Bonus thought of the day!!
My good blogging friend, myrtle, suggested tackling "The kalam cosmological syllogism" which is stated:
a. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
b. The universe has a beginning
c. Therefore the universe has a cause
a. It seems terribly arrogant to think we of such feeble abilities to comprehend reality can know a great degree about something as incomprehensibly large and complex as the universe. The best we can say in response to the assertion made is "as far as we know" everything that has a beginning has a cause.
b. The evidence points to the fact that the current universe we inhabit had a beginning roughly 13 billion years ago. However, it is possible that we find ourselves in the middle of one particular expansion of the universe in what has been an ongoing expansion and contraction process making the universe an unknown age. It is also possible that there are multiple universes. But "as far as we know" the universe we find ourselves in did have a beginning.
c. Knowing what we do, it is fair to say, "As far as we know" the universe did have a cause. Apparently, scientists can peer back in time to within hundredths of a second after what is called the 'singularity' became the 'Big Bang' and our current universe began to take shape. But we do not have the technology to go back further, (and it seems there is no time or space to observe before the Big Bang and thus likely impossible to do so.)
In conclusion, it seems reasonable and responsible to say 'we do not know' what caused the universe and that we likely cannot know. It seems unreasonable and irresponsible to invent something (God) to fill in this gap in our knowledge. I would add that suggesting “God” did it only complicates the matter for now we have an even bigger mystery of what is and what caused “God”.
It seems there are people who are content to live with unanswered questions such as “how did the universe come about” and tend to believe there are natural explanations for everything and there are those not so comfortable with such unanswered questions who tend to believe in supernatural explanations. For me, supernatural explanations are not really explanations at all. They are constructions that reduce uncertainty but have no relation to reality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
John,
Thanks!!!
I have formulated some responses to you points but as you will recall I am slow of thought and I need a little time to “chew the cud” on some other points
Thank you for your patience
M
John
Would please help me out by clarifying some things
1. “As far as we know” everything that has a beginning has a cause.
a. Your qualifier here is the use of Karl Poppers concept of falsifiability. For example, "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood. Nevertheless it is reasonable and one could even claim that “everything that has a beginning has a cause” is axiomatic. In the same way that it is reasonable to claim “all men are mortal” as a reasonable assumption it is intuitively reasonable to say “everything that has a beginning has a cause” in fact the opposite is counterintuitive.
b. So my question is of the 100% of things that we do know how many % came into being without a cause?
c. I am encouraged however, in that despite your caveat you agree with premise 1. So let move on.
2. “[I]t is possible that we find ourselves in the middle of one particular expansion of the universe in what has been an ongoing expansion and contraction process making the universe an unknown age. It is also possible that there are multiple universes. But “as far as we know” the universe we find ourselves in did have a beginning.”
a. My question here is which of the following do you favor the oscillating universe or the multiverse?
b. If it is the oscillating model do you think that this model averts the necessity for an absolute beginning?
c. If the multiverse, do you favor vacuum fluctuation or chaotic inflationary model?
d. I note you don’t mention the most recent theoretical models such as string theory or quantum gravity.
e. Again I am encouraged that you appear to agree with premise 2 but since you mention the above models & these would run counter to that premise, would you please clarify.
M
I offer that qualifier only because the beginning of the universe is beyond our everyday experience. I think it is reasonable to think we have no idea what is involved in such a thing--and due to our limited nature cannot know. Kind of like an ant trying to understand algebra.
I tend toward oscillating but recognize that that is simply a guess. I think all the theories are pretty unsubstantiated hypothesis so have yet to really bother to latch onto one. And no i don’t think the oscillating theory necessarily suggests there was no absolute beginning. It seems there was though again, at this level I think we are more like ants trying to understand algebra. Not sure words like “beginning” even make sense to use. Sorry if that seems vague and a copout but just think we are likely dealing with some wildly different (though I would argue completely natural) conditions that we cannot grasp. At least not yet.
Hi John,
You said,
"I offer that qualifier only because the beginning of the universe is beyond our everyday experience."
Are you saying that truth can only be known if experienced? The seems to me a flawed epistemology.
The cosmological argument for God's existences is very difficult for a nontheist. Most atheists don't want to talk about it because ultimately cosmology points directly to God.
John, how do you know that what you've said about not being able to know is trustworthy (specifically your ant/algebra illustration)?
You seem to speak with certainty on issues that support your presuppositions, but quickly point to human limitations and epistemic flaws when the conclusion doesn't support your bias. What's worse is that when a Christian does this, you label them, and speak antagonistically towards them.
The atheist starts with the particulars (and at least philosophically) is not too concerned with the universals. The theist however starts with the universals and seeks to understand the particulars. It's an age old philosophical tension.
I don’t think cosmology points to “God”. God is an idea.
I don’t know if anything I say is trustworthy! I would guess the great percentage of ideas I have about reality are wrong. But am doing the best I can and am content with that. And that is how I see where we are with understanding the origin of the universe. We are doing the best we can to understand it. Maybe someday we will, maybe we won’t. But filling our gaps in knowledge with “God” seems intellectually lazy.
Not sure what you are referring to about me speaking antagonistically about anyone who admits their all too human limitations of perception. I would praise such humility. Of course I do condemn the arrogance of those that proclaim to speak for God.
I think you nailed the difference between us here.
You write: “The atheist starts with the particulars (and at least philosophically) is not too concerned with the universals. The theist however starts with the universals and seeks to understand the particulars.”
Can’t you see the HUGE flaw in the theist’s approach? The atheist looks at evidence and that evidence points to conclusions.
The theist starts with a conclusion (God) and interprets all evidence in a way that supports his conclusion.
Hey, that’s pretty good. I needed a thought for the day. Thanks!
John
1. “I think it is reasonable to think we have no idea what is involved in such a thing and due to our limited nature cannot know”
a. How do you know we cannot know? (remember Karl Popper?)
b. How would we be able to know or shall I put this way is the verification of science the only way to know? (To help think this one through I ask you is history a science or metaphysics unscientific?) “We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole.” (Bradley, 1846-1924)
c. What if we already do know but you don’t like the answer?
2. "I tend toward oscillating but recognize that that is simply a guess. I think all the theories are pretty unsubstantiated"
a. What can be substantiated is that ALL the models with the exception of the Standard Big Bang Model attempt to avert the need for an absolute beginning. If you’re interested I can delineate the various reasons for this but it’s up to you.
b. "unsubstantiated" however it remains completely logical to say that the universe has either finite or infinite past. Would you agree?
3. “wildly different (though I would argue completely natural) conditions”
a. How would you argue that it is “completely natural”
b. Would you agree with:
i. The Carl Sagan's Cosmological Argument: “The cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be”.
ii. Or atheist philosopher Quentin Smith “It came from nothing by nothing for nothing.”
So far I have not challenged your conclusions I am merely examining your line of approach and the assumption for reaching your conclusions. Perhaps when I return we will continue, till then all I wish you well
M
Hi myrtle,
I don’t know.
Seems to me the scientific method is clearly the best way we currently have to learn about the origins of the universe.
...“the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole.”
In regard to the above quote...I would say the best way to see the whole picture accurately is to put each puzzle piece in place. The problem is that the more pieces we put in place the bigger the puzzle grows. We will never complete the puzzle. But to try to see the big picture without doing the work of placing the individual pieces you have to rely on your imagination which is likely far less reliable than puzzle pieces.
You ask “ What if we already do know but you don’t like the answer? ”
I like evidence. I don’t care what the answer is.
You ask “it remains completely logical to say that the universe has either finite or infinite past. Would you agree?”
Maybe. Is there a third option? I remain unconvinced that the universe can be understood by a bunch of primates on a dust speck on the outskirts of an average galaxy amidst billions of galaxies.
Until I am shown compelling evidence that supports the idea that there is something beyond the natural world than I am going to assume all events are completely natural.
You ask, “Would you agree with:.. Sagan's Cosmological Argument: “The cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be”.
Seems presumptuous to me. The cosmos is changing dramatically every second. It is different now than when I started this sentence. So who is to say what it once was or will be?
I would say, Quentin Smith’s idea that the universe “...came from nothing by nothing for nothing” is a bit presumptuous as well. How does he know?
For now, it seems best to say it is a mystery.
Have a great trip!
John
You remain, as ever, an epistemological & ontological relativist!
:)
Speak soon
M
John
The task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to think what no body yet has thought about that which everyone sees.
... But life is short, and truth works far and lives long: let us speak the truth.
(Arthur Schopenhauer, 1818)
Scientific method involves Inductive and Deductive methodology
Induction involves observing, measuring, seeing & hearing etc... Deduction involves the application of the formal laws of logic, coherency to those particular pieces of investigation including explanatory scope and power.
Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world.
Natural sciences use both inductive & deductive methodologies but principally inductive, conversely metaphysics uses both but principally deductive methodology.
With this on mind I have given some thought to the way your rebuttal of the kalam syllogism is presented.
Although I was able to analyse the underlying assumptions and falsies it contains it has somewhat niggled at me for some time; the reason for this is that I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was that was missing. Then I dawned on me why I was perplexed by your answer, it’s because it isn’t one! It’s a metaphysical shrug of the shoulders, it's a cosmic “I don’t know” it has no logic, no explanatory power or scope, it does not analyse anything. It merely makes a claim not to know the answer then goes on & makes the bold assertion that no one else knows either without providing any evidence for the assertion.
You claim you require evidence yet the kalam syllogism is not refuted by your assertions either by inductive or deductive logic yet the premises’ are more plausible than your negations. It is in short an argument from ignorance. You have not shown what you declare to be true or that the syllogism to be false. It’s a none argument!
Now let me summaries where we are:
1. You agree with the premises but not with conclusion despite the syllogism being clearly logically valid.
2. You offer no explanation other than a metaphysical shrug of the shoulders
3. You conclusion is anterior to your premise based only on your metaphysical naturalism thus resulting in a circular argument.
Now if you wish me to deconstruct your conclusion properly exposing its assumption and falsies I will continue.
I wish you well
M
myrtle,
Nice to hear from you. How was your trip to Israel?
Beautiful quote by Schopenhauer. Thanks.
By all means, deconstruct away! And perhaps you could restate my “non-answer” in a way that would convey the same ideas but be an actual answer. I think that would help me understand. Thanks!
John
I shall stick to the pertinent points relating to the kalam syllogism. Your comments appear to me to be, firstly, heavily influenced by Bertrand Russell and his writings on the law of causality. Secondly, by August Comte and logical positivism that developed into empirical verificationism. I shall look at the first point here and perhaps later the second.
1. “[S]uggesting “God” did it only complicates the matter for now we have an even bigger mystery of what is and what caused “God”.”
John Stuart Mill & Bertrand Russell
“I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument…. The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.”
Extract from Bertrand Russell's "critique" of the cosmological argument “Why I am not a Christian”
In all fairness to Mill & Russell neither had heard of what we now know as the “Big Bang” & so until his late teenage years Russell was a theist & heavily influenced by the cosmological argument. At that time it was formulated “everything that exists has a cause” & that God was the first & sufficient cause. Following his reading of John Stuart Mill and the observation that if everything that exists requires a cause then not only would the universe would require a cause but god would also. This then engenders an infinite regress of finite causes i.e. who caused the cause that caused the cause (ad infinitum)?
Russell however made the same error as Mill in that the law of cause and effect does NOT assert that everything must have a cause, rather it asserts that every EFFECT must have an antecedent cause. Put in other words everything that COMES into being has a cause. (This is the kalam formulation) It is one thing to say that everything that has an effect must have a cause and quite another to say that everything that is must have a cause. Here we begin to see three things
1) By extension the law of none contradiction
a. “A triangle has 3 sides” this is “properly basic” or “true by definition” & axiomatic. In the same way “everything that COMES into being has a cause” is true by definition.
2) The contingency of the universe
a. I am a contingent being that is to say my existence is dependent on another being or beings external to myself.
b. By definition God is an uncaused cause and is therefore none contingent & cannot not exist.
c. The universe is not infinitely old, it had a beginning and is the result of some other cause because it cannot cause itself, this is illogical. “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could” Mary Poppins
3) A category fallacy
a. A category fallacy is the same as asking a bachelor if he is married. Obviously a bachelor is not married & is in a different category to a married person.
b. Apply the same logic to a non contingent being and you have the nature of God. If god is created then that being becomes contingent and thus creates the problem of infinite regression, which again is illogical and impossible.
Israel trip was very demanding but well worth the effort thanks for asking. How is Jake?
Well, I am pleased as punch that any thought of mine can in any way be compared to Russell!
I appreciate your noting the difference between “caused” and “uncaused”, contingent and non-contingent. But surely you recognize that “God” is just a three letter word—a sound—that a rather humble species on a very tiny spec of dirt made up. (I mean even if there is some sort of creator it did not have a name before we came along. And the word “God” could have just as easily been Tomato or Blob or DGFDS). And whether we say this “God” thing is uncaused and non-contingent and made out of invisible spirit stuff and any other attribute we care to project onto this idea it remains that without empirical evidence there is no reason to think this “God”,“Blob” or “DGFS” is anything but an idea.
In addition to the lack of evidence for the idea of “God” we know of the many psychological reasons that we humans have dreamed up thousands of gods for thousands of years predating Yahweh and the Hebrews. Of course we have long imagined and written stories of all sorts about supernatural beings and places all of which are considered superstitious nonsense by most everyone (aside of course from the particular ghosts and goblins, hades and Paradises believed real by each individual).
John
“[S]urely you recognize that “God” is just a three letter word—a sound”
Language, to be sure, is an abstract, symbolic cultural artefact that is social dynamic; but it’s not amorphous or meaningless within its own space-time. If I use the words god, God or Creator God you will recognise the nuanced symbolism of each and know with some precise definition what I am seeking to convey. This is because it has the a property specified complexity, otherwise our conversation would have no more meaning than 7n#1=d*$9?.
Further, this idea that language is nothing more than meaningless sounds unless it relates to sensory objects is part of the logical positivism I mentioned earlier. However, if you insist on its meaninglessness i.e. “God” is just a three letter word—a sound” it also makes your own contributions not only to this conversation meaningless but much of the rest of your own blog site falls into the same category.
Furthermore, your comments though interesting in themselves are not germane to the kalam syllogism. You need to return to the two premises & conclusion and show it to be false.
I know you cannot refute it because it is an elegant syllogism that it logically sound and also refutes your comment “the lack of evidence for the idea of “God” since the syllogism is itself deductive evidence.
Now you need to regroup your thoughts, square up to the logic of the argument and either show it to false or accept the conclusion.
M
myrtle,
You suggest, “I know you cannot refute [the kalam syllogism] because it is an elegant syllogism that it logically sound and also refutes your comment “the lack of evidence for the idea of “God” since the syllogism is itself deductive evidence.
Let’s assume I can’t. That no one on earth can. Does that necessarily mean anything? Isn’t it just some ideas symbolized by words that may or may not have any relation to reality? If someone wrote a syllogism that showed (on paper) that invisible monkeys fly or God is dead, these arguments would not necessarily have any relation to reality. Though this type of thing might be a fun intellectual exercise, I can’t see how it is terribly useful without empirical evidence to support it.
But I will try to respond to this again in a more concise way. The argument:
a. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
b. The universe has a beginning
c. Therefore the universe has a cause
A. As far as we can currently determine, everything that has a beginning has a cause.
B. Evidence overwhelmingly points to the observable universe within which we live to have had a beginning which is commonly referred to as the “Big Bang.”
C. The evidence points to the universe we inhabit as having a cause but there are currently only numerous guesses as to what caused the “Big Bang.”
In conclusion, the Kalam syllogism adds nothing to the scientific quest to understand the universe.
hello John
can you clarify this statement please:
"In conclusion, the Kalam syllogism is flawed because it is concerned with the origins of the universe rather than the singularity which preceded it"
M
Ah, you caught that statement before I deleted it!
I was under the impression that an infinite state of mass (singularity) existed before exploding or rapidly expanding. I had thought that pre-“bang” state was considered a separate thing than the “bang” itself. But a quick check of what exactly is considered the ”big bang” includes this state so apparently it is erroneous to consider the “singularity” as existing before the “big bang.”
Hope that makes sense.
John
“At the point of singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo”
(John Barrow & Frank Tipler The Anthropic Cosmological Principal 1986)
“The evidence points to the universe we inhabit as having a cause but there are currently only numerous guesses as to what caused the “Big Bang.”
Options:
Either the universe is caused or uncaused & for naturalists, like yourself, there are two logical options, it came from nothing by nothing or it has always been here.
2+2=4 numbers don’t exist in the real world but they are nevertheless real. In the same way the Einstein’s equations don’t exist in the real world they only explore explain and symbolically represent the ontological nature if reality. Minds like yours and mine don’t physically exist rather they are immaterial entities that have immaterial properties.
Energy, matter, mass and space-time did not exist (whilst it is tempting to say prior to the Big Bang, we cannot because there was NO prior to the Big Bang) they came into existence ex nihilo.
Matter, energy & time are not expanding into the vacuum of space but rather are stationary in it and space itself is expanding. The common illustration is buttons glued to a balloon that is being inflated. The buttons grow increasingly distant to each other but stay the same in relation to the space they occupy.
From what we know scientifically we can logically deduce the following:
1 100% of things that came into being have a cause
2 The universe has a beginning
a) its beginning is supported by the accepted data:
i) The oscillating universe is discredited
ii) The Multiverse is speculative, unlike the Big Bang where there is hard evidence
b) The universe is not infinitely old
i) Red shift and micro wave radiation show its finitude
c) There was no prior space-time to the Big Bang
d) There was no matter, energy or vacuum prior.
Conclusion
1 The universe has a cause & therefore the cause must be outside time therefore timeless 2 The universe exists in space therefore the cause must be spaceless 3 The universe is an entity made of matter & therefore the cause must be immaterial
Deductive logic based on current science.
John you have a long way to go before you can discredit the syllogism
I wish you well
M
myrtle,
I agree with most of what you have said up to your conclusion:
“1 The universe has a cause & therefore the cause must be outside time therefore timeless
2 The universe exists in space therefore the cause must be spaceless
3 The universe is an entity made of matter & therefore the cause must be immaterial”
Why? What is the evidence to make such conclusions? Do you have evidence that a “thing” that is “timeless”, “spaceless” and “immaterial” “exists”? How could it “exist” if it has no properties of existence? If it did have properties of existence it would not be timeless, spaceless or immaterial.
Sounds a lot like nothingness to me.
I believe it is irresponsible to make such claims and even more irresponsible to then project human attributes (loving, judgmental, angry, creative, and so on) upon this non-entity as Christian theists have done (which of course is nothing different than what countless other theists have done for their thousands upon thousands of gods.)
I don’t know if there is anything more irresponsible and dishonest then to claim to speak for this thing called “God” as religious leaders do. It seems to me that to claim to hold the keys to heaven and know the path to hell is the ultimate in egotism, arrogance and delusion.
I do want to say again how much I enjoy conversing with you. And whether or not you are a mother I am sure you have made a wonderful impact on many young lives and so wish you a happy Mother’s Day!
“Deductive reasoning holds to a very high standard of correctness ... the truth of its premise guarantees the truth of its conclusion, there is no middle ground.”
Garth Kemerling
John
1. are you saying the forgoing deductive logic is any of the below:
a. Illogical
b. Unreasonable
c. Implausible
d. Irrational
e. Has no explanatory scope or power
2. It would appear to me that you are leaning heavily on empirical verificationism so can you define what you think of as “evidence” just to clarify things.
3. "How could it “exist” if it has no properties of existence?"
a. Can you list what you consider properties of existence?
1. I would say that if deductive reasoning concludes that something “timeless”, “spaceless” and “immaterial” is responsible for creating the universe, then that particular line of reasoning is indeed Illogical, Unreasonable, Implausible, Irrational and Has no explanatory scope or power for the simple fact that we have no way of testing or falsifying if such a non-entity exists.
2. I would define evidence as anything that is detectable or observable in some fashion. And of course there is a wide range of evidence from anecdotal evidence that means very little to empirical evidence that means a great deal.
3. I would consider the properties of existence to include phenomena that is detectable. Of course, many things no doubt exist that we have yet to detect with our limited perceptions and instruments.
But it is irresponsible to claim gods and goblins exist in a form undetectable by us. What power over others has been generated by magicians, shaman, medicine men, witch doctors, religious leaders and of all flavors with such tactics!
sorry that was to read:
What power over others has been generated by magicians, shaman, medicine men, witch doctors, religious leaders of all flavors and plain old con-men with such tactics!
“Does string theory, or M theory, predict the distinctive features of our universe, like a spatially flat four dimensional expanding universe with small fluctuations, and the standard model of particle physics? Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe than the alternatives. These are that the initial state of the universe is predicted by an outside agency, code name God. Or that there are many universes and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle.”
S.W. Hawking “Cosmology from Top Down” 2003
1. “I would say that if deductive reasoning concludes that something “timeless”, “spaceless” and “immaterial” is responsible for creating the universe, then that particular line of reasoning is indeed Illogical, Unreasonable, Implausible, Irrational and Has no explanatory scope or power for the simple fact that we have no way of testing or falsifying if such a non-entity exists.”
a. John your conclusion is anterior to your premise; look at your use of the “if”.
b. A logical syllogism IS EVIDENCE in itself; you cannot just say it’s illogical you have to show where it logical flaw is and you haven’t.
c. You say “we have no way of testing or falsifying” however, evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either: a) Presumed to be true, or b) Were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
2. Empirical Verificationism
The social scientist and ideologue August Comte was a rather extreme verificationist, rejecting everything we cannot have direct experience of. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas,
1) Strong verification refers to statements which are directly verifiable, that is, a statement can be shown to be correct by way of empirical observation. For example, 'There are human beings on Earth.'
2) Weak verification refers to statements which are not directly verifiable, for example 'Yesterday was a Monday'. The statement could be said to be weakly verified if empirical observation can render it highly probable.
David Hume one of the early verificationist's said that the “principal of empirical verifiability” says that there are only 2 kinds of meaningful propositions 1) those that are true by definition & 2) those that are empirically verifiable.
However, we should note that this proposition is self refuting since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable it so by its own definition cannot be meaningful.
3. “What power over others has been generated by magicians, shaman, medicine men, witch doctors, religious leaders and of all flavors with such tactics!”
“Nothing can penetrate the loneliness of the human heart except the highest intensity of the sort of love the religious teachers have preached.”-Bertrand Russell. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell I.
M
Surely you don’t think the conclusion of a line of deductive reasoning is proof that such a thing exists in reality.
Though I certainly do my share of it, quoting others to make a point is usually not very productive. I can of course provide myriad quotes by Russell that condemn religion as a poison. The one you provided is quite out of character.
John,
It comes down to the strength of the premises that are used in a deductive argument. If the premises are agreed as true and the conclusion that follows is valid, then the argument cannot be disputed. Inductive argument is a bit slippery, since it tends to deal with observed events and balance of probability, so it's not as ironclad as deductive argument, and it also tends to be more commonly seen.
Since my family would come under some of your headings are you saying we are poisonous?
M
You seem to be saying that your argument PROVES the existence of a non-material, spaceless and timeless Creator of the Universe? So—
A. “Faith” that a God exists is now rendered obsolete, right? Who needs faith when we know?
B. Why isn’t the world convinced with such irrefutable proof?
I would never say that a person (or family) is poison. If someone engages in something (no matter what it is) with only the best intentions, I have respect for their wish to do good. Now I certainly may condemn the activity they are engaged in. For example, I respect the 9-11 terrorists’ desire to do good (in their minds) but condemn their ideas of how to do that and their actions. In that case I place much of the blame on their religion, their holy book and certain religious leaders.
In the case of sincere Christian religious leaders and followers who aggressively “share” their faith I have respect for their desire to do good but condemn the harmful ideas many have (anti-scientific Creationism, anti-scientific research of stem cells, discrimination of homosexuals, oppression of women, corporal punishment, capital punishment, often quite pro-war, inducing unwarranted guilt—“oh no God watched me masterbate!” and fear —“oh no, God is going to burn me in hell!” and obligation— “oh no, God wants me to put my last $10 in the offering basket!” and so on.
These notions poison life, but the sincere people who promote such ideas are not poison— merely misguided.
John
I am taken up with some urgent family business & my replies may be sporadic. I also suspect that there may be others who are “listening” in, if this is so then let’s open the conversation up for others that may want to comment.
In response
A) We have covered this under fideism
B) The overwhelming majority of the world IS convinced, not so much at the level of our discussion rather more intuitively, but the syllogism, its conclusion & inferences are well accepted. I am sure that those who don’t agree have good reason for doing so but I don’t think they are as reasonable or comprehensive in explanatory scope and power
In regards to the “poison” issue; I am somewhat sympathetic to your view of religion. However, I feel it is reductionist and simplistic and requires a far more nuanced approach than you have here presented.
Furthermore, the behaviour of people religious or otherwise has NO bearing on the ontological & epistemological reality of god, gods or God. Citing this problem only clouds the other.
M
I agree wholeheartedly that human behavior has nothing to do with whether a god exists or not.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct and have proven that a spaceless, timeless, immaterial thing we call “God” is responsible for creating the universe through the Big Bang.
What then?
Why should I care? I mean, this spaceless, timeless, immaterial “thing” has no relation to me whatsoever. It has no body I can relate to, no eyes to see me, no arms to hold me, it does not have ears to hear me cry out to it, it does not bother (nor cannot, since it is not in the natural world) to help me or my neighbor get well when we are sick or bring rain when our crops are thirsty, it cares so little about its creation that it just left life to evolve with no plan. It may as well not exist.
This is where we are with your argument so far. You now have to personalize or project human characteristics onto this spaceless, timeless, immaterial “thing” to make it interesting for us. That of course is what countless people have done for countless years as they crafted countless gods.
The bible is a great—I would say “comical”— example of projecting all our human frailties onto this otherwise incomprehensible spaceless, timeless, immaterial “thing”. It walks in the garden, it talks, it takes up residence in a tent, it enjoys bbq smoke, it is a finicky interior decorator, it designs boats, it is a tailor who makes the first clothes, it is a law maker, a judge, a sculptor who makes people out of clay, it gets angry and jealous and violent and commands revenge and killing and on and on and on.
The Quran is the same as the bible is the same as the Book of Mormon is the same as the Catholic Apocrypha is the same as The Book of Enoch is the same as The Epic of Gilgamesh and so on. All egoistic projections of our human personalities onto the blank slate of a thing beyond our comprehension.
Wish you well with your family matters.
So what now?
John,
My loved one is making a good recovery & despite some setbacks recuperation is swifter than expected, thanks for your thoughts.
You end you comments "so what now". I am not sure if you want the discussion to look deeper or in another direction.
Anyway, the other possibility is that if we can deduce the possibility of God’s existence then it follows logically that miracles can happen.
In which case the resurrection of Christ is under these circumstances possible. As I am sure you are aware Christianity (not theism) per se stands or falls on this point.
How about investigating the historical evidence for the resurrection?
M
myrtle, so glad to hear the good news about your loved one!
Though I would love to talk about the resurrection (which really seems to be no big deal to me since many other people rose from the dead in the bible) but I think we are getting ahead of ourselves.
Why don’t we start at the beginning? Establish the reliability of Genesis, the exodus, etc. Seems like the establishment of the stories of the OT as reliable historical documents must precede the NT stories. If all of the OT stories ring true based on the evidence to support them then we can look at the raising Jesus story. What do you think?
Post a Comment