On the Attributes of God
In discussing the existence of God with a Christian, I often encounter arguments that are offered without logical justification, let alone evidence. This can be a frustrating experience for someone who wants to refute the logic of the theistic arguments. You can't refute logic where there is none, or where the underlying logical basis for the theist's argument is hidden under layers of dogmatic belief. You end up arguing against the dogma, and no matter what you say, no matter how thoroughly you think you have refuted it, the same dogma keeps coming back from the theist, because dogma is not logical. It is dictated by the religious institution, and the faithful theist is required to believe it, no matter what.
Case in point is my ongoing discussion with Keith Rozumalski, about how the universe came to be. We have agreed for the sake of this argument that there must be a cause for the beginning of the universe, and that it must be one of three possibilities: something natural that exists eternally as a brute fact, an infinite series of contingent natural things that spawn universes, or God. We haven't focused much on the second of these possibilities, but I am willing to allow that an infinite series can be regarded as logically equivalent to the natural brute fact - that is, the series itself can be regarded as a brute fact. So we have a choice between the brute fact and God.
How, then, can we decide which of these possibilities is the best explanation? One way would be to regard both of them as one and the same. Whatever it is that created the universe, we could call it God, or we could call it a natural brute fact. But that ignores the heart of the question. The theist's objection to the brute fact lies in his understanding of the attributes or characteristics and qualities of the thing. A brute fact is something that exists without explanation, and God is not a brute fact because God exists necessarily (and therefore requires no explanation). Furthermore, unlike the natural brute fact, this god is intelligent and purposeful. He is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, etc, etc. And on top of all that, he's divinely simple. The natural brute fact, on the other hand, has no intelligence and no purpose. So there really is a significant choice about which of these possibilities to believe.
So my question for the theist is, what logical basis do you have for insisting that God must have all these qualities that you attribute to him? Why couldn't he be less than perfectly benevolent, for example? If that were true, it might explain why there is so much suffering in the world. But the theist rejects any such possibility. So I want to know what logical basis there can be for ascribing all these attributes to God.
Keith says:
Well, I don't KNOW with absolute certainty what God's attributes are, but I think that we can extrapolate them by using reason. If God isn't simple then Dawkin's who designed God? argument would have force because we would need to explain where the parts came from that make up God, as well as how these parts were put together. Not to mention what caused God to be. However, if God is a simple being who posses Aseity then there is no need to explain who designed God and he is not dependent on the existence of matter or anything else. The explanation for God's existence is by the necessity of his own nature.So Keith is telling me that God is divinely simple, because otherwise we would have to grant that Richard Dawkins has a good argument. The logic goes something like this:
1. If god is not divinely simple, then we would need to explain where his parts come from.
2. If god is divinely simple and possesses aseity, then we do not need to explain where he comes from.
3. God has aseity.
4. Therefore, we don't need to explain God's existence.
The first thing to note about this non-argument is that he shifts from defending divine simplicity to defending existence without explanation. The two concepts are not the same, but Keith treats them as if they are. The concept of aseity is that God is uncaused, and contains its own reason for existence. Notice that in statement 2, he adds in the quality of aseity. But this is not the same as divine simplicity. If God has aseity, it doesn't matter how many "parts" he has. If you can assert that a simple God needs no explanation, then you can just as well assert that two or more such gods need no explanation, and you can assert that a god with two or more parts needs no explanation. If any god has aseity, what does it matter how many parts it has? So the question of why God must be divinely simple remains unanswered.
As for the concept of aseity itself - God needs no explanation simply because we assert that he needs no explanation. Well, isn't that special? I wish I could win any argument in such a facile manner. But intellectual honesty compels me to have some valid reason for the things that I assert. The concept of aseity is tied in with the notion of necessary existence, which I would grant, requires no explanation. Earlier, I noted that we had agreed that there were three possible explanations for the cause of the universe. If you could eliminate the logical possibility of two of them, then the remaining possibility would indeed be logically necessary. But we haven't done that. Therefore, the assertion that God is a necessary being is false. There are other possibilities, and the existence of God is not necessary to explain the universe. Therefore that attribution of aseity is illogical. As long as there is a valid alternative explanation, you can't get away with asserting that God is necessary and needs no explanation.
And what of the other attributes of God? I objected that despite the claims of God's goodness, intelligence, etc, we see a world that seems to be at odds with those notions. Keith said:
I don't think that this is true at all--I think God's attributes are completely compatible with the world we live in. As I said before, much of the randomness you think you see could be nothing more than an illusion. The imperfect world that we live in is compatible with a good, powerful God in that this is the best possible world that contains free creatures. God could have perfectly good reasons for permitting evil--reasons that may not be apparent to us finite creatures.It's one thing to assert that this world is as good as it gets, but it's another thing to show it. The problem of gratuitous suffering can't be dismissed so lightly. Let's imagine a world that is, in every respect, identical to our world, with one single exception: that millions of years ago there was one single creature that was spared the suffering of being eaten alive by a predator. Later on in the course of events, humans evolved and everything is the same - the same people, the same moral lessons learned, the same outcomes. This alternative world is better than ours simply by virtue of the fact that it contains (slightly) less suffering. Does the theist wish to contend that such a world is not possible? Is it not within the capability of an all-powerful God to create such a world? If not, why not? Or could it be the case that God is either not omnipotent or not omni-benevolent? If the theist wants to assert that God has all these attributes, he has some explaining to do. Otherwise, I don't buy it. And to simply posit a logical possibility is not the same as arguing that there is any reason to believe that it is true.
The same can be said of Keith's assertion of God's purpose in creating the world. What we observe is absence of purpose. Things happen randomly. The vast majority of the universe is utterly hostile to human life. On our planet, random events determine what creatures evolve and what anatomical features they have. We see evolved biological structures that no designer would create intentionally, but that can be explained by a series of random past events. Keith answers:
What evidence do you have that say, the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs, was truly random in that no intelligent agent arranged the world in such a way that the event in question would happen. Just saying that it looks random to you doesn't make it so. So, in actuality, you have no evidence.But I do have evidence. Meteors behave in natural ways, not by God directing them to fall on earth. That's what we observe. And while it is true that this single event was significant in the evolution of mankind, so were billions and billions of other events. Does the theist wish to assert that God controls literally everything that happens? Because that's what it would take in order to assert that humans evolved by divine direction or design. To make such an assertion is to deny the laws of nature. One might as well say that every atom, every raindrop, every creature that ever walked on the earth was under the explicit control of God, and God made it all come out in a certain way. And it just so happens that when we observe this remarkable sequence of events, we can't distinguish it from randomness. But if God really did direct everything, how does the theist explain all the flaws in this design? And how can he assert that there is any freedom? It defies logic.
In the final analysis, the theist's assertion that God is the best explanation for us and our world falls flat. A naturalist explanation has the advantage not only of explaining all the things that cannot reasonably be accounted for by a God that has the attributes that theists insist he must have, but also of being consistent with observed evidence. The theist can't account for the world as we see it without a lot of hand-waving and contortions of reason. Nor can he point to observed facts and say "the evidence points to a supernatural explanation". Keith's defense of God's attributes is illogical and not supported by any observed evidence. It doesn't work at all.
im-skeptical wrote: "The theist's objection to the brute fact lies in his understanding of the attributes or characteristics and qualities of the thing. A brute fact is something that exists without explanation, and God is not a brute fact because God exists necessarily (and therefore requires no explanation)."
ReplyDeleteA few points here, first it's not that necessary objects don't require an explanation, it's that their nature is the explanation. A necessary object can't not exist and depends on absolutely for its existence.
Secondly, my objection to the notion of a physical brute fact does not stem from God's attributes, it stems from the fact that all the evidence that we have shows that physical objects are neither eternal nor inexplicable. Is it logically possible that some mysterious physical object, unlike anything we have ever seen, exists beyond our field of observation. Yes, but that's not a good reason to think that such a thing exists.
im-skeptical wrote: "So Keith is telling me that God is divinely simple, because otherwise we would have to grant that Richard Dawkins has a good argument...The first thing to note about this non-argument is that he shifts from defending divine simplicity to defending existence without explanation. The two concepts are not the same, but Keith treats them as if they are. The concept of aseity is that God is uncaused, and contains its own reason for existence. Notice that in statement 2, he adds in the quality of aseity. But this is not the same as divine simplicity."
I never actually said that simplicity and Aseity are the same thing; I said that they are closely tied together. The reason to favor a simple being is that the being is not dependent on the existence of physical parts in order to exist. One does not need to explain how the being's parts were put together, or how those parts inexplicably stay together for all of eternity, or who or what put these parts together. Of course, one could assert that a physical object has inexplicably always existed with inexplicable parts that have been inexplicably arranged by nothing, but as I said before, there is no good reason to think that a physical eternal brute facts exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "If you can assert that a simple God needs no explanation, then you can just as well assert that two or more such gods need no explanation, and you can assert that a god with two or more parts needs no explanation."
You could say that two or more gods exist, but it's simpler to say that one God exists and is the cause of everything else. As to gods with parts, how can the being be completely self-existent if it depends on the existence and proper arrangement of those parts in order to exist?
im-skeptical wrote: "If you could eliminate the logical possibility of two of them, then the remaining possibility would indeed be logically necessary. But we haven't done that. Therefore, the assertion that God is a necessary being is false."
DeleteGod's necessity has nothing to do with the existence of the universe. Sure, if God is the cause of everything other then himself then he obviously exists necessarily. However, he could still exist necessarily without creating anything because he depends on nothing for his existence and can't not exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "The problem of gratuitous suffering can't be dismissed so lightly."
You have the burden of proof when it comes to the logical problem of evil. You must show that God could have no good reason for permitting evil.
im-skeptical wrote: "Let's imagine a world that is, in every respect, identical to our world, with one single exception..."
First of all, God could of had a good reason for letting the animal be eaten. Maybe the predator would have starved without the meal. Maybe this event somehow is part of a chain of events that leads to a good event in the future.
Secondly, I don't think that even omnipotent beings can do logically impossible things, so it might the case that it's not feasible for God to make a world that contains free creatures and that is devoid of evil and suffering. If creatures can't do evil acts then they can't freely choose to do good acts either.
im-skeptical wrote: "What we observe is absence of purpose. Things happen randomly. The vast majority of the universe is utterly hostile to human life. On our planet, random events determine what creatures evolve and what anatomical features they have. We see evolved biological structures that no designer would create intentionally, but that can be explained by a series of random past events."
The supposed absence of purpose is questionable. The randomness might be an illusion. And I see no reason to expect that the universe ought to be as hospitable as earth.
If God used the process of evolution to create species then we might expect that some of those strange adaptations, that you mention, would occur.
im-skeptical wrote: "But I do have evidence. Meteors behave in natural ways, not by God directing them to fall on earth."
No you don't. You're making a straw man out of my argument. I'm not suggesting that God or angels nudged the meteorite, that killed the dinosaurs, into the path of the earth. I'm saying that God could have set up the world and it's processes in such a way that the meteorite would eventually impact the earth and carry out his design. So, what appeared to be a completely random event was indirectly caused by God.
im-skeptical wrote: "Does the theist wish to assert that God controls literally everything that happens?"
Some might, but I don't. It's not necessary for God do directly do everything because the processes that he set up and sustains are capable running of the world with minimal intervention. Think of God as the ultimate programmer. The program that the programmer designed is capable of running processes very efficiently. The programmer also know the results he wants to achieve and how to make the program achieve those results. Also, the programmer can choose to make tiny changes to program, on the fly, if he wishes.
im-skeptical wrote: "In the final analysis, the theist's assertion that God is the best explanation for us and our world falls flat."
You didn't even explain how naturalism explains the existence of the universe, fine tuning, objective morality or anything else on the list I mentioned. All you did was bring up problems with God's nature that aren't actually problems.
im-skeptical wrote: "This can be a frustrating experience for someone who wants to refute the logic of the theistic arguments."
DeleteIf you are really open to God's existence, as you said you were in the last thread, then why are you so set on refuting God's existence?
"first it's not that necessary objects don't require an explanation, it's that their nature is the explanation. A necessary object can't not exist and depends on absolutely for its existence."
Delete- Nature is the explanation for the "brute fact" of nature. So what you're saying is that there's no difference. So why are you so dismissive of the brute fact of nature?
"it stems from the fact that all the evidence that we have shows that physical objects are neither eternal nor inexplicable. Is it logically possible that some mysterious physical object, unlike anything we have ever seen, exists beyond our field of observation. Yes, but that's not a good reason to think that such a thing exists."
- You keep bringing up this vacuous objection, over and over. I'll say it one last time. All the evidence we have is that gods, whether they might be eternal or temporal, explicable or not, don't exist at all. So why should I believe that God exists? At least I do observe physical things. In fact that's all I observe. I never observe immaterial things. That is what gives me reason to believe there is a physical reality and not a God. Now please stop repeating this mindless trope.
"I never actually said that simplicity and Aseity are the same thing; I said that they are closely tied together."
- That's not what you said.
"The reason to favor a simple being is that the being is not dependent on the existence of physical parts in order to exist. ... As to gods with parts, how can the being be completely self-existent if it depends on the existence and proper arrangement of those parts in order to exist?"
- That's illogical. What difference does it make how many parts there are? If you can believe something exists, you can just as well believe it has parts. Who ever said the parts must exist before the whole, or that they must be "arranged"? This is a specious argument. There is no logical connection.
"You could say that two or more gods exist, but it's simpler to say that one God exists and is the cause of everything else."
- It's simpler still to think that observable reality exists (because it's what we see), and that nothing else exists. Your God is unnecessary and unobserved, so why should I believe it? The only reason you believe it is because you have been told this all your life.
"Sure, if God is the cause of everything other then himself then he obviously exists necessarily. However, he could still exist necessarily without creating anything because he depends on nothing for his existence and can't not exist."
- That argument doesn't make sense. To say God "could exist necessarily" is self-contradictory. We have already agreed that there are other logical possibilities, so it could be the case that God doesn't exist. The very concept of logically necessary existence is incoherent, because it is logically possible that nothing at all exists.
"You have the burden of proof when it comes to the logical problem of evil. You must show that God could have no good reason for permitting evil."
- My argument here is about the incoherence of your claims. If you expect me (or anyone) to believe them, it is up to you to make the case.
"First of all, God could of had a good reason for letting the animal be eaten. Maybe the predator would have starved without the meal. Maybe this event somehow is part of a chain of events that leads to a good event in the future."
Delete- In other words, God is not omnipotent.
"Secondly, I don't think that even omnipotent beings can do logically impossible things, so it might the case that it's not feasible for God to make a world that contains free creatures and that is devoid of evil and suffering. If creatures can't do evil acts then they can't freely choose to do good acts either. "
- Not logically possible to make a world where one single creature was spared from suffering? And remember, we're talking about animals, not people. This whole line of reasoning doesn't even begin to make sense. You just argued that every event might be a necessary part of the causal chain - which implies that there is no freedom. Your argument is incoherent.
"The supposed absence of purpose is questionable. The randomness might be an illusion. And I see no reason to expect that the universe ought to be as hospitable as earth."
- The supposed presence of purpose is questionable.
"If God used the process of evolution to create species then we might expect that some of those strange adaptations, that you mention, would occur."
- This is an admission that evolution is not guided. It just happens.
"I'm not suggesting that God or angels nudged the meteorite, that killed the dinosaurs, into the path of the earth. I'm saying that God could have set up the world and it's processes in such a way that the meteorite would eventually impact the earth and carry out his design. So, what appeared to be a completely random event was indirectly caused by God."
- This gets back to the idea that everything is predestined from the outset, and there is no freedom.
"Think of God as the ultimate programmer. The program that the programmer designed is capable of running processes very efficiently. The programmer also know the results he wants to achieve and how to make the program achieve those results. Also, the programmer can choose to make tiny changes to program, on the fly, if he wishes. "
- So God is ultimately in control of every single atom in the universe. It doesn't matter whether he set it all in motion at the start, or he actively moves every atom - he's still in control. And there is no freedom.
"You didn't even explain how naturalism explains the existence of the universe, fine tuning, objective morality or anything else on the list I mentioned. All you did was bring up problems with God's nature that aren't actually problems. "
- As I said, I'm not trying here to justify my own position. I'm trying to point out the incoherency of yours.
im-skeptical wrote: "You keep bringing up this vacuous objection, over and over. I'll say it one last time. All the evidence we have is that gods, whether they might be eternal or temporal, explicable or not, don't exist at all. So why should I believe that God exists? At least I do observe physical things. In fact that's all I observe. I never observe immaterial things. That is what gives me reason to believe there is a physical reality and not a God. Now please stop repeating this mindless trope."
DeleteThe fact that you call the lack of evidence for eternal physical brute facts a vacuous objection shows me that you are still staring at this serious, perhaps, fatal flaw of naturalism with eyes wide shut. Think about what're saying. There's no conclusive or objective proof that object A exists, so object B must exist despite the lack of conclusive or objective proof that it does. Are you starting to see the logical leap of faith you're making here? If you are really open to God's existence why are you making this logical leap?
You should believe that God exists because he is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, the existence of the universe; the existence of change; the finely tuned nature of the universe and everything in it; the existence of objective morals and duties; and the existence of consciousness.
Yes, of course we see physical things, but this does not prove that naturalism is true as God could very well be the cause of those physical things. The question of why is there something rather than nothing remains. There is also the question of who or what caused the finite contingent things we see to exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "That's illogical. What difference does it make how many parts there are? If you can believe something exists, you can just as well believe it has parts. Who ever said the parts must exist before the whole, or that they must be "arranged"?"
So, you're telling me that a car could exist sans atoms and car parts. If a car is a collection of car parts that have been arranged in a particular order, how do you have a car without any car parts? Now you could say that the parts and the car itself are brute facts, but now you're piling brute facts on top of brute facts to make a brute fact.
im-skeptical wrote: "It's simpler still to think that observable reality exists (because it's what we see), and that nothing else exists."
I'm not doubting that the universe exists. The question is who or what caused it to exist? If the only thing that exists is the observable universe then we're basically down to saying the universe popped into existence un-caused out of literally nothing because you have eliminated the eternal physical brute fact, which you said would exist beyond the observable universe if it actually does exist, as well as God.
im-skeptical wrote: "The only reason you believe it is because you have been told this all your life."
You really got this one wrong, as I grew up in a skeptical family and was an atheist or agnostic for most of my life.
im-skeptical wrote: "To say God "could exist necessarily" is self-contradictory. We have already agreed that there are other logical possibilities..."
DeleteI did get a little sloppy with my language in the sentence you mentioned. The sentence should have read, [H]e would exist necessarily without creating anything because he depends on nothing for his existence and can't not exist." To say that God is a necessary being is not to say that it's logically impossible for God not to exist or that he is necessarily the cause of the universe. It is to say that God exists with broad logical necessity/possibility in all possible worlds. We say this because God needs absolutely nothing in order to exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "My argument here is about the incoherence of your claims. If you expect me (or anyone) to believe them, it is up to you to make the case. incoherence of your claims. If you expect me (or anyone) to believe them, it is up to you to make the case."
You were claiming that God's goodness and omnipotence are logically incompatible. Since you are the one making the claim you must be the one to defend it. In order to defend that clam you must prove that God could not possibly have a reason to permit evil.
im-skeptical wrote: "Not logically possible to make a world where one single creature was spared from suffering? And remember, we're talking about animals, not people. This whole line of reasoning doesn't even begin to make sense.
I said it might not be feasible to make a world that has free creatures and that is completely devoid of suffering. I said that God might have a good reason to allow the animal to be eaten.
im-skeptical wrote: "You just argued that every event might be a necessary part of the causal chain - which implies that there is no freedom."
This doesn't follow at all, as agents would still have freedom to make choices about how to respond to the situations they find themselves in. For example, say that God has structured the world in such a way that I would get a job offer for a job that he wants me to take. Even though God brought about the job offer, I still can decide to decline that offer.
im-skeptical wrote: "This is an admission that evolution is not guided. It just happens."
Not necessarily, it could be partially guided.
im-skeptical wrote: "This gets back to the idea that everything is predestined from the outset, and there is no freedom."
No it doesn't. The meteorite doesn't have free will, but we do have a choice about how to respond to it.
im-skeptical wrote: "Nature is the explanation for the "brute fact" of nature. So what you're saying is that there's no difference. So why are you so dismissive of the brute fact of nature?"
DeleteI'm honestly not exactly sure what you mean here. Are you saying that nature's nature is the explanation for nature? When you say nature, are you referring to everything within the observable universe?
im-skeptical wrote: "That's not what you said."
Here's what I actually wrote: "To say that God is simple is to say that he is an immaterial being who is not dependent on the existence of parts that need to be put together. This goes along with God's Aseity--that his existence is dependent on nothing."
See Aseity goes along with Simplicity; not simplicity = Aseity.
"You really got this one wrong, as I grew up in a skeptical family and was an atheist or agnostic for most of my life"
Delete- And then you dumped reason and logic in favor of these fairy tales? More likely you were like CS Lewis - told yourself you were an unbeliever, but never really bought into it.
"To say that God is a necessary being is not to say that it's logically impossible for God not to exist"
- Yes it is. You said yourself "A necessary object can't not exist".
"We say this because God needs absolutely nothing in order to exist. "
- If nature is a brute fact, it needs nothing to exist. What you're doing is making a hidden assumption - that God must exist and that it is the only thing that can exist without being created by something else. This is what theists do, and it is why their "logic" is bogus.
"Since you are the one making the claim you must be the one to defend it. In order to defend that clam you must prove that God could not possibly have a reason to permit evil."
- I didn't say that. I said that it is easy to envision a possible world that has less suffering than ours, but still has equivalent moral outcomes for humanity. Therefore, the idea that this is the best possible world, or that all the gratuitous suffering is somehow necessary is pure bullshit.
"say that God has structured the world in such a way that I would get a job offer for a job that he wants me to take. Even though God brought about the job offer, I still can decide to decline that offer."
- Not without breaking the causal chain. Let's say that you refuse the job. Then you couldn't possibly claim that God planned that the next guy in line would get the offer. The reality is that If God plans any outcomes, he must be in complete control of everything. That includes the "choices" you make.
"Not necessarily, it [evolution] could be partially guided."
- Not a chance. My previous response applies.
"The meteorite doesn't have free will, but we do have a choice about how to respond to it."
- Again, either outcomes are pre-planned or they're not. There is no in-between. If anything at all is left to chance, then there is no pre-planned outcome, because it would break any causal chain that leads to the pre-planned result. You can't have it both ways.
"Are you starting to see the logical leap of faith you're making here? If you are really open to God's existence why are you making this logical leap?"
Delete- My "leap of logic" says: I never see anything immaterial (or eternal), so it is likely that there nothing immaterial, (whether or not there is anything eternal, which there may not be). Your own leap of logic says: I never see anything immaterial or eternal, so I must believe that there is an immaterial, eternal god.
"You should believe that God exists because he is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing"
- No it isn't. Physics allows for things to emerge from nothing with no cause that we can see and no god involved. This is observable, and it happens all the time. The postulation of a god is unnecessary and superfluous.
"the existence of change ..."
- Medieval gobbledygook.
"he finely tuned nature of the universe and everything in it ..."
- Life is finely tuned for the world it inhabits, due to evolution. Again, no need for God.
"existence of objective morals and duties ..."
- No such thing. If you think there are, write them down so we can all agree.
" the existence of consciousness"
- Perfectly natural.
"of course we see physical things, but this does not prove that naturalism is true"
- I didn't say that.
"There is also the question of who or what caused the finite contingent things we see to exist."
- That's what we've been discussing.
"Now you could say that the parts and the car itself are brute facts, but now you're piling brute facts on top of brute facts to make a brute fact."
- So what? In for a penny, in for a pound. Same goes for your God postulation. Maybe he could just exist with all his parts. Logic does not rule that out.
"The question is who or what caused it [the universe] to exist?"
- Physics. No gods needed. I don't see (and you haven't explained) why God supposedly existing without explanation (and without evidence) is so much more believable than just nature, which we already know exists, because it's what we observe.
Delete"I'm honestly not exactly sure what you mean here. Are you saying that nature's nature is the explanation for nature? When you say nature, are you referring to everything within the observable universe? "
- How is this any different from "God's nature is the explanation for God."? When I say nature, I mean everything we observe and anything else that may exist that causes what we observe to exist.
"See Aseity goes along with Simplicity; not simplicity = Aseity"
- Not according to the way aseity is defined or understood by most. Aseity is about the independence of existence, not about how many parts an object has. The association with simplicity is just another Thomistic assumption, not a logical one. See here.
im-skeptical wrote: "And then you dumped reason and logic in favor of these fairy tales? More likely you were like CS Lewis - told yourself you were an unbeliever, but never really bought into it."
DeleteI reevaluated the background evidence and came to the conclusion that God most likely exists and that he is the cause of the universe.
Right, because "real" atheists are too dogmatic and close-minded to ever change their position.
im-skeptical wrote: "Yes it is. You said yourself "A necessary object can't not exist".
In the broadly logical sense.
im-skeptical wrote: "If nature is a brute fact, it needs nothing to exist. What you're doing is making a hidden assumption"
No, you are the one making the hidden assumption. A physical brute fact is dependent on the existence of matter/energy and space because the brute fact is composed of matter/energy and inhabits space. So, in a possible world without matter/energy and space the physical brute fact can't exist. Of course, you can say that matter/energy, space and the brute fact are all brute facts.
Also, I never claimed that God is the only possibility to explain the universe, I just think that he is the most likely one.
im-skeptical wrote: "I didn't say that. I said that it is easy to envision a possible world that has less suffering than ours, but still has equivalent moral outcomes for humanity."
How do you know that the world where God prevents the animal from being eaten contains less evil than the one where he permits the animal to be eaten. God might have very good reasons for permitting the animal to be eaten--reasons that could lead to more good than the world where God prevents the animal from being eaten.
im-skeptical wrote: "Not without breaking the causal chain. Let's say that you refuse the job. Then you couldn't possibly claim that God planned that the next guy in line would get the offer. The reality is that If God plans any outcomes, he must be in complete control of everything. That includes the "choices" you make."
DeleteNo, this doesn't follow. If I thwart God's will by freely declining the job offer then he can still achieve an end goal through another free agent or even structure things so that I will freely follow his will and achieve the end goal in the future.
im-skeptical wrote: "'Not necessarily, it [evolution] could be partially guided.'
- Not a chance. My previous response applies."
Well, I think this might come down to what one means by guided. If God uses the mechanism of random mutations, but shapes the natural in order in such a way as to achieve end goals through shaping the environment so that the random mutations lead to the end goals, this would seem to be partially guided evolution to me.
im-skeptical wrote: "'Again, either outcomes are pre-planned or they're not."
Again, this doesn't follow.
im-skeptical wrote: "My "leap of logic" says: I never see anything immaterial (or eternal), so it is likely that there nothing immaterial, (whether or not there is anything eternal, which there may not be). Your own leap of logic says: I never see anything immaterial or eternal, so I must believe that there is an immaterial, eternal god."
You conveniently left off the fact that our observations tell us that physical objects are finite and explicable. How does the absence of objective/conclusive evidence for immaterial objects make up for the lack objective/conclusive evidence for an eternal physical brute fact? We wouldn't expect to directly observe immaterial objects, so proving or disproving their existence is difficult. However, we do have ample evidence that physical objects are finite and explicable, so although it is logically possible that an eternal physical brute fact exists beyond the observable universe, there is no good reason to think that it does.
im-skeptical wrote: "No it isn't. Physics allows for things to emerge from nothing with no cause that we can see and no god involved. This is observable, and it happens all the time. The postulation of a god is unnecessary and superfluous."
DeleteThat "nothing" is actually the eternal physical brute fact which has been smuggled in through assumption. I'm not aware of anything popping into existence out of the complete absence of everything. Before you say that the quantum vacuum is "nothing" please read what David Albert, who has Ph.D. in theoretical physics, is a professor of philosophy at Columbia and is the author of “Quantum Mechanics and Experience,” has to say about that. Albert wrote:
"Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-¬theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."
im-skeptical wrote: "Medieval gobbledygook."
DeleteI don't think I have to tell you that this is not a counter argument.
im-skeptical wrote: "Life is finely tuned for the world it inhabits, due to evolution. Again, no need for God."
The problem with this line of reasoning is that without a universe, atoms, stars and planets there would be no life or evolution. Oxford physicist Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of the special low entropy condition having arisen by chance alone in the absence of any constraining principles is a least as small as about one part in 10^10(123) in order for the universe to exist. If the gravitational constant were slightly different the universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang, or stars (along with the heavy elements they spawned) and planets wouldn't have been able to form.
im-skeptical wrote: "No such thing. If you think there are, write them down so we can all agree."
Saying that different people have had different moral systems does not mean that there are no moral facts. It seems obvious that it is objectively wrong to torture babies for fun.
im-skeptical wrote: "' the existence of consciousness'
- Perfectly natural."
This quite a long rabbit trail, but my short response is that this is an inference to the best explanation, and it is more likely that consciousness would come from consciousness rather than from non-consciousness.
im-skeptical wrote: "Same goes for your God postulation. Maybe he could just exist with all his parts. Logic does not rule that out."
A god with parts is conceivable, but then the parts and the matter the parts are made of are brute facts. That's a of inexplicable things, which would be amazing as we don't see things that things exist inexplicably.
im-skeptical wrote: "Physics. No gods needed. I don't see (and you haven't explained) why God supposedly existing without explanation (and without evidence) is so much more believable than just nature, which we already know exists, because it's what we observe."
The problem is that physics does not prove that an eternal physical brute fact or an infinite chain of contingent contingents exists, it just assumes that they do. There is no evidence for either of these things.
im-skeptical wrote: "How is this any different from "God's nature is the explanation for God."? When I say nature, I mean everything we observe and anything else that may exist that causes what we observe to exist."
There are two options: nature is a contingent object with an explanation or it's a contingent brute fact with no explanation. In both cases nature is contingent because it could have failed to exist or cease to exist. If nature's existence is a brute fact then by definition it has no explanation for its existence. If nature is a contingent object with an explanation then its own nature can't be the explanation for its existence as it is a contingent object.
On the other hand, since God depends on nothing in order to exist he necessarily exists, in the broadly logical sense, in all possible worlds. His nature as a necessary being is the explanation for his existence.
im-skeptical wrote: Aseity is about the independence of existence, not about how many parts an object has."
I never said that Aseity depends on the number of parts a thing has.
The replies are now up to 9KB at a time, and growing. I will try to address all your points, but it will take some time, and several posts. If you wish to wait for me to finish, I'll let you know when I am done.
DeleteSo, to begin ...
"I reevaluated the background evidence and came to the conclusion that God most likely exists and that he is the cause of the universe."
- It' couldn't possibly be on the basis of evidence. Evidence is why I don't postulate any gods.
"Right, because "real" atheists are too dogmatic and close-minded to ever change their position."
- You forget that most thinking atheists have changed their position. They dropped their dogmatic beliefs and their theism at the same time.
"In the broadly logical sense."
- I don't know what "broadly logical" means, but 'necessary' means what is says. It does not mean 'maybe' or 'it depends' or 'sometimes'.
"No, you are the one making the hidden assumption. A physical brute fact is dependent on the existence of matter/energy and space because the brute fact is composed of matter/energy and inhabits space. So, in a possible world without matter/energy and space the physical brute fact can't exist. Of course, you can say that matter/energy, space and the brute fact are all brute facts."
- The definition of a 'brute fact' is something that exists without explanation. This 'dependency' that you claim is only your own metaphysical assumption being slipped in. And I'm not talking about possible worlds - I'm talking about this world.
"Also, I never claimed that God is the only possibility to explain the universe, I just think that he is the most likely one."
- Based on your theistic assumptions - not on any objective evidence.
"You conveniently left off the fact that our observations tell us that physical objects are finite and explicable. How does the absence of objective/conclusive evidence for immaterial objects make up for the lack objective/conclusive evidence for an eternal physical brute fact? We wouldn't expect to directly observe immaterial objects, so proving or disproving their existence is difficult. However, we do have ample evidence that physical objects are finite and explicable, so although it is logically possible that an eternal physical brute fact exists beyond the observable universe, there is no good reason to think that it does."
- Here we go again. Let's try a different approach this time. We'll see if we can think our way through this. First, you are blatantly hypocritical for telling me that I don't have evidence to believe there could be any 'brute fact' of nature, when you certainly don't have evidence for your 'necessary' god that isn't really necessary (by your own admission). Second, I insist that there is evidence. Everything we observe is in fact evidence of a natural reality, because that's exactly what we see - natural reality, and nothing more. You keep harping on whether it's eternal. The point that you keep ignoring is that it's natural. But we have both agreed that if there is some external 'cause' for the universe, that it must have an eternal nature to it, simply because it exists outside of space-time. So if we can agree that there is something external to the universe, whether it is a 'brute fact' of nature, or a supernatural god, it must be eternal, and we only have to decide between the different possibilities. We have already agreed that it is eternal, and you certainly believe that. So your harping about the lack of evidence for eternal things only serves to undermine your own belief in God.
But wait - there's more ...
"That "nothing" is actually the eternal physical brute fact which has been smuggled in through assumption. I'm not aware of anything popping into existence out of the complete absence of everything. Before you say that the quantum vacuum is "nothing" please read what David Albert, who has Ph.D. in theoretical physics, is a professor of philosophy at Columbia and is the author of “Quantum Mechanics and Experience,” has to say about that. ..."
Delete- Don't you see that you are making my case? Dr. Albert is expressing the metaphysical view that there is more to natural reality than what we see. As far as we can see, there's nothing there. But there is "something" that causes physical things to pop into existence. Does he have empirical evidence for this? Not directly. There is nothing about this "quantum vacuum" that can be measured or detected, except for the fact that stuff comes from it. This is the brute fact of which you speak, but it isn't just a "smuggled in assumption". There is reason to believe that natural reality extends beyond our detectable universe. And from your own remarks about this, you seem to be using this argument to try to refute me, but it actually agrees with what I have been saying. And it certainly doesn't advance your God hypothesis.
"The problem is that physics does not prove that an eternal physical brute fact or an infinite chain of contingent contingents exists, it just assumes that they do. There is no evidence for either of these things."
- We just discussed that. There certainly is evidence for a natural reality. It's what we see. It's all we see. What has no evidence is your postulation of God.
"Oxford physicist Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of the special low entropy condition having arisen by chance alone in the absence of any constraining principles is a least as small as about one part in 10^10(123) in order for the universe to exist. If the gravitational constant were slightly different the universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang, or stars (along with the heavy elements they spawned) and planets wouldn't have been able to form."
- The problem with this line of reasoning is that it presumes we only get one shot at it. If there are many universes, then the odds rise. And if there are an infinite number, then it is certain that there will be universes like ours. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that all these cosmological variables are independent. So the number "10^10(123)" is pure suppositional fiction. Finally, even if the odds are extremely low, the fact is that we exist in a universe that allows for life. It couldn't possibly be otherwise. If there were an infinite number of universes, but only one of then allows life, guess which one we'd be living in. So all this talk about low probabilities really doesn't mean anything at all.
more comments to come ...
"I don't think I have to tell you that this is not a counter argument."
Delete- And I shouldn't have to tell you that the existence of change does not prove God. It is only because of assumptions based on ancient, debunked physics that you think it does.
"How do you know that the world where God prevents the animal from being eaten contains less evil than the one where he permits the animal to be eaten. God might have very good reasons for permitting the animal to be eaten--reasons that could lead to more good than the world where God prevents the animal from being eaten."
- That was my starting assumption, for the sake of argument. A world exactly like ours, but with a little less suffering. The purpose of that thought experiment was to demonstrate that this is not the best possible world.
"No, this doesn't follow. If I thwart God's will by freely declining the job offer then he can still achieve an end goal through another free agent or even structure things so that I will freely follow his will and achieve the end goal in the future."
- You don't understand causality. You can't allow for things to happen freely and still expect it all to turn out a certain way. It's not logical, let alone physically possible. This is incoherent thinking on your part.
"Well, I think this might come down to what one means by guided. If God uses the mechanism of random mutations, but shapes the natural in order in such a way as to achieve end goals through shaping the environment so that the random mutations lead to the end goals, this would seem to be partially guided evolution to me."
- And what would be random about these mutations that lead to a desired end? If they're really random, what they lead to is purely a matter of chance. You can't have it both ways.
"Again, this doesn't follow."
- What doesn't follow is the expectation of a fixed outcome from a free or random process.
"Saying that different people have had different moral systems does not mean that there are no moral facts. It seems obvious that it is objectively wrong to torture babies for fun."
- Morality is subjective. You said it yourself: "It seems obvious ..." Exactly. It's not objectively true, but it seems that way. The fact that you can't state these "objective moral facts" is prima facie evidence that they're not objective.
"This quite a long rabbit trail [natural consciousness], but my short response is that this is an inference to the best explanation, and it is more likely that consciousness would come from consciousness rather than from non-consciousness."
- Just like Victor, you are in serious need of some science education. There is so much evidence that mind and consciousness are physical, that you have to be a rabid science denier to reject it. You have to be like those fundies who deny evolution theory, or energy industry lackeys who deny global warming.
"A god with parts is conceivable, but then the parts and the matter the parts are made of are brute facts. That's a of inexplicable things, which would be amazing as we don't see things that things exist inexplicably."
Delete- Nor do we see gods at all. A god with two parts is no more amazing than a god with one part.
"There are two options: nature is a contingent object with an explanation or it's a contingent brute fact with no explanation. In both cases nature is contingent because it could have failed to exist or cease to exist. If nature's existence is a brute fact then by definition it has no explanation for its existence. If nature is a contingent object with an explanation then its own nature can't be the explanation for its existence as it is a contingent object."
- And the point is ... ? If nature exists as a brute fact, it requires no more explanation than a necessary god. But we have already agreed that there are multiple possibilities. So there is a possible world where nature exists as a brute fact, and no gods exist. Therefore, god is not necessary. It is possible, that God does not exist.
"On the other hand, since God depends on nothing in order to exist he necessarily exists, in the broadly logical sense, in all possible worlds. His nature as a necessary being is the explanation for his existence."
- As I just explained, that's not true. You are equivocating in the meaning of contingency. You start out by defining it as something that may exist or may not exist. Then you shift to defining it in terms of dependency. If nature exists as a brute fact, it doesn't depend on anything. And God is still not necessary.
"I never said that Aseity depends on the number of parts a thing has."
- Neither did I. But you made it out to be synonymous, or at least intimately linked with, divine simplicity.
That's all.
im-skeptical wrote: "It' couldn't possibly be on the basis of evidence. Evidence is why I don't postulate any gods."
DeleteYes, your assertion that a physical object, unlike all other physical objects, might possibility exist out of our of field of observation is rock solid evidence.
im-skeptical wrote: "You forget that most thinking atheists have changed their position. They dropped their dogmatic beliefs and their theism at the same time."
OK, if someone can go from theism to atheism then someone can go atheism to theism. If you're saying that no rational person could go from atheism to theism then you're revealing your bias.
im-skeptical wrote: "I don't know what "broadly logical" means, but 'necessary' means what is says. It does not mean 'maybe' or 'it depends' or 'sometimes'. "
Broad logical necessity/possibility has to do with actualizability and can be referred to as metaphysical possibility. An example is the proposition The Prime Minister is a prime number which is not strictly logically impossible, but it is broadly logically impossible because Prime Ministers are people and not numbers. On the other hand, the proposition married bachelors don't exist is necessarily true because there is no possible way for someone to be married and a bachelor.
We say that God necessarily exists (in the broad logical sense) in all possible worlds because there is no world where he could not exist as he depends on nothing for his existence. However, in the strict sense it is logically possible that God might not exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "First, you are blatantly hypocritical for telling me that I don't have evidence to believe there could be any 'brute fact' of nature, when you certainly don't have evidence for your 'necessary' god that isn't really necessary (by your own admission). Second, I insist that there is evidence. Everything we observe is in fact evidence of a natural reality, because that's exactly what we see - natural reality, and nothing more."
I freely admit that I'm not absolutely certain that God exists and that I do have faith. What I've been trying to do all along is open your eyes to the fact that behind all your bluster about all the evidence and reason supporting your beliefs lies the fact that the case for naturalism is actually much, much, much shakier then you'll admit to yourself.
How many times do I have to say that pointing to the observable universe and the natural order doesn't prove that an eternal physical brute fact exists, as God could have been the cause of these things? You've said several times that the physical brute fact, if it exists, would exist outside of our universe, so how can you claim to have evidence for something that is beyond our observation? In actuality you don't have evidence--you have a logical possibility.
im-skeptical wrote: "You keep harping on whether it's eternal. The point that you keep ignoring is that it's natural. But we have both agreed that if there is some external 'cause' for the universe, that it must have an eternal nature to it, simply because it exists outside of space-time. So if we can agree that there is something external to the universe, whether it is a 'brute fact' of nature, or a supernatural god, it must be eternal, and we only have to decide between the different possibilities. We have already agreed that it is eternal, and you certainly believe that. So your harping about the lack of evidence for eternal things only serves to undermine your own belief in God."
DeleteYou're missing my point. I think that whatever caused the world to exist would most likely be eternal. My point is that all the evidence we have shows that physical objects are finite and explicable, and yet you're trying to tell me that there is some physical object that is the opposite of what we know. It's possible that a strange physical object, unlike anything we know exists out there beyond the universe, but there is no good reason to think that this thing exists. Now we don't know about the properties of immaterial objects, assuming they exist. However, there is no reason to think that they couldn't exist eternally, as the wouldn't depend on the existence of matter and space.
im-skeptical wrote: "Don't you see that you are making my case? Dr. Albert is expressing the metaphysical view that there is more to natural reality than what we see. As far as we can see, there's nothing there...This is the brute fact of which you speak, but it isn't just a 'smuggled in assumption'."
DeleteYou've made some pretty big leaps here. Saying that quantum vacuums exist is impressive as saying that cars exist. To be clear THE brute fact is the one that has always existed and is the cause of the world. You don't actually have evidence that quantum vacuums existed before the big bang or that they are really brute facts. It is possible that God created the first quantum vacuum.
im-skeptical wrote: "There certainly is evidence for a natural reality."
Which very well have been created by God.
im-skeptical wrote: "If there are many universes, then the odds rise. And if there are an infinite number, then it is certain that there will be universes like ours. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that all these cosmological variables are independent. So the number "10^10(123)" is pure suppositional fiction. Finally, even if the odds are extremely low, the fact is that we exist in a universe that allows for life. It couldn't possibly be otherwise."
Which is the more parsimonious explanation for fine tuning: that there is one God that set the constants or an infinite number of universes and we happen to live in the one that supports life? We don't even know if there are universes outside our own or if there is an actual infinite collection of things.
There is no reason to think that the universal constants do move in unison.
Your last point is just circular reasoning.
"OK, if someone can go from theism to atheism then someone can go atheism to theism. If you're saying that no rational person could go from atheism to theism then you're revealing your bias."
Delete- Sure, they can. I never denied it. What I deny is that their conversion is based on evidence. For example, you can't bring yourself to believe that mind is physical. THat shows that you are either unaware of the body of evidence, or you deny the evidence. You insist that morality is objective, and comes from God, but there is no objective morality, and you can't produce evidence to show that there is. Your conversion is based on absence of evidence and lots of theological assumptions.
im-skeptical wrote: "I don't know what "broadly logical" means, but 'necessary' means what is says. It does not mean 'maybe' or 'it depends' or 'sometimes'. "
"We say that God necessarily exists (in the broad logical sense) in all possible worlds because there is no world where he could not exist as he depends on nothing for his existence. However, in the strict sense it is logically possible that God might not exist."
- That doesn't make sense. Just because something depends on nothing else does not imply that it must exist in any world, let alone all worlds. You are essentially defining God into necessary existence, which characteristic of flawed Thomistic thinking.
"How many times do I have to say that pointing to the observable universe and the natural order doesn't prove that an eternal physical brute fact exists, as God could have been the cause of these things? You've said several times that the physical brute fact, if it exists, would exist outside of our universe, so how can you claim to have evidence for something that is beyond our observation? In actuality you don't have evidence--you have a logical possibility."
- How many times do I have to repeat that we have already agreed on the possibilities? As I said, it comes down to deciding which of these possibilities is most likely to be correct. But one thing I never said is that there is some "eternal physical object" or "physical brute fact". Those are your words, not mine. I spoke of nature, or some aspect of nature that exists outside the bounds of space-time. Your incessant harping on the lack of evidence for an "eternal physical object" is just barking up the wrong tree, because I never said that, nor do I believe it. And I never said I have evidence for this red herring, either. What I did say, and what you have continued to ignore, is that there is ample evidence for some kind of natural reality. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of supernatural thing or being.
"Yes, your assertion that a physical object, unlike all other physical objects, might possibility exist out of our of field of observation is rock solid evidence."
- I'm asking you to try listening to what I say and make an effort to understand it.
"You're missing my point. I think that whatever caused the world to exist would most likely be eternal. My point is that all the evidence we have shows that physical objects are finite and explicable, and yet you're trying to tell me that there is some physical object that is the opposite of what we know. It's possible that a strange physical object, unlike anything we know exists out there beyond the universe, but there is no good reason to think that this thing exists."
- For God's sake - just listen to what I say and make an effort to understand it. This is getting really tiresome.
"Now we don't know about the properties of immaterial objects, assuming they exist. However, there is no reason to think that they couldn't exist eternally, as the wouldn't depend on the existence of matter and space."
Delete- Not only that, but we have absolutely no evidence to think that there are any supernatural things, whether inside or external to the universe. All the evidence tells us that what exists is natural.
"You've made some pretty big leaps here. Saying that quantum vacuums exist is impressive as saying that cars exist. To be clear THE brute fact is the one that has always existed and is the cause of the world. You don't actually have evidence that quantum vacuums existed before the big bang or that they are really brute facts. It is possible that God created the first quantum vacuum."
- This reveals your ignorance of modern science. It is the very same physics that we observe daily that allows things to pop into existence, that also that allows the universe to pop into existence. Our observations of quantum events are evidence. And not only is there evidence for a natural creation of the universe, It's pretty powerful, provided you don't simply dismiss it in favor of your theistic assumptions without evidence.
"Which [natural universe] very well have been created by God."
- But God isn't needed for any of this to happen. You keep should believe what is most parsimonious. Let me ask you: is it a natural universe, or a natural universe PLUS a god?
"Which is the more parsimonious explanation for fine tuning: that there is one God that set the constants or an infinite number of universes and we happen to live in the one that supports life? We don't even know if there are universes outside our own or if there is an actual infinite collection of things."
- The most parsimonious thing is that there is NO fine tuning.
"There is no reason to think that the universal constants do move in unison. ... Your last point is just circular reasoning."
- There is no reason to think they don't have some kind of interdependency. Nor is there any reason to think that they could be any different from what they are. It's all within the realm of logical possibility, and you can't just dismiss the possibilities that you don't like. That's just begging the question.
im-skeptical wrote: "And I shouldn't have to tell you that the existence of change does not prove God. It is only because of assumptions based on ancient, debunked physics that you think it does."
DeleteWell, you admit that the first premise is true--that some change takes place in the world. The second premise says that whatever is changing is being changed by something else. There seems to be ample evidence that things cause other things to change--in fact I would imagine that they are at least hundreds of trillions of instances of this happening around the universe each hour. It seems preposterous to think that the coffee in my cup changed itself so that it ended up in my cup. The third premise says that the prime mover (or source of all change) can be either A) just potential, B) a mix of potential and actual, or C) just actual. The prime mover can't be potential because potential thing can't actualize other things. The prime mover also can't be a mix of potential and actual because it would first need to be actualized by something before it can cause other things to be actualized, so as the fourth premise says the prime mover is pure actuality. Therefore the prime mover is pure actuality. I don't see how physics has proven this argument to be false.
Remember that I'm using this deductive argument to support my inductive argument, so it is implausible that an infinite chain of contingent continents could cause each other to change without an ultimate source of change. Also, the evidence we do have is that contingent physical object's change needs to be actualized by something else, so there is no good reason to think that there is a physical object that posses pure actuality. God is the best explanation for the existence of change.
im-skeptical wrote: "You don't understand causality. You can't allow for things to happen freely and still expect it all to turn out a certain way. It's not logical, let alone physically possible. This is incoherent thinking on your part...What doesn't follow is the expectation of a fixed outcome from a free or random process."
There is nothing illogical or incoherent about what I've said. God can bring about events and we freely respond to those events, and God can counter with more events that lead to more free choices until he achieves his end goal. I don't see the problem here.
Your second comment in this section leads me to believe that where we're talking past one another is that you think I'm saying that every single thing in the universe is fixed. The choices that the free agents are making are not fixed. It's just that God can counter with other situation that lead to other free choices that lead to him achieving his end goal.
im-skeptical wrote: "Morality is subjective. You said it yourself: "It seems obvious ..." Exactly. It's not objectively true, but it seems that way. The fact that you can't state these "objective moral facts" is prima facie evidence that they're not objective."
DeleteMorality MIGHT be subjective, you don't actually know that it is. The external world MIGHT be an illusion just as objective morals Might be an illusion, but what reason do I have to think that these things are actually illusions?
Well, I did say that it seems objectively wrong to torture babies for fun. Besides, the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
im-skeptical wrote: "Just like Victor, you are in serious need of some science education. There is so much evidence that mind and consciousness are physical, that you have to be a rabid science denier to reject it."
I actually studied human anatomy & physiology in college (and did quite well, thank you very much), and continue to study what science and the philosophy have to say about the brain/mind, so I'm actually very acquainted with what science has to say about the brain. I agree that the brain plays an extremely important part in human thinking, but I'm not convinced that there isn't a non-physical component to it. Consciousness is actually much more complex and nuanced then you make it out to be. Take my perception of a red sign. Science tells us that red doesn't exist in the world, that the sign is absorbing all photons besides the ones of the red wavelength and reflecting the red wavelength ones. My red receptive cones eventually receive the photons and trigger an action potential that leads to an electrical signal being sent to the visual processing center of my brain. But the red isn't in the electrical impulse or (it would seem) in my neurons. The experience of red is in my mind. Things get even more complex when I'm contemplating abstract objects like justice, and these thoughts lead to actions. Does justice reside in my neurons or in electrical impulses? That would seem unlikely.
im-skeptical wrote: "So there is a possible world where nature exists as a brute fact, and no gods exist. Therefore, god is not necessary."
DeleteThis is true in the strict logical sense, but not the broad logical sense. In the broad logical sense God exists in all possible worlds because there is not a possible world where he couldn't exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "But we have already agreed that there are multiple possibilities. So there is a possible world where nature exists as a brute fact, and no gods exist. Therefore, god is not necessary. It is possible, that God does not exist."
Here is Dictionary.com's definition of contingent: "Dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; conditional." Everything we see in the world around us fits in the contingent category as all these things depend on other things for there existence. God, on the other hand, depends on nothing for his existence. There could be a physical object that just inexplicably exists, but then this thing would be a brute fact which has no explanation. So, the nature of the brute fact does not explain its existence, as it has no explanation.
im-skeptical wrote: "You are essentially defining God into necessary existence, which characteristic of flawed Thomistic thinking."
No, as I've said many times this is only in the broad logical sense. Possible world semantics is a much more recent development than Aquinas' thought.
im-skeptical wrote: "But one thing I never said is that there is some "eternal physical object" or 'physical brute fact'... I never said that, nor do I believe it."
You've said that we're down to two possibilities an eternal God and an eternal brute fact. You've also said, "Evidence is why I don't postulate any gods." You've also said that if the eternal physical brute facts exists then it would exist beyond our field of observation. You've also said, "This [the quantum vacuum] is the brute fact of which you speak," and yet you claim to have no beliefs about the brute fact. Which is it? If a brute fact exists beyond out filed of observation then you can't have evidence of it. Yet, somehow you're rejecting God as the explanation for the world while saying that you have no evidence or belief in the only other alternative to God. It just doesn't make any sense.
im-skeptical wrote: "This reveals your ignorance of modern science. It is the very same physics that we observe daily that allows things to pop into existence, that also that allows the universe to pop into existence. Our observations of quantum events are evidence. And not only is there evidence for a natural creation of the universe, It's pretty powerful."
DeleteYou completely missed my point. Just because there now exists energy fields called quantum vacuums doesn't mean that these things have existed eternally or that they exited prior to the big bang, or that they have no cause or explanation. You can say that it's possible they quantum vacuums are THE brute fact, but you don't actually have any proof that this is the case.
im-skeptical wrote: "But God isn't needed for any of this to happen."
Assuming that an eternal physical brute fact exists.
im-skeptical wrote: "You keep should believe what is most parsimonious. Let me ask you: is it a natural universe, or a natural universe PLUS a god?"
Well, your primary explanation for fine tuning involved the possibility that there are an infinite number of universes. If that's the case then one God is more parsimonious.
im-skeptical wrote: "The most parsimonious thing is that there is NO fine tuning."
The problem is that there sure seems to be fine tuning which calls for an explanation.
"Remember that I'm using this deductive argument to support my inductive argument, so it is implausible that an infinite chain of contingent continents could cause each other to change without an ultimate source of change. Also, the evidence we do have is that contingent physical object's change needs to be actualized by something else, so there is no good reason to think that there is a physical object that posses pure actuality. God is the best explanation for the existence of change."
Delete- I'll save the Thomistic mumbo jumbo for another post. For now, suffice it to say that it has absolutely no bearing on reality.
"There is nothing illogical or incoherent about what I've said. God can bring about events and we freely respond to those events, and God can counter with more events that lead to more free choices until he achieves his end goal. I don't see the problem here."
- The fact that you don't see the problem is the problem.
"The choices that the free agents are making are not fixed. It's just that God can counter with other situation that lead to other free choices that lead to him achieving his end goal."
- Your understanding of causality is extremely naive.
"Morality MIGHT be subjective, you don't actually know that it is. The external world MIGHT be an illusion just as objective morals Might be an illusion, but what reason do I have to think that these things are actually illusions?"
- Nice logical trick. The world might be an illusion, but we have the evidence of our senses that gives us good reason to believe otherwise. Likewise morality might be objective, but you can't show me an objective moral value. The fact is that morality is subject to people's opinions, and it varies from time to time, and place to place. So what reason do you have to think it's objective?
"I actually studied human anatomy & physiology in college ... The experience of red is in my mind. Things get even more complex when I'm contemplating abstract objects like justice, and these thoughts lead to actions. Does justice reside in my neurons or in electrical impulses? That would seem unlikely."
- You should be aware that scientists who study cognition are almost unanimous is the opinion that mind is purely physical. It's mainly philosophers (especially theistic philosophers, with a few exceptions) who think mind is something other than physical. You speak of complexity. That's precisely the problem. Mind is a vary complex phenomenon. It is the lack of understanding of something very complex that leads people to think it must not be physical. Your argument about qualia is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
"This is true in the strict logical sense, but not the broad logical sense. In the broad logical sense God exists in all possible worlds because there is not a possible world where he couldn't exist."
- Are you aware that this is sheer nonsense? You are contradicting yourself.
"Everything we see in the world around us fits in the contingent category as all these things depend on other things for there existence. God, on the other hand, depends on nothing for his existence. There could be a physical object that just inexplicably exists, but then this thing would be a brute fact which has no explanation. So, the nature of the brute fact does not explain its existence, as it has no explanation."
- Now you're adding contingency to the brute fact of nature. That is begging the question, because it assumes that nature is dependent on something. It was you who slipped that assumption into the discussion. So out of the three possibilities we initially agreed on, you assume that god is non-contingent, and you assume that the others are contingent. And therefore, by your suppositions, God is the only one that works. But I don't make those question-begging suppositions. If you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't, either.
"No, as I've said many times this is only in the broad logical sense. Possible world semantics is a much more recent development than Aquinas' thought."
Delete- Something tells me you don't understand what logical possibility means.
"You've also said that if the eternal physical brute facts exists then it would exist beyond our field of observation. You've also said, "This [the quantum vacuum] is the brute fact of which you speak," and yet you claim to have no beliefs about the brute fact. Which is it? If a brute fact exists beyond out filed of observation then you can't have evidence of it. Yet, somehow you're rejecting God as the explanation for the world while saying that you have no evidence or belief in the only other alternative to God. It just doesn't make any sense."
- First, I have already told you that I do not refer to it as "physical", since that would imply that it exists within space-time. I think of it as an extended natural reality that is partially unobservable to us. And though we can't directly see the part that is outside our power to observe, that doesn't imply that there is no evidence of it. You have admitted that the quantim vacuum is something, even though we can't see it or measure it. And it is responsible for producing things that we can see. Furthermore, there are mathematical models in extended-dimensional space that seem to fit with our observations, and can have predictive power, just like other physical models. Therefore, we have very good reason to think that natural reality is broader than what our senses can detect. The only reason this doesn't make sense to you is that you refuse to accept the science behind it, and prefer instead to keep your theistic assumptions intact.
"You completely missed my point. Just because there now exists energy fields called quantum vacuums doesn't mean that these things have existed eternally or that they exited prior to the big bang, or that they have no cause or explanation. You can say that it's possible they quantum vacuums are THE brute fact, but you don't actually have any proof that this is the case."
- Sorry, but you completely fail to understand the implications of the existence of quantum fields.
"The problem is that there sure seems to be fine tuning which calls for an explanation."
- The problem is that you think there is fine tuning, but that's an illusion. You want an explanation? I gave you one. Our current scientific understanding predicts that things pop into existence, and this is a common occurrence that happens all the time. It also agrees with universes popping into existence. Why should we think that this is a one-time event? The fact is that we would be quite surprised to learn that it happened one time only. But given that we live inside our own universe, we can't see what else is out there. Still, we should expect that there are many more universes. If it is possible for physical laws to be different in those worlds, then undoubtedly there will be many where life isn't possible. But we find ourselves in a world where life is possible. That's not at all surprising. It's the only possibility. There is no need to postulate fine-tuning. Regardless of what the probability is, it is 100% certain that we will find ourselves in a universe that supports life rather than one that doesn't.
im-skeptical wrote: "The fact that you don't see the problem is the problem."
DeletePerhaps, the reason why I'm not seeing a problem is because there isn't one. You'll have to clarify what problems you're seeing.
im-skeptical wrote: "The world might be an illusion, but we have the evidence of our senses that gives us good reason to believe otherwise. Likewise morality might be objective, but you can't show me an objective moral value. The fact is that morality is subject to people's opinions, and it varies from time to time, and place to place. So what reason do you have to think it's objective?"
Our senses probably probably do approximate a real physical world, but it's also possible that what we take to be a physical external world is just a fantasy piped into our minds. We may not even have eyes, ears skin, et cetrera.
The fact is that morality MAY be subjective. However, just because the Nazis thought that it was virtuous to kill Jewish people, we shouldn't necessarily conclude that it's not objectively wrong to kill innocent people. I have a hard time believing that deep down you believe that it's not necessarily wrong to rape, torture and kill children for fun.
im-skeptical wrote: "You should be aware that scientists who study cognition are almost unanimous is the opinion that mind is purely physical. It's mainly philosophers (especially theistic philosophers, with a few exceptions) who think mind is something other than physical."
Of course neuroscientists believe that the mind is physical because they're beginning with the presupposition that all that exists are physical things and the mind is the brain!
im-skeptical wrote: "Are you aware that this is sheer nonsense? You are contradicting yourself."
To someone who doesn't understand the distinction between strict logical necessity and broad logical necessity it may appear to be a contradiction, but in fact there is no contradiction.
im-skeptical wrote: "Now you're adding contingency to the brute fact of nature. That is begging the question, because it assumes that nature is dependent on something. It was you who slipped that assumption into the discussion...God is the only one that works."
I'm not saying that God is the only possibility--in fact I have conceded that it is logically possible that an eternal brute fact caused the observable universe to exist. In actuality, what I'm saying is not controversial. If you remember, we got down this rabbit trail when you asked why nature's nature can't be the explanation for its existence as God's nature is the explanation for his existence. OK, there are two broad object categories of things that have explanations for their existence: contingent objects and necessary objects. A contingent objects existence is generally explained by the existence of other contingent objects, but of course we've been debating all along about what is the ultimate explanation of the existence of contingent objects. Necessary objects existence (assuming they exist) are explained by their own nature in that they depend on nothing else in order to exist. You could subtract everything, but the necessary object itself and it could still exist. The two potential candidates for necessary objects are God and abstract objects, like the number two and justice.
There is a third broad category of objects that have no explanation for their existence--the brute facts. By definition a brute fact has no explanation for its existence, so a brute fact's nature can not possibly be the explanation for its existence. If you're saying that nature is a brute fact then its nature can't be the explanation for its existence.
im-skeptical wrote: "And though we can't directly see the part that is outside our power to observe, that doesn't imply that there is no evidence of it."
DeleteSo, what you're telling me is that that you have no empirical evidence of the material brute fact, that you're postulating, which exists beyond the observable universe. This whole debate hinges on what exists outside of the observable universe. The problem is that that neither one of us KNOWS what exists beyond the universe.
im-skeptical wrote: "Sorry, but you completely fail to understand the implications of the existence of quantum fields."
I get it. If there is an ultimate brute fact, then the quantum vacuum is a good candidate for it. The problem is that we don't know if quantum vacuums have always existed or if they are really brute facts. Perhaps God caused quantum vacuums to exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "Still, we should expect that there are many more universes."
Expect is a pretty strong word. As I said before, it is more parsimonious to think that one God caused the constants to be finely tuned rather than thinking that an infinite number of brute facts, which can't be observed, exist and that we happen to live in the right universe.
im-skeptical wrote: "Regardless of what the probability is, it is 100% certain that we will find ourselves in a universe that supports life rather than one that doesn't."
And the question is why are the physical constants set at the level they are rather than some other level?
"Perhaps, the reason why I'm not seeing a problem is because there isn't one. You'll have to clarify what problems you're seeing."
Delete- OK, I'll expand on that, but I'd like to make it a separate topic, because it gets too far off the track of this discussion.
"Our senses probably probably do approximate a real physical world, but it's also possible that what we take to be a physical external world is just a fantasy piped into our minds. We may not even have eyes, ears skin, et cetrera."
- I never said it wasn't possible. I was talking about having reason to believe something. We have good reason to believe there is an external world, because that's what the evidence indicates. We have little reason to believe we are brains in a vat, because there's no evidence of that. And likewise, as I said, we have good reason to believe that morality is subjective because that's exactly what we see.
"I have a hard time believing that deep down you believe that it's not necessarily wrong to rape, torture and kill children for fun."
- The problem you're having is that you can't distinguish between what you feel and what is objectively true. Yes, we all agree that certain things are wrong, but that because we share the same evolutionary traits. It evidently was good for our survival if we didn't torture and kill our young. When it comes to moral matters that are more nebulous, we have different opinions. Why? Because morality is subjective.
"Of course neuroscientists believe that the mind is physical because they're beginning with the presupposition that all that exists are physical things and the mind is the brain!"
- No. You're confusing methodology with evidence-based beliefs. There have been many scientific investigations that attempt to find evidence of a non-physical aspect of mind. And guess what - science has been unable to come up with any. Again, I urge you to do some reading on this. The evidence is much more solid than one would ever guess by listening to Reppert or any theistic philosopher who only wants to validate his beliefs.
"To someone who doesn't understand the distinction between strict logical necessity and broad logical necessity it may appear to be a contradiction, but in fact there is no contradiction."
- I understand modal logic better than you think. It is a contradiction to assert both that God is a necessary being, and that there are possible worlds where God does not exist. That is what you have done.
"A contingent objects existence is generally explained by the existence of other contingent objects, but of course we've been debating all along about what is the ultimate explanation of the existence of contingent objects. Necessary objects existence (assuming they exist) are explained by their own nature in that they depend on nothing else in order to exist. ... By definition a brute fact has no explanation for its existence, so a brute fact's nature can not possibly be the explanation for its existence."
- OK, we've confused two different concepts here - necessity/contingency and explanation. I shouldn't have said that the brute fact is its own explanation, but you shouldn't have said that the brute fact is contingent. The brute fact simply exists, and is not dependent on anything. So the brute fact is like God, except that we don't need to ascribe attributes like intelligence and intention to it. It is plainly wrong to say that id depends on anything. That would be another instance of begging the question.
"So, what you're telling me is that that you have no empirical evidence of the material brute fact, that you're postulating, which exists beyond the observable universe."
Delete- No. This is rather like dark energy. We can't see it or measure it directly, but we do have empirical evidence that there is something there, so we infer its existence. We infer quantum fluctuations as an explanation for what we observe, even though we can't see them or measure them. We postulate that they may have an extra-dimensional aspect that is beyond the reach of our senses. Physicists have developed mathematical models that fit the observations. And those models are consistent with a beginning of the universe. To say that there's no evidence is wrong. That would put science in the same category as superstitious belief.
"The problem is that we don't know if quantum vacuums have always existed or if they are really brute facts. Perhaps God caused quantum vacuums to exist."
- Anything that transcends the bounds of space-time is eternal. There is no time outside the universe, because time is intimately tied to space. The question is whether this reality, whatever it is, is a creation of God, or whether it simply exists. You keep talking about parsimony. Again I ask what is more parsimonious, nature, or nature PLUS God? And if you can believe that God simply exists, why can't you believe that the reality of nature simply exists? You speak of brute fact as if it were forbidden. But it's only forbidden by superstitious belief, and replaced with a God who is certainly no less mysterious.
"Expect is a pretty strong word. As I said before, it is more parsimonious to think that one God caused the constants to be finely tuned rather than thinking that an infinite number of brute facts, which can't be observed, exist and that we happen to live in the right universe."
- Expect is exactly the right word. When we have physical models of the world (theories), we expect that things behave in accordance with those models. And unless the model is wrong, they do.
"And the question is why are the physical constants set at the level they are rather than some other level?"
- If they weren't, we wouldn't be around to ask the question. But it is only teleological superstition that leads you to think that these constants were "set". They are what they are, and we are the result.
I'll save the Thomistic mumbo jumbo for another post. For now, suffice it to say that it has absolutely no bearing on reality."
DeleteBefore you embark on your post about Aquinas' thought, I suggest that read Edward Feser's excellent introduction to Aquinas and his thought titled Aquinas or least read this post from him, so you don't waste your and your reader's time mounting an attack on a straw man. To really understand Aquinas' thought you unfortunately do have to work through some underlying metaphysics.
im-skeptical wrote: "No. This is rather like dark energy. We can't see it or measure it directly, but we do have empirical evidence that there is something there, so we infer its existence. We infer quantum fluctuations as an explanation for what we observe, even though we can't see them or measure them. We postulate that they may have an extra-dimensional aspect that is beyond the reach of our senses."
DeleteEvan Cockshaw does a good job summarizing my reservations about your quantum vacuum explanation for the the observable universe. He writes:
"The trouble with all cosmologies, including Hawking’s, is the why? question. Given a perfectly consistent cosmology, with exact relation to observation and excellent predictive qualities about what else we ought to observe, there still remains the problem of why there exists anything rather than nothing. Further to this there is the apparent failing of all cosmologies to tackle to the philosophical question of on what basis physical law exists and acts. It is very well to show consistency with current laws and their effects, but if no laws exist because no universe exists what good is it to say "…the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing…" [127] when you carry on to say "We know that in quantum mechanics particles can tunnel through potential barriers. This suggests that the birth of the universe might be a quantum tunnelling effect." [128]
‘Nothing’ must mean nothing. In my understanding the laws of physics are a something. What that something is is a question for the philosophers of science, but there is something intrinsic to the fabric of space-time which we call the laws of physics [129]: "…the theory of relativity implies that space and time are part of physics, rather than an arena in which physics takes place." [130] Hence physical law is not pre-existence apart from space-time!
In our universe we do indeed observe quantum tunnelling phenomena, [131] however this is in our post-creation universe. In the ante-creation ‘universe’ there is no way we can know that these same laws existed and were active. What use is it to say the universe came into being by the law of quantum-tunnelling? [132] "…what we know about quantum fluctuations occurs in our space-time framework. How could they occur in a situation where space and time did not exist?" [133]
We must assumes the necessity of the space-time continuum as the stage on which the laws of physics play. However Hawking uses imaginary time [134] and proposes physical law beyond ‘normal’ space-time. Worthing notes this but says it may "…not have a physical correlate…" [135]"
He's right. It's a large leap of faith to say that since we observe quantum vacuums now that they have have always existed un-caused and the cause of the universe. As David Albert noted, quantum vacuums are fields of energy. And as Cockshaw points out there is the serious question of if there were laws before the formation of the universe and if it even makes sense to think of laws existing apart from time, space and matter. I might add that if all that exists are the laws how can they cause anything to happen as they would seem to be abstract objects with no causal power. Now it could be that the laws, space, time, energy and quantum vacuums always existed as brute facts, but now we have many brute facts which is pretty astounding given that the evidence shows that things have a explanations for their existence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteim-skeptical wrote: "I was talking about having reason to believe something. We have good reason to believe there is an external world, because that's what the evidence indicates. We have little reason to believe we are brains in a vat, because there's no evidence of that. And likewise, as I said, we have good reason to believe that morality is subjective because that's exactly what we see."
DeleteWell, there's no evidence that we're a brain in a vat, but there is also no conclusive evidence that we're not a brain in a vat. Given that the non-existence of a world external to my mind is only a logical possibility it makes sense to live as if my intuitions about an external world are true unless proven otherwise.
I would say the same thing about morals. Given that the non-existence of objective moral facts is only a logical possibility I should live as if my intuitions about some things being objectively wrong are true unless proven otherwise.
im-skeptical wrote: "Yes, we all agree that certain things are wrong, but that because we share the same evolutionary traits. It evidently was good for our survival if we didn't torture and kill our young. When it comes to moral matters that are more nebulous, we have different opinions."
DeleteFirst of all, with theistic evolution and Judeo-Christian beliefs I can come up with a similar just-so-story. God designed the world in such a way that we would evolve an intuition about objective facts. Given humanity's fallen nature and freedom to disobey God, we would expect that it would have a flawed moral compass. The reason why most people say that what the Nazis did was evil is that we have an intuition that it is objectively wrong to kill innocent people, and the reason why the Nazis thought killing Jewish people was virtuous was because their moral compass was being malfunctioned by sin.
Secondly, I don't think this in an either/or situation. There can be objective moral facts and subjective moral opinions. So, it is objectively wrong to kill innocent people, but it is subjectively wrong to fly kites or drive over 60 MPH. It makes sense to think that there are cultural idiosyncrasies over rightness or wrongness.
Finally, your evolutionary just-so-story may account for why I think it is wrong to harm children in my family, but I'm not sure that it accounts for people outside of my family or even other species. In fact it actually might make sense to kill children from families that my family is competing with over resources. I'm also not sure how your explanation accounts for my intuition that the Nazis massacre of Jewish people was wrong, as the survival of those people has no bearing on my ability to pass on my genes. Certainly the life of a lion in Africa has no bearing on the ability of people to survive and reproduce, and yet there was moral outrage when Cecil, the lion was killed.
im-skeptical wrote: "You're confusing methodology with evidence-based beliefs. There have been many scientific investigations that attempt to find evidence of a non-physical aspect of mind. And guess what - science has been unable to come up with any. Again, I urge you to do some reading on this. The evidence is much more solid than one would ever guess by listening to Reppert or any theistic philosopher who only wants to validate his beliefs."
How would one directly observe an immaterial mind? We would have to infer its existence by its effect on things we can observe like just as we do with dark energy. I think the existence of consciousness is the effect of immaterial minds.
It's not just theists the believe that the mind can't be reduced to the brain, non-believers like David Chalmers, Alva Noe, and Thomas Negal all think that consciousness can't supervene on the brain. David Chalmers posses persuasive thought experiments with the possibility of philosophical zombies that act like you and I, but which don't have conscious experiences, and Mary, the ultimate neurologist who knows exactly how the science of vision works and who has yet never experienced color.
Science has not solved the problems of consciousness. That's not to say that it never will find a naturalistic solution, but at this point God is the most plausible explanation for consciousness.
im-skeptical wrote: "I understand modal logic better than you think. It is a contradiction to assert both that God is a necessary being, and that there are possible worlds where God does not exist. That is what you have done."
DeleteI never said that there are possible worlds where God does not exist, in fact I said that God exists in all possible worlds, in the broad logical sense. There is no possible world where God couldn't exist. God can even exist in a world with with no matter/energy, time and space. However, in the strict logical sense it's possible that God may not exist because there is nothing in the notion of God that makes his existence necessarily true in the strict logical sense. In contrast, it is necessarily true that married bachelors don't exist in all possible universes because by definition a married person can't be a bachelor and vice-versa.
im-skeptical wrote: "I shouldn't have said that the brute fact is its own explanation, but you shouldn't have said that the brute fact is contingent. The brute fact simply exists, and is not dependent on anything. So the brute fact is like God, except that we don't need to ascribe attributes like intelligence and intention to it. It is plainly wrong to say that id depends on anything. That would be another instance of begging the question."
A brute fact is not a necessary object; it is a contingent object that inexplicably exists. How can a physical object be actualized in a possible universe without matter/energy, time and space? I don't think it can because physical objects depend on these things for their existence. You could say that it's logically possible that a physical thing inexplicably exists in the possible universe without the aforementioned things, but then that would make that thing a brute fact and not a necessary object.
...However, I will point out that you could take the physical laws to be abstract objects, and hence, fit them into the necessary object category, but then they would have no causal power.
im-skeptical wrote: "You keep talking about parsimony. Again I ask what is more parsimonious, nature, or nature PLUS God? And if you can believe that God simply exists, why can't you believe that the reality of nature simply exists? You speak of brute fact as if it were forbidden. But it's only forbidden by superstitious belief, and replaced with a God who is certainly no less mysterious."
DeleteThe problem is that when you say nature you're actually lumping several brute facts together such as laws, matter/energy, space and time as well as say a quantum vacuum. In the case of the multiverse it's an infinite number of brute facts! So, it is actually more parsimonious to posit one necessary being rather than several or an infinite number of brute facts.
I doubt the existence of brute facts because they violate the modest version of Principle of Sufficient Reason which states that anything that exists has an explanation of its own nature or in an external cause. As I've said many times all the evidence that we have indicates that physical objects are finite and explicable, so it makes no sense to think that there is a physical object out there beyond the universe that is eternal and inexplicable. It is inconsistent to say that the Principle of Sufficient Reason holds true except in one instance because it's the only way to make naturalism work.
im-skeptical wrote: "Expect is exactly the right word. When we have physical models of the world (theories), we expect that things behave in accordance with those models. And unless the model is wrong, they do."
To say we out to expect that the multiverse exits because one of the several interpretations of quantum mechanics says that the multiverse exists and that string theory, which even non-believing physicists will tell you is not even verifiable, is quite a stretch.
im-skeptical wrote: "If they weren't, we wouldn't be around to ask the question. But it is only teleological superstition that leads you to think that these constants were "set". They are what they are, and we are the result."
Possibly, but God is the most parsimonious and plausible explanation for why they are at the present values.
"there still remains the problem of why there exists anything rather than nothing."
Delete- Special pleading. Why do theists think there's a god rather than no god? It's just as much a problem for theism as it is for physics.
"Cockshaw points out there is the serious question of if there were laws before the formation of the universe and if it even makes sense to think of laws existing apart from time, space and matter."
- The quantum tunneling was never a serious cosmological theory. And it is generally agreed that a quantum vacuum is not literally nothing. That's why it has a name. Krauss is well aware of this, despite the fact that he chooses the more sensational terminology for his book. It makes a good straw man for people like Cockshaw and Feser. By the way, what do you suppose God create the universe from?
"there's no evidence that we're a brain in a vat, but there is also no conclusive evidence that we're not a brain in a vat."
- You missed my point. I'm not talking about conclusive proof. I'm talking about justification for belief - based on evidence.
"Given humanity's fallen nature and freedom to disobey God, we would expect that it would have a flawed moral compass."
- In other words, you admit that morality is not objective.
"There can be objective moral facts and subjective moral opinions.There can be objective moral facts and subjective moral opinions. ..."
- There are subjective moral opinions. The existence of objective moral facts has not been demonstrated. In the bible, it was sometimes good to kill innocent people. How can you call that an objective moral fact?
"your evolutionary just-so-story may account for why I think it is wrong to harm children in my family, but I'm not sure that it accounts for people outside of my family or even other species"
- Correct. That shows that the idea that morality is complex - influenced by learning, cultural norms, psychology, group membership, economic conditions, etc. There simply are no universal, objective moral rules.
"How would one directly observe an immaterial mind? We would have to infer its existence by its effect on things we can observe like just as we do with dark energy"
- Exactly. There are ways we could make such an inference. But all have failed so far.
"Science has not solved the problems of consciousness. That's not to say that it never will find a naturalistic solution, but at this point God is the most plausible explanation for consciousness."
- We are getting closer by the day. You should do some reading.
"There is no possible world where God couldn't exist."
- But you did agree that the brute fact of nature is a possibility. As far as I can tell, not only is there a possible world where God doesn't exist, there is an actual one.
"A brute fact is not a necessary object; it is a contingent object that inexplicably exists."
- Earlier, you defined contingency as dependency. You are equivocating. A brute fact doesn't depend on anything.
"The problem is that when you say nature you're actually lumping several brute facts together ..."
- Who cares? Your simple god is still thrown in on top of everything that exists.
"I doubt the existence of brute facts because they violate the modest version of Principle of Sufficient Reason which states that anything that exists has an explanation of its own nature or in an external cause."
- That's your theistic definition. "The principle of sufficient reason states that nothing is without reason."
"To say we out to expect that the multiverse exits ... is quite a stretch"
- But of course, you don't think that a supernatural alternative, with no evidence and no scientific model, is a stretch at all. That is the definition of 'blinkered'.
im-skeptical wrote: "Special pleading. Why do theists think there's a god rather than no god? It's just as much a problem for theism as it is for physics."
DeleteNo, the difference is that with God the explanation for the contingent universe is explained by something that has an explanation for its existence while the brute fact has no explanation for its existence. According to the Principle of Sufficient reason things without explanations don't exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "The quantum tunneling was never a serious cosmological theory. And it is generally agreed that a quantum vacuum is not literally nothing..."
OK, but you've still given me no reason to think that because quantum vacuums exist now that they have always existed inexplicably.
As far as I can tell, God made the universe out of energy and space which he created and caused to expand rapidly.
im-skeptical wrote: "You missed my point. I'm not talking about conclusive proof. I'm talking about justification for belief - based on evidence."
Right, but the evidence can go either way. What I take to be an external world could just be an illusion fed to me to trick me into thinking that there's an external world.
im-skeptical wrote: "In other words, you admit that morality is not objective."
No, you're creating a false dilemma. The third possibility is that there are objective moral facts and subjective moral opinions.
im-skeptical wrote: "There are subjective moral opinions. The existence of objective moral facts has not been demonstrated. In the bible, it was sometimes good to kill innocent people. How can you call that an objective moral fact?"
I don't deny that there are subjective moral opinions--in fact I think that objective moral facts and subjective moral opinions simultaneously coexist. The commands in the Old Testament that you're alluding to were a very special circumstance where God was judging morally reprehensible cultures. So they were not innocent people.
im-skeptical wrote: "Exactly. There are ways we could make such an inference. But all have failed so far."
Because neuroscientists are beginning with the presupposition that the mind is the brain they aren't concluding that consciousness could be caused by anything other then the brain.
im-skeptical wrote: "But you did agree that the brute fact of nature is a possibility. As far as I can tell, not only is there a possible world where God doesn't exist, there is an actual one."
Right the brute fact is logically possible, but not plausible. God exists in all logically possible worlds broadly logically speaking. There is inconclusive evidence that he caused this universe to exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "Earlier, you defined contingency as dependency. You are equivocating. A brute fact doesn't depend on anything."
Physical objects cannot exist in all possible universes so they aren't necessary objects, and so are contingent objects. However, it is strictly logically possible that a physical brute fact can inexplicably exist in any logically possible universe.
im-skeptical wrote: "Who cares? Your simple god is still thrown in on top of everything that exists."
God is the cause of everything else.
im-skeptical wrote: "That's your theistic definition. "The principle of sufficient reason states that nothing is without reason."
It's the modest version of the PSR. The bolder formal version is: "For every fact F, there must be an explanation why F is the case (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)."
im-skeptical wrote: "But of course, you don't think that a supernatural alternative, with no evidence and no scientific model, is a stretch at all. That is the definition of 'blinkered'."
I never claimed that my argument was indubitable or that I didn't have some faith. I think it's time that you admit that you have your own faith.
There is a very straightforward and reasoned explanation why it is we believe in the existence of gods, Keith. Science has a pretty good handle on it now and the evidence is growing. what's even more interesting is that the various disciplines of research are relating an emergent and consistent narrative of the role and purpose why we think as we do about gods. We have a very good understanding now why it is we posit the notion of a God where none actually exists. Keith, you might wish to spend some qualitative time reviewing the mountain of peer-reviewed research literature, starting with whetting your appetite with THIS little aperitif as an introduction of the culinary delights of the natural world.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that humans have a tendency to want to ascribe agency to things in no way proves that God doesn't exist or that it isn't the case that the reason why people believe in God is because there actually is a God. To do these things would be to commit the genetic fallacy.
DeleteYou are right. It would be a genetic fallacy, that is, unless you follow the evidence, Keith. So far, of the wide field of human activity, god only resides within the pages of Theology. In Philosophy, the conception of god is equivocal at best with as many arguments against as there are for. For every single other field of scholarship, be it sociology, psychology, anthropology, archeology, cosmology, astronomy, you name it, all point to whether explicitly or indirectly, a throughly terrestrial-bound and naturalistic explanation there is no need to posit a god. The single best example of a genetic fallacy is when evidence for a counter-explanation is discounted on the basis of belief:
Delete"I was brought up to believe in God, my parents/church/theology/bible/priest told me God exists, so He must. Therefore for neuroscience to tell me where the probable origin of the god concept derives is a genetic fallacy."
Pull the other leg, Keith.
Papalinton wrote: "So far, of the wide field of human activity, god only resides within the pages of Theology."
DeleteThat's highly questionable.
Papalinton wrote: "In Philosophy, the conception of god is equivocal at best with as many arguments against as there are for."
There isn't philosophical consensus about any interesting topic. We do agree that married bachelors don't exist.
Papalinton wrote: "For every single other field of scholarship, be it sociology, psychology, anthropology, archeology, cosmology, astronomy, you name it, all point to whether explicitly or indirectly, a throughly terrestrial-bound and naturalistic explanation there is no need to posit a god."
This is also questionable, and question begging as naturalism is being assumed.
After all these comments from you I still see no arguments or evidence for your belief in an eternal physical brute fact. I just see assumptions that God doesn't and that the brute fact does.
I'm afraid I may have offended Keith. Didn't mean to do that.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry I'm not offended. I have a thick skin. I've just been kind of busy and tired. I do generally enjoy these debates, but they can also be very time consuming. They do keep the mind sharp, though.
DeleteGlad to hear that. I have a rather dry sense of humor. I like to engage in good-natured banter, but some might interpret the things I say as mean-spirited.
Delete