The universe is a contingent state of affairs. A spatiotemporal process. By contrast, God subsists outside of time and space. So you're comparing the incomparable. What is timeless has no point of origin.
Fred- you just need to register with the NY Times, no pay. At least it worked for me.
John- why can't the Universe itself, or whatever preceded (whatever that might mean) the Universe, also be eternal? Either alternative is hard to imagine, granted; but it's a lot harder for me to imagine that an infinitely complex God just happened to exist eternally, than that a finite Universe just happened to exist, or just happened to happen. The basic parameters of the Universe, including fine tuning (if any) are simpler than an omniscient God by a factor of about infinity, and would seem to suffice for all observable phenomena, so until shown otherwise, I'll apply Ockham's Razor and continue my godless ways.
Steve- sure, we can make up realms and dimensions till the cows come home, but in lack of evidence for such, it's all just Luftschlösser (castles in the air). And I'm still waiting for your reply to the other two threads.
Zilch, the doctrine that God is eternal and self-existent (and that HE created the universe) seems much less improbable to me than that the universe self-generated itself somehow [and then that everything, including humanity, just evolved by accident. We are far too complex, it seems to me, to be the product of an accident]. There's been a lot of stuff published here about just how improbable the naturalistic story is, every step of the way.
On top of that, the internal and external consistency of the Scriptures, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (and the willingness of his disciples to die rather than betray that testimony), and all of the improbable yet definite miracles in my own life, [plus the sense of wonder I experience looking at the stars at night] all lead me to believe that God's story is much more probable than the naturalistic story.
"Either alternative is hard to imagine, granted; but it's a lot harder for me to imagine that an infinitely complex God just happened to exist eternally, than that a finite Universe just happened to exist, or just happened to happen."
In perfect being theology, God is a necessary being. So he didn't just happen to exist eternally.
"The basic parameters of the Universe, including fine tuning (if any) are simpler than an omniscient God by a factor of about infinity, and would seem to suffice for all observable phenomena, so until shown otherwise, I'll apply Ockham's Razor and continue my godless ways."
You have a simplistic grasp of simplicity. There's a tradeoff between two fundamentally distinct types of simplicity: syntactic simplicity (i.e. the number and complexity of hypotheses), and ontological simplicity (i.e. the number and complexity of things postulated).
More entities may simplify the theory while fewer entities may complicate the theory. Try to master that rudimentary distinction.
"Steve- sure, we can make up realms and dimensions till the cows come home, but in lack of evidence for such, it's all just Luftschlösser (castles in the air)."
Now you're shifting ground. Your original comparison was equivocal. Since your initial argument failed, you're switching to a different argument. But to claim lack of evidence begs the question.
What can we Christians say to pantheists and/or monists who (similar to Parmenides) deny (as illusions) the reality of time, change, motion, and flux; and instead believe that ultimate reality (meaning the universe) is timeless?
Similarly, how should we respond to modern scientific proponents of the "block view" of the universe who hold to the B-theory of time?
Proponents of the above positions could argue that the universe doesn't need a Creator (the supreme/ultimate Being) because the universe itself IS the ultimate being/reality. That the the universe/multiverse doesn't need a First Cause (or Prime mover) because the universe isn't an effect (nor does motion exist). That while it's true that "whatever begins to exist requires a cause", that in fact, the universe didn't begin to exist. Modal realism would seem to preclude the need for a designer even more than standard versions/views of the multi-verse. The universe just eternally *is*. As Parmenides said millenia ago, "Whatever is, IS".
I personally have difficulty knowing how to respond to such positions. Especially since (being a Calvinist) I'm convinced that the B-Theory of time is more consistent with Calvinism than the A-theory.
Zilch, the doctrine that God is eternal and self-existent (and that HE created the universe) seems much less improbable to me than that the universe self-generated itself somehow [and then that everything, including humanity, just evolved by accident. We are far too complex, it seems to me, to be the product of an accident].
And a God who is omniscient and omnipotent is not complex? It seems to me far, by a factor I can't even imagine, less improbable that the Universe self-generated (whatever that could mean) than that a God self-generated. And positing no beginning for God doesn't somehow make the problem go away- the existence of God, whether with or without a beginning, is simply accepted without explanation or question.
On top of that, the internal and external consistency of the Scriptures, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (and the willingness of his disciples to die rather than betray that testimony), and all of the improbable yet definite miracles in my own life, [plus the sense of wonder I experience looking at the stars at night] all lead me to believe that God's story is much more probable than the naturalistic story.
The Bible is certainly not just a work of fiction, I'll grant you that, and there's a lot of timeless truth in it- the Golden Rule, for instance, is a very good starting point for building society. But there's a lot of stuff that's just wrong, too- the Earth did not exist before the Sun, and the Universe is not only a few thousand years old, for example. And lots of Muslims have been willing to die for their faith too, among others, so that's not really a compelling argument. And I have a sense of wonder too, when I look at the stars, without any feeling that a God must be behind it.
Steve, you say:
In perfect being theology, God is a necessary being. So he didn't just happen to exist eternally.
Yes, I know. But as far as I can see, this just shows that words and their definitions can generate imaginary constructs. But these constructs only consist of word-relations, decoupled from the real world. Likewise, there must exist the greatest ice-cream sundae in the world, because if you imagine that it doesn't exist, what you imagine lacks existence and is thus not the greatest. It's just wordplay, and while words are great and indispensable, the relationships between words, especially words expressing superlatives, should not necessarily be taken as binding on the real world: the real world has priority.
"And lots of Muslims have been willing to die for their faith too, among others, so that's not really a compelling argument."
You utterly misunderstand the argument.
The genesis of Islam and the genesis of Christianity could not be more dissimilar.
The very first Christians had nothing worldly to gain for their sacrifice. The very first Muslims had much to gain. Muhammad died rich and powerful, as did many of his closest followers (to say nothing of their immediate successors).
Furthermore, Islam had no extraordinary claim, especially for men of the 7th century. That a supreme being exists was not hard for Christians, Jews, or even pagans to believe. Persuading men of God's existence is quite a bit easier than persuading men that a shamed crucified carpenter is risen from the dead as Savior of the Cosmos.
The resurrection claim, and the first Christians' unwavering commitment thereto, has no equivalent in Islam.
Indeed, the birth of Christianity is unlike the birth of any other religion. All other founders -- from Buddha to Muhammad to Confucius -- lived long and successful lives. They fulfilled their "missions." They died in peace, content with their achievements.
How different the death of Christ, who perished so young, and on a cross, his disciples having denied him and fled to the shadows in fear! What is to account for their sudden about-face? Why did they go from shaking field mice to brave lions of God? What convinced them that this poor man from Nazareth was not just the messiah of Israel, but the Word of God made flesh, the Redeemer of the cosmos? It is a mystery unlike anything else in history.
Zilch: Jesus Christ is the intersection of God with the real world. He is "the image of the invisible God". You may want to say he was imagining things, but it doesn't make sense that someone who was deluded is going to purposefully articulate the things that Jesus said, while on top of it, giving his life for imaginary things. But he gave his life, in real history, and his immediate followers died, in history, testifying that he was raised from the dead. That is as real as the real world gets.
As for your comparison with Muslims, we can and do compare the truth claims of Christianity vs the truth claims of Islam, and we know where the claims of Islam come from, and where they fail. As for your rejection of "imaginary constructs", well, human reason exists, math exists, and it works consistently, and gravity exists and works, too. But if somebody were to take your name and steal your bank account, you'd feel mighty offended, but hey, if someone has the power and the ability to get away with it, in your atheistic world, then why not?
If you really want to take your chances, let me know as you are on your death bed, one way or another, and as your life ticks away, if you are feeling a sense of greater sense of peace about it, or panic as you contemplate the very end of your existence. That, too, is the real world. But maybe they can give you enough morphine that you really won't care.
"[Paul Davies] So is that the end of the story? Can the multiverse provide a complete and closed account of all physical existence? Not quite. The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained - eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god."
"And a God who is omniscient and omnipotent is not complex? It seems to me far, by a factor I can't even imagine, less improbable that the Universe self-generated (whatever that could mean) than that a God self-generated."
i) God is not self-generated.
ii) You keep parroting Dawkins' addlebrained objection concerning divine complexity. This has been shot down by many reviewers. For instance:
"And positing no beginning for God doesn't somehow make the problem go away- the existence of God, whether with or without a beginning, is simply accepted without explanation or question."
It makes the problem go away inasmuch as the problem is only applicable to temporal states and processes. So that's not an objection to *God's* existence. You need to find a different argument.
"Yes, I know. But as far as I can see, this just shows that words and their definitions can generate imaginary constructs. But these constructs only consist of word-relations, decoupled from the real world. Likewise, there must exist the greatest ice-cream sundae in the world, because if you imagine that it doesn't exist, what you imagine lacks existence and is thus not the greatest."
i) You're confusing the ontological argument with perfect being theology. They're not equivalent.
ii) Your attempted analogy with an ice-cream sundae is equivocal. It's like Gaulino's Isles of the Blessed, which Anselm countered.
iii) You're assuming the ontological argument is unsound or invalid, but that's something you need to demonstrate. Consider Alvin Plantinga's modal version, or Elizabeth Anscombe's analysis.
The genesis of Islam and the genesis of Christianity could not be more dissimilar.
The very first Christians had nothing worldly to gain for their sacrifice. The very first Muslims had much to gain. Muhammad died rich and powerful, as did many of his closest followers (to say nothing of their immediate successors).
How does anyone have anything more or less to gain from giving their life for their religion than anyone else? What did the 9/11 hijackers have to gain?
The resurrection claim, and the first Christians' unwavering commitment thereto, has no equivalent in Islam.
Indeed, the birth of Christianity is unlike the birth of any other religion. All other founders -- from Buddha to Muhammad to Confucius -- lived long and successful lives. They fulfilled their "missions." They died in peace, content with their achievements.
Sure, Christianity is different from other religions- they're all different from one another. That doesn't make Christianity any more plausible than Islam or Buddhism.
John, you say:
Zilch: Jesus Christ is the intersection of God with the real world. He is "the image of the invisible God". You may want to say he was imagining things, but it doesn't make sense that someone who was deluded is going to purposefully articulate the things that Jesus said, while on top of it, giving his life for imaginary things. But he gave his life, in real history, and his immediate followers died, in history, testifying that he was raised from the dead. That is as real as the real world gets.
I don't know how much of the Gospel narrative is true, and I suspect we'll never know for sure. But as I'm sure you know, many people have claimed miracles of one sort or another. Why should grant more plausibility to the story that Jesus rose from the dead than, say, to the story that Enkidu fought the Bull of Heaven? In my real world, people don't rise from the dead, or fight bulls of heaven. The fact that people make up stories all the time makes skepticism my default position, when confronted with claims of miracles or magic. And the fact that millions or billions of people believe this stuff doesn't make it more likely: people will believe what they absorb from their culture, especially when the belief is attractive, as the idea of Heaven is.
If you really want to take your chances, let me know as you are on your death bed, one way or another, and as your life ticks away, if you are feeling a sense of greater sense of peace about it, or panic as you contemplate the very end of your existence. That, too, is the real world. But maybe they can give you enough morphine that you really won't care.
I can't make you any promises on that count, John, as I'm sure my thoughts will be more on my family. But I read somewhere (I can't remember where- I'll see if I can dig it up) a statistic that showed that fundamentalist Christians in the US were far more likely than atheists to demand heroic life-prolonging measures while dying. But admittedly, that is just hearsay until I can produce the study. In any case, I'm not quite ready to die, and I don't know if I will die content, but I am not now afraid of death.
"In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god."
I've said the same here myself: I have no explanation for the existence of the (meta-) laws of the Universe either, nor indeed for the very existence of something rather than nothing. But the laws, and the mere existence of matter/energy, are still simpler, by an unimaginably large or perhaps (depending on how powerful and intelligent one imagines ones God to be) infinite factor, than the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator of the Universe, whose existence is not explained either. I'll stick with the far simpler explanation, with its far simpler factor of uncertainty, until such time as I see evidence otherwise.
Steve, you say:
You keep parroting Dawkins' addlebrained objection concerning divine complexity. This has been shot down by many reviewers. For instance:
Okay, I read that article by Craig, and I will now quote from it, viz.:
As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity.
This basically amounts to saying "God is magic, and magic can do anything". There is no evidence from the real world that minds are simple- on the contrary, minds are only ever observed as the products of brains, which are stunningly complex. The more complex the thoughts, the more complex the brain that produced them (to a first order of approximation, anyway). As soon as you invoke magic, all bets are off, and logic is defenestrated.
Your attempted analogy with an ice-cream sundae is equivocal. It's like Gaulino's Isles of the Blessed, which Anselm countered.
Yes, I'm familiar with Gaunilo's argument- he beat me to the punch by several centuries. Sure, Anselm countered it, but not successfully, as far as I can see. As I said, you have to be careful with drawing conclusions about the real world based only upon what words do with one another. The history of philosophy, and especially theology, is peppered with castles in the air that were poofed into existence by words chasing one another's tails, but which have no necessary relationship to the real world, which has rather stricter strictures on what exists.
“But the laws, and the mere existence of matter/energy, are still simpler, by an unimaginably large or perhaps (depending on how powerful and intelligent one imagines ones God to be) infinite factor, than the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator of the Universe, whose existence is not explained either. I'll stick with the far simpler explanation, with its far simpler factor of uncertainty, until such time as I see evidence otherwise.”
i) I already addressed that objection when I drew a distinction between two essentially different types of simplicity. All you’ve done is to rehash your original objection, disregarding my counterargument. You lack adaptive intelligence.
ii) It’s also absurd for you to speculate on physics prior to the Big Bang.
“This basically amounts to saying ‘God is magic, and magic can do anything’. There is no evidence from the real world that minds are simple- on the contrary, minds are only ever observed as the products of brains, which are stunningly complex. The more complex the thoughts, the more complex the brain that produced them (to a first order of approximation, anyway). As soon as you invoke magic, all bets are off, and logic is defenestrated.”
i) No, that’s not what Craig is saying.
ii) “Magic” is a pejorative that atheists fall back on when they don’t have a real argument.
iii) To assert that minds are the product of brains begs the question. You’re disregarding the “hard problem” of consciousness, which even secularists like Searle and Chalmers acknowledge.
iv) You also need to draw an elementary distinction between abstract and concrete complexity. For instance, some abstract objects like the Mandelbrot set are infinitely complex, yet they aren’t composed of smaller physical constituents. They don’t have “parts.”
v) There are philosophers like Chisholm who argue for the simplicity of the soul.
“Yes, I'm familiar with Gaunilo's argument- he beat me to the punch by several centuries. Sure, Anselm countered it, but not successfully, as far as I can see. As I said, you have to be careful with drawing conclusions about the real world based only upon what words do with one another. The history of philosophy, and especially theology, is peppered with castles in the air that were poofed into existence by words chasing one another's tails, but which have no necessary relationship to the real world, which has rather stricter strictures on what exists.”
i) That’s not a counterargument. That’s just your tendentious characterization of the ontological argument.
ii) Moreover, you’re the one, not me, who brought up the ontological argument. That’s just one of many theistic proofs. For instance:
I'll stick with the far simpler explanation, with its far simpler factor of uncertainty, until such time as I see evidence otherwise.
Steve replied:
i) I already addressed that objection when I drew a distinction between two essentially different types of simplicity. All you’ve done is to rehash your original objection, disregarding my counterargument. You lack adaptive intelligence.
This does not address my objection, because the two kind of simplicity you mention, syntactic and ontological, are terms referring to language, not to objects such as brains and gods. Objects that engage in complex behavior are, as a rule, complex objects. The same would go for gods, in spades. If you object that God is not an "object" and is thus not addressed here, you've again invoked magic.
ii) It’s also absurd for you to speculate on physics prior to the Big Bang.
Where did I speculate on physics prior (if that even has any meaning) to the Big Bang? I admitted I had no answers here. Nor does anyone else, as far as I know.
This basically amounts to saying ‘God is magic, and magic can do anything’. There is no evidence from the real world that minds are simple- on the contrary, minds are only ever observed as the products of brains, which are stunningly complex. The more complex the thoughts, the more complex the brain that produced them (to a first order of approximation, anyway). As soon as you invoke magic, all bets are off, and logic is defenestrated.
i) No, that’s not what Craig is saying.
What was Craig saying, then?
ii) “Magic” is a pejorative that atheists fall back on when they don’t have a real argument.
Craig didn't say "magic", but he did claim, with no supporting evidence, that "the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity." As I said, there's no real-world experience of simple minds, so you must invoke unknown forces or powers to get complex thoughts from a simple mind. That's what I call "magic". You might prefer "supernatural", but I don't see any distinction.
iii) To assert that minds are the product of brains begs the question. You’re disregarding the “hard problem” of consciousness, which even secularists like Searle and Chalmers acknowledge.
Yes, consciousness is a hard problem, but so what? And Searle of the infamous "Chinese Room Experiment" is not necessarily the person I would turn to for an explanation of consciousness. But again, that's probably another thread.
iv) You also need to draw an elementary distinction between abstract and concrete complexity. For instance, some abstract objects like the Mandelbrot set are infinitely complex, yet they aren’t composed of smaller physical constituents. They don’t have “parts.”
The Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex in that it is a never-repeating pattern which fills space infinitely. But it can be fully defined mathematically very simply, as I'm sure you know. And the Mandelbrot set doesn't do anything, much less think. Brains cannot be so simply defined. Brains, like computers, have lots of "parts."
v) There are philosophers like Chisholm who argue for the simplicity of the soul.
What's a "soul"?
i) That’s not a counterargument. That’s just your tendentious characterization of the ontological argument.
ii) Moreover, you’re the one, not me, who brought up the ontological argument. That’s just one of many theistic proofs.
So you think that the ontological argument proves the existence of God? I, along with Gaunilo and a few others, beg to differ. And I brought up the ontological argument, and my ice-cream sundae equivalent, to show how words decoupled from reality can create stuff that doesn't necessarily exist. The other arguments are more of the same: words potentiating other words, but not affecting the world.
“This does not address my objection, because the two kind of simplicity you mention, syntactic and ontological, are terms referring to language, not to objects such as brains and gods.”
Wrong again. Syntactical simplicity refers to theoretical simplicity (or theoretical elegance) while ontological simplicity refers to metaphysical simplicity (or parsimony).
“What was Craig saying, then?”
He’s distinguishing ontological simplicity (or complexity) from conceptual simplicity (or complexity). For instance, the Mandelbrot set is conceptually complex (infinite self-similarity), but ontologically simple (no spatiotemporal parts).
“Craig didn't say ‘magic’, but he did claim, with no supporting evidence, that ‘the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity.’ As I said, there's no real-world experience of simple minds, so you must invoke unknown forces or powers to get complex thoughts from a simple mind. That's what I call ‘magic’. You might prefer ‘supernatural’, but I don't see any distinction.”
He’s defended his position in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.
“Yes, consciousness is a hard problem, but so what?”
Because you’re begging the question.
“The Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex in that it is a never-repeating pattern which fills space infinitely. But it can be fully defined mathematically very simply, as I'm sure you know.”
Not only can it be defined simply, but it’s an ontologically simple object.
“And the Mandelbrot set doesn't do anything, much less think.”
i) Irrelevant inasmuch as I was illustrating the difference between abstract simplicity/complexity and concrete complexity.
ii) Mathematical objects are arguably mental entities. What’s more, their necessity and infinity inhere in an infinite, timeless mind. Consult modal metaphysics for the supporting arguments.
“Brains cannot be so simply defined. Brains, like computers, have lots of ‘parts.’”
Which goes back to your gratuitous assumption that minds are equivalent to brain. You’re not advancing the argument. You’re spinning your wheels.
Cont. “So you think that the ontological argument proves the existence of God?”
I haven’t stated my position on that. I’m merely responding to you on your own grounds.
“And I brought up the ontological argument, and my ice-cream sundae equivalent, to show how words decoupled from reality can create stuff that doesn't necessarily exist.”
You stipulated an equivalence. The actual argument is missing. You’ve given us an argument from analogy minus the supporting argument. You need to demonstrate that your attempted analogy is, indeed, analogous.
“The other arguments are more of the same: words potentiating other words, but not affecting the world.”
An empty assertion that doesn’t engage the arguments.
If the Universe needs an origin, why doesn't God need an origin? Just askin'....
ReplyDeleteCause God is eternal. Just sayin.
ReplyDeleteThe universe is a contingent state of affairs. A spatiotemporal process. By contrast, God subsists outside of time and space. So you're comparing the incomparable. What is timeless has no point of origin.
ReplyDeleteThe link just dived behind a pay wall.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Fred.
ReplyDeleteFred- you just need to register with the NY Times, no pay. At least it worked for me.
ReplyDeleteJohn- why can't the Universe itself, or whatever preceded (whatever that might mean) the Universe, also be eternal? Either alternative is hard to imagine, granted; but it's a lot harder for me to imagine that an infinitely complex God just happened to exist eternally, than that a finite Universe just happened to exist, or just happened to happen. The basic parameters of the Universe, including fine tuning (if any) are simpler than an omniscient God by a factor of about infinity, and would seem to suffice for all observable phenomena, so until shown otherwise, I'll apply Ockham's Razor and continue my godless ways.
Steve- sure, we can make up realms and dimensions till the cows come home, but in lack of evidence for such, it's all just Luftschlösser (castles in the air). And I'm still waiting for your reply to the other two threads.
If the universe were eternal, we would have never gotten to this point in time, because you can't cross an infinite.
ReplyDeleteAndrew- you are a lot more confident than I about supposing what is possible.
ReplyDeleteZilch, the doctrine that God is eternal and self-existent (and that HE created the universe) seems much less improbable to me than that the universe self-generated itself somehow [and then that everything, including humanity, just evolved by accident. We are far too complex, it seems to me, to be the product of an accident]. There's been a lot of stuff published here about just how improbable the naturalistic story is, every step of the way.
ReplyDeleteOn top of that, the internal and external consistency of the Scriptures, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (and the willingness of his disciples to die rather than betray that testimony), and all of the improbable yet definite miracles in my own life, [plus the sense of wonder I experience looking at the stars at night] all lead me to believe that God's story is much more probable than the naturalistic story.
ZILCH SAID:
ReplyDelete"Either alternative is hard to imagine, granted; but it's a lot harder for me to imagine that an infinitely complex God just happened to exist eternally, than that a finite Universe just happened to exist, or just happened to happen."
In perfect being theology, God is a necessary being. So he didn't just happen to exist eternally.
"The basic parameters of the Universe, including fine tuning (if any) are simpler than an omniscient God by a factor of about infinity, and would seem to suffice for all observable phenomena, so until shown otherwise, I'll apply Ockham's Razor and continue my godless ways."
You have a simplistic grasp of simplicity. There's a tradeoff between two fundamentally distinct types of simplicity: syntactic simplicity (i.e. the number and complexity of hypotheses), and ontological simplicity (i.e. the number and complexity of things postulated).
More entities may simplify the theory while fewer entities may complicate the theory. Try to master that rudimentary distinction.
"Steve- sure, we can make up realms and dimensions till the cows come home, but in lack of evidence for such, it's all just Luftschlösser (castles in the air)."
Now you're shifting ground. Your original comparison was equivocal. Since your initial argument failed, you're switching to a different argument. But to claim lack of evidence begs the question.
What can we Christians say to pantheists and/or monists who (similar to Parmenides) deny (as illusions) the reality of time, change, motion, and flux; and instead believe that ultimate reality (meaning the universe) is timeless?
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, how should we respond to modern scientific proponents of the "block view" of the universe who hold to the B-theory of time?
Related views would include an Ultimate Ensemble view of the world ensemble/multiverse, and/or Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH), as well as Modal realism.
Proponents of the above positions could argue that the universe doesn't need a Creator (the supreme/ultimate Being) because the universe itself IS the ultimate being/reality. That the the universe/multiverse doesn't need a First Cause (or Prime mover) because the universe isn't an effect (nor does motion exist). That while it's true that "whatever begins to exist requires a cause", that in fact, the universe didn't begin to exist. Modal realism would seem to preclude the need for a designer even more than standard versions/views of the multi-verse. The universe just eternally *is*. As Parmenides said millenia ago, "Whatever is, IS".
I personally have difficulty knowing how to respond to such positions. Especially since (being a Calvinist) I'm convinced that the B-Theory of time is more consistent with Calvinism than the A-theory.
That's not an issue specific to Calvinism, or even Christianity.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you say:
ReplyDeleteZilch, the doctrine that God is eternal and self-existent (and that HE created the universe) seems much less improbable to me than that the universe self-generated itself somehow [and then that everything, including humanity, just evolved by accident. We are far too complex, it seems to me, to be the product of an accident].
And a God who is omniscient and omnipotent is not complex? It seems to me far, by a factor I can't even imagine, less improbable that the Universe self-generated (whatever that could mean) than that a God self-generated. And positing no beginning for God doesn't somehow make the problem go away- the existence of God, whether with or without a beginning, is simply accepted without explanation or question.
On top of that, the internal and external consistency of the Scriptures, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (and the willingness of his disciples to die rather than betray that testimony), and all of the improbable yet definite miracles in my own life, [plus the sense of wonder I experience looking at the stars at night] all lead me to believe that God's story is much more probable than the naturalistic story.
The Bible is certainly not just a work of fiction, I'll grant you that, and there's a lot of timeless truth in it- the Golden Rule, for instance, is a very good starting point for building society. But there's a lot of stuff that's just wrong, too- the Earth did not exist before the Sun, and the Universe is not only a few thousand years old, for example. And lots of Muslims have been willing to die for their faith too, among others, so that's not really a compelling argument. And I have a sense of wonder too, when I look at the stars, without any feeling that a God must be behind it.
Steve, you say:
In perfect being theology, God is a necessary being. So he didn't just happen to exist eternally.
Yes, I know. But as far as I can see, this just shows that words and their definitions can generate imaginary constructs. But these constructs only consist of word-relations, decoupled from the real world. Likewise, there must exist the greatest ice-cream sundae in the world, because if you imagine that it doesn't exist, what you imagine lacks existence and is thus not the greatest. It's just wordplay, and while words are great and indispensable, the relationships between words, especially words expressing superlatives, should not necessarily be taken as binding on the real world: the real world has priority.
"And lots of Muslims have been willing to die for their faith too, among others, so that's not really a compelling argument."
ReplyDeleteYou utterly misunderstand the argument.
The genesis of Islam and the genesis of Christianity could not be more dissimilar.
The very first Christians had nothing worldly to gain for their sacrifice. The very first Muslims had much to gain. Muhammad died rich and powerful, as did many of his closest followers (to say nothing of their immediate successors).
Furthermore, Islam had no extraordinary claim, especially for men of the 7th century. That a supreme being exists was not hard for Christians, Jews, or even pagans to believe. Persuading men of God's existence is quite a bit easier than persuading men that a shamed crucified carpenter is risen from the dead as Savior of the Cosmos.
The resurrection claim, and the first Christians' unwavering commitment thereto, has no equivalent in Islam.
Indeed, the birth of Christianity is unlike the birth of any other religion. All other founders -- from Buddha to Muhammad to Confucius -- lived long and successful lives. They fulfilled their "missions." They died in peace, content with their achievements.
How different the death of Christ, who perished so young, and on a cross, his disciples having denied him and fled to the shadows in fear! What is to account for their sudden about-face? Why did they go from shaking field mice to brave lions of God? What convinced them that this poor man from Nazareth was not just the messiah of Israel, but the Word of God made flesh, the Redeemer of the cosmos? It is a mystery unlike anything else in history.
Zilch: Jesus Christ is the intersection of God with the real world. He is "the image of the invisible God". You may want to say he was imagining things, but it doesn't make sense that someone who was deluded is going to purposefully articulate the things that Jesus said, while on top of it, giving his life for imaginary things. But he gave his life, in real history, and his immediate followers died, in history, testifying that he was raised from the dead. That is as real as the real world gets.
ReplyDeleteAs for your comparison with Muslims, we can and do compare the truth claims of Christianity vs the truth claims of Islam, and we know where the claims of Islam come from, and where they fail. As for your rejection of "imaginary constructs", well, human reason exists, math exists, and it works consistently, and gravity exists and works, too. But if somebody were to take your name and steal your bank account, you'd feel mighty offended, but hey, if someone has the power and the ability to get away with it, in your atheistic world, then why not?
If you really want to take your chances, let me know as you are on your death bed, one way or another, and as your life ticks away, if you are feeling a sense of greater sense of peace about it, or panic as you contemplate the very end of your existence. That, too, is the real world. But maybe they can give you enough morphine that you really won't care.
"[Paul Davies] So is that the end of the story? Can the multiverse provide a complete and closed account of all physical existence? Not quite. The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained - eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/article613773.ece
zilch said...
ReplyDelete"And a God who is omniscient and omnipotent is not complex? It seems to me far, by a factor I can't even imagine, less improbable that the Universe self-generated (whatever that could mean) than that a God self-generated."
i) God is not self-generated.
ii) You keep parroting Dawkins' addlebrained objection concerning divine complexity. This has been shot down by many reviewers. For instance:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493
"And positing no beginning for God doesn't somehow make the problem go away- the existence of God, whether with or without a beginning, is simply accepted without explanation or question."
It makes the problem go away inasmuch as the problem is only applicable to temporal states and processes. So that's not an objection to *God's* existence. You need to find a different argument.
"Yes, I know. But as far as I can see, this just shows that words and their definitions can generate imaginary constructs. But these constructs only consist of word-relations, decoupled from the real world. Likewise, there must exist the greatest ice-cream sundae in the world, because if you imagine that it doesn't exist, what you imagine lacks existence and is thus not the greatest."
i) You're confusing the ontological argument with perfect being theology. They're not equivalent.
ii) Your attempted analogy with an ice-cream sundae is equivocal. It's like Gaulino's Isles of the Blessed, which Anselm countered.
iii) You're assuming the ontological argument is unsound or invalid, but that's something you need to demonstrate. Consider Alvin Plantinga's modal version, or Elizabeth Anscombe's analysis.
Philip, you say:
ReplyDeleteYou utterly misunderstand the argument.
The genesis of Islam and the genesis of Christianity could not be more dissimilar.
The very first Christians had nothing worldly to gain for their sacrifice. The very first Muslims had much to gain. Muhammad died rich and powerful, as did many of his closest followers (to say nothing of their immediate successors).
How does anyone have anything more or less to gain from giving their life for their religion than anyone else? What did the 9/11 hijackers have to gain?
The resurrection claim, and the first Christians' unwavering commitment thereto, has no equivalent in Islam.
Indeed, the birth of Christianity is unlike the birth of any other religion. All other founders -- from Buddha to Muhammad to Confucius -- lived long and successful lives. They fulfilled their "missions." They died in peace, content with their achievements.
Sure, Christianity is different from other religions- they're all different from one another. That doesn't make Christianity any more plausible than Islam or Buddhism.
John, you say:
Zilch: Jesus Christ is the intersection of God with the real world. He is "the image of the invisible God". You may want to say he was imagining things, but it doesn't make sense that someone who was deluded is going to purposefully articulate the things that Jesus said, while on top of it, giving his life for imaginary things. But he gave his life, in real history, and his immediate followers died, in history, testifying that he was raised from the dead. That is as real as the real world gets.
I don't know how much of the Gospel narrative is true, and I suspect we'll never know for sure. But as I'm sure you know, many people have claimed miracles of one sort or another. Why should grant more plausibility to the story that Jesus rose from the dead than, say, to the story that Enkidu fought the Bull of Heaven? In my real world, people don't rise from the dead, or fight bulls of heaven. The fact that people make up stories all the time makes skepticism my default position, when confronted with claims of miracles or magic. And the fact that millions or billions of people believe this stuff doesn't make it more likely: people will believe what they absorb from their culture, especially when the belief is attractive, as the idea of Heaven is.
If you really want to take your chances, let me know as you are on your death bed, one way or another, and as your life ticks away, if you are feeling a sense of greater sense of peace about it, or panic as you contemplate the very end of your existence. That, too, is the real world. But maybe they can give you enough morphine that you really won't care.
I can't make you any promises on that count, John, as I'm sure my thoughts will be more on my family. But I read somewhere (I can't remember where- I'll see if I can dig it up) a statistic that showed that fundamentalist Christians in the US were far more likely than atheists to demand heroic life-prolonging measures while dying. But admittedly, that is just hearsay until I can produce the study. In any case, I'm not quite ready to die, and I don't know if I will die content, but I am not now afraid of death.
Steve, you quote Paul Davies:
ReplyDelete"In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god."
I've said the same here myself: I have no explanation for the existence of the (meta-) laws of the Universe either, nor indeed for the very existence of something rather than nothing. But the laws, and the mere existence of matter/energy, are still simpler, by an unimaginably large or perhaps (depending on how powerful and intelligent one imagines ones God to be) infinite factor, than the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator of the Universe, whose existence is not explained either. I'll stick with the far simpler explanation, with its far simpler factor of uncertainty, until such time as I see evidence otherwise.
Steve, you say:
You keep parroting Dawkins' addlebrained objection concerning divine complexity. This has been shot down by many reviewers. For instance:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493
Okay, I read that article by Craig, and I will now quote from it, viz.:
As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity.
This basically amounts to saying "God is magic, and magic can do anything". There is no evidence from the real world that minds are simple- on the contrary, minds are only ever observed as the products of brains, which are stunningly complex. The more complex the thoughts, the more complex the brain that produced them (to a first order of approximation, anyway). As soon as you invoke magic, all bets are off, and logic is defenestrated.
Your attempted analogy with an ice-cream sundae is equivocal. It's like Gaulino's Isles of the Blessed, which Anselm countered.
Yes, I'm familiar with Gaunilo's argument- he beat me to the punch by several centuries. Sure, Anselm countered it, but not successfully, as far as I can see. As I said, you have to be careful with drawing conclusions about the real world based only upon what words do with one another. The history of philosophy, and especially theology, is peppered with castles in the air that were poofed into existence by words chasing one another's tails, but which have no necessary relationship to the real world, which has rather stricter strictures on what exists.
ZILCH SAID:
ReplyDelete“But the laws, and the mere existence of matter/energy, are still simpler, by an unimaginably large or perhaps (depending on how powerful and intelligent one imagines ones God to be) infinite factor, than the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator of the Universe, whose existence is not explained either. I'll stick with the far simpler explanation, with its far simpler factor of uncertainty, until such time as I see evidence otherwise.”
i) I already addressed that objection when I drew a distinction between two essentially different types of simplicity. All you’ve done is to rehash your original objection, disregarding my counterargument. You lack adaptive intelligence.
ii) It’s also absurd for you to speculate on physics prior to the Big Bang.
“This basically amounts to saying ‘God is magic, and magic can do anything’. There is no evidence from the real world that minds are simple- on the contrary, minds are only ever observed as the products of brains, which are stunningly complex. The more complex the thoughts, the more complex the brain that produced them (to a first order of approximation, anyway). As soon as you invoke magic, all bets are off, and logic is defenestrated.”
i) No, that’s not what Craig is saying.
ii) “Magic” is a pejorative that atheists fall back on when they don’t have a real argument.
iii) To assert that minds are the product of brains begs the question. You’re disregarding the “hard problem” of consciousness, which even secularists like Searle and Chalmers acknowledge.
iv) You also need to draw an elementary distinction between abstract and concrete complexity. For instance, some abstract objects like the Mandelbrot set are infinitely complex, yet they aren’t composed of smaller physical constituents. They don’t have “parts.”
v) There are philosophers like Chisholm who argue for the simplicity of the soul.
“Yes, I'm familiar with Gaunilo's argument- he beat me to the punch by several centuries. Sure, Anselm countered it, but not successfully, as far as I can see. As I said, you have to be careful with drawing conclusions about the real world based only upon what words do with one another. The history of philosophy, and especially theology, is peppered with castles in the air that were poofed into existence by words chasing one another's tails, but which have no necessary relationship to the real world, which has rather stricter strictures on what exists.”
i) That’s not a counterargument. That’s just your tendentious characterization of the ontological argument.
ii) Moreover, you’re the one, not me, who brought up the ontological argument. That’s just one of many theistic proofs. For instance:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Blackwell_Companion_to_Natural_Theology
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_Lord_of_Non-Contradiction.pdf
I said:
ReplyDeleteI'll stick with the far simpler explanation, with its far simpler factor of uncertainty, until such time as I see evidence otherwise.
Steve replied:
i) I already addressed that objection when I drew a distinction between two essentially different types of simplicity. All you’ve done is to rehash your original objection, disregarding my counterargument. You lack adaptive intelligence.
This does not address my objection, because the two kind of simplicity you mention, syntactic and ontological, are terms referring to language, not to objects such as brains and gods. Objects that engage in complex behavior are, as a rule, complex objects. The same would go for gods, in spades. If you object that God is not an "object" and is thus not addressed here, you've again invoked magic.
ii) It’s also absurd for you to speculate on physics prior to the Big Bang.
Where did I speculate on physics prior (if that even has any meaning) to the Big Bang? I admitted I had no answers here. Nor does anyone else, as far as I know.
This basically amounts to saying ‘God is magic, and magic can do anything’. There is no evidence from the real world that minds are simple- on the contrary, minds are only ever observed as the products of brains, which are stunningly complex. The more complex the thoughts, the more complex the brain that produced them (to a first order of approximation, anyway). As soon as you invoke magic, all bets are off, and logic is defenestrated.
i) No, that’s not what Craig is saying.
What was Craig saying, then?
ii) “Magic” is a pejorative that atheists fall back on when they don’t have a real argument.
Craig didn't say "magic", but he did claim, with no supporting evidence, that "the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity." As I said, there's no real-world experience of simple minds, so you must invoke unknown forces or powers to get complex thoughts from a simple mind. That's what I call "magic". You might prefer "supernatural", but I don't see any distinction.
iii) To assert that minds are the product of brains begs the question. You’re disregarding the “hard problem” of consciousness, which even secularists like Searle and Chalmers acknowledge.
Yes, consciousness is a hard problem, but so what? And Searle of the infamous "Chinese Room Experiment" is not necessarily the person I would turn to for an explanation of consciousness. But again, that's probably another thread.
iv) You also need to draw an elementary distinction between abstract and concrete complexity. For instance, some abstract objects like the Mandelbrot set are infinitely complex, yet they aren’t composed of smaller physical constituents. They don’t have “parts.”
The Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex in that it is a never-repeating pattern which fills space infinitely. But it can be fully defined mathematically very simply, as I'm sure you know. And the Mandelbrot set doesn't do anything, much less think. Brains cannot be so simply defined. Brains, like computers, have lots of "parts."
v) There are philosophers like Chisholm who argue for the simplicity of the soul.
What's a "soul"?
i) That’s not a counterargument. That’s just your tendentious characterization of the ontological argument.
ii) Moreover, you’re the one, not me, who brought up the ontological argument. That’s just one of many theistic proofs.
So you think that the ontological argument proves the existence of God? I, along with Gaunilo and a few others, beg to differ. And I brought up the ontological argument, and my ice-cream sundae equivalent, to show how words decoupled from reality can create stuff that doesn't necessarily exist. The other arguments are more of the same: words potentiating other words, but not affecting the world.
ZILCH SAID:
ReplyDelete“This does not address my objection, because the two kind of simplicity you mention, syntactic and ontological, are terms referring to language, not to objects such as brains and gods.”
Wrong again. Syntactical simplicity refers to theoretical simplicity (or theoretical elegance) while ontological simplicity refers to metaphysical simplicity (or parsimony).
“What was Craig saying, then?”
He’s distinguishing ontological simplicity (or complexity) from conceptual simplicity (or complexity). For instance, the Mandelbrot set is conceptually complex (infinite self-similarity), but ontologically simple (no spatiotemporal parts).
“Craig didn't say ‘magic’, but he did claim, with no supporting evidence, that ‘the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity.’ As I said, there's no real-world experience of simple minds, so you must invoke unknown forces or powers to get complex thoughts from a simple mind. That's what I call ‘magic’. You might prefer ‘supernatural’, but I don't see any distinction.”
He’s defended his position in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.
“Yes, consciousness is a hard problem, but so what?”
Because you’re begging the question.
“The Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex in that it is a never-repeating pattern which fills space infinitely. But it can be fully defined mathematically very simply, as I'm sure you know.”
Not only can it be defined simply, but it’s an ontologically simple object.
“And the Mandelbrot set doesn't do anything, much less think.”
i) Irrelevant inasmuch as I was illustrating the difference between abstract simplicity/complexity and concrete complexity.
ii) Mathematical objects are arguably mental entities. What’s more, their necessity and infinity inhere in an infinite, timeless mind. Consult modal metaphysics for the supporting arguments.
“Brains cannot be so simply defined. Brains, like computers, have lots of ‘parts.’”
Which goes back to your gratuitous assumption that minds are equivalent to brain. You’re not advancing the argument. You’re spinning your wheels.
“What's a ‘soul’?”
Our incorporeal mind(s).
Cont. “So you think that the ontological argument proves the existence of God?”
ReplyDeleteI haven’t stated my position on that. I’m merely responding to you on your own grounds.
“And I brought up the ontological argument, and my ice-cream sundae equivalent, to show how words decoupled from reality can create stuff that doesn't necessarily exist.”
You stipulated an equivalence. The actual argument is missing. You’ve given us an argument from analogy minus the supporting argument. You need to demonstrate that your attempted analogy is, indeed, analogous.
“The other arguments are more of the same: words potentiating other words, but not affecting the world.”
An empty assertion that doesn’t engage the arguments.