The Causal God Gambit

[remez]

For anyone that can journey reasonably beyond IDK they are good.

Only if those that do accept that the result of that journey has nothing to do with reality.

Begging the question for naturalistic materialism.

There is no reason going on with this.

Absolutely certain.

You are obviously not reasonable.

I tried. And that’s where it went all wrong. I get it know. IDK for certain means all further reasoning is futile. Thanks for the lesson.

"i dont know" is simply intellectual honesty,

I honestly agree its simple.
I just didn’t realize that all reasoning needed to stop there. Sorry.

if that is beyond you there is really nothing more to discuss.

Yep there is NO REASON to reason past IDK.
So leave it there.

 

[abaddon]

That is why in our last post (153). I abandoned the pursuit of the arguments with you and invited you to address directly the REAL issue of reasoning in regards to certainty vs plausibility. I laid open my thoughts for you to honestly critique. I really wanted to know your mind on that (two weeks ago post 153). For whatever reason you did not respond until this indirect slight.

I didn't post my response because 1) I felt I was repeating myself, 2) I thought "this sentence-by-sentence stuff is silly and it's made the post over-long" and 3) I wondered how much I wanted to be misunderstood and/or misrepresented again.

But here's the first draft that I wrote and then said "Oh fuck it, I've got a life away from this computer and it's wasted here".

I don't think it would surprise to know I would find that hypothesis implausible compared to the SBBM.

You think the Big Bang is the start of all Existence, other than whatever its presumed Cause is. And that’s an extraordinary claim.

… I really want you to show me where you think my reasoning is wrong. I'm being genuine here. I want to understand the differences in our reasoning regarding the origin of the universe.

Our difference is this: You value words as if choosing some select traditional uses is supposed to achieve an exactness so that a careful ordering of them turns up something corresponding with actuality. Sort concepts just so, and a model of reality is formed that has a degree of certainty to it.

To me that’s a gross over-estimation of word power. We already know old concepts fail at very small and very huge scales of reality. I can go on about it more, but it’s enough to remember our concepts are based on ancient ignoramus’s perceptions of daily events, and abstruse concepts like eternity and anything beyond nature are extensions of those simpler ones. We go from fuzzy to fuzzier, and the danger of trusting language is it makes it hard for us to shut up about some old museum pieces of the mind and let nature’s phenomena do the ‘talking’.

All of us will wait for astrophysics to possibly find more definite empirical evidence for their speculations. Until then (assuming it ever happens) the ONLY honest answer is “I don’t know”. It’s not a copout, I am not (and no one else is) evading finding the best “contender” because it might be different from how I want. I am just saying all the contenders are a degree of uncertain that “I don’t know” fits and saves non-astrophysicists from wasting too much time of their life on things they can’t know much about.

“Possible but I don’t really know” is a good answer and my curiosity remains open and unhindered by strong belief about it.

…for an argument to be a GOOD argument, because we need to offer some reason that the premises are true.

In other words the premises require some degree of justification. BUT HOW MUCH?

Empirical evidence. The “Socrates is mortal” argument works because we don’t have to define all the terms by select “traditional” uses or by any other question-begging means. The premises are true because we see men are mortal.

If the premises are more plausibly true then their negations or alternatives and the logic is valid then You have a GOOD argument.

Ok, let’s go with that and see if you ever turn up a premise that isn’t assertion.

So returning to the context of your offered alternative........

What if the constituent energy/matter of the universe is eternal even if this universe's particular configuration of it is not eternal?

Your alternative is the matter and energy may be eternal although the universe is not.
OK
My premise is... the universe began to exist

So lets reason through that choice……….

They’re totally compatible. And I want to throw in another example “maybe” because I like to do that: They still are compatible even if you could demonstrate this universe is all of existence (aside from God). If there’s no time before this universe first expanded out from the singularity, then the universe is nearly 14 billion years old and eternal for being the sum total of all time. That isn’t your traditional definition of eternity, but so what? A problem with ‘ex nihilo’ is it treats absolute nothingness as a something and “came from” presumes a time out of which time emerges. Point being, traditional uses of words might mislead us from how actuality might possibly be.

First when I say that the universe began to exist I mean that ALL matter, energy, space and time came into existence from materially nothing. There was no matter, no energy, no space, no time. I support that with the SBBM.

No you’re very clearly asserting a premise of the CA.

Now that needs this further extension of reasoning.....

You would of course object that the SBBM does not with certainty tell us how the universe began. And I would agree that is is not absolutely certain.
But remember the issue of certainty ....certainly can't be determined here.

Right, it can’t. But a first cause or prime mover is still an extraordinary claim and cannot be equally plausible to the well-evidenced existence and transformations of matter and energy until it has at least equal evidence as matter-energy that it exists.

So I reason through the plausibility of the science here. The SBBM more plausibly indicates that the universe, all of physical reality, to include matter, energy, space and time began to exist from nothing.

Again, mere assertion. You’re announcing that the big bang implies all existence burst into existence out of nothingness (by something that doesn’t need its existence explained). If some scientists talk in the same terms but leave out God they might suffer the same prejudices from the traditional uses of language as theists when they do that. Or they have to exhaust the possibilities since they don’t get to just sit on their butts and stop at a favored contender speculation. I don’t know… doesn’t matter. The speculations will be resolved, or not, in the future. Via evidence. By the persons with the training and tools to find that evidence.

So again......
Your alternative is the matter and energy maybe eternal although the universe is not.
OK
My premise is... the universe began to exist

So which is more plausible to believe?

That matter-energy transforms and makes pretty patterns again and again.

You wanted to leave God out for now. So do it then! and see how nuts creation ex nihilo seems without presuming God. That you can talk as if it seems nuts when some scientists offer it as a godless possibility but not recognize that it seems nutty just anyway, tells me you haven’t really set God aside as you’d suggested we do. He’s still there in the background, informing what you find plausible and implausible.

 

[abaddon]

For anyone that can journey reasonably beyond IDK they are good. All you have unreasonably done is proclaim we must stop all reasoning at IDK and then dishonestly cross that line to attack your straw man version of the arguments. Further you volitionally won’t allow any theist to explain the actual reasoning because they must obey your unreasonable barrier of absolute certainty. It is your "schizotypal" fantasy space. It is so easy to feel safe there. You set the unreasonable parameters that only you can break.

That's not very insightful.

I said nothing that implies stopping at "I Don't Know". It's not incuriosity, it's not an attempt to stop anyone's argument. You want to argue God and I'd be very curious to see you move on to a fuller answer of what the eternal God-something is. This is the same basic stance as the last time we had this argument, last summer.

I've said time and again we know other possibilities than yours. Whenever I mention any one of them it's to point out the array of possibilities. It's not to beat your under-described God-something with a "stronger contender", because I don't have to pick another contender to beat down a non-answer.

I do not know what came before this universe but I know enough about how nature is to find your God absurd. Unless you can move on and say why he's not absurd. To make it convincing say something else than the crap about the eternality of "something" being necessary.

 

[Juma]

Only if those that do accept that the result of that journey has nothing to do with reality.

Begging the question for naturalistic materialism.

No. I follow the evidence.

Do you admit that you base your argument on baseless assumptions?
Since that is all we have left when you travel into land of the unknown. (There be dragons, and gods)

 

[bilby]

We don't know what is beyond the singularity.

Not 'we don't know for certain'; we are certain that we don't know.

How are you certain you don't know?

Because dividing by zero doesn't yield a useful result.

 

[Learner]

The "dont know" was not about remez arguments. We know that KCA, LCA and FTA are worthless. They have been crushed to smithereens long ago. The two first are special pleading and the last is simply "probability after the fact". So.

So the 'don't know' means there is a possibility you may consider (putting aside those aguments) meaning you can't be sure that creation is not possible. Hence the mention Neil Grasse.

The "dont know" is neither if there are immaterial gods/spirits because physics shows that it cannot be as surely as there cannot be a full size living elephant in you kitchen fridge. (Forces has particles, if there would be any other force we would have seens its particle)

I would wonder .. what particles was it they were looing for and why is this an explanation? We could propose a equally or better an argument from these observations the very particles and known forces are the mechanical orderly design itself.

The "dont know" is about what happened before the big inflation.

There is then the valid proposal being one of two proposals of the universe coming into being by some intent .

By the way: what Neil deGrasse Tyson wants to tell about his relation to religion has really nothing to do with this thread. Arguments counts, not authoritative opinion.

He would consider the possibility , putting aside religion. I assumed the "Don't knows" arguing here would be on par with deGrasse.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We don't know X, therefore God Of The Gaps.

Where do dimensions come from? How many dimensions are there? How do dimensions work? We don't know yet, therefore God Of The Gaps. Yes, the Big God Putty Gun, filling those gaps. Squirt! Squirt! Squirt!

 

[Learner]

We don't know X, therefore God Of The Gaps.

Where do dimensions come from? How many dimensions are there? How do dimensions work? We don't know yet, therefore God Of The Gaps. Yes, the Big God Putty Gun, filling those gaps. Squirt! Squirt! Squirt!

Are you with deGrasse or not?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We don't know X, therefore God Of The Gaps.

Where do dimensions come from? How many dimensions are there? How do dimensions work? We don't know yet, therefore God Of The Gaps. Yes, the Big God Putty Gun, filling those gaps. Squirt! Squirt! Squirt!

Are you with deGrasse or not?

I am against God of the Gaps arguments. I am against the idea of a god that disproves itself as a hypothesis by it's own internal self contradictions and inconsistencies and incoherence. I don't follow deGrasse so I don't know what his take on all of this is, agnosticism or strong atheism. All I know is that God is not a good hypothesis so can't possibly be considered as a viable alternative to naturalism.

 

[Learner]

I am against God of the Gaps arguments. I am against the idea of a god that disproves itself as a hypothesis by it's own internal self contradictions and inconsistencies and incoherence. I don't follow deGrasse so I don't know what his take on all of this is, agnosticism or strong atheism. All I know is that God is not a good hypothesis so can't possibly be considered as a viable alternative to naturalism.

Fair enough. You are happy where you are with naturalism and no Gods or creators , Naturalism v God/religion. You don't need to consider the cause 'origins' of the forces and laws of nature or know why or how its here but just content thats its here.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You don't need to consider the cause 'origins' of the forces and laws of nature or know why or how its here but just content thats its here.

I don't think that's quite true.
Even if NOT content with a 'just there' answer, though, Charlie still doesn't see that adding a god to the mix is justified just by the need to have an answer.

 

[abaddon]

So the 'don't know' means there is a possibility you may consider.... Hence the mention Neil Grasse.

He would consider the possibility , putting aside religion. I assumed the "Don't knows" arguing here would be on par with deGrasse.

Are you with deGrasse or not?

... You don't need to consider the cause 'origins' of the forces and laws of nature or know why or how its here but just content thats its here.

What is it to be "on par with deGrasse"?

The guy's last name is Tyson by the way.

From what you've said, it looks like you've heard he prefers the label agnostic to atheist and mixed that together with the notion that "agnostic" means being 'open to all possibilities'.

Being an atheist doesn't mean one hasn't given ideas about 'the universe is intended' or 'nature's source needs to be outside itself' a fair shake, or is apathetic to such questions ("don't need to consider... just content that it's here").

This brief article describes the differences and similarities of agnosticism and atheism. http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm

Here's an excerpt: "For some strange reason, though, many people have the mistaken impression that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. But why? There's nothing about "I don't know" which excludes "I don't believe." On the contrary, not only are they compatible but they frequently appear together because not knowing is frequently a reason for not believing. It's often a very good idea to not accept some proposition is true unless you have enough evidence that would qualify as knowledge." (emphasis added)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I am against God of the Gaps arguments. I am against the idea of a god that disproves itself as a hypothesis by it's own internal self contradictions and inconsistencies and incoherence. I don't follow deGrasse so I don't know what his take on all of this is, agnosticism or strong atheism. All I know is that God is not a good hypothesis so can't possibly be considered as a viable alternative to naturalism.

Fair enough. You are happy where you are with naturalism and no Gods or creators , Naturalism v God/religion. You don't need to consider the cause 'origins' of the forces and laws of nature or know why or how its here but just content thats its here.

We don't know a lot about the most basic fundamental forces of reality. All we can do is try to figure that all out via science over time. This is not an opportunity for God Of The Gaps enthusiasts, or for Giant Space Goat true believers et al. Proving there is in fact a supernatural realm to hang a God on so far can't be done and is unlikely.

So far, what we see is stuff like evolution, astrophysics and other similar physical phenomena that are self-organizing blind and unintelligent forces. There is then, good reason to consider it's naturalism and physics all the way down. I don't see religion or philosophy explaining anything to date worth mentioning in the realm of science. I see no reason to abandon the idea that from the most basic foundations of reality onwards up to our pocket universe as we see it are not blind forces of self-organizing physical nature. That is just an extension of what we do observe, how the Universe works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Self-organization, also called spontaneous order (in the social sciences), is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The process is spontaneous, not needing control by any external agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system. As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive or self-repair substantial perturbation. Chaos theory discusses self-organization in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability.


Theology then has to disprove the idea that self organized physical systems cannot be what cause the Universe to be what it is today. We have a principle then, that can explain the Universe in broad, general terms. So much for Aristotle's Prime Mover etc.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Nevertheless, I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian world call, and, so far as I can see, are justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomena of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father–loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. On the contrary, the whole teaching of experience seems to me to show that while the governance (if I may use the term) of the universe is rigorously just and substantially kind and beneficent, there is no more relation of affection between governor and governed than between me and the twelve judges. I know the administrators of the law desire to do their best for everybody, and that they would rather not hurt me than otherwise, but I also know that under certain circumstances they will most assuredly hang me; and that in any case it would be absurd to suppose them guided by any particular affection for me.

- Thomas Huxley May 5. 1863 Letter to Charles Kingsley

 

[Learner]

What is it to be "on par with deGrasse"?

The guy's last name is Tyson by the way.

Apologies especially to Mr.Tyson himself. I was interested if people thought the same way as Tyson, being that he is quite fairly known.

From what you've said, it looks like you've heard he prefers the label agnostic to atheist and mixed that together with the notion that "agnostic" means being 'open to all possibilities'.

Only 'two' choices here with the possibility of cause of the universe...either it was or it wasn't intended is being open to.

Being an atheist doesn't mean one hasn't given ideas about 'the universe is intended' or 'nature's source needs to be outside itself' a fair shake, or is apathetic to such questions ("don't need to consider... just content that it's here").

Perhaps so ...for some.

This brief article describes the differences and similarities of agnosticism and atheism. http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm

Here's an excerpt: "For some strange reason, though, many people have the mistaken impression that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. But why? There's nothing about "I don't know" which excludes "I don't believe." On the contrary, not only are they compatible but they frequently appear together because not knowing is frequently a reason for not believing. It's often a very good idea to not accept some proposition is true unless you have enough evidence that would qualify as knowledge." (emphasis added)

I'm sure people do , I've come across agnostics themeselves with different understandings of the term, I was one myself once.. not being the debate of whether atheism or agnostic is the same or not. I merely was curious if anyone agreed with Neil deGrasse Tyson's view. Not that he himself is part of the argument.

This is what he sees himself as.

 

[abaddon]

... not being the debate of whether atheism or agnostic is the same or not. I merely was curious if anyone agreed with Neil deGrasse Tyson's view. Not that he himself is part of the argument.

This is what he sees himself as...

They're not the same. There are agnostic theists too. It's a very context-sensitive word which is a problem for picking "agnostic" as a self-descriptive label. And it's got baggage of its own. People read 'he doesn't know so he's "open" to my superstitions' into it.

I understand Tyson's point and agree it's important to not get political about atheism if the aim is to focus on science. But distancing from a Dawkins-esque strong atheism that gets political is not necessary to do by making an over-sharp contrast between atheism and agnosticism. He can just emphasize what's known by science rather than what's wrong with religion. Which inescapably will not be supportive of creationism.

Which is what he does anyway. So while the point's to emphasize science instead of "telling people what to believe" (a common misconception of atheism), it's a distinction without much distinction.

Many atheists are both agnostic atheist and strong atheist. They're not-knowing-for-sure about whichever god you say you believe in until you present the evidence. Then, a disbeliever when you do and it's crappy evidence.

Tyson allows there's room for God in your head because you're free to believe in God if you want to believe and he doesn't want to take a strong stance about belief (since he's trying to be all about knowledge... about gnosis and agnosis). But, put it in context. He also says if you keep invoking God as the explanation of the mysterious then you should prepare that God will keep receding as science advances. (I'm referencing the vid linked below).

So wanting the label "agnostic" doesn't save him from being an atheist and it doesn't make him or other agnostic atheists (or "agnostics" if they prefer) a stupid degree of "open-minded" about things that are still wrongly called "possibilities" even after centuries of failure to be evidenced.



No difference from atheism there at all. Just the emphasis is on "known" rather than on "what I believe/disbelieve".

 

[Learner]

We don't know a lot about the most basic fundamental forces of reality. All we can do is try to figure that all out via science over time. This is not an opportunity for God Of The Gaps enthusiasts, or for Giant Space Goat true believers et al. Proving there is in fact a supernatural realm to hang a God on so far can't be done and is unlikely.

We don't know a lot about the most basic fundamental forces of reality. All we can do is try to figure that all out via 'science over time'. Absolutely , no problem with this otherwise the science would have been sufficient to prove and put to rest the seemingly never ending debate. Henceforth the 'don't knows'.

So far, what we see is stuff like evolution, astrophysics and other similar physical phenomena that are self-organizing blind and unintelligent forces. There is then, good reason to consider it's naturalism and physics all the way down. I don't see religion or philosophy explaining anything to date worth mentioning in the realm of science. I see no reason to abandon the idea that from the most basic foundations of reality onwards up to our pocket universe as we see it are not blind forces of self-organizing physical nature. That is just an extension of what we do observe, how the Universe works.

Yes these are observable processes which is termed 'natural' simply because that is all we can observe. It doesn't really indicate that the whole combined method of these blind forces resulting self-organizing continuously again and again is not an organisation itself. It looks like a duck than luck imo without the religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Self-organization, also called spontaneous order (in the social sciences), is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The process is spontaneous, not needing control by any external agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system. As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive or self-repair substantial perturbation. Chaos theory discusses self-organization in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability.

In a sea of chaotic unpredictability -unkown basic fundamental forces as you mentioned- there seems to be always predictability coming out of it - what are they saying here?

Theology then has to disprove the idea that self organized physical systems cannot be what cause the Universe to be what it is today. We have a principle then, that can explain the Universe in broad, general terms. So much for Aristotle's Prime Mover etc.

Theology by religious interpretation will obviously be quite difficult perhaps thats the mistake besides I don't see why self organised sytems is contradictory to creation for example there is us human beings (the created) and the universe's aptly named laws and mechanisms.


(on job, reply later abs)

 

[bilby]

This is another god of the gaps argument.

The fact is, we do know a LOT about the fundamental forces that make the universe what it is, and one thing we know is that there are not many of them that can have any (survivable) effect on human scales.

There are, in fact, two forces that influence our everyday lives, and two that we very occasionally need to consider in specific technological and medical circumstances. Everything that has ever happened to humans can be explained in terms of four forces, each of which acts in a completely predictable fashion (at scales above the atomic, and below the galactic).

Nobody wastes their Sunday at the church of the Standard Model, praying that gravity will continue to hold them to the Earth, that the strong and weak forces will continue to prevent their very atomic nuclei from disintegrating, and that electromagnetism will continue to do everything else.

These things have never changed since the Big Bang, so it seems safe enough to assume that they won't change in our (or our descendants') lifetimes, whether we pray or not.

Once your gods of the gaps are so small that they cannot intervene in the universe in any way, and they explicitly rule out ghosts, substance dualism, and life after death, it's long since time to stop referring to them as gods. Gravity is not a god in any useful sense of the word. Nor are the other three members of the not-particularly-holy quaternary that make up the Standard Model.

But all that cash spent on the LHC and other colliders wasn't wasted; we now know with as much certainty as we have ever known anything that they are all there is.

There are no more gaps big enough for a god to hide in - except the yawning gulf of human ignorance. While most people don't know much about what is known by humanity as a whole, they can still fit a whole pantheon of fictional gods in their imaginations. But education is Rentokill for these parasites of the imagination. And they have literally nowhere else to hide.

 

[Juma]

So the 'don't know' means there is a possibility you may consider (putting aside those aguments) meaning you can't be sure that creation is not possible. Hence the mention Neil Grasse.

Anything is not possible just because we dont know anything about it. deGrasse would agree.

I would wonder .. what particles was it they were looing for and why is this an explanation? We could propose a equally or better an argument from these observations the very particles and known forces are the mechanical orderly design itself.

No you couldnt. The theory about the four basic forces and their corresponding particles is one of, if not the, best supported theories there are.
It is more plausible that the moon is made of cheese than those theories are false.

 

[remez]

Thank you for your rely to 153 it was very insightful. I did compose a long response just to organize my thoughts on our epistemological differences. I need not bore you with it though. I'll try to directly address our differences more concisely here.......

I've said time and again we know other possibilities than yours. Whenever I mention any one of them it's to point out the array of possibilities.

Yes you have. But you tip your hand. All of those other possibilities fall into the category of being natural. Can you even consider that the cause may be non-natural? My guess is .... no you can't.

I use science and reasoning (not theism) to assert that our universe had an absolute beginning and that the cause is non-natural.
How have you combated my reasoning?

You offer less plausible natural causes.
Ones that science and reason (not theism) can easily defeat or determine are less plausible.

When I present my case against these natural solutions using science and reasoning (not theism) , you then assert I can't reason this way because I'm theistically assuming a beginning and "We don't know for certain." You keep blurring the two different issues.

issue 1 .... universe had an absolute beginning. I through science and reason (not theism) predict that the universe had an absolute beginning.

Issue 2.... other possibilities. I through science and reason (not theism) demonstrate how these other (only natural) possibilities are far more implausible than the universe having an absolute beginning.

What do I here in reply?

You can't say that because you don't know. Usually followed by some theistic disparagement.
or
Just the presence of these other natural possibilities should force me to conclude that I'm wrong with my scientific (not theistic) reasoning. Again usually followed by some theistic disparagement.

It's not to beat your under-described God-something with a "stronger contender", because I don't have to pick another contender to beat down a non-answer.

Because you absolutely can't consider God as an answer, I begged you folks to drop all the theistic reasoning.

I wanted to focus on the absolute beginning and what would be the characteristics of a cause to nature itself. That's it....no God, no theism. I'm not trying to identify the cause. I'm arguing 1) there was a cause and 2) what are the characteristics of that cause. That's it, no God, no theism.

I do not know what came before this universe

Can we still reasonably discuss if there was a cause and if so, what would be the characteristics of that cause?
Both require only science and reasoning, no God, no theistic reasoning. Or does IDK stop even that?

but I know enough about how nature is to find your God absurd.

That is why I redirected the conversation a long time ago.

Granted I entered this thread to point out the error in CC's OP which dealt with the KCA. I was then set upon to defend the KCA. You folks won't allow theistic reasoning here. You folks told me my reasoning was wrong. Ok, I understand your theistic aversions, but what about the non-theistic portion? So I wanted to focus only on the non-theistic portion of the debate. Issue 1 and 2 cited above. Where is my non-theistic reasoning wrong? You folks are the ones that keep trying to bring God into it.