Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

If you can answer these two questions: Why does the universe exist? Why do the universe's natural laws exist?These questions stand regardless of any multiple universe theories, regardless of geologic f-18s, and regardless of any meaningless post hoc attempt at figuring the probabilities. I have yet to see an athiest or agnostic answer them.I have heard many say that it is futile to answer the question of "why?" with belief in God, because this is fruitless for our understanding of the universe. They would rather insist that, were it physically possible, humans could find a "natural" cause for the universe. But all that is "natural" is contained within and governed by the natural laws of the universe, therefore it is impossible to find a natural cause for nature. I see no way to explain the existence of "natural" phenomena of the universe without believing in a supernatural cause: God.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 10-12-2004 03:10 PM

Thanks for your reply. Translation:
Why does the universe exist? I don't know.
Why do the universe's natural laws exist? Just cuz.sorry... no cookie for you. I did not even insert man, or bacteria, or f-18s into the questions. The questions deal solely with the existence of the universe and its laws.

Awww... sorry man, I got hungry... Just ate the last one.

Thank you for your reply. I didn't say my argument was evidence. I have accepted the fact that it is impossible to scientifically prove God. I think I understand what you are saying. The meaning of the word "purpose" implies that a conscious being desired it. So if there is a purpose for the universe, then it follows there must be a conscious being that desires it. Since a purpose is inherent in the answer to the question of "why?", it is impossible to answer the questions of "why?" without believing in God. This is why I believe in God.You said that if one does not assume that some metaphysical purpose is needed, then the answer to both questions is "For no reason or purpose, they merely are."So your answer to this question is also: "just cuz", and you are content to ignore those two questions. Of course I realize as I just stated above that you cannot answer the two questions unless you believe in God.If you'll allow me to equivocate here... You could also tie the less loaded question of "how?" into it, because I think they become one in the same when trying to understand why/how there is something rather than nothing, and why/how the laws of the universe exist. Why implies a purpose, but how deals only with the mechanics. Let me replace the "why" with "how" in the two questions. I still hold that it is impossible to answer these questions with a "natural" answer. Suppose a million years from now scientists discover the theory of everything. This theory would find the ultimate natural law that describes the universe. Could this theory also explain its own existence? It cannot.

Thanks for your reply, 1.61803. I don't see how that makes the point moot. Even if the universe contained no life, it still must exist for a reason... not neccessarily a purpose, but there MUST be an answer to "why?" and "how?" it exists even if no one is there to ponder it.Can't we agree that there MUST be an answer to my questions of why/how the universe exists even if we don't agree that we can know the answers? You too!

Thank you for your reply. No natural law can explain why/how nature exists. That is like saying, "I exist because I exist." But this theory could not explain why/how it exists. You can always ask why and how. If keep asking why and how you will ultimately be forced to either provide a supernatural answer or say, "just cuz" and quit worrying about it.

Hey Sidelined, thanks for your reply. I love arguing with you. Sorry, I ditched that last debate on this... Got too much stuff going on. Haha... back to this again... "where" is a space word. "how" implies cause and effect and time also properties of the universe.As I just said in my previous post, if you keep asking why and how about things WITHIN the natural universe, you will ultimately be driven to a supernatural conclusion. So pretend that you do believe in the supernatural and accept this conclusion rather than avoiding the question. It is fruitless to ask the questions of "why" and "how" about a SUPERNATURAL being because by definition, this being is not governed by NATURAL laws such as time, chance, space, cause and effect, etc... The ONLY way you can have a self-contained explanation of existence is to look outside the natural realm. Suppose a phenomena that can be explained by natural laws is found that explains our natural laws. Why and how does that natural phenomena exist so that our laws exist? You see what I mean? You cannot have a self-contained NATURAL explanation. I'm not sure how to dissect this. Are you saying if the universe were governed by different laws this would make the question of why and how it exists meaningless? ...because it wouldn't. Unless, if this alternate universe did not have the dimensions of time and space, there could be no cause and effect logic so the questions of why and how in this kind of universe ARE moot. But this hypothetical is a SUPUERNATURAL universe... so in a wierd sort of way, you too, are looking to the supernatural to answer my questions. Now I haven't even opened the can of why and how WE exist. I'm just talking about the universe in general which by ID or no ID produced us. You say it is certain that there had to be something. What natural law tells you that this is certain? I could say, "Sidelined's Law says that the laws of the universe exists because we are certain something exists." This law is true throughout the universe, but it is circular. It doesn't do anything for us except assert what we already know: something exists. I know, I know... and I'm not dogging on science. I like science. I had some productive debates with you all on here and am now open to the theory of evolution. I like what I have learned from science. The ToE was a bitter pill for me to swallow at first ONLY because I arrogantly based my faith in God partly on a scientific argument. 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. I think thats more of a faith and belief question.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 10-13-2004 01:55 AM

Thanks for your reply. Let me give an explanation for why I sort of equivocated on why/how.If I find a huge boulder in a mountain valley, I could say, "why is this boulder here?" The answer could be that it broke off the mountain and fell. I could then ask: how did this happen? to which the answer might be that heating and cooling produced cracks and gravity pulled the broken piece down the mountain.Now the answer to the question of why in this case adds no purpose... unless of course you ask why is that mountain there, why is the earth here,..., why is the universe here?Now the answer to why the universe is here could be, like the boulder question, the result of a purposeless supernatural cause. But whatever the cause of our universe is, it cannot be described in terms of a natural law because this would end up being circular. I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. I'm figuring out how to say this as I go along. 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.So in order to explain the existence of the universe with all its natural laws you either must be content to ignore the questions and end it with a circular argument: "things are the way they are because that's the way they are" IOW "just cuz"... or open your mind to the possibility of a supernatural first cause.

Thanks for your reply. 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.It sounds like you almost admitted that if you keep asking the questions you WILL be forced to a supernatural answer. My motivation for going outside the natural is to end the cycle of "why" and "how" questions without giving a circular "just cuz" argument. I did not say that the supernatural cannot be a cause. I only said that it is not necessarily GOVERNED by laws of cause and effect. I see it like a pot of boiling water... the water is the supernatural and a bubble of steam is the natural. It nucleates from the liquid and grows into a big bubble. (an imperfect analogy of course) Similarly, the supernatural is an infinite sea of possibilities or life or "Word" out of which the natural was nucleated.Asking why/how the supernatural realm exists is meaningless if there is no required space-time and therefore no LAW of cause and effect outside of the natural realm. And just because there is no LAW of cause and effect this does not mean that an environment with this space-time and laws cannot be realized.

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.Its your choice of course as to whether you want to include "God did it." on the end of the "just cuz". But why would you want to do that?If you ignore the "God did it" you're left with a circular argument and therefore incomplete understanding of the existence of the universe.I know what you'll say: adding "God did it" even if it eliminates the logical problem, and even if He does exist doesn't help us to understand the universe in any way. And in science the simplest theory always wins, so we might as well elminate "God did it" from the "just cuz". But perhaps scientific understanding is not the only kind of profitable understanding.If God did do it "on purpose", that purpose works its way down the chain of "why's?" and gives everything purpose. In this case, if you leave "God did it" off of the "just cuz", you are not only ignoring the problem of the circular cause and effect argument, but you are also ignoring a whole dimension of reality created by the purpose of the Creator.I know I can't prove God exists to you. If we believed in God based on arguments, we would be trusting ourselves instead of God. That is the whole purpose of faith: to humbly trust something other than yourself.So although I can't prove God to you, I hope I can at least show why I believe in God and why such a belief is relevant to a complete understanding of the universe.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 10-13-2004 05:24 PM

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

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.

This is true, but I gather from your posts that you believe that if we could somehow set up a laboratory to learn about the supernatural which this natural universe has nucleated from that we would find mathematical equations and laws and theories to describe it much like we have done with our natural universe. There is no reason to believe that in a set of ininite possibilities anything would resemble what we now know of our possibility that was realized.

Thank you for your reply. Point taken. Yep, that was basically my point. I'm glad you understand what I'm trying to say.I was also trying to defeat the argument used by atheists that the idea of anything being supernatural is as stupid as "flying pink pixie whatevers." I'm trying to show that beyond this universe where natural laws prevail must exist a whole realm of "supernatural" possibilities not the least of which includes a personal God. My personal experience greatly helps confirm what I believe, but it is not the source of my belief. I trust in the words of the prophets and the words of Christ and hold on to the faith that the supernatural realm of infinite possibility is a personal God who cares and did this for a purpose. And that is due to the logical fallacy of composition, which I now understand as well.Thanks very much for your thoughts on this.