Axio
=o
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2014
- Messages
- 483
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Most religions don't claim to have all the answers... same with science.
Does God exist? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
kaz1
et tu
Actually that is what they do, to claim to know the inner workings and details of the so called creator of the universe who is all knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent is pretty much claiming they know everything.
We know very little about the science and the workings of the universe and theists know the inner details of the dude who made all this happen.
kaz1
et tu
The main argument against God is that there absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting its/his/her/their existence. The suffering and injustices in the world shows that god either doesn't give a shit about his creation and is an asshole or god doesn't exist. Evil is subjective and your objective logical creator seems to enjoy creating hordes of evil people just so he can judge them and punish them.
Sy123
This too shall pass
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
So will you be able to argue against the 17 variations of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and its forms, the moral argument, and various ontological arguments?
Why are you so certain in claiming the lack of evidence for the existence of God? As far as I'm concerned the existence of God is as bright as the sun, and the paths to affirming his existence is almost innumerable, but if someone has his eyes closed, not even 1000 suns will help him see light.
You don't seem to understand my contention when I say that on naturalism, evil is subjective.
Since evil is completely subjective, you cannot use it in a logical argument to prove anything whatsoever.
There are many impressive modern day arguments that show that a world with moral good and moral evil is an optimal world for creation.
For instance, if the world was only full of moral good, then we would have no choice to pick moral evil, as Alvin Plantinga put it, if you tried to speak ill of someone, the air would contract as to not allow the worlds to be sound waves, therefore preventing moral evil.
A world only with moral good would provide no choice, if there is no choice, then there is no use in rewarding good actions, the point in rewarding good actions, is because one does good actions out of their choices.
A world only with moral evil is clearly undesirable, and so the best alternative would be a world with both moral good and evil.
I can expand more on refuting the 'problem' of evil if you wish.
JohnMaximus
shepherd of the people
I exist
I'm pretty fucking amazing
somebody must have made me and
the only person who could craft something this fucking magnificent must be god
god exists
I'm pretty fucking amazing
somebody must have made me and
the only person who could craft something this fucking magnificent must be god
god exists
Sy123
This too shall pass
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
Proof Number 1: The Occasionalist Argument
1. [I lift my hand in real life, point to it and say,] This particular movement of my hand is something which began to exist.
2. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
3. Therefore, this particular movement of my hand must have a cause.
4. This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no third possibility.
5. This cause is not a contingently existing cause.
Conclusion: Therefore, by rational necessity, it must have been a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails].
I will give defense of each premise below
Firstly, this is not the conventional Kalaam Cosmological argument, it is a very different argument to this one
Secondly, the intention of this argument is to both prove the existence of the Necessary Being, and the philosophy of Occasionalism.
The philosophy of occasionalism is an important concept in Islamic theology, not only does it deny one the getaway card of deism (since God would be consistently creating everything, meaning He is interacting with creation). But it also allows the transcendence of God to be kept.
Let us begin:
Defense of Premise 1: This premise is quite clear, originally the hand is lowered at one point, and then it is raised in another, the movement itself is something that began to exist. This is because this movement, is clearly 'something', and this something, was not there earlier. Meaning it began to exist.
Defense of Premise 2: This premise is also quite clear, if things can come into existence uncaused, then this would merit some sort of observation of uncaused beginnings. Literally anything and everything can happen, but we don't observe this, so it is much more plausible than not, that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Note: If you still wish to deny this, we can alter premise 2. To say:
2*. The movement of my hand was not uncaused.
Defense of Premise 3: This follows from necessity from premises 1 and 2.
Defense of Premise 4: These are the only possibilites for the existence of anything, they may either be contingent or necessary.
Contingent meaning: "occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on."
Necessary meaning: "determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable."
These are clearly 2 opposites, i.e. one is A, and the other is the opposite of A, you can either be dependent or independent, no in between.
For example, many view the natural numbers as necessarily existent, they are independent of the human mind.
Defense of Premise 5: This is really the only controversial premise.
Let us get back to this premise soon, but lets first imagine a line of soldiers, each soldier can only shoot if the soldier behind him has shot.
If we have a line of 20 such soldiers, will there be any shots fired? No, because the first one needs to have shot, but it cannot.
We cannot also regress back infinitely, to have an infinite regress of causes, for we will never reach a first shot. So we may decide to postulate a transcendent first shooter (since we assume that laws of causality are bound by space time). An agnostic can propose a lifeless transcendent cause indeed. But if the transcendent chose to shoot, it must have some sort of will, therefore it is this attribute that we call it as 'alive'
You may of course be thinking, this is just the Kalaam argument, we can let the Necessary first cause let off a chain reaction of contingent events. But we will show this to be incoherent (and this is the crux of the argument):
Firstly, we know that this transcendent Being, has Will, Knowledge and Power. Not only this, but this Being must also be 'Perfect'. Perfect in the sense that its attributes extend to all subsequent contingent attributes leading up to the movement of my hand.
Poisiting that this Being is restricted only to the First contingent event would disqualify this being from terminating the infinite regress of causes, since we would need to then posit another Entity in order to specify the application of His attributes to the first event and prevent them from applying to all others. In which case He is not the Entity we are talking about, since we need one which will terminate the infinite regresses of contingent causes. He would only be expanding the regress backwards further, not terminating it.
Therefore, the termination of the infinite regress, requires the Entity to not only cause the first event, but all subsequent events.
It now becomes clear that positing the cause of the movement of my hand must be Necessary in nature, not contingent.
This Necessary Being must be Perfectly Knowledgeable, have Will, and Power.
The conclusion then follows out of rational necessity.
----------------------------------------------
[Source]
1. [I lift my hand in real life, point to it and say,] This particular movement of my hand is something which began to exist.
2. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
3. Therefore, this particular movement of my hand must have a cause.
4. This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no third possibility.
5. This cause is not a contingently existing cause.
Conclusion: Therefore, by rational necessity, it must have been a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails].
I will give defense of each premise below
Firstly, this is not the conventional Kalaam Cosmological argument, it is a very different argument to this one
Secondly, the intention of this argument is to both prove the existence of the Necessary Being, and the philosophy of Occasionalism.
The philosophy of occasionalism is an important concept in Islamic theology, not only does it deny one the getaway card of deism (since God would be consistently creating everything, meaning He is interacting with creation). But it also allows the transcendence of God to be kept.
Let us begin:
Defense of Premise 1: This premise is quite clear, originally the hand is lowered at one point, and then it is raised in another, the movement itself is something that began to exist. This is because this movement, is clearly 'something', and this something, was not there earlier. Meaning it began to exist.
Defense of Premise 2: This premise is also quite clear, if things can come into existence uncaused, then this would merit some sort of observation of uncaused beginnings. Literally anything and everything can happen, but we don't observe this, so it is much more plausible than not, that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Note: If you still wish to deny this, we can alter premise 2. To say:
2*. The movement of my hand was not uncaused.
Defense of Premise 3: This follows from necessity from premises 1 and 2.
Defense of Premise 4: These are the only possibilites for the existence of anything, they may either be contingent or necessary.
Contingent meaning: "occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on."
Necessary meaning: "determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable."
These are clearly 2 opposites, i.e. one is A, and the other is the opposite of A, you can either be dependent or independent, no in between.
For example, many view the natural numbers as necessarily existent, they are independent of the human mind.
Defense of Premise 5: This is really the only controversial premise.
Let us get back to this premise soon, but lets first imagine a line of soldiers, each soldier can only shoot if the soldier behind him has shot.
If we have a line of 20 such soldiers, will there be any shots fired? No, because the first one needs to have shot, but it cannot.
We cannot also regress back infinitely, to have an infinite regress of causes, for we will never reach a first shot. So we may decide to postulate a transcendent first shooter (since we assume that laws of causality are bound by space time). An agnostic can propose a lifeless transcendent cause indeed. But if the transcendent chose to shoot, it must have some sort of will, therefore it is this attribute that we call it as 'alive'
You may of course be thinking, this is just the Kalaam argument, we can let the Necessary first cause let off a chain reaction of contingent events. But we will show this to be incoherent (and this is the crux of the argument):
Firstly, we know that this transcendent Being, has Will, Knowledge and Power. Not only this, but this Being must also be 'Perfect'. Perfect in the sense that its attributes extend to all subsequent contingent attributes leading up to the movement of my hand.
Poisiting that this Being is restricted only to the First contingent event would disqualify this being from terminating the infinite regress of causes, since we would need to then posit another Entity in order to specify the application of His attributes to the first event and prevent them from applying to all others. In which case He is not the Entity we are talking about, since we need one which will terminate the infinite regresses of contingent causes. He would only be expanding the regress backwards further, not terminating it.
Therefore, the termination of the infinite regress, requires the Entity to not only cause the first event, but all subsequent events.
It now becomes clear that positing the cause of the movement of my hand must be Necessary in nature, not contingent.
This Necessary Being must be Perfectly Knowledgeable, have Will, and Power.
The conclusion then follows out of rational necessity.
----------------------------------------------
[Source]
Sy123
This too shall pass
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
Proof Number 2: The Moral Argument
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
NOTE: This is not the professional defense of the argument, I'm using what I have thought of.
Moral value: The moral worth of something, whether that action is good or bad.
Moral duty: The obligation to do or not do something, whether what we do is right or wrong.
It will first be better to get premise 2 out of the way:
Defense of Premise 2: It should be clear that in our innate nature, there are values that we hold, that we hold to be objectively true. Meaning that in all possible worlds, unjustified murder is wrong.
Take a grievous crime X. (The absolute worst you can imagine, on the most vulnerable of people).
1) If morals are not objective, then they are subjective to a certain degree, or they are subjective to an unrestricted degree.
2) If morals are subjective to an unrestricted degree, we can conceive of a world where X is morally agreed upon
3) This is inconceivable
4) Therefore, morals are not subjective unrestrictedly.
5) If morals are subjective to a certain degree, then this restriction must be objective, otherwise we have an infinite regress of subjective rules.
6) Thus for morality to be subjective to a certain degree, is equivalent for morality to be objective
7) Thus objective morality is the only option.
1. and 2. Follow from rational necessity.
4 follows from 1, 2 and 3.
5, 6, and 7 follow quite nicely
However it is sad to me at least that I will have to defend premise 3, it seems to me to be a metaphysical truth.
To demonstrate the absurdity of heinous crime X being conceived as morally good we will take unrestricted moral subjectivity to its extreme.
If morals are unrestrictedly subjective, then what is moral and immoral is up to the whim of beings who wish it to be so. This means then that communal moral obligation does not exist, for the murderer, the rapist and so on, may have their own moral system in which they view themselves as being right.
However we affirm that they commit immoral acts
Yet they are not committing immorality.
Thus, to say then that immorality exists would be absurd
But we affirm that immorality does exist.
Therefore we say then that unlimited moral subjectivity fails.
We are left with then that we have moral subjectivity to a certain level. However as I have argued in the 7 step process, this is equivalent to moral objectivity if we wish to terminate an infinite regress of 'rules governing moral subjectivity'
Defense of Premise 1: Note that this is a question of moral ontology, and not epistemology. We are not concerned with how objective moral values are known, but rather how they exist.
Let us take a theory of morality, the reason why certain acts are moral or immoral, call this reason X. Since this theory needs to be devoid of the concept of God, call this theory god-Less.
i.e. Murder is immoral because of X.
For example Sam Harris would say that X is the denial of the flourishing of conscious creatures, others might say to avoid pain and suffering, and so on.
1) The basis of X is god-Less
2) Therefore we can conceive of a world, where acts are immoral, yet X has been fulfilled, i.e. immorality is occurring despite the flourishing of conscious creatures.
3) But X is objective, therefore, there can be no situation in which immorality stems from X.
4) Therefore the concept of X is incoherent.
What if X is substituted with the command of God?
The command of God will reign through all possible worlds. If we substitute X with the command of God, premise (2) can never hold because if X is substituted with the command of God, only God decides what is moral and immoral.
Therefore X can only be based in God.
Therefore objective moral values do not exist if God does not exist.
-----------------------------
This concept is incredibly intuitive.
If God does not exists, we are nothing but shapes of matter, we are no different to animals, why would objective moral values exist for creatures no different to a pig, or rocks, or diarrhea?
The fact of the matter is, if God does not exist, life is absolutely absurd, there can be no necessary moral values.
Therefore, premise 1 can be plausibly accepted as true.
Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable if you except the 2 premises.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
NOTE: This is not the professional defense of the argument, I'm using what I have thought of.
Moral value: The moral worth of something, whether that action is good or bad.
Moral duty: The obligation to do or not do something, whether what we do is right or wrong.
It will first be better to get premise 2 out of the way:
Defense of Premise 2: It should be clear that in our innate nature, there are values that we hold, that we hold to be objectively true. Meaning that in all possible worlds, unjustified murder is wrong.
Take a grievous crime X. (The absolute worst you can imagine, on the most vulnerable of people).
1) If morals are not objective, then they are subjective to a certain degree, or they are subjective to an unrestricted degree.
2) If morals are subjective to an unrestricted degree, we can conceive of a world where X is morally agreed upon
3) This is inconceivable
4) Therefore, morals are not subjective unrestrictedly.
5) If morals are subjective to a certain degree, then this restriction must be objective, otherwise we have an infinite regress of subjective rules.
6) Thus for morality to be subjective to a certain degree, is equivalent for morality to be objective
7) Thus objective morality is the only option.
1. and 2. Follow from rational necessity.
4 follows from 1, 2 and 3.
5, 6, and 7 follow quite nicely
However it is sad to me at least that I will have to defend premise 3, it seems to me to be a metaphysical truth.
To demonstrate the absurdity of heinous crime X being conceived as morally good we will take unrestricted moral subjectivity to its extreme.
If morals are unrestrictedly subjective, then what is moral and immoral is up to the whim of beings who wish it to be so. This means then that communal moral obligation does not exist, for the murderer, the rapist and so on, may have their own moral system in which they view themselves as being right.
However we affirm that they commit immoral acts
Yet they are not committing immorality.
Thus, to say then that immorality exists would be absurd
But we affirm that immorality does exist.
Therefore we say then that unlimited moral subjectivity fails.
We are left with then that we have moral subjectivity to a certain level. However as I have argued in the 7 step process, this is equivalent to moral objectivity if we wish to terminate an infinite regress of 'rules governing moral subjectivity'
Defense of Premise 1: Note that this is a question of moral ontology, and not epistemology. We are not concerned with how objective moral values are known, but rather how they exist.
Let us take a theory of morality, the reason why certain acts are moral or immoral, call this reason X. Since this theory needs to be devoid of the concept of God, call this theory god-Less.
i.e. Murder is immoral because of X.
For example Sam Harris would say that X is the denial of the flourishing of conscious creatures, others might say to avoid pain and suffering, and so on.
1) The basis of X is god-Less
2) Therefore we can conceive of a world, where acts are immoral, yet X has been fulfilled, i.e. immorality is occurring despite the flourishing of conscious creatures.
3) But X is objective, therefore, there can be no situation in which immorality stems from X.
4) Therefore the concept of X is incoherent.
What if X is substituted with the command of God?
The command of God will reign through all possible worlds. If we substitute X with the command of God, premise (2) can never hold because if X is substituted with the command of God, only God decides what is moral and immoral.
Therefore X can only be based in God.
Therefore objective moral values do not exist if God does not exist.
-----------------------------
This concept is incredibly intuitive.
If God does not exists, we are nothing but shapes of matter, we are no different to animals, why would objective moral values exist for creatures no different to a pig, or rocks, or diarrhea?
The fact of the matter is, if God does not exist, life is absolutely absurd, there can be no necessary moral values.
Therefore, premise 1 can be plausibly accepted as true.
Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable if you except the 2 premises.
Sy123
This too shall pass
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
Proof Number 3: The Teleological (Fine Tuning) Argument
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Defense of Premise 1: This really comes into 2 parts, proving that fine tuning of the universe exists, and laying down the options.
It is widely known among cosmologists that there are certain constants of our universe, where if one were altered just a little bit, absurd things would happen, such as the inability for atoms to form, the universe may have expanded too fast, or expanded too slowly.
There is a whole variety of constants that we can adhere to observe fine tuning, one of them being the Cosmological Constant.
The Cosmological Constant, it is known, must be fine tuned to 1 part in 101^(20)
There are many other constants with their own probabilities.
Roger Penrose the physicist states: “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 10^10^(123).”[1]
That is a:
probability, such numbers are insane, and speak magnitudes for the fine tuning for life.
There are only 3 possibilities for such fine tuning. Due to chance at the initial big bang. Due to physical necessity, or design.
Defense of Premise 2:
This is the controversial premise of course.
To deal with physical necessity is simple, what it means is that these constants and quantities MUST be that way, i.e. they necessarily exist that way. But there is no evidence in physics to suggest this to be the case, we can most definitely postulate universes in which this not be the case.
Of course then we are left with chance. However the odds are so astonishingly low that no person in their right mind would try to say that it happened by chance, just by itself. We never apply this logic to our daily lives, why should we apply it here?
No right minded person will simply say that it arose by chance, without postulating the multiverse theory.
There are multiple problems with the multiverse theory however.
1. There is no empirical evidence to suggest the existence of multiverses
2. This violates Occam's Razor.
3. There are problems with the level 2 Multiverse theory, which states that there are a near infinite number of universes, each with their own starting conditions, so that in the end, a universe like ours is inevitable.
3*. The Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has proposed quite an ingenious problem philosophically for this universe.
It is the Boltzmann Brains problem: A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothesized self awareness
As William Lane Craig puts it:
"Here’s where the Boltzmann Brains come into the picture. In order to be observable the patch of order needn’t be even as large as the solar system. The most probable observable world would be one in which a single brain fluctuates into existence out of the quantum vacuum and observes its otherwise empty world. The idea isn’t that the brain is the whole universe, but just a patch of order in the midst of disorder. Don’t worry that the brain couldn’t persist long: it just has to exist long enough to have an observation, and the improbability of the quantum fluctuations necessary for it to exist that long will be trivial in comparison to the improbability of fine tuning."
The italicized point is important.
According to the multi-verse hypotheses, if universes come into being randomly, and an infinitely many universes would have this be the case. It is vastly more probable that a universe containing a single Boltzmann brain would fluctuate into existence. But we aren't Boltzmann brains! Therefore we can only conclude that the multiverse hypothesis is invalid in trying to explain away the fine tuning of our universe.
Thus we cannot even explain it by chance.
Here is a good analogy:
"Imagine you are playing some sort of high stakes gambling game. You draw out 4 aces in one go. The people playing with you get up and ask what in the world is going on, because they clearly think that something is suspicious. But you say 'well we just happen to be in one of the universes in the world ensemble in which I draw 4 aces, its inevitable that I draw all 4 aces!"
----
In the end, this argument appeals most to the intuition of other people, it is clear that design is prevalent in our universe, it is clear that we are designed.
If you want to specify aliens, then clearly these aliens were designed, if they were given such intelligence to be able to design, and we would follow an infinite regress eventually to the greatest Designer. There is no escaping this fact.
[1]: Roger Penrose, “Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity,” in Quantum Gravity 2 (ed. C. J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. W. Sciama; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 249.
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Defense of Premise 1: This really comes into 2 parts, proving that fine tuning of the universe exists, and laying down the options.
It is widely known among cosmologists that there are certain constants of our universe, where if one were altered just a little bit, absurd things would happen, such as the inability for atoms to form, the universe may have expanded too fast, or expanded too slowly.
There is a whole variety of constants that we can adhere to observe fine tuning, one of them being the Cosmological Constant.
The Cosmological Constant, it is known, must be fine tuned to 1 part in 101^(20)
There are many other constants with their own probabilities.
Roger Penrose the physicist states: “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 10^10^(123).”[1]
That is a:
There are only 3 possibilities for such fine tuning. Due to chance at the initial big bang. Due to physical necessity, or design.
Defense of Premise 2:
This is the controversial premise of course.
To deal with physical necessity is simple, what it means is that these constants and quantities MUST be that way, i.e. they necessarily exist that way. But there is no evidence in physics to suggest this to be the case, we can most definitely postulate universes in which this not be the case.
Of course then we are left with chance. However the odds are so astonishingly low that no person in their right mind would try to say that it happened by chance, just by itself. We never apply this logic to our daily lives, why should we apply it here?
No right minded person will simply say that it arose by chance, without postulating the multiverse theory.
There are multiple problems with the multiverse theory however.
1. There is no empirical evidence to suggest the existence of multiverses
2. This violates Occam's Razor.
3. There are problems with the level 2 Multiverse theory, which states that there are a near infinite number of universes, each with their own starting conditions, so that in the end, a universe like ours is inevitable.
3*. The Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has proposed quite an ingenious problem philosophically for this universe.
It is the Boltzmann Brains problem: A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothesized self awareness
As William Lane Craig puts it:
"Here’s where the Boltzmann Brains come into the picture. In order to be observable the patch of order needn’t be even as large as the solar system. The most probable observable world would be one in which a single brain fluctuates into existence out of the quantum vacuum and observes its otherwise empty world. The idea isn’t that the brain is the whole universe, but just a patch of order in the midst of disorder. Don’t worry that the brain couldn’t persist long: it just has to exist long enough to have an observation, and the improbability of the quantum fluctuations necessary for it to exist that long will be trivial in comparison to the improbability of fine tuning."
The italicized point is important.
According to the multi-verse hypotheses, if universes come into being randomly, and an infinitely many universes would have this be the case. It is vastly more probable that a universe containing a single Boltzmann brain would fluctuate into existence. But we aren't Boltzmann brains! Therefore we can only conclude that the multiverse hypothesis is invalid in trying to explain away the fine tuning of our universe.
Thus we cannot even explain it by chance.
Here is a good analogy:
"Imagine you are playing some sort of high stakes gambling game. You draw out 4 aces in one go. The people playing with you get up and ask what in the world is going on, because they clearly think that something is suspicious. But you say 'well we just happen to be in one of the universes in the world ensemble in which I draw 4 aces, its inevitable that I draw all 4 aces!"
----
In the end, this argument appeals most to the intuition of other people, it is clear that design is prevalent in our universe, it is clear that we are designed.
If you want to specify aliens, then clearly these aliens were designed, if they were given such intelligence to be able to design, and we would follow an infinite regress eventually to the greatest Designer. There is no escaping this fact.
[1]: Roger Penrose, “Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity,” in Quantum Gravity 2 (ed. C. J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. W. Sciama; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 249.
Absolutezero
real human bean
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2007
- Messages
- 15,070
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
But none of those are actually the reason you believe though, right?
Kiraken
RISK EVERYTHING
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,905
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Doesn't taking this premise as true therefore also violate the notion of God since God is an "uncaused beginning"?
Also does the comparison between the movement of a hand, which exists in time, really apply to the creation of the universe i.e. the creation of time itself?
Kiraken
RISK EVERYTHING
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,905
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
for this, where is your reasoning that morality has to be objective? (premises 2-3 confuse me a little)
Kiraken
RISK EVERYTHING
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,905
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
occam's razor isn't a proof per se thoughProof Number 3: The Teleological (Fine Tuning) Argument
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Defense of Premise 1: This really comes into 2 parts, proving that fine tuning of the universe exists, and laying down the options.
It is widely known among cosmologists that there are certain constants of our universe, where if one were altered just a little bit, absurd things would happen, such as the inability for atoms to form, the universe may have expanded too fast, or expanded too slowly.
There is a whole variety of constants that we can adhere to observe fine tuning, one of them being the Cosmological Constant.
The Cosmological Constant, it is known, must be fine tuned to 1 part in 101^(20)
There are many other constants with their own probabilities.
Roger Penrose the physicist states: “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 10^10^(123).”[1]
That is a:
There are only 3 possibilities for such fine tuning. Due to chance at the initial big bang. Due to physical necessity, or design.
Defense of Premise 2:
This is the controversial premise of course.
To deal with physical necessity is simple, what it means is that these constants and quantities MUST be that way, i.e. they necessarily exist that way. But there is no evidence in physics to suggest this to be the case, we can most definitely postulate universes in which this not be the case.
Of course then we are left with chance. However the odds are so astonishingly low that no person in their right mind would try to say that it happened by chance, just by itself. We never apply this logic to our daily lives, why should we apply it here?
No right minded person will simply say that it arose by chance, without postulating the multiverse theory.
There are multiple problems with the multiverse theory however.
1. There is no empirical evidence to suggest the existence of multiverses
2. This violates Occam's Razor.
3. There are problems with the level 2 Multiverse theory, which states that there are a near infinite number of universes, each with their own starting conditions, so that in the end, a universe like ours is inevitable.
3*. The Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has proposed quite an ingenious problem philosophically for this universe.
It is the Boltzmann Brains problem: A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothesized self awareness
As William Lane Craig puts it:
"Here’s where the Boltzmann Brains come into the picture. In order to be observable the patch of order needn’t be even as large as the solar system. The most probable observable world would be one in which a single brain fluctuates into existence out of the quantum vacuum and observes its otherwise empty world. The idea isn’t that the brain is the whole universe, but just a patch of order in the midst of disorder. Don’t worry that the brain couldn’t persist long: it just has to exist long enough to have an observation, and the improbability of the quantum fluctuations necessary for it to exist that long will be trivial in comparison to the improbability of fine tuning."
The italicized point is important.
According to the multi-verse hypotheses, if universes come into being randomly, and an infinitely many universes would have this be the case. It is vastly more probable that a universe containing a single Boltzmann brain would fluctuate into existence. But we aren't Boltzmann brains! Therefore we can only conclude that the multiverse hypothesis is invalid in trying to explain away the fine tuning of our universe.
Thus we cannot even explain it by chance.
Here is a good analogy:
"Imagine you are playing some sort of high stakes gambling game. You draw out 4 aces in one go. The people playing with you get up and ask what in the world is going on, because they clearly think that something is suspicious. But you say 'well we just happen to be in one of the universes in the world ensemble in which I draw 4 aces, its inevitable that I draw all 4 aces!"
----
In the end, this argument appeals most to the intuition of other people, it is clear that design is prevalent in our universe, it is clear that we are designed.
If you want to specify aliens, then clearly these aliens were designed, if they were given such intelligence to be able to design, and we would follow an infinite regress eventually to the greatest Designer. There is no escaping this fact.
[1]: Roger Penrose, “Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity,” in Quantum Gravity 2 (ed. C. J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. W. Sciama; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 249.
Sy123
This too shall pass
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
Proof Number 4: The Kalaam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Defense of Premise 1: This again is obvious, for a more comprehensive explanation, please see Proof Number 1.2
We know through our general experience that whatever begins to exist has a cause, we have no reason to deny it at all, and so it qualifies quite nicely for a metaphysical principle.
Defense of Premise 2: We know through modern science that at some point the universe must have begun to exist, you may wish to call this, the 'Big Bang'.
The Big Bang is the event, at which space and time had begun to exist, and so right there we have a good reason for believing the universe had begun to exist.
Also if the universe was pre-eternal, it would contradict the laws of thermodynamics.
However for more philosophical proofs, we can use one that is based on the impossibility of an actual infinite in the real world.
If the universe was pre-eternal in nature, meaning as well it was pre-eternal in time. This would mean, that there are an infinite amount of seconds, by which the universe has existed. The next second, then clearly the amount of seconds by which the universe has increased. But there is no such thing as an increase in the infinite!
For a more rigorous example, we can look at the example of Hilbert's Hotel.
Take an imaginary hotel, with an infinite amount of rooms, and each room has a guest in it.
A new guest comes to the door, and asks for a room placement. The manager decides to shift everyone in room n, to n+1, where n is any natural number.
Meaning then that room 1 is vacant, so the first person can come in.
So what happens then if there are an infinite number of new guests? The manager then shifts everyone in room n, to room 2n. So all the odd number rooms are free, and then the infinite number of guests can accommodate themselves.
This situation is clearly absurd! It highlights the absurdity of dealing with actual infinites in the phyiscal world.
If this were the case, what about the infinite amount of time?
What about the infinite amount of orbits the heavenly bodies make?
A pre-eternal universe contradicts philosophical and scientific evidence. And so our convicition then should be, that the universe indeed began to exist.
------
The conclusion then must follow by rational necessity.
This cause must have perfect power, knowledge and will, in order to avoid an infinite regress of causes. He is necessary in nature.
This is what we call God.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Defense of Premise 1: This again is obvious, for a more comprehensive explanation, please see Proof Number 1.2
We know through our general experience that whatever begins to exist has a cause, we have no reason to deny it at all, and so it qualifies quite nicely for a metaphysical principle.
Defense of Premise 2: We know through modern science that at some point the universe must have begun to exist, you may wish to call this, the 'Big Bang'.
The Big Bang is the event, at which space and time had begun to exist, and so right there we have a good reason for believing the universe had begun to exist.
Also if the universe was pre-eternal, it would contradict the laws of thermodynamics.
However for more philosophical proofs, we can use one that is based on the impossibility of an actual infinite in the real world.
If the universe was pre-eternal in nature, meaning as well it was pre-eternal in time. This would mean, that there are an infinite amount of seconds, by which the universe has existed. The next second, then clearly the amount of seconds by which the universe has increased. But there is no such thing as an increase in the infinite!
For a more rigorous example, we can look at the example of Hilbert's Hotel.
Take an imaginary hotel, with an infinite amount of rooms, and each room has a guest in it.
A new guest comes to the door, and asks for a room placement. The manager decides to shift everyone in room n, to n+1, where n is any natural number.
Meaning then that room 1 is vacant, so the first person can come in.
So what happens then if there are an infinite number of new guests? The manager then shifts everyone in room n, to room 2n. So all the odd number rooms are free, and then the infinite number of guests can accommodate themselves.
This situation is clearly absurd! It highlights the absurdity of dealing with actual infinites in the phyiscal world.
If this were the case, what about the infinite amount of time?
What about the infinite amount of orbits the heavenly bodies make?
A pre-eternal universe contradicts philosophical and scientific evidence. And so our convicition then should be, that the universe indeed began to exist.
------
The conclusion then must follow by rational necessity.
This cause must have perfect power, knowledge and will, in order to avoid an infinite regress of causes. He is necessary in nature.
This is what we call God.
Sy123
This too shall pass
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
The intuition behind them is the reason yes, these arguments are merely attempts to change intuition to formal argumentation.
i.e. clear intuitive design in creation, why do we exist, clear meaning in life etc etc.
No, God is not an uncaused beginning. I don't know where you got this concept from. God is pre-eternal in his essence as He is defined as the Necessary Being. He never came into being, He was always 'there'
I am not concerned with analogising to the universe. This is not the Kalam argument, its a very different sort of argument.
I assume you are talking about this:
1) If morals are not objective, then they are subjective to a certain degree, or they are subjective to an unrestricted degree.
2) If morals are subjective to an unrestricted degree, we can conceive of a world where X is morally agreed upon
3) This is inconceivable
4) Therefore, morals are not subjective unrestrictedly.
5) If morals are subjective to a certain degree, then this restriction must be objective, otherwise we have an infinite regress of subjective rules.
6) Thus for morality to be subjective to a certain degree, is equivalent for morality to be objective
7) Thus objective morality is the only option.
What 2 is essentially saying is, that we can concieve of a world where for example, child molestation is morally ok.
3 is saying that this goes against all of our intuition completely. Substitute X for an even more heinous crime, you will get less and less people disputing this.
I'm not using it as a proof, but more as a supporting evidence. The better proof follows from there.
-- Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I haven't finished with my proof series either, I want to finish with the beautiful Modal Ontological Argument.
Sy123
This too shall pass
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
Proof Number 5: The Argument from Contingency (The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument)
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external explanation.
2. If the Universe has an explanation for its existence, and that explanation is grounded in a Necessary Being
3. The Universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2, 4)
In order for the argument to pass, we only need to defend premises 1, 2, and 4.
Defense of Premise 1: Indeed this seems to be quite obvious, similar to 'everything that begins to exist has a cause', except even more fundamental than that. Even those who deny real causation like Hume, won't be able to deny this.
If we deny that everything that exists has an explanation, this would completely undermine all science, things could just come into being, or do things, for absolutely no reason at all.
If we deny that everything that exists has an explanation, then this would entail that our own perceptions also may have no explanation. Meaning, there may be absolutely no reason why I can do something or not do something.
It is clear that Premise 1 has a great amount of scientific and philosophical basis.
Defense of Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation in itself, it must be then Necessary in nature.
However if it is necessary, then:
1. It must be Eternal: However we know that this is not the case, both philosophically and scientifically, see Proof 4.2
2. It must be changeless: It is clear that our universe is changing! No one can deny this.
Therefore our Universe is not necessary, therefore by Premise 1 its explanation is Necessary.
Defense of Premise 4: This follows logically from (1,3), since everything that exists has an explanation, and the universe exists.
Therefore it follows from logical necessity, the Necessary Being must exist.
This Necessary Being, is what we call God.
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external explanation.
2. If the Universe has an explanation for its existence, and that explanation is grounded in a Necessary Being
3. The Universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2, 4)
In order for the argument to pass, we only need to defend premises 1, 2, and 4.
Defense of Premise 1: Indeed this seems to be quite obvious, similar to 'everything that begins to exist has a cause', except even more fundamental than that. Even those who deny real causation like Hume, won't be able to deny this.
If we deny that everything that exists has an explanation, this would completely undermine all science, things could just come into being, or do things, for absolutely no reason at all.
If we deny that everything that exists has an explanation, then this would entail that our own perceptions also may have no explanation. Meaning, there may be absolutely no reason why I can do something or not do something.
It is clear that Premise 1 has a great amount of scientific and philosophical basis.
Defense of Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation in itself, it must be then Necessary in nature.
However if it is necessary, then:
1. It must be Eternal: However we know that this is not the case, both philosophically and scientifically, see Proof 4.2
2. It must be changeless: It is clear that our universe is changing! No one can deny this.
Therefore our Universe is not necessary, therefore by Premise 1 its explanation is Necessary.
Defense of Premise 4: This follows logically from (1,3), since everything that exists has an explanation, and the universe exists.
Therefore it follows from logical necessity, the Necessary Being must exist.
This Necessary Being, is what we call God.
Sy123
This too shall pass
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
Proof Number 6: The Modal Ontological Argument
1. It is possible God exists
2. If it is possible God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds
3. If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds
4. If God exists in all Possible worlds, then God exists in the Actual world
5. If God exists in the actual world, then God exists
This is as close as you can get to a mathematical proof for God's existence.
However it is a little technical, so to clear up some definitions:
- A possible world is simply a hypothetical situation, that you can use to test if an idea is logically coherent.
- When we define what an entity is, an entity can be impossible, contingent or Necessary.
An impossible thing is something that cannot exist, due to logical incoherence, and does not exist in any possible world: i.e. a square-circle, place north of the north pole, and so on.
A contingent thing, is something that can exist, in some possible worlds, like a BMW, or a Doner Kebab, they exist in some possible worlds, but not in others.
A Necessary thing/Being, is something that exists in all possible worlds, things like the natural numbers, shape definitions, and so on.
So how do we define God in this proof? Well we would define Him like in any other proof, that IF he exists, He is the 'Maximally Great Being', a being that possesses properties that would clearly be better to have, i.e. necessity, power, and knowledge. If He is the Maximally Great Being, then He must be a Necessary being.
The proof follows modal logic strictly, and in fact the only premise that needs to be defended is premise 1.
Since the rest of the argument follows from rational necessity.
It highlights the fact that one only really needs to show that God is possible, to show that He is existent.
Defense of Premise 1: There is really not much to say, it is up to the atheist to show that the concept of God is logically incoherent, i.e. that He is equivalent to a square-circle.
However the reason I chose this proof to be last, is that the previous 5 arguments at least show the great possibility of God to exist.
Although the previous arguments all give the probability of God's existence to be really high, this is the final argument that one can use, to show that not only is the probability of God's existence to be really high, but that he *definitely* exists, the probability is 1. Since this is as close as you can get to a Mathematical proof for Gods existence.
1. It is possible God exists
2. If it is possible God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds
3. If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds
4. If God exists in all Possible worlds, then God exists in the Actual world
5. If God exists in the actual world, then God exists
This is as close as you can get to a mathematical proof for God's existence.
However it is a little technical, so to clear up some definitions:
- A possible world is simply a hypothetical situation, that you can use to test if an idea is logically coherent.
- When we define what an entity is, an entity can be impossible, contingent or Necessary.
An impossible thing is something that cannot exist, due to logical incoherence, and does not exist in any possible world: i.e. a square-circle, place north of the north pole, and so on.
A contingent thing, is something that can exist, in some possible worlds, like a BMW, or a Doner Kebab, they exist in some possible worlds, but not in others.
A Necessary thing/Being, is something that exists in all possible worlds, things like the natural numbers, shape definitions, and so on.
So how do we define God in this proof? Well we would define Him like in any other proof, that IF he exists, He is the 'Maximally Great Being', a being that possesses properties that would clearly be better to have, i.e. necessity, power, and knowledge. If He is the Maximally Great Being, then He must be a Necessary being.
The proof follows modal logic strictly, and in fact the only premise that needs to be defended is premise 1.
Since the rest of the argument follows from rational necessity.
It highlights the fact that one only really needs to show that God is possible, to show that He is existent.
Defense of Premise 1: There is really not much to say, it is up to the atheist to show that the concept of God is logically incoherent, i.e. that He is equivalent to a square-circle.
However the reason I chose this proof to be last, is that the previous 5 arguments at least show the great possibility of God to exist.
Although the previous arguments all give the probability of God's existence to be really high, this is the final argument that one can use, to show that not only is the probability of God's existence to be really high, but that he *definitely* exists, the probability is 1. Since this is as close as you can get to a Mathematical proof for Gods existence.
How I determined that there is one god and that mohammed is his prophet, using the utmost scientific and rational induction;
> Born into islamic family
> Indoctrinated that the islamic religion is true
> Follow standard scientific method; Determine outcome and then search for the evidence
> Visit the most islamic websites for all my information
> shitpost spammed this information on internet forums
> Born into islamic family
> Indoctrinated that the islamic religion is true
> Follow standard scientific method; Determine outcome and then search for the evidence
> Visit the most islamic websites for all my information
> shitpost spammed this information on internet forums
Sy123
This too shall pass
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
Please point to the argument(s) you contend with, and illustrate which premise is false, giving evidences
Otherwise your post has no use