If the universe if infinitely old, then the age of the universe is not numeric, by definition. — Terrapin Station

But it's impossible for a numeric property to take on a non-numeric value; the age of the universe must be a number.

We could for example have a clock in our eternal universe. What would it read? Can't read infinity (because it's impossible to 'tick' to infinity). It must read some finite number IE the universe is finite in time.

But it's impossible for a numeric property — Devans99

If the age of the universe is infinite, it's not a numeric property. I'm repeating what I just said.

The argument of the first cause follows just from cause and effect. I fail to see what is illogical about it. — Devans99

I can help you with that.

The end of Aquinas' "argument of the first cause" essentially is: Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

That is about as illogical as it is possible to get for an intelligent person.

I do not give it the name of God...especially capitalized.

It might be a god...if might be one of many gods...it might not be a god in the sense of "God" as written by Aquinas. IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE.

It is an unknown.

The argument from design holds today; there are about 20 physical constants which appear to have been fine-tuned to life supporting ranges.

The argument from design is purely gratuitous (as are all the others..)

a) We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Do we? I don't. I cannot imagine any learned person doing so. But I am willing to let you propose a syllogism that logically concludes: We see that natural bodies work toward some goal.

b) Most natural things lack knowledge.

Natural things include humans who do...but if we eliminate all living things...I'll buy it.

c) But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

See my response to "a."


d) Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

I don't...and do not see why anyone else would OF NECESSITY.

It can just be an unknown.

It might be a god...if might be one of many gods...it might not be a god in the sense of "God" as written by Aquinas. IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE. — Frank Apisa

Fair point, but the argument is strong enough to have one allowing for the possibility of God. So its a pretty good argument.

I think really the argument from design needs to be recast in modern day terms to be applicable. If we look at how unlikely it is that the universe would be the way it is (life supporting) by chance, we can see that there was probably some directing intelligence at work with the creation of the universe. Again one has to make another probability adjustment for the existence of God.

It might be a god...if might be one of many gods...it might not be a god in the sense of "God" as written by Aquinas. IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE. — Frank Apisa


Fair point, but the argument is strong enough to have one allowing for the possibility of God. So its a pretty good argument. — Devans99

I can make a better one.

The POSSIBILITY of "God" is absolute.

No way around it. "God" absolutely is possible. No need to argue to that end.

Unless a thing is conclusively established as IMPOSSIBLE...it is possible.

So "God" or god or gods...is possible...and in my opinion, is as good a blind guess as the blind guess...there are NO gods.

I think really the argument from design needs to be recast in modern day terms to be applicable. If we look at how unlikely it is that the universe would be the way it is (life supporting) by chance, we can see that there was probably some directing intelligence at work with the creation of the universe. Again one has to make another probability adjustment for the existence of God.

I respectfully must disagree. Your argument (even if it were for the existence of a god rather than "God")...is gratuitous. So is the implied "need for a god."

It is every bit as "probable" that there was (is) no "directing intelligence" involved...as that there was (is). (Fact is, the "probability" of both is beyond human abilities to calculate.)

If EXISTENCE is infinite and eternal...what we humans see as our existence (the here and now and past) would almost certainly have come to be...BY CHANCE.

It is every bit as "probable" that there was (is) no "directing intelligence" involved...as that there was (is). (Fact is, the "probability" of both is beyond human abilities to calculate.) — Frank Apisa

Here you would be resorting to the Weak or Strong Anthropic Principle?

BTW, it is possible to estimate the chance of the existence of a 'creator of the universe':

- Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
- Allow for evidence of the Prime Mover argument: 50% + 50% * 75% = 87.5%
- Allow for evidence of the Fine tuning of the universe 87.5% + 12.5% * 75% = 96.875%

So 97% chance of 'creator of the universe' existing.

It is every bit as "probable" that there was (is) no "directing intelligence" involved...as that there was (is). (Fact is, the "probability" of both is beyond human abilities to calculate.) — Frank Apisa"

Here you would be resorting to the Weak or Strong Anthropic Principle? — Devans99

I am not resorting to anything. I am merely stating a fact.

BTW, it is possible to estimate the chance of the existence of a 'creator of the universe':

- Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
- Allow for evidence of the Prime Mover argument: 50% + 50% * 75% = 87.5%
- Allow for evidence of the Fine tuning of the universe 87.5% + 12.5% * 75% = 96.875%

So 97% chance of God’s existence.

I must reject this because everyone knows for certain that 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I must reject this because everyone knows for certain that 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot. — Frank Apisa

A probability analysis is one step away from being made up on the spot.

I must reject this because everyone knows for certain that 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot. — Frank Apisa


A probability analysis is one step away from being made up on the spot. — Devans99

A probability analysis that comes up with a 97% chance for the existence of "God"...is zero steps away from being a blind guess that the blind guesser just cannot kick. .

I did not say a 97% chance of God. I said a 97% chance of a creator. There is a difference. The chances of that creator also complying with the traditional religious attributes of a deity is then somewhat lower depending upon how much 3O mayonnaise is added to the deity.

BTW, it is possible to estimate the chance of the existence of a 'creator of the universe':

- Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
- Allow for evidence of the Prime Mover argument: 50% + 50% * 75% = 87.5%
- Allow for evidence of the Fine tuning of the universe 87.5% + 12.5% * 75% = 96.875%

So 97% chance of 'creator of the universe' existing. — Devans99

I have no idea what you're doing here mathematically. Why are you adding probabilities together if you want to modify a prior using given evidence?

Furthermore, there is no evidence for either a prime mover or for "fine tuning". Both are merely thought experiments.

↪Frank Apisa
I did not say a 97% chance of God. I said a 97% chance of a creator. There is a difference. The chances of that creator also complying with the traditional religious attributes of a deity is then somewhat lower depending upon how much 3O mayonnaise is added to the deity. — Devans99

My apologies...you did not use "God." I screwed up there.

Allow me to change my earlier response.

A probability analysis that comes up with a 97% chance for the existence of "Creator"...is zero steps away from being a blind guess that the blind guesser just cannot kick.

There...that's better.

Why are you adding probabilities together if you want to modify a prior using given evidence? — Echarmion

Well I start at 50% probability, and then consider each piece of evidence for/against the proposition, modifying the probability for the proposition as I go.

Furthermore, there is no evidence for either a prime mover or for "fine tuning". Both are merely thought experiments. — Echarmion

Well the first is the subject of the OP. Presentism ('Only now always exists') always leads to an infinite regress which is logically impossible. Only by having a start of time and something timeless creating time can we escape the infinite regress. So I think that rather strengthens the prime mover argument (by having a timeless prime mover - he does not need creating because he's beyond time and thus beyond cause and effect). I allowed 75% probability of a creator for this in my calculation.

On the second, there seems to be lots of evidence of fine tuning (for example here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/). I also allowed a 75% probability of a creator for this in my calculation.

A probability analysis that comes up with a 97% chance for the existence of "Creator"...is zero steps away from being a blind guess that the blind guesser just cannot kick — Frank Apisa

Well at least I'm systematic about it, unlike you - you are just using gut instinct / taking a wild guess. I am calculating.

Well I start at 50% probability, and then consider each piece of evidence for/against the proposition, modifying the probability for the proposition as I go. — Devans99

Yes but your mathematical operations don't fit. If you want to modify a probability P(X) of 1/2 with a piece of evidence that, say, only has a likelihood of occurring if not X of 1/3, you multiply. You take P(~X) times 1/3, in this case 1/6, and your new P(X) is now 5/6.

Well the first is the subject of the OP. Presentism ('Only now always exists') always leads to an infinite regress which is logically impossible. Only by having a start of time and something timeless creating time can we escape the infinite regress. So I think that rather strengthens the prime mover argument (by having a timeless prime mover - he does not need creating because he's beyond time and thus beyond cause and effect). I allowed 75% probability of a creator for this in my calculation. — Devans99

But this is an argument. It's not evidence. You cannot assign probability values to arguments.

On the second, there seems to be lots of evidence of fine tuning (for example here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/). I also allowed a 75% probability of a creator for this in my calculation. — Devans99

All the evidence depends on the notion that the physical constants and laws could be different. So in order to treat the physical constants and laws as evidence, you need to assume they are subject to change - for which you have no evidence. Since X * 0 is always 0, the value of your evidence is zero.

According to our current understanding, physical constants and laws are unchangeable (that is their definition), so they always have probability 1.

A probability analysis that comes up with a 97% chance for the existence of "Creator"...is zero steps away from being a blind guess that the blind guesser just cannot kick — Frank Apisa


Well at least I'm systematic about it, unlike you - you are just using gut instinct / taking a wild guess. I am calculating. — Devans99

C'mon, Devans. What do you suppose I am guessing about?

I am not making guesses in this area.

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

Nothing wrong with that. Many people do it. But best to be aware when doing it.

Yes but your mathematical operations don't fit. If you want to modify a probability P(X) of 1/2 with a piece of evidence that, say, only has a likelihood of occurring if not X of 1/3, you multiply. You take P(~X) times 1/3, in this case 1/6, and your new P(X) is now 5/6 — Echarmion

No it is for simultaneous occurrence of two events when you multiply.

I am combining evidence which is an additive process.

But this is an argument. It's not evidence. You cannot assign probability values to arguments — Echarmion

I can if I want to perform a meta-analysis of all available evidence and arguments, assign a rough probability to each and then combine them. Its more refined than taking a wild guess.

All the evidence depends on the notion that the physical constants and laws could be different. So in order to treat the physical constants and laws as evidence, you need to assume they are subject to change - for which you have no evidence. Since X * 0 is always 0, the value of your evidence is zero.

According to our current understanding, physical constants and laws are unchangeable (that is their definition), so they always have probability 1 — Echarmion

I'm not sure I follow you. If physical constants and laws are unchangeable and they are fine tuned for life then surely a non-zero probability of a creator is in order?

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.

No it is for simultaneous occurrence of two events when you multiply.

I am combining evidence which is an additive process. — Devans99

My formula was nonsense, as I just realized. If you want to combine evidence, the formula to use is Baye's Theorem. It's not a simple addition.

I can if I want to perform a meta-analysis of all available evidence and arguments, assign a rough probability to each and then combine them. Its more refined than taking a wild guess. — Devans99

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

I'm not sure I follow you. If physical constants and laws are unchangeable and they are fine tuned for life then surely a non-zero probability of a creator is in order? — Devans99

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

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. — Devans99

I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here, Devans...and I appreciate your point of view and willingness to defend it.

But what you see as a "probability analysis"...I see as a rationalization for a blind guess that you do not want to acknowledge as being a blind guess. Not sure of why you want to rationalize it...there are all sorts of things that go into blind guesses about whether or not any gods exist.

I take a non-guessing route. Here is my position on the question:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

It seems to me that you do.

You are guessing that there is at least one god...and I am going to blindly guess that you think that one god is the same god Aquinas guessed exists...and, sorta like Aquinas, you are looking to make your guess seem to be the product of logic and reason.

It isn't, Devans. Truly it isn't.

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.

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.

↪Frank Apisa
I think there is quite a difference between giving a probability that a creator exists and saying categorically that God exists. — Devans99

Okay, let's say you are correct there.

But the title of your thread here is "Presentism IS IMPOSSIBLE...and the implications of that are that, a "creator" must exist.

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

This should not be a cat-and-mouse game.

So I am actually agnostic.

If you say so.

It honestly does not sound that way to me...although a reasonable case can be made that EVERYONE is agnostic...although some do not acknowledge that they are.

But its better to use more precise language (IE probability) when possible.

Yeah, and you should use "nuclear physics" when possible...or "football strategy" when possible. But the arguments you are using, Devans, is no more "probability" than it is nuclear physics or football strategy.

As I see it, you are doing a combination of guessing and rationalizations...and trying to pass it off as probability analysis.

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

IF...(make that as large an "IF" as possible) the universe was created...THEN EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS CREATED.

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

We just do not know...so your assertion that "there is plenty" is nothing but a blind guess.

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.

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. — Devans99

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

Really?

You have no problem using a lower case in your use of "creator"...but when you mention a god...you insist on using "God" which, in our culture, denotes something specific.

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 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."

The Big Bang is also evidence of creation.

The Big Bang may be evidence of creation of what we human now consider "the universe." Current humans may be as wrong about what "the universe" is as cave men were of what "the universe" means.

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.

It's just a convention that the g in God is capitalised. I mean nothing further by it. — Devans99

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.

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. — Devans99

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.

The "first cause" argument is an insult to logic.

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. — Devans99

Intuitively, the Big Bang looks very unnatural...and my blind guess would be that future scientists will probably do to it what 20th century scientists did to the idea that our galaxy is the entire universe.

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.

I acknowledge that it may be an idiosyncrasy, but I think the notion of "supernatural" is self-contradictory.

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.

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. — Devans99

That is not the point of what I said...and I suspect you know that.

From Wikipedia: Jupiter also known as Jove was the god of the sky and thunder

From Ancient History Encyclopedia: Among the many gods of the Romans, Jupiter, the son of Saturn, was the supreme god, associated with thunder, lightning, and storms.

From Greek Mythology.com: Apollo was the son of Zeus and Leto, twin brother of Artemis. He was the god of music, and he is often depicted playing a golden lyre



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. — Devans

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.

Okay.

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. — Devans

What "God" are you talking about there?

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.