Proof of God, Continued

[kamui]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Strategically, the easiest way to do that should be to use reductio ad absurdum.
“Let’s say no contingent thing exist, at all, what would change ?”

The problem is that the answer may very well be … nothing.

[/quote]

Wouldn’t you expect chaos?
[/quote]

“no contingent thing exists” can not mean “everything is caused by nothing”. (it’s absurd).
“no contingent thing exists” can mean “everything is non-contingent”, ie “everything is necessary”.
In which case we end up with absolute determinism, not chaos.

[Aragorn]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Strategically, the easiest way to do that should be to use reductio ad absurdum.
“Let’s say no contingent thing exist, at all, what would change ?”

The problem is that the answer may very well be … nothing.

[/quote]

Wouldn’t you expect chaos?
[/quote]

“no contingent thing exists” can not mean “everything is caused by nothing”. (it’s absurd).
“no contingent thing exists” can mean “everything is non-contingent”, ie “everything is necessary”.
In which case we end up with absolute determinism, not chaos.

[/quote]
But absolute determinism is faulty, and IMHO refutable

[Sloth]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Could the singularity have made a custard-filled (every crook and cranny) universe?[/quote]

The short answer is yes it is possible, and there are several theories about the conditions of the singularity that posit this and give some evidence of this but it is not a set in stone yes.[/quote]

So the singularity could, theoretically, be a random generator of any imaginable “universe-state?” I wonder how much lee-way there is for the factors necessary for the development of intelligent life capable of contemplating deities and the universe, is. I wonder at the probability that randomly generate a universe equipped for such a development.

[ZJStrope]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Could the singularity have made a custard-filled (every crook and cranny) universe?[/quote]

The short answer is yes it is possible, and there are several theories about the conditions of the singularity that posit this and give some evidence of this but it is not a set in stone yes.[/quote]

So the singularity could, theoretically, be a random generator of any imaginable “universe-state?” I wonder how much lee-way there is for the factors necessary in the development of intelligent life capable of contemplating deities and the universe. I wonder at the probability that randomly generate a universe equipped for such a development.
[/quote]

Probably pretty high, but with the idea of a possible infinite number of universes, probability wouldn’t really mean much.

[Sloth]

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Could the singularity have made a custard-filled (every crook and cranny) universe?[/quote]

The short answer is yes it is possible, and there are several theories about the conditions of the singularity that posit this and give some evidence of this but it is not a set in stone yes.[/quote]

So the singularity could, theoretically, be a random generator of any imaginable “universe-state?” I wonder how much lee-way there is for the factors necessary in the development of intelligent life capable of contemplating deities and the universe. I wonder at the probability that randomly generate a universe equipped for such a development.
[/quote]

Probably pretty high, but with the idea of a possible infinite number of universes, probability wouldn’t really mean much.[/quote]

And they exist from an infinite number of random-generators, or just the one?

[ZJStrope]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Could the singularity have made a custard-filled (every crook and cranny) universe?[/quote]

The short answer is yes it is possible, and there are several theories about the conditions of the singularity that posit this and give some evidence of this but it is not a set in stone yes.[/quote]

So the singularity could, theoretically, be a random generator of any imaginable “universe-state?” I wonder how much lee-way there is for the factors necessary in the development of intelligent life capable of contemplating deities and the universe. I wonder at the probability that randomly generate a universe equipped for such a development.
[/quote]

Probably pretty high, but with the idea of a possible infinite number of universes, probability wouldn’t really mean much.[/quote]

And they exist from an infinite number of random-generators, or just the one?[/quote]

Depends on the theory.

One theory I’ve read a bit about has universes existing in parallel, and if they somehow hit each other, it generates a new universe. Nice idea, but I’m not sure how that all works out b/c it doesn’t really address how the first universe came to be.

Another is an infinite number of generators. Each universe is a bubble which come and go.

I used to be a big proponent of expansion followed by a collapse with into a singularity followed by a rapid expansion again. Given the current analysis of accelerating expansion, that theory seems to have gone out the window…but for whatever reason, I keep coming back to that one in my mind.

[pat]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Let’s take the argument you proposed a long time ago, Kamui.

I objected that that thing you defined as uncaused could be the initial singularity. You objected that that is “physical” and thus cannot be the uncaused thing.

My questions are, what does it mean to be physical, and why does the initial singularity necessarily satisfy this definition? And, why can that which is physical not be the uncaused conclusion of the argument?[/quote]

Forget about its physicality.The application of the notions of matter, space and time become a bit tricky at scale smaller than Planck length and “before” Planck time.

But there is no need to wander there :
we have determined that every contingent thing is caused by something else.
So we can affirm that the uncaused cause is non-contingent.

In other words, our uncaused cause necessarily exists, in the same way 2+2=4 is necessarily true.

The singularity doesn’t exist anymore, so it fails to satisfy this criterium.

[/quote]

If the initial singularity is “the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe,” it doesn’t seem to me like it doesn’t exist anymore. It’s changed–into the horsehead, into the solar system, into you and me. But it isn’t gone.

Edit: In other words, if the singularity is just a state of the universe, then it cannot be said with certainty that the universe does not necessarily exist.[/quote]

This is what I was getting at earlier. Everything that makes up the universe was at some point caused, or itself was uncaused. Then it changed form until you see the end result today. This does not involve some infinite or really long causal chain in either direction.
[/quote]
Agreed, so what are you getting at?[/quote]

No infinite causal chain, that seemed to be a problem a few pages back…[/quote]

The question often comes up, but you are right causal chains cannot be infinite because regressions cannot be infinite.

[pat]

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Could the singularity have made a custard-filled (every crook and cranny) universe?[/quote]

The short answer is yes it is possible, and there are several theories about the conditions of the singularity that posit this and give some evidence of this but it is not a set in stone yes.[/quote]

So the singularity could, theoretically, be a random generator of any imaginable “universe-state?” I wonder how much lee-way there is for the factors necessary in the development of intelligent life capable of contemplating deities and the universe. I wonder at the probability that randomly generate a universe equipped for such a development.
[/quote]

Probably pretty high, but with the idea of a possible infinite number of universes, probability wouldn’t really mean much.[/quote]

And they exist from an infinite number of random-generators, or just the one?[/quote]

Depends on the theory.

One theory I’ve read a bit about has universes existing in parallel, and if they somehow hit each other, it generates a new universe. Nice idea, but I’m not sure how that all works out b/c it doesn’t really address how the first universe came to be.

Another is an infinite number of generators. Each universe is a bubble which come and go.

I used to be a big proponent of expansion followed by a collapse with into a singularity followed by a rapid expansion again. Given the current analysis of accelerating expansion, that theory seems to have gone out the window…but for whatever reason, I keep coming back to that one in my mind.[/quote]

The looping universe theory isn’t a very popular one these days.

[pat]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Could the singularity have made a custard-filled (every crook and cranny) universe?[/quote]

The short answer is yes it is possible, and there are several theories about the conditions of the singularity that posit this and give some evidence of this but it is not a set in stone yes.[/quote]

So the singularity could, theoretically, be a random generator of any imaginable “universe-state?” I wonder how much lee-way there is for the factors necessary in the development of intelligent life capable of contemplating deities and the universe. I wonder at the probability that randomly generate a universe equipped for such a development.
[/quote]

Probably pretty high, but with the idea of a possible infinite number of universes, probability wouldn’t really mean much.[/quote]

And they exist from an infinite number of random-generators, or just the one?[/quote]

It wouldn’t matter because it comes back to a single question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ Why are their infinite universes?
I am not much of a fan of the fine tuning arguments, though on the surface they seem reasonable.
While an multiverse theory would solve the problem of the probability of this specific universe existing, it would not address why there is a multiverse and why that exists instead of nothing.
It also does not solve the problem of the fine tuning required to make a multiverse.

I will give the fine tuning theory its due for its mathematical probability of being correct is much higher than the probability of a multiverse. Simply put, fine tuning is more likely to be true than a multiverse is to be true. It makes neither a slam dunk, pro or con.

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:
You guys have WAAAAAYYYYY more patience with this than I ever will. I read the first couple pages, skipped to the end, and can’t imagine the ridiculousness contained therein.

Don’t feed the trolls.[/quote]

This is uncalled for. Just because someone has taken a stand that is contradictory does not make them a troll. This forum could use more civil discussions like this.
[/quote]

I’m not allowed to commend posters for their patience? I don’t see how a compliment is uncalled for. I also noticed none of them took offense to the joke either. If one of them feels hurt by my comment, I will apologize to them.[/quote]

The problem is not with you commending posters for their patience, but with calling Pat a troll which was indeed uncalled for. If he was a troll, we all would have simply ignored him like we with conservativedog or pittbull when they tried to join in rather than engage him in a debate. He is very invested in this argument and with insisting that it is a proof when it is not, but rather an argument but that does not make him a troll. [/quote]

I was defending a specific notion. But now I am interested in making the argument more sound. [/quote]

I really don’t think that the cosmological argument can be made much more sound than it already is. It is a very strong argument, but it does fall short of being a proof.[/quote]

Well we agree on it’s strength. But what is required for you, to move it in to the realm of proof?

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Another thing, about the singularity.
Being the first cause of the chain doesn’t make it the cause of the whole chain.
Actually, the initial singularity doesn’t have any “causal privilege” here.

The uncaused cause of all existence may be a final cause.
A goal.

For all we know, every event since the initial singularity could be a huge cosmic conspiracy to make Justin Bieber exist. [/quote]
I need that clapping loop image… Good stuff Kamui.
If that singularity was the cosmic conspiracy to force to endure the sonic evil that is jusin beaver, I damn that singularity.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Would you weigh in on this?[/quote]

Actually, I already did, but it has been lost in the middle of the multiple socratic games of this thread.

So, let’s do it again :

this argument

1. X exists
2. X cannot have caused itself
3. X cannot have been caused by [nothing]–Because [nothing] has no causal power
4. therefore, x is caused[/quote]

is indeed invalid.

And if it were true, it would actually defeat Pat’s purpose.

If X was really an X, as in “any thing”, it would include things like “God” or “2+2=4”.
In God’s case, the conclusion (therefore God is caused) would be the opposite of the propositon of the cosmological argument.

Pat’s answer is that God being uncaused by defintion, you can’t “discuss” it’s cause, and it should somehow be excluded of X.
And I have to disagree :

The only way to solve this is to propose a more accurate X, from the beginning.

That’s why i reformulated the argument like this :

1. A contingent X exists
2. A contingent X can’t have caused itself
3. A contingent X can’t have been caused by nothing
4. A contingent X can’t be uncaused
5. Therefore, a contingent X is caused by something else.

this is the first step of the cosmological argument.
Then you refute the possibility of infinite regress and causal loop, and you affirm the existence of at least one non-contingent being.

I tried to tell them all this. Lord knows I tried!

The problem is proving a contingent x exists as a premise.[/quote]

Which is harder than it looks.
That’s why i concluded my first post in this thread (page 8) by “…if a contingent thing exists”.

Strategically, the easiest way to do that should be to use reductio ad absurdum.
“Let’s say no contingent thing exist, at all, what would change ?”

The problem is that the answer may very well be … nothing.

[/quote]

The answer to that is nothing.
And perhaps thats a good angle, rather than proving a contingent thing exists, proving that no contingent things exist; is an impossibility.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Strategically, the easiest way to do that should be to use reductio ad absurdum.
“Let’s say no contingent thing exist, at all, what would change ?”

The problem is that the answer may very well be … nothing.

[/quote]

Wouldn’t you expect chaos?
[/quote]

“no contingent thing exists” can not mean “everything is caused by nothing”. (it’s absurd).
“no contingent thing exists” can mean “everything is non-contingent”, ie “everything is necessary”.
[/quote]
This would be circular, no? Then it is because it is. Then wouldn’t that be a cannot since it’s also absurd?

In which case we end up with absolute determinism, not chaos.

[sufiandy]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I think I tried to ask Pat that a while back but he never answered. I wanted to know how to evaluate “X cannot be caused by nothing” as true or false.
[/quote]

Nothing doesn’t exist. The very discussion of ‘it’ is paradoxical.
[/quote]

Okay maybe we are getting somewhere now.

• If its paradoxical, why is it even a premise? Is that even allowed?
  [/quote]
  It does not need to be, save for the fact that there are those who think it’s possible.

• Can that statement ever be false? If so what is an example

“___ cannot be caused by nothing” is false[/quote]
No it’s never false. Unless you talk to somebody like Lawrence Krauss who states “It depends on what you mean by nothing” Which to him is a quantum vacuum filled with particles.[/quote]

Okay good, now what about this one, using my original question

How do you evaluate “X cannot be caused by itself” as true or false without knowing if X is caused or uncaused?

It’s not reasonable to ask what caused something uncaused, so it is eliminated by definition. An uncaused entity is not caused by an infinite amount of things, let alone itself.

X being a caused entity, cannot have caused itself because it’s circular. It begs the question and is therefore false.[/quote]

So is this statement true or false?

“An elementary particle cannot be caused by itself”[/quote]

That is true. It’s a finite and as Kamui puts it, non-essential thing that could not exist if our perception and understanding is incorrect.[/quote]

Why is it true? I’m not sure where he said anything like this without there being a catch.[/quote]

It’s true because it’s logically impossible for it to have caused itself.
[/quote]

Why is it uncaused though? That needs to come before what you just said above.

[smh_23]

[quote]kamui wrote:

If the initial singularity is a thing, in a world made of things, it may still be “there”, but it has changed.

If the initial singularity is a whole, in a world made of parts, it is still there, and it may not even have changed. But on the other hand, it is not really initial, after all.

[/quote]

These are the two that I am getting at. Ablate the word “initial” if you like. I do not believe that it can be said, if the case resembles either of these propositions, that what were talking about can be ruled out as the argued uncaused “something.”

Regarding change, as I wrote in an earlier post, if the uncaused “something” cannot change, this will pose serious problems for the theist.

[Sloth]

Why would the singularity change?

[smh_23]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why would the singularity change?[/quote]

If the singularity is understood to simply be a state of the universe, it is not the singularity that changes so much as it is the universe.

[Sloth]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why would the singularity change?[/quote]

If the singularity is understood to simply be a state of the universe, it is not the singularity that changes so much as it is the universe.[/quote]

Ok, so we’re not talking about a singularity as a cause of the universe. The whole time we’re talking about the universe. Just in singularity, non-singularity (I’d say pre- or post-, but that might not make any sense) state. I imagine that if I were to ask why it–the universe–changes states, the answer might be something like “because the universe possibly causes itself to change states.”

[ZJStrope]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why would the singularity change?[/quote]

If the singularity is understood to simply be a state of the universe, it is not the singularity that changes so much as it is the universe.[/quote]

Ok, so we’re not talking about a singularity as a cause of the universe. The whole time we’re talking about the universe. Just in singularity, non-singularity (I’d say pre- or post-, but that might not make any sense) state. I imagine that if I were to ask why it–the universe–changes states, the answer might be something like “because the universe possibly causes itself to change states.”
[/quote]

Or it’s built into the “laws” that govern the universe

[Sloth]

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why would the singularity change?[/quote]

If the singularity is understood to simply be a state of the universe, it is not the singularity that changes so much as it is the universe.[/quote]

Ok, so we’re not talking about a singularity as a cause of the universe. The whole time we’re talking about the universe. Just in singularity, non-singularity (I’d say pre- or post-, but that might not make any sense) state. I imagine that if I were to ask why it–the universe–changes states, the answer might be something like “because the universe possibly causes itself to change states.”
[/quote]

Or it’s built into the “laws” that govern the universe[/quote]

That, the laws governing, sounds too independent of the universe. I think here we’re trying to say the universe is the explanation for its own governance, for its own existence/existing, for its own states.