Taking the fight to the real issue

Post Reply New Topic

I completely respect your belief, but you must realize that it is indeed a belief.

The way you're saying it, you're basically calling him delusional. How do you know he is delusional, I could just as easily argue you are just in denial.

It is a simple fact that I could not stop drinking, yet someone else is free to call that a mere opinion and refuse to investigate or consider things any further and remain in ignorance even forever if s/he so chooses. But for me to then return to drinking again, an impossibility, actually, so I could again try to stop but *without* any "spiritual help" the next time around would be completely insane ... and that is the kind of thinking the experience I *do* have has already fixed.

This is a problem within which different people discover individual solutions that work. Why argue about it?

This argument is just based on ignorance of the idea of time. The terms 'begins to exist', 'creation', 'cause' are all contingent on time. Time is contingent on the universe. In other words, there does not exist a time when the universe does not exist. How can the universe has a beginning or a cause?

In fact, we don't know the law of physics near the big bang. So the idea of time probably simply breaks down.

According to Hawking, the laws of the universe alone are sufficient to account for the beginning of the universe. I respect that.

My apologies this will be a long post

I will admit that it is a possibility, not a likely one though. If you wish to hold it up as a possibility you should probably explain how fundamentally unlikely it is that true nothing can exist. Even Stephen Hawking won’t go near that one.





Firstly the Multiverse theory does not rely on infinity. Invoking infinity here is a misnomer; since we can calculate the number of possible universes that could exist based on the laws of mathematics; that number does not approach infinity. Even if a causal loop of infinity can exist, it does not explain the existence of that cause.

As to the argument that the multiverse theory undoes chance and therefore the teleological argument; this is a bit optimistic. Lets return to the argument for a moment: there are three possible explanations for the fine tuning that exists: physical necessity, chance, or design. Stephen Hawking in his work on the ‘Grand Design’ argues that it is not physically necessary. Obviously Hawking argues for Chance in his book by appealing to the ‘Many Worlds Hypothesis’. However; it is worth noting that this is where the science ends and the metaphysics begins. Since, if we are to believe the ‘many worlds hypothesis’ then there would need to be some sort of mechanism to generate all these universes. The mechanism to which Hawking and Mlodinow appeal is Richard Feynman’s “sum-over-histories” approach to quantum theory. This is the approach which Hawking uses in the no boundary model to calculate the most probable history of the universe, given the no boundary condition, to our present observed state. Hawking and Mlodinow take these alternative histories which the universe might have pursued to be actual, parallel universes which are just as real as our universe.

Unfortunately, this is not science but a gratuitous piece of metaphysics. Feynman’s sum-over-histories method is just a mathematical tool for calculating the probability of a subatomic particle’s arriving at one point from another. One imagines all the possible paths the particle could have taken and then on that basis calculates the probability of its reaching the observed destination. There’s no basis for interpreting this mathematical “trick” to imply the ontological reality of concrete, spatio-temporal universes.

Hawking and Mlodinow also appeal to M-Theory or superstring theory to generate the World Ensemble of universes exhibiting various values for the constants of nature. Such a speculation is problematic in a number of ways which they do not discuss. First, the “cosmic landscape” of 10500 different possible universes consistent with nature’s laws which M-Theory allows are just that: possibilities. They are not real worlds, anymore than are Feynman’s histories. Second, it’s not clear that 10500 possibilities are sufficient to guarantee the existence of finely tuned universes in the landscape. What if the probability of fine tuning is less than 1:10500? This may be especially problematic concerning the arbitrary initial conditions. Finally, does the multiverse itself described by M-Theory exhibit fine-tuning? If it does, then the problem has only been pushed back a notch. It seems that it does, for as Hawking and Mlodinow note, M-Theory requires precisely eleven dimensions if it is to be viable, and yet the theory cannot account for why just that number of dimensions should exist.

However, none of this does anything to account for the argument made by Roger Penrose’s criticism of the ‘many worlds hypothesis’. Penrose contends that if these universes are to be taken to be actual universes then it would be far more likely that we would live in one of the less finely tuned universes.




I will answer both of these contentions together. Firstly if an infinite chain of causes exists it does not explain how that infinite chain exists. This is a hole in Aristotle’s theory (since he does not allow for infinite chains); but give him a break, it’s pretty old (let’s call it a modified Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover). The core contention is still pretty valid. Also as to your contention that an uncaused event can occur is a bit of a misnomer; since quantum randomness exhibits energy and energy is the basis of cause (this does not account for the energy). So this would be a case of the invocation of the non-sequitur; that one cannot disprove the existence of primary causality by taking note of the persistence of secondary causality. As to your contention, ‘why not at any level’? My answer to that is, have you ever witnessed it? If it could happen at any level, a planet could cause itself, a horse could appear in your backyard, without a cause.



Well I think this disagreement lies is within your reading of Plantinga; he argued that God was simple in essence but not in his existence. Even if I were to grant your supposition that physical cognition must exist in the same way as immaterial (which I don’t), that would still fall as part of the existence and not of the essence. Plantinga was pretty clear on this when he distinguishes between the two. Using existence to disprove essence is not something that is allowed for in Plantinga’s argument since they are separate. Yes, Plantinga did argue against divine simplicity; but not in the manner you are contending. He argued against the concept of simplicity as put forward by St Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas argued that essence and existence must be the same thing and Plantinga criticized this because if God was only his properties he would simply be a property. So Plantinga did indeed argue against simplicity; but he formulated a new doctrine of simplicity to replace it.




Well firstly I think neither of us wants you to be right in relation to God being an evil being. This particular Ontological argument is meant to move the person from possibility to actually through the demonstration of what omnipotence entails. To begin to refute the assertion of an evil being as logically incoherent its worth revisiting Dawkins’s contention.

Dawkins used the argument that the greatest being would be one that could create the universe and not exist. This is obviously logically incoherent; since a being that does not exist could not exist in any possible world; since it could not do this, it is obviously not maximally great. The assertion made by Law falls into the same logical hole and has been rejected by Plantinga. It does this in two ways. Firstly it assumes that a being that is maximally great is not a moral being. If a maximally great being to exist it must be perfect in every way, if it was morally imperfect it would not be maximally great. It also assumes that an evil being is morally perfect in relation to evil. However, if a property is perfect its negation is not perfection.

Hi, its good to have a new voice in the debate. However, I think you will find that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is contingent on the standard model itself. AG has indicated, rightly, that the weakness of the Kalam Argument is that it assumes time itself began at the start of the universe (as is indicated by the standard model).

As an explanation; if we assume that time is limitless going forward and we have no reason to assume that it existed before the big bang (in accordance with the standard model) then time itself must have a cause at that point. The Universe is known to be around 13 billion years old (approx). Since the heart of the Kalam Argument is that everything that exists must have a cause then the existence of the universe and time must also have a cause. Dismissing the necessity of the existence of time needing to have a cause falls under Schopenhauer's taxicab fallacy.

The amusing thing about language is the way it can be manipulated to have the appearance and structure of useful propositions and yet be entirely empty of actual content. The supposed conundrum of "How can nothing exist ?" has all the structural appearance of a valid question but even a momentary consideration indicates that the answer it requires has no shape or substance. It in no way implies that nothing can't exist nor does it give any indication of how one goes about answering it. It is linguistic noise posing as communication.

'Before the big bang' is logically impossible. And the idea of beginning of time is sloppy at best (how do you define it?).

I reject your claim that 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'. Besides you have never submitted a proof, quantum events like radioactive decays are apparently causeless.

In this light, the statement 'the universe is 13 billion years old' is a misunderstanding. The age only refers to the limit of our naive model of time.

How is the design theory going to solve the problem? Ask other members of PPR about what their ideal universe look like and they will come up with different answers. Had we had a different god we would end up with a very different universe. Why do we happen to have a god that prefers to make a universe as we know? By physical necessity, chance, or yet another design?

A purely philosophical approach to understanding the universe has proven again and again that logically pawing over known possibilities is no key to grasping what new things are revealed each decade that philosophers cannot currently conceive. One hundred fifty years ago galaxies were unknown. Particle physics and the weird inter-relationships of quantum physics were totally unknown only a short time ago. Dark matter and dark energy which evidently dominates the universe were not even suspected a mere few decades ago. The verbal hopscotch that philosophers noodle with is mostly linguistic babbeling and has only peripheral relationship to reality.

It should be noted that theology as a subset to philosophy in general is particularly subject to juggling non existent mental concepts since most of the so-called facts involved are derived from claimed events thousands of years old from witnesses who are not only suspect as to motivations but also in gullibility and their descriptions have passed through so many unreliable translations and misinterpretations that no real validity can be securely claimed at all.

Yes it is logically impossible, if one assumes that time begins with the Big Bang. Which is something that the Kalam Cosmological Argument does. Assuming the standard model; then time does indeed not exist before the big bang. However having arrived at the discovery of the big bang; Schopenhauer would argued that one cannot exempt it from causality simply because one wants to. It is quite arbitrary for you to claim the universe is the exception to the rule since it is contingent on their being nothing before the big bang. This can be dismissed because it is logically begging the question of nothingness, thus engaging in circular reasoning in a way that negates the need for further argument.




Well let me begin to respond to you by saying that not all physicists agree that the quantum realm is causally indeterminate. This position cannot be considered a proven counter to the first premise. Yes the Copenhagen interpretation is based in the math, but so are many others. I can list some fifteen other schools that are based equally within the math of Quantum Mechanics but do not adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation. For instance the Bohm interpretation is fully causal and just as mathematically sound as that of the Copenhagen school. It cannot therefore be argued that the Copenhagen interpretation represents a proof against the first premise.

Also, it is worth noting that the Quantum Vacuum that produces these things is not nothingness in the way you are arguing it to be. The Quantum Vacuum is full of energy and therefore cannot be considered to be nothing. The Vacuum being full of energy does randomly spawn particles that drop in and out but it cannot be stated that this is occurring without energy. Just as the Quantum Vacuum cannot be invoked against the cosmological argument, since it represents secondary causality, it cannot be invoked here for the same reason.

Consider this statement from Robert Deltete; “There is no physical basis in ordinary quantum theory for the claim that the universe itself is uncaused, much less for the claim that it sprang into being uncaused from literally nothing.”

The assumption that all events require a cause is based on the observation that all known events have a cause. ( There are assumptions otherwise but that can be put aside for the moment) To assume that is merely an extension of current observations and that is totally invalid. . Because it has not been observed does not deny its existence.

The failure of Bell's Inequalities are rather strong proof that there are no underlying causal determinants aka "hidden variables". The indeterminism underlying quantum processes appears to be as real as rain. There is simply no way of making causal determinism work, at this juncture.

ruveyn

I would firstly like to indicate that so far there is no experimental data proving that the universe is non-deterministic. This is the position held by the 1999 Nobel Prize winner in Physics Gerald’t Hooft. Here are the references that confirm this (Hooft, G. (2007). "A mathematical theory for deterministic quantum mechanics". Journal of Physics: Conference Series , Gerard 't Hooft (2009). "Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory").

He has also demonstrated that deterministic theory could avoid the Bell Inequality arguments (the proof is provided in the second journal). My apologies for referencing a scientific journal; I could not find a more easily accessible source of this information.

Last edited by 91 on 15 Nov 2010, 8:15 am, edited 2 times in total.