Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

Hi Hangdawg,
I think you missed my point earlier. If there were no conciousness to ponder the why or the how then the point would be moot. The universe would exist if tomorrow man became extinct but would God? Assigning a 'purpose' or reason to the universe is done because you exist to do so. But would a bacteria assign such a raison de entre? You are right, you personally can not make sense of the why without assigning a creator, but there are a vast amount of people in the world who make no such assumptions. Have a great day dawg!

Yeesh, another one. Postulating the existence of a supernatural entity as an explanation for the physical universe is simply passing the torch. You are simply replacing one unexplained phenomena with another. It is absurd for one to be baffled by the unexplained, purposeless existence of the universe yet be satisifed with the explanation that it was created by a magic being who's existence is also unexplained. Actually, it's a sure sign one isn't thinking.This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-12-2004 06:23 PM

More precisely, my assertion would be that unless one presupposes a deity, your questions are moot. We seem to be in agreement on that point. Whether the proposition of a deity is a sound one is, of course, highly debatable.You go on to suggest replacing "why" with "how" in your questions and state, "I still hold that it is impossible to answer these questions with a "natural" answer."I will admit that these new questions have not been answered by science yet, but why would you assume they cannot be? I would like a more complete explanation, please. It seems well within the realm of possibility to me.This really a side note, but your logic is flawed in your closing example. A theory that completely and accurately describes the universe would by definition also describe itself, as it is contained in the universe.

Hangdawg13 Hey "Dawg! Can you answer these two questions: Where did your god come from? How did your god create the universe?I have yet to see an answer at all by any believer that amounts to an actual explanation. Sometimes the answer is that we cannot know that without a reason as to why this is so. Sometimes the answer is "because he is god!" as if that was an answer.What is yours? You continue to look beyond the phenomena for an answer without considering that the simplest explanation is that the universe is contained in and follows from natural laws. But there is no reason that the natural laws could not have been otherwise.What is certain is that they had to be somethingIt is only human arrogance and ego that lends us to suppose that the universe came together for our benefit.Science does not know how the universe began.It is in all probability something we cannot resolve. However, what we can piece together is always consistent with what we learn from studying it. Mistakes are made constantly because we are always learning new things about the universe that need to be accounted for.Serious study of the structure of the universe is less than 3 centuries old yet huge strides have been made and we can explain many things and understand the basic outlines of what we see. And what we see is incredible.Can you find a similar consistency between the different gods that people follow?This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-12-2004 10:13 PM

---

When reputable scientists correct flaws in an experiment that produced fantastic results, then fail to get those results when they repeat the test with flaws corrected, they withdraw their original claims. They do not defend them by arguing irrelevantly that the failed replication was successful in some other way, or by making intemperate attacks on whomever dares to criticize their competence.

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

"Because the world is round, it turns me on.....Because the world is round.
Because the wind is high...it blows my mind. Because the wind is high.
Love is old love is new . Love is all , love is you.
Because the sky is blue....it makes me cry. Because the sky is blue." The BeatlesThere was this ground dwelling bird in a tree. One day he heard the most beautiful song and was compelled to find out where and who was singing it. He strained his ears to here it. Again he heard it and he jumped to the lowest branch of the tree determined to find this bird singing this heavenly song. Again he heard the song and he began to climb further up the tree ever listening. He was at the very top of the tree now and listening intentley. Head cocked he heard it one last time before he fell to the ground...he realized the one singing the beautiful song
was him.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

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".

quote:

---

The ONLY way you can have a self-contained explanation of existence is to look outside the natural realm.

---

That is the same thoughtless nonsense that has been repeated serveral times in this thread without justification. An uncaused universe is already self contained, by definition. There is no need for an outside cause, or at least no theist here has been able to demonstrate otherwise. Adding a magic, uncaused being who created the universe (which rules out it being timeless) does not simplify existence in any way. All it does is make the picture look more complicated, and unnecessarily so.Hangdawg13, you seem to be arguing that since the universe is bound by the laws of physics, it must therefore have an explanation. But I don't see any laws that state this. You will neeed to demonstrate what laws of physics are violated by an uncaused, unexplained universe. Otherwise, you are simply passing the torch, as is so common here.This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-13-2004 12:30 PM

In addressing this, I would first like to comment on your phrasing. Originally, you posed questions concerning "why", which implies purpose. we agreed that the existence of a purpose in our context is entirely contingent on the existence of a deity and tabled that point. You then suggested that "why" should be substituted with "how", which implies a factual finding of the ways in which a thing happened. Now you use "why/how" as if the two are similar in meaning, which they are not, or that both points should be addressed, one of which already has been. If we may, I would like to request that we not backtrack.Your contention that "No natural law can explain why/how nature exists" is baffling to me. If one takes "natural law" to mean a well constructed and firmly established set of theories, then "why" is beyond their purview and unimportant, there being no philosophic or scientific problem with saying that a thing has no purpose and merely is. "How" is exactly the thing such a set of theories are describing. If your contention is that no set of theories about a system can describe the origin of that system, I must ask that you somehow support your contention beyond simply stating it.

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.

...."or open your mind to a supernatural cause": (translation) just cuz God did it. I think the just cuz is sufficient.

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