"Why Is There Something Instead of Nothing?" An article giving a reason for believing God created the universe

[AlNg]

The correct symbology is “⇔”.

I don’t think for his example, that <=> is entirely correct either because <=> means if and only if. This relation <=> is a transitive relation, just as => is a transitive relation. However A causes B is not a transitive relation.
Consider this:
A <=> B and B <=> C implies A <=> C.
Further A => B and B => C implies A => C.
They are both transitive relations., But causality is not transitive. So => and <=> cannot be used for causality.
A causes B and B causes C does not mean that A causes C.
Example: A right handed terrorist is going to push a button with his right hand to explode a bomb.
A dog comes and viciously bites his right hand which causes him to only use his left hand. The terrorist then uses his left hand to push the button and this causes the bomb to explode. The bomb explodes and this causes 200 people to die. Now if causality were transitive, A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, would imply that A causes D. But if transitivity were true for causality, then that would mean that the dog biting the right hand of the terrorist caused 200 people to die.
Example B: Given above with the rock falling down the mountain.
A large rock falls down a mountain.
This causes the hiker to duck to avoid the rock.
this causes the rock to miss the hiker.
This causes the hiker to survive.
But you cannot conclude that a rock falling down a mountain caused a hiker to survive.
Conclusion:
“if A then B” is not the same as “A causes B”.

 

[o_mlly]

To say “S only if N” means that S can only ever be true when N is true. That is, N is necessary for S to be true.

To say “S if and only if N” means that S is true if N is true, and N is true if S is true.

Since N is true if S is false, I prefer “only if” as the conjunction.

I’ve participated in hijacking this thread. Apologies to the OP.

 

[rossum]

But S does not exist (i.e. ~S) does not cause ~N (or for N to not exist).

If there is no universe in existence, then there is no creator of the universe in existence either. There may be a potential (but not actual) creator or there may be a creator-to-be, but if there is no universe then there cannot be a creator of the universe. ~S => ~N applies.

Two strangers are talking at a party:

“What do you do?”

“I’m a creator.”

“So, what do you create?”

“I create … universes.”

“Wow! How many universes have you created?”

“Erm … well …” he shuffles his feet and looks embarrassed, “none actually.”

“Oh my, is that the time. Sorry, I have to rush.”

If there is no creation then there can be no creator, and vice versa. The two are mutually conditioning.

 

[AlNg]

If there is no universe in existence, then there is no creator of the universe in existence either. There may be a potential (but not actual) creator or there may be a creator-to-be, but if there is no universe then there cannot be a creator of the universe. ~S => ~N applies.

Not true. There may not be a universe in existence now, but the creator could have created a universe in the past and now, at this point in time, the universe does not exist.
If there is no universe in existence now, there could still be a creator who created a universe in the past, but it has since disappeared.

 

[rossum]

We agree. The existence of a creator of the universe is contingent on their being a universe either at present or at some time in the past.

That makes the existence of a “creator of the universe” contingent on the existence of some universe at some time.

A contingent being cannot be necessary.

 

[AlNg]

We agree.

You are playing with semantics.

 

[rossum]

Any “creator of a universe” must have created a universe. To be such a creator requires that at least one universe exists, or has existed.

That makes the designation “Creator” contingent.

This is just a specific example of the designation “cause” being contingent. Something cannot be a cause unless the effect exists or has exists. You cannot be a parent unless there is at least one child.

A claimed “creator of universes” is making a false claim if no universes have been created.