gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (09/21/86)
Despite an overwhelming lack of popular demand, I am going to try to add up the score as I see it in the 'God and Occam' debate. Bob Bales made the contention that everything in the universe was causal, and hence the universe must be caused. Mike Huybensz scores the only direct hit I can find in this debate by pointing out this appears to involve the 'fallacy of composition'. More artillery from the anti-creation forces whizes by overhead, wildly missing the mark (see below). We find, firstly: In article <165@grc97.UUCP> hurst@grc97.UUCP (Dave Hurst) writes: >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. This manifestly won't work. If this were so, a system which postulated no entities, being simpler yet, would be the preferred system. Explanatory simplicity means something more subtle than simply counting the entities involved. First, it must cover the facts (hence, the no-entity system won't work). Second, it should give us the *conceptually* simplest and most elegant solution. But conceptual simplicity is different than simple numerical magnitude. >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. This is pretty much a farrago of propositions unsupported by either evidence or reasoning as far as I can see. You don't show that chains of events are necessarily describable as cause followed bt effect. You don't show why there cannot be such a thing as a 'first cause'. You give no reasons for supposing the succession of events to be infinite. You give no reason (probably because you *have* no reason) for saying 'something must have proceeded the singularity from which the Big Bang came'. You mention the notion that the universe might be logically necessary without addressing the key question of whether any conceivable system of physics could be shown to be logically necessary. I maintain that this is impossible, because alternate models will always be mathematically and hence logically possible. >> One could consider that something without a cause is outside of what (from >> everything we can tell) is natural. In other words, "supernatural." [Bob Bales] >I'm always amused by people who must resort to using the term >'supernatural'. As usually defined by people, this word means, "an event >occurring which is outside of the natural order of things." This is what theologians call 'preternatural' -- I think. 'Supernatural' means above the entire natural order, on another metaphysical plane entirely. In particular, the 'causus sui' God of the theologians and certain philosophers. >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 occurred 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'. Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone accepts YOUR definitions? In particular, the word "supernatural" is used by people who have a view of reality which differs from yours. In this picture of the world, it is both important and natural to draw a distinction between the "natural" or created world and the "supernatural". It would harm you not a whit to broaden both your education and your perspectives, and realize there are other and equally valid ways of using words such as "universe". In article <3576@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes: >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? It looks like part of the problem is that Brian does not understand what the word "God" is usually taken to mean by philosophically sophisticated speakers. Not that theologians and philosophers who have used the word have meant the same thing, but there have been common elements which Brian seems to miss and are essential to appreciating whatever cogency the cosmological argument possesses. It is NOT supposed that to 'assume a God, you must assume there IS a spiritual world for him to dwell in'. This completely misses the point of what an unconditioned God is supposed to be like. This God is not assumed to be in space or time, or in this or any other world, or to be bound by the laws of this or any other world. God is regarded as the meta- physical foundation of all being, of a kind categorically different from any other kind of being, and thus quite unlike either the universe or anything within it. The point of the cosmological argument is that the necessary existence of this sort of metaphysically maximal entity is supposed to be more comprehensible than the apparantly contingent existence of the world we know. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.