|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 19, 2020 1:45:26 GMT 10
This is a question that KTJ asks, I answer and three months later he asks again as if I never addressed it in the first place. ...And so here it is again.
And this time I will make it sticky because apparently KTJ has a very short and limited memory.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 19, 2020 8:42:35 GMT 10
Voltaire: « Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer »
subtitles: “if God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him”. That famous line from Voltaire dates from 1768.
Unpacking that: Whether or not God exists isn’t the issue. It’s culture-specific and sociologically/politically driven.
I’m sure Occam that all the pomp and obscene wealth of the Vatican leaves you cold. And yet it’s there, it’s been there for a couple of millennia and will certainly outlast the likes of you and me. The Pope styles himself as the “Vicar of Christ” which I’m certain is a title that you would firmly reject and quite possibly consider an abomination. These things don’t occur in a vacuum.
I need to get breakfast organised ...
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Sept 19, 2020 11:20:00 GMT 10
It still boils down to an arbitrary starting point. If a god did exist, and created our universe ... then that god must exist in a different universe. How did that different universe come into being? The first cause dilemma can never be solved. It's really a "nonsense" argument. An infinite set of causes cannot exist? ... so "infinity" cannot exist ... so an "infinite god" cannot exist? Some would argue that the first cause god theory is actually self-refuting: 1. Everything is caused by something other than itself 2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself. 3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long. 4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause. 5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.
The most telling criticism of this argument is that it is self-refuting. If everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false. To save the argument, the first premise could be amended to read:
1*. Everything except god has a cause other than itself.
But if we're willing to admit the existence of uncaused things, why not just admit that the universe is uncaused and cut out the middleman? David Hume wondered the same thing::
But if we stop, and go no farther, why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? ... By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we really assert it to be god; and the sooner we arrive at that Divine Being, so much the better. When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy.
David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
The simplest way to avoid an infinite regress is to stop it before it starts. If we assume that the universe has always existed, we don't need to identify its cause.
Even if the universe is not eternal (as the big bang suggests), 1* is still unacceptable because modern physics has shown that some things are uncaused.
According to quantum mechanics, subatomic particles like electrons, photons, and positrons come into and go out of existence randomly (but in accord with the Heisenberg uncertainty principles).
The real cause of the universe
What, then, caused the Big Bang/universe? I would propose that the Big Bang/universe was in fact uncaused. Let me explain. Time is a physical aspect of our universe. This much can be proven using General Relativity, which has been supported by experimental data. For example, one can look at the time dilation prediction of General Relativity, which predicts that time will run slower at lower gravitational potentials. This has been confirmed by the Haefele-Keating experiment and GPS itself. Time can be affected and changed by other physical systems, and if time can be affected by physical systems, it would be reasonable to suggest that time is of a physical nature. Without the universe, there is no reason to believe that time as we know it would still exist. In this respect, it would be no different to any other observable physical phenomena in our universe. No one proposes that gravity exists in the absence of our universe, so why should time be an exception? Basically, what reason is there to believe that time exists independently of the universe? None whatsoever. As far as we know it, time exists only as an aspect of the universe. In other words, the universe has existed at every point in time. There can be no ‘beginning’ to the universe, as a ‘beginning’ would make a reference to a ‘time’ before the universe. Considering that the only naturalistic assumption is that time is in itself a dimension of the universe, it would be a contradiction to postulate that time existed before the universe. For the same reasons, it would be impossible to say that time has not always existed, as the statement ‘always existed’ is contingent on the concept of time itself. As such, one might be able to argue that it is impossible for the universe to have had a beginning. And without a beginning, one can no longer claim that the universe has a cause. It might be worthwhile to note that while this line of logic would conclude that the universe was uncaused, it does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value, to arrive at a point where entropy at a maximum and the free energy is zero. Proponents of the idea that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time do come into conflict with this law, as the universe would essentially be in a state of total disorder given infinite time since, as we can see, the universe is clearly not yet at that stage. The argument being proposed in this essay is different because it is simply that the universe can’t have been caused. It means that the universe has always existed at every point in time, but it does not mean that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. The key difference has already been explained in the paragraph above.
Theistic arguments for a Creator
Some theists might argue that cause and effect has to apply to the universe, reason being that in all observable instances in our universe, the law of causality applies. This argument is heavily flawed, for several reasons. Cause and effect is observed with relation to entities within the physical universe. The concept of creation applies within the universe, as far as we have observed. However, neither of these necessarily suggests that causality should apply to the universe. As far as we can tell, causality is a purely naturalistic phenomena. Causality itself is contingent on the existence of the universe; just like all other concepts, there is no reason to presume that they would still apply if the universe did not exist. We only know causality as a natural process, and as such, cannot presume that it would apply to the universe as such. It would be an inversion of metaphysical axioms, since a universe must exist in order for cause and effect to exist.
Secondly, such an argument would work against the theist. If causality is a law that still holds, outside our universe, then there is no reason to believe that it must not apply to God. In fact there is reason to believe that it does apply to God; if God is the affecter in a causal chain then causality is applicable to God. In other words, if God is an element under causalities jurisdiction for the sake of him being the cause of the universe, we cannot then go and say that God is exempt from causality. The cause is just as much subject to the law of causality as the effect, since they are inseparable from it. Then, we can ask what caused God, and so on. Basically, such an argument would force the theist into committing the special pleading fallacy yet again. Lastly, the entire idea of cause and effect is a naturalistic concept contingent on time. The argument thus presupposes that time exists outside the universe, a claim that has zero evidence to support it. More on this in the next paragraph
The “problem” of semantics
Some might also accuse me of relying purely on semantics while making this argument. This is true to some extent, but instead of invalidating my argument, I find that in this case, it only serves to strengthen the case that the universe was uncaused. Consider this: every part of our language is deeply rooted in our experiences with the physical world. Take the idea of time existing outside of the universe. No human has ever dealt with time as a non-physical concept. We have only experienced time within our physical universe, and if anyone were to propose a special form of time, one that exists outside physical reality, the burden lies upon him to prove it. In discussions relating to supernaturalism, it is common to see theists arguing their position using a special version of causality, which is reliant about a supernaturalistic concept of time. The problem with their arguments is, their so-called supernatural concepts are in fact ones which draw heavily from the physical time and causality! They simply take their experiences of time in physical reality, and pretend that it is non-physical! Notice how their special versions of causality are virtually identical to the physical causality we experience, the only difference being that theistic causality is exempt from physical time, instead relying on ’supernaturalistic time’. What is supernaturalistic time? In an argumentative sense, it means nothing - it is simply meaningless.
sites.google.com/site/leavingchristianity/essays/a-criticism-of-the-first-cause-argumentAll this does is cause a headache. BTW Humans are extraordinarily egotistical creatures. Sadly, they have suffered a history of massive disappointments throughout their existence ... Attributing human characteristics to natural entities: Thor; Neptune; Ra etc etc etc. Centre of the Solar System? Sorry. Centre of the galaxy? Sorry. Centre of the universe? Sorry. I reckon when the Human species becomes extinct that the arguments about gods will finally end.
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Sept 19, 2020 13:23:34 GMT 10
Is it all just a matter of time? Perhaps "god" is G-Man?* and we are all Dr. Freeman? * Players of the computer game Half-Life II will understand.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 20, 2020 11:26:44 GMT 10
It still boils down to an arbitrary starting point. If a god did exist, and created our universe ... then that god must exist in a different universe. That is begging the question. There is no supposition that the first universe needs to be physical or follow the same rules as our universe... Your second objection is meaningless if time is a dimension exclusive to our universe. (As Einstien himself, proved.) If there is no time, there is no correlation of cause to effect... (Something can't come 'before', if there were no 'before' to be had.) That is what eternity is.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 22, 2020 8:21:48 GMT 10
Voltaire: « Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer » subtitles: “if God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him”. That famous line from Voltaire dates from 1768. On a side note, as a former English teacher I know you'll appreciate this delicious piece of Irony: The HQ of the Geneva Bible society is located in the late Philosopher's house. It would seem, the almighty isn't without a sense of humour. 😁
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 22, 2020 8:43:19 GMT 10
I’m glad he appreciates a good joke.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 22, 2020 9:07:49 GMT 10
I found Geneva to be a fascinating place for its connection with the Protestant Reformation. I visited the Pierre Cathedral where John Calvin preached. Like most Protestant churches in Europe it had had a history beforehand as a Catholic church. But notice the sober interior and the prominence given to the pulpit: There’s a church in Geneva where John Knox preached before he returned to Scotland. From memory it isn’t far from the Pierre Cathedral. The one that really knocked me out of my socks was the Grossmuenster in Zurich where that other great Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli preached. It is the most “Protestant” of all the Protestant churches I’ve seen in Europe except perhaps for the Westertoren in Amsterdam which is the first church in the world that was purpose built as a Protestant church rather than being a rededicated and refurbished former Catholic Church. But here’s the interior of the Grossmuenster: For Protestant reformers it was about the Word, for Catholics it’s always been about the Sacrament. There’s the difference. Here’s the Wall of the Reformers in Geneva:
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Sept 22, 2020 10:00:29 GMT 10
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.
Before you can decide who (or what) created god, you first need to prove god actually exists.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 22, 2020 17:12:55 GMT 10
Did a flea just fart?
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Sept 22, 2020 17:44:29 GMT 10
And this time I will make it sticky because apparently KTJ has a very short and limited memory. Ah, abuse your moderator tools in a vain attempt to win an argument.
You have a history of doing that.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 22, 2020 23:35:20 GMT 10
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.
Before you can decide who (or what) created god, you first need to prove god actually exists. No, God's existence isn't dependent on whether or not you have a proof for it. You don't have to believe in gravity or even have proof for it . It exists despite all of those things. ( And before you suggest that gravity can be proved, let me remind you that gravity is a force, and thus intangible. This contradicts your empirical demand for 'physical evidence'. ) So like gravity, God is perfectly capable of existing outside of your knowledge, or realm of experience. Nice try, though.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 22, 2020 23:38:02 GMT 10
And this time I will make it sticky because apparently KTJ has a very short and limited memory. Ah, abuse your moderator tools in a vain attempt to win an argument.
You have a history of doing that.There was no 'attempt'; your argument is already lost. No 'attempt' was ever required because you've failed to post any sort of counter-argument. And stop the melodrama, at least try to retain some dignity! Watch the argument in the video It should seem similar to yours, and ought to be taken just as seriously...
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Sept 23, 2020 4:59:57 GMT 10
The physics behind gravity is well-documented and easily understood.
There is no proof that any of the numerous gods of human beings (and there are a shitload of so-called gods) are anything more than god delusions inside their minds.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 23, 2020 10:21:53 GMT 10
Gee KTJ let’s see now your “troll the religion board” campaign is as old as this board. The posts never vary, the wording remains the same. Same adjectives, same nouns, same verbs, same syntax. And that over ten years. I wonder if in whatever little mental universe you fester within there’s some sort of award that you’re striving for. What would it be? “Batshit Boring Award”? “Consistently Maintained Coma-Inducing Boredom Levels for Ten Years”? You know, Occam, we lampoon this guy cruelly. It’s as if he nails himself to a cross (dunno how he manages that but still ...) with a sign that says “Here! Take the Piss!”. Any normal person would shrivel up and die of shame, wretchedness and humiliation in a corner, but not this guy. Is it just a thick skin? I think it’s more than that. I think that he’s a monumental idiot. A fool. He’s as thick as ten bricks. He simply just doesn’t get it.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 23, 2020 21:56:25 GMT 10
The physics behind gravity is well-documented and easily understood.
There is no proof that any of the numerous gods of human beings (and there are a shitload of so-called gods) are anything more than god delusions inside their minds. As is the physics behind the Axiomatic Law of Causality.In other words: If Intelligence exists in the universe something/someone intelligent had to create it. ...Or are you just not intelligent?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 23, 2020 23:49:38 GMT 10
And then there’s the maths limerick ...
There was a young man from Nepal Who had a hexagonal ball The square of his date Plus his penis times eight Was three fifths of five eighths of fuck all.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 24, 2020 0:24:30 GMT 10
No effect can be greater than it's cause. KTJ has no intelligence to lend. Ergo, KTJ has nothing to teach any of us.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 24, 2020 2:07:59 GMT 10
The physics behind gravity is well-documented and easily understood.
There is no proof that any of the numerous gods of human beings (and there are a shitload of so-called gods) are anything more than god delusions inside their minds. When you finally do get off of your high horse... I hope you land on your face.
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Sept 24, 2020 11:53:25 GMT 10
No effect can be greater than it's cause. KTJ has no intelligence to lend. Ergo, KTJ has nothing to teach any of us.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 25, 2020 6:00:55 GMT 10
No effect can be greater than it's cause. KTJ has no intelligence to lend. Ergo, KTJ has nothing to teach any of us. That is more of an example of the entropic principle, not causality. Objects on one another and becoming more disordered is not an example of an effect being greater than it Cause. Nature cannot lend what it doesn't have to give.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 25, 2020 6:30:27 GMT 10
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.
Before you can decide who (or what) created god, you first need to prove god actually exists. Your issue isn't a matter of 'proof'. The evidence is already all around you. "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." Romans 1:20 You ought to just be honest and admit that you don't believe in God, simply because you don't want to. By remaining unseen, God removes himself from this equation and leaves matters of faith to men, for us to search and consider for ourselves whether we believe. God wants you to have the freedom to accept or reject him. That is why God won't suddenly drop down and introduce himself--so if you wanted to, you could continue on as if he didn't exist. "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie." 2 Thessalonians 2:11 You say I am delusional; God says you are! Thanks, but I'll put my trust in God's opinion. You are more likely to be in err. (...because you are delusional)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 26, 2020 0:22:17 GMT 10
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.
Before you can decide who (or what) created god, you first need to prove god actually exists. Why didn't KTJ cross the road? ...Because he needed physical evidence, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the other side existed.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 26, 2020 0:46:16 GMT 10
If KTJ didn’t exist we’d have to invent him.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Sept 26, 2020 5:24:58 GMT 10
Oh ye weak-minded human individuals who believe the god delusion inside your minds is a real god, just because some bullshit, piecemeal book tells you so without offering any proof.
|
|