[Note: This is the second post in the series Dismantling Implausibility Structures: The Uses of Theistic Arguments]
Cosmological arguments are theistic arguments that start from creation and work back to a Creator. They argue a posteriori, from effect to cause and are based on the principle of causality which states that every event has a cause, or that every thing that begins has a cause. One of the oldest incarnations of this form is known as the kalam cosmological argument.
Although the name was given by William Lane Craig, one of the most ardent of defenders of the argument, its history can be traced to Islamic philosophers such as Alfarabi, Al Ghazli, and Avicenna, and scholastic philosophers like Bonaventure. The argument was most famously opposed by Thomas Aquinas, who believed it philosophically possible (though biblically untrue) that God could have caused the universe from eternity.
The basic outline of the kalam argument is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The first premise is generally considered unobjectionable. Few atheists are willing to concede, as philosopher Quentin Smith once remarked, that “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” Most reasonable people refuse to accept that the universe sprang into existence uncaused out of nothing.
The second premise, therefore, is the heart of the argument and the point that must be defended. Historically, two philosophical and two scientific lines of evidence are generally given in support of this premise. As apologist Norman Geisler explains, the scientific evidence is based heavily on the Second Law of Thermodynamics which affirms that the universe is running out of usable energy and, hence, cannot be eternal. Other supportive evidence is taken from big bang cosmology, including the expanding universe and the purported radiation echo of the original explosion —all of which are taken to support the idea of a beginning of the universe. For the purposes of this post, we’ll ignore the scientific lines of argument.
The two philosophical arguments share a similar approach. One is an argument from the impossibility of an actual infinite number of things. The other is an argument from the impossibility of forming an actually infinite collection of things by adding one member after another. While I consider the first argument to be more interesting, it’s ability to be convincing requires an understanding of mathematical concepts such as infinity and set theory that are foreign to most people (including me).
The second argument, on the other hand, is able to be grasped more intuitively. If we accept that the converse of our second premise is true then we believe that the universe did not begin to exist, that it had no beginning. A series of events in time that has no beginning would be an actual infinite. In other words, if the series of past events had no beginning, it is actually infinite. An actual infinite, according to set theory, is a collection of things with an infinite number of members. One of the unique traits of an actual infinite is that part of an actually infinite set is equal to whole set. For example, in an actually infinite set of numbers, the number of even numbers in the set is equal to all of the numbers in the set. This follows because an infinite set of numbers contains an infinite number of even numbers as well as an infinite number of all numbers; hence a part of the set is equal to the whole of the set. Another trait of the actual infinite is that nothing can be added to it. Not one book can be added to an actually infinite library or one painting to an actually infinite museum.
The basic form of the second argument can therefore be outlined as:
1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another.
2. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.
The primary point of contention with this argument would be that while an infinite collection cannot be formed by beginning at a point and adding members, it might be possible to create an infinite collection by never beginning but yet ending at a specific point. In other words, while the universe may not have had a beginning we could start at an ending point (i.e., the present) and count back toward eternity. Craig explains why this counter to the argument is implausible:
The idea of a beginningless series ending in the present seems to be absurd. To give just one illustration: suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting from eternity and is now finishing: ..., -3, -2, -1, 0. We could ask, why did he not finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should have finished by then. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should have already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will have already finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This illustrates the fact that the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition is equally impossible whether one proceeds to or from infinity.
Assuming these arguments are convincing, we are can conclude that the universe began to exist. The next set of questions that remain are whether the entity that caused the universe to come into existence was either natural or non-natural and either personal or non-personal.
The first set appears to be the easiest to resolve. Since “natural causes” are causes which exist within the universe, not outside of it, any cause that preceded the creation of the universe must be, by definition, non-natural (or, if you prefer, supernatural). The second set is a bit trickier, and is contingent on whether the cause of the universe was sufficient (meaning that the existence of the cause alone guarantees the existence of the universe) or whether the cause had to be set in motion by a rational (hence, personal) agent.
An example of how to think about the answer is provided by Bill Ramsey:
To make this clear consider the sufficient cause of lighting a match. When a match is struck against the proper surface, it ignites, and thus striking the match is the sufficient cause of an ignited match. Note that as soon as a sufficient cause exists, the effect follows immediately; there is no gap between the cause and the effect. This raises a question: if the sufficient cause of the universe has always existed, then why has the universe not always existed?
The answer to this question is that the cause of the universe is a personal agent who willed the creation of a finite universe. To use the match example, once the match is struck the effect immediately follows, but if a personal agent does not strike the match, the effect does not have to follow. Likewise, if the cause of the universe is personal, the universe does not have to be eternal like its sufficient cause. Instead, the universe could have been willed into existence much like a person wills to light a match. Once the cause is set into motion the effect follows, but only after the cause is set into motion; and a personal agent has the power not to set the cause in motion. Thus we can conclude that the cause of the universe is personal.
Incorporating the elements into a whole, we can conclude that the universe was caused to come into existence at a finite point in time by a rational, personal Being. This conclusion, while not indisputable, certainly presents one more reasonable argument why it is more likely than not that God exists. It increases the plausibility that theism is true and atheism is false. Unfortunately, kalam, like all arguments for natural theology, can only drop us off at the door of theism. Special revelation is required to carry us up the steps and inside the inner sanctum where God reveals himself – specifically in the form of Jesus Christ.
See also:
- William Lane Craig, “Initial Arguments: A Defense of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God”
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for Cosmological Argument
The following is a list of the most significant criticisms that have been offered against the kalam argument, with responses by proponents of the argument. This list was taken, with slight modification, from the Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics and is only included in order to be as thorough as possible:
Eternal Eventless Universe -- Some suggest that big bang only signals the first eruption in a previously eternal universe. That is, the universe had eternal quiescence before this first event. The big bang singularity only marks the transition from primal physical stuff. Hence, there is no need for a Creator to make something out of nothing.
No known natural laws could account for this violent eruption out of eternal quietude. Some theists assert that an eternally quiet universe is physically impossible, since it would have to exist at absolute zero, which is impossible. Matter at the beginning was anything but cold, being collapsed into a fireball with temperatures in excess of billions of degrees Kelvin. In a lump of matter frozen to absolute zero, no first event could occur. Finally, positing eternal primordial stuff does nothing to account for the incredible order that follows the moment of the big bang. Only an intelligent Creator can account for this.
Rebounding Universe -- Some scientists have suggested that the big bang may only be the most recent in an eternal process of expansion and collapse. There are several problems with this hypothesis. There is no real scientific evidence for this speculation. It contradicts the Second Law, which would demand that, even if the universe were expanding and contracting, it would still be running down, so that it would ultimately collapse anyway. Logically and mathematically, the evidence for the big bang suggests that originally there was no space, no time, and no matter. Hence, even if the universe were somehow going through expansion and contraction from this point on, at the beginning it came into existence from nothing. This would still call for an initial Creator.
Steady State Theory -- Fred Hoyle devised the steady-state theory to avoid the need to posit a first cause. According to this hypothesis, hydrogen atoms are spontaneously coming into existence to keep the universe from running down. If so, then it would not need a beginning, since it is not running out of usable energy. There are, however, two serious problems with this speculation. First, there is no scientific evidence that hydrogen atoms are coming into existence. This has never been observed anywhere. Second, the belief that hydrogen atoms are coming into existence out of nothing is itself ex nihilo creation. It does not explain what (or Who) is creating them. Indeed, it is contrary to the fundamental principle of science (and rational thought) that everything that comes to be had a cause.
No Need for a Cause -- Some atheists argue that there is nothing incoherent about something coming into existence from nothing. They insist that the universe could come into existence “by nothing and from nothing”. Proponents of the kalam argument offer several points in response. First, this is contrary to the established principle of causality. It is contrary to the scientific enterprise, which seeks a causal explanation. It is counterintuitive to believe that things just pop into existence. Many argue that the idea that nothing can cause something is logically incoherent, since “nothing” has no power to do anything—it does not even exist.
An Infinite Series -- Some thinkers believe an infinite number of moments is possible, since in mathematics infinite series are possible. For example, an infinite number of points exists between the ends of my ruler. In response to this objection, proponents of the kalam argument insist that there is a difference between a mathematical infinite series and an actual infinite series. Mathematical series are abstract, but actual series are concrete . In a concrete series it is impossible to have an infinite number, since no matter how long it is one more can always be added. But this would make it more than infinitely long, which is impossible. Further, that one can get an infinite number of abstract (dimensionless) points between the book ends on my desk does not mean one can get an infinite number of books (or even sheets of paper) between them, no matter how thin they are.
Others object that if God knows the future, which is endless, then he knows an infinite series of events. And if he knows it, then it must be possible no matter how contrary to our intuitions it may be. But defenders point out that the future is not an actual infinite series but only a potential one, there always being the possibility of one more event. Further, if an actual infinite series is impossible, then God cannot know it, since God cannot know the impossible, only the actual and the possible.
No Personal God -- Some have objected that the kalam argument does not prove God is personal or intelligent. Hence, it is not helpful to Christian theism which believes in an intelligent Creator. In response, some theists argue that only a being with free choice could bring something from nothing. Also, few theists believe that the cosmological argument alone proves a theistic God. It must be combined with the teleological argument and/or moral argument to show that God is also intelligent and moral. Second, some proponents of the kalam argument offer arguments for the personality of the First Cause, apart from the teleological or moral arguments. Three have been suggested.
The argument from a First Cause can be stated:
1. The universe had a First Cause.
2. This First Cause’s act to create was either determined, undetermined, or self-determined.
3. But it cannot be determined, since there is nothing before the First Cause.
4. Neither can it be undetermined, since this is contrary to the principle of causality.
5. Hence, the act to create must have been self-determined.
6. But self-determined acts are free acts, for this is what is meant by a free act.
7. Therefore, the act by which the First Cause created the world must have been a free act of an intelligent, personal being.
The argument from the nature of intellectual causes can be stated:
1. An intelligent cause is characterized by effects which have ordered, regular effects.
2. According to the anthropic principle the universe was “fine tuned” or “pre-fitted” from the very moment of its big bang origin for the eventual emergence of human life. The most infinitesimal change of conditions in any way would have made life as we know it impossible.
3. Therefore, the First Cause must have been an intelligent cause.
The argument from the nature of natural causes states that natural causes have certain characteristics not present prior to the moment of the creation of the universe. The argument can be stated:
1. Natural causes have predetermined conditions.
2. But there were not predetermined conditions before the moment of the big bang origin of the space-time universe.
3. Therefore, the Cause was not a natural cause; it must have been a non-natural cause without predetermined conditions.
4. The only known cause which has these characteristics is a free cause.
5. Hence, the First Cause was a free cause.
Limits to the Argument -- The Argument and God’s Continued Existence -- Three objections have more validity than others. They do not invalidate what the kalam argument demonstrates, but they show its severe limitations. This argument cannot prove that any God now exists. Therefore, it cannot disprove deism. Further, its assumptions are unacceptable to a pantheist , so it is useless against pantheism.
The kalamargument as such does not prove that any God now exists or necessarily exists. It is an argument about how the universe originated, not how it is sustained . It shows that a First Cause was needed to explain how the universe came into being . This does not mean there is no way to rectify this inadequacy. One can argue that this First Cause must now exist, since the only kind of being that can cause a contingent being (i.e., one that can come to be) is a Necessary Being.
A Necessary Being cannot come to be or cease to be. However, this borrows from the vertical cosmological argument to make up the lack in the horizontal cosmological argument. It might be easier just to begin with the vertical form.
The Argument and Deism-- Since the kalam argument as such does not prove that God is necessary to sustain the here-and-now existence of the universe, it has deistic ( see DEISM ) tones. This does not mean that this argument denies the possibility of miracles, but it denies the ontological basis for God’s immanence. A God who is not, as the horizontal cosmological argument shows he is, the here-and-now cause of the very existence of the universe, is deistically remote. The argument shows that God was needed to get the universe going, which is precisely what deists believe occurred. Again, this problem is not rectifiable unless one imports help from the vertical form of the cosmological argument, showing how a Necessary Being is necessary at all times to sustain all contingent beings at every moment of their existence.
The Argument and Pantheism -- Neither does the kalam argument disprove pantheism. In fact, it begs the question with pantheism by assuming the reality of the finite world. No pantheist would grant the premises that a finite, space-time world really exists and is actually running down, or that time is real, involving actual discrete units that pass in succession. Hence, the kalam argument is not effective in combating pantheism. What value to theism is an argument that eliminates neither deism or pantheism? There appears to be no solution that does not involve appeal to the vertical form of the cosmological argument. The vertical form of the cosmological argument would appear to be necessary to sustain the kalamargument.
1
This is very good.
"It increases the plausibility that theism is true and atheism is false. Unfortunately, kalam, like all arguments for natural theology, can only drop us off at the door of theism."
Yes, and it can easily lend itself to pluralism or inclusivity. It does reflect some muslim thought in that respect.
posted on 07.11.2005 4:10 AM2
Joe
Excellent job; let's look at the alternatives and how they stack up on comparative difficulties.
GEM
PS The forum seems to be havingf a major software problem. Are you still supporting it, given lack of links from the blog?
posted on 07.11.2005 6:00 AM3
Here's a bit of the quotation from Craig:
"[S]uppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting from eternity and is now finishing: ..., -3, -2, -1, 0. We could ask, why did he not finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should have finished by then. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should have already be done!"
It seems more correct to me to say not that the man should have finished on a prior day but rather that the he could have finished on a prior day. Why did he count at the rate that he did? Who knows. The story does not say. He could of course have counted more quickly, and if he had he would have finished sooner. But as a matter of fact he did not but rather counted at just the rate he did and so ended when he did.
But if all we say is that he could have finished in a prior day, it does not follow that on no day did he count. That follows only if we assume that he should, or would, have finished on a prior day.
Does Craig mean to say that we can have no explanation of why the man says this number at this time? One can reply that he had said the prior number at a prior time and decided to say the next number after a certain interval of time had elapsed. Might Craig mean that we can have no explanation of why it is that the man's infinite sequence of past spoken numbers is not shifted pastward or futureward? If so, he assumes a view of time on which its instants are entities that are independent of the events that occur at them and would retain their identity even if different events, or no events at all, occured at them. This is an absolutist view of time, and it is highly contentious. It is opposed by a relationalist (not relativist, mind you: Einstein has nothing to do with this debate) view of time on which the very identity of an instant is constituted by the sum total of the events that occur at it. On this view, it's nonsense to ask why the sequence of events that compose the past was not shifted pastward or futureward. Newton was the arch-absolutist, Leibniz the arch-relationalist.
posted on 07.11.2005 8:11 AM4
Ramsey's argument assumes that the sufficient cause (God) has always existed. But what's the basis for this? In fact, it seems like the very argument against "actual infinite" series that you use to disprove the eternality of the universe would apply against the eternality of the first cause as well. And once we establish that the first cause, like everything else, must have a beginning, then there's no reason that it couldn't have begun immediately prior to the beginning of the universe, hence undermining Ramsey's argument for the necessary personal-ness of the cause.
posted on 07.11.2005 8:37 AM5
I first read about the Kalam argument in I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be sn Atheist, by Geisler and Turek. They gave an additional explanation that I really enjoy (through the magic of Amazon.com, you can read the actual page here):
If there were an infinite number of days before today, then today would never have arrived. But here we are! So there must have been only a finite number of days before today. In other words, even though we may not be able to see, as we look to the left, where the line begins, we know it had to begin at some point because only a finite amount of time could be passed for today to arrive. You can't traverse an infinite number of days. Thus time must have had a beginning.posted on 07.11.2005 10:27 AM
6
Ed,
I find in this passage only assertion, not argument. Surely one cannot begin at a certain point in time and by the steady progression of time come to have traveresed an infinite amount of time. But I find no incoherence in the idea that one has always been progressing toward a certain time and, when that time arrives, one has covered an infinite number of days.
posted on 07.11.2005 10:46 AM7
"1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause."
When the Christians use the First Cause argument, this premise is usually given in the form "Everything has a cause." This is an interesting distinction.
Anyway, both versions take away the possibility of free will. For example, my decision to type this comment was caused by something, and hence wasn't really free. And the same goes for every action that anybody does.
posted on 07.11.2005 11:59 AM8
So Ilkka, assuming that everything has a cause, you are arguing that the decision to type the comment was the only one you could have made, that it would have been impossible for you to choose not to type the comment? Not sure I follow the logic.
posted on 07.11.2005 1:36 PM9
Okay I'm going to shut my eyes and pound on my keyboard haphazardly with my fists. Let's what happens.
l;jfjo;as;osfanobaoasu;usdoa
Wow! Clearly, there is zero evidence to support the existence of any deity. These "arguments" for the existence of deities are no better than the arguments for the existence of slorgumpergoobles. The evidence that slorgumpergoobles exist is just as weak (e.g., non-existent) as the evidence that deities exist.
posted on 07.11.2005 3:52 PM10
Rob Smith: "So Ilkka, assuming that everything has a cause, you are arguing that the decision to type the comment was the only one you could have made, that it would have been impossible for you to choose not to type the comment?"
Yes. If everything has a cause, then the universe is fully deterministic. Something caused my decision to go one way, and something else in turn caused that, and something else in turn caused that, and so on all the way down to the First Cause.
A fully deterministic universe seems to me a rather high price to pay for the existence of God, which makes me wonder why Christians love the First Cause proof. Perhaps they haven't thought it through properly.
posted on 07.11.2005 3:54 PM11
Franklin,
Surely one cannot begin at a certain point in time and by the steady progression of time come to have traveresed an infinite amount of time. But I find no incoherence in the idea that one has always been progressing toward a certain time and, when that time arrives, one has covered an infinite number of days.
I honestly don't see how it's possible. It's not just that I find the other point of view (that the universe could not have always existed) more plausible: I don't see how any other point of view is possible.
12
Yes. If everything has a cause, then the universe is fully deterministic. Something caused my decision to go one way, and something else in turn caused that, and something else in turn caused that, and so on all the way down to the First Cause.
Of course; unless something caused you to have free will.
posted on 07.11.2005 5:00 PM13
Okay I'm going to shut my eyes and pound on my keyboard haphazardly with my fists. Let's what happens.
l;jfjo;as;osfanobaoasu;usdoa
Wow! Clearly, there is zero evidence to support the existence of any deity. These "arguments" for the existence of deities are no better than the arguments for the existence of slorgumpergoobles. The evidence that slorgumpergoobles exist is just as weak (e.g., non-existent) as the evidence that deities exist.
So when are you going to open your eyes back up?
posted on 07.11.2005 5:04 PM14
The basic outline of the kalam argument is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It is an argument about how the universe originated, not how it is sustained . It shows that a First Cause was needed to explain how the universe came into being.
Umm...it's because (1) is taken axiomatically.
We actually don't know if the universe has existed and passed out of existence how many times before; if as you said, it would eventually collapse on itself, one can imagine a set of stochastic state equations that were quasi-periodic that would in fact do the job that you say can't be done. I'm not expert in the field, but I do know that some assert this.
And please, stay out of infinities: they exist as limits; do you know why Pythagoras thought he was so religiously in tune with whatever he thought he was religiously in tune with?
It's because he discovered irrational numbers: numbers that cannot be expressed with a finite number of digits. Now the "finite number of digits" part is of course the abstraction, but the actual length of a diagonal of a 1 inch squre is a number that is inexpressible in a finite number of digits. And the side "finite," but actually contains an uncountably infinite number of points and lengths between any two points on that side.
And, if I draw a line...and add to it...I've added an uncountable number of points/line segments to an uncountable number of points/line segments- but wound up with a line of finite length!
Note: the set of all subsets of all line segments of any 1 inch line that have length >0 actually as cardinality 2^c- that is, the number of elements in it is actually greater than all the points on the line...
So to use apparent paradoxes of transfinite arithmetic doesn't really do anything.
So basically I leave the origin of the universe to physicists- although I am a bit of a heretic in that as an engineer I can't figure out why they get paid to create theories that are rather difficult to test.
And I'd leave out the anthropic principle: if we found microbes on a moon of Jupiter, and those microbes would have conciousness, would they assert a "microbial principle?"
How about a "cold principle?" Most of the universe is very, very, very cold.
15
Jack: "So when are you going to open your eyes back up?"
You elicited a mordant chuckle out of me. Nice one.
Now, when are we compare the evidence for God's existence with the evidence for sporklepemboo's existence? Who is ready to prove that slorgumpergoobles do not exist?
posted on 07.11.2005 8:11 PM16
I myself much prefer the ontological argument. St. Anselm of Canterbury provided quite an interesting discourse on the topic in his Proslogium. If anyone's interested in the topics, please see the following pages about it:
David Ketter - The Account - The Existence of God: Axiom or Assumption?
Pete - Pete's Place - Religious Philosophy: Anselm and Rationalism
Honestly, probably one of the best things I've read in a long while on this sort of thing is Beyond Personality by C.S. Lewis - excellent book for anyone.
Until He Comes Again,
David@ The Account
17
Ikka:
Yes. If everything has a cause, then the universe is fully deterministic. Something caused my decision to go one way, and something else in turn caused that, and something else in turn caused that, and so on all the way down to the First Cause.
All the Kalam does is argue about beginnings. It says nothing about what is of and not of the universe. I agree with your position, only if we are physical. But if we are metaphysical then it is possible that our souls are not deterministic.
posted on 07.11.2005 8:56 PM18
Mumon,
And, if I draw a line...and add to it...I've added an uncountable number of points/line segments to an uncountable number of points/line segments- but wound up with a line of finite length! ...
So to use apparent paradoxes of transfinite arithmetic doesn't really do anything.
But for a universe that has no beginning we're talking about real periods of time (call them "days" for convenience), one after another. That is more like drawing an infinite number of line segments that each has a definite length (say one inch for convenience). Even if you could finish drawing a line composed of an infinite number of one-inch line segments, you would never be able to walk from one end of it to another.
If the universe has always existed, then we can find two points (Day A and Day B) on its timeline that are an infinite number of days apart. There is no way to get from Day A to Day B -- it would take forever. Nothing that existed and happened on Day A could ever affect what existed and happened on Day B. The thing is, since time in the universe had to pass through Day A on its way to Day B, time could never reach Day B.
We are Day B. Time has reached us. So the universe has not always existed.
19
Thank you, Joe, for sharing your beliefs about the cosmos and for sharing your kalam logic.
The basic outline of the kalam argument is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
I don't agree with your premises. I don't think statements 1 and 2 are likely to be true.
It is possible that they might be true, though. So for the sake of argument, let's assume they are true. Then, as you point out, the conclusion "The universe has a cause" follows logically and must be true.
But the next step in the kalam argument, that the cause of the universe must be God, is the most problematic for me.
If we assume or conclude that the universe has a cause, then we are not off the hook yet. Where does the cause come from? Why doesn't the cause keep on causing things now? How can we find out anything about the cause, other than the fact that it is a cause?
And here is the toughest question of all: what is the best tool or method of inquiry for examining the nature of the cause? Is it philosophy, theology, scientific cosmology?
While philosophy and theology have many interesting and important things to say about cosmology, I find time and again that science has the compelling answers, and that science asks the most incisive questions in the first place.
But as you point out in the first post of this series, Dismantling Implausibility Structures:
The Uses of Theistic Arguments, my preferences and beliefs are a function of my plausibility filters. And the funny thing is, I believe that my own personal plausibility filters are not likely to lead me to the truth about the origins of the universe.
It's as if the true story of the universe, and its beginning, is the bullseye on a large target. My plausibility filters generate beliefs that land somewhere on the target, but probably not right on the bullseye. And your plausibility filters do the same thing. And if you took a hundred people, and used their beliefs to shoot at the target, maybe none of them would hit the bullseye either.
But what is possible is that the hundred arrows of belief cluster around the bullseye, and give us a very good idea of where the bullseye is likely to be.
Another analogy would be the parable of the five blind men and the elephant.
As each blind man grabs onto the elephant at a particular body part (tail, trunk, leg, and so on), they each get an incomplete idea of what an elephant is. Even though each blind man's idea is based on reality, it is only the combination of all the ideas that best reflects what the elephant truly is.
So thank you again for helping me and your other readers think about these questions. Your post is quite thought-provoking. I eagerly await your next "Dismantling Plausibility Structures".
posted on 07.11.2005 11:58 PM20
The most interesting part of this debate, to me, is the part of the infinite universe. It appears to me that such a thing is impossible. Ive had several athiests use this one on me before and Ive asked them many times how it's possible that we could have reached now if we were to travel backwards infinitely.
There answers never make much sense to me. But I think the biggest problem of all is that we are finite and we are living in and surrounded by finite things. Thus, we have a very difficult time with infinity.
But seriously, if you try and regress infinitely, how could you ever come to today?
They always have an answer for this question and because their answers don't make any sense to me, I can't remember them.
posted on 07.12.2005 5:50 AM21
Ed,
You say: "If the universe has always existed, then we can find two points (Day A and Day B) on its timeline that are an infinite number of days apart."
That simply isn't so.
If time is infinite in the direction of the past, that does not mean that some time in the past is such that between it and the present a infinite amount of time exists. Rather it means that there is no first pastward point.
If time is infinite in the direction of the past, it is boundless, i.e. for any time now past, there was a prior time. You seem to assume that past time must be bounded and then conclude that those who assert the infinity of past time mean to say that an infinite time has elapsed between a pair of temporal points. They don't mean to say this at all. Rather what they mean to say is that past time is not bounded.
You are of course right to reject the claim that an infinite amount of time can separate a pair of temporal points. But those who hold that time is infinite in the direction of the past reject it too.
posted on 07.12.2005 7:47 AM22
Ed Jordan:
My impression of the conjecture is that the universe quasi-periodically passes out of existence and back into existence; and in any time in which the universe exists, any interval of time is made up of an infinitude of intervals of time; the latter statement is actually in accord with what we know about the nature of the universe. And we regularly traverse those infinite but bounded intervals of time.
And that's far more useful, too when it comes to actually living our lives.
23
My attempts to understand cosmological arguments always break down on the meaning of "cause." Causality seems to me to be bound up in time. For something to be the cause of something else, it must come before it temporally. But, if I'm not mistaken, most physicists would argue that time is a characteristic of the universe. If time began at the beginning of the universe, then does it make any sense to talk about the cause of the universe? "Before" is a word that just doesn't apply in the absence of time, and arguments that the universe had a cause or did not have a cause seem equally meaningless.
God's existence "outside" of time and the universe is a profound mystery. Even saying that he is "outside" the universe is problematic, as "outside" implies dimension -- a characteristic of the universe. I'm not sure that He can described as "plausible" or "implausible," nor used as the subject of logical arguments.
posted on 07.12.2005 8:14 AM24
Franklin -- That simply isn't so. If time is infinite in the direction of the past, that does not mean that some time in the past is such that between it and the present a infinite amount of time exists. Rather it means that there is no first pastward point.
I think you are confusing "infinite" with "boundless." The two terms are not interchangeable. It might be posssible (though I doubt it) that time could be added to a boundless sequence and not be inifite. But for time to be "infinite in the direction of the past" would require that any subset of time also be infinite. That is part of what it means to be an actual infinite.
posted on 07.12.2005 8:50 AM25
Joe,
Thanks for the comment, but I'm a bit confused.
That time is infinite in the direction of the past does not require that any (your world) subset of it is also infinite. Rather all that it requires is that some subsets are infinite.
You say that it might be possible that time could be added to a boundless sequence and yet the result not be infinite. I don't follow you. If time is boundless pastward, that means that for any past time you pick there are prior times that precede that time by any interval you like. (In all strictness, boundlessness does not imply only that for every past time there are prior times. For time could be open and bounded in the direction of the past and yet it be the case that for every past time there is a prior time. I intend here to use 'bounded' and 'open' as they are used in topology. Good resources exist on the net.)Thus it seems to me that boundlessness entails infinitude.
posted on 07.12.2005 9:09 AM26
Franklin -- That time is infinite in the direction of the past does not require that any (your world) subset of it is also infinite. Rather all that it requires is that some subsets are infinite.
Assuming this is true, it only leads us to the question of whether actual infinites can even exist. If some subsets are also infinite then they are the same “size” as the whole set. How then can they be sub-sets?
You say that it might be possible that time could be added to a boundless sequence and yet the result not be infinite. I don't follow you.
You’re right. After thinking about it further I don’t think a sequence can be boundless and not be infinite. That means that the liklihood of a sequence being an "actual boundless set" is as unlikely as being an "actual infinite set."
27
Joe,
They key here might be to get clear about what 'equinumerous' means when said of infinite sets.
Sets s and s' are equinumerous just if the elements of s can be paired up with the elements of s' in such a way that no element of either s or s' lacks a mate.
In this sense of 'equinumerous', an infinite set can be equinumerous with a subset of itself. For instance, {1,2,3,...} and {2,4,6,...} are equinumerous in this sense because we can pair them up in this way: 1-2, 2-4, 4-6, . . .. In this way, every element in each set will get a mate.
This sense of 'equinumerous' applies as well to finite sets. But there is another sense of 'equinumerous' applicable only to finite sets. It's this: Sets s and s' are equinumerous' (notice the prime) just if the number, n, of elements in s is the same as that of elements in s'. If we restrict our attention to finite sets, no set can be equinumerous' with a subset of itself. Once we begin to talk of infinite sets, it no longer makes sense to speak of equinumerousity', for there is no number, n, such that it is the number of the elements within an infinite set. For the case of infinite sets, we have to revert to the definition of equinumerousity stated in terms of a 1 to 1 correspondence. As said, if this is what we mean by equinumerousity, it is quite evidently possible for a set (infinite it will have to be) to be equinumerous with a subset of itself.
posted on 07.12.2005 11:03 AM28
You elicited a mordant chuckle out of me. Nice one.Now, when are we compare the evidence for God's existence with the evidence for sporklepemboo's existence? Who is ready to prove that slorgumpergoobles do not exist?
Depends, define sporklepemboos? Whatever you want to say for evidence whether or not God exists the problem isn't really one of defining God (a beign who sites outside and superior to the universe as we know it). A while ago Joe pondered how we could trust our philosophy if naturalism explained our existence. In other words, why assume evolution would have created a brain capable of discovering true beliefs?
The answer is that our brains are well evolved to deal apply 'common sense' to everyday problems. However when you are dealing outside of everyday issues you cannot rely on 'common sense' to guide you to true beliefs. Quantum mechanics appears to be true yet it hardly makes 'common sense'. Serious students just have to accept the mathematics and follow them wherever it leads. Ditto for Einstein's relativity. Which raises another topic, 'common sense' will tell you that infinity plus 1 is greater than infinity...yet when dealing with such abstract topics you cannot go with something just because it 'feels right'. This is why I'm skepitcal of such grandiose statements as 'every event must have a cause'. Why? Is this really a rigerously proven statement or just something that feels good to assert?
If the universe has always existed, then we can find two points (Day A and Day B) on its timeline that are an infinite number of days apart. There is no way to get from Day A to Day B -- it would take forever. Nothing that existed and happened on Day A could ever affect what existed and happened on Day B. The thing is, since time in the universe had to pass through Day A on its way to Day B, time could never reach Day B.
It would take forever but you've defined time as forever in this example so there's plenty of time for A to have reached B!
Ditto for trying to apply things like the second law of thermodynmics to time before the Big Bang (if such a thing existed). The law exists only based on our observations which are extensive but still finite. How can we seek to apply it to periods like a pre-Bang universe?
posted on 07.12.2005 11:44 AM29
Joe,
Assuming this is true, it only leads us to the question of whether actual infinites can even exist. If some subsets are also infinite then they are the same “size” as the whole set. How then can they be sub-sets?
Here's a link that addresses your question: Infinite Sets.
After thinking about it further I don’t think a sequence can be boundless and not be infinite. That means that the liklihood of a sequence being an "actual boundless set" is as unlikely as being an "actual infinite set."
Here's a link that addresses the question of the possibility of infinite sets in the real world of concrete physical reality: Physical infinity/Infinity in cosmology.
Whether or not concrete infinite sets actually exist depends a lot on your point of view. It depends a lot especially on how you define "infinite". "Infinite" means very different things in different contexts, and it doesn't make any sense to argue something can or can't be infinite when the two sides are using different defintions.
I myself am not sure whether the universe is infinite, or even what if means precisely to ask that question. I suspect the universe may not be infinite, in which case time would not be infinite either, but I am just as open to some other possibilities as well.
One thing about this that is very interesting is that time is not universal. Einstein showed that time is relative to your motion.
For example, astronauts in the space shuttle will experience a slowing down of time. When they come to earth, they will have lost a fraction of a second (and the clocks on the space shuttle will have too!), solely from their motion relative to the position of us here on earth. If the astronauts had gone to Jupiter and back, they could have lost up to a few minutes. If they travel to the nearest star and come back, they could lose many decades (for example, they would age 40 years while everyone/everything on earth ages 100 years or more).
Another thing that is interesting is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Joe mentioned that this is the law that inexorably dictates that the universe is running down. That is true to a certain extent, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics properly understood is a local law, as opposed to a global one. In other words, the law says that any particular reaction, or any particular closed system tends to dissipate energy (also called "increase entropy"). But it is not known whether or not the universe is a closed system.
I think most physicists passively assume the universe as a whole is likely to be a closed system. But there is no solid justification for this. If energy is continually dissipating (entropy increasing) in the universe as a whole, that raises the question of how energy got un-dissipated in the first place. And there are of course other questions about all this as well.
One more point about time. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the physical law that explains why time proceeds forward and not backward. It is why an egg can spontaneously fall and shatter into a yolky mess, but cannot spontaneously pop back into its former un-broken state.
However, on a microscopic, quantum level, time does not seem to be a one-way thing. Elementary particles can travel forwards and backwards in time. When an electron, for example, travels backward in time, it is called a positron, or an "anti-matter" electron. Every type of elementary particle has a backwards-travelling anti-matter partner.
So the universe is a very interesting beast, whether it is "finite" or "infinite". But the whole notion of infinite is a fun and interesting question in itself, so I hope you find the links above helpful. If you have any questions on the mathematical/scientific meanings of infinite, I'd be happy to try to explain it to you myself, too.
posted on 07.12.2005 12:08 PM30
This is why I'm skepitcal of such grandiose statements as 'every event must have a cause'. Why? Is this really a rigerously proven statement or just something that feels good to assert?
No, it's not just a 'feel good statement' or grandiose assertion - it's the basis for almost all thought. If events can occur uncaused, then science is a farce, and any statement about causes, whether mathematical or philosophical is absurd, because both are studies of causes.
But it is also a statement of common sense; name a single event within the universe that you know to have occurred uncaused? The burden is on you then to prove the universe itself is uncaused; otherwise, those who hold the universe uncaused are the ones making grandiose, unproven statements that make them feel good about their particular set of beliefs.
posted on 07.12.2005 12:42 PM31
Boonton
"Whatever you want to say for evidence whether or not God exists the problem isn't really one of defining God (a beign who sites outside and superior to the universe as we know it)."
Okay, then I define God as the cup of coffee in front of me containing the exact amount of coffee that it contains right now. Ooops! I just dumped my coffee out. I guess God is dead.
Sorry, Boonton, the definition does matter. Unless you want to argue that words have no fixed meaning, in which case I implore you to screw yourself (or violet tomorrow draw, whichever you prefer).
"Depends, define sporklepemboos?"
Okay, sporklempemboos are the beings that are superior to all of the deities that have previously been discussed on planet earth, and in fact the sporklempemboos destroyed all those deities yesterday morning.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
I didn't think so.
Definitions incontrovertibly do matter, if you are interested in discussing the evidence for "God", other deities, or anything else -- especially things that you imagine but for which you can provide no reproducible means of detecting.
posted on 07.12.2005 12:56 PM32
Definitions incontrovertibly do matter, if you are interested in discussing the evidence for "God", other deities, or anything else -- especially things that you imagine but for which you can provide no reproducible means of detecting.
Including universes appearing out of nowhere, uncaused by anything?
posted on 07.12.2005 1:13 PM34
"Definitions incontrovertibly do matter, if you are interested in discussing the evidence for "God", other deities, or anything else -- especially things that you imagine but for which you can provide no reproducible means of detecting."
"Including universes appearing out of nowhere, uncaused by anything?"
Or Gods appearing out of nowhere, uncaused by anything? What's the difference? If God can be uncaused, so could the universe, right?
35
Or Gods appearing out of nowhere, uncaused by anything? What's the difference? If God can be uncaused, so could the universe, right?
Sure, if the universe had no beginning or end, or if it was purported that God did have a beginning or end; but that would bring us back to the argument.
posted on 07.12.2005 1:43 PM36
"Sure, if the universe had no beginning or end, or if it was purported that God did have a beginning or end; but that would bring us back to the argument."
In that if God had a beginning or end, he must also have a cause, ad infinitum. As has been already alluded to, cause seems to be dependent on our concepts of time, which, according to physicists I believe, is a part of the universe and not something that is outside of it. Don't know if saying something caused the universe without time makes any sense. Kinda highlights the limits of our relatively puny brains...
posted on 07.12.2005 1:59 PM37
Jack: "Of course; unless something caused you to have free will."
Note the difference between (1) something causing the existence of my free will in the first place and (2) something (else) then causing my free will to choose option A instead of option B. Issue (2) is the relevant one here.
Even if we assume that both the free will and the choice that is done by the free will are metaphysical, they are still something. Hence, by the premise of the First Cause argument that says that everything has a cause, the choice done by the free will had a cause that forced it. Hence that choice wasn't really free, but caused by something, which in turn is caused by something else, and so on.
Of course, you could modify the First Cause argument so that its premise explicitly says that every physical thing has a cause, making souls and whatever else is needed exempt and thus allowing free will. However, since the universe itself is not a physical thing (by definition, physical things are contained in the universe, and the universe obviously does not contain itself as a thing) the argument would no longer work for its intended purpose to establish that the universe has a cause.
posted on 07.12.2005 2:05 PM38
In that if God had a beginning or end, he must also have a cause, ad infinitum. As has been already alluded to, cause seems to be dependent on our concepts of time, which, according to physicists I believe, is a part of the universe and not something that is outside of it. Don't know if saying something caused the universe without time makes any sense. Kinda highlights the limits of our relatively puny brains...
Certainly, very puny indeed.
posted on 07.12.2005 2:10 PM39
Larry,
You provide powerful (and witty) objections to the notion of a personal God. The notion of God raises a lot more questions than it is supposed to answer.
I have some questions for you. Do you believe the universe is infinite or finite? Do you believe the universe has a beginning and/or a cause? If the universe was not created or caused by an intelligent, personal being, then where did it come from?
Thanks!
posted on 07.12.2005 2:11 PM40
Dave,
In that if God had a beginning or end, he must also have a cause, ad infinitum. As has been already alluded to, cause seems to be dependent on our concepts of time, which, according to physicists I believe, is a part of the universe and not something that is outside of it. Don't know if saying something caused the universe without time makes any sense. Kinda highlights the limits of our relatively puny brains...
Excellent point.
Yet our puny brains have been able to puzzle out that the world is 4.5 billion years old and that the visible universe is 13.5 billion years old. We've figured how stars and solar systems are formed. We've used the physical laws of forces and energy to figure out what powers the processes behind all this stuff.
And we've done all that using knowledge and techniques that are only about 400 years old. If we keep plugging at these questions for another 400 years, we will probably be surprised at some of the answers we end up getting.
posted on 07.12.2005 2:20 PM41
Note the difference between (1) something causing the existence of my free will in the first place and (2) something (else) then causing my free will to choose option A instead of option B. Issue (2) is the relevant one here.
Why if 1 occurs, do you assume 2?
Even if we assume that both the free will and the choice that is done by the free will are metaphysical, they are still something. Hence, by the premise of the First Cause argument that says that everything has a cause, the choice done by the free will had a cause that forced it. Hence that choice wasn't really free, but caused by something, which in turn is caused by something else, and so on.
This really begs the question; if there is nothing outside to give us free will, then there is certainly nothing in the universe itself to give us free will, so absent a force for endowing free will, free will most certainly does not exist.
Of course, you could modify the First Cause argument so that its premise explicitly says that every physical thing has a cause, making souls and whatever else is needed exempt and thus allowing free will. However, since the universe itself is not a physical thing (by definition, physical things are contained in the universe, and the universe obviously does not contain itself as a thing) the argument would no longer work for its intended purpose to establish that the universe has a cause.
How is the universe not a 'physical thing'? It is certainly a collection of physical things, of which minds, will, and emotions might be associated with, but not directly a part of - that is, not physical things.
But I am not sure free will is lost due to causality. If I create a choice making robot, and the robot goes on to make choices, I have still caused the robot to be made, and the robot in turn has caused it's created will to be exerted. In fact one might say I have caused an agent of causation.
posted on 07.12.2005 2:34 PM42
Matthew
"You provide powerful (and witty) objections to the notion of a personal God."
I'm not objecting to the "notion of a personal God." I'm objecting to the notion that the "notion of a personal God" is based on anything other than the desire of human beings that such deities exist (i.e., faith). Thus far, no one has been able to show me why any such deities must exist (much less why only one such deity must exist).
I'm on the record here a thousand times over as a big supporter of the concept of faith when it comes to religious beliefs. I have no truck with anyone's religious beliefs. My concerns relate to attempts by believers to translate their faith into allegedly logical or scientific principles.
"Do you believe the universe is infinite or finite? Do you believe the universe has a beginning and/or a cause?"
You mean our universe? It appears to be changing over time and my understanding is that at some point it didn't sufficiently resemble our "universe" as we know it today. So I guess our universe had a beginning. But you can always go back further in time, as long as we are talking about "beginnings".
"If the universe was not created or caused by an intelligent, personal being, then where did it come from?"
Perhaps it was pooped out by an impersonal invisible space bat which lacks any detectable intelligence whatsoever.
You seem to be asking whether there was a time when "nothing" existed. That question can not be answered scientifically. It's a religious question. So feel free to make up whatever answer causes you to sleep most comfortably.
43
Larry,
You seem to be asking whether there was a time when "nothing" existed. That question can not be answered scientifically. It's a religious question. So feel free to make up whatever answer causes you to sleep most comfortably.
Well, it's a question that doesn't seem likely at this moment to be a question that science can answer. But I wouldn't rule out further progress in advancing our theories about these questions.
I don't know if the "feel free to make up whatever" is aimed specifically at me, but I am actually much less religiously inclined than you seem to be. I don't think anything should be taken on faith, or just to make someone sleep more soundly at night. I would describe myself as a thoroughly atheistic materialist.
But that doesn't mean the universe corresponds to my belief system. My system of beliefs may have systematically led me into grievous and embarassing error. I'm very willing to compare my view of the world with others' and see how it stacks up.
And as I have mentioned in several previous discussions, perspectives that are superficially quite contradictory are often complementary perspectives in disguise.
posted on 07.12.2005 3:01 PM44
Jack: "Why if 1 occurs, do you assume 2?"
Because the First Cause argument starts by asserting that everything has a cause. And not "every physical thing", but everything.
Since the choice between A and B is something (even if we don't know what kind of physical/metaphysical thing it actually is), it has a cause, by this very premise.
You can assume free will if you wish, implemented any way you want. However, if this free will makes a choice, this choice is something and is therefore caused by something, by the premise of the First Cause argument. Hence, it wasn't really free.
You probably say that God caused/causes your free will to be in existence. However, you probably wouldn't say that whenever your free will makes a choice between some two options A and B, God causes it to make that choice. So God is not the cause of 2 that is required by the premise of the First Cause argument.
"How is the universe not a 'physical thing'? It is certainly a collection of physical things"
Same way as a chess club is a collection of people, but the club itself is not a person.
Of course, all this depends on your definition of "physical". However, most people would probably agree that something being a physical thing entails that that something is a part of or is contained in the physical universe.
Now, if this universe itself is a physical thing, it follows that this universe contains itself as a thing or part. This would probably be absurd.
posted on 07.12.2005 3:31 PM45
Goggins
"I'm very willing to compare my view of the world with others' and see how it stacks up."
What a pleasant sounding bit of nonsense.
Tell me, Matthew: when you "see" how these "other views" of the "world" stack up against each other, are you "seeing" them from "your view" or from "their view"? How do you know that you are stacking them up correctly?
Let me save you some time: all of us who are not on drugs, brain damaged, or insane see the world in more or less the same way. Time marches on for every one of us.
Did something exist before time began? Sure. A giant bellybutton with a piece of golden lint.
Sleep well, my friend.
"I don't think anything should be taken on faith, or just to make someone sleep more soundly at night."
Why the hell not?
posted on 07.12.2005 4:24 PM46
"Let me save you some time: all of us who are not on drugs, brain damaged, or insane see the world in more or less the same way. Time marches on for every one of us."
So the fact that time marches on somehow equates to 'us' seeing the world 'more' or 'less' the same way? People who believe they've been reincarnated and will be reincarnated again 'see' the 'world' in the same way as people who believe the son of God died for our sins and we're all heaven or hell-bound? Yep, time marches on for every one of us, no doubt about it. So what? Are ya just saying that we're all more alike than we are different? No argument there, but that's different then the way people perceive things, which I think are very disparate.
Oh, the lint was made of silver, but you're right on about the belly button.
posted on 07.12.2005 5:23 PM47
My dear Dr. Lord,
"I'm very willing to compare my view of the world with others' and see how it stacks up."
What a pleasant sounding bit of nonsense.
Tell me, Matthew: when you "see" how these "other views" of the "world" stack up against each other, are you "seeing" them from "your view" or from "their view"? How do you know that you are stacking them up correctly?
Let me save you some time: all of us who are not on drugs, brain damaged, or insane see the world in more or less the same way. Time marches on for every one of us.
When you read Huckleberry Finn, what are you doing?
Are you entering a different world, a different time and place? Are you seeing society and reality through the eyes of a fictional youth? Are you allowing Mark Twain to stretch your consciousness in new directions, and perhaps view yourself and other people in a new light?
When a scientist, such as yourself, undertakes a program of experimentation, what is he doing? Is he challenging his view of a scientific theory, allowing it to be affirmed or contradicted by reality? Is he fumbling, in a modest yet educated and disciplined fashion, to grab onto some small corner of the truth?
One of the most powerful tools available to you and me is the ability to listen, to really listen to someone and hear what they are saying.
Each of us, through an ongoing lifetime of experience, develops a personal expertise in the human condition and in many other things that no other person can lay claim to. No matter how smart and wise you and I are or think we are, we can always learn something from someone else. Usually there is much more to learn than we can hope to be able to get.
You can learn from my pleasant-sounding nonsense, and I can learn from your God-awful (but funny) arrogance.
Am I seeing other people's views from my own view? Of course, but sometimes I need to stretch and modify my views, or even try to step outside them and look at my views from a novel perspective.
How do I know I am stacking up everything correctly? I don't always know what I am doing, but by making a habit of examining and comparing, I can try to get things right over time. The scientific method of your profession sometimes stumbles down some wrong paths, but over time it tends to correct itself and grow a corpus of knowledge and theories that allows ever more fruitful attempts at discovery.
"I don't think anything should be taken on faith, or just to make someone sleep more soundly at night."
Why the hell not?
I do take some things on faith. For example, if Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit writes in a post that I should "Go read the whole thing", then I am confident that Prof. Reynolds has linked to something which will in fact be interesting and insightful. I know this because in the past, when he has written the same thing, it always turns out to be a good link that way.
Likewise, anyone whose authority and expertise I trust, I am willing to take his say-so on faith. But if someone I trust tells me something that goes against my reason (my plausibility filters), then I am not going to take that on faith if I don't have to. In fact, if it's important enough to be something that I want to get the truth about, then I will go find out for myself, as best I can, what I want to believe.
So let me ask you the question, why the heck should you take things on faith?
Here's another question: Why were you berating me for being too respectful towards creationists and ID-er's (proponents of Intelligent Design theory), when you are now challenging me for not liking to take things on faith?
As for believing things in order to sleep more soundly at night, I put the highest premium on trying to get a handle on the truth. If the truth is uncomfortable, disturbing, ugly, or painful, I still want to know as much as I can. I don't fault you if you have different priorities, but that's just the way I am.
And of course, knowing that you are not trying to dodge the truth can often be helpful in getting a good night's sleep!
Thanks again, Dr. Lord.
posted on 07.12.2005 7:19 PM48
Dave
"Are ya just saying that we're all more alike than we are different?"
Much more alike. For nearly every one of us, human-to-human differences in perception are negligible. I stick my hand in a fire. Ouch! I avoid doing so in the future. A nearly universal phenomenon.
I walk to work and I don't see a giant monster on the way. I don't tell my co-workers that I saw a giant monster on the way. A nearly universal phenomenon.
Deviants from these basic patterns are either entertainers, liars, drug abusers, or mentally unsound. Or a combination of the above.
The discussion of whether the existence of deities can be proven with evidence or logical arguments is not akin to arguing whether a glass is half full or half empty. Either you want to believe in deities and you do (faith) or you want to believe in deities and you pretend that those who don't are deluding themselves about the existence of deities (faith + lying).
posted on 07.12.2005 7:42 PM49
Two quotes from Goggins
"I don't think anything should be taken on faith..."
"I do take some things on faith."
A retraction with no explanation? Hmm. Seems to be something in the air these days.
"why the heck should you take things on faith?"
Any number of reasons. Sleeping better is number one. Perhaps an improved sense of well-being. And then there is just plain convenience.
As I've stated an untold number of times, the unobjectionable response when confronted with the charge that one's view on a subject is a matter of faith is simply to admit it! With respect to his own resurrection, Jesus made a relatively plain statement in support of this approach.
All this talk about whether something existed before time began has nothing to do with logic or science or evidence of any kind. This is pure religion. Indeed, if I remember the scriptures correctly, Jesus equates himself with the infinite on at least one occasion -- a bold move if you ask me but that was sort of his modus operandi, wasn't it?
"Why were you berating me for being too respectful towards creationists and ID-er's"
Those folks are far more interested in self-promotion than they are in the truth about science or religion. They not only want to stick their fingers in Jesus' wounds, they want Bartholomew to handle the video camera, Peter to do the lighting, and Andrew to take some samples for DNA testing.
It's warped, I tell you.
posted on 07.12.2005 8:09 PM50
Dr. Lord,
A retraction with no explanation?
No, a qualification by way of explanation.
That is to say, I don't take anything on faith, unless I'm delegating a particular need for expertise to someone who happens to have that expertise.
By the way, the tone of your last comment is frightfully relaxed -- where is the real Larry Lord and what have you done with him?
posted on 07.12.2005 8:18 PM51
No, it's not just a 'feel good statement' or grandiose assertion - it's the basis for almost all thought. If events can occur uncaused, then science is a farce, and any statement about causes, whether mathematical or philosophical is absurd, because both are studies of causes.
Really? How about most events have causes? Or all events except one, or two? If those statements are true science would still remain quite serious.
But it is also a statement of common sense; name a single event within the universe that you know to have occurred uncaused?
I can't, of course, but then I don't recall seeing clocks move slower on moving trains or anyone who aged slower than me because he kept running around! Our common sense is limited to observing a rather hum drum piece of the universe for a fraction of its age. How can we trust our common sense when we try to apply it to uncommon things such as infinite sets, the beginning of time, the cause of the universe etc.?
Okay, then I define God as the cup of coffee in front of me containing the exact amount of coffee that it contains right now. Ooops! I just dumped my coffee out. I guess God is dead.Sorry, Boonton, the definition does matter. Unless you want to argue that words have no fixed meaning, in which case I implore you to screw yourself (or violet tomorrow draw, whichever you prefer).
Ok Larry, but if you defined God as your cup of coffee then you also defined God as not being alive (therefore he cannot die). However defenders of God's existence have a pretty consistent definition of him. I do not think, for example, that Jerry Falwell is talking about his cup of coffee when he talks about God and all the differences between you two are just a series of hillarious misunderstandings.
posted on 07.13.2005 4:13 PM52
"I do not think, for example, that Jerry Falwell is talking about his cup of coffee when he talks about God"
You're right about that. He's talking about his wallet.
posted on 07.13.2005 4:53 PM53
Really? How about most events have causes? Or all events except one, or two? If those statements are true science would still remain quite serious.
Not if one decides which events have causes and which don't to suit one's own ideas.
I can't, of course, but then I don't recall seeing clocks move slower on moving trains or anyone who aged slower than me because he kept running around! Our common sense is limited to observing a rather hum drum piece of the universe for a fraction of its age. How can we trust our common sense when we try to apply it to uncommon things such as infinite sets, the beginning of time, the cause of the universe etc.?
Well, of course, it's not just a matter of common sense; causality is the basis of science as well.
posted on 07.14.2005 2:02 AM54
Furthermore, as a former atheist I used to tear this argument apart by pointing out that the laws of cause and effect are in fact a law of this universe. Outside of this universe there is no reason to beleive that effects naturally follow causes and randomness could be the norm. As a result, before this universe there is no reason to believe that the order of cause-and-effect existed, thus the universe could have sprung up randomly.
posted on 08.02.2005 10:52 AM