Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

That's actually not the rival hypothesis. The rival hypothesis is "Random chance created the universe." And when you realize that's the alternative...well, all the evidence goes one side.

You CANNOT prove that any finite string with apparent pattern is not random.

You've completely missed the point. We're not talking about a mere "finite string." We're talking about a chain of cause-and-effect.

The special feature of a chain of cause-and-effect is that the cause has to, definitionally, happen prior to the effect. If the supposed "cause" happens exactly contemporaneous with or after the proposed "effect," then neither is the supposed "cause" the real cause, nor is the supposed "effect" the real effect of that supposed cause. Thus, it forms a chain of prerequisites.

If I were to suggest that the "cause" of WW2 was the unsatisfactory resolution of WW1, you might believe that. But if I were to tell you that the unsatisfactory resolution of WW1 caused the rise of Napoleon, you'd recognize right away that I'd lost my mind: any proposed cause must happen before the proposed effect, or it is simply not a logical candidate for a cause. And you already know that.

It a string of cause-and-effect that cannot recede infinitely into the past. Because then, the prerequisites are never met. There are neither effects nor any causes, and nothing exists.

But something does exist, manifestly. Therefore, an infinitely recessive chain of prerequisites (cause-and-effect) did not produce it. It could not, by definition.

Random s NOT the only alternative that. Another obviously distinct monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, etc. are ALL contenders for "something other than YOURs".

No, you're actually wrong. Monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, etc. have already given up the game we're talking about.

They all posit a First Cause, that cause being some conception of the Supreme Being. (Pantheism even bows to this, because it posits "little gods" that were created by something bigger and prior, some "divine principle." Gnosticism surrenders by making up a demiurge who, while the creator, is only a late "emanation" of "the "Pleroma," to use their language, which is capped by some First Cause -- they say "Abyss," or some such thing.) So they're united only in this: that there needed to be a First Cause.

The only opposition to the First Cause explanation is randomness. So what the randomness people want us to believe is that nothing created something out of nothing. And that something that nothing created came to have all the features of mathematical consistency, causality, coherence, life and irreducible complexity that we observe so regularly in our universe.

Those are the only two players in the primary game of "First Cause, or No First Cause." Which one do you back?

[Will Bouwman]

We're talking about a chain of cause-and-effect.

As someone once said:

Apparently, some think otherwise.

For instance:

What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed.

[Will Bouwman]

All I'm pointing out, Will, is that "what scientists believe" is a work-in-progress. Tomorrow, they will "believe" something different, plausibly.

There is no 'they'. You have cited Michael Polanyi favourably several times but if, even briefly, you can intimate that scientists are an homogeneous group, you have lost your grip on whatever understanding you might have had of his position.

And there are almost no questions they find non-controversial...

Oh good, you haven't completely lost the plot.

...except that the scientific method itself is valuable in reforming poor hypotheses.

There is no such thing as the scientific method. Hypotheses are hypothesised without constraints. Some crunch the numbers or logic methodically and see what follows, others make inspired guesses; the party guys (and gals) pull some crazy shit out their arse; any scientist worth their salt will have tried all three at some time. All those methods have been used to create the rich scientific architecture we currently inhabit. It is not any scientific method that reforms poor hypotheses, it is evidence. Richard Feynman didn't waste many syllables putting it thus:
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”

Anytime somebody says, "it's the science," it behoves us to drill down on questions like "which scientists," and "in what context," and "with what degree of evidence, proof and certainty." If COVID taught us nothing else, it should have taught us that people who invoke "the science" in this sort of blank and unexplained way, evidently hoping to end the argument thereby, are almost always bluffing.

Oh boy. The Fauci dog whistle gets blown and you start barking. Is it your self awareness or self respect that is running on empty?

[MikeNovack]

There is no such thing as the scientific method. Hypotheses are hypothesised without constraints. Some crunch the numbers or logic methodically and see what follows, others make inspired guesses; the party guys (and gals) pull some crazy shit out their arse; any scientist worth their salt will have tried all three at some time. All those methods have been used to create the rich scientific architecture we currently inhabit. It is not any scientific method that reforms poor hypotheses, it is evidence. Richard Feynman didn't waste many syllables putting it thus:
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”

Anytime somebody says, "it's the science," it behoves us to drill down on questions like "which scientists," and "in what context," and "with what degree of evidence, proof and certainty." If COVID taught us nothing else, it should have taught us that people who invoke "the science" in this sort of blank and unexplained way, evidently hoping to end the argument thereby, are almost always bluffing.

Oh boy. The Fauci dog whistle gets blown and you start barking. Is it your self awareness or self respect that is running on empty?

This sort of thing belongs in the "Philosophy of Science" section of the forum.

BUT -- I will point out that much of science (its history and supposed process) is mythical.
Thus Galileo did not come up with "objects fall at the same speed" by dropping balls and making the observation (but be considering consequences of their falling speed dependent on weight). He didn't come up with this laws of motion by rolling balls down ramps and observing but by considering observations made from frames of reference moving relative to each other (that the laws must be the same for each observer)

First "theory", then the suggested experiments to disprove it (if possible). Without a working theory, impossible to design suitable experiments to enable conclusions to be drawn.

[MikeNovack]

It a string of cause-and-effect that cannot recede infinitely into the past. Because then, the prerequisites are never met. There are neither effects nor any causes, and nothing exists.
<< that is an axiom of yours >>

But something does exist, manifestly. Therefore, an infinitely recessive chain of prerequisites (cause-and-effect) did not produce it. It could not, by definition.
<< you are ASSUMING existence of things "finite" >>

No, you're actually wrong. Monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, etc. have already given up the game we're talking about.
<< B,,,,,S...... Sorry IC, but Christianity is NOT game in town for theists >>

They all posit a First Cause, that cause being some conception of the Supreme Being. (Pantheism even bows to this, because it posits "little gods" that were created by something bigger and prior, some "divine principle."
You haven't a clue about what pantheism is when you say that. And in that case, cause/creation means something a little different than you mean it. When you say God created the universe (external form God's self) you mean something rather different from God became the universe (or always was). WTF are the "little gods" you are talking about? Pantheism isn't animism.

Those are the only two players in the primary game of "First Cause, or No First Cause." Which one do you back?

I don't have to back either. It is YOU claiming evidence in the material world could support your particular/peculiar notion of what the first cause might be. I don't have to argue against first cause to say "existence of a first cause" does not give you anything to distinguish between Jesus Christ and "The Great Pink Unicorn" (or any other conception of deity/deities). And BTW, "there exists a first cause" (at least one) does NOT get you to "there is ONE first cause". Like I said, I have no objection to you taking that as an axiom, but I do object to our pretending you are not just taking as axiom "there is exactly one God (and this deity is as how we Christians perceive God to be)"

You are being silly if you believe that can be shown by reason, that all those folks who believe in a different conception of God, who believe in multiple gods, or that all IS God, etc. or even no god at all are being willfully blind to Christian truth. That they are being irrational. Stupid, ETC. Your truth is what YOU believe. But you can't get evidence from the material world to back this up, relative to all the other theistic visions, or even against no deity at all.

You are behaving just like the "intelligent design" folks who think the can get from "there exists at least on designer" to "there exists a god with attributes x, y, and z".

[Will Bouwman]

BUT -- I will point out that much of science (its history and supposed process) is mythical.
Thus Galileo did not come up with "objects fall at the same speed" by dropping balls and making the observation (but be considering consequences of their falling speed dependent on weight). He didn't come up with this laws of motion by rolling balls down ramps and observing but by considering observations made from frames of reference moving relative to each other (that the laws must be the same for each observer)

Here's a little something I wrote for the magazine:
A popular image of Pisa in the early seventeenth century, is of Galileo Galilei at the top of the Leaning Tower, dropping different sized cannonballs to prove they all fall at the same rate.

As it happens, very few historians think that Galileo actually performed this experiment. Rather, Galileo was puzzled by a paradoxical consequence of Aristotle’s belief that heavy things fall faster than light ones. What would happen if a heavy thing and a light thing were tied together? On the one hand, according to Aristotle’s philosophy, the heavier weight will fall faster; and since the lighter one will be holding the heavier up, the string will be pulled tight, and overall the falling speed should be something between the speed of the two weights separately. On the other hand, since the two weights are joined, they and the string are effectively one thing with a combined weight, so the combined speed should be faster than the individual speeds. Those two outcomes can’t both be right. Although Galileo may or may not have dropped weights from the Tower, he did do, and recorded, a lot of experiments rolling different weights down slopes whose results flatly contradicted Aristotle’s claim that more weight equals more speed.

You can read the full article here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

First "theory", then the suggested experiments to disprove it (if possible).

Not everyone is a Popperian. Generally experiments are designed to test a prediction of an hypothesis, rather than explicitly show it wrong.

Without a working theory, impossible to design suitable experiments to enable conclusions to be drawn.

Well yeah, without a theory, there is no theory to test.

[MikeNovack]

First "theory", then the suggested experiments to disprove it (if possible).

Not everyone is a Popperian. Generally experiments are designed to test a prediction of an hypothesis, rather than explicitly show it wrong.

Yes of course, but the only definitive result is "wrong". A right result, in accordance with what the theory predicts, is what is hoped for, increases the confidence in the theory (another experiment did not disprove the theory). Another crow is sighted, and it too is black. This supports "all crows are black" (and yes, I know of species in Corvus that are not all black)

[Immanuel Can]

<< that is an axiom of yours >>

No, that is a mathematical certainty.

No, you're actually wrong. Monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, etc. have already given up the game we're talking about.

B,,,,,S...... Sorry IC, but Christianity is NOT game in town for theists >>

I have no idea what your sentence is supposed to mean. The "game in town" refers to the debate over First Causes. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

They all posit a First Cause, that cause being some conception of the Supreme Being. (Pantheism even bows to this, because it posits "little gods" that were created by something bigger and prior, some "divine principle."

You haven't a clue about what pantheism is when you say that.

Actually, I have. The Greeks, the Norse, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Gnostics, the Panentheists, the Pantheists...all think there's some ultimate divine principle that accounts for the existence of avatars or little gods. But if you can think of a real example that doesn't fit that pattern, let's hear about it.

Those are the only two players in the primary game of "First Cause, or No First Cause." Which one do you back?

I don't have to back either.

Well, the evidence is in front of all of us. So you can ignore the evidence, and pretend you don't have to conclude anything from it; but that's just ignoring the evidence.

But I don't recommend it. Ignoring the evidence is usually a bad thing to do.

...all those folks who believe in a different conception of God...

We're not talking about them. We're talking about those who refuse to believe in a First Cause. They all already do. The only other position is that of randomness.

When did anyone ever see nothing create something out of nothing. But that's what the "randomness hypothesis" requires us to believe. Do you believe it?

[MikeNovack]

........
No, that is a mathematical certainty.
.......
The "game in town" refers to the debate over First Causes. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
.......

]They all posit a First Cause, that cause being some conception of the Supreme Being. (Pantheism even bows to this, because it posits "little gods" that were created by something bigger and prior, some "divine principle."
......

Actually, I have. The Greeks, the Norse, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Gnostics, the Panentheists, the Pantheists...all think there's some ultimate divine principle that accounts for the existence of avatars or little gods. But if you can think of a real example that doesn't fit that pattern, let's hear about it.
...................

]Those are the only two players in the primary game of "First Cause, or No First Cause." Which one do you back?
Well, the evidence is in front of all of us. So you can ignore the evidence, and pretend you don't have to conclude anything from it; but that's just ignoring the evidence.
......................

But I don't recommend it. Ignoring the evidence is usually a bad thing to do.
...........

We're not talking about them. We're talking about those who refuse to believe in a First Cause. They all already do. The only other position is that of randomness. But that's what the "randomness hypothesis" requires us to believe. Do you believe it?

Mathematical certainty? You simply don't understand mathematics beyond the high school level. Depends on axioms. Multiplication doesn't HAVE TO behave like repeated addition. You don't even have to have an infinite set of numbers << see what "arithmetic" looks like in modulus N >>

By "game in town" I was referring to you getting from a singular deity to one resembling the Christian deity. Pantheism does not posit "little gods". I suggest you (re???)read Spinoza. Panentheism SOMETIMES has what you would call "little gods" because confusing the religious practices of such people with their fundamental beliefs. Thus taking "idol worship", how sure are you that the "idol worshiper" was worshiping that object AS god or worshiping that bit of god WITHIN that object.

And NO, physical evidence does NOT support material things ever being created by immaterial things.

But you seem to insist on bringing "secularism" int this supposedly "about religion" thread. I haven't a clue why you want to be arguing in favor of The Great Pink Unicorn as creator of the universe (because secular explanation wrong). You seem to blithely forget, FINITE was an axiom used to get to "there must be at least one first cause" (that's what "there must be A first cause" means). They don't HAVE to accept that axiom. After all,if you can believe The Great Pink Unicorn eternal, they can believe the material universe eternal.

But, I would really prefer you continue with first cause. Assuming you HAVE gotten to "a first cause exists" how did you get to to "only one first cause exists" (without an axiom) and having gotten there, why the deity (the one first cause) is your Trinity rather than The Great Pink Unicorn? << the material evidence please >>

[Immanuel Can]

By "game in town" I was referring to you getting from a singular deity to one resembling the Christian deity.

That's question #2: we're still speaking only of question #1, which we have not resolved yet: and that is, does ANY First Cause exist? Until we solve that, there's no relevance to debating the NATURE of a First Cause you don't even believe exists.

Pantheism does not posit "little gods". I suggest you (re???)read Spinoza.

Spinoza was not a Pantheist, but a Panentheist. But Spinoza, too, believed in God. In fact, God is in "that's the 'en' in Panentheism." God is said to be "in" all, but not exhausted by the physical world.

But you will find that I simply ignore your insults, Mike. I know what they signify: desperation and the loss of logic and civility in discourse, not refutation of an argument.

And NO, physical evidence does NOT support material things ever being created by immaterial things.

What is supports is the evidence of design and intelligence in the generation of the universe.

Or have you some evidence that nothing can create something out of nothing?

[Impenitent]

1,000,000 years ago, there were no humans as we know them today... there was nothing...

10,000 years ago, there was no written language... there was nothing...

today there are both... isn't that something?

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

By "game in town" I was referring to you getting from a singular deity to one resembling the Christian deity.

That's question #2: we're still speaking only of question #1, which we have not resolved yet: and that is, does ANY First Cause exist? Until we solve that, there's no relevance to debating the NATURE of a First Cause you don't even believe exists.

Pantheism does not posit "little gods". I suggest you (re???)read Spinoza.

Spinoza was not a Pantheist, but a Panentheist. But Spinoza, too, believed in God. In fact, God is in "that's the 'en' in Panentheism." God is said to be "in" all, but not exhausted by the physical world.

But you will find that I simply ignore your insults, Mike. I know what they signify: desperation and the loss of logic and civility in discourse, not refutation of an argument.

And NO, physical evidence does NOT support material things ever being created by immaterial things.

What is supports is the evidence of design and intelligence in the generation of the universe.

Or have you some evidence that nothing can create something out of nothing?

A) You are beating a straw horse. And we can simultaneously discuss whether there is a (any) first cause and if there is a (any -- means one or more) first cause. The truth values of "X" and "if X then Y" are entirely different. And you are being ridiculous saying "I (referring to me) believe" no first cause exists"

b) Spinoza was NOT a Panentheist but a Pantheist. A Panentheist believes that God is in all that was created AND exists apart from that which was created << you had the definition of panentheist correct, just not in agreement with Spinoza >>

c) There is no evidence of "design" in the material world. nor does the material world give evidence of anything having been created. NOTE -- this statement has NOTHING to do with my belies about deity. I do not look to/expect any beliefs I might have about deities to come form observation of the material world.

d) I would like you to explain how you get some things, from where in "causality" (that you believe), about the creator deity, and FOR THAT PURPOSE need to grant not only "a first cause exists" but also adding "exactly one". For that I will post a "dialog".

[MikeNovack]

The single first cause created the universe by intent, the single first cause cares about the universe.
DIALOG:
You (observing a person striking a large rock with hammer and chisel): What are you doing?
Sculptor: I am creating a statue.
You: I see little chips of stone all over the floor. Aren't you creating them (also)?
Sculptor: Well yes, sort of. I am creating a statue, and to do that I am removing chips of stone from the rock.
You: So you are intending to create chips of stone.
Sculptor: No, I a,m intending to create a statue, the chips of stone just happen in the process.
You: You care about those chips of stone?
Sculptor: Not at all. When they make enough mess on the floor to be a tripping hazard I'll probably sweep them up and dump somewhere. The path between the house and my studio is muddy. Maybe I'll dump them there on the path to make the footing better.

A) Is this dialog reasonable? Do you disagree with what the sculptor is saying about intent and caring?

B) Explain WHAT about the argument from "causes" leads you to believe God created the universe by intent or that God cares about this universe. Again, please, I am NOT arguing against your beliefs about intent and caring, just challenging that you could get those beliefs JUST from "God is the first cause of the universe".

I am saying that just like to get from "there exists A first cause" to "there exists exactly ONE first cause" you had to be adding axioms/beliefs to get "by intent" and "cares for".

PS: If you insist on not seeing why to get from "any" to "one" requires adding an assumption, remember, our theory of causes does NOT contain "if x = C(z) and y = C(z) then x = y -- in other words, a thing may have more than one cause (and we are familiar with things like that in the material world). WITHOUT disrupting our notion of how "cause" behaves we COULD add an assumption "If x = FC(z) and y = FC(z) then x = y" since that is a special case << and a formal way of adding an axiom to get "there exists exactly one first cause >>

[Will Bouwman]

1,000,000 years ago, there were no humans as we know them today... there was nothing...

Eh? Surely there was Rachel Welch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EKtNGcyhSY

[MikeNovack]

The material universe by chance is what you say you really want to discuss, IC. Let me start by pointing out that this is not the question that bothers strict materialists (based on that book I was taking time out to read). For them the "problem" is the reverse, how could our MATERIAL brains result in something immaterial like consciousness << not a problem for you as you can assign that to "the soul" >>. I gave that author some things to think about on the matter (the are of modern math we call computer science).

But back to chance vs design. I think you do not understand chance/random.

You walk into a room, and in the room you find a table, and on that table you see ten pennies, all heads up. Chance or by design? Upon what are you basing that? That if you picked up the ten pennies and dropped them from above, unlikely they would land all heads up?

Consider the following program/process
1) Drop ten pennies onto to table.
2) Place 10,000 into a counter.
3) Do while counter > 0 and pennies not all heads up.
a) Pick up pennies and drop from above.
b) Subtract one form the counter
4) Halt

NOW -- when the process has halted (it will) would you still surprised to find the ten pennies all heads up?
IF the value placed in the counter at the start had been ten and not ten thousand, would you have been surprised to find them all face up?
What does your expectation depend upon?