Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[Charlemagne_III]

That is: ‘You don’t have a scientific answer…therefore the only possible explanation is the God in which I believe’.

Incidentally, that isn’t necessarily a Christian argument. One size fits all, as I said.

The same for atheistic scientists, as I pointed our above.

They have no answer for how the universe got started, but they are open to the Multiverse-of-the-gaps where everything is possible and inevitable, especially a godless chance-driven universe.

 

[DrTaffy]

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.

Eventually. That does not mean that any proposed explanation is thereby 'proven. That is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

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

But it is when he or she claims that that explanation is thereby ‘proven’ that the fallacy occurs.

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 is what a ‘fallacy’ is, by definition: an alleged logical argument that does not prove its alleged conclusion.

You didn’t understand my post, did you?

I understood it, I just don’t buy it. As I did not buy your claim that she was parodying my posts despite the fact that she had posted before I did.

What PR wrote was quite explicit. You can argue that that was not what she meant to write, but compared to the list she posted of atheists allegedly using her “Science of the Gaps” argument this is a very clear cut God of the Gaps argument.

 

[DrTaffy]

Then you have Mega-verse-of-the-gaps advocates who presume that a Mega-verse clearly is preferred to God as a handy theory of everything otherwise unexplainable. All things are possible and self-explained in an infinity of worlds. What need have we of God, so long as we have Mega-verse with a ton of theories about it but not one shred of proof for its existence?

The various forms of multiverse theories are not, as far as I am aware, generally claimed to be proven. Referencing my last post, they are good examples of avoiding the argument from ignorance fallacy: they are presented as possible explanations for various problems, such as non determinism in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, but certainly should not be presented as proven.

Where creationist apologists in particular tend to get into confrontations with fans of multiverse theories is when the possibility of some flavour of multiverse is raised as a flaw in the fine tuning argument. Here the shoe is on the other foot: it is the fine tuning argument as generally presented that assumes that there is only one cosmos, amongst other things. They cannot prove that, of course, so that argument fails as a proof of God.

 

[PRmerger]

Then in what sense is that “The trump card of the Believer”

Maybe you should ask Richard Dawkins. He’s the one who acknowledged that the question “Why is there something rather than nothing” is the " last remaining trump card of the theologian".

See the NY Times article cited by Peter.

 

[DrTaffy]

Maybe you should ask Richard Dawkins.

Why on earth would I ask Richard Dawkins to clarify what you meant when you wrote:

The trump card of the Believer is this: why is there something rather than nothing.

Atheism has no answer for this.

QED

#ClassicGodOfTheGaps

If I was in some doubt about what he meant, sure, but he was very clear.

He’s the one who acknowledged that the question “Why is there something rather than nothing” is the " last remaining trump card of the theologian".

Although having said that you do seem more than a little confused about what Richard Dawkins meant. You do realise that that sentence continued on to say that that ‘trump card’ “shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages” :ehh:

So you can hardly argue that he thought it really did trump the atheist/skeptical pont of view.

See the NY Times article cited by Peter.

For those who don’t want to hunt back through several pages of posts to work out what she is talking about, she is referring to this article cited in this post.

And you still have not answered the following points:

Likewise, why shouldn’t there be something? There is only one way for there to be absolutely nothing, but infinite ways for there to be something.

As has been been pointed out several times, you asked for an example of something like a turnip appearing on your plate.

That is in space-time, in nothing like a vacuum and nothing like the lowest possible energy state.

Likewise your objection about virtual particles appearing in a low energy state vacuum displays a misunderstanding of the physics. Those virtual particles are the ‘low energy’ of the vacuum, not something separate that ‘comes from’ another pot of energy.

And you have not addressed the point that most modern cosmological models do not involve ‘something coming from nothing.’ The Big Bang even at its most naive is not a cosmic egg popping into existence in a pre-existing space-time, but of space time where at the earliest moment in time there is already something.

We are still waiting on an answer to the following:
You have your concrete and very well demonstrated example of what you asked for, as well as a brief explanation of how that is not what most cosmologists claim.

Can you provide equally robust, demonstrable examples of a mind existing without a physical substrate, let alone ‘outside of time and space’, or of such a being conjuring something out of nothing? Otherwise it seems that it is your explanation for the cosmos that does indeed rely on asserting the existence of things completely outside of our experience.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I understood it, I just don’t buy it. As I did not buy your claim that she was parodying my posts despite the fact that she had posted before I did.

Well, now you are concocting unsound arguments from whole cloth. I never claimed she was parodying YOUR posts, specifically. She was parodying atheists who quite commonly use ignorance or skepticism to simply disallow all positive probative arguments on the grounds of vanishingly small uncertainty.

So you are one of those? I would never have guessed. If the shoe fits, I suppose. But that only means she correctly guessed your shoe size. Which, I suppose makes your “objection” that she posted before you did just tedious. It doesn’t “prove” what you think it does but merely shows the archetype is living and active.

 

[DrTaffy]

Bradski;13610508:

PRmerger;13609929:

What did I ask then?

I am perplexed by the general lack of comprehension that people seem to have with my posts. It really does appear that quite a few forum members simply skip what myself (and a few other atheists) say and then hit the keyboard with such enthusiasm, the answer drifts away from any connection with what the reply is mean to address.

The additional fact that I have to point out to you what you actually asked in order to clear up this type of misunderstanding is bizarre.

Could you please show me exactly what question I asked that you’re responding to?

Will two examples do?

You haven’t given a single one.

Hang about - if you claim not to know what question he is referring to, how can you then claim in the very next sentence that he has not answered it?

This thread is becoming fractally weird.

 

[DrTaffy]

Well, now you are concocting unsound arguments from whole cloth. I never claimed she was parodying YOUR posts, specifically.

From this post

DrTaffy;13602003:

The only straw man I’ve seen here is PR representing the atheist point of view as “we don’t understand therefore Science”

I think PR was presenting a parody of your bald-faced claim that “we don’t understand, therefore God” is or has been used as an argument by respectable theists.

From the context, there is no way that referred to atheists in general, especially given teh quote marks indicating that those exact words were used. Again, if you miswrote so be it, but that is what you wrote and you have had ample opportunity to correct it before now.

And of course not only have we produced examples of the God of the Gaps fallacy being used, but neither of you have managed to produce an example of an atheist using the alleged “Science of the Gaps” fallacy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Damn, now there are cornflakes all over the table. My wife will kill me.

What Darin did was to examine the natural world and see where that led. Which were conclusions that actually went against his beliefs. What Meyer has done is START with the conclusion and look for evidence to confirm it. He STARTED with God and went looking for gaps in our knowledge where He may be found.

Who is ‘Darin?’

So Meyer is wrong because he begins with an hypothesis and attempts to demonstrate it to be true? And THAT is NOT science?

And Darin is a hero because he ‘proved’ himself wrong, but Meyer a villain because he ‘proved’ – using the same abductive method as Darin – himself correct?

You seem to have a funny idea of what science entails and how it is carried out. Makes me laugh, anyway.

So science is all about starting with no ideas and proving the ones you never entertained, or disproving the ones you did?

AND I have a funny idea of science?

It most certainly an argument from ignorance. As I have said, the number of people on this planet who understand this subject number in the dozens. But oh so many even within this thread tell us all quite emphatically that it can’t have happened this way, or that way. That these everyday rules we experience in life apply even at levels of existence that can only be described and understood through higher mathematics.

It is most certainly an argument from ignorance, about burying objections behind a wall made up of “the number of people who can’t possibly understand because… well the ideas are beyond them…” How is THAT not an argument about and from someone’s ignorance?

By the way, no one has claimed it couldn’t have “happened this way or that way.” What is claimed is that the “way” is as yet unknown, which means it wouldn’t be proper for ANYONE to insist that it couldn’t have happened THAT way. Speaking of STARTING with a conclusion and then looking for the evidence to CONFIRM it, isn’t that what scientists do when they turn their methodology into their metaphysics? Drunk looking for keys under a lamp post BECAUSE “the light is better over here” and all that? And what you are doing when you disallow Meyer & Co. from even attempting to make a case?

Wouldn’t you, like Darin, feel immense satisfaction in being proved wrong?

 

[Peter_Plato]

From this post

From the context, there is no way that referred to atheists in general, especially given teh quote marks indicating that those exact words were used. Again, if you miswrote so be it, but that is what you wrote and you have had ample opportunity to correct it before now.

And of course not only have we produced examples of the God of the Gaps fallacy being used, but neither of you have managed to produce an example of an atheist using the alleged “Science of the Gaps” fallacy.

This doesn’t show that I claimed PR was parodying your posts. In fact, my claim, if you read carefully, was that PR was parodying “claims” (such as yours) – and not your posts specifically – frequently made by atheists concerning how theists use the “God of the gaps” as an argument. So it would be irrelevant whether or not you posted before or after she did. The type of claim was under discussion, not your posts specifically, except as a case in point.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Where creationist apologists in particular tend to get into confrontations with fans of multiverse theories is when the possibility of some flavour of multiverse is raised as a flaw in the fine tuning argument. Here the shoe is on the other foot: it is the fine tuning argument as generally presented that assumes that there is only one cosmos, amongst other things. They cannot prove that, of course, so that argument fails as a proof of God.

The shoe is on both feet. If you say it cannot be proven there is only one universe, you also know it cannot be proven there are an infinity of universes, which is required, nor can you prove why this universe of infinities is not steady state but rather popping up everywhere. That is to say, how is fire breathed into the equations, and who or what breathes it?

But even if there were an infinity of universes, an explanation is lacking why there should be an infinity of them, and why we should believe that in this infinity there is more than one capable of sustaining human life.

At some point Occam’s Razor should be relevant.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What Meyer has done is START with the conclusion and look for evidence to confirm it. He STARTED with God and went looking for gaps in our knowledge where He may be found.

Isn’t this precisely what atheists want to do when they theorize about Multi-verse-of-the -gaps?

They suppose Multiverse might exist and hope to find it by looking for gaps in our knowledge where it might exist.

A hopeless task, of course, but that want stop them from being assured by their theories.

 

[DrTaffy]

This doesn’t show that I claimed PR was parodying your posts. In fact, my claim, if you read carefully, was that PR was parodying “claims” (such as yours) – and not your posts specifically – frequently made by atheists concerning how theists use the “God of the gaps” as an argument. So it would be irrelevant whether or not you posted before or after she did. The type of claim was under discussion, not your posts specifically, except as a case in point.

Yeah but yeah but … No. You explicitly referred to “your”, speaking to me, “claim”, in the singular, which you then cited in quotation marks. The meaning is explicit, if possibly unintended. Also PR brought up the God of the Gaps argument, in order to assert that atheists commonly made a parallel argument, an assertion that she has failed to support.

Never mind. How about you address the topic of the thread rather than trying to edit history? For example, you could respond to this:

As has been been pointed out several times, you asked for an example of something like a turnip appearing on your plate.

That is in space-time, in nothing like a vacuum and nothing like the lowest possible energy state.

Likewise your objection about virtual particles appearing in a low energy state vacuum displays a misunderstanding of the physics. Those virtual particles are the ‘low energy’ of the vacuum, not something separate that ‘comes from’ another pot of energy.

And you have not addressed the point that most modern cosmological models do not involve ‘something coming from nothing.’ The Big Bang even at its most naive is not a cosmic egg popping into existence in a pre-existing space-time, but of space time where at the earliest moment in time there is already something.

We are still waiting on an answer to the following:
You have your concrete and very well demonstrated example of what you asked for, as well as a brief explanation of how that is not what most cosmologists claim.

Can you provide equally robust, demonstrable examples of a mind existing without a physical substrate, let alone ‘outside of time and space’, or of such a being conjuring something out of nothing? Otherwise it seems that it is your explanation for the cosmos that does indeed rely on asserting the existence of things completely outside of our experience.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The shoe is on both feet. If you say it cannot be proven there is only one universe, you also know it cannot be proven there are an infinity of universes, which is required, nor can you prove why this universe of infinities is not steady state but rather popping up everywhere. That is to say, how is fire breathed into the equations, and who or what breathes it?

But even if there were an infinity of universes, an explanation is lacking why there should be an infinity of them, and why we should believe that in this infinity there is more than one capable of sustaining human life.

At some point Occam’s Razor should be relevant.

This where the “argument from ignorance” shows up once more. It is not as if one universe needs to be assumed, it is known. There is one universe that we are certain about. To turn that into a mere “assumption” owing to our ignorance about other universes – as if believing in one universe requires defense because there “might” by an infinity of others – forgets – or ignores – completely, that there is a vast gulf between our knowledge of the one universe we do know and the multitude of them we can only vaguely imagine. And yet, by an argument from our ignorance, the point is pushed as a multiverse of the imagined gaps – we don’t know there aren’t others, therefore we cannot accept that there is just one.

How is that not an argument from ignorance or from “gaps” in our knowledge, in precisely the same way that a God of the gaps argument is an argument from ignorance?

Care to explain, DrTaffy?

And here we come back to Hume’s folly that what we can imagine ought to be taken as seriously as what can be known with certainty.

 

[DrTaffy]

The shoe is on both feet. If you say it cannot be proven there is only one universe, you also know it cannot be proven there are an infinity of universes, which is required, nor can you prove why this universe of infinities is not steady state but rather popping up everywhere

It doesn’t have to proven that there are many or an infinity of ‘universes’ if that is only being proposed as a possible explanation of various problems. In contrast, as the fine tuning argument relies on the assertion that there is only one universe, it does have to prove that assertion in order to stand as a proof of God.

You in fact are using the double standard that you accuse multiverse proponents of using - you want to use the assertion that God is a possible explanation of a given problem as ‘proof’ he exists, yet are objecting to multiverse proponents allegedly making the same argument as ‘proof’ for the multiverse. Not that I have seen any serious physicist claim such a proof of the multiverse.

At some point Occam’s Razor should be relevant.

Which is the most parsimonious claim: that the universe, of which we know there is already at least one (because look around and there it is) is not the only one of its type, or that there is a supernatural sentient entity who exists without a body, space or time who somehow (mechanism unspecified) made it all happen? Do you have any concrete evidence of a mind existing without a body, for example?

 

[DrTaffy]

This where the “argument from ignorance” shows up once more.
…]
How is that not an argument from ignorance or from “gaps” in our knowledge, in precisely the same way that a God of the gaps argument is an argument from ignorance?

Care to explain, DrTaffy?

Easy - you apparently do not understand the terms you are using.

The ‘argument from ignorance’ refers to making an assertion and demanding that it be accepted as proven unless your interlocutor can disprove it. The various flavours of ‘multiverse’, AFAIK, are only proposed by physicists as potential answers to various problems.

The God of the Gaps fallacy is a specific example of the argument from ignorance. As would be your implied assertion that the existence of only one universe should be accepted unless proof of other universes is provided.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How about you address the topic of the thread rather than trying to edit history? For example, you could respond to this:

We are still waiting on an answer to the following:
You have your concrete and very well demonstrated example of what you asked for, as well as a brief explanation of how that is not what most cosmologists claim.

Can you provide equally robust, demonstrable examples of a mind existing without a physical substrate, let alone ‘outside of time and space’, or of such a being conjuring something out of nothing? Otherwise it seems that it is your explanation for the cosmos that does indeed rely on asserting the existence of things completely outside of our experience.

Prove that a mind can exist without a physical substrate but do so using only references to physical, and therefore publicly observable, substrates? Is that what you are asking?

Seems a loaded question. Prove mind exists on its own but do so ONLY with necessary references to physical objects. Prove you have a mind, but do so only by talking about your fingers, toes, heart and brain.

It is not clear to me that mental events are “completely outside of our experience.” Perhaps yours, but not mine. I see no reason to disqualify mind from the realm of explanatory entities merely because it might not require “physical substrates.” Again, assumption on your part.

I have ideas all the time and those ideas impact physical reality somehow. How and why are, as yet, unexplained, but that is no reason to disqualify mind altogether. And your “physical substrates” condition is just question begging.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Easy - you apparently do not understand the terms you are using.

The ‘argument from ignorance’ refers to making an assertion and demanding that it be accepted as proven unless your interlocutor can disprove it. The various flavours of ‘multiverse’, AFAIK, are only proposed by physicists as potential answers to various problems.

The God of the Gaps fallacy is a specific example of the argument from ignorance. As would be your implied assertion that the existence of only one universe should be accepted unless proof of other universes is provided.

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.

 

[DrTaffy]

Prove that a mind can exist without a physical substrate but do so using only references to physical, and therefore publicly observable, substrates? Is that what you are asking?

Any reasonably robust concrete evidence would do. But see below.

Seems a loaded question. Prove mind exists on its own but do so ONLY with necessary references to physical objects. Prove you have a mind, but do so only by talking about your fingers, toes, heart and brain.

It is a loaded question. But PR wants us to answer a similarly loaded question - and when we did answer the original loaded question she upgraded it to make it even more loaded (give evidence of something coming from absolute absence of anything, even time and space). Despite the fact that the theist side is in fact the one making absolute statements about such absolute nothingness - that nothing can come from it - without any experience of such absolute nothingness.

So surely if she wants to ban us from even hypothesising about something coming from nothing, surely she should hold herself to the same standard when not hypothesising but making absolute statements about Nothing and about supernatural sentient entities existing outside of space and time.

It is not clear to me that mental events are “completely outside of our experience.”

Who asserted anything of the sort? I was talking about supernatural sentient entities existing outside of space and time.

 

[DrTaffy]

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.

Asserting that there is one and only one universe is a much stronger statement. And if it is a necessary assumption for a proof, that proof fails if the assumption is not also proven.

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 God hypothesis is not an argument, so cannot be a fallacy of any kind. The alleged ‘proof’ of that hypothesis can be.

A ‘proof’ along the lines of " I assert (something that leads to the conclusion God exists) and you must accept that as true unless and until you prove me wrong" is making the argument from ignorance fallacy. One along the lines of “I assert that science does not adequately explain X, therefore God did it, and you must accept that as true unless and until you prove me wrong” is making the God of the Gaps argument.