Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

quote:

---

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.

---

The problem is that the process of questioning constitutes an infinite regress. The issue is not whether we can go on and on asking "why" and "how" but where do we stop and for what reason ?If we accept that we must call a stopping point somewhere then why would we need to go beyond the natural ? If we get down to the fundamentals of nature - and that is the only point where we could be forced to go beyond the natural - then why not call the halt there ?But if we do not then we are stuck with an infinite regress.To argue that the supernatural does not have cause and effect will not do since your whole motivation for going beyond nature is to attribute nature to a supernatural cause. If there is no cause and effect in the supernatural realm then we cannot make the move beyond nature - yet if cause and effect applies even partially in the supernatural realm we need to ask where and why we stop asking the questions of "how" and "why".

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 ?

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

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.

I admit to not paying attention to it, otherwise I would have pointed it out as direct proof that you DID use "just cuz" as the ultimate answer.Simply phrasing it as you have doesn't change the nature of the statement.No, your argument is just special pleading which leaves the answer you prefer as the only answer you allow.

That is not what I saad. I said that you are making a "just cux" argument. If something exists for no reason what is that other than "just cuz" ?In fact if anyone is proposing cause and effect with "no boundary of time and space" it is you. You are the one who said that we had to trace causation beyond the natural. So the problem is all yours.

I know what you are saying. "Just cuz" is not a statement that there was a cause - if it were then it could not break the cause and effect chain. It is a statement that there is NO cause.You've set up a situation where we have to choose etween an infinite regress and "just cuz" - and then you say that "just cuz" is not legitimate. Except when you like it.As for your new argument, if you acknowledge that "casue and effect" does NOT apply outside our universes you are denying even the POSSIBILITY that our universe had a cause, and denying that the supernatural can have any effect. That is hardly acknowledging that the supernatural exists !

Oh please do explain why it is fallacious for technical terminology in physics to differ from common meanings.

Any potential "fine tuner(s)" must be complex, ordered entities.Therefore there must be more basic regularities that permit them to operate. How is this possible without more fine tuning ?Any potential "fine tuner(s)" must be considered "alive" in at least a broad sense of the term. If their existence does not require further fine tuning of any sort then it follows that life itself does not require a fine-tuned universe - or to the extent it does, it is because the "fine tuner(s)" fall short of being "alive" in important respects.