Deism!

[ThatRobGuy]

Why assume a first cause, when an infinite causal chain works just as well?
More than that, though, your argument is wrong. Betting on a god of the gaps has never worked out well, and it's always losing ground. But let me ask you, when a tree falls on a house, do you just assume that little fairies did it until you have good evidence that they didn't? If not, why make the same assumption for the universe?

if the infinite chain works just as well, then why does it matter which theory I choose to go with? Betting on a god of the gaps is just a guess like betting on the big bang or anything else that happened before we were alive.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What various theories of where the universe comes from share with the concept of God is that they are as of yet unprovable. The key word here though is "yet". Unless you are a pantheist or perhaps a panentheist, God is supernatural and is not even in principle observable.

So an infinite regression has the advantage of being based in physical reality. It at least posits a connection of observable things. Though I don't expect to live long enough, we may someday be able to prove that universes are born from the black holes of other universes. (I can't even conceive of how we would do that.)

God-of-the-gaps though is a stop-gap (obviously) measure. It means, "I don't know. Therefore God." Even more concisely GotG means I don't know and too often means I give up. It isn't an explanation at all of anything.

 

[Apolloe]

Why assume a first cause, when an infinite causal chain works just as well?
More than that, though, your argument is wrong. Betting on a god of the gaps has never worked out well, and it's always losing ground. But let me ask you, when a tree falls on a house, do you just assume that little fairies did it until you have good evidence that they didn't? If not, why make the same assumption for the universe?

I want to highlight two things from your post:
1. Your claim that an infinite causal chain works just as well
2. Your assertion that we demand that there be a reason (a good reason at that) for things being the way they are (eg, a tree falling on the house)

An infinite causal chain gets you no-where. As a science-believing atheist that puts his faith in the unlimited ability of science to answer every question (perhaps I exaggerate your position), you seem to me to be one that holds to the assumption that there is a reason or explanation for why things are the way they are. Leibniz introduced the Principle of Sufficient Reason. To put it simply:
For every x, there is a sufficient reason for why x is the way it is (and not some different way)
I think this is an eminently reasonable principle to hold. Its denial, "It is not the case that for every x, there is a sufficient reason for why x is the way it is", states that there are some things that happen, or exist, for no good reason at all. There is no explanation or reason. I don't think either you or I hold to that particular view.

A first cause helps maintain this principle. An infinite chain, if that's as "far back" as you go, does not.

Leibniz presented an argument for God's existence. Consider:

'Let us suppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy always to have been written down from an earlier one; it is evident that, even though a reason can be given for the present book of a past one, nevertheless out of any number of books taken in order going backwards we shall never come upon a full reason... why there are books at all, and why they were written in this manner.'

The Principle of Sufficient Reason guarantees that an infinite series will remain intellectually unsatisfying - incomplete - as an explanation for things, if it is all we are given. We are still taken back to a "first cause" of sorts, an initiator, or decider, who makes things the way they are. Why does this infinite series of causal events exist at all? Why have the events proceeded in this way and not another, when clearly a different infinite chain of causal events could have existed in its place? If the infinite chain is the end, as far back as we go, then there is no good reason. No sufficient reason for this chain being the way it is and not some other way, or for why it exists at all.

This is ignoring the scientific, mathematical, and logical troubles we have with claiming an actual infinite series of temporal events exists. Even if we assume that infinite series to be possible, it gets us nowhere as an explanation, and practically screams "created".

 

[Penumbra]

I want to highlight two things from your post:
1. Your claim that an infinite causal chain works just as well
2. Your assertion that we demand that there be a reason (a good reason at that) for things being the way they are (eg, a tree falling on the house)

An infinite causal chain gets you no-where. As a science-believing atheist that puts his faith in the unlimited ability of science to answer every question (perhaps I exaggerate your position), you seem to me to be one that holds to the assumption that there is a reason or explanation for why things are the way they are. Leibniz introduced the Principle of Sufficient Reason. To put it simply:
For every x, there is a sufficient reason for why x is the way it is (and not some different way)
I think this is an eminently reasonable principle to hold. Its denial, "It is not the case that for every x, there is a sufficient reason for why x is the way it is", states that there are some things that happen, or exist, for no good reason at all. There is no explanation or reason. I don't think either you or I hold to that particular view.

A first cause helps maintain this principle. An infinite chain, if that's as "far back" as you go, does not.

Leibniz presented an argument for God's existence. Consider:


The Principle of Sufficient Reason guarantees that an infinite series will remain intellectually unsatisfying - incomplete - as an explanation for things, if it is all we are given. We are still taken back to a "first cause" of sorts, an initiator, or decider, who makes things the way they are. Why does this infinite series of causal events exist at all? Why have the events proceeded in this way and not another, when clearly a different infinite chain of causal events could have existed in its place? If the infinite chain is the end, as far back as we go, then there is no good reason. No sufficient reason for this chain being the way it is and not some other way, or for why it exists at all.

This is ignoring the scientific, mathematical, and logical troubles we have with claiming an actual infinite series of temporal events exists. Even if we assume that infinite series to be possible, it gets us nowhere as an explanation, and practically screams "created".

I find the first cause hypothesis to be unsatisfying and incomplete as well. How could it have always existed? How can something exist that never had a beginning? Or did have a beginning where it pulled itself out of nothingness, and if so, how?

An infinite causal chain is incomplete and unsatisfying because it's a series of events with no beginning. A first cause is incomplete and unsatisfying because it either presumes the first cause has always existed (thus sharing the same problem as the infinite causal chain because it's an event without a beginning), or presumes that the first cause came from nothingness (which seems inherently illogical).

It's all just grasping in the dark based on our current level of scientific knowledge.

-Lyn

 

[The Nihilist]

I want to highlight two things from your post:
1. Your claim that an infinite causal chain works just as well
2. Your assertion that we demand that there be a reason (a good reason at that) for things being the way they are (eg, a tree falling on the house)

An infinite causal chain gets you no-where. As a science-believing atheist that puts his faith in the unlimited ability of science to answer every question (perhaps I exaggerate your position), you seem to me to be one that holds to the assumption that there is a reason or explanation for why things are the way they are. Leibniz introduced the Principle of Sufficient Reason. To put it simply:
For every x, there is a sufficient reason for why x is the way it is (and not some different way)
I think this is an eminently reasonable principle to hold. Its denial, "It is not the case that for every x, there is a sufficient reason for why x is the way it is", states that there are some things that happen, or exist, for no good reason at all. There is no explanation or reason. I don't think either you or I hold to that particular view.

A first cause helps maintain this principle. An infinite chain, if that's as "far back" as you go, does not.

Leibniz presented an argument for God's existence. Consider:


The Principle of Sufficient Reason guarantees that an infinite series will remain intellectually unsatisfying - incomplete - as an explanation for things, if it is all we are given. We are still taken back to a "first cause" of sorts, an initiator, or decider, who makes things the way they are. Why does this infinite series of causal events exist at all? Why have the events proceeded in this way and not another, when clearly a different infinite chain of causal events could have existed in its place? If the infinite chain is the end, as far back as we go, then there is no good reason. No sufficient reason for this chain being the way it is and not some other way, or for why it exists at all.

This is ignoring the scientific, mathematical, and logical troubles we have with claiming an actual infinite series of temporal events exists. Even if we assume that infinite series to be possible, it gets us nowhere as an explanation, and practically screams "created".

Your prattle basically amounts to a claim that my position is wrong because it doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy. You'll forgive me, I hope, if I am unmoved by your argument.

 

[The Nihilist]

if the infinite chain works just as well, then why does it matter which theory I choose to go with? Betting on a god of the gaps is just a guess like betting on the big bang or anything else that happened before we were alive.

If you're uninterested in the rational pursuit of knowledge, I'm certainly not going to force it on you. That being said, I'm looking for good reasons that people are deists, not bad ones.

 

[Apolloe]

It's all just grasping in the dark based on our current level of scientific knowledge.

Thanks for your reply. It's not just grasping in the dark, though these are complicated issues. We're dealing with issues of logic and philosophy here. Something has a cause (or better: sufficient reason for its existence), or it does not (Law of Excluded Middle). There's no way around that. It seems eminently reasonable to think that everything has a sufficient reason for why it is the way it is. And so, I can reply to this:

I find the first cause hypothesis to be unsatisfying and incomplete as well. How could it have always existed? How can something exist that never had a beginning? Or did have a beginning where it pulled itself out of nothingness, and if so, how?

Something can exist for a variety of reasons. The most common, and that accessible to scientific pursuit, is those things that exist as the result of prior sufficient causes.

Another reason something might exist is because it is a logical contradiction to deny its existence. It might be something that, therefore, exists *necessarily*. In particular, it may be that the sufficient cause of the universe (whether it be finite into the past or infinite) is itself necessarily existent. That is to say, there is no possible world in which it does not exist.

And there is a very good form of the ontological argument which, at the very least, shows that IF God exists, then He exists necessarily. That is, we can't have some possible worlds in which the Creator God exists, and some in which He does not. It's an all or nothing deal. And so, if God exists, He does so necessarily. And if He exists necessarily, then that is all we need to explain His existence - He exists, because it is impossible for Him to not exist.

Some other things that might be thought to exist, independent of a cause: logic, mathematical truths, numbers.

 

[variant]

With regard to the universe, I think "I don't know" is a much better position than filling in the blanks with superpowerful agents.

 

[Apolloe]

Your prattle basically amounts to a claim that my position is wrong because it doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy. You'll forgive me, I hope, if I am unmoved by your argument.

Hilarious You literally put a smile on my face, because you're just like I remember. You can't handle intelligent posts, so you resort to pointless insults. Doesn't matter, even if you want to remain ignorant, others may find my comments interesting, and engage with them on an intelligent and rational level.

I still get a laugh when I think about the guy who calls himself "The Nihilist", and defends moral meaning and value of living. Even atheist philosophers I shared this with thought it hilarious. Thankyou.

 

[The Nihilist]

Hilarious You literally put a smile on my face, because you're just like I remember. You can't handle intelligent posts, so you resort to pointless insults. Doesn't matter, even if you want to remain ignorant, others may find my comments interesting, and engage with them on an intelligent and rational level.

I still get a laugh when I think about the guy who calls himself "The Nihilist", and defends moral meaning and value of living. Even atheist philosophers I shared this with thought it hilarious. Thankyou.

Really? I don't remember you, but I'm glad you think I'm funny. It's so nice to be appreciated.

I haven't taken your posts seriously because they're not serious posts. Your whole defense of the principle of sufficient reason is that you find it "eminently reasonable." I may just as well say that I don't find it reasonable, and you are perfectly refuted.
And then you bring up the ontological argument, which is silly. As for whether numbers, logic, and the forms exist, Plato, you'll get over that once you reach Junior level philosophy classes and have to read the Critique of Pure Reason. I will not attempt to outline here one of the densest arguments an undergrad will ever have to read, but the conclusion is more or less that these are the way that the mind imposes itself on the information it receives, by ordering it in this way. (If you're unconvinced the ontological argument is silly, you'll learn that in the same book.)
I don't think you're dumb, but if you're going to bring in early modern philosophy (which is absolutely excrutiating), then you're going to have to stick to valid, coherent arguments.

 

[Penumbra]

Thanks for your reply. It's not just grasping in the dark, though these are complicated issues. We're dealing with issues of logic and philosophy here. Something has a cause (or better: sufficient reason for its existence), or it does not (Law of Excluded Middle). There's no way around that. It seems eminently reasonable to think that everything has a sufficient reason for why it is the way it is. And so, I can reply to this:



Something can exist for a variety of reasons. The most common, and that accessible to scientific pursuit, is those things that exist as the result of prior sufficient causes.

Another reason something might exist is because it is a logical contradiction to deny its existence. It might be something that, therefore, exists *necessarily*. In particular, it may be that the sufficient cause of the universe (whether it be finite into the past or infinite) is itself necessarily existent. That is to say, there is no possible world in which it does not exist.

And there is a very good form of the ontological argument which, at the very least, shows that IF God exists, then He exists necessarily. That is, we can't have some possible worlds in which the Creator God exists, and some in which He does not. It's an all or nothing deal. And so, if God exists, He does so necessarily. And if He exists necessarily, then that is all we need to explain His existence - He exists, because it is impossible for Him to not exist.

Some other things that might be thought to exist, independent of a cause: logic, mathematical truths, numbers.

Bolded part in particular:
Logic and philosophy are tools to better understand the various options in the situation. When it is shown that all options are seemingly illogical, then yes, it basically comes to grasping in the dark.

-Something has always existed (whether it be a god or a universe or whatever)
-Something came from nothing
-An infinite chain of events occurred with no beginning

Take your pick, or probably better, don't pick, because to blindly pick is irrational instead of simply remaining in neutral awe at the possibilities until new information is uncovered.

-Lyn

 

[Apolloe]

I may just as well say that I don't find it reasonable, and you are perfectly refuted.

I left that path open to you. It is a testament to your reading comprehension skills that you missed it.

If you want to make that claim, be my guest - you are then claiming that some things exist without reason or explanation (as I already stated). Magic. That's your prerogative to hold that view. Are you ready for the consequences of such a philosophical position? It would destroy science, at the very least. I doubt you want to go that far.

What will it be?

And then you bring up the ontological argument, which is silly.

Yes, I'm quite sure you've heard others say that "the ontological argument is silly". It's easy to think you've refuted something if you just repeat others.

Again, with some basic reading comprehension, you would notice that I wasn't defending ontological arguments in general, nor was I claiming it proves God's existence. I made a much more modest claim, that *one* form of the ontological argument shows that if God exists, He does necessarily.

 

[Apolloe]

BWhen it is shown that all options are seemingly illogical, then yes, it basically comes to grasping in the dark.

-Something has always existed (whether it be a god or a universe or whatever)
-Something came from nothing
-An infinite chain of events occurred with no beginning

*If* we are able to list all possible options (ie, we can prove that one of our options must be true), yet all the options seem illogical - then obviously we have made a mistake somewhere.

But we are not there yet. We can, with not too much effort, eliminate the propositions that "something came from nothing" and "an infinite chain of events occurred with no beginning" (and indeed no sufficient reason). There is nothing inherently illogical about the claim "something has always existed". There is if we propose that this thing was the universe.

 

[Penumbra]

*If* we are able to list all possible options (ie, we can prove that one of our options must be true), yet all the options seem illogical - then obviously we have made a mistake somewhere.

I didn't say we've necessarily listed out all possible options. Though I think we've some of the major one's covered here. Others can put for options as they see fit.

And secondly, if they all seem illogical, we have not necessarily made a mistake. It could be, and probably is, that we are missing information, and hence, to make a claim or a decision is likely unwise and hasty.

But we are not there yet. We can, with not too much effort, eliminate the propositions that "something came from nothing" and "an infinite chain of events occurred with no beginning" (and indeed no sufficient reason). There is nothing inherently illogical about the claim "something has always existed". There is if we propose that this thing was the universe.

It doesn't work like that. You're basically saying, "I'm right, so we can eliminate the other two options", with no support.

I find all three equally irrational. Something existing that has had no beginning is equally as illogical to me as an infinite chain of events and as something coming from nothing. If one wants to highlight one option above the rest, then support is needed.

-Lyn

 

[The Nihilist]

Ugh, this could go all night, and I'm not arguing with a second year philosophy student. Someone let me know if someone says something on-topic, or if a real deist shows up.

 

[Apolloe]

And secondly, if they all seem illogical, we have not necessarily made a mistake. It could be, and probably is, that we are missing information, and hence, to make a claim or a decision is likely unwise and hasty.

Yes, I agree with you here.

It doesn't work like that. You're basically saying, "I'm right, so we can eliminate the other two options", with no support.

I really hope that's not how I came across, but I suppose if you think I did, then I did. I was outlining a "plan of attack". I said that, of these three options, two of them can be eliminated (as per earlier posts of mine in this thread), but there is no reason to think that the third is in any way incoherent, irrational, or illogical.

You are correct to say that I did not give support to some claims, but in a way I was just outlining the direction I think things would go if we were to flesh it out. Perhaps you could be more precise as to why you think I'm saying "I'm right, so we can eliminate the other two options", and also where you think I've failed to support my claims. If so, then I can respond better. I thought I was actually saying, "the other options are wrong, and what remains is not obviously wrong, so what remains is our most rational choice".

I find all three equally irrational. Something existing that has had no beginning is equally as illogical to me as an infinite chain of events and as something coming from nothing. If one wants to highlight one option above the rest, then support is needed.

As the masterful Sherlock Holmes said:
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

In a sense, I don't need to give any support to my option, if all alternatives are shown impossible. So I disagree with you about what my job is. If I show that, of our options, the alternatives to my view are more improbable - then in a way that acts favourably to my view (since it is more probable).

Anyway, why do you find it illogical to think that something exists which had no beginning? I have given reasons why an infinite chain of events is problematic, and why something coming from nothing is problematic. I can give more reasons. I can't think of any reason why something existing without beginning is problematic.

Edit: made a change in my final sentence that was important!

 

[Apolloe]

Ugh, this could go all night, and I'm not arguing with a second year philosophy student. Someone let me know if someone says something on-topic, or if a real deist shows up.

Of course. You haven't presented any reasoned arguments yet, so why start now? And why do you need people to page you?

It's always very funny when some self-proclaimed "philosophers" resort to giving up after any serious reply. Philosophers that I know love to argue with reason and logic until they run out of breath. You, on the other hand - your natural instinct is ad-hominem. As soon as an argument is presented, you run to the top of a hill and call down insults. I think that's all you know.

You are mistaken to think that I am a second year philosophy student. I have serious doubts that you did well at all in your philosophy studies. You probably sat somewhere in the middle of your class in terms of grades, and maybe fooled some fellow students. Would I be right in guessing that you are a "third year" philosophy student? If you'd graduated already, you'd probably have tried to insult me instead by saying "I'm not arguing with an undergraduate philosophy student".

You're full of bluster and empty of reasoning. Philosophy arguments are not won by calling your opponent's arguments "prattle", "second-year", "silly". The core of a philosophical argument is to destroy an opponent's arguments with logic and reason - to show that they're wrong. Ad-hominem plays a rhetorical role, and has value for points scoring - but it has no place in philosophical discourse when on its own.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I want to highlight two things from your post:
1. Your claim that an infinite causal chain works just as well
2. Your assertion that we demand that there be a reason (a good reason at that) for things being the way they are (eg, a tree falling on the house)

An infinite causal chain gets you no-where. As a science-believing atheist that puts his faith in the unlimited ability of science to answer every question (perhaps I exaggerate your position), you seem to me to be one that holds to the assumption that there is a reason or explanation for why things are the way they are. Leibniz introduced the Principle of Sufficient Reason. To put it simply:

For every x, there is a sufficient reason for why x is the way it is (and not some different way)

I think this is an eminently reasonable principle to hold. Its denial, "It is not the case that for every x, there is a sufficient reason for why x is the way it is", states that there are some things that happen, or exist, for no good reason at all. There is no explanation or reason. I don't think either you or I hold to that particular view.

Well, that depends on what you mean by 'good reason'. I believe there's a reason for everything, but this 'reason' can simply be "it happened because there was nothing to stop it from happening"; quantum mechanically, in the absence of any prohibition, anything that can happened will, eventually, happen.

A first cause helps maintain this principle. An infinite chain, if that's as "far back" as you go, does not.

Leibniz presented an argument for God's existence. Consider:

Let us suppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy always to have been written down from an earlier one; it is evident that, even though a reason can be given for the present book of a past one, nevertheless out of any number of books taken in order going backwards we shall never come upon a full reason... why there are books at all, and why they were written in this manner.'

The Principle of Sufficient Reason guarantees that an infinite series will remain intellectually unsatisfying - incomplete - as an explanation for things, if it is all we are given.

Is there any reason why the universe must be intellectually satisfying? We evolved to comprehend the world as we see it, not the world as it is. We can easily conceive the phenomena of classical mechanics, but we boggle at relativistic mechanics, even though it is the latter that more correctly represents reality. Similarly, humans have difficulty grasping the infinite. Some people believe, with all their hearts, that 0.999... is not equal to 1, because there is a final 9 at the 'end' that puts it ever so slightly off from 1.

We are still taken back to a "first cause" of sorts, an initiator, or decider, who makes things the way they are. Why does this infinite series of causal events exist at all? Why have the events proceeded in this way and not another, when clearly a different infinite chain of causal events could have existed in its place? If the infinite chain is the end, as far back as we go, then there is no good reason. No sufficient reason for this chain being the way it is and not some other way, or for why it exists at all.

That's just a presumption. That the infinite regress is true doesn't mean it's the final explanation; it's just a description of the nature of things. Why it's the nature of things requires another explanation yet again. Perhaps the nature of time is more complex than we presently imagine. Perhaps it is circular, or looped in who knows how many ways. A circle regresses to infinity, does it not? Perhaps every possible thing exists, all at once, inasmuch as 'at once' means anything. Perhaps every possible series of infinite events exist, every universe with a 'beginning', ever universe with a temporal loop, every universe with an intelligent creator (be it god or some inter-universal being).

Those are just speculative answers, but they are answers nonetheless. It is naive to reject infinite regress as a possibility just because doesn't satisfy one's mind. Sometimes, the truth is simply unsatisfying.

I once thought that the reason things go dark when wet had an extraordinarly complex, quantum mechanical answer (I think I had read it in a book somewhere). When someone pointed out that it's just because water absorbs and refracts some of the light, I was not satisfied with this answer. I know it was true, but I still yearn for a 'better' one.

*If* we are able to list all possible options (ie, we can prove that one of our options must be true), yet all the options seem illogical - then obviously we have made a mistake somewhere.

But we are not there yet. We can, with not too much effort, eliminate the propositions that "something came from nothing" and "an infinite chain of events occurred with no beginning" (and indeed no sufficient reason). There is nothing inherently illogical about the claim "something has always existed". There is if we propose that this thing was the universe.

I think this is special pleading. You're rejecting every argument except your own: God did it. Ex nihilo is false, infinite regress is false, and 'always existed' is false... except for God.
Why is it inherently illogical to claim the universe always existed? Why is it not equally illogical to claim that something else (which I assume you'll eventually identify as God) always existed?

 

[Apolloe]

First of all, thankyou for trying to engage with me on a level that is not just superficial brushing aside. A refreshing change from another previous poster.

Second, a comment on your signature:
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
I think that the objective scientist, a scientist with this attitude, is a myth. Maybe some are close to that, but I doubt that most are. Scientists are human, and they prefer it when their theories are correct, and they are often resistant to accept that they are wrong, even when they are. Scientists would be better served by recognising that they are not the unbiased androids that they are told they are, and try to deal with that honestly. Being objective is the dream, the goal - but as a reality, it is rare.

Well, that depends on what you mean by 'good reason'. I believe there's a reason for everything, but this 'reason' can simply be "it happened because there was nothing to stop it from happening"; quantum mechanically, in the absence of any prohibition, anything that can happened will, eventually, happen.

I'm going to agree in part with what you say. However, in my studies of quantum mechanics, this is a misrepresentation of what it is. Quantum mechanically, we cannot know (eg) both the momentum and the position of any particle with absolute presicion. Also, we cannot say with certainty where (eg), an electron will end up. In other words, given a complete description of the state of a system at a given time, it is not in theory possible to calculate the exact state of that system in any future time (determinism). However, this is *not* the same as saying anything can happen. The universe may be probabilistic at heart, but we still can still list the sample space of possible events. We can say, "we don't know what the electron will do, but we do know it will do something within these boundaries". That's a far cry from "anything that can happened [sic] will".

Now, to where I agree (I think) with you. Yes, I am saying there is a reason for everything, though I think that I phrased it as "sufficient reason", which is making a more precise claim. A sufficient reason is one which, on its own, is enough to give us the thing in question.

Is there any reason why the universe must be intellectually satisfying?

My choice of wording here was to appeal to The Nihilist's sense of what we ought to strive for. He seemed to think that all our beliefs must be in some way rational, reasonable. I thought that he would have a problem if a theory of his turned out to be unsatisfying intellectually. Particularly if his theory implied magic and an end to science.

We evolved to comprehend the world as we see it, not the world as it is.

I would be very careful if I were you, about making such claims - if you have any interest in being able to justify any beliefs you do have, and not slip into the empty oblivion of scepticism. Alvin Plantinga presented a very good argument against naturalism, atheism, and evolution that led to precisely the conclusion that we have an undefeated defeater for all our beliefs about the world. If our intellectual faculties are purely evolved, and evolved for survival (or sexual selection, or whatever) within a limited sphere, then we cannot be sure of anything, with any degree of certainty. Anyway, I would direct you to Plantinga's writing on the issue. As an atheist, I think you want to have a little stronger claim about the ability of evolution to near inevitably lead to rational thinking beings that do get beliefs right most of the time (but I think such a project is doomed).

That the infinite regress is true doesn't mean it's the final explanation; it's just a description of the nature of things. Why it's the nature of things requires another explanation yet again.

Just need to interrupt here - that's exactly what I was saying. I was granting the existence of an infinite regress, then claiming that on its own, it's not enough to explain it all.

Perhaps the nature of time is more complex than we presently imagine. Perhaps it is circular, or looped in who knows how many ways. A circle regresses to infinity, does it not? Perhaps every possible thing exists, all at once, inasmuch as 'at once' means anything. Perhaps every possible series of infinite events exist, every universe with a 'beginning', ever universe with a temporal loop, every universe with an intelligent creator (be it god or some inter-universal being).

I agree with the essence of what you are saying here - that there is a sufficient reason why, and there are perhaps many possible sufficient reasons why. I disagree with you on some of the specific examples you list. But perhaps that's not important. The main point is that an infinite regress does NOT let you escape a cause much like the first cause argued for at the beginning of a finite series of events.

Those are just speculative answers, but they are answers nonetheless. It is naive to reject infinite regress as a possibility just because doesn't satisfy one's mind.

And I did not make such a claim. I claimed that it is intellectually unsatisfying if one presents it as the END of our chain of explanations or reasons. ie, the last word we say or need to say on the subject. That is unsatisfying. There must be a sufficient reason for the chain.

I once thought that the reason things go dark when wet had an extraordinarly complex, quantum mechanical answer (I think I had read it in a book somewhere). When someone pointed out that it's just because water absorbs and refracts some of the light, I was not satisfied with this answer. I know it was true, but I still yearn for a 'better' one.

When I say something is not intellectually satisfying, I'm talking about something different to what you describe here. I'm talking about half-hearted answers, or answers that aren't really answers. Someone asks what makes people living and able to move, and another replies "magic". That's not an intellectually satisfying answer. Someone holds a belief which seems strongly contrary to all evidence and reason that they have. That is not intellectually satisfying. But anyway, I wouldn't get too hung up on this phrase. It was more intended for The Nihilist, and I think you and he have different approaches and attitudes.

I think this is special pleading. You're rejecting every argument except your own: God did it. Ex nihilo is false, infinite regress is false, and 'always existed' is false... except for God.

I was actually only arguing for a first cause (in the case of a finite series), OR a sufficient reason (in the case of an infinite series). I didn't mention God as being either the cause or the sufficient reason (though ultimately, I do think He is). The Nihilist made the claim that an "infinite causal chain works just as well". This I had issue with. An infinite chain carries its own problems, and moreover even if it is possible it doesn't help escape the equivalent of a "first cause".

It's important for you to be clear at each step exactly what someone else is arguing for. We haven't even got near the question of whether this cause or sufficient reason is God (or something like God).

Why is it inherently illogical to claim the universe always existed? Why is it not equally illogical to claim that something else (which I assume you'll eventually identify as God) always existed?

There are two separate questions here:
1. Is there any problem with thinking the universe always existed?
2. If the universe always existed, does this make God's existence less likely (by, eg, eliminating cosmological arguments)?

I think the answer to 1 is yes, there are problems. The answer to 2 is, no. You ask, "why is it not equally illogical to claim that something else always existed" - well, that will come down to the reasons why we think he universe always existing is impossible (or highly improbable). If those reasons apply to God, then it would be equally illogical. If they are peculiar to a subset of possible entities that doesn't include God, then we don't have the same reasons to think it illogical. We might have new reasons, we might not.

So what are the problems in thinking the universe always existed? It's late, and I'm getting tired, so I'll be very brief:
a) Hilbert's hotel (google it) - as a mathematical claim, it would seem that (at the very least) an infinitely old universe is deeply counter-intuitive, and at the very worst illogical and impossible
b) You can't get an infinite series of temporal events in the past by adding one to the next - yet that is precisely what history is, the unfolding of events, one after the next.
c) If the universe is infinitely old, then why hasn't what we are doing now already happened? Why now? This is quite a deep and puzzling question. If the universe is infinitely old, then everything should already have happened - yet it hasn't. It's worth reflecting on the possibility of our universe having always existed.
d) Modern cosmology points strongest towards the universe having a beginning. Even if we posit (without evidence) universes that preceded our own, this doesn't avoid the problem. It can be demonstrated (mathematically) that all cyclic models of universes preceding our own must themselves originate in a singularity - ie, you find yourself at a beginning of a series of universes, rather than them continuing forever

Maybe none of these will be persuasive on their own - particularly because I have not really fleshed them out and only given pointers to where arguments lie. But together they offer good reason to think the universe did not always exist. And now we ask the question - can these same objections be applied to God?

No, they cannot - if we are clear about God's temporal status. God is said to be the creator of time, and exists atemporally - outside time. In the same way that it's absurd to say "logic began existing in 1452", so too is it absurd to talk about "when" God began existing. Since He is outside time, there is no beginning. And so, none of the objections a->d apply to His existence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The universe may be probabilistic at heart, but we still can still list the sample space of possible events. We can say, "we don't know what the electron will do, but we do know it will do something within these boundaries". That's a far cry from "anything that can happened [sic] will".

Agreed. Which is why I added the qualifier 'in the absence of prohibition'.

These typically manifest as conservation laws and the like. Things do what they do within the bounds of the mathematical laws that govern them. However, there are occasions when these laws do not describe precisely what will happen, only what can't happen. In these cases, what can happen may actually happen.

If it is possible, though by no means guaranteed, for a particle to pop into existence, then a particle may indeed pop into existence, uncaused and without purpose. It exists because it can exist, not because it must exist. Which, I think, is an important distinction. Real, measurable phenomena occur because of this, principally the Casimir effect.

My choice of wording here was to appeal to The Nihilist's sense of what we ought to strive for. He seemed to think that all our beliefs must be in some way rational, reasonable. I thought that he would have a problem if a theory of his turned out to be unsatisfying intellectually. Particularly if his theory implied magic and an end to science.

I think of science as the acquisition of probable truth, asymptotically to the actual truth, whatever that truth might be. If magic is the true answer, then that is what science will, in principle, eventually conclude.

I would be very careful if I were you, about making such claims - if you have any interest in being able to justify any beliefs you do have, and not slip into the empty oblivion of scepticism. Alvin Plantinga presented a very good argument against naturalism, atheism, and evolution that led to precisely the conclusion that we have an undefeated defeater for all our beliefs about the world. If our intellectual faculties are purely evolved, and evolved for survival (or sexual selection, or whatever) within a limited sphere, then we cannot be sure of anything, with any degree of certainty. Anyway, I would direct you to Plantinga's writing on the issue. As an atheist, I think you want to have a little stronger claim about the ability of evolution to near inevitably lead to rational thinking beings that do get beliefs right most of the time (but I think such a project is doomed).

I'm aware of the argument, but I consider it bunk. That our rationality is evolved doesn't negate its effectiveness.

And, for what it's worth, I'm always careful when I make a claim - I've seen many an opponent go down in flames due to a poorly worded argument or ill-thought-out premise

I was actually only arguing for a first cause (in the case of a finite series), OR a sufficient reason (in the case of an infinite series). I didn't mention God as being either the cause or the sufficient reason (though ultimately, I do think He is). The Nihilist made the claim that an "infinite causal chain works just as well". This I had issue with. An infinite chain carries its own problems, and moreover even if it is possible it doesn't help escape the equivalent of a "first cause".

I disagree that it has issues beyond a lack of evidence (which is, let's face it, a big issue). Philosophically, it's sound. I also think it successfully avoids the 'first cause' issue: it is a valid alternative to the idea that the universe began with a first cause.

It's important for you to be clear at each step exactly what someone else is arguing for. We haven't even got near the question of whether this cause or sufficient reason is God (or something like God).

That's one of the major flaws of Aquinus' arguments: they arbitrarily leap from 'First Cause' to 'God' to 'God of Christianity'.

There are two separate questions here:
1. Is there any problem with thinking the universe always existed?
2. If the universe always existed, does this make God's existence less likely (by, eg, eliminating cosmological arguments)?

Hmm, that wasn't exactly what I was asking. I was asking why God can exist forever but the universe can't. But let's go down this route anyway.

I think the answer to 1 is yes, there are problems. The answer to 2 is, no. You ask, "why is it not equally illogical to claim that something else always existed" - well, that will come down to the reasons why we think he universe always existing is impossible (or highly improbable). If those reasons apply to God, then it would be equally illogical. If they are peculiar to a subset of possible entities that doesn't include God, then we don't have the same reasons to think it illogical. We might have new reasons, we might not.

To be honest, I'd be surprised if you found reasons that applied to the universe and not to God.

So what are the problems in thinking the universe always existed? It's late, and I'm getting tired, so I'll be very brief:
a) Hilbert's hotel (google it) - as a mathematical claim, it would seem that (at the very least) an infinitely old universe is deeply counter-intuitive, and at the very worst illogical and impossible

I'm not sure what Hilbert's hotel has to do with anything

b) You can't get an infinite series of temporal events in the past by adding one to the next - yet that is precisely what history is, the unfolding of events, one after the next.

I disagree. If the past is infinitely long, then we have an infinite amount of moments which, when summed with appropriate limits, reach any finite number we choose. This is the fundamental principle of calculus.

c) If the universe is infinitely old, then why hasn't what we are doing now already happened? Why now? This is quite a deep and puzzling question. If the universe is infinitely old, then everything should already have happened - yet it hasn't. It's worth reflecting on the possibility of our universe having always existed.

This argument is tantamount to disproving all of continuous statistics! For shame!
Consider a continuous variable x that can take any value in a given range of finite length. We measure the variable, and it comes up as having the value X. But wait! The odds that x would turn out to be X is exactly zero!

But that's the problem with a continuous variable: there's an infinite number of possibilities, so the odds that any particular one would arise is zero. But one value must nonetheless arise.

d) Modern cosmology points strongest towards the universe having a beginning.

I disagree. At best, the evidence shows the universe appears to have expanded from a singularity for approximately 13.5 billion years - otherwise known as the Big Bang. There is nothing in cosmology that suggests this singularity was the beginning of the universe.

Even if we posit (without evidence) universes that preceded our own, this doesn't avoid the problem. It can be demonstrated (mathematically) that all cyclic models of universes preceding our own must themselves originate in a singularity - ie, you find yourself at a beginning of a series of universes, rather than them continuing forever

Can you give me a link to this demonstration?

Maybe none of these will be persuasive on their own - particularly because I have not really fleshed them out and only given pointers to where arguments lie. But together they offer good reason to think the universe did not always exist. And now we ask the question - can these same objections be applied to God?

No, they cannot - if we are clear about God's temporal status. God is said to be the creator of time, and exists atemporally - outside time. In the same way that it's absurd to say "logic began existing in 1452", so too is it absurd to talk about "when" God began existing. Since He is outside time, there is no beginning. And so, none of the objections a->d apply to His existence.

I maintain that objections (a) through (c) don't apply to the universe, either: (a) seems irrelevant, and (b) and (c) are at best curious features of an eternal universe, and at worse whinges against its comprehensibility, but neither impact its veracity. (d) is an argument from the evidence, and I grant such an argument does indeed apply to the universe - but it also applies to God.