The absolute absurdity of God

[The Valkyrie]

If a god made the universe who or what made the god?

We don't know what started the universe, but "we don't know" does not mean "god did it" it just means we don't know (yet)

God senior.

[KevinM1]

If a god made the universe who or what made the god?

We don't know what started the universe, but "we don't know" does not mean "god did it" it just means we don't know (yet)

I honestly don't have a problem with some concept of an unmoved mover. My issue stems from anthropomorphizing it. Theists like to claim that there's a willful intent at play because the universe is 'fine-tuned' for life, but that's a conclusion stemming from a sample size of one. I can easily imagine that this universe (and others) are simply the byproduct of some other process, with our existence not necessarily being intended at all.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

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.


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?

A syllogism summarizes the premises/conclusions line by line. There have been tens of thousands of pages written in (2) alone. So, why do I think (2) is true? If the universe has an explanation, what sort of characteristics would the ultimate (to stop an infinite regression) explanation have? It seems that a Principle of Sufficient Reason is an objective feature of reality. (1)

I have pointed out in what you marked (A) what I think some of the characteristics an ultimate first cause would have to have. The only thing that answers to that list is some sort of eternal God. You are free to offer other first cause candidates--but you will have to invent and/or agree to extravagant metaphysical claims to get to something. Most smart atheists agree to consider the universe a brute fact and admit no explanation will be forthcoming (like Sam Harris). 

This argument is not proof--being a inductive argument rather than a deductive argument. You can always say "well, the science just hasn't figured it out yet". However, it is interesting that this argument get's stronger every decade because the science supports it better than say 100 years ago. Same with the fine-tuning argument--it gets better the more we understand. Since it is not proof, it most likely is not going to change anyone's mind. It will be suspect for atheists wondering why they can't defeat it, because...you know...science has proven religion wrong. It will be comfortable confirmation to religious people who want to make sure their worldview is rational. 

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?

No, I think the premises are all sound and have no real defeaters. God is the most parsimonious explanation for everything. Again, you are welcome to propose a list of your own of what characteristics a first cause must have. (2)

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me.  I'd like to clarify that I'm asking questions and /or seeking clarification on the ideas/thoughts that you have posted here.  My intent is not to debate or to engage in other forms of win-lose competitions. 


That said, regarding (1), is it possible that the principle of sufficient reason (everything has a cause or reason) is just a result of the human mind attempting to make reality conform to its observations, perceptions, thought processes, etc.?  In the pursuit of objective truth, how often do humans end up projecting their own meaning onto that truth?  

Regarding (2), as previously mentioned, is it possible that the concept of a "first cause" is just the human mind projecting itself onto reality, rather than the human mind actually trying to objectively interpret reality as it is?

[Amarok]

The principle of sufficient reason is neither principled or reasonable it's an excuse to shove in magic into ignorance .Nor is the demand of a cause in any way reasonable just more puddy to be shoved into that same ignorance.

---

I am not a platonist. I think all abstract object that are usually proposed as being real can ultimately be grounded in the mind of God. I think some sort of PSR is a characteristic of the mind of God and therefore an integral part of any reality the proceeds from God.

Absurd their are no platonic objects it's pure dualist woo and grounding them in your magic space wizard is even sillier .

[Simon Moon]

The principle of sufficient reason is neither principled or reasonable it's an excuse to shove in magic into ignorance .Nor is the demand of a cause in any way reasonable just more puddy to be shoved into that same ignorance.

I believe the instances of someone becoming a Christian based on any of the first cause arguments spouted by Steve, or any other apologist, are extremely rare, in the extreme.

They seem like nothing more than attempts by theists, who actually believe for bad reasons (faith), to put a veneer of rationality on their irrational beliefs.

I wonder why, the vast majority of professional philosophers are atheists? I am sure they have been exposed to all these arguments, and have found them unconvincing.

The Largest-Ever Survey of Philosophers

Atheism or theism?
72.8% atheism
14.6% theism
12.5% other

[Nay_Sayer]

The void surrounding God is, to me, representative of the lack of thought that actually goes into what the "other side" would be like. Our creator is always the sole thing in its reality (before making all this for no good reason), if it's even acknowledged that it has a reality to exist in. Anything else seems to spoil the story.

And I have to say: religious stories are the most absurd thing that a large proportion of adults take seriously.

No, "the lack of thought" is to say that FSM was surrounded by a void. That makes no sense. The correct understanding is that all that existed was FSM--an immaterial mind.

FIFY also it wasn't void it was pre time steam.  I understand that you're confused so I forgive you.

RAmen.

[Angrboda]

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.

---

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? 

You're not making sense here.  You seem to be suggesting that an effect must have the same properties as its cause, in which case, I must ask why the universe is not also immaterial?  I don't understand what you're getting at here.  The question is what can we know about what existed when the universe did not exist.  You're claiming we can know that the entity which existed was possessed of a mind, presumably like ours (Imago Dei).  Beyond that, I can't make sense of your objection here.

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? 

The question was why is the cause necessarily a personal one, possessed of mind.  An entity with libertarian free will could precede creation.  That alone doesn't show that the entity which existed in the absence of creation was such an entity.  As pointed out, a non-sentient entity satisfies the priors just as satisfactorily.  

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.

Who said anything about God and creation being separable.  My whole point was that they might be inseparable.  That God and the creative act need not be separable.  You are not only arguing the converse, but that it is necessarily so.  Where are you getting this from?

Are there other reasons to think this might be true?

I'm not making the affirmative case.  You are.  I only need to establish the possibility to undermine your argument.  I have no need for reasons for thinking it is true, nor am I 'avoiding' anything by pointing that out.

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?

Your question has to do with meaning and knowledge.  How does it work without a mind?  How does it work with a mind?  You don't have an explanation for the latter; why do I need one for the former?  Ultimately the question relates not to how knowledge and meaning works, I freely admit I don't know.  But that's not necessary to my conclusion.  All that is required is some non-sentient power or process that can form appropriate relationships between information and logically consistent and appropriate acts.  You don't know what is under the hood with respect to God, and you seem to be begging the question by assuming that the activity of whatever cause existed required comprehension in the same manner as we possess comprehension.  It doesn't.

Let me illustrate with regard to the example of John Searle's classic Chinese Room argument.  In that gedanken, Searle postulated that one could create a room containing a set of rules for responding to Chinese language queries, and an automaton necessary to carry out those rules.  His point was that there is no actual understanding in such a room in the sense that we understand things.  However, from the point of view of someone outside the room, there's no way to tell whether what is inside the room is an automaton, mindlessly carrying out a process, or an actual person with a mind that comprehends Chinese as a native speaker does.  Essentially, we only know God by his effects.  If an automaton can have the same effects as a sentient entity, then you have failed to show that the entity in question necessarily is sentient.  To do that would either be to show that no such automaton or other non-sentient entity could accomplish the same effects, or that sentience is a requirement for understanding, neither of which I think is within the realm of possibility here.  The assumption of natural theology is that you can know God through his effects, specifically in the natural world.  If you cannot show that those effects require sentience, then you cannot establish that the first cause was necessarily personal.

Note that I am not suggesting that the cause was an automaton in the sense of being a material process or having any specific mechanism of operation.  If you can appeal to mystery and magic, so can I.  A relevant example is the Turing Oracle.  We have no idea how such an oracle would work, but it is not a logical contradiction to propose such an oracle.  The idea itself is not incoherent.

An additional possibility that I'll raise as long as I'm at it is that the initial cause was a non-sentient entity possessed of the necessary powers that simply creates the effects we are trying to explain in the appropriate time and order for no reason whatsoever.  While such an entity may seem improbable, it's not necessarily any more improbable than the God you postulate, nor is it necessary that I establish that it is -- again, I'm not making the affirmative case; it only need be possible, not necessarily actual.

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?

Let me ask you this: how do you know that God has purposes?  You don't.  You're either pulling it from an interpretation of special revelation, or out of thin air.  These are natural theology arguments.  What relation is there between your question about purpose and the general question at issue?  Can you demonstrate that any supposed first cause is necessarily personal?  I don't think you can.  You initially appealed to Ghazali's argument, which was shown to be flawed.  You've yet to replace it with anything substantial other than a bunch of talk about the finite and tensed nature of the universe, which doesn't seem to relate to any necessity about the nature of the first cause that I can see.  It seems nothing more than a non sequitur.

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.

It needn't do so.  All that is required is a process or cause that is indistinguishable from an entity possessing a mind. Arguing that this entity or cause must work in the same way that we or God works is basically special pleading; placing a requirement on the answer that has no reason for being there.  How we got on the subject of libertarian free will is a mystery to me.  It seems to bear no relation to what you are trying to prove.  You can't as yet demonstrate that a first cause necessarily reasoned as we do.  I'm reasonably certain you're simply pushing a successful argument further out of your reach by claiming that these natural theology arguments establish that the cause had libertarian free will.  I'll entertain some contemplation on the matter simply because I find it amusing.  It's predicated that our minds have a will which operates in some as yet not fully determined manner.  Libertarian free will is a specific way of conceptualizing this will, but it's not the only one.  Physicalists postulate that as a consequence of materialism and determinism, that libertarian free will does not exist.  But it's not necessary to retain the requirement that the will be the effect of a material process.  One could equally as well postulate a will that was completely deterministic in its operation, completely independent of the brain.  A "robot soul," so to speak.  We don't know whether libertarian free will is the reality anymore than we know that the hard incompatibilist account is.  You can't determine which is the case with respect to human beings, how are you going to do so for a supposed first cause?

---

---

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.

No, we cannot. The odds of the initial conditions being what they are is unknown. You're making unwarranted assumptions that undermine your entire point.

[Angrboda]

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? 

Sorry, I misread. No, you are not correct. I am not proposing any such thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

I always enjoyed searles chinese room.  Intended to be a critique of hypothetical AI...ends up leveling the field instead.  Great moments in thought.

[robvalue]

If a god made the universe who or what made the god?

We don't know what started the universe, but "we don't know" does not mean "god did it" it just means we don't know (yet)

I honestly don't have a problem with some concept of an unmoved mover.  My issue stems from anthropomorphizing it.  Theists like to claim that there's a willful intent at play because the universe is 'fine-tuned' for life, but that's a conclusion stemming from a sample size of one.  I can easily imagine that this universe (and others) are simply the byproduct of some other process, with our existence not necessarily being intended at all.

Sure. If it was true, if wouldn't give one shit and I don't know why anyone would.

However, to try and declare it true, you have to exclude lots of other possibilities which we just don't have the ability to do at the moment. Instead they are hand waved away, or deemed impossible because the theist finds them absurd or unacceptable. Arguments are not evidence, never have been, never will be.