I do not believe in random — Devans99

Another hidden premise to be added to 1-3? Revise the argument? Anything else to add?

deliberate act as the only possibility — Devans99

Why?

(Besides, both "deliberate" and "act" are loaded, indicating where you started rather than where you ended.)

You somehow wish to show an "atemporal deliberate act" of a unique, thinking, living superbeing deity...? :D
Here atemporal is inert and lifeless at best. Or perhaps just an abstract object if you want to go all Platonista. Neither admit such lavish personification.

Anyway, with strangely "atemporal causes", I'd sort of expect an infinite universe.

Start over. Try something more defensible.

we can't prove or infer that this "cause" has any of the characteristics we normally attribute to God. — Ciceronianus the White

If part of your own conscious existence (intelligence) is both physical and metaphysical, and the idea of intelligence is both physical and metaphysical, then could it be reasonably inferred that intelligence is behind the cause of the universe including your own conscious existence?

In other words, explain how consciousness emerges from complete chaos?

You somehow wish to show an "atemporal deliberate act" of a unique, thinking, living superbeing deity...? :D
Here atemporal is inert and lifeless at best. Or perhaps just an abstract object if you want to go all Platonista. Neither admit such lavish personification. — jorndoe

You have no idea what atemporal could be. Just because all the change we know of is within time, does not imply that change is impossible without time:

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?

4. The thing that caused [3] is outside time - nothing caused it or comes logically before it
5. The reason in [3] is not purely random (random does not seem to be possible) — Devans99

These are problematic premises that need further support (re. 4. the problematic part is "nothing caused it or comes logically before it").

If the demiurge was created, he was created directly or indirectly by the first cause and that would require intelligence. — Devans99

Why? You don't seem to have a problem with an intelligent first cause just existing without any explanation, so why is it a problem for an unintelligent first cause to be responsible for the creation of an intelligent "second cause"?

But the probability of the universe being a creation is rather high (its either a creation or not - that's 50% / 50% - plus all the other abundant signs that it was created - start of time, big bang, universe not in equilibrium, argument from causality, Aquinas's 3rd argument) and the probability of the fine tuning for life happening by accident is incredibly low. GO FIGURE. — Devans99

This is the probability theory of the amateur theologian, not of the mathematician. The error is always the same: we cannot prove God does not exist, therefore his probability of existing is 50%. That is false. To see this, simply consider the God hypothesis plus two unproven and mutually exclusive scientific hypotheses, say eternal inflation plus a symmetric universe with only a locally defined arrow of time.

The truth of any of them is unknown, but they can't each have a probability of 50% since the total probability of any of them must be <= 100%.

This does not define the probabilities as 1/(no. hypotheses), rather exemplifies the invalidity of the fallacy, endlessly repeated whether out of ignorance or dishonesty by creationists.

A hypothesis that requires two tests of equal importance, only one of which is completed, might be said to have a probability of 50%. The God hypothesis has been examined for millenia, tested in many ways, compared to evidence, and can be well said to have negligible probability.

Eternal Inflation theory does not rule out the need for a first cause - it explicitly requires a first cause - the anti-gravity material that starts off inflation has to come from somewhere. — Devans99

The inflaton field can be eternal, and can have yielded an infinity of universes via quantum superposition. Some models do not even require superposition, only local collapse of the field's metastable state.

How do you know these obvious and abundant signs of fine tuning are not teleological in nature? — Devans99

A man in an alley pulls you aside. "Come in to my home, I will give you a thousand dollars." You go in, he smacks you over the head, takes your wallet, and drags you outside. Next day you see him again. "Come in to my home, I will give you a thousand dollars." Technically the probability of him giving you a thousand dollars is nonzero. But, in practical terms, you know he will not.

But let's give him the benefit of the doubt just in case. You go in, he smacks you over the head, takes your new wallet, and drags you outside. Next day you see him again. And this happens every day for the rest of your life. At what point can you be quite certain that a crazy guy who is notoriously full of crap and who appears to do more harm that good is telling you something that is untrue?

That's how I know the claim of a teleological universal origin made by creationists can be dismissed as having at best negligible likelihood. That and the fact nature herself has given me every opportunity to observe that she just doesn't work that way.

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality? — Devans99

I don't think there is a way out. The only way out is, if the Big Bang did not happen, which would make time itself, eternity/outside of time (?)

These are problematic premises that need further support (re. 4. the problematic part is "nothing cause it or comes logically before it"). — Michael

Re 4, Making the ‘can’t get something from nothing’ assumption leads to the conclusion that something permanent must exist - if the universe was ever in a state of nothingness, then ‘can’t get something from nothing’ implies it would still be in a state of nothingness today - so something must have permanent existence - but nothing can exist permanently in time.

This argument, along with the causality argument and the proof of the start of time, point to a timeless first cause - a permanent thing outside of all forms of time, that was somehow the root cause of the start of time and everything else.

There can be nothing sequentially or logically prior to the timeless first cause - the word ‘before’ only applies to objects within time. So there can be no cause, reason, explanation for the first cause - it has permanent, uncreated, existence.

The first cause is synonymous with ‘something’ in the question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’. So this question is not applicable - the first cause does not have a ‘why’ property.

Perhaps a good way to answer the question is that: something must have permanent, uncaused existence outside time so there can be no reason for such a thing’s existence.

Re 5, I feel science (and maths/computing) is largely supportive of the conclusion that true randomness is impossible. I feel in the few occasions that science points to random behaviour, it is merely our lack of understanding of the cause of the seemingly random behaviour that is the problem. There seems to be no substitute for causality when it comes to actually effecting physical change in the universe.

Why? You don't seem to have a problem with an intelligent first cause just existing without any explanation, so why is it a problem for an unintelligent first cause to be responsible for the creation of an intelligent "second cause"? — Michael

The intelligent "second cause" needs an environment that is life supporting. So its environment must be fine tuned by the first cause.

I don't think there is no way out. The only way out is, if the Big Bang did not happen, which would make time itself, eternity/outside of time (?) — 3017amen

I think eternity is impossible; it's a form of infinity. So even without the BB, the universe would require a start in time.

This argument, along with the causality argument and the proof of the start of time, point to a timeless first cause - a permanent thing outside of all forms of time, that was somehow the root cause of the start of time and everything else — Devans99

Look at your argument again:

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

How do you get from "at least one reason must be outside of time" to "there is only one reason outside of time and it is the first cause"?

The intelligent "second cause" needs an environment that is life supporting. So its environment must be fine tuned by the first cause. — Devans99

Why? Does the intelligent "first cause" need an environment that is life supporting? If not then why must the "second cause"?

Correct we would be wondering what started or caused infinity and or eternity, right?

I'm not much in to systematising philosophical positions; explication what you call a worldview. — Banno

Apparently you are not alone in your apathy toward a rationalized worldview. Most people on this and other forums prefer to express how they feel about a particular topic, than to present a logical argument, supported by specific pertinent evidence. Most people's belief systems are based on hand-me-down Faith, instead of personal Reason; hence prove to be narrow, incoherent, and inconsistent when probed by Socratic dialogue. They live in a "reality tunnel" of religion or ideology.

I'm used to such wishy-washy worldviews on general forums. But it's disappointing on a philosophy forum. I suspect that such insipid thinking may be due to the recent teaching of Continental and Postmodern philosophies in universities. Those doctrines tend to be apathetic toward the "grand narratives" and discriminating definitions of Modernism, hallmarks of reason.

Nailing one's flag to a blog tends to set one's feet in mud... (that was dreadful!) — Banno

Personally, I would say that writing a reason-based blog allows one to "take a firm stand" rather than wallowing in the mud of mushy feelings & opinions.

The fun for me is in the exploring, not in the mapping. — Banno

I like to do both : exploring and mapping the world, in order to navigate life with a clear up-to-date worldview. :smile:

Worldview : One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical or consistent theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview – precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[19] However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

A hypothesis that requires two tests of equal importance, only one of which is completed, might be said to have a probability of 50%. The God hypothesis has been examined for millenia, tested in many ways, compared to evidence, and can be well said to have negligible probability. — Kenosha Kid

1. Start at 50%/50% for the unknown boolean question ‘is the universe a creation?’
2. Time has a start. 50% probability of a creator due to this gives: 50% + 50% * 25% = 75%
3. Universe is not in equilibrium 25% probability of a creator giving: 75% + 25% * 25% = 81%
4. Causality based arguments. 25% probability of a creator giving: 81% + 19% * 25% = 85%
5. Fine tuning 50% probability of a creator giving: 85% + 15% * 50% = 92%
6. Big Bang 25% probability of a creator giving: 92% + 8% * 25% = 94%
7. Aquinas 3rd argument, etc...

The inflaton field can be eternal, and can have yielded an infinity of universes via quantum superposition. Some models do not even require superposition, only local collapse of the field's metastable state. — Kenosha Kid

Nothing can be eternal - infinity is complete bullshit.

A man in an alley pulls you aside. "Come in to my home, I will give you a thousand dollars." You go in, he smacks you over the head, takes your wallet, and drags you outside. Next day you see him again. "Come in to my home, I will give you a thousand dollars." Technically the probability of him giving you a thousand dollars is nonzero. But, in practical terms, you know he will not.

But let's give him the benefit of the doubt just in case. You go in, he smacks you over the head, takes your new wallet, and drags you outside. Next day you see him again. And this happens every day for the rest of your life. At what point can you be quite certain that a crazy guy who is notoriously full of crap and who appears to do more harm that good is telling you something that is untrue?

That's how I know the claim of a teleological universal origin made by creationists can be dismissed as having at best negligible likelihood. That and the fact nature herself has given me every opportunity to observe that she just doesn't work that way. — Kenosha Kid

Sorry - you have lost me there.

think eternity is impossible; it's a form of infinity. — Devans99

But here's the irony, mathematical truths that describe the laws of nature are eternal unchanging truth's.

So we have within our grasp a sense of eternity which doesn't make it impossible.

1. Start at 50%/50% for the unknown boolean question ‘is the universe a creation?’ — Devans99

Repeating the same error does not alleviate that error.

Nothing can be eternal - infinity is complete bullshit. — Devans99

Then God is screwed.

Then God is screwed — Kenosha Kid

How do you get from "at least one reason must be outside of time" to "there is only one reason outside of time and it is the first cause"? — Michael

Causality (or anything similar) can only form a pyramid shape with the first cause at the top and everything else caused by it building out the pyramid below.

So if causality (or anything similar) exists outside of time that implies a single first cause.

If something like causality does not apply outside time, then we could imagine multiple timeless things co-existing. It is most likely that one of them only is responsible for our universe. I am not sure how they could collaborate without something like causality. But I agree, it might somehow be a joint effort. So there seems a small chance of multiple gods.

Why? Does the intelligent "first cause" need an environment that is life supporting? If not then why must the "second cause"? — Michael

The first cause has to be timeless and uncreated, yet capable of change. Nothing can come before it logically or temporally so it cannot have a fine-tuned environment.

How would the first cause create an intelligent 2nd cause? The only way to do it is evolution and that requires a fine tuned environment.

Repeating the same error does not alleviate that error. — Kenosha Kid

I started at 50%/50% before taking any of the evidence into account.

Then I allowed for the evidence for/against the proposition that the universe is a creation - resulting in a 95% chance that the universe is a creation.

Maybe I missed out some evidence?

Then God is screwed. — Kenosha Kid

God is timeless and finite.

But here's the irony, mathematical truths that describe the laws of nature are eternal unchanging truth's.

So we have within our grasp a sense of eternity which doesn't make it impossible. — 3017amen

It all comes down to the axiom of infinity in ZFC, it says a set with a greater than finite number of object in it actually exists. That's just bullshit.

1. Start at 50%/50% for the unknown boolean question ‘is the universe a creation?’
2. Time has a start. 50% probability of a creator due to this gives: 50% + 50% * 25% = 75%
3. Universe is not in equilibrium 25% probability of a creator giving: 75% + 25% * 25% = 81%
4. Causality based arguments. 25% probability of a creator giving: 81% + 19% * 25% = 85%
5. Fine tuning 50% probability of a creator giving: 85% + 15% * 50% = 92%
6. Big Bang 25% probability of a creator giving: 92% + 8% * 25% = 94%
7. Aquinas 3rd argument, etc... — Devans99

You posted the exact same argument 5 month ago where no fewer than five expert mathematicians told you that probabilities are not calculated like that.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/371473

If you're not going to listen to any counter-arguments, what exactly is the point of you posting here with the exact same errors? I know Tim and I have been a bit abrupt in our approach, but I think that it's grossly unfair of you to draw people into a discussion when you know full well from the outset that you have no intention of listening to, nor have the slightest interest in, anything they have to say. I don't think it's right that you get to treat the site like your personal soapbox. It's supposed to be for discussion.

Devan, am I correct in my reply below?


Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?
— Devans99

I don't think there is a way out. The only way out is, if the Big Bang did not happen, which would make time itself, eternity/outside of time (?)

No-one rebutted that maths! Its fine! Tell me where the error is please.

I'm listening but none of your counter arguments are persuasive.

I don't think there is a way out. The only way out is, if the Big Bang did not happen, which would make time itself, eternity/outside of time (?) — 3017amen

The way out I think is to have a first cause that is timeless and finite.

way out I think is to have a first cause that is timeless and finite. — Devans99

But isn't timelessness eternity? Just as a formality.

But isn't timelessness eternity? Just as a formality. — 3017amen

I imagine timelessness as a state outside time - completely atemporal. A timeless thing is never created and never destroyed - it has permanent atemporal existence - it just IS.

But as the timeless thing is outside the passage of time, it does not need to be infinite to exist eternally; it can suffice with finite dimensions.

The problem with this is how does change happen without time? The timeless thing has to at least be able to express change within spacetime. Maybe it is non-sequential somehow in nature? This is where I am stuck.

Causality (or anything similar) can only form a pyramid shape with the first cause at the top and everything else caused by it building out the pyramid below.

So if causality (or anything similar) exists outside of time that implies a single first cause. — Devans99

This supposed "pyramid" might exist "outside time" as well. There may be a first cause that is responsible for a second cause (which is also outside time) and then this second cause may be responsible for the creation of time and space and matter.

Which one, if either, is intelligent? Which one, if either, is benevolent? Which one, if either, fine-tuned the universe? Which one, if either, is God? Your cosmological argument doesn't answer any of these questions which is why it fails to do what you claim it does.

How would the first cause create an intelligent 2nd cause? The only way to do it is evolution and that requires a fine tuned environment. — Devans99

How would the first cause create time and space and matter and consciousness? Creating a second intelligent cause that doesn't require a fine-tuned environment might in fact be simpler than creating an entire, ordered universe.

You need supporting reasoning for this claim.

No-one rebutted that maths! Its fine! Tell me where the error is please. — Devans99

Five people rebutted that maths. They all told you where the error was. You refused to believe them. That's the point. If you're just going to refuse to believe anyone telling you that you've made a mistake, and you already know you're going to do that, because you did it five months ago, exactly the same way, then it is disingenuous of you to post on a discussion site. Start a blog.

You have no idea what atemporal could be. Just because all the change we know of is within time, does not imply that change is impossible without time: — Devans99

We can say what atemporal is not. Atemporal as "outside" it all would also be nowhere and nowhen, not even simultaneous with whatever.
So demonstrate this atemporal change, it's your argument (and presumably you don't want to add more appeal to ignorance or special pleading).
I'm almost inclined to just say it: "Devans99's God Almost Certainly Does Not Exist". :D Start over. Try something more defensible.

By the way, you forgot to add your extra premise(s) when you repeated 1-3. Seems like hard determinism, which, incidentally, has further implications.
And I did give an example, which now was raised by:

But here's the irony, mathematical truths that describe the laws of nature are eternal unchanging truth's.
So we have within our grasp a sense of eternity which doesn't make it impossible. — 3017amen

3017amen's God is an abstraction. A fairly radical departure from most religions that comes to mind. That's assuming the assertions here.

Isn't this stuff old territory? Already covered in your old threads, @Devans99? (If so, it hasn't become better with age.)

This supposed "pyramid" might exist "outside time" as well. There may be a first cause that is responsible for a second cause (which is also outside time) and then this second cause may be responsible for the creation of time and space and matter. — Michael

Fair enough, but the first cause is indirectly responsible for the creation of spacetime.

Which one, if either, is intelligent? Which one, if either, is benevolent? Which one, if either, fine-tuned the universe? Which one, if either, is God? Your cosmological argument doesn't answer any of these questions which is why it fails to do what you claim it does. — Michael

- If the second cause is intelligent, then it was evolved which implies it had a fine tuned environment which implies the first cause was intelligent.

- If the second cause is not intelligent, the fine tuned nature of our environment implies the first cause was intelligent.

How would the first cause create time and space and matter and consciousness? Creating a second intelligent cause that doesn't require a fine-tuned environment might in fact be simpler than creating an entire, ordered universe. — Michael

Spacetime is some sort of growing container that would have to be seeded with matter from outside spacetime to cause the Big Bang and the expansion of space (expansion of the container). So at least some matter came from outside spacetime. Maybe all of it or the initial seed of matter somehow created all the rest of the matter in spacetime. Eternal Inflation theory has it like that (2nd way).

I'm not that sure how the actual container of spacetime was created. Very loosely speaking, I imagine some sort of device - a gravity bomb of sorts. Again this is similar to Eternal Inflation theory (its a bit of anti-gravity material rather than a bomb though).

Consciousness evolved.

We are so complex that it is just not possible to design an intelligent entity (30 billion neurons or so we have, just in our brain). The only way a first cause could create intelligent entities is with evolution - brute force - God maybe playing Conway's Game Of Life with the universe.

You still have not replied to my puzzle question - again:

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?

Five people rebutted that maths. They all told you where the error was. You refused to believe them. That's the point. If you're just going to refuse to believe anyone telling you that you've made a mistake, and you already know you're going to do that, because you did it five months ago, exactly the same way, then it is disingenuous of you to post on a discussion site. Start a blog. — Isaac

That's your, biased, version of events. My recollection is that no-one had any valid counter arguments.