Universe Alpha (Earth, atheist, God, science, preference)

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Pascal's wager re-worded.

That is an interesting comparison. I see it as the Ontological Argument with a twist.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

However, if all things exist, then alongside the universe that was created by a God there will lie other universes without creators - ours could as easily be one of the ones without a God as the one with a God.

An interesting suggestion, however, is it really logical that a Universe could exist that is inaccessible to an omnipotent being? It seems that accepting God as existing rules out the possibility of anything else existing that is out of His reach. Just like being a boy precludes me from getting pregnant, the existance of God eliminates the possibility of a godless world. Godless worlds become illogical with God's existance, and therefore, cannot exist.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Evidence does not suggest that ours is one or the other, our universe could have been created by the Deist God and so we would have no evidence of his existence - or we could have no God, and of course have no evidence there either. We wouldn't know which we were.
If our universe were created by the God of the Bible, we would expect evidence. Given the amount of interaction with God, and events where God physically manifested and/or altered the Earth in an observable manner detailed in the Bible, we would expect to find not only evidence of those past events, but also evidence of continual interference by the Biblical God.

This is getting a bit off topic, but I will address it anyway. What you say would be true if the Bible's purpose was to be a historical documentary. It discusses history, but it also discusses diet. It is no more a historical documentary than it is a cook book.

You have to admit that the interpretation of the Bible is not objective. People that do not want to believe it will subjectively interet it in a way that convinces them that it is not true.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Given that, the best position to take would be agnostic - as our world could have no creator or a long-gone creator.
The next best is atheist based on the available information.
The third best position would be the mystical and liberal theists who often believe in an almost panentheistic God, and that religious texts should be interpreted allegorically as well as in their historical/cultural context.
The least logical position to take, in the case of our universe, is the literal theist due to the lack of any cooberating evidence.

First off, evidence can be used to prove something is false, but not that something is true. It is unreasonable to say that we should assume something is untrue because it has not been proven with evidence. In any case, why would we expect to find physical evidence for something that is not physical?

The best we can do is presume something is true with inductive reasoning based on the verification of a prediction. On what basis do you suggest we "predict" God's actions in order to verify His existance?

[Fluffy]

What about "there is an answer but I don't know what it is"?

Surely that is more rational than either of the 2 choices suggested in the OP? The first choice fails because it says that since we don't know the reason, there is no reason. The second choice fails because it says that since these universes might exist, they must exist.

Why not simply assume that there is a reason but that so far we do not know or understand that reason?

[PureX]

Originally Posted by atofel

What is the distinction you are making between "cause" and "reason"? After all, causality is a basis for reason. In other words, we use the cause-effect relationships to give a reason (or explanation) for why something is the way it is.

For the most part we know why the Catalina mountains exist the way they do in the same way we know the reason Joe Theismann's leg broke in the game against the New York Giants in 1985. Based on the points of impact and our understanding of the laws of physics, we can give a reasonable explanation to it.

Perhaps your point is that our reasoning is limited, or only goes so far. For example, in our explanation of the leg breakage, we do not know why the laws of physics operate the way they do. Our chain of reasoning ends there. That does not mean our laws of physics are illogical--it just points to a limitation in human understanding.

The argument I stated in the OP assumes the laws of physics are logical and have a reason for being, whether that reason is part of human understanding or not.

I understand, but it's not any more logical to assume a cause for the cause and effect that we can perceive in the universe than it is to assume there is no cause for the cause and effect that we perceive in the universe. As Fluffy points out above, the truth is that we don't know. And it's illogical (and I would add dishonest) to make assumptions based on ignorance. Speculation is certainly acceptable, but you're using an unfounded assumption to force the atheist to prove the negative (which is in itself irrational) when you have no proof of your positive assertion (about the existence of God).

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by fantome

It seems to me that we are getting confused with the word "reason" which can be used in different ways (and I think this may be what PureX was getting at). I would like to distinguish between talking about cause, and intent. You could ask for example "why a ball bounces on concrete?" (to which the answer might involve things like force and gravity as well as the elasticity of the ball). Or you could ask "why are you bouncing that ball on the concrete?" (to which the answer might be for the fun of it or as part of a game or even scientific experiment).

Good point. I am using "reason" in the sense that there is a logical basis or cause for something (not necessarily the intent). It has to do with the reason for being. For example, when I ask the reason why the speed of light is 186,282 miles/second, it is really no different than asking the technological basis for the 2 GHz speed of my computer.

Originally Posted by fantome

You are correct that in the classical scientific paradigm everything must have a cause (reason?). Newer scientific paradigms however do challenge this idea and this presents quite a challenge for scientific thought. Either way the classical idea of cause and effect (determinism) will and does continue to be used. But as to whether this applies to the universe itself remains very much an open question. A scientific mindset ought not to prefer either situation but to honestly question which is the case.

I have found that it is the materialists that generally dislike quantum indeterminism because it implies the Universe is irrational.

Mystics on the other hand generally do not have a problem at all with indeterminism in physics (in fact, many appreciate it). All it suggests is that the physical Universe does not provide all of the necessary information for why an outcome occurs. There can still be a rational basis for an outcome; we just can't observet it.

Originally Posted by fantome

I don’t know that we can. We will have to wait until tomorrow and try it and find out.

Thank you for making this point. I do not think you really believe that (based on the wink), but it illustrates the philosophical degradation that post-modernism has taken us. Only with the brutal dismissal of intuition can such a statement be made.

We cannot prove that the law of gravity will work the same tomorrow, but I don't see anyone tying themselves to the ground before they go to bed. In a similar way, I believe many people have to ignore their intuition in order to believe that God does not exist, or that free will does not exist.

Philosophy would be much better off embracing both empiricism and intuition. If only one of the two is accepted, it becomes crippled.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

What about "there is an answer but I don't know what it is"?

Surely that is more rational than either of the 2 choices suggested in the OP? The first choice fails because it says that since we don't know the reason, there is no reason. The second choice fails because it says that since these universes might exist, they must exist.

Why not simply assume that there is a reason but that so far we do not know or understand that reason?

That is an interesting suggestion. Suppose there is a reason that is unknown to us. Call it rule X. Rule X states why our Universe is necessary and other Universes are not. The next question is of course, for what reason does rule X exist? Perhaps rule X exists because of rule Y, and perhaps rule Y exists because of rule Z.

The problem is, once we suggest a logical basis for why our Universe exists instead of some other Universe, we are left wondering why that basis exists. Saying that there is a reason but it is simply one that we do not understand does not get us anywhere. There are already lots of things we don't understand about the Universe and adding one more just adds another step in the causal chain, but it doesn't give us a final answer.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by PureX

I understand, but it's not any more logical to assume a cause for the cause and effect that we can perceive in the universe than it is to assume there is no cause for the cause and effect that we perceive in the universe.

Please explain how "assume there is no cause for the cause and effect" is any different from saying, "assume there is no logical basis for the cause and effect", and then finally, "assume cause and effects are irrational".

Suggesting the Universe has an irrational basis does not seem more logical to me.

Originally Posted by PureX

As Fluffy points out above, the truth is that we don't know. And it's illogical (and I would add dishonest) to make assumptions based on ignorance.

Let me be clear in stating that I present this argument because I find it is interesting to discuss. If I read you correctly, you are basically saying that because I can't prove God exists, I am ignorant and dishonest for presenting an argument anyway. I will admit right away that I can't prove God exists, so maybe I can just be ignorant and escape the dishonest part.

Originally Posted by PureX

Speculation is certainly acceptable, but you're using an unfounded assumption to force the atheist to prove the negative (which is in itself irrational) when you have no proof of your positive assertion (about the existence of God).

Proving a negative is inherently irrational? What is irrational about showing how an idea is self-contradictory or logically flawed? That is what falsification is all about.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by atofel

Please explain how "assume there is no cause for the cause and effect" is any different from saying, "assume there is no logical basis for the cause and effect", and then finally, "assume cause and effects are irrational".

Suggesting the Universe has an irrational basis does not seem more logical to me.

But that's just it, the universe is neither rational nor irrational. It just is. We don't know where it came from, or where it will end up. We don't know if it's finite or perpetual. So, the universe is rational or irrational according to what criteria? Who established this criteria? What makes their criteria valid?

The universe is one big inter-related event. As such we are able recognize these relationships, and we call them causes and effects. But this doesn't make the universe rational, or irrational. And it doesn't tell us about anything beyond or outside of the universe.

Originally Posted by atofel

Let me be clear in stating that I present this argument because I find it is interesting to discuss. If I read you correctly, you are basically saying that because I can't prove God exists, I am ignorant and dishonest for presenting an argument anyway. I will admit right away that I can't prove God exists, so maybe I can just be ignorant and escape the dishonest part.

Please don't look for insults where none were intended. I'm not calling you ignorant nor dishonest, and if I'd believed this about you, I would not have responded to your proposition. Let's retrace our steps a little. You opened the discussion with this:

Originally Posted by atofel

If (other) universes could logically exist, why does ours exist and not the others?

The answer to this question is that we don't know if other universes could exist, nor do we know that this universe is the only one that does exists. But you ignored our ignorance, here, and proposed some answers, anyway:

Originally Posted by atofel

One answer is to say that there is no reason. Any science minded individual ought to prefer a reasonable world to an unreasonable one, and dismiss this option. It would be like suggesting that we live in a perfectly logical, ordered and machine-like world which rests on an illogical, no-reason-for-being pedestal.

But you're mischaracterizing the universe as we experience it as "perfectly logical, ordered and machine-like" when it certainly isn't. And then you're mischaracterizing a universe with "no reason for being" as illogical. Which it would not necessarily be.

So from my perspective, you've set the obvious truth aside (that we don't know) and have begun inventing your own version of truth, in which the universe is a "perfectly ordered machine" and in which all things must have a reason to exist, to be "logical".

Then you went on to create a "straw man" argument by implying that "if something can exist, it must exist" is the only rational conclusion in the minds of atheists, so that you could then claim that by this atheistic straw man's own logic, if God can exist then God must exist. And therefor it's falls to the atheist to prove that God can't exist.

Not only is your logic flawed, here, in a number of different ways, but I do find the whole argument a little bit disingenuous in that it's pretending to be logical when it's not, while it's also trying to "trap" atheists.

Originally Posted by atofel

Another answer is to say that Universes Beta, Gamma and Delta do in fact exist, it is just that we have no way of sensing or measuring them. Basically, this is saying that each Universe exists for the simple reason that it can exist.

Admitting that other universes might exist says nothing at all about why they exist. Yet you are implying, here, that if one were to accept that other universes exist, they must accept that the reason they exist is "because they can". But you're hiding the negative.

Everything that exists, CAN exist. But does this mean that everything that does not exist CAN'T exist? Again, the truth is that we don't know, but you ignore this and imply that logical reasoning must dictate that this is so, when logical reasoning does not dictate this at all.

And here you are saying it:

Originally Posted by atofel

The interesting conclusion of this response is that all things which are logical have some place in reality. If something can exist, then it must exist.

Now that you've set up your straw man-atheist, you go on and knock him down:

Originally Posted by atofel

If we agree with this response, are we not compelled to believe God exists with the condition that He logically can exist? And if that is the case, shouldn't we then believe in an infinite, all-powerful God until we decide there is something unavoidably contradictory or illogical about God existing?

Based on this, it would be up to the atheist to show that God is illogical; otherwise, we should believe if God can exist, then He does exist.

You built yourself an atheist out of your own suppositions, and then knocked him over. Congratulations. Maybe next time you could try a real one? *smile*

Originally Posted by atofel

What is irrational about showing how an idea is self-contradictory or logically flawed?

Ummmm .... you tell me.

[Fluffy]

That is an interesting suggestion. Suppose there is a reason that is unknown to us. Call it rule X. Rule X states why our Universe is necessary and other Universes are not. The next question is of course, for what reason does rule X exist? Perhaps rule X exists because of rule Y, and perhaps rule Y exists because of rule Z.

That is not the point though. The mere possibility of there being a reason is enough to discount the assumption that there is not a reason.

Out of practicality, we will continue to form theories and live our lives based on where the evidence leans but that is not the same as making an assumption in either direction.

So when you say:

Saying that there is a reason but it is simply one that we do not understand does not get us anywhere.

then that should not surprise you or anyone. Similarly stating "God is the reason" does not get us anywhere. The point is that the possibility makes the assumption "there is no reason" both unnecessary and irrational.

Therefore resorting to the assumption that other universes exist based on the reasoning in OP is equally unnecessary and irrational.

It is not unscientific to say that, currently, we do not have an explanation for X.

[Halcyon]