|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator | |||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1422 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
HangDawg,
quote:If you replace natural with real, you get my take on this whole matter: you want to pursue the questioning beyond what's real and find God. That is, most of us let our curiosity lead us somewhere real that makes sense, but that doesn't seem to be an issue with the Christian seeker. Sure, the unreal is an infinite sea of possibilities, only because the bounds of reasonableness and coherence don't constrain the believer's imagination. Outside the realm of the real, anything goes. Consequently, that's where God resides. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 780 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
That is the same thoughtless nonsense That statement is false. I'm thinking very hard about this.
repeated serveral times in this thread without justification. Also a false statement. I gave the circularity as my justification.
An uncaused universe is already self contained, by definition. Did you look that up in a dictionary?
There is no need for an outside cause The only laws we've ever observed, the laws that govern this universe, demand it... But there is no law that says these laws must exist.
Adding a magic Magic is a series of illusions performed well within the laws of nature.
uncaused being I already explained this.
who created the universe (which rules out it being timeless) Actually just the opposite. If the being were bound by time, he would not have existed before the universe was created and therefore could not be the creator.
does not simplify existence in any way. I'm taking 16 hours of engineering classes right now and I guarantee you my existence would be simpler if I ignored the laws of nature. But I don't choose to ignore the laws. I choose to learn more about them and apply them to my life anyway. Similarly, learning the purpose and meaning of the creator is something that complicates my life, but I do it anyway.
All it does is make the picture look more complicated, and unnecessarily so. Yep, you're absolutely right. It is not necessary for us to live physical lives without pondering the essence of God. But is it beneficial? Unequivocally, yes. I personally like a complicated, colorful, contrasting, lively picture.
Hangdawg13, you seem to be arguing that since the universe is bound by the laws of physics, it must therefore have an explanation. I'm arguing that no law of physics can explain the existence of the laws of physics because this is circular.
You will neeed to demonstrate what laws of physics are violated by an uncaused, unexplained universe. No law is violated, but no question is answered. How does that profit us?
Otherwise, you are simply passing the torch, as is so common here. I already said I can't prove God. However, I answered the questions so I get a cookie. Have a nice day. This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 10-13-2004 05:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well that response pretty much exposes the weaknesses in your position.
If you don't accept an infinite regress you WILL be forced to a "just cuz" argument. So NOT wanting to give one simply forces you into an infinite regress - or finding a criterion better than personal likes and dislikes for stopping where you choose. So what you have here is not an argument for the supernatural but just special pleading designed to get to your preferred conclusion. Morevoer, contrary to your belief it is far from certain that the natural world is entirely deterministic - more likely the fundamental reality is stochastic. Where does a "LAW" of cause and effect fit in there ? An illusion created by the laws of probability ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beercules Inactive Member |
quote:Perhaps you are, but the claim you posted in this thread is a thoughtless claim. When you say one must resort to the supernatural without bothering to show how an uncaused natural world is impossible, it doesn't look like a lot of thought when into the argument. I have attempted to snip irrelevant claims and posts that will sidetrack the matter. Here are the crucial points:
quote:No, you claimed any attempt to explain the laws of physics through natural means would be circular. But you haven't shown how such an explanation is necessary in the first place. I can understand how one can be unhappy with accepting a brute fact, which in this case would be the physical universe. But all you're doing is replacing this brute fact with a supernatural brute fact. Here is what you said:
quote:I have bolded the crucial text above. Now here is bolded text with the important question I asked before: which physical law demands the universe has a cause? I don't know of any such laws. Oddly enough, you then contradicted yourself here:
quote:Wait a minute here. You just claimed no laws of physics would be violated with an uncaused universe. But further above, you claimed that the laws of physics do in fact demand the universe to have a cause. If that's so, then an uncaused universe would certainly violate those laws. Here is what you posted, in case your forgot: The only laws we've ever observed, the laws that govern this universe, demand it... Well, which is it? Are you claiming the laws of physics demand the universe have a cause? Or are you agreeing with me that no such law exists, effectively leaving you with no argument?
quote:You're missing the point. You haven't yet demonstrated that such an explanation is required. A physical universe as a brute fact is no less possible than the supernatural deity as a brute fact you are in favor of. This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-13-2004 06:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Hangdawg13
if you keep asking why and how about things WITHIN the natural universe, you will ultimately be driven to a supernatural conclusion. In a universe that is only natural, unplanned, and without conscious design there are no supernatural conclusions but only unnswered natural ones.You yourself ask questions that cannot be directly answered.
Why does the universe exist? Why do the universe's natural laws exist? We do not know the answer to either question. However that does not mean we do not have our understandings that allow us to place borders on just what is possible or not.
Are you saying if the universe were governed by different laws this would make the question of why and how it exists meaningless? No. What I am saying is that there is no reason these natural laws had to take the form that they did.In other words no matter what laws came into effect sentient beings that discuss it within those universes cannot use the natural laws as a premise in arguement supporting that which assumes these laws could not be otherwise.{Phew!}
You say it is certain that there had to be something. What natural law tells you that this is certain? Well, We are talking about natural laws are we not? If there are natural laws in place then those natural laws have to be something correct? The law of gravity could just aa easily been one of repulsion.The curve of binding energy could have assumed a different form. The speed of light could be a different one.Whateverframework they assume it had to be something right? All I am trying to convey is that there is nothing that prevents the universe from having had a different set of natural laws.We may not understand the means by which natural laws attain the values they have however we learn more and more each day that illuminates previous mysteries thought beyond our grasp. My point here is that no natural theory or law or whatnot will ever be able to explain why and how because the laws that govern the universe forbid it. You can't have a natural self-contained explanation for nature because it is inevitably circular in nature. Why do you suppose that? We need only find a mechanism that allows us to explain how the universe ended up with the values it did then we can go a long way towards surmising what it was it wasn't a universe.
You can't have a natural self-contained explanation for nature because it is inevitably circular in nature. How do you come to that conclusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Hi Hangdawg,
Interesting thread this.
Hangdawg writes: But saying God exists just cuz is not circular since God is supernatural and therefore does not require a cause. Saying the universe exists "just cuz" IS circular because time space cause and effect all apply to the universe. I'm guessing your logic goes something like: a) everything which is natural has a causeb) therefore ALL that is natural had a cause c) since by b) this cause cannot be natural, it must be something other - supernatural d) we call this supernatural agent God Is this a fair assessment of your reasoning? Personally, I'd say that there were problems with all the premises above (not necessarily insurmountable) and others are pointing this out to you, but I just wanted to highlight the logical error in going from (a) to (b). Whilst it may be true (quantum physics notwithstanding) that all the effects in the Universe have an antecedent, proximate cause, one cannot then apply this to the Universe as a whole without committing the fallacy of composition. If you follow the link, you'll see that the fallacy of composition occurs when we try to ascribe to the set the properties of the members of the set. Frustatingly for both sides of the argument, this doesn't mean that it is not true - just that one does not follow from another. The example I see quoted everywhere is: - all men have a mother- therefore humanity has a mother or - all atoms are colourless- therefore all objects made from atoms are colourless. to - all objects in the Universe have a cause- therefore the Universe had a cause So while we have some basis for describing how things in the Universe ought to behave, we've no justification for applying these rules to the Universe at large. We've no idea what properties Universes have - maybe they can bootstrap themselves into existence, when nothing in the Universes can? The reason this fallacy occurs when talking about the Universe, as I see it, is in the way the Universe is commonly described - "the set of all the things which exist". If this is how you define the Universe then I'd probably agree that each of the things in the Universe does have an immediate cause (again, ignore quantum), but the problem is that this definition of the Universe only includes the present tense, whatever that means, so cannot account for the Big Bang, as that no longer "exists" in the present. A better, and all encompassing definition of Universe is "the set of all the things that have existed, currently exist or will exist". This obviously includes the Big Bang. Its now much harder to see why this set should have a cause since it does not vary with time - indeed it doesn't really relate very well to anything we know in everyday life - and, much like the God concept - there is no sense of antecedence or proximity when describing this Universe. In the sense of eternal being time invariant, this set is just as eternal as God is purported to be, and less troublesome philosophically. Cause and effect simply need not apply. PE This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-13-2004 07:25 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
You are repeating yourself. Let me once more request some support for the following statement (other then a restatement of it):
"Even if we found a theory that described the behavior of everything in the universe including itself, it could not explain how it exists without being circular. It could explain how it works now that it is in existence, but it cannot explain how or why it is in existence." A circular argument is one in which a premise is the same as the conclusion. How is that criticism applicable to our proposed theory of everything that also accounts for it's own and the universe's existence? I can see no logical bar to to such a formulation. If you can, please point it out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 780 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
This hypothetical theory of everything would tie all the underlying laws together into one beatiful statement of the nature of the universe. IOW this theory explains why all the others work. It cannot explain how or why it exists.
A circular argument is one in which a premise is the same as the conclusion. How is that criticism applicable to our proposed theory of everything that also accounts for it's own and the universe's existence? I can see no logical bar to to such a formulation. If you can, please point it out. I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly. A theory that states that it exists is a circular argument. Therefore you can never have a scientific theory that explains why and how the universe exists; you can only have a scientific theory that explains how the existing universe functions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 780 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thanks for your post. I feel like you're taking this argument somewhere.
Is this a fair assessment of your reasoning? Yep.
Whilst it may be true (quantum physics notwithstanding) that all the effects in the Universe have an antecedent, proximate cause, one cannot then apply this to the Universe as a whole without committing the fallacy of composition. Thanks very much for pointing this out. I was thinking of that on the back of my mind but didn't know what to call it.
So while we have some basis for describing how things in the Universe ought to behave, we've no justification for applying these rules to the Universe at large. This was my reasoning for saying that probabilities are meaningless when we speak of the universe or an infinitum of universes.
We've no idea what properties Universes have - maybe they can bootstrap themselves into existence, when nothing in the Universes can? So perhaps we can call these properties "supernatural" since they do not follow the natural laws that we know?
Its now much harder to see why this set should have a cause since it does not vary with time - indeed it doesn't really relate very well to anything we know in everyday life - And this is what I am describing as supernatural. We have to throw out cause and effect as well as all other natural laws precisely at t = 0 for the universe clock. t < 0 does not exist.
and, much like the God concept - there is no sense of antecedence or proximity when describing this Universe. In the sense of eternal being time invariant, this set is just as eternal as God is purported to be, and less troublesome philosophically. Cause and effect simply need not apply. Yes! so we've whittled this down to two very simple alternatives: this inifinite unbound supernatural set has a personality or not. You say no because there are fewer philosophical questions. I say yes because I believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
Hi PaulK, could you elaborate on this a bit? What does this statement mean. Thanks in advance.
more likely the fundamental reality is stochastic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Hangdawg13
We have to throw out cause and effect as well as all other natural laws precisely at t = 0 for the universe clock. t < 0 does not exist. Not necessarily since T=0 signifies the moment of the initiation of the big bang{what a misnomer!}However T
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It means that the most basic elements of the universe are probably not deterministic. They can only be described in probabilistic terms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
I have some qualms about calling the Universe itself supernatural just because we simply do not know how it behaves. Under that reasoning, it seems to me, black holes would be supernatural.
Hangdawg writes: Yes! so we've whittled this down to two very simple alternatives: this inifinite unbound supernatural set has a personality or not. You say no because there are fewer philosophical questions. I say yes because I believe. To me, this is a little bit like trying to cut a cake into halves when you can't see where the cake is. The two possibilities might as well be whether or not the Universal set has hair, or indeed likes cookies. The set may indeed have a personality but this is one of an infinite number of questions we could ask about it. Nothing I've said in this or my previous post makes it impossible for God to exist of course, nothing I could ever say could. My point here is just to argue that the idea of a God does not follow from all objects in the Universe having a cause(whereas cause and effect may very well follow from the existence of God). That said, I think you knew this and your argument is along the lines of 'think about it, if God were to exist, then He would be an elegant solution to the metaphysical problem of "why is there something rather than nothing?" ' - i.e we know that there MUST be something beyond our understanding out there, I have a personal and ongoing experience of something beyond our understanding - so is it not reasonable to assume that these two things are one and the same? This is a reasonable argument IMO, (many atheists might disagree with the notion that your personal experience is with God and not just your mind playing tricks, but this is a different argument). I find the idea of demonstrating God as the First Cause a bit of a red herring though. PE This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-14-2004 03:01 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
God is a poor answer to the question - because God IS "something". If God is assumed to be the ultimate cause of everything else then the question becomes "why does God exist ?". At which point it's back to what Hangdog calls "just cuz" or even a refusal to acknowledge the legtitimacy of the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
That's a fair point - what I meant to say that for the theist who has no doubt that God exists, the question reads more like "Given God exists, why is there something else rather than nothing?" Ans: because God wanted it that way.
Its only an elegant answer if you presuppose the existence of God in the first place, so could never be persuasive to an atheist. PE
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024