"Outside spacetime" - location - presupposes spacetime, which like north of the north pole, is nonsense. — 180 Proof

Spacetime was caused by something - the cause of the Big Bang. That it was caused by something implies there must be something external to spacetime.

So you don't know, Devans, or offer any sound inferences. Uh huh. I just wanted to clarify - expose - that your OP amounts to nothing but an argumentum ad ignorantiam aka "g/G-of-the-Gap" fallacy (though Banno & co have beat me to it). 'Creationist apologetics' is for preaching to the gullible choir, friend, not for this scientifically literate & philosophically rowdy bunch of barflies. — 180 Proof

You are just name calling rather than offering any substantive counter arguments - not suitable behaviour for a philosophy forum :(

You are just name calling rather than offering any substantive counter arguments - not suitable behaviour for a philosophy forum :( — Devans99

You are a moron! — Devans99

OK, but you started it - you called my OP shite without any justification whatsoever.

you started it - you called my OP shite without any justification whatsoever. — Devans99

... but I guess [your OP is shite]

... seems to be [that your OP is shite] ..

My suspicion [is that your OP is shite] ...

... they just appear that way. — Devans99

There. I borrowed a method of justification from your good self.

Very, very rarely, the computer program will generate a universe like ours that supports complex matter (elections and quarks make atoms - all 100+ elements from just two types of particle. And from that we have the amazing complexity of the almost infinite types of different molecules that are needed for life. The odds of such a universe occurring purely randomly are billions to one. — Devans99

Yes, and that might tell us something about our universe, for instance that it is one of a great multitude, or that its physical constants cannot have just any old value. It does not necessitate a fine-tuning, and it does not necessitate that life -- just one of the phenomena possible in this universe -- was desired. That comes from other assumptions, bad ones.

It seems that God exists outside spacetime and choose the parameters of spacetime and then created spacetime. So the argument is not circular. — Devans99

It is circular since it presumes the existence of God -- the thing it seeks to prove -- be he inside or outside of spacetime.

Yes, and that might tell us something about our universe, for instance that it is one of a great multitude, or that its physical constants cannot have just any old value. It does not necessitate a fine-tuning, and it does not necessitate that life -- just one of the phenomena possible in this universe -- was desired. That comes from other assumptions, bad ones. — Kenosha Kid

Multiple universe theories fail to justify the 'strong anthropic principle'. Do you suppose all such universe are made of radically different stuff to our universe or the very similar stuff? If its similar stuff, then all universes in the multiverse are fined tuned for life and all where created by God for that purpose.

The most credible Multiple universe theory is eternal inflation - it has all the universes generated by the same mechanism - go through the same evolution - and end up pretty much all the same - IE all universes are made of the standard model and all universes support life.

Also, consider that with a multiverse, many of the parameters that must be fined tuned for life are actually multiverse level parameters rather than parameters applicable to single universes. So the actual multiverse (if such a thing exists) must be fine tuned for life.

It is circular since it presumes the existence of God -- the thing it seeks to prove -- be he inside or outside of spacetime. — Kenosha Kid

My argument does not presume the existence of God; it deduces the existence of a timeless first cause from the assumption of causality - nothing circular about it at all.

There. I borrowed a method of justification from your good self. — Isaac

You are really out of ideas aren't you! Can you not even summon up one counter argument?

Can you not even summon up one counter argument? — Devans99

There's nothing to counter. You've told us what seems to you to be the case. I have no reason to doubt that it does seem to you that those things are the case. What's to counter?

I assumed - quite reasonably - when you called my OP 'shite' that you were disagreeing with it!

Please state your counter arguments if you have any.

I do not believe in God, therefore I do not believe that God caused everything." That logic is correct. — Kenosha Kid

KK!

Interesting. Let's parse that one a bit more. Two thoughts come to mind here:

1. Are you saying God caused something- just not everything?
2. What is your existential definition of Causation?

Not really, there is a lot of data available for quantum weirdness.... — A Seagull

Not sure I'm following you there. For instance, take emergence or panentheism for example, how are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe, or are they central to it?

Is the nature of reality revealed by the bizarre laws of quantum mechanics? According to quantum theory, before the observation is made, a subatomic particle exists in several states, called a superposition (or, as Wheeler called it, a ‘smoky dragon’). Once the particle is observed, it instantaneously collapses into a single position.

Is no phenomenon a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon? If so, how did consciousness emerge without causation?

Are you saying God caused something- just not everything? — 3017amen

is inconsistent with

I do not believe in God — Kenosha Kid

What is your existential definition of Causation? — 3017amen

Do I need one? Why? I may have a causal definition of existence. If I had an existential definition of causation, I'd be going round in circles.

My argument does not presume the existence of God; it deduces the existence of a timeless first cause from the assumption of causality - nothing circular about it at all. — Devans99

Alas no. Defence of your argument relied on the assumption that the physical constants of nature had been fine-tuned in order (teleology) to yield life, which is the action of an intelligent creator. It also relied on the more general argument that a first cause must be an intended cause. Neither are themselves derived.

Viz:

Multiple universe theories fail to justify the 'strong anthropic principle'. Do you suppose all such universe are made of radically different stuff to our universe or the very similar stuff? If its similar stuff, then all universes in the multiverse are fined tuned for life and all where created by God for that purpose. — Devans99

assumes the existence of God as a cause of similar universes, therefore cannot be used to answer a question about God's existence.

Hawking's last paper actually suggested tgat the possible range of physical constants might be much smaller than expected. He was an atheist.

Also, consider that with a multiverse, many of the parameters that must be fined tuned for life are actually multiverse level parameters rather than parameters applicable to single universes. So the actual multiverse (if such a thing exists) must be fine tuned for life. — Devans99

So even if every possible combination of laws in an infinity of universes existed, the existence of one inevitable universe with our laws is evidence that they were fine-tuned for life? :rofl: That's hilarious! You have a black box: put anything in, out comes "Proof that God exists!" I am eating an apple. "Proof that God exists!" It is Tuesday. "Proof that God exists!"

Alas no. Defence of your argument relied on the assumption that the physical constants of nature had been fine-tuned in order (teleology) to yield life, which is the action of an intelligent creator. It also relied on the more general argument that a first cause must be an intended cause. Neither are themselves derived — Kenosha Kid

My argument in the OP is based purely on causality and is not at all circular.

I have merely pointed out that the causality-based argument is supported by the fine tuning argument. Look at it this way - for us to exist - the universe MUST support life. Why does it support life? There are only two possibilities:

1. It supports life due to a massive fluke - 20 or so parameters all come out in the life supporting range.
2. It supports life because it was designed to support life.

The chances of [1] happening are billions to one, the chances of [2] are much less remote. So we have to favour [2] - which dovetails nicely with the causality-based argument for God's existence.

assumes the existence of God as a cause of similar universes, therefore cannot be used to answer a question about God's existence — Kenosha Kid

I am not assuming the existence of God - the causality based argument says there is a timeless first cause. If a multiverse exists, it must have been created or initiated by the timeless first cause.

So even if every possible combination of laws in an infinity of universes existed, the existence of one inevitable universe with our laws is evidence that they were fine-tuned for life? :rofl: That's hilarious! You have a black box: put anything in, out comes "Proof that God exists!" I am eating an apple. "Proof that God exists!" It is Tuesday. "Proof that God exists!" — Kenosha Kid

You are not reading my arguments - the whole multiverse itself must be fine-tuned for life - and that can only have been achieved by the timeless first cause.

you started it - you called my OP shite without any justification whatsoever.
— Devans99


... but I guess [your OP is shite]

... seems to be [that your OP is shite] ..

My suspicion [is that your OP is shite] ...

... they just appear that way.
— Devans99

There. I borrowed a method of justification from your good self. — Isaac

:up: :lol:

You are just name calling ... — Devans99

What? I've not called you a name yet.

... rather than offering any substantive counter arguments -

Your OP is an embarrassment of fallacious & misinformed riches as others have pointed out before me. My previous post pointsq out your "north of the northpole" nonsense and "g/G-of-the-Gaps" fallacy which invalidate your "shite OP" (@Isaac).

No "substantive counter arguments" needed to dismiss such an antiquated, pseudo-argument. And since I'm not trying to persuade - or edify - you, Devans, only draw you out further, I only care what others here make of my judgements - whether they concur or not, and possibly why, so that I might gain new insight from them as it's apparent there's nothing to learn from your 'creationist' @%$&#₩.

- not suitable behaviour for a philosophy forum

Agreed. So why are you incorrigibly projecting onto us your own genuflected confusions? Your persistent dogma & sophistry are bad form ... :mask:

I’m certain you’re stupid.

Do I need one? Why? I may have a causal definition of existence. If I had an existential definition of causation, I'd be going round in circles. — Kenosha Kid

Not sure you've answered my question there... , are you saying that you would be going around in circles anyway? If the Big Bang had no causation, what are you left with?

Maybe the more obvious question would be, why are there laws of physics/patterns in the universe v. the unrestricted chaos of a lawless universe?

The emergence of conscious beings suggest you need a causal definition of existence, no?. Otherwise, it seems as though you are regurgitating a type of negative-theological version of the ontological argument; 'God didn't do it cause I said so'. I'm curious, where is your 2+2=4 in your argument that God does not exist?

The chances of [1] happening are billions to one, — Devans99

You just pulled that number out of your ass. The chance could be anything.

Maybe the more obvious question would be, why are there laws of physics/patterns in the universe v. the unrestricted chaos of a lawless universe? — 3017amen

Because only in a universe with patterns would there be some patterns capable of thinking about it.

Logically, if humans can ask the question then the universe must allow humans. So, from a purely logical perspective, the answer to the question: "why does the universe allow for life?" is: "because there is life in it".

My argument in the OP is based purely on causality and is not at all circular. — Devans99

To defend the necessity that a first cause requires an intelligent agent, when presented with current theory that has no such agent, you argued that conditions for life imply an intelligent agent. I don't know how much more circular you could get.

Maybe the more obvious question would be, why are there laws of physics/patterns in the universe v. the unrestricted chaos of a lawless universe? — 3017amen

Ah! Quick question first: If I present to you a scientific theory that describes exactly how this happens, would you accept that the laws being as they are does not necessitate an intelligent creator?

The reason I ask is because if the answer to that is No, I may as well just make one up, say I don't know, or not answer, maybe just blow a raspberry or something. If the answer to that is Yes, then you base your position not on the truth but on an authority of certainty that is not guaranteed. You value being given an answer, be it true, false, wise or ignorant, above truth.

Before Darwin, science had no explanation for how humanity began. That ignorance is not evidence that God did it. Yet men of faith said "God did it" and people believed them. Before Hubble, we had no idea that galaxies formed from an earlier, hotter period when the universe was more dense. That ignorance is not evidence that God created galaxies. And yet men of faith said "God put them there" and people believed them.

The persistent response I hear to a scientific atheist position is: "Well, if God did not exist, how do you explain...?" Sometimes the questioner is not very scientifically literate and the question has a well-accepted scientific answer. Sometimes they are, and the question is chosen to put God in a gap somewhere.

I'm increasingly convinced that, whichever kind of question, the correct response is something like the one I'm giving. Having all the answers, and them not being true, is the province of religion and theology. Searching for the answers and getting them is the province of science and valid philosophy (i.e. philosophy where the conclusion is not aimed at but derived). In that light, if one were to choose between the person who says, "I know, for I have all the answers" and the person who says "I don't know, let's find out", it's a good thing to listen to the second person.

And yet we so often go with the first.

I’m certain we’re squirting.

You just pulled that number out of your ass. The chance could be anything. — Echarmion

That's correct, its a guess, but all the following parameters must be within life supporting ranges:

1. Properties of quarks
2. Properties of elections
3. Strength, range and direction of the four forces
4. The initial conditions governing the Big Bang
5. The expansion of space
6. The number of dimensions in the universe

So that's going to come out to some sort of huge number like billions to one.

So that's going to come out to some sort of huge number like billions to one. — Devans99

Why? Explain the logic behind this.

To defend the necessity that a first cause requires an intelligent agent, when presented with current theory that has no such agent, you argued that conditions for life imply an intelligent agent. I don't know how much more circular you could get. — Kenosha Kid

The first cause must be able to cause something whilst not being effected in anyway. So it must be self driven - capable of independent action - intelligent.

Then as a separate argument, fine tuning also implies an intelligent first cause.

There is really absolutely nothing circular about my argument.

how do you quote people like that? I’m using Safari on iPhone

Highlight a part of their post with your fingers, a little black "quote" button should appear on the top right of your screen

Why? Explain the logic behind this. — Echarmion

Take one item - the electro-magnetic force:

1. It could have attractive, repulsive or attractive and repulsive action. The 3rd is required for life. There is a 33% chance of the third
2. Its strength must be correct so that electrons orbit the nucleus, not flying off or falling into the nucleus. I'll have to make a guess here, maybe the chance of the strength being right is 25%
3. Its range must be correct - again I'll guess at 25%.

So 33% * 25% * 25% = 2% chance that the electro-magnetic forces properties are such that life would be supported (IE atoms form).

If you then work through the other 5 sets of parameters I mentioned, you would end up with some really large number, like billions to one chance that the universe is life supporting by accident.

I don't want to be a spoilsport for you but if you were in a life-threatening situation and you asked me, your last hope, for help, how confident would you be about your survival if I said, "I'll almost certainly help you"?

Highlight a part of their post with your fingers, a little black "quote" button should appear on the top right of your screen — Echarmion

Got it. Thanks. You sure are certain, sir.

I don't want to be a spoilsport for you but if you were in a life-threatening situation and you asked me, your last hope, for help, how confident would you be about your survival if I said, "I'll almost certainly help you — TheMadFool

Not sure what to say - causality is about as good an axiom as it comes - but there is no way we can be 100% sure that it holds universally - so I have to hedge my bets - all I can say is there is almost certainly a timeless first cause.

1. It could have attractive, repulsive or attractive and repulsive action. The 3rd is required for life. There is a 33% chance of the third — Devans99

Could it? And why would the chances be equally distributed? It could be 0.0001 for the first two.

2. Its strength must be correct so that electrons orbit the nucleus, not flying off or falling into the nucleus. I'll have to make a guess here, maybe the chance of the strength being right is 25%
3. Its range must be correct - again I'll guess at 25%. — Devans99

Those are wild guesses without substance. You'd have to know the range of possible values for either to make any guess. But no-one knows that.

I am afraid that I cannot give you any more than wild guesses on the actual probabilities of specific parameters being within life supporting range. But there are just so many things that need to be right for life to be supported that I hope you will agree the resulting combined probability that the universe is life supporting by chance has to staggeringly remote.