Prove me wrong: there is no God

[MikeNovack]

"We" didn't say that. You are, just now. There is, in fact, only one possible "thing" that does not have a cause: that would be the First Cause. Now, you can unpack that different ways, because the argument tells you no more than that. But that's where the buck stops, on the First Cause argument.

When we speak of something as the "First Cause," we're not blowing smoke. And we're not merely naming, far less applying words that could have been replaced with nonsense syllables. We're applying a description of function. We're speaking of something that is the very "first," and precipitates a "causal" chain. That's not merely a name. That's an identification of the role that Entity plays in the entire history of the universe...far from arbitrary, and certainly not nonsense.

You are a lost cause if you think logic allows you to draw conclusions from a NAME you apply to something.

It does NOT require "an infinite amount of time" to contain an infinite number of instants (unless time is assumed "quantized". There are an infinite number of "instants" in the time interval now to one second in the past. I showed you that. Infinite regression of causes does NOT require an eternity into the past. That deals with your "cause must be before what is caused". There is all the "before" you need in a second.

I cannot understand your reluctance to accept the POSSIBILITY of no start to a causal chain, all of it simply there. You believe a god could be "simply there", why not a causal chain.

And STOP THIS trying to sneak ONE in and THE in. You cannot get THERE using the argument from causes. You can get "a" (one or more) and "a" not "the" implying one. OR ... if you think you can, derive the "exactly one" that is your heart's desire. Without adding another axiom (especially not one that essentially IS the desired conclusion).

[osgart]

Thanks, I'll look through it some more

[MikeNovack]

Maybe "turtle cosmology" easier for you to discuss << since you are not vested in it >>

axioms:
1) The Earth is supported on the back of a turtle.
2) A turtle can be supported by the back of a turtle
3) No turtle is supported by itself.
4) If turtle A is supported by turtle B and turtle B is supported by Turtle C then turtle A is supported by turtle C.

YOU want to conclude "there MUST BE a "first turtle" and ""there can only be one "first turtle" supporting the Earth. You are discussing this with Onata (since you dislike discussing "unreal" religions and cosmologies << ones I make up >> her name would be common girl's name in a real life culture that once had this cosmology). This is NOT a "made up": cosmology.

You: There has to be a first turtle. The stack of turtles has to start somewhere or there could be no stack.
Onata: No, it's simply turtles "all the way down". Always has been.
You: You can't believe that, it's silly.
Onata: No sillier than considering my aunt's mother my aunt, her mother my aunt, ...... (except for politeness might address any much older woman "grandmother") This infinite "aunts in a row" was what caused Lewis Morgan to recognize "wow, some cultures recon kin completely differently than we do" and anthropology was born.

[Immanuel Can]

"We" didn't say that. You are, just now. There is, in fact, only one possible "thing" that does not have a cause: that would be the First Cause. Now, you can unpack that different ways, because the argument tells you no more than that. But that's where the buck stops, on the First Cause argument.

When we speak of something as the "First Cause," we're not blowing smoke. And we're not merely naming, far less applying words that could have been replaced with nonsense syllables. We're applying a description of function. We're speaking of something that is the very "first," and precipitates a "causal" chain. That's not merely a name. That's an identification of the role that Entity plays in the entire history of the universe...far from arbitrary, and certainly not nonsense.

You are a lost cause if you think logic allows you to draw conclusions from a NAME you apply to something.

It's not a mere name. It's an actual description of function. Nothing is being drawn "from a name." It's being named because of what "It" is.

It does NOT require "an infinite amount of time" to contain an infinite number of instants

NO amount of time would ever satisfy an infinite number of prerequisites...and an infinite regress of causes would require exactly that to have been the case.

Infinite regression of causes does NOT require an eternity into the past.

Yes, it does; because a "cause" has to happen BEFORE an "effect," by definition. That requires time...a year, a day, a minute, a microsecond...always it takes time, and in an infinite chain, that means it inevitably takes an infinite amount of time. If it happens later, it ain't a "cause" of that "effect": of that, you can be certain.

I cannot understand your reluctance to accept the POSSIBILITY of no start to a causal chain, all of it simply there.

That's easy: it would only be because you equally cannot understand the argument...or the maths or logic required.

But it will still be right.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe "turtle cosmology" easier for you to discuss << since you are not vested in it >>
YOU want to conclude "there MUST BE a "first turtle" and ""there can only be one "first turtle" supporting the Earth.

I seriously cannot bother with a false analogy so childish. Turtles are not analogous to causes. And Earth does not rest on any.

[MikeNovack]

Maybe "turtle cosmology" easier for you to discuss << since you are not vested in it >>
YOU want to conclude "there MUST BE a "first turtle" and ""there can only be one "first turtle" supporting the Earth.

I seriously cannot bother with a false analogy so childish. Turtles are not analogous to causes. And Earth does not rest on any.

Excuse me please. Explain why I should give any more credence to Christian cosmology than the religious/cosmological beliefs of many of the native peoples of the Eastern Woodlands (BOTH the Algonquin speaking cultures and the Iroquoian speaking cultures shared this turtle cosmology). You earlier objected to my making up a polytheism to discuss "theory" and insisted I use real examples. That's what I did here, chose a real example where the beliefs were not ruling out infinite recursion. AND I TOLD YOU IT WAS A REAL EXAMPLE. I can't help it if your comparative religions studies have been limited in breadth.

"NO amount of time would ever satisfy an infinite number of prerequisites...and an infinite regress of causes would require exactly that to have been the case."

B...S.... That is the case if/f time is "quantized" (there is a smallest possible unit of time). If time is not quantized, there is enough room for an infinite number of intervals in any finite total amount of time. I am willing for you claim an axiom of "quantization" but failing that "ANY finite amount of time could contain an infinite number of prerequisites" (each in it's own distinct time interval).

How much time (amount of time) do the intervals 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ....... 1/2**n, ..... add up to? << the answer is 1, finite >> How many intervals are there if as described, why as many as the natural numbers, infinite.

[Will Bouwman]

And that's why, though we can suppose infinite integers, imagine them somewhat, suppose they are possible, and so on, we cannot actually write down integers in sequence, without taking a beginning point. When we use them as representations of causal sequencing, they always, always, always force us to pick a starting point, a first integer, or we can never write anything at all down.

Well, yes we can write a sequence of numbers starting anywhere we chose, knowing full well there are infinite prior places we might have chosen. As far as causality in the observable universe goes, the earliest cause, the lowest number if you will, that I think we can start from with any confidence is minus 13.8 billion years, as of today, or zero, if you'd rather. Of course, there are some who think that number is substantially less; young Earth creationists for example, like James Ussher who calculated that the day of creation was 23/10/4004BC. Mainstream Abrahamic religions generally accept some version of the big bang, sometimes interpreting it as consistent with 'Let there be light'. Then there's Hinduism, according to which time is infinite forwards and, to the point in hand, backwards, with the current iteration of reality having a life span of over 300 trillion years. Buddhists and Jains agree that the universe is eternal. Fanatics of any of those are just as capable of the bad faith special pleading that you employ.
Then there's the scientific hypotheses about what happened prior to the big bang: decay of a quantum field, the eternal branes of cyclic or ekpyrotic universe models. Then there's the interpretation of relativity that postulates a block universe.
There are lot's of different ideas that can be bent to fit whatever facts emerge. What the religious, scientific or both who are not drunk on hubris can admit, is that, however powerful their conviction, they don't know.

Except you have an amphiboly

Where's that then?

I've pointed it out before, but it's the two meanings of the word "nothing." By rule of logic, the meaning you intend by "nothing" must remain stable and fixed throughout an entire syllogism...

Throughout the entire syllogism I mean:

Nothingness is the unrestricted and undefined condition of the absence of a/any thing.

That being your own definition, I assume you understand it.

Nothing cannot have qualities.
Eternal is a quality.
Therefore nothing cannot be eternal

There you go; flawless.

Nothing more can be said about it.

Says who?

One cannot predicate anything about "nothing," except the absence it signifies.

It's black. Or white; colourless one way or the other. 2+2=4. It only exists in the belly of the cosmic giraffe. Then again, as Parmenides pointed out over two and a half thousand years ago, there is no nothing, and for all we know, there never was. Your 'you can count back forever, therefore God' reasoning is as futile and daft as my syllogism. Neither of them prove anything about nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

And that's why, though we can suppose infinite integers, imagine them somewhat, suppose they are possible, and so on, we cannot actually write down integers in sequence, without taking a beginning point. When we use them as representations of causal sequencing, they always, always, always force us to pick a starting point, a first integer, or we can never write anything at all down.

Well, yes we can write a sequence of numbers starting anywhere we chose, knowing full well there are infinite prior places we might have chosen.

But that's merely theoretical and speculative, not real. We think we can imagine it in our heads; but what we can't do, is do it in real life. The minute our theory meets the moment of actually doing it, we find a first integer must be chosen.

So speculatively, we have infinite possibilities: but actually, we only ever have one. And that's the point. Because we live in reality, not in some imaginary Land of Free Speculation.

young Earth creationists for example, like James Ussher

You're talking ancient history, now. Nobody's been concerned with Bishop Ussher's speculations for a long time.

The truth is that the Bible does not say that "day" in Genesis refers to a 24 hour period. In fact, in Scripture, "day" is often used to refer to a longer period of time, such as the eternal "Day of the Lord," or the indefinite "Day of Judgment," which could be any length, from instantaneous to a thousand years. It makes no theological difference, either way: except in the case of the creation of man himself and herself. There, it really does matter. Man is pegged as a unique and deliberate creation of God, distinct from all others in being created to reflect God's sovereignty. He's not created at the same time as the lower orders, and with specific purpose.

Then there's Hinduism, according to which time is infinite forwards and, to the point in hand, backwards, with the current iteration of reality having a life span of over 300 trillion years.

Nobody has to take such things seriously. Science already shows us that sort of thing is impossible.

There are lot's of different ideas that can be bent to fit whatever facts emerge.

There are also silly and wrong ideas, as well as purely speculative ideas, such as the Multiverse Hypothesis, that are inherently capable of no facts at all. But so what?

Except you have an amphiboly

Where's that then?

I've pointed it out before, but it's the two meanings of the word "nothing." By rule of logic, the meaning you intend by "nothing" must remain stable and fixed throughout an entire syllogism...

Throughout the entire syllogism I mean:

Nothingness is the unrestricted and undefined condition of the absence of a/any thing.

That being your own definition, I assume you understand it.

Nothing cannot have qualities.

First problem here: you cannot predicate anything of "nothing." It's not a noun. It's the absence of any noun.

Eternal is a quality.

Second problem: "eternity" is not a "quality," but a duration.

Therefore nothing cannot be eternal

Third problem: this is the second time you've treated the word "nothing" as if it were a noun capable of predication.

There you go; flawless.

Three flaws, for a start.

...as Parmenides pointed out over two and a half thousand years ago, there is no nothing, and for all we know, there never was.

That's why you can't predicate anything of it. There's no "place" for any predication to land. "Nothing" is not the presence of any quality, but rather the absence of any such thing, or anything to have that quality.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe "turtle cosmology" easier for you to discuss << since you are not vested in it >>
YOU want to conclude "there MUST BE a "first turtle" and ""there can only be one "first turtle" supporting the Earth.

I seriously cannot bother with a false analogy so childish. Turtles are not analogous to causes. And Earth does not rest on any.

Excuse me please.

Consider yourself excused. I will not be playing the "aboriginal nonsense is equivalent to scientific truth" game with you today.

[MikeNovack]

I seriously cannot bother with a false analogy so childish. Turtles are not analogous to causes. And Earth does not rest on any.

Excuse me please.

Consider yourself excused. I will not be playing the "aboriginal nonsense is equivalent to scientific truth" game with you today.

A) I was not considering aboriginal nonsense equivalent to scientific truth. But I was (and do) consider their religious beliefs equivalent to any other religious beliefs or superstitions, Including yours.

B) NOT A FALSE ANALOGY. The relation "supported by" is behaving exactly like the relation "caused by". The axioms describing how the relations behave the same. Arguments for why "there must be a first turtle" going to be the same, as well as things like "could there be more than one "first turtle"" and "could there be a "first turtle" not in fact supporting anything".

I (foolishly?) thought that removing the discussion from involving words/concepts in which you had a stake would help matters. Stupid me to think you had the capability to recognize that "causes" and "supported by" are exactly analogous << if we did the arguments in symbolic logic you wouldn't be able to tell whether we were discussing "caused by" or "supported by", whether we were talking about "things" or "turtles" >>

The particular axiom in question was "no infinite regression" which you say "true outside the box", something you predict all sensible/rational people would accept true. Well THESE sensible/rational people have no trouble with "infinite regression is possible"

NAMES ASSIGNED MATTER. If there is something you can "prove" in words but cannot when it's all reduced to symbolic logic, you can be sure the "argument in words" broke some rule of logic, and drawing an inference from a (n arbitrary) name you assigned is a common error. You are saying, "of course a "First Cause" must be causing something; it's right there in the name" (that you chose for "a thing which isn't caused by anything else").
You are trying to show a that the start of a causal chain is a "First Cause". You can't derive (welcome to try) that a "First Cause" causes anything -- that you NAMED IT as a cause doesn't make it one.

[Immanuel Can]

Excuse me please.

Consider yourself excused. I will not be playing the "aboriginal nonsense is equivalent to scientific truth" game with you today.

A) I was not considering aboriginal nonsense equivalent to scientific truth. But I was (and do) consider their religious beliefs equivalent to any other religious beliefs or superstitions, Including yours.

Of course you do. Because you've arbitrarily decided that all religious beliefs are "superstititions," so NONE of them is true.

So much for the turtles, then.

I can't change your mind, because it was made up without evidence. Carry on as you are, I guess. *shrug*

The particular axiom in question was "no infinite regression" which you say "true outside the box",

No, the axiom was "no such thing as an infinite regress OF CAUSES." The cascade of prerequisites is an essential part of the description. You've conveniently eliminated it, in order to make the claim look wrong. It's not. But you have to take the entire claim.

And I didn't say anything at all about "outside" any "box." It's just plain true.

NAMES ASSIGNED MATTER.

Descriptions of function "matter" more, in this context. Some names are just that. If I call you "High King Mike, Supreme Overlord of Gath," I'm not merely naming you: I'm pointing out your rank and station, which is a super-important point. Likewise, "First Cause" is not merely a "name": it's the description of function.

But I'm sure you're bright enough to see that, so I think you're playing games.

[MikeNovack]

And that's why, though we can suppose infinite integers, imagine them somewhat, suppose they are possible, and so on, we cannot actually write down integers in sequence, without taking a beginning point. When we use them as representations of causal sequencing, they always, always, always force us to pick a starting point, a first integer, or we can never write anything at all down.

Well, yes we can write a sequence of numbers starting anywhere we chose, knowing full well there are infinite prior places we might have chosen. As far as causality in the observable universe goes, the earliest cause, the lowest number if you will, that I think we can start from with any confidence is minus 13.8 billion years, as of today, or zero, if you'd rather.

But saying "there is a time before the universe existed" is NOT the same as sing there are a finite number of SOTUs (state of the universe) between now and back then.

IF, as strict materialists believing in strict determinism << looking BACKWARD "chaos" does not apply >> we hold these true:
Let SOTU stand for a state of the universe.
Let PAD stand for a relation, precedes and determines

1) Time is not quantized (there is no smallest amount of time)
2) No SOTU = PAD(SOTU) No state of the universe precedes and determines itself.
3) If SOTUx = PAD(SOTUy) and SOTUy = PAD(SOTUz) then SOYUx = POD(SOTUz) POD is transitive

And we propose to derive "there is a first SOTU". In other words, there exists a SOTUf such that there is no SOTUx such that SOTUx = PAD(SOTUf)

Well one way to do that is to assume the opposite, and see if we run into a contradiction. So....
4) For all SOTUx there exists a SOTUy such that SOTUy = PAD(SOTUx) All states of the universe have a preceding state of the universe that determines it.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ASSUMING TIME GOES BACK INFINITELY (but started at 0 and we are now at 1)

Label the states of the universe by their time. So we have SOTUt for the state at time = t.

Let the t's be of the form 1/2**n were n is a natural number. Thus NOW is SOTU1/2**0 or SOTU1/1 or SOTU1

IS THERE PROBLEM/CONTRADICTION? Do we run out of SOTUs going back from now toward the "big bang"? Is there a "first" (no SOTUs preceding it), between it and the 'Big Bang"?

[Will Bouwman]

So speculatively, we have infinite possibilities: but actually, we only ever have one. And that's the point. Because we live in reality, not in some imaginary Land of Free Speculation.

This is not 1984; the thought police are not yet ubiquitous and all powerful. For now the Land of Free Speculation is still reality in some parts of the world. While it is true that ultimately there is only one reality, it will not dent your fanatical dogma in the least to repeat that any speculation consistent with observation might be true; everyone is free to speculate and rationalise their own experience.
In 1984, the worst that Big Brother can do is spy and torture until death. In the Bible, God can read your mind and will torture you even after death for not accepting the Party. The good news is that both are works of fiction.

young Earth creationists for example, like James Ussher

You're talking ancient history, now. Nobody's been concerned with Bishop Ussher's speculations for a long time.

Well, whether or not they are concerned with Bishop Ussher's speculations, "A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found 38 percent of adults in the US held a view that "God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

The truth is that the Bible does not say that "day" in Genesis refers to a 24 hour period. In fact, in Scripture, "day" is often used to refer to a longer period of time, such as the eternal "Day of the Lord," or the indefinite "Day of Judgment," which could be any length, from instantaneous to a thousand years.

Then there's Hinduism, according to which time is infinite forwards and, to the point in hand, backwards, with the current iteration of reality having a life span of over 300 trillion years.

Nobody has to take such things seriously. Science already shows us that sort of thing is impossible.

Fortunately nobody has to take you seriously either. Science does not show us that sort of thing is impossible. Estimates for the lifespan of the visible universe stretch to 10¹⁰⁰ years when, some scientists reckon, heat death will have cooled everything to absolute zero. 300 trillion years is a trivial number by comparison. In addition, as already mentioned, Hindu fanatics are just as capable of the bad faith special pleading that you employ, and might apply it to years with the same lack of irony that you do to days.

[MikeNovack]

A) Of course you do. Because you've arbitrarily decided that all religious beliefs are "superstititions," so NONE of them is true.

B) No, the axiom was "no such thing as an infinite regress OF CAUSES." The cascade of prerequisites is an essential part of the description. You've conveniently eliminated it, in order to make the claim look wrong. It's not. But you have to take the entire claim.

C) And I didn't say anything at all about "outside" any "box." It's just plain true.

D) If I call you "High King Mike, Supreme Overlord of Gath," I'm not merely naming you: I'm pointing out your rank and station, which is a super-important point. Likewise, "First Cause" is not merely a "name": it's the description of function.

A) ---- You ENTIRELY misunderstand what I am doing. I am arguing that "there is a god" is not DERIVABLE from anything about the material realm. That ALSO means "there is no god" is equally not derivable << else you could set up proof assuming "there is a god" and demonstrate this contradicts something true about the material realm >>

This is not unique to "there is (or is not) a god". It is true even of "arithmetic. I will refer you to Godel's Theorem.

NOT PROVABLE DOES NOT MEAN FALSE.

You are using the term "superstitions" in a different sense than I am. You think I need to believe a "religion" TRUE for it to be useful. Maybe we need to discuss "what are religions good for" (or not) but that would be a different thread. I suspect we would be in disagreement there too, you thinking "unless provably true, not useful" and since I clearly believe NOT provably true (or false) that part of it irrelevant.

B) Precisely your problem with refusal to use symbolic logic, drawing conclusions from NAMES. There is nothing special about the relation "causes" not shared with every other relation that has exactly the same axioms defining it, that behaves the same way.

If you have a relation R on x's, and from the axioms defining R and x's you conclude "there must be a first "", then it true for all R's that share those axioms. IF you claim something special about the relation C, "causes", you have to produce the axiom that makes it so. The axiom in the set for C different from the set for R.

C) It is demonstrably NOT true "outside the box" << this "box" business is just a modern way of expressing one of Churches axioms of logic >> I can easily demonstrate a set of things for which not true. You can certainly take it as true for yourself, but will have no way of convincing anybody else. You are CLAIMING as true "causes not infinite regression" and then using that to supposedly prove "causes not infinite regression", DUH!

D) Precisely the error. You are calling me "High King Mike, Supreme Overlord of Gath," and not merely naming you: I'm pointing out your rank and station, which is a super-important point.

Does your calling me/naming me "Supreme Overlord of Gath" make me supreme overlord of Gath? . No? Then why does calling.naming "a thing X that has no cause" a "First Cause" make X a cause. You COULD have named "a thing that has no cause" a "TaTiHoNiC". You still think that makes it a "first cause". You object to my claiming (based on the axioms) "a "first cause" doesn't have to cause anything". My placing "first cause" in quotes indicates it is a NAME. REMEMBER -- we do not have (and do not want to have) among our axioms of "causes" "if X is a thing then the exists a thing Y such that X is the cause of Y" (all things cause something else). We do NOT believe of the relation "causes" that it behaves this way. We derived "there exists at least one first cause starting a causal chain" (using "causes" not infinite regression) . Not that there weren't other first causes of that same chain*, other chains*, or even no chain (though in that case "cause" in the name deceptive).

TRY IT (if you don't believe me). Try to derive "if X has no cause then X causes something" (there is a Y such that X causes Y). You are perhaps being misled by believing "there is only one first cause" (that you have this). In concluding from "a causal chain chain has to start somewhere that there is an X that "starts it off" and EVEN IF you add an axiom to get "there is only one such X that starts off any and all causal chains" that does NOT let you conclude the non-existence of other X's that do not start any causal chains << again, your (unfortunate) choice of name lets you think you have this >>

* Same chain --- we do not believe of causes "if y is a cause of x then three is no z such that z is a cause of x -- so a causal chain can branch going backward. It can also branch going forward since we don't believe of "causes" that if X causes Y, then there is no Z different from Y that X causes (we believe a thing can cause more than one other thing).
Different chains --- we have not shown "if things X and Y exist, then they are in the same causal chain. You (think) you have this because you (think) you have "everything has a single FIRST CAUSE".
Assume A and X exist -- you are arguing A has cause B, B has cause C ... starting with a first cause, and that X has cause Y, Y has cause Z ... starting with a first cause. HOW are you going to show these are the same first cause (that A and X are in the same causal chain).

[Immanuel Can]

So speculatively, we have infinite possibilities: but actually, we only ever have one. And that's the point. Because we live in reality, not in some imaginary Land of Free Speculation.

For now the Land of Free Speculation is still reality in some parts of the world.

Nowhere. There's no such place.

everyone is free to speculate and rationalise their own experience.

Sure...like everybody has a right to ride a unicorn.

But can they do it?

"A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found 38 percent of adults in the US held a view that "God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so""

Oh, that's a different question. "When was man created" is quite a different thing from "when was the universe created?" We haven't even talked about the appearance of man on the scene...we're talking about the First Cause that precipitated the universe itself. That's a whole lot earlier, by everybody's reckoning.