evidence has been presented many times in this forum. You cannot be so coy as to pretend you have never heard it. That you have not refuted it, or offered abundant evidence of your own against God is plainly apparent.

The evidence you are looking for is not to be found ultimately in theorems. These can only point to the possibility and plausibility of God (the Big Bang or Intelligent Design, for examples). Theorems are persuasive enough as signs pointing to God, but only if you have already an open mind to them You are close minded. You want absolute incontrovertible and demonstrable proof, God standing in the dock before you awaiting your judgment.

You have to earn that. You evidently aren’t ready for that, since you are daring God to prove himself through us, when you might be daring yourself to bow down in humble worship before the Creator, who is not mean-spirited, as so many atheists insist, but rather so full of love he was willing to prove it by laying down his life for all his friends … even for those who are filled with contempt for the very thought of his love.

The contempt for the very idea of God that so animates the atheists in this forum has rather wearied me to the point of needing a long vacation. I won’t take one, but I sure do need one.

The only thing that gives me hope is the absolute persistence of atheists in this forum.

It’s as if they were pleading for a lifeline to God.

What other reason would they have for being here? To make atheists of us all?

You ought to know that is not going to happen.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I guess Leibniz would have said to himself: “Which can be the conditions that are not the same from one experiment to the other besides those that I am trying hard to keep under control? There must be at least one. I need to look for it”. On your side, you definitely conclude: “I know absolutely all the variables which are relevant for this experiment and I am keeping all of them under absolute precise control: therefore, the PSR does not work”. This is too audacious.

Your “insight” here is exactly what prompted Einstein’s famous “God does not play dice” quote. The problem is that now a generation of scientists have investigated this very issue from all sorts of angles. For example, the Bell Theorem says that it is impossible to find certain kinds of variables and still get the (successful) predictions of quantum mechanics. In other words, the theorem rules out a whole class of possible conditions. In fact there has even been experimental evidence that comes down in favor of the . Now it is certainly possible that the missing variables belong to some a class not covered by the Bell Theorem. But it turns out that most of those other classes have equally troubling implications or involve violations of other well known and successful ideas (like having information move faster than the speed of light.)

Well JK, I did not ask you what knowledge is, but what is “to know”, and it is this question what I would like you to answer. Nevertheless, it seems that your spectrum of beliefs and justifications contains these beliefs:

• We don’t have access to the truth about the world we live in (I guess this includes you, JK, even in the case that you are a man who does science).
• The best we can do is to carefully keep track of our reasonings and evidence and assign our various beliefs and justifications probabilities of being correct.
• As we don’t have access to the truth about the world, “empirical evidence” is just a fantasy that we need to discard from our thoughts.
• It is not possible to defeat pure skepticism using only reason (but we, skeptics included, don’t have any more except reason).
• Still, we infallibly know light is an electromagnetic wave without having to use our reason.
• Things that contradict reason get a lower probability of being correct. I.e. they have a weaker justification.
• Quantum mechanics contradicts reason, but it gets a higher probability of being correct, because there is “empirical evidence” that supports it.
• Scientists use their reason to figure out how best to collect “empirical data”.
• Even though reason is the only thing we all have to know, scientists and philosophers use different epistemic methods.

And this makes me think that you need to work hard to straighten your thoughts and make them correct.

I think your “to know” vs “knowledge” is a distinction without a difference. Or alternatively you’re conflating different conceptions of knowledge.

Not quite. Points 1-4 misunderstand my position on skepticism. I am not advocating that pure skepticism is correct , just that you can’t “beat” it in an a-priori sense. I tend to agree with the sentiment “it may be possible to be a complete skeptic, you just can’t be anything else, not even a defender of skepticism.” I think that Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum is *probably *correct, but not some the kind of guaranteed fact he was looking for. Consequently, I think that we simply have to acknowledge that all our pronouncements about the world are necessarily colored with the faint tinges of doubt.

That is why #1 is wrong. I am not asserting-as-true the proposition “We don’t have access to the truth about the world we live in.” We may very well have that access. What I am saying is that we can’t know for sure whether or not we have the access. Hence my reasoning is more pragmatic. Given that we’re not sure about our ability to sense things accurately or reason about things accurately, what can we possibly do? Well we might as well start somewhere, so we assume that our senses and reason are at least somewhat reliable. If it turns out that we don’t have access to the truth about the world we live in, then this is no worse a method than any other available to us.

This approach means that at no point are there any sacred cows. If there is some evidence that contradicts our reason, we have to consider both the possibility that our reasoning was wrong, as well as the possibility that our evidence was wrong. The strongest claims, and the ones that I would colloquially refer to us as “knowing” are the ones that have solid support from both reason and empirical evidence.

The “light is an electromagnetic wave” claim is sort of true-by-definition. We’ve defined both the concepts of light and electromagnetic waves, and it turns out they both refer to the same thing.

 

[Solmyr]

There is a way to experience God, but only if you open your heart to God.

Atheists refuse to do this.

My heart only pumps blood. It has no other function. If you use it allegorically, then you need to explain HOW can one (allegorically) open one’s heart to God. I don’t refuse anything, I simply have no idea HOW to do it.

 

[Solmyr]

No, actually, this is NOT what believers try to do. This is what those interested in peddling caricatures of what believers try to do as representative of what believers try to do.

The most important advantage of a “caricature” is that it enhances the basic features of the object it refers to. No wonder that people recognize the “caricature” must faster than a “portrait”. To call something a “caricature” is implicit admission of its (unpleasant) accuracy.

…by the fact that you don’t suppose at least Ipsum Esse Subsistens can sufficiently explain its own existence.

And that is YOUR bald assertion. You try to define something into existence, by using nonsensical assertions. And just because you use Latin, it will not be “profound”. You posit God as the final explanation, therefore you consider it a “brute fact”.

Axioms of mathematics are internally consistent and prove themselves true by what follows mathematically from them, just as logical principles are proved true by what can be known deductively from them. These would only be considered “brute facts” by, well… I am sure you can complete the inference.

Nonsense. The axioms of mathematics are not “necessary”. They can be different, just like there are several “flavors” of geometry. What we can deduct from them are merely useful. They are only “true” within the axiomatic system. The axioms must be internally consistent, that is all. If they can be used to create a system, which system is useful - all the better.

They are simple “starting points”, which can be used to explain other things (theorems) but they don’t need explanations themselves. They are self-evident. And God’s existence is anything but self-evident.