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 — Devans99
The argument of the first cause follows just from cause and effect. I fail to see what is illogical about it. — Devans99
The argument from design holds today; there are about 20 physical constants which appear to have been fine-tuned to life supporting ranges.
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
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 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 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
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
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. — Frank Apisa
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
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
↪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
Why are you adding probabilities together if you want to modify a prior using given evidence? — Echarmion
Furthermore, there is no evidence for either a prime mover or for "fine tuning". Both are merely thought experiments. — Echarmion
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 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
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
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
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
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
But this is an argument. It's not evidence. You cannot assign probability values to arguments — Echarmion
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
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
No it is for simultaneous occurrence of two events when you multiply.
I am combining evidence which is an additive process. — Devans99
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
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
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
Just calling it a meta analysis won't turn arguments into evidence. — Echarmion
The problem is that calling them "fine tuned" assumes they are changeable. You cannot "tune" something that is fixed. — Echarmion
↪Frank Apisa
I think there is quite a difference between giving a probability that a creator exists and saying categorically that God exists. — Devans99
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.
If you are making some subtle distinction between "a creator" and (what you insist on describing as) God...what is that distinction? — Frank Apisa
If, however, it was not created...NOT ONE DAMNED THING IS EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS CREATED. — Frank Apisa
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
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.
Then why on Earth would you insist on using God...rather than a god or gods? — Frank Apisa
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
The Big Bang may be evidence of creation of what we human now consider "the universe." — Frank Apisa
It's just a convention that the g in God is capitalised. I mean nothing further by it. — Devans99
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.