Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

HangDawg,

quote:

---

(In response to the question, "why go beyond the natural?")

​

Because we choose to. Because we're curious. In order to understand where we've come from and where we're going. And if we pursue the questioning beyond the natural and find God, we should do this to find the purpose and meaning of our existence.

---

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

That statement is false. I'm thinking very hard about this. Also a false statement. I gave the circularity as my justification. Did you look that up in a dictionary? 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. Magic is a series of illusions performed well within the laws of nature. I already explained this. 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. 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. 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. I'm arguing that no law of physics can explain the existence of the laws of physics because this is circular. No law is violated, but no question is answered. How does that profit us? 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

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 ?

quote:

---

That statement is false. I'm thinking very hard about this.

---

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:

---

Also a false statement. I gave the circularity as my justification.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

No law is violated, but no question is answered. How does that profit us?

---

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:

---

I'm arguing that no law of physics can explain the existence of the laws of physics because this is circular.

---

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

Hangdawg13 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. 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. 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!} 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.Whatever
framework 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. 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. How do you come to that conclusion?

Hi Hangdawg,Interesting thread this. I'm guessing your logic goes something like:a) everything which is natural has a cause
b) 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 GodIs 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 motheror- 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 causeSo 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.PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-13-2004 07:25 PM

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.

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. 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.

Thanks for your post. I feel like you're taking this argument somewhere. Yep. 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. This was my reasoning for saying that probabilities are meaningless when we speak of the universe or an infinitum of universes. So perhaps we can call these properties "supernatural" since they do not follow the natural laws that we know? 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. 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.

Hi PaulK, could you elaborate on this a bit? What does this statement mean. Thanks in advance.

Hangdawg13 Not necessarily since T=0 signifies the moment of the initiation of the big bang{what a misnomer!}However T

It means that the most basic elements of the universe are probably not deterministic. They can only be described in probabilistic terms.

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. 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.PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-14-2004 03:01 AM

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.

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