Mom and dad, open the door, take your kids by the hand, step outside, motion across the horizon and into the sky and down to bugs in the grass, then tell your kids, "this is what the world looks like if god does not exist".
Then explain that their mom and dad don't exist, the door doesn't exist, their hands don't exist, they don't exist (and have no value while you're at it, mom and dad), outside doesn't exist, the horizon doesn't exist, the sky doesn't exist, the bugs don't exist, the grass doesn't exist, the world doesn't exist, and what they see is merely hallucination.
Kevin, Those are indeed important concepts to teach, but even adults find great difficulty in understanding such things.
Part of being a parent is to give your kids a chance to grow and learn and discover for themselves. Step by step. Teach them to count before you teach them calculus.
Except the capitalization thing, that is simply an error. God is capitalized in mid-sentence to indicate a personalized concept of god, in a manner similar to capitalizing an individual's name. But god is not necessarily thought of that way, rather, as a generalized natural phenomenon, just as we don't capitalize "gravity".
So, yes, by all means, encourage your kids to question what they see at face value. Is the world as we perceive it?
What are ordinary objects made of, and what is that made of, and what is that made of, and is there ever an end to such a regress of questioning?
What actually exists then? Only the things in the world as we perceive them, or is it the case that only the things at the bottom of our regress of questioning are what really exist?
Where did the world come from? How did the world get to be as it is? Where is the world going? What is the best way to find the answers to such questions?
Kevin, "It was capitalized in the OP, so whatever you're talking about, or whatever definition you're inventing for your own use, it isn't on topic." God is a subset of god, so, the topic of the OP is included in god.
unkleE, "(I think the Cosmological/Kalam argument are true.)" What would you tell the kids when they ask you what created god?
William Lane Craig is a famous proponent of the Kalam. To defend it he cites distorted nonsense as if such assertions are somehow scientific fact. Most especially that the universe supposedly began to exist at the big bang, which is a silly idea based on an invalid and naïve application of General Relativity in a regime where GR is known to break down, that is, be invalid.
The OP poses an interesting test of one's ideas, how would you explain it to children?
If you can't explain it to a child, do you really understand it yourself?
Can you answer a child who continually asks "why" as a retort to every deeper explanation you give? At what point do you run out of meaningful answers to the incessant questioning from the inquisitive child?
Religious arguments from a first cause typically fall into one of two categories. 1.Temporal first cause (per accidens causal regression)(Kalam) 2.Present moment first cause (per se causal regression)(Aristotelian-Thomistic)
The first tends to be intuitively considered by a thoughtful child based on personal temporal experience. The second generally is considered after learning something about the composition of material objects and substances.
Both arguments for the necessity of god are easily disproved.
"What would you tell the kids when they ask you what created god?" I think it is simple. God is always there and doesn't need a creator. The universe obviously isn't always there and so demands an explanation and a cause.
"If you can't explain it to a child, do you really understand it yourself?" Yes, I think you are right. I can explain it simply as I just did. God was always there and he created the universe. I think a child can easily understand that things don't happen without a cause. Much easier than explaining "per accidens causal regression" and "per se causal regression" wouldn't you say?
"Can you answer a child who continually asks "why" as a retort to every deeper explanation you give? At what point do you run out of meaningful answers to the incessant questioning from the inquisitive child?" The inquisitive child talks about all sorts of things, not just God. If we allowed this difficulty to stop us, we'd never talk about anything!
"Both arguments for the necessity of god are easily disproved." I think there is probably a PhD at least if you can "disprove" the Cosmological argument. I wouldn't claim it proves God, only that I am satisfied by it. I'm thinking the same but opposite is true for you - you can't disprove it but you're not satisfied by it. Very little in life can be "proved" and "disproved", but we all make decision based on facts, probabilities and intuitions.
unkleE said... "The universe obviously isn't always there and so demands an explanation and a cause." How is that "obvious"?
Both choices are equally irrational and apply equally to the universe as well as any speculated god. Beginning to exist out of nothing is equally irrational for the universe as the speculation of god. An actual past infinite existence is equally irrational for the universe as the speculation of god.
"wouldn't you say?" A child can easily understand that whatever questions apply to the universe also apply equally to any speculated god. Thus, a child can understand that the speculation of god solves no problem.
"If we allowed this difficulty to stop us, we'd never talk about anything!" My point is that when asking a regression of "why" questions one inevitably arrives at "nobody knows". That is the honest answer at base. Making up a speculation of god and pretending it solves problems that cannot be solved is fundamentally dishonest.
That is why the origin of existence is an unsolved riddle. All attempts at answering the question of the origin of existence are irrational.
"How is that "obvious"? Both choices are equally irrational and apply equally to the universe as well as any speculated god." The concepts of the universe and God are very different and certainly not "equal". "God" can be defined as a non-material, non-temporal personal being, whereas the universe is material and temporal. The universe consists of sequences of events whereas God doesn't. And there are good mathematical and philosophical arguments that a sequence of events cannot ever reach infinity (in either forward or backwards directions) and most physical models or theories indicate the universe probably had a beginning. Further, most things we know that had a beginning had a cause. None of those facts about the universe apply to God. So the two concepts are very much not "equal" and so much more likely and reasonable to say that the universe had a cause but God didn't.
"A child can easily understand that whatever questions apply to the universe also apply equally to any speculated god. Thus, a child can understand that the speculation of god solves no problem." I wonder what is your basis for saying this? Do you have evidence? My experience as a child not raised as a Christian is that I found it very easy to think of God as always being there but the universe being created. Since it has been established that children generally don't have any difficulty in believing in God, I'm guessing my experience was common. To think as you suggest requires more sophistication than most children have, I think. And I still think it true that it would be easier to expect a child to understand "God always existed and he made the universe" than to try to explain "per accidens causal regression" and "per se causal regression"!
"That is the honest answer at base. Making up a speculation of god and pretending it solves problems that cannot be solved is fundamentally dishonest." I agree with you that no matter whatever the chain of explanation, we always end up either in a circle or with an unknown. The question is what is a reasonable unknown and what is an unreasonable one? I think we have science to understand the universe and to know causally and physically how it operates in time. That makes it reasonable to ask what caused it and to think any view that can't explain that is deficient. But we don't have science to understand God (only his/her actions in the world) and we don't hypothesise that God is temporal, so that makes God a more reasonable place to stop the explanation and accept the mystery.
unkleE, "a non-material, non-temporal personal being" Not coherently. If god is not made of anything, has no substance then god is nothing, and therefore does not exist. If god is outside of time then god has no past and does not think thoughts or do anything.
"whereas the universe is material and temporal" If there can be an existent thing that is somehow outside of space and time but also creates and changes and acts upon material in space and time then that thing can be a natural aspect of the cosmos.
" And there are good mathematical and philosophical arguments that a sequence of events cannot ever reach infinity" Yes, that is why the origin of existence is a riddle that the assertion of god does nothing to solve.
"most physical models or theories indicate the universe probably had a beginning." False, that is just an absurdly simplistic and naïve misapplication of a theory into a regime where it is known to fail.
"The universe consists of sequences of events whereas God doesn't" Then god cannot create anything or change anything or do anything.
The assertion of god solves no problems, only pushes them back a step.
"None of those facts about the universe apply to God." So, god is just a black box in which you allow incoherent notions to be the case.
"I wonder what is your basis for saying this? Do you have evidence?(that, a child can understand that the speculation of god solves no problem)" Yes, I understood that when I was a child, starting at about 10, fairly well developed concept set by 12.
But, let's take a vote.
All those who consider me to be an exceptionally brilliant individual please raise your hands.
You said before "when asking a regression of "why" questions one inevitably arrives at "nobody knows". That is the honest answer at base. Making up a speculation of god and pretending it solves problems that cannot be solved is fundamentally dishonest." I note the words "nobody knows" and "cannot be solved".
Yet your reply this time contains many very definite statements. Should I understand that you think you DO know and you HAVE solved the problems, or should I take your statements to be just your opinions, just as mine are my opinions? It would help to understand your views.
"If god is not made of anything, has no substance then god is nothing, and therefore does not exist." Are you assuming that nothing can exist that is not material? On what do you base that assumption?
If god is outside of time then god has no past and does not think thoughts or do anything. How do you know this? How does having no past prevent something happening in the present?
False, that is just an absurdly simplistic and naïve misapplication of a theory into a regime where it is known to fail. My statement was based on reputable cosmologists, for example, Alexander Vilenkin: "The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe."
The assertion of god solves no problems, only pushes them back a step. I have a different view. I suggest the God hypothesis does indeed push the problems back a step, and thus solves them.
unkleE, " Should I understand that you think you DO know and you HAVE solved the problems," No, I have not solved the riddle of the origin of existence.
You have not solved that riddle, nor has any physicist, mathematician, philosopher, or theologian.
"Are you assuming that nothing can exist that is not material? On what do you base that assumption?" The term "immaterial" is incoherent.
One way to understand the incoherence is to examine a couple common words. Nothing Something
"Something" is "some" "thing". "Nothing" is "no" "thing".
So, what is a thing? If a thing is not an object or a substance or an arrangement of more than nothing then in what sense do you say a thing is more than nothing?
If a thing is nothing then you asserted a "thing" that is "no thing", which is a self-contradiction.
Now, it is not incoherent to assert some sort of unknown something. People speak of dark energy and dark matter and the fabric of spacetime, but what are these things? Nobody knows, but whatever they turn out to be will simply be a sort of material we presently know little about.
*If god is outside of time then god has no past and does not think thoughts or do anything.* "How do you know this?" Doing actions requires time. First things were this way, then things were that way. The states of this way versus that way are necessarily separated by time. If there is no time then everything is both this way and that way now and always, which is just gibberish.
"My statement was based on reputable cosmologists, for example, Alexander Vilenkin: "The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe." Just goes to show, physicists are typically not very good at reasoning about the deeper meaning of what they have calculated.
" He added that Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and believes that the universe had no beginning." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%80%93Guth%E2%80%93Vilenkin_theorem
I suggest you avoid quotes mined by religious hacks such as William Lane Craig. The correct answer is that present models are highly simplistic and incomplete, so nobody knows.
Vilenkin does not have any viable models of something from nothing either.
Nobody has a model for a past infinite time and nobody has a model for something from nothing. Oh, wait, I can support Vilenkin, 0=1, see how easy that is to model something from nothing?
"I suggest the God hypothesis does indeed push the problems back a step, and thus solves them." You are half right, so that is a start. God does push the problem back a step, but we are still faced with the same old unsolved riddles.
A past infinite time is irrational. Something from nothing is irrational. A no-thing thing is incoherent. A thing that acts outside of time is incoherent.
If one or more of those seemingly irrational assertions turn out to somehow be the case they could apply to some sort of natural aspect of the cosmos just as well as god.
If there is an eternal primordial being that gave rise to our observed universe then that being is the most natural thing of all. What could be more natural than the thing that has always existed?
In my experience, discussions like this can tend to become more adversarial and strident, so I want to avoid that. I am not in the least interested in having an adversarial discussion. I am happy to answer your questions as best I can, and ask a few of my own, but I have no aim to change your views.
And I'm sorry but I don't find your comments coherent or compelling so I wonder if it's worth continuing any further. Let me illustrate.
I cannot see any logic in your discussion of material - it certainly isn't in the form of propositions that follow from each other. It looks as if you define "material", "something" and "nothing" in ways that assume there is nothing (no entity, no being) that is not a "thing" in our physical universe. It is therefore not surprising that you end up with a conclusion that supports your assumptions. So I still don't see any answer to my question, can there not exist an entity or being that isn't physical and part of this physical universe?
"Doing actions requires time." You speak very confidently about time. But physicists and mathematicians seem to be much more flexible - backwards time, cyclical time, etc (check out Paul Davies' "About Time".) I don't think you can say what might be possible, or not possible, for God.
"Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin .... I suggest you avoid quotes mined by religious hacks such as William Lane Craig." I'm afraid your discussion here is both factually incorrect and based on a logical fallacy. Incorrect in that I was basing nothing on WL Craig. And a fallacy in that I said most models lead to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning, and I quoted Vilenkin saying the same thing. Quoting one cosmologist who thinks differently would disprove an "all" statement but not a "most" statement.
My statement that you called "false" was based on Vilenkin, plus Aron Wall a theoretical physicist at Cambridge and Luke Barnes, a theoretical astrophysicist & cosmologist who gained his PhD at Cambridge. Wall discussed 7 models of the universe and said 5 entail a beginning, 1 doesn't and 1 is inconclusive. 5/6 conclusive models = "most". Barnes reviews 16 models and concludes there are arguments both ways but "I’d bet on the proposition that there has only been a finite amount of classical time in the history of the universe." So there is plenty of evidence that my statement was factual according to current science, your "false" accusation was incorrect and quoting one contrary cosmologist doesn't alter the truth of what I wrote.
"(1) A past infinite time is irrational. (2) Something from nothing is irrational. (3) A no-thing thing is incoherent. (4) A thing that acts outside of time is incoherent." This discussion has achieved something! :) We agree on #1 & #2. I think statement 3 is incoherent in itself, so has nothing to say to me. And you have offered me no coherent reason to believe #4.
So, I make no attempt to change your mind, just to respond to your critique of my beliefs. Your critique is unsuccessful to me. Shall we call it a day? Thanks.
uncleE, *"Doing actions requires time."* "But physicists and mathematicians seem to be much more flexible - backwards time, cyclical time, etc " Writing a mathematical expression is not reality, it is an approximate model of reality under certain circumstances.
A mathematical expression of hypothetical backwards time is not doing actions in no time.
What would that even mean, to have an event that does not occur over time? The assertion of thinking thoughts outside of time is just an incoherent utterance.
A very common rhetorical device of apologists when faced with a problem that nobody has solved is to simply combine mutually exclusive words into a single term and declare the problem has been solved, when in fact all the apologist has done is create an incoherent term.
"acting outside of time" is such an incoherent term.
"Incorrect in that I was basing nothing on WL Craig." I didn't say your source was Craig, only that you share a source.
"Shall we call it a day? Thanks." Call it whatever you like.
The speculation of god solves no problems, only pushes them back a step where they remain unsolved.
Whatever questions asked of the cosmos apply equally to god.
Whatever supposed properties that are attributed to god can just as easily be attributed to some undiscovered aspect of the cosmos.
In either case an action outside of time is just an incoherent term formed by combining mutually exclusive term.
An action is a change of state, first things are in X state, then later, things are in Y state.
If there is no time then X is always the case and Y is always the case and there is no change, only a self contradictory state of real affairs in the cosmos, yet that is somehow considered to be an action. These are all just gibberish utterances that arise when an action outside of time is asserted.
I think I'd only be repeating myself to answer so I'll stop there. It has been a helpful copnversation thanks, actually reinforcing to me that the alternative view you offer on the Cosmological argument has no answers. I agree with you that there is unresolved mystery in all views, but at least theism has answers as well, so I am well content.
Granted that you have said "Both choices are equally irrational ", I'd be interested to understand why you seem so strongly critical of the theistic view. Why aren't you equally OK with people holding either view? I'm not trying to provoke another argument, just interested in how you see it. Thanks.
unkleE, "the alternative view you offer on the Cosmological argument has no answers." There are no sound answers to the question of the origin of existence.
The good answer materialism provides is to debunk the theistic assertion that the assertion of god solves the problem, which is nonsense.
"I'd be interested to understand why you seem so strongly critical of the theistic view." It is unevidenced speculation that takes myriad specific forms each one of which is fundamentally dishonest and baseless.
"Why aren't you equally OK with people holding either view?" You can just as well believe in fairies, ghosts, or whatever you wish to imagine. I simply do not respect such fanciful unevidenced beliefs, most especially when they claim to have solved a problem that nobody has solved, which is a grossly dishonest claim.
"The good answer materialism provides is to debunk the theistic assertion that the assertion of god solves the problem, which is nonsense"
Poking holes in beliefs/arguments is good for everyone. I welcome it and don't mind at all hearing challenges from honest truth-seekers. New Atheists are not typically those kind of people. From the philosophical perspective, the assertions you speak of are built upon a bedrock of experience and observation. Yes, the assertions go beyond that and into the theoretical or unproveable, but so what all philosophies do that to one degree. What you call debunking I call a misunderstanding on your part. What you call incoherent I call mysterious and maybe very perplexing, but not contradictory. God is in a category of one and believing in that has not bothered me a bit.
"The good answer materialism provides is to debunk the theistic assertion that the assertion of god solves the problem, which is nonsense." I thought you said that materialism provided no answers either ("Both choices are equally irrational") Did I misunderstand you there?
"I simply do not respect such fanciful unevidenced beliefs, most especially when they claim to have solved a problem that nobody has solved," So would you be equally opposed to atheism?
As a separate question, do you find that expressing your beliefs and scepticism forcefully and combatting what you see as "grossly dishonest claim"s enhances your life and brings you satisfaction? If so, can you explain how it does that?
SteveK, "New Atheists are not typically those kind of people." You can attribute whatever imagined characteristics to other people you wish.
"What you call incoherent I call mysterious" It is indeed mysterious how self-contradiction can be the case.
im-skeptical did much the same sort of thing. He created a black box, inside the box incoherent notions simply are the case, when asked the reason for such and such effect he points to the black box and says that is the reason. For him, apparently, the no-reason reason is a perfectly acceptable "explanation".
"God is in a category of one and believing in that has not bothered me a bit." Hence my suggestion to im-skeptical that if he is going to so confidently assert the no-reason reason he might just as well be a theist.
unkleE, "I thought you said that materialism provided no answers either ("Both choices are equally irrational")" Only to the origin of existence. Nobody has figured that out. Millions of very bright people have tried over thousands of years and still, nobody has figured out the origin of existence and published any solution into general circulation.
Materialism picks up where Aquinas picked up in his Five Ways.
"It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
Thus, the materialist shares a starting point with Aquinas.
"So would you be equally opposed to atheism?" At face value the term "a" "theism" means lacking theism, or an absence of theism, or not theistic. A baby is not theistic. Anybody who simply does not think about such things one way or the other is not theistic.
By "atheism", however, I suppose you mean what is sometimes called strong atheism, or the affirmative assertion that there is no god, or that god in general provably does not exist. I don't know of anybody who holds that position, I suppose somebody does, but I do not know the name of any such individual.
Certain formulations of god are provably false, however. For example the Christian god cannot logically be the case, because in Christianity multiple omni properties are attributed to the same being, and those properties are necessarily mutually exclusive, making the Christian sort of god logically impossible.
"If so, can you explain how it does that?" I don't typically engage in personal motivations because they are unverifiable in any case. Anybody can get on the combox and claim anything about their own feelings and motivations.
So you can take this for what it is worth, I have no intention of attempting to justify, prove, or demonstrate my personal motivations. I appreciate the engagement of those who disagree with me because it sharpens and focuses my own ideas, and hones my expressive capabilities. I also commonly go to the links and the names that come up in the OP or in conversation, which is a benefit of engaging with people who have had very different study experiences compared to my own.
Possibly, could you provide me some guidance? If so, could you provide it to me to my e-mail address: dlandruska@gmail.com.
I am not published. I have a bachelor's degree in mathematics (University of Illinois - Urbana) and a master's degree in Computer Science (Northwestern University in Evanston), but no PhD! I have written a 17 page commentary/article (unpublished) in defense of Lewis' Argument From Reason. I was unaware of your publication, "C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason", until just recently. I will obtain a copy of your book and read your defense for Lewis' argument. My article defends Theism from multiple viewpoints or disciplines, but for me, the mathematical defense I most recently discovered is the most definitive that convinces me. The opening 2 paragraphs for my article are as follows:
A primary reason for this commentary/article is to use a mathematical finding to clarify further and convince readers of the validity of one of Lewis’ theism arguments.
A second reason for this commentary/article is to update the reader with current knowledge and directions in science and other fields of study that have evolved since Lewis’ last publication of this argument. These include fields of study in Quantum and/or Particle Physics, Computer Science, and Mathematics. I hope to help reconcile the reader to a more harmonious view between Lewis’ apologetic theism arguments and current knowledge in science and other areas.
How should I go about finding a publisher to publish my article? I would be willing to collaborate with someone to help me refine and publish this article. I would be willing to publish just the mathematical part (which is about 4 pages of the 17 page article), which I find to be the most definitive and incontestable part of the defense.
Thanks for any help. Don Andruska dlandruska@gmail.com
Don, Did you have any particular publications in mind? Of course, you can simply submit your work to them for publication.
There are also many sites that advertise help in submissions. How effective they are is questionable, but they do provide some guidelines in formatting your submission. Search "article submission sites" and you will find many.
Have you posted the article someplace? One way to refine your article is to post it and have people comment on it.
Occasionally Victor will use posted articles as a sort of subject anchor for one of his own posts. If you post your article, and Victor wants to post a link to it, the rest of us can comment on it. Such comments can reinforce what you already have in mind, or might expose areas that need to be strengthened, or you might dismiss as useless trolling, one never knows what you will get in that sort of situation.
26 comments:
It wouldn't look like anything. It would & couldn't exist. (I think the Cosmological/Kalam argument are true.)
Mom and dad, open the door, take your kids by the hand, step outside, motion across the horizon and into the sky and down to bugs in the grass, then tell your kids, "this is what the world looks like if god does not exist".
Then explain that their mom and dad don't exist, the door doesn't exist, their hands don't exist, they don't exist (and have no value while you're at it, mom and dad), outside doesn't exist, the horizon doesn't exist, the sky doesn't exist, the bugs don't exist, the grass doesn't exist, the world doesn't exist, and what they see is merely hallucination.
Then teach them that God is capitalized.
Kevin,
Those are indeed important concepts to teach, but even adults find great difficulty in understanding such things.
Part of being a parent is to give your kids a chance to grow and learn and discover for themselves. Step by step. Teach them to count before you teach them calculus.
Except the capitalization thing, that is simply an error. God is capitalized in mid-sentence to indicate a personalized concept of god, in a manner similar to capitalizing an individual's name. But god is not necessarily thought of that way, rather, as a generalized natural phenomenon, just as we don't capitalize "gravity".
So, yes, by all means, encourage your kids to question what they see at face value. Is the world as we perceive it?
What are ordinary objects made of, and what is that made of, and what is that made of, and is there ever an end to such a regress of questioning?
What actually exists then? Only the things in the world as we perceive them, or is it the case that only the things at the bottom of our regress of questioning are what really exist?
Where did the world come from? How did the world get to be as it is? Where is the world going? What is the best way to find the answers to such questions?
But god is not necessarily thought of that way, rather, as a generalized natural phenomenon, just as we don't capitalize "gravity".
It was capitalized in the OP, so whatever you're talking about, or whatever definition you're inventing for your own use, it isn't on topic.
Part of being a parent is
Parents don't exist and neither does proper parenthood, which is an arbitrary and meaningless assertion. Under eliminative materialism anyway.
I'd say that it would look just like it does now.
Whatever absolutely nothing looks like.
Kevin,
"It was capitalized in the OP, so whatever you're talking about, or whatever definition you're inventing for your own use, it isn't on topic."
God is a subset of god, so, the topic of the OP is included in god.
unkleE,
"(I think the Cosmological/Kalam argument are true.)"
What would you tell the kids when they ask you what created god?
William Lane Craig is a famous proponent of the Kalam. To defend it he cites distorted nonsense as if such assertions are somehow scientific fact. Most especially that the universe supposedly began to exist at the big bang, which is a silly idea based on an invalid and naïve application of General Relativity in a regime where GR is known to break down, that is, be invalid.
The OP poses an interesting test of one's ideas, how would you explain it to children?
If you can't explain it to a child, do you really understand it yourself?
Can you answer a child who continually asks "why" as a retort to every deeper explanation you give? At what point do you run out of meaningful answers to the incessant questioning from the inquisitive child?
Religious arguments from a first cause typically fall into one of two categories.
1.Temporal first cause (per accidens causal regression)(Kalam)
2.Present moment first cause (per se causal regression)(Aristotelian-Thomistic)
The first tends to be intuitively considered by a thoughtful child based on personal temporal experience. The second generally is considered after learning something about the composition of material objects and substances.
Both arguments for the necessity of god are easily disproved.
"What would you tell the kids when they ask you what created god?"
I think it is simple. God is always there and doesn't need a creator. The universe obviously isn't always there and so demands an explanation and a cause.
"If you can't explain it to a child, do you really understand it yourself?"
Yes, I think you are right. I can explain it simply as I just did. God was always there and he created the universe. I think a child can easily understand that things don't happen without a cause. Much easier than explaining "per accidens causal regression" and "per se causal regression" wouldn't you say?
"Can you answer a child who continually asks "why" as a retort to every deeper explanation you give? At what point do you run out of meaningful answers to the incessant questioning from the inquisitive child?"
The inquisitive child talks about all sorts of things, not just God. If we allowed this difficulty to stop us, we'd never talk about anything!
"Both arguments for the necessity of god are easily disproved."
I think there is probably a PhD at least if you can "disprove" the Cosmological argument. I wouldn't claim it proves God, only that I am satisfied by it. I'm thinking the same but opposite is true for you - you can't disprove it but you're not satisfied by it. Very little in life can be "proved" and "disproved", but we all make decision based on facts, probabilities and intuitions.
unkleE said...
"The universe obviously isn't always there and so demands an explanation and a cause."
How is that "obvious"?
Both choices are equally irrational and apply equally to the universe as well as any speculated god.
Beginning to exist out of nothing is equally irrational for the universe as the speculation of god.
An actual past infinite existence is equally irrational for the universe as the speculation of god.
"wouldn't you say?"
A child can easily understand that whatever questions apply to the universe also apply equally to any speculated god. Thus, a child can understand that the speculation of god solves no problem.
"If we allowed this difficulty to stop us, we'd never talk about anything!"
My point is that when asking a regression of "why" questions one inevitably arrives at "nobody knows". That is the honest answer at base. Making up a speculation of god and pretending it solves problems that cannot be solved is fundamentally dishonest.
That is why the origin of existence is an unsolved riddle. All attempts at answering the question of the origin of existence are irrational.
"How is that "obvious"? Both choices are equally irrational and apply equally to the universe as well as any speculated god."
The concepts of the universe and God are very different and certainly not "equal". "God" can be defined as a non-material, non-temporal personal being, whereas the universe is material and temporal. The universe consists of sequences of events whereas God doesn't. And there are good mathematical and philosophical arguments that a sequence of events cannot ever reach infinity (in either forward or backwards directions) and most physical models or theories indicate the universe probably had a beginning. Further, most things we know that had a beginning had a cause. None of those facts about the universe apply to God. So the two concepts are very much not "equal" and so much more likely and reasonable to say that the universe had a cause but God didn't.
"A child can easily understand that whatever questions apply to the universe also apply equally to any speculated god. Thus, a child can understand that the speculation of god solves no problem."
I wonder what is your basis for saying this? Do you have evidence? My experience as a child not raised as a Christian is that I found it very easy to think of God as always being there but the universe being created. Since it has been established that children generally don't have any difficulty in believing in God, I'm guessing my experience was common. To think as you suggest requires more sophistication than most children have, I think. And I still think it true that it would be easier to expect a child to understand "God always existed and he made the universe" than to try to explain "per accidens causal regression" and "per se causal regression"!
"That is the honest answer at base. Making up a speculation of god and pretending it solves problems that cannot be solved is fundamentally dishonest."
I agree with you that no matter whatever the chain of explanation, we always end up either in a circle or with an unknown. The question is what is a reasonable unknown and what is an unreasonable one? I think we have science to understand the universe and to know causally and physically how it operates in time. That makes it reasonable to ask what caused it and to think any view that can't explain that is deficient. But we don't have science to understand God (only his/her actions in the world) and we don't hypothesise that God is temporal, so that makes God a more reasonable place to stop the explanation and accept the mystery.
unkleE,
"a non-material, non-temporal personal being"
Not coherently.
If god is not made of anything, has no substance then god is nothing, and therefore does not exist.
If god is outside of time then god has no past and does not think thoughts or do anything.
"whereas the universe is material and temporal"
If there can be an existent thing that is somehow outside of space and time but also creates and changes and acts upon material in space and time then that thing can be a natural aspect of the cosmos.
" And there are good mathematical and philosophical arguments that a sequence of events cannot ever reach infinity"
Yes, that is why the origin of existence is a riddle that the assertion of god does nothing to solve.
"most physical models or theories indicate the universe probably had a beginning."
False, that is just an absurdly simplistic and naïve misapplication of a theory into a regime where it is known to fail.
"The universe consists of sequences of events whereas God doesn't"
Then god cannot create anything or change anything or do anything.
The assertion of god solves no problems, only pushes them back a step.
"None of those facts about the universe apply to God."
So, god is just a black box in which you allow incoherent notions to be the case.
"I wonder what is your basis for saying this? Do you have evidence?(that, a child can understand that the speculation of god solves no problem)"
Yes, I understood that when I was a child, starting at about 10, fairly well developed concept set by 12.
But, let's take a vote.
All those who consider me to be an exceptionally brilliant individual please raise your hands.
Hi, thanks for your response.
You said before "when asking a regression of "why" questions one inevitably arrives at "nobody knows". That is the honest answer at base. Making up a speculation of god and pretending it solves problems that cannot be solved is fundamentally dishonest." I note the words "nobody knows" and "cannot be solved".
Yet your reply this time contains many very definite statements. Should I understand that you think you DO know and you HAVE solved the problems, or should I take your statements to be just your opinions, just as mine are my opinions? It would help to understand your views.
"If god is not made of anything, has no substance then god is nothing, and therefore does not exist."
Are you assuming that nothing can exist that is not material? On what do you base that assumption?
If god is outside of time then god has no past and does not think thoughts or do anything.
How do you know this? How does having no past prevent something happening in the present?
False, that is just an absurdly simplistic and naïve misapplication of a theory into a regime where it is known to fail.
My statement was based on reputable cosmologists, for example, Alexander Vilenkin: "The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe."
The assertion of god solves no problems, only pushes them back a step.
I have a different view. I suggest the God hypothesis does indeed push the problems back a step, and thus solves them.
unkleE,
" Should I understand that you think you DO know and you HAVE solved the problems,"
No, I have not solved the riddle of the origin of existence.
You have not solved that riddle, nor has any physicist, mathematician, philosopher, or theologian.
"Are you assuming that nothing can exist that is not material? On what do you base that assumption?"
The term "immaterial" is incoherent.
One way to understand the incoherence is to examine a couple common words.
Nothing
Something
"Something" is "some" "thing".
"Nothing" is "no" "thing".
So, what is a thing? If a thing is not an object or a substance or an arrangement of more than nothing then in what sense do you say a thing is more than nothing?
If a thing is nothing then you asserted a "thing" that is "no thing", which is a self-contradiction.
Now, it is not incoherent to assert some sort of unknown something. People speak of dark energy and dark matter and the fabric of spacetime, but what are these things? Nobody knows, but whatever they turn out to be will simply be a sort of material we presently know little about.
*If god is outside of time then god has no past and does not think thoughts or do anything.*
"How do you know this?"
Doing actions requires time. First things were this way, then things were that way. The states of this way versus that way are necessarily separated by time. If there is no time then everything is both this way and that way now and always, which is just gibberish.
"My statement was based on reputable cosmologists, for example, Alexander Vilenkin: "The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe."
Just goes to show, physicists are typically not very good at reasoning about the deeper meaning of what they have calculated.
" He added that Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and believes that the universe had no beginning."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%80%93Guth%E2%80%93Vilenkin_theorem
I suggest you avoid quotes mined by religious hacks such as William Lane Craig. The correct answer is that present models are highly simplistic and incomplete, so nobody knows.
Vilenkin does not have any viable models of something from nothing either.
Nobody has a model for a past infinite time and nobody has a model for something from nothing. Oh, wait, I can support Vilenkin, 0=1, see how easy that is to model something from nothing?
"I suggest the God hypothesis does indeed push the problems back a step, and thus solves them."
You are half right, so that is a start. God does push the problem back a step, but we are still faced with the same old unsolved riddles.
A past infinite time is irrational.
Something from nothing is irrational.
A no-thing thing is incoherent.
A thing that acts outside of time is incoherent.
If one or more of those seemingly irrational assertions turn out to somehow be the case they could apply to some sort of natural aspect of the cosmos just as well as god.
If there is an eternal primordial being that gave rise to our observed universe then that being is the most natural thing of all. What could be more natural than the thing that has always existed?
Hi,
In my experience, discussions like this can tend to become more adversarial and strident, so I want to avoid that. I am not in the least interested in having an adversarial discussion. I am happy to answer your questions as best I can, and ask a few of my own, but I have no aim to change your views.
And I'm sorry but I don't find your comments coherent or compelling so I wonder if it's worth continuing any further. Let me illustrate.
I cannot see any logic in your discussion of material - it certainly isn't in the form of propositions that follow from each other. It looks as if you define "material", "something" and "nothing" in ways that assume there is nothing (no entity, no being) that is not a "thing" in our physical universe. It is therefore not surprising that you end up with a conclusion that supports your assumptions. So I still don't see any answer to my question, can there not exist an entity or being that isn't physical and part of this physical universe?
"Doing actions requires time."
You speak very confidently about time. But physicists and mathematicians seem to be much more flexible - backwards time, cyclical time, etc (check out Paul Davies' "About Time".) I don't think you can say what might be possible, or not possible, for God.
"Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin .... I suggest you avoid quotes mined by religious hacks such as William Lane Craig."
I'm afraid your discussion here is both factually incorrect and based on a logical fallacy. Incorrect in that I was basing nothing on WL Craig. And a fallacy in that I said most models lead to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning, and I quoted Vilenkin saying the same thing. Quoting one cosmologist who thinks differently would disprove an "all" statement but not a "most" statement.
My statement that you called "false" was based on Vilenkin, plus Aron Wall a theoretical physicist at Cambridge and Luke Barnes, a theoretical astrophysicist & cosmologist who gained his PhD at Cambridge. Wall discussed 7 models of the universe and said 5 entail a beginning, 1 doesn't and 1 is inconclusive. 5/6 conclusive models = "most". Barnes reviews 16 models and concludes there are arguments both ways but "I’d bet on the proposition that there has only been a finite amount of classical time in the history of the universe." So there is plenty of evidence that my statement was factual according to current science, your "false" accusation was incorrect and quoting one contrary cosmologist doesn't alter the truth of what I wrote.
"(1) A past infinite time is irrational. (2) Something from nothing is irrational. (3) A no-thing thing is incoherent. (4) A thing that acts outside of time is incoherent."
This discussion has achieved something! :) We agree on #1 & #2. I think statement 3 is incoherent in itself, so has nothing to say to me. And you have offered me no coherent reason to believe #4.
So, I make no attempt to change your mind, just to respond to your critique of my beliefs. Your critique is unsuccessful to me. Shall we call it a day? Thanks.
uncleE,
*"Doing actions requires time."*
"But physicists and mathematicians seem to be much more flexible - backwards time, cyclical time, etc "
Writing a mathematical expression is not reality, it is an approximate model of reality under certain circumstances.
A mathematical expression of hypothetical backwards time is not doing actions in no time.
What would that even mean, to have an event that does not occur over time? The assertion of thinking thoughts outside of time is just an incoherent utterance.
A very common rhetorical device of apologists when faced with a problem that nobody has solved is to simply combine mutually exclusive words into a single term and declare the problem has been solved, when in fact all the apologist has done is create an incoherent term.
"acting outside of time" is such an incoherent term.
"Incorrect in that I was basing nothing on WL Craig."
I didn't say your source was Craig, only that you share a source.
"Shall we call it a day? Thanks."
Call it whatever you like.
The speculation of god solves no problems, only pushes them back a step where they remain unsolved.
Whatever questions asked of the cosmos apply equally to god.
Whatever supposed properties that are attributed to god can just as easily be attributed to some undiscovered aspect of the cosmos.
In either case an action outside of time is just an incoherent term formed by combining mutually exclusive term.
An action is a change of state, first things are in X state, then later, things are in Y state.
If there is no time then X is always the case and Y is always the case and there is no change, only a self contradictory state of real affairs in the cosmos, yet that is somehow considered to be an action. These are all just gibberish utterances that arise when an action outside of time is asserted.
I think I'd only be repeating myself to answer so I'll stop there. It has been a helpful copnversation thanks, actually reinforcing to me that the alternative view you offer on the Cosmological argument has no answers. I agree with you that there is unresolved mystery in all views, but at least theism has answers as well, so I am well content.
Granted that you have said "Both choices are equally irrational ", I'd be interested to understand why you seem so strongly critical of the theistic view. Why aren't you equally OK with people holding either view? I'm not trying to provoke another argument, just interested in how you see it. Thanks.
unkleE,
"the alternative view you offer on the Cosmological argument has no answers."
There are no sound answers to the question of the origin of existence.
The good answer materialism provides is to debunk the theistic assertion that the assertion of god solves the problem, which is nonsense.
"I'd be interested to understand why you seem so strongly critical of the theistic view."
It is unevidenced speculation that takes myriad specific forms each one of which is fundamentally dishonest and baseless.
"Why aren't you equally OK with people holding either view?"
You can just as well believe in fairies, ghosts, or whatever you wish to imagine. I simply do not respect such fanciful unevidenced beliefs, most especially when they claim to have solved a problem that nobody has solved, which is a grossly dishonest claim.
"The good answer materialism provides is to debunk the theistic assertion that the assertion of god solves the problem, which is nonsense"
Poking holes in beliefs/arguments is good for everyone. I welcome it and don't mind at all hearing challenges from honest truth-seekers. New Atheists are not typically those kind of people. From the philosophical perspective, the assertions you speak of are built upon a bedrock of experience and observation. Yes, the assertions go beyond that and into the theoretical or unproveable, but so what all philosophies do that to one degree. What you call debunking I call a misunderstanding on your part. What you call incoherent I call mysterious and maybe very perplexing, but not contradictory. God is in a category of one and believing in that has not bothered me a bit.
Hi StardustyPsyche,
"The good answer materialism provides is to debunk the theistic assertion that the assertion of god solves the problem, which is nonsense."
I thought you said that materialism provided no answers either ("Both choices are equally irrational") Did I misunderstand you there?
"I simply do not respect such fanciful unevidenced beliefs, most especially when they claim to have solved a problem that nobody has solved,"
So would you be equally opposed to atheism?
As a separate question, do you find that expressing your beliefs and scepticism forcefully and combatting what you see as "grossly dishonest claim"s enhances your life and brings you satisfaction? If so, can you explain how it does that?
Thanks.
SteveK,
"New Atheists are not typically those kind of people."
You can attribute whatever imagined characteristics to other people you wish.
"What you call incoherent I call mysterious"
It is indeed mysterious how self-contradiction can be the case.
im-skeptical did much the same sort of thing. He created a black box, inside the box incoherent notions simply are the case, when asked the reason for such and such effect he points to the black box and says that is the reason. For him, apparently, the no-reason reason is a perfectly acceptable "explanation".
"God is in a category of one and believing in that has not bothered me a bit."
Hence my suggestion to im-skeptical that if he is going to so confidently assert the no-reason reason he might just as well be a theist.
unkleE,
"I thought you said that materialism provided no answers either ("Both choices are equally irrational")"
Only to the origin of existence. Nobody has figured that out. Millions of very bright people have tried over thousands of years and still, nobody has figured out the origin of existence and published any solution into general circulation.
Materialism picks up where Aquinas picked up in his Five Ways.
"It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
Thus, the materialist shares a starting point with Aquinas.
"So would you be equally opposed to atheism?"
At face value the term "a" "theism" means lacking theism, or an absence of theism, or not theistic. A baby is not theistic. Anybody who simply does not think about such things one way or the other is not theistic.
By "atheism", however, I suppose you mean what is sometimes called strong atheism, or the affirmative assertion that there is no god, or that god in general provably does not exist. I don't know of anybody who holds that position, I suppose somebody does, but I do not know the name of any such individual.
Certain formulations of god are provably false, however. For example the Christian god cannot logically be the case, because in Christianity multiple omni properties are attributed to the same being, and those properties are necessarily mutually exclusive, making the Christian sort of god logically impossible.
"If so, can you explain how it does that?"
I don't typically engage in personal motivations because they are unverifiable in any case. Anybody can get on the combox and claim anything about their own feelings and motivations.
So you can take this for what it is worth, I have no intention of attempting to justify, prove, or demonstrate my personal motivations. I appreciate the engagement of those who disagree with me because it sharpens and focuses my own ideas, and hones my expressive capabilities. I also commonly go to the links and the names that come up in the OP or in conversation, which is a benefit of engaging with people who have had very different study experiences compared to my own.
OK, thanks. Just curious.
Hi Dr. Reppert,
Possibly, could you provide me some guidance? If so, could you provide it to me to my e-mail address: dlandruska@gmail.com.
I am not published. I have a bachelor's degree in mathematics (University of Illinois - Urbana) and a master's degree in Computer Science (Northwestern University in Evanston), but no PhD! I have written a 17 page commentary/article (unpublished) in defense of Lewis' Argument From Reason. I was unaware of your publication, "C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason", until just recently. I will obtain a copy of your book and read your defense for Lewis' argument. My article defends Theism from multiple viewpoints or disciplines, but for me, the mathematical defense I most recently discovered is the most definitive that convinces me. The opening 2 paragraphs for my article are as follows:
A primary reason for this commentary/article is to use a mathematical finding to clarify further and convince readers of the validity of one of Lewis’ theism arguments.
A second reason for this commentary/article is to update the reader with current knowledge and directions in science and other fields of study that have evolved since Lewis’ last publication of this argument. These include fields of study in Quantum and/or Particle Physics, Computer Science, and Mathematics. I hope to help reconcile the reader to a more harmonious view between Lewis’ apologetic theism arguments and current knowledge in science and other areas.
How should I go about finding a publisher to publish my article? I would be willing to collaborate with someone to help me refine and publish this article. I would be willing to publish just the mathematical part (which is about 4 pages of the 17 page article), which I find to be the most definitive and incontestable part of the defense.
Thanks for any help.
Don Andruska
dlandruska@gmail.com
Don,
Did you have any particular publications in mind? Of course, you can simply submit your work to them for publication.
There are also many sites that advertise help in submissions. How effective they are is questionable, but they do provide some guidelines in formatting your submission.
Search "article submission sites" and you will find many.
Have you posted the article someplace? One way to refine your article is to post it and have people comment on it.
Occasionally Victor will use posted articles as a sort of subject anchor for one of his own posts. If you post your article, and Victor wants to post a link to it, the rest of us can comment on it. Such comments can reinforce what you already have in mind, or might expose areas that need to be strengthened, or you might dismiss as useless trolling, one never knows what you will get in that sort of situation.
Post a Comment