Discussions on this blog come around to the Cosmological Argument every so often. I enjoy talking about it and think it is a compelling argument, so that's why I bring it up.
From the last post's comment box, I thought this interaction between the Jolly Nihilist and I was worthy of posting:
JN said: our confidence is commensurate with the evidence
You mean, what you think the evidence is, now. But this is not the face you usually put forward; you guys like to present science as pretty much the be-all, end-all of knowledge. Then when we ask enough questions, we break you back down to the nitty-gritty - we can't actually be certain about these things. But we're sure we can form conclusions "commensurate with the evidence", even though we're relying on inductive reasoning and arguments from authority, and it could all be totally different tomorrow.
Ppl used to say that about geocentrism, spontaneous generation of flies from rotting meat, etc. How do you know you've got it right this time?
Again, science is not structured to provide absolute certitude, and thus, no scientific truth, no matter how well evidenced, is immutable.
So you don't know you've got it right this time. Cool, thanks.
In the very, very distant future, all the other galaxies will have receded from us to the point that, no matter how hard we look, their light will be unable to reach us.
What's even funnier is that you don't know you're looking at galaxies now. Have you ever looked at something like a 2-D illusion from one spot, which looked like it was flat, then moved to a different spot to get a different perspective, and it was a 3-D figure? Well, in our case, we can't exactly change our perspective by moving an appreciable distance w.r.t. these far-off views. But I don't hear lots of hemming and hawing from the scientific establishment that would be commensurate with the caveats you're giving us here. Why is this, if not self-deception in action, leading to deception of others?
Cosmologists of this very, very distant future could do the very best, most perfect science and reach the (erroneous) conclusion that our galaxy is alone in the cosmos.
If the cosmologists of the future are anything like the evo biologists of today, who don't have access to the past and yet presume to tell us that evolution is a "fact", they won't say what you're saying. They'll say they're sure of what we know to be true. And if you ask them enough questions, they'll throw a fit and excommunicate you.
I see no reason why those laws must exist temporally. Why could they not exist outside of space-time as we know it?
Again, laws are DESCRIPTORS.
1) Laws are statements of observed behavior. If there's no observer, there's no law.
2) As I've said at least twice now, if there's no THING to behave, there's no behavior. No behavior = no law.
3) And since, if a thing existed an infinite amount of time, we'd run into the problem of traversing an infinite, this argument fails.
We say this, we believe it, but can we prove it? No.”
Quite so - it's your blind faith religion. Well said.
one must assume that the cause of the universe did not begin to exist because... failure to make this assumption makes WLC's argument potentially infinitely regressive and, thus, absurd?
I don't know what's so hard about this. When given a choice between a logical fallacy and a logical non-fallacy, why wouldn't you choose the non-fallacy?
Merely pushes the question back a step. This is not an answer.
Exactly! And neither is WLC's argument a genuine answer.
Look, you can say that all you want, but the Ultimate First Cause, outside of spacetime, is a causally sufficient answer for the problem we're dealing with. An infinitely old piece of matter isn't. And as we've seen, "laws" aren't either.
You need to provide an argument why the UFCause doesn't answer the problem, not just assert it.
P1: Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature.
Premise 1 is the problem. Some cause-effect relationships are LOGICALLY ordered, not CHRONOlogically ordered.
26 comments:
How can we be sure that:
A) Causality as we know it exists outside of spacetime?
B) The first cause was an intelligent agent?
C) Everything needs a cause? Many quantum events do not.
What's even funnier is that you don't know you're looking at galaxies now. Have you ever looked at something like a 2-D illusion from one spot, which looked like it was flat, then moved to a different spot to get a different perspective, and it was a 3-D figure? Well, in our case, we can't exactly change our perspective by moving an appreciable distance w.r.t. these far-off views. But I don't hear lots of hemming and hawing from the scientific establishment that would be commensurate with the caveats you're giving us here. Why is this, if not self-deception in action, leading to deception of others?
So Rho, you're saying that what seem to be distant galaxies are just holes in the vault of Heaven? You're getting more medieval by the moment. It won't be long before you embrace flat-Earthism at this rate...
cheers from slushy Vienna, zilch
Rhology,
In the first half, you mostly just rail against nondescript science types who, you charge, fail to view science as I do (which is to say, to concede openly that all scientific truths are provisional and that certitude only can be commensurate with the evidence). You are misguided inasmuch as you believe, because science is not structured to provide immutable truth, all its conclusions are mere wild-ass guesses. There is abundant gray area between metaphysical certitude and blind guesswork. Although its “correct-answer” track record is far from perfect, the scientific method has been invaluable in our analysis of the world in which we find ourselves, allowing us to make specific predictions and see them vindicated to a high degree of precision.
Again, laws are DESCRIPTORS.
1) Laws are statements of observed behavior. If there's no observer, there's no law.
This statement is just bizarre.
Is your argument that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics are dependent upon an observer? In the absence of an observer within the universe, would the laws of physics and quantum mechanics disappear? If this is your argument, when did these laws come into being? When monocellular life evolved? When humans evolved? If every extant creature were to be asleep simultaneously, would the laws of physics cease to exist until an observer awoke? This is more or less identical to the question about whether a tree falling would make a sound without a listener in the forest.
2) As I've said at least twice now, if there's no THING to behave, there's no behavior. No behavior = no law.
You act all exasperated—pretending I ignored your critique—even though I have been abundantly clear in responding. I will just repost it.
“[There is a reason] I phrased my previous post as I did: '...it might be the case that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics (or some components thereof, or some analogue thereto, etc.) are the primary bare fact—the ultimate description of reality beyond which there is nothing and with respect to which no origins question is intelligible.' Why is it impossible to say that an analogue to the laws of physics is the ultimate description of reality? It might help explain why variants, analogues or versions of those primary laws describe our little universe, which exists within reality.”
Whose nature/behavior is being described? “Reality's” nature.
3) And since, if a thing existed an infinite amount of time, we'd run into the problem of traversing an infinite, this argument fails.
Just going to quote myself again:
“...[I]f I postulate that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics (or some components thereof or some analogue thereto) are the primary bare fact, which is to say the ultimate description of reality beyond which there is nothing, I see no reason why those laws must exist temporally. Why could they not exist outside of space-time as we know it?”
Who is to say “reality” must exist temporally?
Premise 1 is the problem. Some cause-effect relationships are LOGICALLY ordered, not CHRONOlogically ordered.
Since you failed to quote the whole, long three-line argument, I will.
P1: Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature.
P2: A timeless being cannot be involved in anything temporal in nature.
C: A timeless being cannot be involved in cause-and-effect relationships.
To substantiate your objection, you must provide examples (other than the one at issue) of cause-and-effect relationships that are atemporal in nature. In your examples:
* cause cannot temporally precede effect
* cause cannot temporally follow effect
* cause and effect cannot be temporally simultaneous
* the cause and the effect cannot have ANY temporal relationship
You also must explain why temporal cause-and-effect relationships and atemporal cause-and-effect relationships are analogous, despite the fact that they seem qualitatively different and, thus, would appear disanalogous.
Rhology,
In the first half, you mostly just rail against nondescript science types who, you charge, fail to view science as I do (which is to say, to concede openly that all scientific truths are provisional and that certitude only can be commensurate with the evidence). You are misguided inasmuch as you believe, because science is not structured to provide immutable truth, all its conclusions are mere wild-ass guesses. There is abundant gray area between metaphysical certitude and blind guesswork. Although its “correct-answer” track record is far from perfect, the scientific method has been invaluable in our analysis of the world in which we find ourselves, allowing us to make specific predictions and see them vindicated to a high degree of precision.
Again, laws are DESCRIPTORS.
1) Laws are statements of observed behavior. If there's no observer, there's no law.
This statement is just bizarre.
Is your argument that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics are dependent upon an observer? In the absence of an observer within the universe, would the laws of physics and quantum mechanics disappear? If this is your argument, when did these laws come into being? When monocellular life evolved? When humans evolved? If every extant creature were to be asleep simultaneously, would the laws of physics cease to exist until an observer awoke? This is more or less identical to the question about whether a tree falling would make a sound without a listener in the forest.
2) As I've said at least twice now, if there's no THING to behave, there's no behavior. No behavior = no law.
You act all exasperated—pretending I ignored your critique—even though I have been abundantly clear in responding. I will just repost it.
“[There is a reason] I phrased my previous post as I did: '...it might be the case that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics (or some components thereof, or some analogue thereto, etc.) are the primary bare fact—the ultimate description of reality beyond which there is nothing and with respect to which no origins question is intelligible.' Why is it impossible to say that an analogue to the laws of physics is the ultimate description of reality? It might help explain why variants, analogues or versions of those primary laws describe our little universe, which exists within reality.”
Whose nature/behavior is being described? “Reality's” nature.
3) And since, if a thing existed an infinite amount of time, we'd run into the problem of traversing an infinite, this argument fails.
Just going to quote myself again:
“...[I]f I postulate that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics (or some components thereof or some analogue thereto) are the primary bare fact, which is to say the ultimate description of reality beyond which there is nothing, I see no reason why those laws must exist temporally. Why could they not exist outside of space-time as we know it?”
Who is to say “reality” must exist temporally?
Premise 1 is the problem. Some cause-effect relationships are LOGICALLY ordered, not CHRONOlogically ordered.
Since you failed to quote the whole, long three-line argument, I will.
P1: Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature.
P2: A timeless being cannot be involved in anything temporal in nature.
C: A timeless being cannot be involved in cause-and-effect relationships.
To substantiate your objection, you must provide examples (other than the one at issue) of cause-and-effect relationships that are atemporal in nature. In your examples:
* cause cannot temporally precede effect
* cause cannot temporally follow effect
* cause and effect cannot be temporally simultaneous
* the cause and the effect cannot have ANY temporal relationship
You also must explain why temporal cause-and-effect relationships and atemporal cause-and-effect relationships are analogous, despite the fact that they seem qualitatively different and, thus, would appear disanalogous.
zilch,
Rho, you're saying that what seem to be distant galaxies are just holes in the vault of Heaven?
No, I'm not.
JN,
You are misguided inasmuch as you believe, because science is not structured to provide immutable truth, all its conclusions are mere wild-ass guesses.
I'd be interested in knowing how you could prove inductively that induction is better than that.
There is abundant gray area between metaphysical certitude and blind guesswork.
Are you metaphysically certain of that statement, or provisionally convinced? If the latter, aren't we seeing the certainty diminish all the time? 75% of 75% is less than 75%, you know, and if you keep asking the same question, well, you approach zero pretty soon.
Although its “correct-answer” track record is far from perfect, the scientific method has been invaluable in our analysis of the world in which we find ourselves
Which begs the question. You don't know that w/o assuming that what you're saying is true.
Is your argument that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics are dependent upon an observer?
Laws are statements. Statements can only be made by observers.
In the absence of an observer within the universe, would the laws of physics and quantum mechanics disappear?
There would be no statement about it.
? If every extant creature were to be asleep simultaneously, would the laws of physics cease to exist until an observer awoke?
Actually, I think this point of mine is a weak one and I'm not sure I'm convinced of it myself, but I threw it out there to see if you could overturn it, which you might well do.
But on my worldview, no; God is the eternal actor (more than an observer). Did you forget already?
Up to you to show that my statement is not true, on YOUR worldview.
Whose nature/behavior is being described? “Reality's” nature.
"Reality" doesn't DO anything.
And if there's NOTHING, how could there be action? Don't forget the question at hand.
I see no reason why those laws must exist temporally.
Then I'll just repeat my question for the 5th time or so, about how nothing seems to = something for you, and why.
P1: Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature.
Conclusions to arguments themselves follow LOGICALLY not CHRONOlogically.
Arguments are part of reality, and exist, though immaterial. There's your example. This is why P1 fails, and thus your argument.
You also must explain why temporal cause-and-effect relationships and atemporal cause-and-effect relationships are analogous
B/c they share cause and effect?
Wow. It's like it's news that the law of causality isn't a physical principle, but a metaphysical principle. Brother.
A potential existence cannot actualize itself, whether it's material or not.
No one says everything needs a cause, only things that come into being. And the (possibly) indeterministic quantum events that happen have a cause; namely the preexisting quantum vacuum that is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws. Before the universe, that wasn't there.
Now please you smart, smart atheist types. Tell us more of this amazing miraculous faith based gospel of nothing creating everything-ology. It doesn't make you look bad at all.
Rho- you did say "What's even funnier is that you don't know you're looking at galaxies now." What did you mean by this, then?
Boss- can you demonstrate that everything needs a cause except God?
cheers from slushy Vienna, zilch
Rho:
Conclusions to arguments themselves follow LOGICALLY not CHRONOlogically.
That's only because you think in zero time.
Seems to me that causes and events are most likely (or maybe quite often is better) simultaneous. If time is continuous, and the cause is prior to and not simultaneous to the event, then there will be a gap of time between the cause and the event. If we only looked at the event itself it would appear to occur without the cause in the temporal progression.
It's not so silly to claim that events and causes are simultaneous in some instances.
Zilch, I guess I was under the delusion that you understood what the first premise of the argument actually stated.
Some cause-effect relationships are LOGICALLY ordered, not CHRONOlogically ordered.
Such as?
Seems to me that causes and events are most likely (or maybe quite often is better) simultaneous.
Such as?
JN,
Who is to say “reality” must exist temporally?
1) Please give a scientific example of sthg that does not exist temporally.
2) Do you realise that many atheists critique the Kalam argument b/c they find the existence of a God Who is outside of time and space to be ridiculous? Are you OK with finding yourself disagreeing with the likes of Dan Barker and Michael Martin?
zilch,
Rho- you did say "What's even funnier is that you don't know you're looking at galaxies now." What did you mean by this, then?
Yes, I did say that. You made it into a ludicrous paraphrase.
I'm asking precisely what I said - give me a reason to think that you can have any certainty that those are galaxies and not mirages created by your one-perspective observation.
(Hint: You can't. I'm trying to get you to admit the obvious - that you don't know very much, and far less than you think you know.)
Paul C,
Some cause-effect relationships are LOGICALLY ordered, not CHRONOlogically ordered.
I'd said: Arguments are part of reality, and exist, though immaterial. There's your example. This is why P1 fails, and thus your argument.
Rho- so you're of the opinion that images of apparently distant galaxies are mirages? Tell me where the light comes from, please. And tell me how you can tell "mirages" from "images of real galaxies" (if they're not all "mirages"). I'll pass the news on to my astrophysicist friend- I'm sure he'll be happy to learn that he and his colleagues are wrong. Please show your work.
cheers from icy Vienna, zilch
I'd said: Arguments are part of reality, and exist, though immaterial. There's your example. This is why P1 fails, and thus your argument.
The material status of "arguments" bears no relation to your original proposition that "Some cause-effect relationships are LOGICALLY ordered, not CHRONOlogically ordered." Please give us slow learners a specific example of what exactly you mean.
Paul,
Arguments exist. Therefore, they are part of reality.
The effect of an argument's conclusion logically follows from the argument's premises. No time elapses.
The effect of an argument's conclusion logically follows from the argument's premises. No time elapses.
In philosophical terms, there's no such thing as the "effect" of an argument. Perhaps you're thinking of the "conclusion" of an argument?
I'll agree that there's no time differentiation between premises and conclusions, and that's because it's not an example of cause and effect.
So once again your argument has no legs. Got anything else to share?
Even though I enjoy debating Rhology, inasmuch as his opposition is formidable, I must narrow my focus here, because this is becoming time-consuming and I seem to be constitutionally incapable of rebutting any point briefly.
"Reality" doesn't DO anything.
And if there's NOTHING, how could there be action? Don't forget the question at hand.
To start, I am not convinced that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics can accurately be described strictly and solely as descriptions of “behavior” and/or “action” in the universe. Another possibly legitimate way to characterize these laws might be as descriptions of the way the universe is and/or how the universe operates. Take, for example, the principle that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed. I am not sure this strictly must describe an action or a behavior when, in another sense, it could be said to describe how the universe is and its fundamental character.
Second, who is possibly to say what “reality,” as I am using the term, might be? Can reality “fluctuate” in the same way vacuum energy can? Might it produce similar fluctuations to those aforediscussed? Must this possibly fluctuating reality exist spatially and temporally? We have not the slightest idea, because all any of us can do is conjecture. I readily admit that I do not have all the answers. It would be laughable to think any of us do—including a tribe of Jews a few millennia ago. However, it is far, far more plausible that the universe began with a few “dumb,” fundamentally simple laws than to posit that an intelligent, powerful, creative deity, for whom no explanation is proffered, produced the universe through thoughtful creation.
Then I'll just repeat my question for the 5th time or so, about how nothing seems to = something for you, and why.
It is not that nothing is equal to something but, rather, that you apparently want to box me in as it pertains to what “something” must be. If I am talking about the fundamental nature of “reality”—the mysterious, undefined thing that is subject of my conjecture and within which the universe exists—I see no reason why this overarching reality must be spatial or temporal or consisting of mass-energy as we know it within the universe. Could not the laws of physics and quantum mechanics (components thereof, analogues thereto, etc.) describe the fundamental nature of “reality,” which is to say how reality is and its fundamental character?
Now, I will move to The Argument from Temporal Relationships, quoted below:
P1: Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature.
P2: A timeless being cannot be involved in anything temporal in nature.
C: A timeless being cannot be involved in cause-and-effect relationships.
Conclusions to arguments themselves follow LOGICALLY not CHRONOlogically.
Arguments are part of reality, and exist, though immaterial. There's your example. This is why P1 fails, and thus your argument.
So, you declare that arguments are cause-and-effect relationships? Here is an argument:
P1: All lemons are yellow.
P2: The fruit I am holding is a lemon.
C: The fruit I am holding is yellow.
This is a cause-and-effect relationship? The fact that all lemons are yellow caused the fruit I am holding to be yellow? The fact that the fruit I am holding is a lemon caused the fruit I am holding to be yellow? I think not.
Here is an actual cause-and-effect relationship:
Cause: I held a lit match to a piece of paper.
Effect: The piece of paper burned.
You contend that these two things are analogous? In my eyes, they are manifestly different, and you have not done nearly sufficient explanatory work to convince an objective observer otherwise.
Until you can provide a clear, unambiguous example of an atemporal cause-and-effect relationship, The Argument from Temporal Relationships stands, and its soundness serves as a sufficient defeater for Craig's cosmological argument.
I posted another lengthy reply that originally seemed to be accepted, but has now vanished.
Spam filtered?
First of all, I'd like to say: Die, spam filter.
descriptions of the way the universe is and/or how the universe operates.
I agree with that.
Finally, we agree on something! :-D
Can reality “fluctuate” in the same way vacuum energy can?
Energy is still something. If the reality is that there is nothing, then there is nothing. It's a braintwister, really - I don't think we can really wrap our minds around true nothingness.
It would be laughable to think any of us do—including a tribe of Jews a few millennia ago.
True. That's hardly our contention, though.
P2: A timeless being cannot be involved in anything temporal in nature.
I doubt this premise. All religious revelation and so-called revelation throughout human history disagrees. What is the argument for this premise?
The fact that all lemons are yellow caused the fruit I am holding to be yellow?
You're right - it might be a stretch to say that's a CAUSE.
Let's keep in mind that "yellow" is an artifact of how our color vision works. Just an aside.
cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch
Cause: I held a lit match to a piece of paper.
Effect: The piece of paper burned.
This is exactly my point about cause and effect being simultaneous in most cases. There is no time gap here. The cause and effect occur simultaneously.
Why can't the same be true with the universe?
Sorry that I have been neglecting this. Busy, busy, busy, but with a New Year's trip to Florida to which to look forward.
I said: P2: A timeless being cannot be involved in anything temporal in nature.
To which Rhology replied: I doubt this premise. All religious revelation and so-called revelation throughout human history disagrees. What is the argument for this premise?
To me, the second premise of The Argument from Temporal Relationships is merely a statement of the obvious.
Why can a timeless being not be involved in anything temporal in nature? Well, to deem a being "timeless" is another way of saying that being is atemporal. According to Merriam-Webster, the adjective "atemporal" is used to reference something that is "independent of or unaffected by time."
If a timeless (or an atemporal) being is, by definition, independent of or unaffected by time, how could that being be involved in something temporal in nature, which is to say something that is "of or relating to time as opposed to eternity"? A timeless being could no more be involved in anything temporal in nature than a nonspatial being could be involved in anything spatial in nature.
If a creative deity is defined as existing independent of time, then that deity must stand outside of and exist apart from everything that, by its nature, is temporal, in exactly the same way a deity that is “nonspatial”--defined as, well, "not spatial"--must stand outside of and exist apart from everything that, by its nature, is spatial.
A timeless being that becomes involved in something temporal in nature is, in fact, not a timeless being at all.
This is exactly my point about cause and effect being simultaneous in most cases. There is no time gap here. The cause and effect occur simultaneously.
Why can't the same be true with the universe?
Two points...
First, I think there is, in fact, a time gap, however vanishingly tiny. Surely a few units of Planck time elapse, right?
Second, I fail to see the relevance of this to the thrust of my argument, even discounting my first point. Simultaneity is no less a temporal relationship than cause preceding effect or, for that matter, effect preceding cause.
No one here has given a definition of "cause" so far. Just sayin'.
cheers from Vienna, just 'cause.
Well, to deem a being "timeless" is another way of saying that being is atemporal
All you're doing is trying to win the argument by fiat. You don't give a reason why we should accept your definition of timeless. Besides, it's not as if you have any experience and thus any observational evidence and thus any scientific rationale for your definition. You're just asserting it.
OTOH, I have a revelation from the very Being in question. Yes, that's better than the Jolly Nihilist's speculation.
If a timeless (or an atemporal) being is, by definition, independent of or unaffected by time, how could that being be involved in something temporal in nature, which is to say something that is "of or relating to time as opposed to eternity"?
"Acting" != "being affected".
He created time. You'll dispute that; I simply invite you to give an alternative hypothesis that has any shred of evidence.
All you're doing is trying to win the argument by fiat.
It seems to me that, rather than trying to win the argument by fiat, I am simply interpreting words in accordance with their plain meaning, and doing some pretty basic reasoning. Over the past few years, we have explored many far-off-in-the-weeds topics, but this seems like it is among the least abstruse things we have discussed.
From all indications so far, the first premise of The Argument from Temporal Relationships is unassailable. So, from here on, “Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature” will be taken as a given.
You contend that god created, which is to say caused, the universe. So, one can think of it this way: There is a relationship between god (the cause) and the universe (the effect). Thus, god (the cause) and the universe (the effect) have a cause-and-effect relationship.
We have already acknowledged that cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature. This means that a generic cause and a generic effect have a temporal relationship. In other words, that generic cause and that generic effect are temporally bounded—bounded by time—which is a necessary condition for having a temporal relationship.
At the same time, you contend that god is timeless. A timeless being exists outside the bounds of time. A timeless being is completely independent of time. A timeless being, in short, is atemporal.
Violating the law of noncontradiction is the problem here. To serve as the “cause” in a cause-and-effect relationship (or to serve as the “effect,” for that matter), the thing in question must be temporally bounded—bounded by time. Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature, meaning any generic cause and any generic effect are temporally bounded. If you contend that god is timeless (or atemporal) at the same time you posit god as the cause of something—of anything—you are simultaneously saying that god is atemporal and temporally bounded.
You are saying, in essence, that god is a triangular circle.
We have already acknowledged that cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature
Using the royal "we", I presume. I don't recall acknowledging that.
Or maybe you meant "we atheists". I think you need to make an argument that is compelling, though.
To serve as the “cause” in a cause-and-effect relationship (or to serve as the “effect,” for that matter), the thing in question must be temporally bounded—bounded by time
Or could create time.
If you disagree, please demonstrate why. Use evidence, in keeping with your professed Fundamental Presupposition. Any argument devoid of evidence will be rejected, so as to help you remain the most consistent possible nihilist you can be.
I've invited you once, in my previous comment. You declined, but I'm going to remind you that the offer still stands.
Post a Comment