bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) (09/08/86)
In article <3542@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, Brian McNeill writes: > If we assume that not everything is causal, the first causers don't have a > leg to stand on, since it is more likely (Occam's razor) that the universe > doesn't need a cause, rather than assuming a further step, saying that > "well, the universe needs a cause, but of course, our God is self creating > by definition" which, as we can see, is rather suspect reasoning. I disagree. I contend that Occam's razor choses God as being the simpler explanation. We have two competing explanations: an uncaused universe, and an uncaused God. In the universe, everything that we can see has a cause. (I know that there has been discussion whether or not this is true, quantum-mechanically speaking. However, at least every bit of mass/energy comes from something -- other mass/energy.) Hence, the postulated property of the universe -- that it can exist without a cause -- is unlike all other known properties of the universe. There is nothing in what we can observe that would make us think that such a property exists. In short, a universe without a cause is inconsistent. One could consider that something without a cause is outside of what (from everything we can tell) is natural. In other words, "supernatural." However, God, whether the Judeo-Christian God or most other gods, is, almost by definition, supernatural. In short, a God without a cause is consistent. > . . .I do acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of a God...I do NOT acknowledge the > infinitesmal possibility (in my opinion) that the (if any) God is as > Christians believe...I like to think that if there is one, it is more > likely that He wears a white lab coat :^) and conducts experiments on > evolution (with us as guniea pigs) :) :) :) If we attempt to choose between these two: In favor of the Christian God, we have a book which states that it was inspired by that God, a book which makes specific claims as to what God will do for any individual. These claims have been verified by millions. In favor of the "God in the white lab coat," we have -- ? Bob Bales Tektronix
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/10/86)
In article <496@tekfdi.UUCP> bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) writes: > We have two competing explanations: an uncaused universe, and > an uncaused God. In the universe, everything that we can see has a cause. > Hence, the postulated property > of the universe -- that it can exist without a cause -- is unlike all other > known properties of the universe. There is nothing in what we can observe > that would make us think that such a property exists. In short, a universe > without a cause is inconsistent. The basic logical flaw of this argument is the fallacy of composition. The fallacy is to say that the properties of the parts are the properties of the whole. A close analogy to this fallacy can be made with the integers. We can say every integer has a predecessor (a "cause"). So does the set of all the integers (the "universe") have a predecessor? No, because predecessor is not meaningful for infinite sets (or causes for our universe if there is infinite regression [and perhaps some other alternatives.]) > One could consider that something without a cause is outside of what (from > everything we can tell) is natural. In other words, "supernatural." However, > God, whether the Judeo-Christian God or most other gods, is, almost by > definition, supernatural. In short, a God without a cause is consistent. This is simply an argument from ignorance. It is entirely possible for "supernature" to have supernatural laws as rigid as our natural laws. You make no justification whatever for that last sentence. > If we attempt to choose between these two: In favor of the Christian God, we > have a book which states that it was inspired by that God, a book which makes > specific claims as to what God will do for any individual. These claims have > been verified by millions. In favor of the "God in the white lab coat," we > have -- ? In favor of the Christian god we have claims that are either unprovable or essentially identical to those of many other religions, which have also been "verified by millions". In favor of science, we have claims that have enabled agricultural, medical, military, communication, transportation, and luxury revolutions unprecedented in the history of the world. The choice is simple. -- "... 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
vis@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Tom Courtney) (09/10/86)
In article <496@tekfdi.UUCP> bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) writes: >In article <3542@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, Brian McNeill writes: > >> . . .I do acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of a God...I do NOT acknowledge the >> infinitesmal possibility (in my opinion) that the (if any) God is as >> Christians believe...I like to think that if there is one, it is more >> likely that He wears a white lab coat :^) and conducts experiments on >> evolution (with us as guniea pigs) :) :) :) > >If we attempt to choose between these two: In favor of the Christian God, we >have a book which states that it was inspired by that God, a book which makes >specific claims as to what God will do for any individual. These claims have >been verified by millions. In favor of the "God in the white lab coat," we >have -- ? Similarly, the Buddhist, Shinto, and Moslem claims have been verified by millions. If number of people is the important fact, then we can go around and legislate reality. Perhaps the old fantasy idea that gods stop existing when people stop believing in them really is true.
za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) (09/10/86)
In article <496@tekfdi.UUCP> bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) writes: >In article <3542@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, Brian McNeill writes: > >> If we assume that not everything is causal, the first causers don't have a >> leg to stand on, since it is more likely (Occam's razor) that the universe >> doesn't need a cause, rather than assuming a further step, saying that >> "well, the universe needs a cause, but of course, our God is self creating >> by definition" which, as we can see, is rather suspect reasoning. > > >I disagree. I contend that Occam's razor choses God as being the simpler >explanation. We have two competing explanations: an uncaused universe, and >an uncaused God. In the universe, everything that we can see has a cause. (I >know that there has been discussion whether or not this is true, >quantum-mechanically speaking. However, at least every bit of mass/energy >comes from something -- other mass/energy.) Hence, the postulated property >of the universe -- that it can exist without a cause -- is unlike all other >known properties of the universe. There is nothing in what we can observe >that would make us think that such a property exists. In short, a universe >without a cause is inconsistent. > However, if you assume a God, you must assume that there IS a spiritual world for him to dwell (around)(within)(whatever), adding a whole additional jungle to the problem, then you must contend with causality...my argument still stands...if everything needs a cause, then God gets you nowhere, and if not, why not the Universe? Because of "inconsistancy"? BS...everything INSIDE the Universe seems to need a cause (even this is debateable, but), which does not mean the Universe needs a cause...again, we are left with, "But God is a special case"...right...the Universe cannot include itself, therefore, it is not being inconsistant in being acausal... One could also argue that, since God created the Universe, which is causal, therefore he must also be causal (yes I recog. the fallacy here, just trying to point out that it also applies above). Overall, I think Occam's razor still points to the universe alone as being the most probable version. >One could consider that something without a cause is outside of what (from >everything we can tell) is natural. In other words, "supernatural." However, >God, whether the Judeo-Christian God or most other gods, is, almost by >definition, supernatural. In short, a God without a cause is consistent. > 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...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. >> . . .I do acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of a God...I do NOT acknowledge the >> infinitesmal possibility (in my opinion) that the (if any) God is as >> Christians believe...I like to think that if there is one, it is more >> likely that He wears a white lab coat :^) and conducts experiments on >> evolution (with us as guniea pigs) :) :) :) > >If we attempt to choose between these two: In favor of the Christian God, we >have a book which states that it was inspired by that God, a book which makes >specific claims as to what God will do for any individual. These claims have >been verified by millions. In favor of the "God in the white lab coat," we >have -- ? Of course...as EVERY RELIGION THAT HAS EVER EXISTED HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY MILLIONS! Your book states that it was inspired by God...seems circular as a hula hoop to me...Buddhistic beliefs have also been verified by millions, over a period of time that has lasted longer than Xianity, and with better results (no major wars attributable to them, nor purges, witchhunts, crusades, etc.)...I am not pointing out two choices...I am pointing out an infinity of choices! 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. It is largely how you chose to "interpret" it. 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 you grew up in a Mormon household, you are most likely to be Mormon...similarly, if you grew up in India, in a Hindu household, you are most likely to be Hindu...none of the modern religions are consistent with each other, Hindu is polytheistic, Buddhism is atheistic in some, polytheistic in other forms, monotheistic in a few, Xianity and Judaism, as well as Islam are all monotheistic, but have severe differences in doctrine, etc. Very different indeed! 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 enviroment that influences your choice of religion, and therefore see it as unlikely that any of the current religions is the "right" one, thus my white lab-coat God... > > Bob Bales > Tektronix /-----------------------------------------------------------\ | Brian McNeill ARPA : za56@sdcc3.ucsd.edu | | HASA "A" Division UUCP : ...!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 | |-----------------------------------------------------------| ! Quote for the day: "Civilization will take its first great! ! step forward when the last stone from the last church ! ! falls on the head of the last priest," -- Emile Zola ! \-----------------------------------------------------------/
hurst@grc97.UUCP (Dave Hurst) (09/18/86)
In article <496@tekfdi.UUCP>, Bob Bales writes: > In article <3542@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, Brian McNeill writes: > > > If we assume that not everything is causal, the first causers don't have a > > leg to stand on, since it is more likely (Occam's razor) that the universe > > doesn't need a cause, rather than assuming a further step, saying that > > "well, the universe needs a cause, but of course, our God is self creating > > by definition" which, as we can see, is rather suspect reasoning. > > > I disagree. I contend that Occam's razor choses God as being the simpler > explanation. We have two competing explanations: an uncaused universe, and > an uncaused God. Let me try to understand what you are saying. With an uncaused god, we must postulate that it is possible for some entity to exist without a cause, namely, god. In addition, we must postulate that there are two entities: the universe, which was caused by god, and god itself, which is uncaused. With an uncaused universe, we must postulate that it is possible for some entity to exist without a cause, namely, the universe. We have no need to postulate any extraneous entity to create the universe! Now, you are saying that an explanation based on two entities is simpler than an explanation based on one. Oh, I get it! How obvious! How simple and elegant! Excuse me, but the last time I learned how to count, one came before two. Any system which consists of one entity has to be simpler than a system which consists of two, by definition. > In the universe, everything that we can see has a cause. (I > know that there has been discussion whether or not this is true, > quantum-mechanically speaking. However, at least every bit of mass/energy > comes from something -- other mass/energy.) Hence, the postulated property > of the universe -- that it can exist without a cause -- is unlike all other > known properties of the universe. There is nothing in what we can observe > that would make us think that such a property exists. In short, a universe > without a cause is inconsistent. Let me attempt to make an analogy. In the set of all integers, each integer certainly must have a predecessor. If you want to think about the set of integers as being constructed inductively, from any given integer, the succeeding one can be constructed by adding one. In this sense, one might say that each integer is 'caused' by it predecessor. Does this mean that the entire set of integers must have some 'first integer' from which it is created? No, of course not. The set of integers is infinite in extent. To talk about the entire set in terms of the 'cause' of a succession of integers is ridiculous. The entire set, as such, has no cause at all. It is causeless, all by itself. It exists as a logical necessity. There is no need for some external entity to create it. Similarly, any given event may be discussed in terms of those which preceded it, 'causing' it if you will. Any given chain of events is describable as a succession of causes and effects. But to talk about the 'first cause' of the universe as creating it makes no sense at all. There can be no 'first cause', just as there can be no 'first integer'. The succession is infinite. (At this point, detractors will likely point out that modern physics postulates the big bang as being the 'first cause'. This is clearly not the case, as something must have preceded the singularity from which the big bang came. What it was cannot (as yet) be determined.) The discussion of the entire universe is of an entirely order than the discussion of any of its constituent events. Whether or not the universe is, itself, a logical necessity is not yet clear from modern physics. > One could consider that something without a cause is outside of what (from > everything we can tell) is natural. In other words, "supernatural." I'm always amused by people who must resort to using the term 'supernatural'. As usually defined by people, this word means, "an event occuring which is outside of the natural order of things." Unfortunately, such can never exist or occur. I must digress for a moment and present my definition for the term 'universe'. Universe is the sum total of all experiences. It is every event which ever occured or will occur. It encompasses all things. There can be no discussion of 'outside of universe', because such makes not one bit of sense. If some event occurs, it must, by definition, be within the universe and thus is part of its 'natural order'. Certainly it is possible for events to occur which we don't understand. But to call such things 'supernatural' is just plain superstition. It would be more correct to call these events 'supernormal' or 'extraordinary', or even mystifying and wonderful, but hardly 'supernatural'. It is certain that any event has some consistent and comprehensible explanation. The 'supernatural' is simply a contradiction in terms. > However, > God, whether the Judeo-Christian God or most other gods, is, almost by > definition, supernatural. In short, a God without a cause is consistent. Sure. And once I have shown that 1 = 0 I can consistently prove anything else I like too. An assumption based on a contradiction is useless. -- email: ...ihnp4!grc97!hurst David Hurst, KSC phone: (312) 640-2044 Gould Research Center flames: /dev/null #include <std.disclaimer> All hail Discordia! Kallisti!
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/20/86)
In article <165@grc97.UUCP> hurst@grc97.UUCP (Dave Hurst) writes: >> In article <3542@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, Brian McNeill writes: >>> If we assume that not everything is causal, the first causers don't have a >>> leg to stand on, since it is more likely (Occam's razor) that the universe >>> doesn't need a cause See below Stone blunts razor >In article <496@tekfdi.UUCP>, Bob Bales writes: >> I disagree. I contend that Occam's razor choses God as being the simpler >> explanation. We have two competing explanations: an uncaused universe, and >> an uncaused God. See below Stone blunts razor >We have no need to postulate any extraneous entity to create the universe! >Now, you are saying that an explanation based on two entities is simpler >than an explanation based on one. Occam's Razor can't be applied here!! The universe was "caused" at least according the the basic principles of science. There was a time when it appeared that it had an infinite past and then that it had a infinite series of disconnected past histories, but those concepts aren't supported by the preponderance of the evidence. So it seems that "science" throws out the "uncaused" universe. To apply Occam's razor to a scientifically determinable fact is rather bizarre. By Occam's razor I suppose it would be simpler if we all had but one parent that cast his sperm in the primordal ooze, but that's just not the case for most of us. It is nice that those few that may be of the one-parent-type can count to two.. :-) There are the "conservation laws" which may some day be reduced to a simpler form growing out of information theory but including expanding concepts of "information operators". The order does seem to hold up when we take the time to measure carefully. >Let me attempt to make an analogy. In the set of all integers, each integer >certainly must have a predecessor. If you want to think about the set of >integers as being constructed inductively, from any given integer, the >succeeding one can be constructed by adding one. In this sense, one might >say that each integer is 'caused' by it predecessor. Does this mean that >the entire set of integers must have some 'first integer' from which it is >created? No, of course not. The set of integers is infinite in extent. To >talk about the entire set in terms of the 'cause' of a succession of >integers is ridiculous. The entire set, as such, has no cause at all. It is >causeless, all by itself. It exists as a logical necessity. There is no >need for some external entity to create it. Now there are mathematical models of the universe which assume for simplicity that space is infinite and point wise continuous. Real physical space is is not, however, so care must be taken to avoid "giving it more reality than it deserves". The set of integers are not "real entities". If they were, then they could not be contained in our universe because of its limited information content. For you mis-Occam types: Think of this way, you don't have enough fingers to count that far. Numbers are abstract and they potentially exist. Of course the universe could enumerate to some really, really, big numbers, it couldn't get to really, really, really big numbers. >> everything we can tell) is natural. In other words, "supernatural." > >I'm always amused by people who must resort to using the term >'supernatural'. As usually defined by people, this word means, "an event >occuring which is outside of the natural order of things." Unfortunately, >such can never exist or occur. I must digress for a moment and present my >definition for the term 'universe'. Universe is the sum total of all >experiences. > The universe of which you speak is a incredible microcosm of the universe, since it seems to be rather egocentric. Experiences can be pretty disordered, even though the underlying elements and function have a great deal of order. Most people understand that supernatural refers to "causes" beyond the laws and purview of the natural sciences or 3 space. The only exception which touches on the first cause of our physical universe, is the "Big Bang" = 3 space matter creation/injection. That is a problem for physics, however, I would suggest a "solution". I'm sure your concept is exclusive of the following cosmology, since you don't seem to be aware of it by your description. My cosmology says that GOD is a single infinitely dense entity occupying one space in its entirety, and the stuff we observe of three space came from a decay of a small chunk of "two space matter" (hypermatter - because of its energy density). Now if beings of hypermatter could pop "energy" into and out of three space, or maybe "after sparks" to the big bang could set up "quasars" then we have really got some neat ways to "extend" the natural sciences to the "supernatural" sciences of hypernature. Anyway, without imagination, intelligence and logic is pretty useless. Who knows maybe science and religion will once AGAIN merge. Some day we'll travel to distance parts of our universe on the proverbial shoulders of a Saint Christopher hyperbeing (Just suck in here and "booombo" pop out there). Now let see hmmmmmm, that's right the world is flat... right, otherwise would not we be falling off on the otherside at night time?.. :-) Darn, where'd I put that razor? Atheists and those without the grace for hyper-transfer Use PLASMAK(TM) fusion engines to power you On that megalight year journey to a distant galaxy +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
vg55611@ihuxk.UUCP (gopal) (09/29/86)
> Let me attempt to make an analogy. In the set of all integers, each integer > certainly must have a predecessor. If you want to think about the set of > > Similarly, any given event may be discussed in terms of those which > preceded it, 'causing' it if you will. Any given chain of events is > > > One could consider that something without a cause is outside of what (from > > everything we can tell) is natural. In other words, "supernatural." > > I'm always amused by people who must resort to using the term > 'supernatural'. As usually defined by people, this word means, "an event > occuring which is outside of the natural order of things." Unfortunately, > such can never exist or occur. I must digress for a moment and present my > definition for the term 'universe'. Universe is the sum total of all > > > God, whether the Judeo-Christian God or most other gods, is, almost by > > definition, supernatural. In short, a God without a cause is consistent. > > Sure. And once I have shown that 1 = 0 I can consistently prove anything else > I like too. An assumption based on a contradiction is useless. It always seemed to me, whether I was debating the question in my own mind or with someone else, that any reasons put forward to prove the existence of a god or anything supernatural could be applied to the existence of the universe itself - the above discussions seem like a perfect example of this. If god, being uncaused, is supernatural, why not just believe that the universe itself is supernatural ? Without going into whether there is such a thing as supernatural or not, I think we still don't need to invent god. Or are we so limited in our imaginations that we have to have an almost "person-like" being to explain it all ? Even if I believe that there must be something supernatural, I'd just rather believe the universe itself is (I really don't have any problems believing that the darn thing just simply always always existed, in one form or another !). I have had many a discussion on this subject (the existence of god) as well as on the subject of WHICH god (different religions) with people of at least three religions and the reasons and logic they put forward to justify the existence of god itself are very close in nature to the reasons and logic they put forward in defense of their own god. Namely, they are not reasons or logic at all but simply beliefs that they are just not comfortable parting with. I got the feeling that without these beliefs, their entire life would all of a sudden be meaningless and they would almost be lost (in terms of purpose and knowing right from wrong). Since I did not want this to happen to anyone, I never took any discussions too far. Besides, I really have no problems at all with anyone believing in god or any religion as long as they don't try to preach to me without being willing to listen to my view of it ..... Apologize if I got too far off tangent. Venu P. Gopal > -- > email: ...ihnp4!grc97!hurst David Hurst, KSC > phone: (312) 640-2044 Gould Research Center > flames: /dev/null > #include <std.disclaimer> > > All hail Discordia! Kallisti! *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***