I also asked MrFreeThinker what the strongest arguments were. Here's his response:
I think (as for a general creator) the cosmological argument (Aquinas' form) is very strong. It is good as it is also supported by cosmological evidence like the expansion of universe that supports the idea that the universe had a beginning. The moral argument is good when talking about a more involved god.
So let's look at these arguments and see if they survive enough scrutiny to show the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Cosmological Argument
I hate the summarize the cosmological argument because I think it's well made and nuanced, but many of us may already know it. However, here's the logic of the cosmological argument none the less:
1. Something currently exists.
2. Nothing came from nothing.
3. Therefore the basis of all being must be eternal.
4. This universe is in a state of entropy, had a beginning, and is therefore not eternal nor the source of all existence.
5. So, either the Universe or God is self existent, and since the Universe isn't self-existent, God is, and therefore exists.
The problem with this convoluted argument lies in several layers. The biggest logical fallacy is the false dichotomy between having to choose either God being self-existent or the universe being self-existent. There exists an infinite number of self-existent constructs that could potentially create a universe. God, at the very least must be intelligent by definition, and this argument in no way suggests that the self-existent construct has intelligence.
In other words, the jump from "something is eternal" to "God exists" is a leap of faith with no evidence in this argument to back it up.
Nothing came from nothing also contradicts the premise of a self-existent being. Similarly, quantum physics shows that particles do appear to "come from nothing," but more importantly, effects don't necessarily need a cause. So the entire second premise has been invalidated, making the rest of the argument moot.
The Moral Argument
Here's the basic argument:
1. If we seek to do the highest good through moral law, the result is our own happiness.
2. However, there exists no objective moral law for a being of and by the natural world.
3. Therefore, something outside of the natural world created absolute and objective morals to which we should follow.
Similarly...
1. Some things we can all agree are morally wrong like killing everyone in Canada.
2. Therefore, an objective standard of morality exists and moral relativism is a contradiction.
3. However, there exists no objective moral law for a being of and by the natural world.
4. Therefore, something outside of the natural world created absolute and objective morals to which we should follow.
The question of morality is a deep question. However, like the cosmological argument, a leap of faith is necessary to accept that God exists.
The argument essentially jumps from "objective morality exists," to "therefore a supreme all-knowing intelligent entity exists outside of our universe who created everything and plays a role in human affairs."
I, like many, would argue that empathy is the root of all morality and explains the duality of both objective morality and moral relativism. This is a much simpler argument that explains away all the problems of morality and why morality leads to happiness. Similarly, the morality from empathy argument makes far fewer assumptions than the moral argument for God.
In other words, when Occam's Razor comes into effect, serious doubt is placed upon the moral argument.
Conclusion
Neither the cosmological argument nor the moral argument rely on any kind of empirical evidence. Both are subjective arguments which, while thought provoking, don't show beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists.
More importantly, none of these arguments even address the possibility that the Christian God of the Bible exists, just a deistic god. So not only do these arguments not pass basic scrutiny, they are an even lousier basis for a belief in the biblical God.
Posts
I will probaly make a fuller response later.
ReplyDeleteBut let us come to the nature of the self-existent construct by definition.
(I use the definition of the universe as space-time and its constituents)
For the sake of parsimony, we say the first cause ws not acted upon by anything else when it caused the universe to exist.Therefore the cause is able to change in and of its own will.
The cause is causally prior (notice I didn't say temporally prior) to space-time.Therefore it must be immaterial and timeless.
The only coherent entity that could have these characteristics is some kind of disembodied mind.
I think we can agree this is kind of minimalist god.
MrFreeThinker,
ReplyDeleteThe idea that every effect needs a cause has been invalidated.
For example, nuclear beta decay occurs statistically but without cause. Nothing causes uranium to turn into lead, yet the effect is real as part of collapsed wave function.
This invalidates the entire cosmological argument that postulates that everything needs a cause.
kaitly,
ReplyDeleteI'm impressed. There's more to you than your avatar implies ;)
For current discussions of the quantum/nothing to something arguments, I frequently read posts by scienstists like Oystein Elgaroy (physicist) and Steve Zara (biologist) at rdnet, in the comment threads on the front page. I don't pretend to understand all they say, but they explain their conclusions very well. The users Cartomancer and MPhil are great at philosophical argumentation, and I find the way they connect the scientific arguments with philosophy very compelling.
argh posts swallow letters ;)
ReplyDeletethe name is kaitlyn of course.
What MFT does not understnd is that an "argument," he is speaking of a philosophical argument is not evidence.
ReplyDeleteThat is why we don't say, "the cosmological evidence for the existence of God."
Please excuse me, my concubine is laying on the floor so I must go chop him into pieces. BBL
Kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteCausality is well established otherwise and it is almost intuitive.
As for beta decay, you have to admit that the research is incomplete in these fields. It could be just as likely that there is an internal mechanism in these particles that causes them to decy that is yet to be discovered or is too complicated for us to predict causing it to seem random to us.
we have a couple instances where something doesn't have a cause or has an unknown cause- and a million practical experiences in which we affirm causality. It just doesn't feel compelling enough for me to abandon causality. You get what I'm saying?
//he is speaking of a philosophical argument is not evidence.//
ReplyDeleteWhy can't a philosophical argument be evidence?
"Causality is well established otherwise and it is almost intuitive."
ReplyDeleteWhich is partly why quantum mechanics is so unintuitive.
"As for beta decay, you have to admit that the research is incomplete in these fields."
Research is incomplete in every field, but beta decay is a well understood process.
We know exactly why atoms undergo beta decay.
"It could be just as likely that there is an internal mechanism in these particles that causes them to decy that is yet to be discovered or is too complicated for us to predict causing it to seem random to us."
No. There's no evidence to suggest such a thing. I might say that scientists are totally wrong and tiny gnomes are responsible for beta decay, and it's just as reasonable.
"we have a couple instances where something doesn't have a cause or has an unknown cause- and a million practical experiences in which we affirm causality."
Almost all of quantum mechanics deny Newtonian physics and our concept of cause and effect.
"It just doesn't feel compelling enough for me to abandon causality. You get what I'm saying?"
Just because there is empirical, scientific evidence that events can occur without causality on the quantum level isn't compelling enough for you to abandon causality? That sounds like a cognitive bias.
"Why can't a philosophical argument be evidence?"
It's subjective. Arguments should be the result of evidence, not the source of.
I will probaly [sic] make a fuller response later.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait. Until then, I will quickly point out some errors...
Therefore the cause is able to change...
True.
...in and of its own will.
False.
Just because the cause can change doesn't mean it must be tied to some thought process, will, or desire. That last portion does not follow from the earlier premise.
[The first cause] must be immaterial and timeless.
Immaterial, perhaps (although that term is extremely ambiguous), but not timeless. Rather, independent of time. This subtle difference takes us from this notion of an eternal "being" which we define as the First Cause, or god, to some undefined "cause" with no further description. It is far more honest to recognize that while this "cause" must behave in a manner independent of time, this does not require it to be eternal. Technically, it needs only to be fleeting -- it only had to exist for the Planck time (or for an infinitely brief period of time, if you like). Furthermore, because it is independent of time, it may not yet exist in our temporal reference.
The only coherent entity that could have these characteristics is some kind of disembodied mind.
More non sequitur? Bare assertion? All that is required is a probability -- neither thought, nor will, nor desire, and it needn't be eternal. Certainly there is no requirement that it be "some kind of disembodied mind".
I think we can agree this is kind of minimalist god.
I will agree that this is what you have described, but there is nothing in your statement which requires this particular type of being, and as the original article suggests, these two arguments "for" the existence of god are ultimately weak and ineffective.
--
Stan
Sometimes things work out far better than expected.
ReplyDeleteI darn near fell out of my chair when MFT exposed himself on a recent statement.
MFT, who uses all types of voo-doo rhetoric and vague circumlocutions to make his points finally asks, **chuckling** "Why can't a philosophical argument be evidence?"
Maybe I need new glasses, I thought that read, "Why can't a philosophical argument be evidence?"
I AM seeing things, right?
MFT not only stepped in some deep doo-doo on that one, only his eyebrows and the top of his head are showing.
ReplyDeleteI can't quit laughing, literally.
I may perish of curiosity waiting for MFT to try to dig himself out of the very deep hole he just dug himself into. hehe
ReplyDeleteMFT,
ReplyDeleteIn case you are too embarrased to comment, take a lesson.
Rational people understand that an idea is only scientific, and as close to truth as we can be with the evidence we have, if it is falsifiable. To be falsifiable, a hypothesis must have two things: 1) it must be subject to doubt and 2) it must have a test to examine that area of doubt. The theory of evolution is falsifiable, where as intelligent design is not.
Evolution has been tested repeatedly in a laboratory and given us many insights into our natural world. Intelligent Design supports the idea that some natural artifacts in our world must be designed. Unfortunately, this idea is currently impossible to test.
Therefore, Creationism/ ID does not qualify as a science or evidence until they can devise an objective test for their criteria of design.
Now, write that on the blackboard one hundred times.
The only reason I brought this up was because MrFreeThinker implied that inescapable evidence for God existed, and he seemed honestly shocked that someone some like Pat Condell would disagree.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, no one has shown beyond a reasonable doubt in the existence of God. There exists absolutely no empirical evidence for God, and all the arguments listed fail scrutiny.
In other words, these arguments are anything but conclusive.
Of course, I'm more interested in the truth than being right, so if I'm wrong, I'll happily admit so. However, no one has ever given me any credible reason to think that God exists.
As far as I can comprehend (open to the possibility that I may have overlooked something), causality doesn't make sense outside a spatio-temporal framework. That is, reversing the time continuum reverses observed causality, but only in a linear timeframe geometry.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, since we are within that timeframe, all we can use to avoid being fooled by our own minds is the scientific method.
Aquinas acknowledged this in respect to the natural realm, only he held faith that there was more than this realm, to which materialism disagrees.
So to clarify your position Kaitlyn (Let me just make sure I am not straw manning).
ReplyDeleteYou believe the universe came into existence without any regard for causality and has no explainationfor its existence. Correct?
MrFreeThinker asked:
ReplyDelete"You believe the universe came into existence without any regard for causality and has no explainationfor its existence. Correct?"
Nope.
@Froggie
ReplyDeleteWhen did I talk about Creationism or Intelligent Design?
When did I say I was making scientific claim?
I suggest you reread my post.
"God exists" is a metaphysical claim and not a scientific one.
And you have not shown me why a philosophical argument is not evidence.
So Kaityln
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that the universe came into existence with no cause whatsoever?
A philosophical argument is not evidence because they are subjective. It's an inappropriate use of a philosophical argumentation to suggest that a philosophical argument can make objective claims about reality. Arguments should be the result of evidence, not the source of.
ReplyDeleteMrFreeThinker wrote...
ReplyDelete"Do you believe that the universe came into existence with no cause whatsoever?"
Nope.
@kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteYou said philosophical arguments are subjective.Why so? Is everything based on philosophy subjective?
@Kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that the universe was caused?
"You said philosophical arguments are subjective.Why so? Is everything based on philosophy subjective?"
ReplyDeleteYes.
"Do you believe that the universe was caused?"
Maybe.
If everything based on philosophy is subjective Kaitlyn, in what manner do you suggest we go about determining objective reality?
ReplyDelete"If everything based on philosophy is subjective Kaitlyn, in what manner do you suggest we go about determining objective reality?"
ReplyDeleteYou mean, if everything based on on philosophy is subjective, how do we determine what's objective?
By figuring out if we are studying a person or subject, or whether or not we are studying an object like a rock.
Hi everyone
ReplyDeleteMay I join in the fun & games?
I agree that the comological argument has been demolished. Most notably by Hume & Kant.
Dito the moral argument.
But I would like to propose an oldie that is being revised.
i.e. the ontological argument.
The old version is pretty well refuted BUT the modal version proposed by Charles Hartshorne, and Alvin Plantinga is pretty good.
Chris, care to explain? :)
ReplyDeleteLove to. :D
ReplyDeleteOne form of the argument goes like this.
Let us define something as unsurpassably great if it exists and is perfect in every possible world.
Now let us allow that there it is at least possible that such an unsurpassably great being exists.
That would mean that there is a possible world in which such a being exists.
But if it exists in one world, it exists in all [for the fact that such a being exists in one world entails that it exists in every world].
So such a being exists necessarily.
Therefore such a being [which we choose to name God] exists.
It would seem that the ONLY valid counter to such an argument is to deny even the possibility of such a being existing.
@chris
ReplyDeleteHume and Kant lived befre modern cosmology.That's where a lot of the support for this argumen comes from now.
Alvin Plantiga rules btw!1 you should read some of his stuff on epistemology.
@Kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteSo your only objection to the cosmological argument is to causality? Anything else?
@ Free
ReplyDeleteHume & Kant's arguments still hold. Read Simon Blackburne's work. He goes into their arguments in depth.
As to Plantinga he was one of my old philosophy professors.
MrFreeThinker wrote:
ReplyDelete"So your only objection to the cosmological argument is to causality? Anything else?"
The problem with the cosmological argument lies in several layers. The biggest logical fallacy is the false dichotomy between having to choose either God being self-existent or the universe being self-existent. There exists an infinite number of self-existent constructs that could potentially create a universe. God, at the very least must be intelligent by definition, and this argument in no way suggests that the self-existent construct has intelligence.
In other words, the jump from "something is eternal" to "God exists" is a leap of faith with no evidence in this argument to back it up.
Chris, if you redefine "perfect" to "infinite," I think that argument makes sense.
ReplyDeleteIf an infinite entity exists (we'll call it God), then God is in all worlds and in all places at the same time.
The only counter is that we cannot perceive this infinite being or this infinite being doesn't exist.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteHere is Blackburn's summary of Hume & Kant's objections.
The cosmological argument's main problem is that it requires us to make sense of the notion of necessary existence. For if the answer to question of why anything exists is that some other thing of a similar kind exists, the question merely arises again. So the 'God' that ends the question must exist necessarily; it must not be an entity of which the same kind of question can be raised.
The other problem with the argument is that it unfortunately affords no reason for attributing concern & care to the deity, nor for connecting the necessarily existent being it derives with human values & aspirations.
In other words the 'creator' could be nothing more than a barely recognised impersonal force.
As I was pointing out in arlier posts, the first cause must be immaterial, timeless and able to stand in causal relationships.
ReplyDeletethe only coherent entity that fits all these is a sort of disembodied mind. Could you posit another enity that it could be?
@ Kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "The only counter is that we cannot perceive this infinite being or this infinite being doesn't exist."
Absolutely correct. But who says we must be able to perceive God?
After all we can't detect radio waves with our senses. It took the invention of the wireless by Marconi to be able to detect such things. Yet they existed long before the first radio ws invented.
"Ahh", you might reply, "but our instruments can't detect God."
And you would be correct again. But consider this.
Let us imagine for the sake of argument that such a being exists but has no properties that we would recognise. In what fashion would we detect such a being? It would seem to follow that unless God has, or begins to display, properties we would recognise it will forever remain impossible to detect such a being.
That being so Ockham was right. He argued that since God was essentially undetectable by us then belief in God will always remain a matter of faith. Nothing more & nothing less.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "As I was pointing out in arlier posts, the first cause must be immaterial, timeless and able to stand in causal relationships.
the only coherent entity that fits all these is a sort of disembodied mind. Could you posit another entity that it could be?"
Yes! A series of dimensional universes on an infinite loop so that as one universe dies another is created by their interaction.
No mind required in the process just force infinitely applied.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteNow the weakness in the moral argument.
Our morality is quite adequately explained by such things as altrusim within a group which is itself explained by evolution.
In other words groups in which the members aided each other survived while those which did not were more likely to become extinct.
Now group dynamic has a genetic heritage so such behaviour was passed down genetically from our ancestors to ourselves.
Hence no divinity requires to explain our ability to reason morally.
Sorry that should rea "no divinity required to explain our ability to reason morally.
ReplyDelete@Chris
ReplyDelete"A series of dimensional universes on an infinite loop so that as one universe dies another is created by their interaction."
Chris :postulates an series of entities in a loop
MRF: gives 1 entity
Occam's razor,the more parsimonious explaination is preferred.
@Chris and Kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteDo you believe objective morals exist?
@ Free
ReplyDeleteThat is NOT the principle of parsimony. Parsimony is merely another name for Ockham's razor.
According to Ockham's razor natural explanations are to be preferred if they manage to explain the data. And one natural explanation is to be preferred over several if it too explains the data.
What you'v done is use Ockhams razor the same way the creationists do. e.g. goddidit is far simpler an explanation than the entire process of evolution so it should be preferred. Right? Wrong! For the reasons given above. And your observation fails for exactly the same reason.
And yes I do believe that objective morality exists. But then my arguments in support of objective morality would be supported by their origin in evolution.
In other words Kant's categorical imperative, Regan's harm principle & subject of a life criterion, & Ross' prima facie duties.
@Chris
ReplyDelete"According to Ockham's razor natural explanations are to be preferred if they manage to explain the data"
This is not the principle.The principle says "plurality should not be posited without necessity".
Nothing about naturalism there.
"goddidit is far simpler an explanation than the entire process of evolution so it should be preferred. Right? Wrong! For the reasons given above. And your observation fails for exactly the same reason."
You do see the difference there right? we actually have observable evidence that animals mutate and adapt.We do not have evidence for your other worlds causing each other to exist in a loop.
Both explain the data, but mine is more parsimonious.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteWhat you are strugling here is your fear of unknowns.
You constantly ask, What caused this and what caused that.
Settle down. There are things that we do not know, thos exquisite mysteries of the known universe.
This is called, "The ethic of the unknowns."
We have found time and again, it is best not to insert "god did it into our equations. It NEVER helps solve the problem.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteFree writes "As for beta decay, you have to admit that the research is incomplete in these fields."
Free need I point out that God is a mere postulation. The research hasn't even begun on God because it cannot!
@ free
ReplyDeleteYou write "You do see the difference there right? we actually have observable evidence that animals mutate and adapt."
Correct!
"We do not have evidence for your other worlds causing each other to exist in a loop."
Neither do we have evidence for God. We can however falsify the existence of other dimensions. That is a theoretical possibility. What would you accept as evidence that god does NOT exist?
You then add "Both explain the data, but mine is more parsimonious."
Incorrect as I've already explained. Ockhams razor states that natural explanations are to be preferred over supernatural ones.
In addition you conception of your answer is incorrect.
Your conception of God is of a being which has a multitude of attributes - all of them infinite.
In other words God [if such a being exists] would be far more complex than a multitude [but stil finite] number of universes. Therefore if both explantions were to be equallify applicable the universal loop theory which need only postulate say two universes] is far LESS complex than godidit.
MrFreeThnker wrote:
ReplyDelete"Do you believe objective morals exist?"
Morals are a construct of the subject (person). Therefore all morals are subjective and not objective.
Let me clarify, without people, morals would not exist, and therefore they have to be subjective.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that does not mean I don't believe in moral absolutes. Since I believe morality is based up on empathy (another subjective trait), one can definitely say an action is not empathetic to others in any circumstance (such as shooting a random person on the street).
Therefore, absolute morals exist.
@ kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "Since I believe morality is based up on empathy (another subjective trait), one can definitely say an action is not empathetic to others in any circumstance (such as shooting a random person on the street).
Therefore, absolute morals exist."
Surely that would make morality objective but NOT necessarily absolute.
I guess, maybe... It's difficult to quantify morality, so I have a difficult time saying it's objective. But I have no problem saying some things are absolutely wrong, meaning some morals are perhaps... absolute? :)
ReplyDeleteChris said...
ReplyDelete"Let us define something as unsurpassably great if it exists and is perfect in every possible world."
Okay, two things: firstly, there are no "possible worlds"; the multiple worlds interpretation is a mathematical interpretation of quantum mechanics. It does not in any way prove that the multiple worlds in question actually exist, in fact the whole point is that, by working out the probabilities of each "posible world" you can find out what will happen in the actual world, i.e. reality. To give you an analogy, when working out the properties of LCR (oscillating) circuits it is usual to use the imaginary number i to calculate the potential across any given part of the circuit at any given time. This does not mean that electrical circuits have an imaginary portion to them, only that this makes the maths easier.
Secondly, the concepts of "great" and "perfect" (and, for that matter, "unsurpassable") are purely human constructs; they have no independant definition that can be applied to anything, an apple can be a perfect apple if we define the criteria of perefection appropriately, but to claim that the apple is somehow "perfect" would just be silly.
"Now let us allow that there it is at least possible that such an unsurpassably great being exists."
Since the definition of this being is nonsensical it isn't possible that this being exists.
"That would mean that there is a possible world in which such a being exists."
Again, not how multiple worlds theory works - the actual worlds of possibility don't exist and anything that may or may not exist either does or does not; probabilities are only a description of how likely each possibility is, not how often it occurs. If you flip a coin and it comes up "heads" then that is the outcome, there isn't another world in which it came up tails. Only in science fiction, I'm afraid.
"But if it exists in one world, it exists in all [for the fact that such a being exists in one world entails that it exists in every world]."
Even if multiple worlds did actually exist, this would not be the case; you can't simply define something into existance. Just because I define an apple which is fifty feet wide in all worlds and then say that it could exist doesn't mean that there is a fifty foot wide apple anywhere outside my own imagination.
"So such a being exists necessarily.
Therefore such a being [which we choose to name God] exists.
It would seem that the ONLY valid counter to such an argument is to deny even the possibility of such a being existing."
The argument itself denys the possibility, like arguing for a square circle; there is no logical resolution to the definition.
Oh, and MFT, cause and effect is a human construct, too; a result of event association within our brains being how we learn (event A becomes associated with event B). The reality is that the universe is an ongoing process in which most parts effect the other parts in some way. When humans isolate small parts of the process to try to understand them we see causes and effects, but in their natural context the concepts of cause and effect have no real meaning.
@ Kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteI have a problem.
You wrote "...so I have a difficult time saying it's objective. But I have no problem saying some things are absolutely wrong..."
Absolute morality is morality which is true in all times & places.
That which is true in all times & places is BOTH objectively & absolutely wrong or right. So in effect by claiming that absolute morality exists you are claiming that a morality exists which is both objective & absolute.
I would argue that morality can only ever be objective [at least as far as humans are concerned].
Why? Because we can NEVER foresee all possibilities & therefore we can never claim that anything is absolutely right or wrong.
Take your example of random shootings. In the here & now it would be objectively wrong. But let us imagine a situation where a mob of homicidal lunatics escape from an asylum & we are armed with dart rifles which will put them harmlessly to sleep.
In such a case would random shootings be an evil or a good? I would argue an objective [but not absolute] good.
I think you're right, Chris.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I now concede that objective morality must exist! Although, it's still difficult to quantify.
ReplyDelete@ Paul
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "Okay, two things: firstly, there are no "possible worlds"; the multiple worlds interpretation is a mathematical interpretation of quantum mechanics. It does not in any way prove that the multiple worlds in question actually exist, in fact the whole point is that, by working out the probabilities of each "posible world" you can find out what will happen in the actual world, i.e. reality."
I'm afraid you misunderstood the term. The term 'possible world' in philosophy means [to quote Blackburn] "a complete state of affairs, or one in which every proposition under consideration has a definite truth value."
It has NOTHING to do with theoretical worlds in other dimensions. Ok?
Next you wrote "Since the definition of this being is nonsensical it isn't possible that this being exists."
My Reply: In what way is such a definition as 'perfect being' nonsensical?
The term 'perfect being' & 'necessay being' in this argument is that this possible being is without limit in all respects including time & space. Therefore both perfect & necessary. That seems clear to me.
Finally you write "Even if multiple worlds did actually exist, this would not be the case; you can't simply define something into existance. Just because I define an apple which is fifty feet wide in all worlds and then say that it could exist doesn't mean that there is a fifty foot wide apple anywhere outside my own imagination."
My reply: I'm afraid that once again you've misunderstood the argument.
In modal logic it is completely possible to go from possibly necessary P to necessarily P.
You then write "The argument itself denys the possibility, like arguing for a square circle; there is no logical resolution to the definition."
Actually no! We know that square circles CANNOT exist because of the very definition of a square & a circle. There is NOTHING contradictory in the terms 'necessary' & 'perfect' that deny their existence if added together.
Now don't get me wrong. It is perfectly possible to just reply "yes the argument is sound but I deny that such a being exists even as a possibility."
@ kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "Moreover, I now concede that objective morality must exist! Although, it's still difficult to quantify."
I couldn't agree with you more.
Chris, it might help to rephrase your argument and try to be more specific.
ReplyDeleteFor example, "perfect" is a relative term and there are a lot of questions about what a "perfect" being would actually be.
Define your terms. :)
@ kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteYou are most definately correct. My humble apologies. [red face]
@ Paul
I owe an apology to you also for being imprecise in my use of terms.
Definition of terms [from the oxford dictionary of philosophy]
ReplyDeletePerfect being: A perfect being has no potential which is unrealised & undergoes no change.
Possible worlds: A complete state of affairs, or one in which every proposition under consideration has a definite truth value.
If we define a perfect being as a being which "has no potential which is unrealized & undergoes no change," and we define God as a perfect being, then that means Jesus could not have been God since Jesus clearly has unused potential and changed over time.
ReplyDeleteIt also eliminates the idea of a personal God since a being which does not undergo change cannot be interacted with or act upon others in any meaningful way.
Interestingly enough, if God is incapable of interacting with us, then God has unused potential creating a contradiction for this perfect being!!!
AHHH!!!!
@ kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteDamn you're good. :D
You wrote "If we define a perfect being as a being which "has no potential which is unrealized & undergoes no change," and we define God as a perfect being, then that means Jesus could not have been God since Jesus clearly has unused potential and changed over time."
Correct. But then I've got no problem with this since I'm not a christian.
You then wrote "It also eliminates the idea of a personal God since a being which does not undergo change cannot be interacted with or act upon others in any meaningful way."
Never thought of that one. Would you mind explaining this interesting idea further?
Then you wrote "Interestingly enough, if God is incapable of interacting with us, then God has unused potential creating a contradiction for this perfect being!"
I believe you may have put your finger on a fault in the argument. :D
If, as you argue, God is incapable of interacting with us then He has unused potential & therefore is not perfect. But what if God is like that of Aristotle's diety. Endlessly contemplating Himself & having no interest in us?
@froggie
ReplyDelete"it is best not to insert "god did it into our equations."
Froggie- I used logical deduction to show that it was reasonable to think that the universe had a cause and the most parsimonious the only coherent entity hat could have cause it was god.
@Chris
ReplyDelete"Ockhams razor states that natural explanations are to be preferred
over supernatural ones."
As I pointed out to you, the principle never says that.
And Chris you ever heard of Richad Swinburne's piece on the intrinsic probability of god? It isn't a proof but it counters your assertion that things that are infinite must be complex.
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/god-intrinsic-probability/
"Swinburne observes that it is simpler to postulate an unlimited force than a limited force. If one postulates a limited force then one is postulating two things, the force and whatever constrains it. If one postulates an unlimited force, then one is only postulating one thing, the force; there is, by definition, nothing that constrains an infinite force.
For this reason, scientists constructing theories will, unless there is good reason not to, prefer to use zeroes or infinities in those theories. The speed of light, for instance, was assumed to be infinite until experimental data disconfirmed this. Scientists recognise that an infinite force is intrinsically more probable than any great but finite force.
This methodology, Swinburne suggests, can be generalised; an infinite being, he urges, is the most probable kind of being. Ockham’s razor, if he is correct, far from implying that God’s existence is less likely than any other explanatory hypothesis, implies that it is more likely than any other explanatory hypothesis; the intrinsic probability of theism is relatively high."
And chris seeing as how we normally associate complexity with material things with parts and I specified that the first cause was immaterial , i would like you to define complexity aand explain how this definition applies to god.
This is about the argument from morality. answer if you believe in objective morals.
ReplyDeleteMy friend bilbo came up with a new moral rule
Bilbo's arbitrarily stipulated rule of morality # 1 says that-
Empathy ,happiness and human life are meaningless. It is fine to torture as many bav=bies as you can for fun.
By what objective basis can you say Bilbo's law is wrong and that your arbitrarily stipulated law (based on empathy , Kant..etc) is right?
Don't confuse obective morality with universally shared (intersubjective) morality.
ReplyDeleteThe latter are what we can construct by rationality, while I haven't come across any concept of a fully coherent and consequentially non-contradictory objective moral framework.
Guys,
ReplyDeleteThe truly huge problem with all of these arguments for the existence of a god (because, of course I agree that they "would account" for a deity, but not necessarily, or perhaps not at all for the biblical/Christian one), is that they feel quite natural to believers. You need to already believe there is a god in order to feel that the arguments flow naturally. They do not flow naturally, but, for some strange reason, it is impossible to show a Christian why they do not flow naturally (the non-sequiturs).
Then, of course, MFT comes with his questions about absolute moralities and such.
Froggie- I used logical deduction to show that it was reasonable to think that the universe had a cause and the most parsimonious the only coherent entity hat could have cause it was god.
Why god and not some non-conscious natural cause? You see this MFT? You insert god because that is what you want to insert, not because it is "the only option." What about some unknown, perhaps unknowable, "cause." Totally mindless, totally natural? Why does it have to be god? I will tell you why: because you believe in god. This is exactly why. Unless you can see this, you will not be able to understand why atheists will never be convinced by your arguments even when they are less prepared to answer questions on morality. It is not pure denialism, but that feeling of jumping to conclusions because some things are hard to explain, or perhaps beyond what can be explained.
By what objective basis can you say Bilbo's law is wrong and that your arbitrarily stipulated law (based on empathy , Kant..etc) is right?
By the basis that bilbo's rule will not work in the long run. For long standing survival we have to be able to rely on each other. It is actually not whether it is right or wrong, but whether it works or not.
Also, your friend's rule is not well constructed, you added the "torture babies" to win the argument. To have something repulsive enough for our own society, so that we would all agree that such thing is wrong.
G.E.
Paul Brown,
ReplyDeleteThanks, that was nicely put, clear and coherent.
G.E.
Also:
ReplyDeletearbitrarily stipulated law
Why would that be arbitrarily stipulated? Why would that even be a "law"? Empathy, Kant..etc, and evolutionary arguments are arbitrary? Are you using some obscure definition of "arbitrary"?
G.E.
@GE
ReplyDeleteI used logical deduction to show the first cause must be
1)timeless
2)immaterial
3)stand in cause effect relationships
The only real coherent entity that can do this is a disembodied mind.
"Why god and not some non-conscious natural cause?"
The only other possible thing that can be timeless and immaterial are abstract entities like mathematical and logical concepts (but I think you don't believe in those).But mathematical and logical concepts don't cause anything to exist.
@G.e.
ReplyDelete"For long standing survival we have to be able to rely on each other."
But bilbo's law says that life is meaningless. He doesn't care if life survives or doesn't survive.
On what objective basis do you say that survival is better than non-survival?
What a question MFT,
ReplyDeleteIf Bilbo got his way and his kind accepted the new rule, then he and his kind disappeared. Since we followed rules proper for survival, we are the ones left.
Keep trying.
G.E.
Also,
ReplyDeleteyour "logical deduction" is not such thing, nor did it show anything of what you said but in yur own mind. Try imagining those arguments without holding a concept of god in your mind, and you might be able to have a little glimpse of why your arguments are meaningless and filled of non-sequiturs. Also, read the whole thread. They quite nicely devastated your arguments.
G.E.
@G.E.
ReplyDeleteYou did not answer the question I asked.
"On what objective basis can we say survival is better than non-survival?"
You haven't provided me with any
I did,as I showed by deduction the cause must be a timeless,immaterial,disembodied mind.
ReplyDeleteIt is the only possible thing that fits all the conditions I described.
I explained why the other candidates (abstract objects ) fail.
MrFreethinker:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you're never going to convince any of us that your arguments are valid. You willingly or unwillingly seem to ignore the reasons for why we don't accept your arguments. It's not, as I'm sure you would say, because we hate god or love sin or are in denial - it's that the reasons you're presenting to us are not convincing.
If you cannot even begin to empathize with and understand your opponents point of view, you'll never convince them of anything. In short, you don't understand how to talk to an atheist.
"I used logical deduction to show the first cause must be
1)timeless
2)immaterial
3)stand in cause effect relationships
The only real coherent entity that can do this is a disembodied mind."
Well no, you didn't. You've given no reason why a 'disembodied mind' must be or is capable of doing all of these things. Is that what you believe god to be? A disembodied mind? I'm sure we could find many christians who would disagree with you. And you didn't stop to consider all of the things that you did not or are not capable of considering to be possible. That's the problem with deduction - you can't rule out what you cannot comprehend. Using deduction in this case is ridiculous - you're starting from a potentially limitless set of unknown size - deduction only works when you know all of the possible options. If you're going to claim that you know all of the possible options, you're basically calling yourself omniscient.
"I did,as I showed by deduction the cause must be a timeless,immaterial,disembodied mind.
It is the only possible thing that fits all the conditions I described."
Well fine. But they're arbitrary conditions that only you postulated and only you agreed upon. If these conditions don't accurately reflect reality, it means nothing to postulate them.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it many more times, you don't understand philosophy or formal logic.
Just because you've deduced something from, in this case, an arbitrary set, doesn't make it true.
"Logic, the formal study of Logic, is concerned only with the way in which propositions relate to one another, and whether or not their relation is valid. Logical validity has nothing at all to do with truth, everything to do with logical interrelations. Examples:
If the earth orbits the sun, then there is life on mars.
The earth orbits the sun.
Therefore there is life on mars. (1,2 MP)
is 100% logically valid. There is nothing at all wrong with the logic of that argument.
However:
If Ottowa is in America, then Washington D.C is in Canada.
Ottowa is not in America.
Therefore Washington D.C is not in Canada. (1,2 MT) ###
Is not logically Valid, as it is a fallacy of denying the antecedent (AC), despite the fact that the propositions appear true."
So, just because you've created a loaded argument that appears logically valid, and even if you've implied a logical process, it does not follow that your conclusions are automatically true.
Once again, logic is a tool - one that can be misused, as you've so kindly demonstrated over and over again - not an absolute entity. Logic is not concerned with the factual-ness of your argument, just whether or not it is internally consistent.
MrFreeThinker Wrote that only God could be...
ReplyDelete"1)timeless
2)immaterial
3)stand in cause effect relationships"
You know what else is like that? Eleventh dimensional string membranes capable of interacting with each other and colliding creating self-contained Universes starting out as a singularity of infinite density.
Forget the fact that at the quantum level, all variables exist as a wave of probabilities, thus making "cause and effect" a muddled and irrelevant concept.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteDid you read the posts?
"On what objective basis can we say survival is better than non-survival?"
It was obvious from my previous response and from even previous comments by all: on none, only surviving beings can say anything. That is all.
Also, why insist on that thing that "I have proven by deduction ..." Did you or did you not read the responses by the rest of commenters here? I did. I am not starting a completely independent argumentation when you have responses I agree with already.
G.E.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteOK, just in case you missed it, both me, and Maragon have told you that you need to empathize in order to understand why we do not see any logic in your argumentation. I told you, it is enough not to hold a concept of god in your mind to easily see that there is no need for a sentient-whateverelse being for being a "cause" for the origin of the universe. None. All the attributes can only be called upon if you already hold a concept of god in your mind. I do not think you are dumb enough not to understand this. You just do not want to concede. Read those posts again, but now try and understand them, rather than just jump through and insist that you have proven anything.
G.E.
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDeleteYour posts here are pure genius!
G.E.
@ G.e.
ReplyDeleteLet me review. You have ot provided an objective basis to say that survival is a good value and non-survival is not. Bilbo's law says that survival isn't any better than non-survival.
But I'm glad not many atheists hold to G.E.'s absurd view of objective morality.If hitler had completed the holocaust, it would be perfectly valid seeing at=s there were no jews alive to say anything. If a grup of soldiers came and killed everyone who held to G.e. moral system, well it wouldn't be valid as he wouldn't be around to say anything.
Any rational person can see that a moral system can be true whether a person that holds it is alive or dead.
"I told you, it is enough not to hold a concept of god in your mind to easily see that there is no need for a sentient-whateverelse being for being a "cause" for the origin of the universe."
ReplyDeletePuhleeze did you not read my post when I explained that the only entity it could be was a mind and how the other possible entities were not involved in cause-effect relations.I suggest you re-read it.
@Kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteI don't think string exist outside of space-time.
Could you point me to your source or more material on this?
"Puhleeze did you not read my post when I explained that the only entity it could be was a mind and how the other possible entities were not involved in cause-effect relations.I suggest you re-read it."
ReplyDeleteDid you not read mine where I explained to you why this is a useless and arbitrary conjecture?
1.The entity that created the universe must be timeless, immaterial, stand in cause effect relationships, and fruit-filled.
2. The only possible entity that satisfies all these criteria is a sentient,omniscient,disembodied blueberry pie.
3.Therefore a sentient,omniscient,disembodied blueberry pie created the universe.
This is an internally consistent logical proof.
That doesn't make it true. Just like yours.
A logical proof is only concerned with internal consistency - not truth. That's why trying to utilize a logical proof to prove the existence of a deity is ineffectual.
"I don't ithink string exist outside of space-time.
ReplyDeleteCould you point me to your source or more material on this?"
Strings are space time.
For more information on what I was blabbering about, Here's a good starting point.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteTwisting my response does not help you a lot. It proves though that you cannot even read anything without twisting it into your poor and limited expectations. So, the "free thinker" is truly an oximoron. I guess now you subscribe to the "treachery for Jesus is fine" philosophy. I have to repeat this (I have said it to other Christians): If being a Christian means twisting anything my opponents say, or else use any trick, no matter how dishonest, then, by all means, I am fine not being a Christian, thank you very much.
As examples of your inconsistency and treachery:
1. When did I say I subscribe to bilbo's moral laws?
2. How do nazis compare to bilbo's law, if for bilbo survival is not important?
3. Where do you take my moral views from? I do not remember talking about my views.
G.E.
Puhleeze did you not read my post when I explained that the only entity it could be was a mind and how the other possible entities were not involved in cause-effect relations.I suggest you re-read it.
ReplyDeleteI read it. I also read Maragon's response, and I added:
"I told you, it is enough not to hold a concept of god in your mind to easily see that there is no need for a sentient-whateverelse being for being a "cause" for the origin of the universe."
So, will we exchange the order of these paragraphs for all eternity, or will you try and see that when you do not hold any gods in your mind the arguments fall off? You think they make sense. They do not. All the attributes come from your preconceptions, not from proper logic.
G.E.
Perhaps I misspoke.
ReplyDeleteStrings govern space-time (3 spacial dimensions, 1 temporal), but exist at a much higher dimension beyond space-time.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteBack to your old habit of telling lies I see. For shame.
First lie: Free wrote "As I pointed out to you, the principle never says that."
Firstly you've NEVER written any such thing! Liar, liar pants on fire.
Secondly Ockham's whole argument was to show that God was unprovable. Try reading him for a change.
He was the one who mandated the necessity of naturalism in science. Why you ask? Quite simple. Any universal answer is worthless in philosophy. e.g. why is the sky blue? goddidit! Why is the grass green? goddidit! Why is water wet? goddidit! Why does free always resort to lies? goddidit!
Get the idea? It stops all research dead!
Now a wonderful demonstration of a red herring fallacy: "Swinburne observes that it is simpler to postulate an unlimited force than a limited force."
My answer: Wonderful but irrelevant. God has an unlimited number of characteristics & properties. He is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc, etc. Each one of those can in turn be broken down to an unlimited number of properties. So there are few similarities between God & some nameless force. And since an argument from analogy depends uponthe similarities between the two things Swinburne's analogical argument fails big time.
Another red herring:"For this reason, scientists constructing theories will, unless there is good reason not to, prefer to use zeroes or infinities in those theories. The speed of light, for instance, was assumed to be infinite until experimental data disconfirmed this."
My answer: The speed of light can be falsified while God cannot. What evidence would you accept which falsifies God free? Swinburne's whole argument is argument by false analogy & red herring. Both are logical fallacies.
You next wrote: "Scientists recognise that an infinite force is intrinsically more probable than any great but finite force." My answer: Really??? Citation from a scientific source or that is a lie free.
It's also an irrelevant assertion since an infinite force is NOT similar to God except in respect of its infinity.
Show me a force which is omnipotent, or omniscient, or omnibenevolent, etc.
@ G.E
ReplyDeleteFree invoked the spirit of the nazi's?
I claim a Godwin. Thank you for admitting that you arte totally wrong Free. :D
Check it out for yourself & why you should NEVER use it.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html
Chris kind of reminds me of Hitler, but in a good way.
ReplyDelete@ free
ReplyDeleteHaving examined Swinburne's argument I think he may have a point. BUT swinburne does NOT argue what you seem to think he is arguing.
To quote your site "Swinburne observes that it is simpler to postulate an unlimited force than a limited force. If one postulates a limited force then one is postulating two things, the force and whatever constrains it. If one postulates an unlimited force, then one is only postulating one thing, the force; there is, by definition, nothing that constrains an infinite force."
My commentary: So Swinburne is postulating one thing only - in this case an infinite force. Now let's continue.
"This methodology, Swinburne suggests, can be generalised; an infinite being, he urges, is the most probable kind of being."
My commentary: He's still arguing for ony ONE aspect Free. In this case God as being. Nothing else just being. In other words a 'perfect being'. See kaitlyn's observations as to why such a God can NEVER be the christian God.
Swinburne's argument has to do with probability of God's existence. It has NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA to do with God being a simple rather than a complex being.
In fact if you'd actually bothered to read your own source you would have read "God, if he exists, is infinite in his attributes."
So your own site refutes you.
Why did you misrepresent Swinburne's argument Free?
Chris is the Fuhrer of Philosophy. :)
ReplyDelete@ everyone
ReplyDeleteI will retract my statement about infinity & science though. It seems that swinburne was correct. [red face].
@ Katlyn
ReplyDeleteRecognition at last. Heil myself.
:D
@ Kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "Chris kind of reminds me of Hitler, but in a good way."
:D
[Maxwell Smart impression] "If only he'd used his power for niceness instead of evil." :D
Like me. :D
Seriously though I do realise that I can come on too strong at times so if I'm doing that please let me know. ok?
Chris, you're are humble and intellectually honest. The only people who would think you come on too strong are those who feel a need to be right instead of enjoying being wrong and learning something new.
ReplyDeleteI still wonder why we go through these long explanations. Oh yes, for the sake of those who might be reading. Who cares if MFT can't read, the unposting readers certainly can.
ReplyDeleteG.E.
Stan the half-truth teller,
ReplyDeleteI saw your post too. Good refuting. Though I think you conceded too much. :-)
Therefore the cause is able to change...
True.
True?! I do not see how that follows from the premise at all, nor how it could be assumed to be true.
G.E.
@ Kaitlyn
ReplyDeleteThat was truely a beautiful compliment. Thank you.
@ everyone
ReplyDeleteHere's something to consider.
One philosopher argued that timelessness, if applied to any thinking entity, is self contrdictory. Why?
Aristotle defined time as "the measurement of the interval between two events." Now that includes mental as well as physical events.
Now consider this. God is said to exist in a timeless state. But what is God thinking? If He thinks one thought & then another then we have time. Why? Because time is merely the measurement of the interval between two events. In this case God's first thought & then His second.
Aristotle argued that one way out is to postulate a God who is eternally thinking the same thought.
Either that or God does not live in a timeless state.
Chris, I was thinking the same thing.
ReplyDeleteIntelligence is usually defined as the ability to make predictions. However, predictions are meaningless in a timeless environment.
Ergo, the self-existent construct that created time and space was not intelligent.
Similarly, if one thing is self-existent, what stops an infinite number of things from being self-existent? Thus, I would argue that a singular God is illogical and it's likely that multiple if not infinite universes exist.
Scientists recognise that an infinite force is intrinsically more probable than any great but finite force.
ReplyDeleteHe, he, he. Well, I cannot speak for all scientists, but I am one. And, sure thing, I do not recognize such stupid notion that an infinite force is more probable than a great but finite one. That is among the stupidest notions I have heard. I am pretty sure that most of my colleagues agree with me.
G.E.
Alright, I think we're going way over the head of the only Christian kind enough to share his thoughts with us.
ReplyDeleteI'm really curious about what MrFreeThinker has to say next.
Kaitryn,
ReplyDeleteYou are so respectful. Thanks for that.
Now, sorry about being picky, but, can you please please please please, add a "Neither" just before "The cosmological argument" both in the title, and the previous to last paragraph of your nice post?
G.E.
Oh, I am not curious about what MFT will say next. I am hopeful. But maybe my expectations are too high.
ReplyDeleteGood eye, g_e. Correction made. It's much more clear now.
ReplyDeleteI leave for a weekend, and you all start a discussion on my favorite topic. Shame on you all.
ReplyDeleteSo, why is everyone assuming the universe must have an external cause? It was mentioned once, and then quickly ignored, but it's completely possible for event to have no cause at all. While it's not possible for the universe to have been created without cause, because you need the laws of quantum physics inherent to the universe for that, it's completely acceptable for the universe to cause itself.
One of the truly marvelous things about quantum physics is that not only are cause and effect not always related, they don't even have to be linear (from our view). With multiple dimensions to work with, causality can work 'backwards' in time, so the universe could easily have caused itself.
So, at one point, the universe is created, then a single plank-time later, it causes itself one plank-time in the past. Circular causality that Heinlein would be proud of.
And here's a nice one for when you're bored: Does this circular causality support the many-worlds theory or not?
Alcari,
ReplyDeletewhy is everyone assuming the universe must have an external cause?
I do not assume such thing my friend. I just tried to concentrate on showing MFT why his argument is obviously wrong for us. Also, see that many denied there is a need for everything to have a cause. Kaitlyn made this statement lots of times (with quantum stuff), while I would say that I have made the claim (without any need for quantum physics) lots of times before.
Good to read you!
G.E.
G.E.
And here's a nice one for when you're bored: Does this circular causality support the many-worlds theory or not?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea.
G.E.
And here's a nice one for when you're bored: Does this circular causality support the many-worlds theory or not?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it supports it, but it appears it doesn't contradict it. A self-causing universe is no boundary on universes that bubble off it at some point.
Mark twain had a little thing similar to those letters to "someone" where people ask personal questions, and such. One of them was like this:
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Twain:
If an arrow advances 100 feet in one second, with a deceleration of XX feet per second. How many feet will it have advanced in three seconds?
Sincerely,
--Mathematician
Dear Mathematician,
I don't know.
--M.T.
Only MrFreeThinker assumes the universe must have an external "cause" because he believes the empirical demonstration of effect without cause via quantum physics with the example of beta decay "just doesn't feel compelling enough for me to abandon causality."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, close eyes, stick fingers in ears, repeat mantra.
K,
ReplyDeleteOh, but it can be even simpler than quantum physics. I do not see why things cannot just be, and not have a cause.
Then, if we suppose there has to be a cause, which is too much conceding, there is no reason why such cause should be external.
And so on and so forth ...
:-)
G.E.
MrFreeThinker left...
ReplyDeleteOh well.
I've got exams tomorrow. I'll pobaly reply later
ReplyDeleteUps, I hope you are not one of my students MFT, I make questions that require good thinking ... sorry for the low shot. OK, best in your exams.
ReplyDeleteG.E.