If God did not exist, would the universe have stable laws. Minds prefer order, so we should expect stsble lsws if theism is true. But why doesn't the law of gravity quit on us ast some point? Since the laws are stable, doesn't that suggest a Bayesian argument for theism?
23 comments:
If God did not exist, would the universe
If God did not exist, there would be no universe.
This question is similar to asking "If our sun didn't exist, would you..."
There would be no you.
"But why doesn't the law of gravity quit on us ast some point? Since the laws are stable, doesn't that suggest a Bayesian argument for theism? "
Why should it quit?
If rocks A and B attract each other
and if rocks C and D attract each other
and so forth for every pair of rocks we observe.
What is the prior probability that rocks P and Q will attract each other?
""But why doesn't the law of gravity quit on us ast some point?"
Change calls for a changer.
No change does not call for a changer.
Supposing I have 10 gold coins on my table top.
An hour later I still have 10 gold coins on my table top.
That is an apparent lack of change, therefore no changer is called for.
If, after and hour, I only have 5 gold coins on my table top that is a change, so that calls for a changer, say, a thief.
If there is no change in the 10 gold coins I have on the table top then I can still speculate that a thief took the coins, but then had a change of mind and put them back. There is in principle no upper bound on the number of sorts of such unevidenced speculations. But none of such speculations are called for on the observation of no change.
Similarly, if an astronaut on a space walk throws a wrench out into space we expect that wrench to keep going unless something else gets in its way. Why would it stop here rather than there? The wrench is already moving so continuing to move is no change in its motion and thus calls for no changer. We would be surprised to find that the wrench suddenly stopped in space all on its own, as such a change in motion would call for a changer of that motion.
https://archive.org/stream/aristotle-physics-book-III-and-IV-clarendon/aristotle-physics-book-III-and-IV-clarendon_djvu.txt
CLARENDON ARISTOTLE SERIES
General Editors
J. L. ACKRILL and LINDSAY JUDSON
IV. 8 TRANSLATION 214 b
(4) Again, no one could say why some¬
thing moved will come to rest somewhere; why should it do so here
rather than there? Hence it will either remain at rest or must move 20
on to infinity unless something stronger hinders it.
*************************************************************
Thus, existent material persists without a call for a changer because continued existence is not a change in the existential nature of material.
If we were to observe material changing from existing to not existing that would call for a changer, but such a change is never observed.
Hence, persistence of that natures or properties of material are expected on no changer because continued natures or properties of materials is no change in their natures or properties.
If we observed a change in the natures or properties of materials that would be change calling for a changer.
The notion of a first sustainer to maintain materials in there existence and to maintain the properties or natures or essences of materials in there observed states has the very notion of change completely backwards.
The theistic arguments for a first sustainer are grossly erroneous, and have the call for a changer versus no call for a changer, completely back to front.
The theistic argument for a first sustainer of existence and essences of materials is a strange inversion of logic.
"Thus, existent material persists without a call for a changer because continued existence is not a change in the existential nature of material"
The existence of a rock doing nothing but sitting at rest requires a force to keep it from breaking apart into something that isn't a rock, so "existence without change" is too low of a bar.
SteveK,
"existence without change" is too low of a bar.
OP
" If God did not exist, would the universe have stable laws."
The OP asks, if god does not exist would we expect stability in general in the natures or properties or essences of materials?
Yes. In your own words, that is a "low bar". Of course we would expect stability in the absence of a changer.
Absent a first changer, absent a first sustainer, we would expect no change.
No change is stability.
So yes, on no god we expect stability.
absent a first sustainer, we would expect nothing being sustained.
Fixed it for you.
SteveK,
"absent a first sustainer, we would expect nothing being sustained"
Does material require a sustainer to maintain its existence?
Suppose X is a particular amount of existent stuff.
If X of t1 = X of t2 did X change in its aspect of an amount of stuff?
Is no change in the amount of stuff itself a change in the amount of stuff?
If no change is a change, in your view, then your notion of logic is unrecognizable to me.
To borrow a bit of Thomistic vernacular, material does not require a sustainer of its existential essence to actualize its future existential potential because material is already fully actualized in its existential essence.
To change from existing to not existing would be a change and would thus call for a changer.
To continue to exist is not a change and therefore does not call for a changer.
The argument for god to explain observed existential inertia is 180 out, backwards, back to front.
If we observed material blinking out of existence that would be a change in the existential essence of material calling for a first changer.
If we observed material popping into existence out of nothing that would be a change in the existential essence of material calling for a changer.
Observation of continued existence of material is no change in the existential essence of material and thus call for no changer at all, much less a first changer or first sustainer.
"Does material require a sustainer to maintain its existence?"
Yes, we know this from physics. Material forms have forces that keep the form intact. These strong nuclear forces, and other forces, are not the particles - they are what sustains the particles.
Bing Copilot says this in response to my question "what would happen if the 4 fundamental forces didn't exist?"
"In summary, without these fundamental forces, matter would disintegrate, stars wouldn’t shine, and life as we know it would be impossible. The universe would be a chaotic, unstructured place, devoid of the intricate order we observe today."
It would be incoherent and contradictory to hold a worldview that believed both (a) the fundamental forces are the material form and (b) the material form changes while the fundamental forces remain the same. The only coherent, rational conclusion is that there exists something other than the material form that is creating these forces. Bing Copilot agrees, saying "physicists speculate that they might be manifestations of a single underlying force that remains undiscovered."
RE: "physicists speculate that they might be manifestations of a single underlying force that remains undiscovered"
AT philosophy argues that the 4 statements below cannot possibly be true. Based on what I said in my previous comments, materialism would need them all to be true.
There exists a fundamental material form that:
1) does not change.
2) does not have a force that sustains/keeps the fundamental material form intact.
3) is by nature different than the non-fundamental material form.
4) is the sustaining force itself. In other words, the fundamental material form is identical to the "single underlying force" and responsible for sustaining the non-fundamental material form.
SteveK said...
""Does material require a sustainer to maintain its existence?""
"Yes, we know this from physics. Material forms have forces that keep the form intact."
You are conflating the arrangement of material with the existence of material.
Arrangements change.
The amount of material in existence is static.
"Yes, we know this from physics."
We know from physics that material is never observed to pop into existence out of nothing.
We know from physics that material is never observed to disappear from existence into nothing.
SteveK ,
"In summary, without these fundamental forces, matter would disintegrate, stars wouldn’t shine, and life as we know it would be impossible. The universe would be a chaotic, unstructured place, devoid of the intricate order we observe today."
Right, and the material would continue to exist.
The arrangement of the material would be chaotic, unstructured, and devoid of presently observed intricate order, but the existence of material would persist.
"Arrangements change.
Arrangements are not the material. We are speaking of material changes.
"Right, and the material would continue to exist"
All material has a form and without the fundamental forces keeping the material form together all forms would disintegrate. Material without form doesn't exist. The only coherent, rational conclusion is that there exists something other than a material form that is creating these fundamental forces.
SteveK,
"Material without form doesn't exist."
Then your hypothetical is not realizable, just something you imagined that can't actually happen.
" The only coherent, rational conclusion is that there exists something other than a material form that is creating these fundamental forces."
Then the same questions rationally apply to god, which thus needs god's god, on to an infinity of gods, which is irrational.
So one asserts a necessary being.
The necessary being is the material cosmos, wherein all the material of the cosmos is simultaneously co-necessary with its form.
That matches all our observations:
Material is never observed to disappear from existence into nothing.
Material is never observed to appear into existence from nothing.
Material is never observed without form.
Form is never observed without material.
The conclusion of these observations is, well, obvious.
Material with its simultaneously co-necessary form is the necessary being.
“Material with its simultaneously co-necessary form is the necessary being.”
This is not true of all material. It has been demonstrated. We can break up material forms into smaller forms/particles. What you’re looking for is a different material form, one that is necessary. With that said, it appears that you agree with my list of requirements. This is what physicists are looking for
There exists a fundamental material form that:
1) does not change.
2) does not have a force that sustains/keeps the fundamental material form intact.
3) is by nature different than the non-fundamental material form.
4) is the sustaining force itself. In other words, the fundamental material form is identical to the "single underlying force" and responsible for sustaining the non-fundamental material form.
SteveK,
"This is not true of all material. It has been demonstrated. We can break up material forms into smaller forms/particles."
I am differentiating between fundamental material versus a substance that is a composite arrangement of material.
I realize that "material" is often applied in common language to mean some very complex arrangements that can be called substances or structures. For example, to a carpenter lumber is sometimes called material, even though a piece of wood is really a highly complex structure itself.
"There exists a fundamental material form that:
1) does not change."
So, now it is that which does not change, which exists?
So, arrangement changes, therefore arrangement does not exist?
“I am differentiating between fundamental material versus a substance that is a composite arrangement of material.”
I am too. That’s where the logic leads. The composite arrangement is all of the material that we’ve ever studied. We know it’s composite because we can break it down into other particles that are different. If you can break a thing apart then it’s not a necessary thing. You are looking for a fundamental material that cannot be a composite with the possibility of being broken down.
“So, now it is that which does not change, which exists?”
The fundamental material cannot be broken down or otherwise altered so it cannot change. If you can think of a way that it can change let me know.
“So, arrangement changes, therefore arrangement does not exist?”
The arrangement exists.
"The necessary being is the material cosmos, wherein all the material of the cosmos is simultaneously co-necessary with its form"
Just wanted to point out that you are contradicting yourself yet again. The arrangement is the cosmos and you say that the arrangement is the necessary being. You also say the arrangement doesn't exist, only the material exists. You really need to figure this out.
SteveK,
"You are looking for a fundamental material that cannot be a composite with the possibility of being broken down."
Which is it?
1.Not composite.
2.Not possible to break down.
The Thomistic Doctrine of Prime Matter
David P. Lang
https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ltp/1998-v54-n2-ltp2161/401163ar.pdf
"Matter is that which of itself is not a determinate thing but is only in potency to be a particular thing.
Form is that by which it is already a particular thing in act.
Substance is the composite, which is a particular thing"
So, on that view, substance is a composite of matter and form. That seems similar to the idea that material has properties.
However, on the A-T view there are the ideas of matter being in potency, and form being in act, with the two notions (potency and act) being ontologically separable, with the assertion that god is pure act. With such ideas the materialist parts ways with the A-Tist.
So, returning to your phrase
"with the possibility of being broken down".
On my view material existence is simultaneously conjoined and ontologically inseparable from the material's properties by necessity.
We never observe material without properties.
We never observe properties without material.
What would that even mean, material with no properties, properties with no material?
So, referencing your phrase above, there is no ontological possibility of breaking down, or separating, existent material and its properties, since they are simultaneously conjoined and ontologically inseparable by necessity.
LOL, you're a closet Thomist who just needs a little help understanding where he went wrong.
Post a Comment