Prosthesis has a good article about the errors Christians make in attacking the likes of atheist apologists Harris and Dawkins, but he also calls out what he sees as the real problem with Angry Atheists – their abandonment of reason while claiming to be reason-based.
I am very happy to see some atheists haven’t abandoned reason in order
to promote reason. I think this points to an even deeper problem.
"Reason" and "rational" have become a labels for a certain set of
beliefs, rather than being labels for thinking clearly about things.
The angry atheists have forgotten about reason as clear thinking in
their defense of their particular set of "reasonable" beliefs. Reason
(the beliefs) has killed itself (the act of clear thinking).
I find Weinberg's dismissal of the cosmologic proof to be silly, though in this area, I suppose either side could be viewed as such. His argument seems to be "if physics can't be the first cause, neither can God." However, the reason God makes more sense is because the first cause must be an uncaused cause, which is markedly different from any physical particle or principle we know of. Almost by definition, such an mysterious force, which by other good arguments, must also be a personality, is materially different than everything else we know, and would more likely be God. But we are just in philosophy land now, where anyone can make up their own beasts.
Yet, in just the same sense, God cannot be a first cause either, for whatever our conception of God we could still wonder why the world is governed by that sort of God, rather than some other.
[I find Weinberg's dismissal of the cosmological proof to be silly]
It was not the Christian God who created the universe, it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do you get it now Seeker?
As I have said, the Christian God has not only claimed to be the Creator, but has interacted with mankind over the centuries, including sending Jesus, who reaffirmed such. His life, teachings, resurrection, and continued transformation of lives today make this God superior to the FSM that you claim is equivalent.
Sure, if we are only talking about proposing a first cause, any creature could be the creator, but when you receive such a claim from a God who has also given all of these other things, there is a qualitative difference. Do you get it now Cineaste?
As I have said, the Christian God has not only claimed to be the Creator, but has interacted with mankind over the centuries…
So what? Allah has too. Those who follow the FSM say the same. See? Revealed truth doesn’t make an argument yet fundamentalists are deluded enough to think it does.
Do you get it now Cineaste?
I get that the people committing “suicide of reason” are fundamentalists (those who take their holy books literally). Want to see an example of the fundamentalist “suicide of reason? Here…
Sextuplets are born into a religious debate:
The premature babies may need blood transfusions to survive. But their parents’ faith prohibits such treatments.
Science could save the lives of these babies yet here, religion prohibits science. Suicide of reason indeed though, not Atheism’s. I’ll keep trying to show you the light of reason Seeker. I won’t give up!
I don't get this "first cause" argument: if "everything has a cause," how can there be a "first" cause? If everything has a cause, then what caused God?
Yup, Louis that's the reasonable view. We are talking about the same thing in the Bertrand Russell's surprising weakness thread. I hope Aaron comes back soon to comment on it. Anyway, here is where we are now in that conversation…
The First Cause/God/Allah/FSM/whatever would by definition be supernatural. In order to establish the universe and the natural order, He/it would have to be above the natural order and laws.
Just as something cannot both be in the confines of time and "start" time, one cannot both be in nature and start nature.
The universe is part of nature. It is bound by all of the natural laws, which say that matter is not eternal, it must have a cause, essentially nothing new can come into existence. How can the universe or anything within nature somehow step outside of nature and all the laws to begin everything?
That is why Russell's argument and so many others on this topic are so weak. It is not a God-did-it, but a something-beyond-nature-did-it because that is the only that makes sense both logically and scientifically. Now if science finds some new discovery that some how eliminates some of the rules, then you will have much better footing and we must have a different discussion.
But right now, you seem to be arguing either that the universe can somehow be god-like and itself supernatural or you simply place your faith that one day science will tell you how this happens. Either way you are placing your faith in something apart from any real solid evidence.
You have no evidence that the universe could somehow be in nature and "create" nature at the same time or that one day science will find a smokiing gun that will disprove all this silly God and First Cause stuff. You may think that will happen, but that is a matter of faith not fact.
As an aside, I kept repeating this but no one seems to listen. The First Cause argument is not one that proves there is a Christian God. It merely indicates that something supernatural started the universe. You can infer certain things from that act, but it does not discriminate among supernatural beings. So inserting the ludicrous FSM may make an atheist giggle, but it really offers nothing to the debate.
Sure, as far as the First Cause goes, on the surface, the FSM and Jehovah are just as likely to be the answer. But the First Cause is merely a brick in the building, not the whole thing. It is part of the apologetics picture that points to the Christian God, but it does not in itself prove the Christian God is the answer. So can we lay that strawman to rest now.
You have no evidence that the universe could somehow be in nature and "create" nature at the same time…
What about Spinoza's proofs?
The First Cause argument is not one that proves there is a Christian God. It merely indicates that something supernatural started the universe.
You do keep repeating this but as Stewart pointed out, "supernatural" is not inherently necessary.
Either way you are placing your faith in something apart from any real solid evidence.
No, I lack the faith you assign me. Science may never be able to explain how the universe started but science doesn't pretend to have these answers. Religion pretends.
…and welcome back Aaron :)
I still don't get it: why does our particular universe have to have had a cause? Couldn't it be eternal – eternally changing, expanding, retracting, or whatever? And what about other universes? And if the whole shebang was "started" (what does that mean, anyway), why does it have to have been a god? This whole "cause" thing is pointless.
If the Big Bang Theory holds up as the "beginning" of the universe then the cosmological argument is valid. However, you're right to point out "other universes" from the current work in string theory. This would mean we are but one of an infinite number of universes. If scientists finally solidify their "universal theory of everything" (an expansion of Newton and Einstein) then it would mean that there was a "before the Big Bang." It would raise many new questions.
If you are interested Louis, here is the an excellent BBC program about <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4183875433858020781&q=string+theory&hl=en" rel="nofollow">the physics of parallel universes.
why does it have to have been a god?
Logically, it doesn't. That's just Aaron's contention.
This whole "cause" thing is pointless.
Well, the "cause" thing may be but searching for the mechanism through physics and astronomy is interesting.
Yeah, and that's why I find science infinitely more wondrous and beautiful than the dogmas religion imposes.
Here is another one Louis…
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3128229341083745767&q=string+theory&hl=en" rel="nofollow">Stephen Hawking's Universe 06 – An Answer To Everything
It doesn't have to be a god, that was my point that everyone ignores. First Cause never proposes to say who the First Cause is, merely that one is required.
You may say that the universe is eternal, etc., but then you are simply applying god-like stature to the universe and making it the supernatural as in Sagan's "Cosmos." There is no scientific evidence for that. It is an article of faith to believe in a supernatural universe that defies the natural laws.
Simply adding multiple universes does not solve the problem. It begs the question: where did they come from? It's like trying to address life on earth by saying that life came here from another planet. Okay, where did the life come from on that planet? It merely shifts the issue farther back and farther away. It doesn't answer the question.
The question is nonsensical. Why must there be a first cause? If everything has a cause, what caused the "first cause"? And how is positing an eternal universe making it god-like? It just is. What does divinity have to do with it? And if a god exists, what caused him?
It doesn't have to be a god, that was my point that everyone ignores.
If it wasn't a God, what are you arguing then Aaron? Are you just arguing simple cause and effect. If so, intelligence is not required for cause. Gravity will cause an object to "fall" toward it, no intelligence required.
You may say that the universe is eternal, etc., but then you are simply applying god-like stature to the universe and making it the supernatural as in Sagan's "Cosmos." There is no scientific evidence for that. It is an article of faith to believe in a supernatural universe that defies the natural laws.
Actually, Sagan got this from Spinoza. It's not an article of faith. It's logic. What about Spinoza's proofs that directly contradict you? No one is saying that the natural universe is supernatural, that would be contradictory. They are saying that the universe came about through natural means.
Simply adding multiple universes does not solve the problem. It begs the question: where did they come from? It's like trying to address life on earth by saying that life came here from another planet. Okay, where did the life come from on that planet? It merely shifts the issue farther back and farther away. It doesn't answer the question.
The point we were making was that the multiverse may not have come from anywhere. The multiverse being eternal (1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing). Before you object that everything has a beginning, there are things that definitly do not. Think of numbers. What is the first number? It's not 1 because before 1 there is 0 and before 0 there is -1 etc… Think of Zero as the big bang. Now, think of parallel universes as even numbers, odd numbers, prime numbers etc. All these "number" universes are infinite as well. I'm just using math as an aid to help you think about this.
The multiverse does not try to solve the problem of first cause or origin, the multiverse is an extension of the anthropic principle . We are in the universe that it is possible to have a periodic table of stable or semi-stable elements that just happen to make chemical replicators possible. The multiverse hypothesis is just that,a hypothesis. It may well be that the universe can only exist in one way with the 6 or so variables in lockstep, or it may be that there is a multiverse with all variables in a different value in lockstep. However ,to say that this universe was designed specifically for life is improbable, as Richard Carrier says, "this universe seems to be made to be the perfect black hole generator"-paraphrase.
Richard, I realize that. The inescapable fact is, we don't know yet. What bugs me is not only does religion claim to "know" the answer, but their answer is complete nonsense. And as the thread title indicates, they think atheism/science is a "suicide of reason." This from the people who believe in the talking snake.
Hi Louis
The argument doesn't say that everything has a cause. The argument is that when you look at all the things that have causes there must have been a first cause based on the premise that an infinite regress of causes makes no sense. Obviously a first cause is itself uncaused. Could the universe be the uncaused thing? Those who like me find the argument convincing would say "it doesn't seem like the universe and its laws are the kind of things that could exist without a cause".
Critics of the argument are right to point out that this argument–even if it's right–doesn't establish the God of Christianity. But the argument isn't circular in that it doesn't assume at the beginning the first cause exists–it concludes the first cause exists from the premise that an infinite regress of causes makes no sense.
your friend
keith
Hi Cinaste
You wrote: "No one is saying that the natural universe is supernatural, that would be contradictory. They are saying that the universe came about through natural means."
But this would seem to imply that the *natural means* existed logically prior to the universe. In that case, we First Cause arguers would say that these means–the laws of the universe or multiverse or whatever–are the kinds of things that require a First cause.
your friend
Keith
…the laws of the universe are the kinds of things that require a First cause.
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause."
– Bertrand Russell
Will you now counter that "God" is not subject to the laws of the universe?
Of course God (or the cause) is not subject to the laws of the universe because He/It began the laws. That's like asking if a writer has to live his life by the way his story flows. The writer exists outside the world that he created, not inside it and under those rules. He made the world and the rules. They don't apply to him.
Russell just asserts that "there is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause" nor "is there any reason why it should not have always existed."
It seems to me, this is not possible because of the scientific laws and reason, which Russell claims to follow. An eternal universe violates the second law of thermodynamics. Also, unless you are going to undo years of scientific research, there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. Life or matter doesn't just happen or appear. That's why their has to be a cause.
You can't say the universe came from natural means when those natural means would violate natural law. If scientific law says that spontaneous generation doesn't happen, but you claim it does this one time. You are essentially invoking a miracle explanation with no supernatural agent to back it up. It's illogical and impossible.
With Spinoza, I"m not sure why you are wanting to invoke him. If you don't believe in supernatural, why do want to follow the logic of someone who equated the universe with God – claiming they are all one nature. Also, the conclusions of his philosophy go against many of your assertions. He argues, from his theology, we have no free will, that everything done by humans and animals is "excellent and divine" and that all rights flow from the state. You may hold to that last one, I don't know, but I know from the debate on morality that you believe some actions to not be "excellent and divine."
Spinoza's arguments may seem sound philosophically than scientifically. We know from observational science that things decay. There is no evidence for infinite "substance" apart from his own thinking, in which no one can place any trust because he (nor anyone else) has any free will to choose to think anything but what we are destined to think. But somehow he jumps to say that we can achieve more freedom and be more God by understanding that we are not free to think freely, while believing that everything must happen the way it does.
He continually argues for a metaphysical reality with no explanation for why it is there or why we should believe it. "All substance is God and all substance is infinite." Well, why and why does it matter when we have no choice to make in the matter any way. It seems to me that Spinoza talked in circles and hoped no one noticed.
As to your comment about the "talking snake," here's the reason-based, logical answer for that. If the world is, as Christian say, created by a supernatural being then the supernatural exists and can chose at certain points to interact with the natural world and thus create supernatural moments or "miracles."
Boil it down to this: if God created the world, who's to say that a snake can't talk once? Just because something is not likely or even happens only once does not mean it can't happen, when we allow for the supernatural. It also doesn't mean it has to happen every day or that snakes should always talk now. It was a one time thing, as most miracles are, that do not regularly occur. If they did they wouldn't be miracles or supernatural events. But that's neither here nor there.
"Of course God (or the cause) is not subject to the laws of the universe because He/It began the laws. That's like asking if a writer has to live his life by the way his story flows. The writer exists outside the world that he created, not inside it and under those rules. He made the world and the rules. They don't apply to him."
So, then if God is not subject to the laws of the universe can He can make 2 plus 2 equal 7?
"Life or matter doesn't just happen or appear."
That's why God doesn't just happen or appear. Who created God?
"If you don't believe in supernatural, why do want to follow the logic of someone who equated the universe with God – claiming they are all one nature."
Spinoza's God is not supernatural.
If the world is, as Christian say, created by a supernatural being then the supernatural exists and can chose at certain points to interact with the natural world and thus create supernatural moments or "miracles."
This is ridiculous. Why not just invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the cause?
"It was a one time thing, as most miracles are, that do not regularly occur."
"Which is more probable? That the natural order was suspended or that a Jewish minx would tell a lie?"
– Chris Hitchens
As I said, God choose to allow the natural order of things in the universe to go and flow as they naturally, normally would. Sometimes, He chooses to act in a miraculous way. But that is different than asking him to change something that is true. It is nonsensical to ask if God could change some truth of which He is founder and creator.
Why do you keep going back to "who created God?" I have already told you. Only some thing that exists outside of matter – the natural order – can create it. God is not matter, therefore He does not need a cause or a creator.
From all experience we see that everything needs a beginning point. I think you would agree with that since you are asking who created God. If that's the case, the universe needed a beginning point and a cause for the beginning. Either you are going to claim that the universe itself defies the natural order and does something supernatural or you allow for a supernatural agent outside of the natural realm to at least start things. It is more logical to believe that supernatural started the natural than to claim that the natural essentially became supernatural (by violating existing natural laws) in order to create itself.
Spinoza claimed everything was God and discussed almost entirely in a metaphysical realm. He may avoid the word "supernatural," but everything he said screams it.
Why go back to the ludicrous FSM? I told you that already too. The first cause argument could indeed point to FSM, becasue the first cause argument is only part of the whole picture. I don't base my entire theology of God on first cause. I can logically infer things about God from Him being the first cause, but it does not prove Him to be the Judeo-Christian God. The FSM is illogical for numerous reasons, but the first cause argument does not portend to touch on those issues. First cause only asserts that a supernatural, some thing outside the natural order, cause is needed.
I'm not sure what Hitch means, but miracles are by definition not "probable." That what makes them miracles.
It is nonsensical to ask if God could change some truth of which He is founder and creator.
Why?
"I have already told you. Only some thing that exists outside of matter – the natural order – can create it. God is not matter, therefore He does not need a cause or a creator."
Says you. You're just making this up as you go along.
"From all experience we see that everything needs a beginning point."
You are mistaken. Take a line (not a line segment) for example. Where does it begin? How about numbers? What is the first number?
"He may avoid the word "supernatural," but everything he said screams it."
Just the opposite!
"…miracles are by definition not "probable.""
No, it's highly improbable that my beloved Chicago Cubs will win the world series this year but if they did, it's by no means a miracle. Holding a conversation with a talking donkey (Shrek, Numbers 22:28-30), now that's a miracle. Would you please think about this stuff before you speak?
Would you please think about this stuff before you speak?
Things like that show, you have little interest in a civil exchange of ideas when it comes to issues of this sort. What purpose does that serve except to make you feel better and smarter about yourself? If that's what it takes for you, go ahead.
"Things like that show, you have little interest in a civil exchange of ideas when it comes to issues of this sort."
Aaron, I apologize for my tone. I've dealt mostly with Seeker and this is how he communicates. Perhaps too much Seeker has rubbed off on me. Please, put aside the last sentence and continue to address my point about the Cubs and the miraculous.
Aaron, this isn't the first time this conversation has come up. I really think that Cineaste and myself have done a good job of explaining why "first cause" is not any sort of evidence for an intelligent creator. I'll try to summarize my thoughts here, and maybe you can at least see what our position is on this:
You believe, as we do, that every effect in the natural universe has a cause, and that every effect, itself, is a cause for something else. Without getting into quantum mumbo-jumbo, this is the way the universe operates, and it is the axiom upon which all scientific understanding is based. And you ask, as we are all inclined to do, "But what was the first cause?"
That's where the common ground ends. Your answer (the argument from first cause) states "It must have been God", to which we reply, "Come again?"
You see, there's no evidence to support any hypothethis about what may have been before there was being. The very question suggests its own absurdity. There are all sorts of theories, and maybe some of them are more plausible than others, but none of them are at all provable, or even remotely likely. You have argued that God is the most likely explanation, because God (by your reckoning) exists outside of the universe, so naturally he would be in a position to create it. Although this is plausible, there's no reason, logical or evidentiary, that it's true. It's far simpler (but still totally unprovable) to assume that some other type of universe existed "before" or "outside" of ours, and which gave rise to it.
There is no reason to think that the creation of universes like ours isn't a common, natural event in some other type of universe. And there is no better reason to suspect that God was the manufacturer than there is to suspect simply another sort of universe.
You may disagree, and say that another universe is simply pushing the argument back further. "Who created the other universe?" you may ask. But this is exactly the same response we would give you about God. "Who created God?" we ask. And you reply, "No one. God is timeless." Well, if God can be timeless, why can't some other universe?
I hope it's clear, now, that any argument given for God as a "first cause" can be identically applied to any other phenomena that might exist "outside" or "before" our own universe. These other explanations, for which this is equally little evidence, at least have the advantage of not invoking a weirdly personal deity, who I find implausible for other reasons. But even if you, personally, find that explanation appealing, it's still not a good argument for his existence.
Hi Cineaste:
Regarding the First Cause Argument, you wrote:
PREVIOUS POSTER: "Life or matter doesn't just happen or appear."
CINEASTE: That's why God doesn't just happen or appear. Who created God?
KEITH: You seem to be saying that by the previous poster's argument, God would need a creator. But that doesn't follow from his argument. His argument doesn't presuppose that there is *nothing* that just happens to exist, it presupposes that life and matter doesn't just happen to exist. Now you may counter that there's no reason to exempt God from the alleged "can't just happen to exist" rule. But there IS a reason to exempt the First Cause from that rule because by definition of "first" there could be no prior cause to the First Cause. The poster is claiming that matter and life are obviously not candidates for first cause, hence according to his argument *they* need a creator.
PREVIOUS POSTER: If the world is, as Christian say, created by a supernatural being then the supernatural exists and can chose at certain points to interact with the natural world and thus create supernatural moments or "miracles."
CINEASTE: This is ridiculous. Why not just invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the cause?
KEITH: Your above comment doesn't seem to be responding to his comment, as his comment seems to be merely suggesting that IF there exists a God a la Christianity we'd expect that he could perform miracles and there is nothing illogical about such a God creating a talking snake. Only a prior disbelief in the possibility of supernatural can justify taking the snake story as a count against Christianity–and that really boils down to claiming that Christianity is false because.
But regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster as First Cause; I suppose you could use any name you wanted. The question would be: what properties does that First Cause have? The First Cause Argument does nothing to show that the First Cause is the God of Christian theism; it doesn't say mcuh at all about the details of the first cause.
your Friend
Keith
Your whole argument is, "magic man did it."
If the answer to any question demands a leap of faith, is it really an answer at all?
Hi Cineaste
You wrote: "Your whole argument is, "magic man did it.".
Were you talking to me? If so I think you have mischaracterized my argument.
your Friend
Keith
Hi Stewart:
You wrote: "There is no reason to think that the creation of universes like ours isn't a common, natural event in some other type of universe. And there is no better reason to suspect that God was the manufacturer than there is to suspect simply another sort of universe.
You may disagree, and say that another universe is simply pushing the argument back further. "Who created the other universe?" you may ask. But this is exactly the same response we would give you about God. "Who created God?" we ask. And you reply, "No one. God is timeless." Well, if God can be timeless, why can't some other universe?"
Let me offer a First Cause Argument that doesn't suffer from the "defect" you suggest. BTW I expect you to object to the premises of the argument and to make it easy for you to focus your objections I will number the stpes in the argument.
1. There must be some sufficient reason for the existence of all natural phenomena and laws of physics.
2. This sufficient reason cannot be itself be a physical law or natural phenomenon.
3. There exist some natural phenomenon and laws of physics.
4. The only possible sufficient reasons for any natural phenomena etc. are (a) being the result of natural law or (b) being intentionally created by an intellgent agent.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes; and infinite chain of causes reduces to no cause at all.
5. Taking these premises together, the universe must at the bottom of it all be the result of an intelligent creative agent; I'll call that agent God.
This argument doesn't suggest that that God needs a creator anf it doesn't allow that the universe might be the first cause. Your objections must be directed to the premises of the argument.
your Friend
Keith
Thanks for the response, Keith.
I essentially agree.
I disagree, but it may be a semantic issue. Visible light, for instance, is a natural phenomenon, and is fully explained by the separate phenomenon of electromagnetism. Presumably electromagnetism is, itself, fully explained by some other, unifying phenomenon. In this sense, every phenomenon, including our existence, is fully explained by probably a single unified "law". This ultimate phenomenon — the nature of our universe — likely cannot be explained by another phenomenon in our universe. In that sense, maybe I agree with you in a different wording.
Agreed.
(b) seems entirely implausible. Why should we think intelligence to be a cause for natural phenomena? Also, (a) here is in direct contradiction to your claim in (2), above, wherein you state that no natural phenomenon could be caused by another natural phenomenon.
There is no reason to believe either that there is or is not an infinite regress, or that such a thing is either possible or impossible. It does not make sense within the physical structure of our universe, but we are not merely talking about the physical structure of our universe. We are talking specifically about what might have been, or might still be, outside or before the existence of our universe. And, in fact, in such a separate universe, the concept of "before" may be entirely meaningless. If that were true — and, again, there's no reason to either support or deny it — then any discussion of "infinite regress" would be equally meaningless.
I don't think you got there as safely as you think you did. Not only for the reasons I just pointed out, but also because you have neglected to account for the problem that any question you raise about the "infinite regress" is equally applicable to your God as it is to anything else. If God can be infinite, then so too can a universe. And, once again, there's no reason to believe that this is either true or not true, so it can hardly be used as an argument for one hypothesis over another.
You wrote: "Your whole argument is, "magic man did it.".
"Were you talking to me? If so I think you have mischaracterized my argument."
As a Quaker, I thought you were arguing God was the "first cause." God is the "magic man" who "did it" (created the universe). If this is a mischaracterization of your argument please elaborate.
Hi Stewart:
For reference, here was the argument I made. I have highlighted the ones you objected to.
1. There must be some sufficient reason for the existence of all natural phenomena and laws of physics.
2. This sufficient reason cannot be itself be a physical law or natural phenomenon.
3. There exist some natural phenomenon and laws of physics.
4. The only possible sufficient reasons for any natural phenomena etc. are (a) being the result of natural law or (b) being intentionally created by an intellgent agent.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes; and infinite chain of causes reduces to no cause at all.
I agree with you about (2) BTW. I was thinking about the alleged First Cause when I wrote it, but as a general statement it is completely wrong, and I don't think it is needed for the argument anyway, at least not written the way I wrote it.
But regarding your other responses:
RE: (4). You said that (b) was implausible because there is no reason to think that intelligence is responsible for a natural phenomenon. But surely it is. When I choose to respond to your post for example, the movement of the matter in the keyboard keys is a natural phenomenon (it's not a supernatural one is it?) and yet it's the result of my (meager) intelligence. My decision to type causes the keys to move (and the electric currents to move the way they do etc.)
RE: (5) You say there's no basis for deciding one way or the other about an infinite regress. I don't agree. Maybe we have differing intuitions about the matter, but it seems clear to me IF for example there was a finite chain of causation with A causing B which causes C which causes….Z, the *true* cause of Z is A, with B etc. being the mechanism by which A caused Z. If there were an infinite regress, there would not *be* a true cause and at the root of it all the phenonomenon Z would be ultimately uncaused. And IMO the issue has nothing to do with the idea of temporal "before" and "after". If all the causes occured in some kind of timeless "now" and infinite regress would still imply an ultimately uncaused physical phenomenon. You may not share my intuition here which might be one reason you don't find my argument convincing. But premise (5) seems clearly true to me.
So any way, IF all physical phenomenon requires a cause, IF an infinite regress of causes boils down to phenomenon being ultimately uncaused, IF the ultimate cause cannot be a physical phenomenon, then the ultimate cause must be something other than a physical phenomenon. IF all those things are true it seems to me that something like an agent making a decision is ultimately responsible for the existence of all physical phenomenon. Big "if's" to be sure, and if you don't buy the premises you don't buy the conclusion. But the argument isn't vulnerable to the "who created God" rejoinder.
your Friend
Keith
Hi Cineaste.
My argument concludes that there must be a First Cause and this first cause must be some kind of decision making agent not a blind natural phenomenon. That this cause is the God of Christianity doesn't follow from the argument, but the more general "decision making creator" conclusions does. It seems to me that you ignored the premises of the argument and chose a somewhat sarcastic way of stating the conclusion. That's my beef.
your Friend
Keith
Keith, certainly do not share your intuitions about this.
I would say that all physical phenomena have causes, thus nothing is uncaused. The very existence of physical phenomena must have a cause, but there is no reason to think that this cause must be something like what we experience in our current universe.
The example you gave of your own intellect causing your keyboard to be struck is, I think, instructive. You do not, I suspect, believe that your intellect is uncaused. Thus, even though neurological activity in your brain initiated a sequence of events that ended in your previous posts, that neurological activity was by no means uncaused. Thus if, as you claim, all phenomena require physical causes, any "agent" you cite would also require these causes. Unless, that is, you believe that there are uncaused agents. And if so, you have not given any evidence to support such a belief. Pointing to God for this would obviously be circular reasoning.
Hi Cineaste:
A couple of points. You wrote: Thus if, as you claim, all phenomena require physical causes, any "agent" you cite would also require these causes. Unless, that is, you believe that there are uncaused agents. And if so, you have not given any evidence to support such a belief. Pointing to God for this would obviously be circular reasoning.
But I didn't say that all phenomenon require a physical cause. I said that all physical phenomena require a cause of some sort–I think you applied the adjective "physical" to wrong word. My argument doesn't assume there are any uncaused agents, but it concludes that there must be given the premises of the argument. Now I believe this agent is the God of Christianity but I don't come to this belief via the First Cause Argument.
BTW I consider the kind of natural theological arguments for God to be interesting and maybe important for some people who might otherwise conclude that God doesn't exist, I sort of consider such things to be kind of a distraction. The Apostle Paul wrote: Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8). This passage says more than that God is a loving being; it says God is love. Thus to set your focus on love is to turn in the direction of God, regardless of whatever philosophical and theological opinions you might hold. Jesus describes himself in John's Gospel as the Way the Truth and the Life; thus to seek the truth is too seek Christ, regardless of your theological opinions. I believe that honest seekers will eventually realize that Christ is the Way, but even if I turn out wrong about that, you might be able to agree that focusing on love and the truth is exactly what were our devotion should lie.
your Friend
Keith
Hi Keith. I'm not Cineaste.
You said, "all physical phenomena require a cause of some sort". I don't know that I am aware of any non-physical phenomena. I can conceive of such a thing, which would exist outside our universe, but anything within our universe must be, by definition, physical. And here I use "physical" in the sense of physics, not in the sense of tactile. Even energy is physical.
Yes, of course. Your premises, which I reject, state that only intelligence could be a first cause, therefore intelligence must be a first cause. I don't find that compelling at all, I'm afraid. Your argument does not explain how "intelligence" could actually be such a first cause, or how it could come into being without having its own causes. Nor does it explain why another non-physical phenomenon, such as a non-linear universe which would not be subject to the limitations of time or recursion, could not have produce our linear universe which is.
Again I will say that any argument you put forth for a God is equally applicable (and more simply applied) to other conceivable, non-linear phenomena. All your discussion about intelligence and agents is a distraction because you have done nothing to show that it is at all plausible or even relevant.
Hi Stewart:
Your not being Cineaste is noted:-)
You say you are not sure that there are any non-physical phenomena. I would point out that my claim that all physical phenomena require a cause doesn't presuppose the existence of any non-physical phenomena. But I would not agree all phenomena in our universe are by definition physical. The decisions of we freely make are not physical phenomena, I would contend. Thoughts are not conceptually identical to anything physical, not even the brain states that are associated with thoughts.
This can be proved by noting that this sentence is coherent:
A zombie's brain states are identical to the brain states of regular human beings, but they do not have any internal experiences. .
If internal experiences were definitionally the same as brain states then we could substitute "brain states" for "internal experiences" in the above sentence without changing the sentence's meaning. But if we made such a substitution the sentence would become:
A zombie's brain states are identical to the brain states of regular human beings, but they do not have any brain states. .
This sentence is logically contradictory, in contrast to the original sentence which is at least logically possibly true. Thus brain states are not definitionally the same as internal experiences and thoughts. Now you can claim that thoughts are only exhibited as the results of brain states, but there cannot be any evidence for such a claim, and even if that were the case it seems to me that the thoughts themselves are not physical even if it were true that they were produced by the physical.
And I would disagree with the way you phrased my argument. I didn't argue that maybe the first Cause is intelligent therefore it is intelligent. My argument is that the first cause is either intelligent or some physical phenomenon, and since it cannot be a physical phenomenon (so says the argument) the only alternative is that the FC is intelligent. This argument doesn't need to explain how intelligence can be a first cause; by eliminating one of the two alternatives the argument establishes the other as true. This does of course depend on the premises and I know you don't accept the premises. Obviously the First Cause (by definition of "first") cannot be caused by something. How could this first cause come into being? Well those of us who believe that the eternal God is the First cause don't have to explain how this eternally existing being came into being.
I don't see how linear or non-linear fits into this discussion. My ignorance no doubt. And I'm not sure about the need to show it is plausible either. Physicists proposed the existence of electrons (oh so long ago) as the best explanation for a wide variety of phenomena. They didn't have to additionally prove that electrons were plausible; that they worked so well as an explanation was enough. Given the premises of my argument (premises that seem to me to be clearly true) there exists an intelligent first cause. Being the logical conclusion of true premises is enough to establish the plausibility of something. IMO your rebuttal must logically be limited to challenging the premises. If the premises are plausible the conclusion is at least plausible, and it seems to me that the premises are more than plausible–it seems to me they are true.
your friend
Keith
Your zombie example does not prove anything at all. If I hold that thoughts are brain states, then your first statement is, in fact, not plausible at all.
I read this as "A zombie's brain states are identical to the brain states of regular human beings, but they do not have any brain states." — in other words, it's purely meaningless to me, because I believe that thoughts are brain states. You cannot prove an empirical fact with a syntactical analysis. To show that thoughts are not identical to certain brain states, I think you would need to show an example of a thought which was not associated with a brain, and which was not subject to the physical environment of the brain. Since the idea of such a thing is implausible, I find it much more likely that these things are equivalents. To think otherwise is to ignore over a century of brain and neurological studies.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Your argument depends on the fact that all phenomena are caused by earlier phenomena, but this is not strictly a necessity. It's certainly a necessity in this universe, but what were are discussing is not just this universe, but also the universe which produced this universe. Such a universe need not be linear. The phenomenon of time may not be applicable to it at all. In such a case, it's quite meaningless to talk about issues of regression or cause.
And this is precisely the argument using by Intelligent Creator advocates like yourself, who claim that the question "Who created God?" is meaningless, because God is timeless, and exists outside of our physical universe. Although that's unprovable, it's certainly plausible, and the same argument can be used to support the idea that our universe was produced by an unintelligent phenomena in some other universe. If you say, "Yes, but who created that universe?", I can simply reply, "No one. It is timeless." If such a response works for God, it can certainly work for another universe.
Hi Stewart:
You wrote: “our zombie example does not prove anything at all. If I hold that thoughts are brain states, then your first statement is, in fact, not plausible at all.
A zombie’s brain states are identical to the brain states of regular human beings, but they do not have any internal experiences.
I read this as “A zombie’s brain states are identical to the brain states of regular human beings, but they do not have any brain states.” — in other words, it’s purely meaningless to me, because I believe that thoughts are brain states. You cannot prove an empirical fact with a syntactical analysis.
Your last sentence makes my point IMO. If thoughts were by definition the same thing as specific kinds of brain states, the very idea of thoughts couldn’t have existed before neuroscience had advanced far enough to know about brain states. But long before neuroscience even existed people knew that they had thoughts. Thus the word “thought” refers to something conceptually different from the words “brain state”. I didn’t claim to have proved by a syntactical argument that there in fact exist thoughts independent from brain states, but I think I did prove that when you say “thought” you mean something different from “a certain kind of brain state”.
To show that thoughts are not identical to certain brain states, I think you would need to show an example of a thought which was not associated with a brain, and which was not subject to the physical environment of the brain. Since the idea of such a thing is implausible, I find it much more likely that these things are equivalents. To think otherwise is to ignore over a century of brain and neurological studies.
IMO the fact that there is a difference in meaning between the word “thought” and a description of those kinds brain states you are talking about means that your position ought be described with different words. I will arrogantly try to rephrase it:-). You are saying that we have no examples of thoughts existing independent from brain states, and (according to you) the idea is implausible, we should therefore presume that thoughts cannot exist without those brain states, that thoughts cannot exist independent from a physical phenomenon. I guess I’d just disagree that the idea is implausible and would point out that nothing in neurological science can address that question, because the question is metaphysical not scientific.
Getting back to the point I was making though: I’d argue there exist all kinds of non-physical things in the universe. The abstraction of numbers for example. You can show me 5 pigs, or 5 apples, or 5 straight losses by the St. Louis Cardinals, but you cannot show me the number 5. All those sets of 5 things have the quality of “5-ness” in common, but the “5-ness” isn’t a physical thing at all.
I don’t see how linear or non-linear fits into this discussion. My ignorance no doubt
Maybe I wasn’t clear. Your argument depends on the fact that all phenomena are caused by earlier phenomena, but this is not strictly a necessity. It’s certainly a necessity in this universe, but what were are discussing is not just this universe, but also the universe which produced this universe. Such a universe need not be linear. The phenomenon of time may not be applicable to it at all. In such a case, it’s quite meaningless to talk about issues of regression or cause.
I don’t think my argument does depend on all phenomenon being caused by earlier phenomena. It depends on all physical phenomena being caused by something. In fact, that is one of the premises. The argument makes no reference to time as far as I can see. The regression I am talking about is a logical regression, not a temporal one.
And this is precisely the argument using by Intelligent Creator advocates like yourself, who claim that the question “Who created God?” is meaningless, because God is timeless, and exists outside of our physical universe. Although that’s unprovable, it’s certainly plausible, and the same argument can be used to support the idea that our universe was produced by an unintelligent phenomena in some other universe.
But my argument doesn’t say the reason God doesn’t need a creator is because he is outside time. The argument simply says that there must be some cause that doesn’t itself require a cause and that the cause has to be intelligent as opposed to a physical phenomenon. The argument doesn’t say that unless there’s a good reason to suppose otherwise, everything needs a creator; it makes the narrow assertion that physical phenomena need a cause. The argument doesn’t even presuppose that anything non-physical exists–the existence of the non-physical is the conclusion from the premises.
If you say, “Yes, but who created that universe?”, I can simply reply, “No one. It is timeless.” If such a response works for God, it can certainly work for another universe.
But for my argument that reply cannot work because one of the premises of my argument is that physical phenomena needs causes. Your response can only work for arguments that imply that God would need a cause if he were inside time. On my argument, God could still be inside time and yet not need a creator. Likewise, on my argument the universe could have existed from eternity past and yet would need a sufficient cause for its existence. I do want to reiterate: if you don’t accept my premises then obviously my argument won’t persuade you. But that’s the way it is with arguments:-)
Standard biblical theism holds that God is the creator and SUSTAINER of the universe; God continually “creates” the universe each instant. Of course my argument doesn’t make that claim–I’m just telling you what I personally think.
your Friend
Keith
Keith, I appreciate your comments. I don't agree with your argument, though, because it contains logical gaps, and is entirely unsupported by empirical evidence.
Even if I remove the requirement for temporal regression, and only speak of logical regression, as you suggest, I still don't see why God is exempt from needing a cause, in your view, but all other phenomena are not. There is an unevidenced claim, on your part, that intelligence is a decisive factor in this matter, but this is quite arbitrary. Why should intelligence matter at all when considering what can or cannot be uncaused? Outside of your personally feelings on the matter, the two concepts are wholly unrelated.
Additionally, you have conceded that your beliefs are metaphysical, not physical. Thus you have already tacitly admitted that there is not now, nor could there ever conceivably be, any evidence to support your belief in God as a first cause. There simply cannot be evidence of any kind that a non-physical thing exists, because non-physical things, by definition, do not exist. Your example of "five" supports this. "Five" does not exist. There is no "five". It's merely a concept. Any instance of five (e.g. five bananas, the characters 'V' or '5', etc) are simply representations of this concept.
Even the concept of five, itself, is a physical representation. It is physical in that it maps directly to a physical, neurological event in your brain. This even is a thought, and it is a physical event in your body. Without your body, there would be no you, and without your brain there would be thoughts for you to have. Whether the concept of "thought" existed before a more-scientific explantion emerged has no bearing on what I currently mean by the word "thought", or what a thought actually is. Maybe, when you say "thought", you actually mean the patterns that magic butterflies make in the mystical pool of your mind. I have no idea. When either of us says "thought", though, we are referring to the same phenomenon, regardless of whether we have the same understanding of how it works, or whether either of our beliefs is even remotely correct. The nature of its function does not change based on our understanding of it.
Hopefully you understand that my position is a purely materialistic one. Since there can never be any evidence of metaphysical events, there can never be any valid reason to believe in them. Belief without any evidence at all is not logical, it is definitively illogical. Your argument suffers from this fault, and so I find it entirely unconvincing.
At this point, I don't think we have any further ground to move towards on the topic, so this will be my last post. I'll let you have the final word.
Keith,
… and I'll call that agent "Magic Man."
It still looks to me as if you are arguing, "Magic Man did it." You are arguing God was the "first cause." God is the "magic man" who "did it" (created the universe).
Please keep in mind that "Magic Man" is an accurate description of a supernatural agent. I am attacking your argument with sarcasm, not you personally, so I don't think you have a legitimate "beef."
Though "Magic Man did it" is sarcastic, it accurately describes the conclusion of your argument. Another point, I have good reason to doubt premise #2.
Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.
Hi Stewart:
Thanks for your response. I have a couple of comments back at you
1. Given the premises of my argument, there must be an uncaused first cause, and that first cause must be intelligent. The idea that the first cause also needs a creator seems logically contradictory to me. The "who created God" objection seems to me to be asking that very question.
2. You point out that my argument is based on premises that I have not offered evidence for. You point out that because my premises are based on mataphysical claims they cannot be based on evidence. I agree. But you seem to see this as a weakness in my argument when every argument ever depends ultimately on some metaphysical claims. Science itself depends on the metaphysical claim that we can predict the future by observing how things have behaved in the past (this is of course called "inductive reasoning"). Ah, one might say, we have plenty of past evidence that such prediction is possible. But this very observation presupposes the validity of inductive reasoning–because inductive reasoning worked in thepast therefore we are justified in believing inductive reasoning will work in the future.
Now you might not find the premises of my argument compelling, but all I can say is that they seem that way to me. Amnd given them, my conclusion necessarily follows.
3. If the numbers were identical to some neurological pattern in the brain then before brains existed numbers would not have existed. But long before life evolved in our solar system there was a certain number of planets in the solar system, so numbers cannot be the same as neurological patterns. Those patterns store the information in the brain, much like symbols written on paper store information, but the information itself, the abstract idea, is distinct from the record of the idea.
your Friend
Keith
Hi Cineaste:
MY beef with your response was not personal; we're still good as far as I am concerned. If you had said in your orginal post that my *conclusion* was "magic man did it" I would have objected less. It seems to me that you claimed muy entire argument was the conclusion. It wasn't. The conclusion followed from the premises. And the reason I posted the argument was to present an argument that wasn't vulnerable to the "who created God" objection. Whatever you think of the argument, the "who created God' retort isn't an appropriate answer to it.
You say you have a problem with premise (2). I don't think the argument needs (2); I was thinking about the first cause when I wrote it and it doesn't serve except to confuse things. Now it seems to me that if you accept (1) then you have to agree that the First cause cannot be physical.
your friend
keith
"Now it seems to me that if you accept (1) then you have to agree that the First cause cannot be physical."
How so? I agree that natural reason is sufficient in premise 1.
"…the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero…"
"…all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself."
"Whatever you think of the argument, the "who created God' retort isn't an appropriate answer to it."
Without asserting that "Magic Man did it" how do you figure?
Hi Cineaste:
Your "ultimate free lunch" suggestion presupposes a physical process (described by Quantum Physics) and according to premise (1) of the argument *this very process* itself requires a sufficient cause. Therefore it cannot be the First Cause, so the first cause must be something else. Any physical process you offer AS the first cause would (by premise 1) require a cause.
your Friend
Keith
"…*this very process* itself requires a sufficient cause."
Keith, inflation theory if true, refutes premise one. The theory provides a cause, but no reason.
Also, I wanted to share this with you. This is you're argument!
I think you should be more explicit here in step two.
Sorry for the late response but this old post got lost in a sea of comments. Aaron/Seeker any way we can fix that problem? Maybe have a longer list of recent comments?
Cin
you're = your, sorry
Bump for Keith
Hi Cineaste:
For reference, the argument:
1. There must be some sufficient reason for the existence of all natural phenomena and laws of physics.
3. There exist some natural phenomenon and laws of physics.
4. The only possible sufficient reasons for any natural phenomena etc. are (a) being the result of natural law or (b) being intentionally created by an intellgent agent.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes; and infinite chain of causes reduces to no cause at all.
You say that inflation theory conflicts with my premise (1). I would not quite agree. The "cause" of the existence of the universe would be a "quantum fluctuation", which would be itself a natural phenomenon. Thus by premise (1) there'd have to be a sufficient reason for this process.
your friend
keith
"Thus by premise (1) there'd have to be a sufficient reason for this process."
Why can't there just be a natural cause? No supernatural reason is needed. Are you familiar with Spinoza? What if the universe itself is eternal (cyclic)?
Hi Cineaste:
Even if the universe had always existed, on premise (1) there'd need to be a sufficient reason for its existence. This sufficient reason would either be something natural–and would need a sufficient reason–or it would not be natural. Tracing this back to the ultimate reason for its existence–and on premise (5) there must be such a reason–saying this ultimate reason is physical contradicts premise (1). Accepting premise (1) and premise (5) logically entails the ultimate cause of the universe being non-natural.
your friend
keith
(1) there'd need to be a sufficient reason for its existence.
When you say "sufficient reason" can you clarify? Do you mean "cause?" Do you mean something else?
Hi C:
By sufficient reason I mean something like this: [proposed sufficient reason] is a sufficient reason for [this here phenomenon] if the reason the sufficient phenomenon exists is [proposed sufficient reason]. More or less it is equivalent to cause.
your friend
Keith
You are missing premise #2 and since this conversation is essentially identical to the one in the "Falwell dead" thread, we should move our discussion there.
Hi C:
I left out premise (2) because Stewart pointed out to me exactly how it was wrong. It was superfluous to the argument so I dumped it.
your Friend
Keith