So you mean the 'block universe' view? The universe itself its eternal and in a sense timeless so it does not need creating. With this view, the future is real. The challenges for this view are: the universe shows signs of fine tuning for life and there is no room for a fine-tuner in this model and many people balk at the suggestion that the future is real.

There is also the 'growing block' universe view which may have merit: the past is real and the future is not. I've been personally leaning towards growing block recently but I'm not sure.

In a universe without a beginning, that scenario shouldn't be possible. A clock that begins from the beginning of that universe could not exist if a starting point of that universe does not exist. — coolguy8472

Fair point, but I can then argue that the universe itself could not exist either. If matter cannot exist forever (IE a clock) then nothing can.

You are criticising my argument without understanding it.

2) Half the time there is no creator (1). I assume 2 means there either was a start/big bang, or not - 50/50. It would appear there was a start/big bang (although "start" is not well-defined). So. 1/4 the time there is no creator and a start, 1/4 creator and start; 1/4 no creator and no start; 1/4 creator and no start. We're at creator and start, 1/4. — tim wood

No, 2 means on its own, what is the probability that the Big Bang was caused by a creator? So I assign 50% to that probability.

We already have a 50% probability of yes, so within the 'no' probability space, I take 50% of it an add it to the 'yes' probability space:

50% + 50% * 50% = 75%

Can't you see the way you are calculating it every piece of evidence 'for God' is reducing the probability 'of God' - clearly you must be doing something wrong - evidence for should increase the probability.

I think you are making rather too much of it; it is just a probability estimate not an actual answer to the question of whether there was a creator.

As to probability of new philosophical discoveries coming up in a philosophical forum, I would say it is non-zero. I would not bother doing this if I did not think there was a chance we could get somewhere.

Overall chances that X is a goose, instead of something else: ((.5)^4) * .8 = .05, or 1 in 20. — tim wood

You are so confused. You have done a completely different kind of calculation. You have calculated the chances of simultaneous events which is a multiplicative process.

That is not what I'm doing. I have a proposition X for which I have inductive statements A, B, and C which tell me about the truth of X. How do you combine such statements? It is an additive process as demonstrated above. You assign probabilities for each individual inductive statement and then combine the results with addition:

- Start at 50% for proposition 'is there a creator?'
- Say that the Big Bang is on its own regarded as evidence 25% certain that there is a creator
- Then the revised calculation is 50% + 50% * 25% = 62.5%
- And so on for the other pieces of evidence...

Lets take the Himalayan mountains as an example. From their being, i.e., our mental construct, you infer their existence. Clearly the two are not the same. From their inferred existence you further infer a) that they are now, but at one time they weren't, and b) with no justification at all, that they were created. From the inference that they were created, you infer a creator. Ergo, a creator. QED. — tim wood

No I am not. For each piece of evidence I am assigning a probability that it implies a creator (like 50% for the Big Bang). Then I am combining the probabilities together for multiple pieces of evidence as explained above.

So with your argument. It is all wrong. As has been pointed out to you by many, on many occasions. Had you really wished to share it with some individual, you might have considered a private sharing, with the caveat that the reasoning it's built on is wrong. — tim wood

You are just plain wrong. I would not be standing by my arguments if anyone had come up with any valid counter arguments. As you have demonstrated clearly above with the probability example, you yourself do not even understand my arguments... you should at least understand them first before offering up your usual vague and wishy-washy criticisms.

It is not a multiplicative process as for when you are calculating the probability of two events occurring simultaneously, but an additive process to reflect the combination of several inductive statements into an overall likelihood that a proposition is true (IE incorporate all the evidence).

And as well it appears to me you're confusing being with existence, existence with creation, and creation with creator. The only way to chain these together is with hypotheticals: if this, then that. — tim wood

How exactly for example am I 'confusing being with existence'?

But you have been resurfacing here repeatedly with the same busted argument. Why? — tim wood

It came up in a conversation with someone who had not seen it before. And it is not a busted argument. I do not see a valid counter argument in your last post.

Nice post. I too find it hard to fathom faith in ancient religious texts. On a simplistic level, the older a source is, the less reliable it is making all religious tombs deeply suspect.

Well you are a true agnostic then. On the other hand, I personally have an urge to try to answer all questions even if the answer is only a probability. Why is there something rather than nothing is particularly troublesome. They say even God might not know the answer.

I would be interested in seeing any evidence against the proposition 'the universe was created'... I can't find any.

The question of whether or not "the universe" is a "creation" or not...may simply not be answerable — Frank Apisa

I believe the question it is probably not answerable deductively. It might be answered through inductive or empirical routes though. But both of these forms of knowledge are inherently uncertain. In fact there is an argument that most/all of human knowledge is inherently uncertain: we assume we are not brains in vats; we know this inductively only; we cannot prove anything deductively.

So we have to live with the fact that most of our knowledge is of an inductive nature. We base our lives on the principle of induction. So I see no problem with extending its use to address questions like whether the universe was created.

I think I am only doing explicitly what our minds do when we process multiple pieces of inductive evidence for the same proposition... what you call blind guessing is probably a sub-conscious probability analysis.

We are in agreement there, Devans. Of course, that makes me wonder why you titled this discussion, "God exists, I'll tell you why." — Frank Apisa

It's not my OP.

For the record, I would (and have) said the same thing to people who purport to have made probability estimates that show "no gods" or "more likely no gods than gods." — Frank Apisa

So how then do you solve problems that require a meta-analysis? For example, we have a proposition for which we have multiple inductive pieces of evidence for and against. How would you go about judging the worthiness of the proposition if it is not using a probability meta-analysis?

You are kidding yourself, Devans. The fact that you are supposing you have solved a problem that the greatest minds that have ever existed on the planet have not been able to solve. — Frank Apisa

I have not solved the problem of whether there is a God or not, I've just done a probability analysis of whether there is a creator of the universe. And you are not pointing out any problems with my analysis so what am I to think?

Probability that a creator of the universe exists (I’ve plugged in very conservative estimates this time):

1. Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
2. The start of time/Big Bang: 50% + 50% * 50% = 75%
3. Fine tuning of the universe for life: 75% + 25% * 50% = 87.5%
4. Why is there something rather than nothing 87.5% + 12.5% * 25% = 90.6%

So a 91% chance of the existence of a creator of the universe.

What exactly am I ‘pretending’ about? Why is it fiction? It looks like a perfectly valid probability analysis to me. It could be more detailed I grant and the actual numbers used are guesstimates but it is still a more refined approach to the problem than just saying 'I don't know'.

Any approach that come from "there are no gods" is as absurd in unfounded as the approaches that come from "there is at least one god" or "there has to be a god." — Frank Apisa

The point I'm making is that we know that the statement:

(there are no Gods) OR (there are God(s))

Is true. So scientific investigation should allow for both possibilities. There is a heavy inclination towards atheism in science that I feel is biasing the direction of investigation. Hardly anyone puts forward theories that are compatible with God... so there is a chance we are collectively heading up the wrong alley.

I don't need God. For example, I am very much a humanist, I think that humans should help themselves rather than rely on the possibility of God helping them (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5437/the-eternal-life-company/p1 for example).

But humanist or not, I am still interested in whether there is a God or not and probability is a more enlightening approach that just saying 'I don't know'.

IMO I'm trying to be scientific about it. Also IMO, I don't think science takes a very 'scientific' approach to God:

We don’t know if there is a God or not. No-one can prove anything 100% either way.

So why do (the relevant, mainly cosmology theories) scientific theories always assume that there is no god? Surely if they don’t know, they would be better off assuming both cases (there is no God / there is a God) and developing theories to match both possibilities.

So I think my probabilistic approach that keeps an open mind on the question as to whether there is a God is appropriate.

We ALL may be creating new universes every minute of every day. — Frank Apisa

The evidence of fine-tuning for life counts against accidental creation.

A "creator" does not have to be "timeless" "powerful" or "benevolent." — Frank Apisa

- Timeless. Has to be else we'd have an infinite regress in time.
- Powerful. Has to be powerful enough to create the universe, IE pretty powerful
- Benevolent. Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible. If God ever meets a greater god, the outcome is as follows: Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished. Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded. The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.

Any conclusion you make is nothing more than a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

I think we already discussed this, but what you call 'a blind guess', I call 'a probability analysis'.

...then your wording should be adjusted to indicate that you are speculating rather than pontificating. — Frank Apisa

I'm sorry if it came over as pontificating; I am definitely not insisting my argument is correct; it goes against intuitiveness on the nature of time for one thing. I'm not sure if my argument is correct or not; all I can do is assign a probability that my argument is correct (having taken into account all the other related evidence).

But what we humans call "the universe" may actually have had a "creator"...and that creator may not be a god — Frank Apisa

Yes. I think we can conclude if there was a creator, then he would have the following characteristics:

- Timeless
- Powerful
- Benevolent

But there is a gulf between the above and the traditional religious view of God. Thinking of God as the creator of the natural laws partially bridges the gap in terms of omnipresence and omnipotence. It does not cover omniscience or omnibenevolence. I'm not sure that the traditional religious view of God is amenable to being tackled with a logical proof. The very idea of omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence seems to fly in the face of logical thinking,

In some much larger reality...what we humans call "the universe" may be a molecule in an experiment being performed by a kid using a chemistry set. — Frank Apisa

It is an interesting point. When discussing the universe, it is sometimes helpful to use the term 'base reality' to refer to the entirety of everything. Then we can look at creation arguments and say whether they apply to our reality or 'base reality' or both.

Arguments that relate to our universe and our time generally recast as arguments relating to base reality and base reality time with no problem I find.

You seem determined to suppose "the universe" is fine tuned.

It may not be — Frank Apisa

It's a hotly debated subject. Personally I think both the weak and strong Anthropic principle arguments can be countered. My conclusion is the universe is probably fine-tuned for life.

There is some interesting stuff being discussed here...but mostly it seems to be an exercise in at least one person INSISTING that his blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...HAS TO BE CORRECT — Frank Apisa

I am not insisting that my arguments are correct; I think there is a reasonable probability that my arguments are correct and I'm arguing for them. I maybe wrong. Further debate may bring that out.

I think a logical argument can be made for a similar but distinct question 'Is there a creator of the universe?'.

For example, the fine-tuning argument: The universe is fine-tuned for life; there must be a fine tuner. But who fine-tuned the fine-tuner's environment for life? There must be another fine-tuner. This infinite regress terminates with a timeless fine-tuner (IE timeless so beyond cause and effect so does not in itself need creating).

As to the question of 'Is there a God?'; if the definition of God includes the 3O's then framing a logical argument is more difficult. People sometimes say that the laws of nature possess some or all of the 3O's and then associate the laws of nature with God...

I prayed that my dog would be cured from a form of incurable canine cancer, and he was. — OpinionsMatter

I think you need a larger sample size than one before drawing any conclusions.

'Recent medical studies on prayer have generally shown mixed results when it comes to healing from illnesses'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

I personally think it is probable that a creator of the universe exists, but proving there is a God is another question and rather a tricky undertaking (particularly without defining the characteristics of God first).

Given infinite moments of time, is not traversing an infinite series a reality in either event? — coolguy8472

Yes, traversal does requires us to traverse an infinite series so we are prone to the paradoxes of Zeno.

This is the problem from my perspective: actual infinity is not a number, it's a flawed and illogical concept and should not be in use at all. But most people believe in infinity so I have to phrase my arguments in terms of infinity some how. I'd prefer to just 'say infinity is impossible implies time is finite' but people don't seem persuaded by direct arguments.

Saying that it is impossible to traverse to the 'next to' element as there is always another element between 'start' and 'next to' is equivalent to Zeno's Dichotomy paradox. But if Zeno's paradox holds, it is impossible for supertasks (tasks with an infinite number of steps) to be completed and therefore impossible for infinite time to have ever reached the present day.

So I'd argue that saying supertasks are impossible implies that time must be both finite and discrete.

We seem to be discussing two infinities now:

- The very small. From considering the points between 'start' and 'next to'. If time was discrete, this infinity would disappear (along with Zeno's paradoxes).
- The very large. The full, infinite extent of infinite time. If we fit a clock to the universe, we could conclude that it is impossible to 'tick' to infinity so this sort of infinity is not possible. Or we can observe infinity is not a number.

How does 'only now exists' lead to 'only now always existed'? — Shed

Presentism is incompatible with a start of time so that leads to the conclusion that 'only now always existed' follows from 'only now exists'.

Which journal? — Isaac

European Journal of Philosophy.

This seems to imply that the distinction between potential vs actual infinity is arbitrary — sime

If you look at the difference between past eternity and future eternity, the the first is a completed infinity whilst the 2nd is not. What I mean by completed is it absolutely must contain greater than any number of days, whilst the 2nd is just extendable indefinitely. So the first is actual infinity, the 2nd is potential infinity.

I think of potential infinity as iterative processes carried out in time and then as actual infinity as the result of carrying on these iterative processes 'forever'.

Or potential infinity is like the limit concept from calculus and actual infinity is like an infinite set.

Potential infinity is unbounded, actual infinity is out of bounds.

Thanks very much!

I have a paper under review with a journal at the moment.

It is the term 'Potential Infinity' that comes to mind when thinking of computers. I don't have a problem with potential infinity, its 'Actual Infinity' that is the problem.

I've spent years thinking about infinity; what in your opinion do I not understand?

In your version:

1. Says that the number of events (in an infinite regress) is a number
2a. Says that infinity is not a number

So that means that the number of events must be a finite number... which means an infinite regress is not infinite.

Another way to look at it is that an infinite regress has no start. So therefore it has no 'next to' start element and so on until the end of the series... its all nothing.

An infinite regress is not something that is logically justified but not seeing a contradiction either — coolguy8472

Look at it this way, say our eternal universe has a clock (its just a thought experiment). What time would it read?

It is sort of like Pascal's Wager. But unlike believing in God, it costs real money out of your pocket.

On the likelihood of it succeeding, using guesstimate numbers:

Chances eternalism correct 50%
Chances time travel possible 50%
Chances human-computer interfaces developable 50%

So that's a 50%*50%*50%=12.5% chance of success against a fixed monthly contribution.

Biotech-based solutions seem to offer somewhat extended rather than indefinitely extended longevity we might get from a computer-based solution. So there would still be a need for a long term solution.

I get the impression it is a long way off in everyday terms. We don't even understand how the neuron works. But I'd think we'd have a good shot at it given billions of years of development time.

As to whether we should, we have no evidence that God (if he exists) has taken care of eternal life for us. God could be like Crom on his mountain (from Conan the Barbarian); expecting us to take care of matters ourselves.

In proposing a "first cause", you are acknowledging something can exist without a cause. It is a self-defeating argument which apparently you cannot acknowledge. — Frank Apisa

I am proposing a timeless, eternal, first cause because that is the only model that fits the facts. We can't have time stretching back endlessly in an infinite regress; thats impossible. So how do you get out of the infinite regress? You could have 'time2' and have 'time2' create time. But then 'time2' is in an infinite regress. So at some point, you have to introduce something timeless (which means its beyond cause and effect so does not need causing) to escape from the infinite regress.

The "g" in gods (which would make more sense if you are meaning "nothing further by it"...is almost always in lower case unless it is the first word of a sentence. — Frank Apisa

https://simple.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/god

So 'God' is capitalised when used in the singular and lower case in the plural.

The "first cause" argument defeats itself...and makes no sense at all. If you are positing a "first cause" because everything requires a prior cause...what is the prior cause to the "first" cause. — Frank Apisa

Nothing is prior to the first cause. It is beyond time (and cause and effect) so does not need creating. It just IS. That is the only way to avoid an infinite regress of time stretching back endlessly.

ASIDE: The word "supernatural" sounds unnatural to me. If natural is anything/everything that exists...then EVERYTHING that exists is natural. If there is a GOD...then that GOD is a part of nature. If ghosts exist...they are a part of nature — Frank Apisa

I agree you can regard God as part of the overall universe. It's just when we come to creation, it's helpful to separate God from the universe he created. So nature would be everything he created. So everything apart from the initial creation is natural; the initial creation being supernatural.

Then why on Earth would you insist on using God...rather than a god or gods? — Frank Apisa

It's just a convention that the g in God is capitalised. I mean nothing further by it.

The prime mover argument is nonsense. It was nonsense when Aquinas used it...for certain it is nonsense in your arguments. Once you posit ANYTHING that starts movement...you negate any thought that there has to be a "prime mover." — Frank Apisa

Well the first cause argument is sound I think: Time has a start; was created, by something timeless. That in itself did not need creating (because it's timeless). It's the only way out of the infinite regress at the start of time.

The Big Bang may be evidence of creation of what we human now consider "the universe." — Frank Apisa

The BB is very unnatural. Starts with a very low entropy which is unnatural. The expansion of space looks very unnatural; no ordinary explosion. Plus natural events always come in pluralities; the BB is a singleton. Very unnatural. Supernatural you could say.

If you are making some subtle distinction between "a creator" and (what you insist on describing as) God...what is that distinction? — Frank Apisa

Well there is a tendency with traditional religion to assign unbelievable abilities to God (the 3 O's). That is not the sort of thing I am talking about when I talk about a creator. I mean purely something that created the universe. So you might call it God but that does not mean it has the 3 O's.

If, however, it was not created...NOT ONE DAMNED THING IS EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS CREATED. — Frank Apisa

- the prime mover argument
- fine tuning for life of the universe

Are both evidence and are both discussed above. The Big Bang is also evidence of creation.

I think there is quite a difference between giving a probability that a creator exists and saying categorically that God exists. So I am actually agnostic. But its better to use more precise language (IE probability) when possible.

And yes there is plenty of evidence that the universe was created.

From reading the description of it, I'm not convinced Baye's theorem is the calculation applicable to what I am doing.

Just calling it a meta analysis won't turn arguments into evidence. — Echarmion

But assigning a % likelihood correct to each argument is one way to approach combining multiple arguments into a single analysis.

The problem is that calling them "fine tuned" assumes they are changeable. You cannot "tune" something that is fixed. — Echarmion

It appears that the laws of physics may break down at the moment of the Big Bang. It maybe that this was the opportunity to fine tune the universe for life.

And as for your "calculating"...ummm...you might consider using "rationalizing" instead. Whatever you are doing...it is MUCH closer to rationalizing than calculating. — Frank Apisa

I am not rationalising. No-one can be sure if there is a creator or not. A step removed from that is a probability analysis. This is a more refined view of not knowing. You may disagree with the numbers I used but the general approach is sound and better than guessing.