The absolute absurdity of God

[SteveII]

Steve, if an individual attributes the beginning of the universe to a deity, then is that more of an act of faith than an actual explanation?

I don't think so. I outlined an argument that gets you to a list of attributes for a first cause. Additionally, we can look at other arguments that infer design, etc. that infer intelligence/purpose. Faith enters when you start to work out the specifics of a religion--in my case Christianity. Faith is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have some reason(s) to believe is true. It does not preclude that once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can become more certain something is true.

[SteveII]

Has to be on the list. A decision is a thing only a person can make. A first cause must have within itself a mechanism to cause an effect that was not there from eternity past.

Still wrong.  We've been over this several times and seem at an impasse.  You seem to delight in asserting it even though the fundamental arguments for it are flawed.  As best I can recall, you never responded to my pointing out that your first response to the problem didn't actually solve the problem.  If you responded and I simply missed it, feel free to bring it to my attention.  Oh, and for what it's worth, it doesn't require a person to make a decision.  Computers do it all the time.  There's no reason to believe that God's creative act and his being are not co-extensive, other than that you need to make the assumption to reach your conclusion.  Furthermore, as I've argued elsewhere, a sentient God with all the other relevant properties is indistinguishable from a God that is not sentient whose decisions are driven by his omniscience.  So nothing it seems, can get you to a personal God being necessary.

---

Personal? because a decision to create had to be made otherwise the effect (the universe) would have been just as timelessly existing as its cause and not just 14 billions years ago. 

That 14 billion years is all post-creation and so it doesn't even factor into the equation.  That you even bring it up makes me strongly suspect you don't know what you're talking about.

6. If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect then if the cause is there, so is the effect.

But that is not what we model when we discuss the universe. We believe the universe came into being 14 billion years ago and is in fact not timeless, beginningless, and unchanging. So, the effect (the universe) is not timeless, beginningless, and unchanging. But the cause seems like it must be (or an infinite regress). So why wasn't the universe as permanent as its cause? 

The solution to that question is that a decision to bring the universe into being was made by a mind. Under the concept of libertarian free will, a decision requires no deterministic causal chain. You can say the argument is not convincing--but it is sound reasoning. Do you have another more-plausible explanation? 

Regarding your idea that God could be coextensive with creation. The universe began to exist a finite time ago and marches on toward heat death in a finite amount of time. There is no reason to think that creation and God are inseparable other than to avoid the 'personal' conclusion. Are there other reasons to think this might be true? How does omniscience work without a sentient center of being? For there to be knowledge, doesn't there have to be a mind to comprehend?  Correct me if I am wrong, but you are objecting to my inferences about what a first cause must be like by proposing a necessarily-existing universal consciousness? If so, does this universal consciousness have purposes? 

A computer does not make decisions in the sense we mean when we talk about libertarian free will--which seems a necessary understanding of the word when talking about whether a first cause had it or not.

---

That is all a nice theory (even though not the current preferred theory).

Could you point me towards the current preferred one, then?

The best, most sound mathematical and physical models of the universe do not posit an etneral universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

What is the explanation of 'spacetime'? A brute fact?

Much like the explanation of 'god'. The basic necessary framework upon which everything else exists.

What metaphysics are you using to justify dismissing all causal principles for something that does not exist necessarily?

What do you mean?... spacetime necessarily exists.

Besides, I think metaphysics fails upon introspection. What came first, metaphysics or human reasoning? (I lean towards the latter)

Anything with a beginning does not exist necessarily (as in could not have failed to exist). Nothing material exists necessarily because it runs into the logical impossibility of a series of past infinite events. 

Metaphysical possibilities came before human reasoning. 

[/quote]

Why does the universe seem to have a beginning and is heading toward heat death?

Conservation of Energy, I suppose... before the Universe, there was zero energy; after the Universe there must be zero energy, too.
Tell me, how does a Universe designed and created by a reasoning god also head towards heat death? [/quote]

Physical laws are a convenient way to have a universe. He will be done with it before that time.

 An past infinite series of events is logically impossible. My 'God conclusion' looks conservative compared to all the metaphysical extravagance your theory has. 

Did you fail to read what I wrote?
For our Universe, what you say seems evident enough...however, our Universe is just a blip in the infinite vastness of the infinite spacetime. Sure, this Universe occupies some part of spacetime, but not all... the temporal part can extend to infinity past, even if no event happens within that part.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but it is a distinct possibility, if you think about spacetime as a single thing, a single framework upon which things exist and happen.
When you have a circle drawn on a 2D axis, that axis is infinite, but you only have things in it contained on the location where the circle is. And time in spacetime is equivalent to one of the dimensions on that axis.

Anything material has some sort of subatomic/quantum events--for which a past infinite series is logically impossible. Are you saying these other "parts" are immaterial? 

You are describing a metaphysical concept--not anything remotely connected to reality. My argument deals with what we know and what can be known. A possible defeater to any of the premises is not enough because the premises are measured on the "more likely than not" scale in order to be successful in an inductive argument. Nothing you propose remotely qualifies for "more likely than not". 

The point is that I have reasons to believe in God that are rational and can be defended and are a better explanation that what you can come up with. I am not saying you are wrong, just that my version is superior because it does not require leaps in logic and a whole bunch of "it could that...and for all we know". Any charge that my beliefs are irrational (notice I did not say wrong), is simply not the case.

I don't remember saying that your beliefs are irrational.
I think they're wrong, as they imply the existence of a thing so far removed from reality that they may seem irrational to someone who simple extrapolates from the reality presented - Like I said before, more organized things arising from less organized ones.

To characterize the universe as "more organized" is an incredible understatment. We can turn to the fine-tuning argument to see that the chances of the initial conditions being such that life is possible have more zeros to the right of the decimal than there are elements in the universe.

[pocaracas]

Could you point me towards the current preferred one, then?

The best, most sound mathematical and physical models of the universe do not posit an etneral universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

That applies to the Universe. I'm going beyond the Universe, in case I haven't made it obvious.
Beyond the Universe, out of the Universe.
Models exist that posit that spacetime could be in existence in the absence of the Universe and that this spacetime is responsible for somehow generating the Universe.

Much like the explanation of 'god'. The basic necessary framework upon which everything else exists.


What do you mean?... spacetime necessarily exists.

Besides, I think metaphysics fails upon introspection. What came first, metaphysics or human reasoning? (I lean towards the latter)

Anything with a beginning does not exist necessarily (as in could not have failed to exist). Nothing material exists necessarily because it runs into the logical impossibility of a series of past infinite events. 

Again, spacetime is like a coordinate system, it's not something that begins, it's everywhere where the concept of location and time make sense. It is the essence of these concepts.
Material, energy and mass, exist in spacetime. Spacetime is the framework upon which everything material exists.

Still, remarkably, spacetime can produce materials in vacuum.

Metaphysical possibilities came before human reasoning. 

So says you.
I see metaphysics as a collection of generalizations from our pattern seeking reasoning brains, hence why I lean to human reasoning having come first.
How do you reason that things go according to your order?

Did you fail to read what I wrote?
For our Universe, what you say seems evident enough...however, our Universe is just a blip in the infinite vastness of the infinite spacetime. Sure, this Universe occupies some part of spacetime, but not all... the temporal part can extend to infinity past, even if no event happens within that part.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but it is a distinct possibility, if you think about spacetime as a single thing, a single framework upon which things exist and happen.
When you have a circle drawn on a 2D axis, that axis is infinite, but you only have things in it contained on the location where the circle is. And time in spacetime is equivalent to one of the dimensions on that axis.

Anything material has some sort of subatomic/quantum events--for which a past infinite series is logically impossible. Are you saying these other "parts" are immaterial? 

Spacetime is immaterial, yes, that's what I'm saying. It is also atemporal, though it provides the framework upon which everything can have a temporal coordinate.

You are describing a metaphysical concept--not anything remotely connected to reality. My argument deals with what we know and what can be known. A possible defeater to any of the premises is not enough because the premises are measured on the "more likely than not" scale in order to be successful in an inductive argument. Nothing you propose remotely qualifies for "more likely than not". 

Don't you wonder about the biases that went into determining that likelihood?

I don't remember saying that your beliefs are irrational.
I think they're wrong, as they imply the existence of a thing so far removed from reality that they may seem irrational to someone who simple extrapolates from the reality presented - Like I said before, more organized things arising from less organized ones.

To characterize the universe as "more organized" is an incredible understatment. We can turn to the fine-tuning argument to see that the chances of the initial conditions being such that life is possible have more zeros to the right of the decimal than there are elements in the universe.

Really? fine tuning?... yawn...

[SteveII]

The best, most sound mathematical and physical models of the universe do not posit an etneral universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

That applies to the Universe. I'm going beyond the Universe, in case I haven't made it obvious.
Beyond the Universe, out of the Universe.
Models exist that posit that spacetime could be in existence in the absence of the Universe and that this spacetime is responsible for somehow generating the Universe.

I would like to read up on such models that don't require and physics and are separate from the universe. Sounds more like metaphysical musings. Do you have a link?

---

You are describing a metaphysical concept--not anything remotely connected to reality. My argument deals with what we know and what can be known. A possible defeater to any of the premises is not enough because the premises are measured on the "more likely than not" scale in order to be successful in an inductive argument. Nothing you propose remotely qualifies for "more likely than not". 

Don't you wonder about the biases that went into determining that likelihood?

 
Biases? You mean like science, observation, experience, intuition? These are the things that your "possibility" lacks.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Steve, if an individual attributes the beginning of the universe to a deity, then is that more of an act of faith than an actual explanation?

I don't think so. I outlined an argument that gets you to a list of attributes for a first cause. Additionally, we can look at other arguments that infer design, etc. that infer intelligence/purpose. Faith enters when you start to work out the specifics of a religion--in my case Christianity. Faith is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have some reason(s) to believe is true. It does not preclude that once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can become more certain something is true.

Thanks.  I see that you referenced an argument from contingency. I'll post it below along with a few questions and comments that I had about it.

A void doesn't make sense, but an immaterial mind does?

It seems your definitions of "making sense" and "correct understanding" and mine, drastically differ.

Please provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support your claim that an immaterial mind is even possible. Once you accomplish that, then provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that it actually does exist.

A reasoned argument? How about a basic Cosmological Argument from Contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

This is a perfectly logical inductive argument. The premises are based on legitimate conclusions (each one can be easily defended with a surprising lack of defeaters). Even if you don't find the argument convincing--what you cannot say is that the notion of God's existence does not make sense or is irrational. (A) We logically infer what attributes must a first cause have: uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.

This is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia.

Regarding point 1, it would seem reasonable to treat this as an axiom in order to advance the argument.

Regarding point 2, would it be more accurate to say that if one is already a practitioner of a religious faith, then 2 follows?  This premise asserts that the explanation is god without addressing other possible explanations and reasoning out why these alternative explanations fall short.  Also, is god actually an explanation? What were the actual processes involved and how can they be broken down and explained? Given that this is a logical/intellectual exercise, then IMO, more elaboration and clarification is needed in order for "god" to qualify as an explanation. 

That said, it appears that such a statement would be more intuitive and natural for a religious audience and perhaps this is the type of audience that this argument is meant to sway?


Regarding point 5, is this ultimately just another way of saying that the explanation of the universe’s existence is unknown?

Regarding point A, to what degree are humans projecting their characteristics, imagination, and incomplete understanding of the universe onto a first cause?

[Angrboda]

Does the Principle of Sufficient Reason exist?

It would seem it does. Does it either have an explanation for its existence or exist by the necessity of its nature? It's not immediately obvious that its existence is necessary. There are arguments about just what exactly it even is.

[LadyForCamus]

Whoa. Why do you dwell on only the negatives of existence?

I think you misunderstand me. I’m not complaining about pain we experience during life. I’m saying that according to the narrative, god created living creatures with the capacity to suffer, having full knowledge that he would be condemning a great deal of these creatures to eternal suffering, not because they have caused suffering to their fellow creatures, but simply for having doubts about His existence. He executed this plan not because he had to; not because he needed us; but because he wanted to. That is narcissism of a monstrous order.  If any human treated another human, or even an animal in this way, society would label them at the very least apathetic to suffering, and at the very worst, a sociopath.

God does not need us.

Which makes his decision all the more horrific, and not in line with any being capable of experiencing empathy.

I think you are getting hung up on a misunderstanding of what it means to "Glorify God". Glorifying God involves having the fullest possible existence--which includes a relationship with him.Part of this is to understand the differences between an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving God and ourselves (which is pretty much the opposite). This rightly results in an awe of God and a desire to worship him as a being worthy of worship.

I’m sorry, but none of the above clears anything up for me.  My understanding from the passages you provided, from what you have explained, and from the definition of the word, ‘glorify’, is that god made people so he could be praised and worshipped. I don’t see how an ego-driven lust for worship is moral justification for causing a feeling creature eternal suffering. I can’t even justify this idea as a “relationship” in the colloquial sense of the word.  What is the relationship between a man who tells another man or woman, ‘dedicate your entire being to me or I will torture you endlessly’?

We are not "pets". That is entirely too simplistic and shows a total lack of understanding the point which I am trying (imperfectly) to articulate.

I am definitely not understanding, I’m sorry.

God knows exactly how many will reject whatever truth he has made know to them.

I know of no objective evidence, or reason that exists which would indicate any kind of “truth” having been shown to me. This whole idea of, ‘you’ve been shown the truth; you just don’t want to see it,’ seems to me an ad hoc hypothesis Christians have come up with to explain why some people remain unconvinced, despite the Bible asserting everyone gets a fair shake.

It does not logically follow that no one should exist. At its root, this is an emotional response, not an argument.

My argument isn’t, “no one should exist.”  My argument is that god’s motives, actions, and reasons for his actions; in combination with his foreknowledge; are not in line with a loving, empathetic being who cares about the well-being of others.

[pocaracas]

I would like to read up on such models that don't require and physics and are separate from the universe. Sounds more like metaphysical musings. Do you have a link?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
""
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of expansive inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure. Vacuum energy may also be responsible for the current accelerating expansion of the universe (cosmological constant).

[...]

The success of quantum fluctuation theories have given way to metaphysical interpretations on the nature of reality and their potential role in the origin and structure of the universe:

The fluctuations are a manifestation of the innate uncertainty on the quantum level[5]
""

Don't you wonder about the biases that went into determining that likelihood?

 
Biases? You mean like science, observation, experience, intuition? These are the things that your "possibility" lacks.

My possibility does go against your intuition.... but so does so much stuff around us that we take for granted...
Human experience has a very narrow applicability, unless aided by some mechanism.
Observation and science have advanced since those premises of yours were considered likely. It would be good to revise some of them.

[SteveII]

Does the Principle of Sufficient Reason exist?

It would seem it does.  Does it either have an explanation for its existence or exist by the necessity of its nature?  It's not immediately obvious that its existence is necessary.  There are arguments about just what exactly it even is.

Can a reality be imagined that does not have some sort of PSR? I think it has to be part of every coherent reality.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Does the Principle of Sufficient Reason exist?

It would seem it does.  Does it either have an explanation for its existence or exist by the necessity of its nature?  It's not immediately obvious that its existence is necessary.  There are arguments about just what exactly it even is.

Can a reality be imagined that does not have some sort of PSR? I think it has to be part of every coherent reality.

Taking it further do principles exist? Are they merely descriptive or somehow proscriptive?