5 ms·

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. This cause is uncaused, timeless,

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. This cause is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. 5. To create the universe, this cause must possess intentionality and decision-making capabilities. 6. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a personal, immaterial being: God.

Vecr 2y ago
Well, if you accept the argument it only gets you to an infinite or at least very large number of objects that meet the stated requirements. Not one object in particular. And here "object" is quite vague, I would assume almost all of the specifications would be unrecognizable as such to a human.
- joshuamcginnis 2y ago
  I'm more than willing to volley these ideas with you but I'm not following. I didn't once use the word "object" so I don't follow your refutation here. Could you elaborate? Are you saying that my conclusion collapses to a single "cause" (which I'm calling God and you're calling an object?)
  - Vecr 2y ago
    No, by the Principle of Multiple Explanations, every "object" that satisfies your conditions is equally viable, everything being equal. You can slap a hypercomputational simplicity prior on that if you want, but that probably militates against the object being God, because I wouldn't expect God to be "simple" under that definition.
    - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
      It's possible there are multiple explanations, I give you that. No one can know for certain. The argument against it; however, is more logically coherent and parsimonious than the multiple theory. Happy to dig into why that is if you want to go deeper.
      - Vecr 2y ago
        I'm not arguing against a single "actual" cause, just that you don't know what the "actual" cause is to the extent that you can exclude all but exactly one explanation. Multiple hypotheses fit the data (or in this case the criteria I accepted for the sake of the discussion).
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        joshuamcginnis 2y ago
        I'm not claiming to know to an infinitesimal degree of certainty; I'm simply presenting the evidence and making my case. There are many truths that cannot be proven in the way you'd like. Prove to me that you won't commit a murder tomorrow. Prove to me that George Washington was a real person. Prove to me that you love your family.
- joshuamcginnis 2y ago
  Here is the argument for a singular cause vs a plurality of causes: 1. Occam's Razor favors explanations with the fewest entities. 2. A single cause requires fewer assumptions than multiple causes. 3. Therefore, a singular cause is more parsimonious than a plural cause. 4. A singular cause ensures consistent intentionality and unified purpose. 5. Multiple causes would necessitate coordination and could result in conflicting intentions. 6. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be singular.
  - Vecr 2y ago
    Okay, accepting these new criteria (actually somewhat reasonable, if you accept the universe has a creator), intentionality restricts the objects that are acceptable, but if you accept extended Occam's priors that have the capability to contain God [0], then every "object" that meets the requirements and is simpler than God is a better explanation. [0]: Not the same as the previously mentioned simplicity priors, as you brought up Occam's you must think God fits into logic.
    - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
      I accept the universe has a cause because of the logic I presented earlier. Humans have no reason to believe there is existence without cause (if you can find a single example of something being created without a cause, you would change the course of human history!)
      - Vecr 2y ago
        You deleted the other comment I was trying to respond to, but I'm interested in a response to the idea that an "object" that meets all the requirements you've given could be simpler than God, and therefore more likely by Occam priors.
        joshuamcginnis 2y ago
        Maybe the name is what you're hung up on? Whatever this simpler thing is would still need to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, possess intentionality, and decision-making capabilities.
jhickok 2y ago
Both P1 and P2 of Craig's argument are problematic, although I admittedly have a hard time following the transfinite gymnastics one way or the other for P2. But for P1 it's not clear to me that there is a logical problem with something coming into existence uncaused, and we unfortunately have nearly 0 experience with something coming into existence to provide enough empirical support.
- joshuamcginnis 2y ago
  Regarding P2, there is ample cosmological evidence in the form of scientific theories like the Big Bang that provide strong support for the universe having a finite beginning. There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause. Have you experienced something different?
  - Vecr 2y ago
    Only if you don't think there's there's a singularity (or singularity-replacement) in the future. Maybe against Wheeler? I can't remember. But anyway, if there's a singularity (or suitable singularity-replacement) in both the future and the past you might be able to use something like Hawking's No-Boundary Condition theory to claim P2 is false. Not that I do, but P2 is not rock-solid from a logic standpoint.
    - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
      In layman terms, what are the current cohesive and logical arguments for existence having no beginning?
      - Vecr 2y ago
        1) We exist (or at least you do, Cogito, ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am") 2) Since we exist, something had to have lead to us 3) The thing that lead to us was either lead to in turn, or "just existed" 4) If you don't accept that something can "just exist", that leads to infinite regress (before A there was B, before B there was C... on to infinity) 5) It's not too presumptuous to prevent infinite regress by saying "the universe" is what "just existed". Since the possibility of the universe "just existing" was established by the previous reasoning, you can think if that's a reasonable stopping place when it comes to predictive power. Hawking suggested it was though the "projection" he used for making the argument was complex and and don't fully understand it. As far as I can tell, his argument was that the universe appearing to have a beginning was "merely" thermodynamic, and in the final quantum theory the beginning and the end would be closed, making the universe fully self contained. (Something about gravitational entropy fully canceling out all other entropy, making the universe sum to zero, with both the "beginning" and the "end" summing to the exact same value as each other (zero)).
esperent 2y ago
If you start with the conclusion (therefore God exists), you'll always be able to find a logical chain that seems to prove it true.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- joshuamcginnis 2y ago
  Why don't you provide your own logic chain for why God doesn't exist and I'll read and respond to your arguments.
  - Vecr 2y ago
    Obviously that can't be done absolutely, but 1) theoretically there are a huge number of explanations that fit the evidence, possibly an infinite number 2) almost none of them will contain your God Done. You can argue about what system should should be used to assign credibility to those explanations, but I'm not sure if you're read up on various Bayesian and non-Bayesian prior systems.
    - gigatree 2y ago
      Do you mean that for like a specific person’s made up god, or would you replace “your God” with “a God, an entity, or a mind of some kind”. Because in that case I assume those two points wouldn’t apply, right?
    - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
      Simply pointing out that there are alternative possibility is not an argument against a creator. It's possible the creator is a pink unicorn, but it's not likely.
      - Vecr 2y ago
        Absolutely it's an argument against God that almost none of those explanations contain God. If you want to enter more evidence or argue priors you can, but in the argument's current state it's highly effective.
kstenerud 2y ago
No one has proven P1 to be true in all frames. We're not even sure that time began. We don't know if P2 is actually true (in fact, there is growing suspicion that the big bang was merely the beginning of the current phase of our universe). Also, your P4 contradicts your P1, and the rest is speculation.
mr_toad 2y ago
1 is begging the question, 1 and 4 are contradictory, and 5 and 6 are non-sequiturs.

Vecr 2y ago

Well, if you accept the argument it only gets you to an infinite or at least very large number of objects that meet the stated requirements. Not one object in particular. And here "object" is quite vague, I would assume almost all of the specifications would be unrecognizable as such to a human.

joshuamcginnis 2y ago
I'm more than willing to volley these ideas with you but I'm not following. I didn't once use the word "object" so I don't follow your refutation here. Could you elaborate? Are you saying that my conclusion collapses to a single "cause" (which I'm calling God and you're calling an object?)
- Vecr 2y ago
  No, by the Principle of Multiple Explanations, every "object" that satisfies your conditions is equally viable, everything being equal. You can slap a hypercomputational simplicity prior on that if you want, but that probably militates against the object being God, because I wouldn't expect God to be "simple" under that definition.
  - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
    It's possible there are multiple explanations, I give you that. No one can know for certain. The argument against it; however, is more logically coherent and parsimonious than the multiple theory. Happy to dig into why that is if you want to go deeper.
    - Vecr 2y ago
      I'm not arguing against a single "actual" cause, just that you don't know what the "actual" cause is to the extent that you can exclude all but exactly one explanation. Multiple hypotheses fit the data (or in this case the criteria I accepted for the sake of the discussion).
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
        I'm not claiming to know to an infinitesimal degree of certainty; I'm simply presenting the evidence and making my case. There are many truths that cannot be proven in the way you'd like. Prove to me that you won't commit a murder tomorrow. Prove to me that George Washington was a real person. Prove to me that you love your family.
joshuamcginnis 2y ago
Here is the argument for a singular cause vs a plurality of causes: 1. Occam's Razor favors explanations with the fewest entities. 2. A single cause requires fewer assumptions than multiple causes. 3. Therefore, a singular cause is more parsimonious than a plural cause. 4. A singular cause ensures consistent intentionality and unified purpose. 5. Multiple causes would necessitate coordination and could result in conflicting intentions. 6. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be singular.
- Vecr 2y ago
  Okay, accepting these new criteria (actually somewhat reasonable, if you accept the universe has a creator), intentionality restricts the objects that are acceptable, but if you accept extended Occam's priors that have the capability to contain God [0], then every "object" that meets the requirements and is simpler than God is a better explanation. [0]: Not the same as the previously mentioned simplicity priors, as you brought up Occam's you must think God fits into logic.
  - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
    I accept the universe has a cause because of the logic I presented earlier. Humans have no reason to believe there is existence without cause (if you can find a single example of something being created without a cause, you would change the course of human history!)
    - Vecr 2y ago
      You deleted the other comment I was trying to respond to, but I'm interested in a response to the idea that an "object" that meets all the requirements you've given could be simpler than God, and therefore more likely by Occam priors.
      - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
        Maybe the name is what you're hung up on? Whatever this simpler thing is would still need to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, possess intentionality, and decision-making capabilities.

jhickok 2y ago

Both P1 and P2 of Craig's argument are problematic, although I admittedly have a hard time following the transfinite gymnastics one way or the other for P2. But for P1 it's not clear to me that there is a logical problem with something coming into existence uncaused, and we unfortunately have nearly 0 experience with something coming into existence to provide enough empirical support.

joshuamcginnis 2y ago
Regarding P2, there is ample cosmological evidence in the form of scientific theories like the Big Bang that provide strong support for the universe having a finite beginning. There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause. Have you experienced something different?
- Vecr 2y ago
  Only if you don't think there's there's a singularity (or singularity-replacement) in the future. Maybe against Wheeler? I can't remember. But anyway, if there's a singularity (or suitable singularity-replacement) in both the future and the past you might be able to use something like Hawking's No-Boundary Condition theory to claim P2 is false. Not that I do, but P2 is not rock-solid from a logic standpoint.
  - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
    In layman terms, what are the current cohesive and logical arguments for existence having no beginning?
    - Vecr 2y ago
      1) We exist (or at least you do, Cogito, ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am") 2) Since we exist, something had to have lead to us 3) The thing that lead to us was either lead to in turn, or "just existed" 4) If you don't accept that something can "just exist", that leads to infinite regress (before A there was B, before B there was C... on to infinity) 5) It's not too presumptuous to prevent infinite regress by saying "the universe" is what "just existed". Since the possibility of the universe "just existing" was established by the previous reasoning, you can think if that's a reasonable stopping place when it comes to predictive power. Hawking suggested it was though the "projection" he used for making the argument was complex and and don't fully understand it. As far as I can tell, his argument was that the universe appearing to have a beginning was "merely" thermodynamic, and in the final quantum theory the beginning and the end would be closed, making the universe fully self contained. (Something about gravitational entropy fully canceling out all other entropy, making the universe sum to zero, with both the "beginning" and the "end" summing to the exact same value as each other (zero)).

esperent 2y ago

If you start with the conclusion (therefore God exists), you'll always be able to find a logical chain that seems to prove it true.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
joshuamcginnis 2y ago
Why don't you provide your own logic chain for why God doesn't exist and I'll read and respond to your arguments.
- Vecr 2y ago
  Obviously that can't be done absolutely, but 1) theoretically there are a huge number of explanations that fit the evidence, possibly an infinite number 2) almost none of them will contain your God Done. You can argue about what system should should be used to assign credibility to those explanations, but I'm not sure if you're read up on various Bayesian and non-Bayesian prior systems.
  - gigatree 2y ago
    Do you mean that for like a specific person’s made up god, or would you replace “your God” with “a God, an entity, or a mind of some kind”. Because in that case I assume those two points wouldn’t apply, right?
  - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
    Simply pointing out that there are alternative possibility is not an argument against a creator. It's possible the creator is a pink unicorn, but it's not likely.
    - Vecr 2y ago
      Absolutely it's an argument against God that almost none of those explanations contain God. If you want to enter more evidence or argue priors you can, but in the argument's current state it's highly effective.

kstenerud 2y ago

No one has proven P1 to be true in all frames. We're not even sure that time began. We don't know if P2 is actually true (in fact, there is growing suspicion that the big bang was merely the beginning of the current phase of our universe). Also, your P4 contradicts your P1, and the rest is speculation.

mr_toad 2y ago

1 is begging the question, 1 and 4 are contradictory, and 5 and 6 are non-sequiturs.