bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) (09/29/86)
In discussing whether the universe or God is more likely to be uncaused, Brian McNeil writes: >...my argument still stands...if everything needs a cause, then God gets you > nowhere, and if not, why not the Universe? Since matter and the universe exist, it is apparent that SOMETHING has either existed eternally or came into being without a cause. Why not the universe? Because, of all we know about the universe, there is NOTHING to suggest that it has either existed eternally or has come into being without a cause. > Because of "inconsistancy"? Yes. I think it is inconsistant to claim that the universe has one property which is not only unpredicted by what is known about the universe, but is counter to that knowledge. > ...everything INSIDE the Universe seems to need a cause (even this is > debateable, but), which does not mean the Universe needs a cause... This is like saying that, although every word in a book needs an author [for the moment, we'll leave aside AI programs :-)], the book itself does not need an author. The problem is, if we say everything inside the universe does need a cause, but the universe itself doesn't, we are left with the conclusion that the universe was the cause of everything inside it. But what is the universe? The name we give to the collection of everything inside it. Which means that the things inside the universe caused themselves. Which contradicts our first assumption. Contrast this with the case of the set of integers, which several people used as an analogy. Similar analysis leads to a similar conclusion: the integers are caused (or more exactly preceeded) by themselves. Which is true: for any integer, a predecessor can be found from WITHIN the set. The assumption is not violated. But in the case of the universe, a cause for everything CANNOT be found WITHIN the universe. > Overall, I think Occam's razor still points to the universe alone as being > the most probable version. I don't. > Oh come on...if there is a supernatural realm, we have no knowledge of > whether causality applies in this supernatural realm...and there is no way > you can possibly draw a conclusion from nonexistant evidence...if there is a > supernatural realm, there is a fair chance of it being just as causal as our > material world, just with different rules... As I mentioned above, in order for anything to exist, there must be something which has no cause. And, from everything we can tell, that something is not inside our universe. From this evidence, I draw the conclusion that there is something outside the universe, something that does not need a cause. > there is no way you can possibly draw the conclusion that the supernatural > world is acausal, therefore your assertion that an acausal God is > consistent lacks a foundation. If a God that created the universe does exist, then from an examination of the creation, I can determine certain things about the Creator. Specifically, He must have existed before that creation. Since the law of cause and effect is part of that creation, God must have existed before that law, and hence would not be bound by it. Regarding my comments that there is evidence for the Christian God and none that I know of for a "God in a white lab coat," Brian writes: > Of course...as EVERY RELIGION THAT HAS EVER EXISTED HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY > MILLIONS! Originally, Brian was speculating on the relative probabilities of the Christian God and the God in the white coat. The existence of other religions and other views of God doesn't affect this comparison, except indirectly, as discussed below. > Your book states that it was inspired by God...seems circular as a hula > hoop to me... What I said was that the claims of the Bible have been verified by millions. How is that circular? (I was referring to verification though their experiences, not through what is written in the Bible. > Your book (I have read it) is one of the most contradictory books ever > written, with more authors than any anthology ever published...for every > positive claim in the Bible, I can find a negative, and so on. I have read the Bible also, and I disagree that it is contradictory. Other than some discrepancies in the timelines the overlapping kings of Judah and Israel, I haven't found any contradictions. I would be glad to discuss anything specific, either over the net or via e-mail. As for it being written by many authors, that is one of its strengths. It is amazing that so many people writing over so many thousands of years agree. Not "agree" in the sense of giving the same details, for there is relatively little overlap. But "agree" in the sense of, for example, showing prophecy followed by fulfilled prophecy and of having the same view of the condition and future of humanity. > I have noticed (and pointed out before) that what religion you are seems > to be primarily dependent on where you grew up and were educated. . . . If > there were a "right" religion, don't you think that it would be independent > of such a mundane thing as geography?. . . . I see this as evidence that it > is primarily your environment that influences your choice of religion, [In this instance, the ". . . ." are mine, indicating where I have left out some of Brian's article.] I agree that for many people, the above is true. > and therefore see it as unlikely that any of the current religions is the > "right" one, thus my white lab-coat God... However, this conclusion does NOT follow. As an analogy, consider the perception that people often vote for the candidate whose name appears first on the ballot. (I don't know how real this effect is, but elections officials take steps to combat it.) If people vote for the name which is first on the ballot, is this evidence that all the candidates are equal? No. In fact, it says nothing about the candidates at all, but rather provides information about the voters. Similarly, if people choose religion based on their environment, this says nothing about religion, but only about people. If there are X other religions besides Christianity, the truth of Christianity is the same whether X is 0 or 10000. Nothing personal to Brian, but I think the attitude that "there are so many religions that they all must be wrong" (or perhaps, "they all must be right") can often be used a cop-out to avoid examining Christianity to see if it is true or false. Christianity deserves (as all religions deserve) examination on its own merits. Bob Bales Tektronix, Inc.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/05/86)
In article <524@tekfdi.UUCP> bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) writes: > > Since matter and the universe exist, it is apparent that SOMETHING has either > existed eternally or came into being without a cause. Why not the universe? > Because, of all we know about the universe, there is NOTHING to suggest that > it has either existed eternally or has come into being without a cause. There is NOTHING to suggest that the universe has not existed eternally (what was there before the big bang? we don't know, but can't rule out something) or has come into being with a cause (unless you want to admit one of the numerous, contradictary creation myths.) Thus, your statement, while apparently true, tells us nothing because mine also is apparently true. You see, your statement (and mine) are based on a LACK of knowledge, rather than something known. I might as well say that there is no evidence that unicorns don't exist. > I think it is inconsistant to claim that the universe has one property > which is not only unpredicted by what is known about the universe, but is > counter to that knowledge. However, holding the opposite claim is equally fallacious. > > ...everything INSIDE the Universe seems to need a cause (even this is > > debateable, but), which does not mean the Universe needs a cause... > > Contrast this with the case of the set of integers, which several people used > as an analogy. Similar analysis leads to a similar conclusion: the integers > are caused (or more exactly preceeded) by themselves. Which is true: for any > integer, a predecessor can be found from WITHIN the set. The assumption is not > violated. But in the case of the universe, a cause for everything CANNOT be > found WITHIN the universe. With infinite regress, there isn't an ultimate cause. So you still haven't ruled out infinite regress for the universe. > As I mentioned above, in order for anything to exist, there must be something > which has no cause. And, from everything we can tell, that something is not > inside our universe. From this evidence, I draw the conclusion that there is > something outside the universe, something that does not need a cause. Once again, this does not hold true for infinite regress. > If a God that created the universe does exist, then from an examination of > the creation, I can determine certain things about the Creator. > Specifically, He must have existed before that creation. Since the law of > cause and effect is part of that creation, God must have existed before that > law, and hence would not be bound by it. And since the universe had a cause (= creator) so must your God? Why not? -- "... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make themselves artificially stupid." Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh