3 ms·

> things most have come from a creator because nothing can ever just exist. This isn't the "watchmaker" argument, this is the "principle of sufficient reason"

> things most have come from a creator because nothing can ever just exist. This isn't the "watchmaker" argument, this is the "principle of sufficient reason" argument applied to existence. The principle of sufficient reason is "an effect must have a cause sufficient to explain it". Things exist _right now_, but (so goes the argument) they didn't always exist (that is they are not things-which-must-by-their-very-nature-exist). Therefore, the fact that they exist _right now_ needs a cause that operates right now. The causal chain of why-does-this-contingent-thing-exist-right-now cannot be infinite. Therefore, the causal chain must terminate in some being that must by its very nature exist. This argument was not made by Christian theists, but by Aristotle over 300 years before Christianity came into existence. It was rediscovered by Christian theists a millenium and a half later (in the 1200s) and accepted because it matched what God said of Himself to Moses 1200 years before Aristotle (Exodus 3:14) https://biblehub.com/exodus/3-14.htm https://biblehub.com/exodus/3-14.htm

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fossuser 6y ago
Thanks - I think this does a better job clarifying that bit better than I did (which notably doesn't address the infinite regress issue). The watchmaker argument is more narrowly the creationist 'eye can't have just formed itself' argument (basically the eye must have been made by some sophisticated watchmaker: god).
- svieira 6y ago
  When you say "which notably doesn't address the infinite regress issue" are you talking about what you said or what I did? (Just trying to understand if I wasn't clear enough in my explanations).
  - fossuser 6y ago
    I think you clarified where the 'something can't come from nothing' argument originates from (and that it's separate from the watchmaker one). My point was just that as an argument the answer being 'god' isn't very compelling when it then just moves the question to 'where did god come from', nothing is actually explained by this. In my experience with religious people you get unsatisfactory answers to that, so adding massive complexity (god) as an answer doesn't really help when it can't answer the underlying question (it just introduces a new and more complex one). This is ignoring all the other problems with the god hypothesis which don't hold up either.
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
This line of reasoning is totally unconvincing to pure naturalists like me. I simply believe that the universe exists, and that we'll likely never know anything beyond that, as the big bang appears to be the limit of what evidence is possible to measure. What I don't see is anything that necessitates turning the fact that the universe exists into a principle that the ultimate "cause" must be a being that frankly behaves like a abusive patriarch while threatening humanity with eternal torture.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I'd recommend Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe which goes into some of the more modern theories beyond The Big Bang (Inflation Theory, MWI of QM) - I thought it was pretty interesting and didn't know about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) My interpretation of the comment you replied to wasn't that they were trying to justify the argument, but just clarify what the argument specifically was (and where it came from).
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  What you may not see is that everything is incredibly intelligible.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    Of course it is: it's a work of human writing, by people who were quite serious thinkers of their era. But you can't use the content of the bible to prove the existence of the supernatural any more than you could use Beowufl to do the same.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      Agreed, I don’t think one should try to prove the supernatural starting from the Bible. One first has to define supernatural :) My general thought is that at the deepest possible metaphysical level, everyone has a foundational framework that realize on untestable axioms. (Eg. we have free will) Identifying those is an interesting exercise, but then at some point I realize that at all levels of natural depth, the universe has extreme order and intelligibility. Eg. The simulation argument is a reframing of the creation arguments. From that point, one can surmise that some creator would be intelligible, and would likely communicate with beings that have free will. Eg. humans are a cloud of hydrocarbon atoms that contemplate their own existence. The rest then follows, and so on

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fossuser 6y ago

Thanks - I think this does a better job clarifying that bit better than I did (which notably doesn't address the infinite regress issue). The watchmaker argument is more narrowly the creationist 'eye can't have just formed itself' argument (basically the eye must have been made by some sophisticated watchmaker: god).

svieira 6y ago
When you say "which notably doesn't address the infinite regress issue" are you talking about what you said or what I did? (Just trying to understand if I wasn't clear enough in my explanations).
- fossuser 6y ago
  I think you clarified where the 'something can't come from nothing' argument originates from (and that it's separate from the watchmaker one). My point was just that as an argument the answer being 'god' isn't very compelling when it then just moves the question to 'where did god come from', nothing is actually explained by this. In my experience with religious people you get unsatisfactory answers to that, so adding massive complexity (god) as an answer doesn't really help when it can't answer the underlying question (it just introduces a new and more complex one). This is ignoring all the other problems with the god hypothesis which don't hold up either.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

This line of reasoning is totally unconvincing to pure naturalists like me. I simply believe that the universe exists, and that we'll likely never know anything beyond that, as the big bang appears to be the limit of what evidence is possible to measure. What I don't see is anything that necessitates turning the fact that the universe exists into a principle that the ultimate "cause" must be a being that frankly behaves like a abusive patriarch while threatening humanity with eternal torture.

fossuser 6y ago
I'd recommend Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe which goes into some of the more modern theories beyond The Big Bang (Inflation Theory, MWI of QM) - I thought it was pretty interesting and didn't know about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) My interpretation of the comment you replied to wasn't that they were trying to justify the argument, but just clarify what the argument specifically was (and where it came from).
mensetmanusman 6y ago
What you may not see is that everything is incredibly intelligible.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  Of course it is: it's a work of human writing, by people who were quite serious thinkers of their era. But you can't use the content of the bible to prove the existence of the supernatural any more than you could use Beowufl to do the same.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Agreed, I don’t think one should try to prove the supernatural starting from the Bible. One first has to define supernatural :) My general thought is that at the deepest possible metaphysical level, everyone has a foundational framework that realize on untestable axioms. (Eg. we have free will) Identifying those is an interesting exercise, but then at some point I realize that at all levels of natural depth, the universe has extreme order and intelligibility. Eg. The simulation argument is a reframing of the creation arguments. From that point, one can surmise that some creator would be intelligible, and would likely communicate with beings that have free will. Eg. humans are a cloud of hydrocarbon atoms that contemplate their own existence. The rest then follows, and so on