No questions. I agree with the premises and conclusion. Can you show me the deductive argument for God now?
That was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.
P1: There are two possible alternatives for a First Cause of the universe: an intelligent one, or a non-intelligent one.
P2: The evidence of intelligent design is significant.
P3: The reasonable candidates for non-intelligent design are zero in number.
C: Therefore, the most rational conclusion is that an Intelligent Designer is the First Cause of the existence of the universe.
Questions?
I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently? I mean, rocks seem to be shaped by water flowing in a stream and their edges are often smoothed some by the process. Probably no two rocks are the same. Is it fair to say that a rock in a stream has rounded edges but we don't know if it was "intelligently" designed or not?
Continued from another thread.
Thoughts?
Last edited by Gary Childress on Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think we can look at the universe and ask: is it seamless? Does it all balance? is there *regularity in how it works? We can ask: is it a big, ungainly, kludge? Is it shot thru with willy-nilly irregularity? Does it proceed in fits and starts?
We can ask: why in an amoral, meaningless, universe are there clumps of matter that seem to worry about it?
We can ask: if there is no Creator, then why is there a universe?
*Sure, quantum spookiness seems to negate regularity, but: as spooky as it might be down there, up here everything works pretty well. Gravity, for example, does it thing and we take it for granted it always will. Assuming quantum spookiness is real why doesn't it bleed up? Why aren't things spooky up here? Quantum spookiness is for crap, or, sumthin' keeps it confined to the basement. Either way: up here we have regularity.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:50 pmSo are you saying that water flowing in a river softens the edges of rocks because of the water's volition?
That's not creation. That's part of the regularity of things: matter interacting with matter in a predictable way.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:07 pm
I think we can look at the universe and ask: is it seamless? Does it all balance? is there *regularity in how it works? We can ask: is it a big, ungainly, kludge? Is it shot thru with willy-nilly irregularity? Does it proceed in fits and starts?
We can ask: why in an amoral, meaningless, universe are there clumps of matter that seem to worry about it?
We can ask: if there is no Creator, then why is there a universe?
I would say if the universe has a cause that came before it, then it had a cause that came before it. Given the fact that different religions interpret that creator differently, I mean, who knows what it is that we are calling "God"/creator of the universe? Maybe all of us are wrong. \_(o_o)_/
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:42 pm
P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:26 pm
That was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.
P1: There are two possible alternatives for a First Cause of the universe: an intelligent one, or a non-intelligent one.
P2: The evidence of intelligent design is significant.
P3: The reasonable candidates for non-intelligent design are zero in number.
C: Therefore, the most rational conclusion is that an Intelligent Designer is the First Cause of the existence of the universe.
Questions?
I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently? I mean, rocks seem to be shaped by water flowing in a stream and their edges are often smoothed some by the process. Probably no two rocks are the same. Is it fair to say that a rock in a stream has rounded edges but we don't know if it was "intelligently" designed or not?
Continued from another thread.
Thoughts?
I attack the first premise. Something, physical stuff, could simply existed at the beginning of time without a cause.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:42 pm
P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.
...
Thoughts?
That's a version of the Cosmological Argument I believe. It's been around for a long time. It has a wiki page which lists the main categories of traditional counter argument to it including the infinite regress issues and so on... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
However I go with..
P1. Time and space form some sort of continuum of contained time and space; apparently we call this spacetime.
P2. We are on the inside of that spacetime continuum thingy; our time begins with spacetime, and our space is contained within spacetime.
P3. We have no means to look outside of time and space that we inhabit.
P4 There is no reason to suppose that time and space exist in similar forms to our own experience outside of the continuum that we inhabit here and now; even assuming we are conceptually equipped to fully understand what we inhabit, which is apparently also unlikely.
P5 We can only describe that which both speaker and listener can equally conceptualise.
C. Speculations about the events which predate time and which also happen outside of space can only possibly be systematically erroneous. There is no vocabulary to describe it. Vocabulary here should be understood in the broadest possible terms including all human languages, and that also includes mathematics and physics.
In other words, I declare pox on both houses, nobody who takes one side over the other in that debate has a sufficient understanding of the limits of their arguments.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:52 pm
In other words, I declare pox on both houses, nobody who takes one side over the other in that debate has a sufficient understanding of the limits of their arguments.
If we live in a world where God is so easily logically provable, it seems strange that we also live in a world where the most apparently rational people in bulk seem not to believe in God...
phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:46 pm
If you prove the existence of god, you are faced with the bigger problem of what to do with that proof.
Well, at the very least, the first thing you could do with that proof is put an end to the ridiculous notion that the fantastic order of our earth/sun system is a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.
phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:46 pm
So what if a god exists or existed?
If an incorporeal Creator Being truly does exist, then don't you think it would be interesting to know...
(never mind from a spiritual standpoint, but from a scientific standpoint)
...the ontological status of such a Being?
Furthermore, it also raises the issue that if an incorporeal Being can exist in a higher (transcendent) context of reality, then why not us?
Gary's questioning (and seemingly doubting) of how "intelligent design" can be involved in the process of a stream of water smoothing the edges of rocks, displays the same problem that evolutionary theorists demonstrate in their insistence that "natural processes" (and not any sort of intelligent design) are at the root of creation.
However, just like the evolutionists, Gary is taking for granted (i.e., not taking into account) the pre-existence of an ultra-ordered setting (again, our earth/sun system) that had to be in place and pre-loaded with all of the vast and necessary ingredients before rock-smoothing streams and evolution could even begin to do their things.
_______
Well, at the very least, the first thing you could do with that proof is put an end to the ridiculous notion that the fantastic order of our earth/sun system is a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.
Does that really make a difference in anyone's life?
"I can't make this month's rent money but at least I know the solar system was created."
If an incorporeal Creator Being truly does exist, then don't you think it would be interesting to know...
(never mind from a spiritual standpoint, but from a scientific standpoint)
...the ontological status of such a Being?
You would still know nothing about that being.
Furthermore, it also raises the issue that if an incorporeal Being can exist in a higher (transcendent) context of reality, then why not us?
seeds wrote:Well, at the very least, the first thing you could do with that proof is put an end to the ridiculous notion that the fantastic order of our earth/sun system is a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.
Does that really make a difference in anyone's life?
Well, aside from shifting all of humanity away from materialism and towards spirituality, hopefully, it would also have a humbling effect on all of the hardcore materialists who have spent their lives on philosophy forums making fun of those who believe in a Creator.
Yeah, yeah, I know - "so what".
phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:18 pm
"I can't make this month's rent money but at least I know the solar system was created."
I don't think you've given any critical thought to how you would really feel about reality if it were revealed to us that the universe is held within the Mind of a higher Consciousness.
However, to your point, yeah,...
"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."
...but shut up about there being no God, and, instead, maybe give some thought to the question of why this Being made it possible for you to receive the gift of life.
seeds wrote:If an incorporeal Creator Being truly does exist, then don't you think it would be interesting to know...
(never mind from a spiritual standpoint, but from a scientific standpoint)
...the ontological status of such a Being?
phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:18 pm
You would still know nothing about that being.
You would know that it exists, and that the unthinkable order of the universe is not a product of chance. That's not "nothing."
seeds wrote:Furthermore, it also raises the issue that if an incorporeal Being can exist in a higher (transcendent) context of reality, then why not us?
phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:18 pm
Because we are different kinds of beings?
Should a tree be a dog?
What makes you so sure that we and God are different kinds of beings?
I could be wrong, but my whole philosophical schtick is that we and God are of the "same species of being."
_______
Well, aside from shifting all of humanity away from materialism and towards spirituality, hopefully,
Why would that happen?
it would also have a humbling effect on all of the hardcore materialists who have spent their lives on philosophy forums making fun of those who believe in a Creator.
They would just make fun of something else.
But sure, there would be some satisfaction for those who believed.
I don't think you've given any critical thought to how you would really feel about reality if it were revealed to us that the universe is held within the Mind of a higher Consciousness.
You're jumping the gun.
There is only proof of a creator and nothing more. None of that "universe is held within the mind of a higher consciousness" is proven.
...but shut up about there being no God, and, instead, maybe give some thought to the question of why this Being made it possible for you to receive the gift of life.
It would only be speculation since we don't know why.
You would know that it exists, and that the unthinkable order of the universe is not a product of chance. That's not "nothing."
Nothing would be known about the nature of the creator.
What makes you so sure that we and God are different kinds of beings?
I haven't been able to create a universe. That's on a whole different level.
the idea of god flounders in a couple of areas....
One: chance, randomness..... it is clear that the universe
is quite random.... two people walking down a trail,
a tree falls, kills one and totally misses the other, not a scratch....
and then those believers say, the mind of god is unknowable,
inscrutable.... we don't know why god
picked one and not the other... the evidence is rather clear,
god is a sadistic being.... he loves to torture people....
''The Book of Job'', from the bible, is just a well documented
example of god's need to torture people.... babies who get
brain tumors... babies who have done nothing at all, how
does god justify torturing babies with brain cancer?
oh, wait, he is inscrutable... he can torture people,
just for fun..... as in the ''Book of Job''....
in a universe with god, there is no such thing as cause
and effect.... things just randomly happen because
god willed it...... there is no pleasing such a god,
because he/she/it, is random, inscrutable.... how does
one please a god who is inscrutable, unknowable?
one might suggest that we should believe....
and yet even believers get cancer, get tortured by
events, die very ugly deaths.... we grow old, we suffer,
a god who is ok with torturing us with old age and disease....
But Kropotkin, it was Adam that brought that about....
no, it was god... if god is all knowing, omniscience..
then god knew what Adam was going to do...
and that is just god trying to escape blame for eternal
torture of human beings....... if god didn't know Adam
would pick the apple, then god is clearly not
all knowing and not worthy of any kind of respect....
either god knew and allowed it anyway, or he didn't know
and isn't worth anything....
Two: having god allows human beings a way to avoid
accountability, responsibility for their actions....
it was all part of god's inscrutable plan...
plus there is a very easy cop out plan with god....
and a couple of Middle Ages King did so....
Rape, murder, pillage, plunder to one's heart content....
but seconds before one's death, repent, and thus getting
a free out of jail card for actions taken.... getting the best of
both worlds.... violence and mayhem and then forgiveness...
as god has promised....
one of the arguments for god is that it is impossible for chance
to create our universe..... that is only possible by forgetting
that the universe is billions of years old... each step of the
universe does follow the prior step... Why can't gravity create
stars? Why is the big bang impossible? it is impossible to create
plants and animals and human beings with chance? but why?
given enough time, it is possible to accomplish anything....
and the process of evolution has pointed out how this worked....
the materialist version of how the universe began and works,
makes much more sense than any mystical, metaphysical
being that can't be seen, heard, touched, tasted or smell..
for god is spirit... as we often been told.... but what is lacking is
the ''Descartes problem'' how does the brain and the body connect?
How does god create and impact matter while only spirit? What is
the exact mechanism that allows god to be spirit and impact
the material world? Many have argued, that god/spirit is within
us... and yet, the human body has been dissected for centuries...
where exactly does this spirit reside in the human body?
Now one might argue, Kropotkin, where does consciousness
reside? it has no home... and yet it does.... clearly
consciousness resides in the brain.... as chemicals
and hormones and electrical activity... which the brain
clearly has plenty of.... the brain is an electrical box....
full of chemicals and hormones.... and a combination of
those can create consciousness.... which is a hell of a better
reason for consciousness to exists, then god to exist.....
having a god allows a great deal of superstition to exists.....
why not hold to superstition when god is just a spirit that
doesn't have a physical form that, in some unknown way,
can impact the material/physical......and we can ask
forgiveness from?.... we can be forgiven for our sins....
what a way to engage in sin.. if we can be forgiven for
our sin, why not practice sin, engage in all kinds of
terrible acts if, if we can be forgiven for our sins?
I could murder, rape and torture to my hearts content,
and then by the act of asking for forgiveness, I am
forgiven and can spend eternity in heaven... what a deal....
these are a few reasons that popped into my head..
and I am sure more will come after a good night sleep....
That a God, the God might actually exist has always made sense to me because it is, after all, one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself.
But for those able to accept that their own God is loving, just and merciful, how on Earth are they able to explain all of the above other than by pointing out that "God works in mysterious ways".
Though I'd do it myself if I could.
Also, arguments for the existence of God are often exchanged up in the spiritual clouds. They are just that: words defining and defending other words.
