Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[popeyespappy]

Shit happens therefore god is a pretty fucking weak argument.

[datc]

I now think that the case for theism depends crucially on the fact of finitude of the world, such that:

matter is finite,
mind is potentially infinite (i.e., can increase forever but always remains finite),
goodness is actually infinite.

If one insists that, for example, an actually infinite number of real objects (that includes angels, yes) can or does exist, or that there can be an actually infinite number of causes or causal agents, then I don't think I can prove God's existence by reasoning.

Even more, in such a case, I would not even think that we would need God for anything. The universe would substitute for God, and for all I know, once we humans have conquered this infinite actual world, we would become very much like God.

[Surgenator]

If it's nonsense, then please tell me how a choice from one million possibilities vs an infinite number of possibilities affects the how the choice was picked.

The choice between the forms (essences) of the universe to be created was either random or intelligent. If it was determined, the problem is simply pushed back one step. In fact, randomness is the intelligence of matter or merely material objects.

This part is incomprehensible.

Suppose random. I asked myself at lunch to pick a random number. My answer: 75 or 1/4 or pi. Clearly, these numbers are those that are in use in daily life or at best, science. I certainly did not consider x = googol^(googol^(...^googol)) 75 times. By how much greater than x is actual infinity!

Therefore, an honest and fair Random World Generator (RWG) considers every possible world to be equiprobable. But for an infinitude of worlds, the probability of any to be picked is again, exactly (not "effectively") 0.

The probablility of something picked, whether is it random or not is 1. It does not matter how low the probability of any individual option is, one of them gets picked.

Here is a simple example. Pick a number from -infinity to +infinity. No matter what number you pick, the probability of you picking that number is 0. What is the probability of you picking a number, 1.

Moreover, every world would have to be considered and either rejected or picked. It's like you stick your hand in an urn with balls, check out every ball, and pick a hopefully "lucky" one. But no non-rational RWG can fairly consider for selection every member of an infinite set.

Thats just BS. I don't have take any time or effort considering each option. Your God might have to do that. A random pick does not.

Think about in the lotter case analogy. The lottery numbers picked is whatever balls that randomly drops into a hole. The balls don't gather together and agree that it's ball 5's turn to go.

There is another consideration. The RWG can solve the problem of choosing a world by picking an arbitrary world and using that as the solution. But each possible world is for an unintelligent chooser no better and no worse than any other one. How does an impartial RWG pick even an arbitrary world?

It doesn't care how much better or worse a universe, it just picks one at random just as the definition of RWG states.

Now remember that all abstracta are convertible to each other. Thus, we may imagine a world, 1E, with just a single thing in it: an elementary particle. This sort of converts a world into a number. The RWG can then say: "I'll pick the world with the fewest number of particles in it." This immediately narrows down the choice to 1E. But this is already an intelligent choice. The RWG would have to be programmed by an intelligent agent in order to be so clever.

The result is that the chooser is intelligent and chooses according to an end sought.

RWG picks randomly, no intelligence required. So your last argument is mute.

[datc]

The choice between the forms (essences) of the universe to be created was either random or intelligent. If it was determined, the problem is simply pushed back one step. In fact, randomness is the intelligence of matter or merely material objects.

This part is incomprehensible.

A bug flies into a room through the open door, and starts fluttering about wildly, obviously hoping that these (mostly) random motions will, with a bit of luck, allow it to find the door and get back outside.

If the bug were smarter, it might be able to find its way out by thinking. But it's stupid, so it relies on the primitive random path generator to escape the trap of the room. Yet for all that, it may nevertheless succeed, which means that randomness is a form of intelligence.

Here is a simple example. Pick a number from -infinity to +infinity.

I can't. Without further instructions on how to narrow down the range of choices (such as "pick one of the first 43 positive primes"), there is no procedure in my mental computer that can get me to pick any one number and set aside all others.

I'm like the Buridan's ass in this case.

---

To consider a member of a set for selection simply means that its getting selected must be possible. But it's impossible for any RNG to choose literally between -infinity to +infinity, unless unbeknownst to us, someone has limited its range of choices to a finite set.

[Surgenator]

This part is incomprehensible.

A bug flies into a room through the open door, and starts fluttering about wildly, obviously hoping that these (mostly) random motions will, with a bit of luck, allow it to find the door and get back outside.

If the bug were smarter, it might be able to find its way out by thinking. But it's stupid, so it relies on the primitive random path generator to escape the trap of the room. Yet for all that, it may nevertheless succeed, which means that randomness is a form of intelligence.

Lets look at the definitions of intelligence and random.

Intelligence: the ability to apply knowledge.
Random: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method.

An intelligent processes decides by appling some knowledge learned from the situation i.e. it is using a method to decide. A random process is the opposite of that by definition.

Here is a simple example. Pick a number from -infinity to +infinity.

I can't. Without further instructions on how to narrow down the range of choices (such as "pick one of the first 43 positive primes"), there is no procedure in my mental computer that can get me to pick any one number and set aside all others.

Your missing the point. Don't think about it, just pick. If you have to think about it, it is not random.

I'm like the Buridan's ass in this case.

I have no idea what Buridan's ass comes into play. It has to deals with free will, which is not what we are talking about.

[Whateverist]

Hi, atheist folks. I wonder if you can find flaws in the following argument. If it holds, it'll be part of a book.

I ask: Why is there something rather than nothing?

I stopped reading here. The question is pointless. It can only be asked from the point of view of something that is already here. So you might just as well conclude there is something rather than nothing because the question has been asked. Of course there would go on being something rather than nothing even if the question had never come up. Language is a tool that can create more work than it accomplishes. Don't over estimate its power. Regarding what cannot be said simply, most likely nothing of consequence can be said at all.

[Angrboda]

[bennyboy]

But Nature's God is pure act with no admixture of potency in it. Hence is it appropriate to refer to God as "he."

How do you know this?

The truest kind of knowledge is the knowledge of that which one makes up. You must not doubt datc's knowledge of God, because it is the truest kind.

[datc]

How do you know this?

The truest kind of knowledge is the knowledge of that which one makes up. You must not doubt datc's knowledge of God, because it is the truest kind.

How can you call yourselves atheists, if you don't even know what it is whose existence you are denying?

Before you can say "God does not exist," you must at least know what the word "God" means.

That God is pure actuality is a proposition so basic and so far-reaching in natural theology that anyone with the remotest acquaintance with the concept of God would recognize it instantly.

Since, of course, you have no idea what "pure act" means, either, you cannot deny that God is pure act.

And I am not here to babysit you.

---

I ask: Why is there something rather than nothing?

The question is pointless. It can only be asked from the point of view of something that is already here. So you might just as well conclude there is something rather than nothing because the question has been asked.

I am looking for a causal explanation of the something. My asking the question did not cause the actual world.

---

Lets look at the definitions of intelligence and random.

Intelligence: the ability to apply knowledge.
Random: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method.

An intelligent processes decides by appling some knowledge learned from the situation i.e. it is using a method to decide. A random process is the opposite of that by definition.

Tell to the evolutionary process which, as some people have boldly asserted, has been able to solve a vast number of problems of building highly complex biomechanical systems in cells, organs, and the entire human body, with the help of trial-and-error random mutations (and natural selection).

Even a blind watchmaker has some IQ.

I have no idea what Buridan's ass comes into play. It has to deals with free will, which is not what we are talking about.

Every number looks the same to me; so, I can't choose any particular one.

---

Anyway, I think we've already agreed to disagree whether a mechanical RNG can pick a random number from -infinity to +infinity, (1) such that it is possible for it to pick every number and (2) given that the probability of choosing any given number is zero.

An intelligent world generator is also in trouble when dealing with actual infinities. But at least he can narrow down the choices to a finite set by considering the purpose to which he wants to put the world to be picked.

[bennyboy]

The truest kind of knowledge is the knowledge of that which one makes up. You must not doubt datc's knowledge of God, because it is the truest kind.

How can you call yourselves atheists, if you don't even know what it is whose existence you are denying?

If you observed as much as you talked, you would note that I do not identify as an atheist, but rather as a pure agnostic. And what's this "yourselves" stuff? I don't remember collaborating on my posts in this thread.

Before you can say "God does not exist," you must at least know what the word "God" means.

Did I ever say this? Are you talking to me, or to the voices in your head?

I said that your conception of God as maximally good, and of the universe as a deliberate creation by a good god, are nonsense, because only a fool would consider our universe maximally good. I'm pretty sure I never said "God does not exist."

That God is pure actuality is a proposition so basic and so far-reaching in natural theology that anyone with the remotest acquaintance with the concept of God would recognize it instantly.

Except for almost all catholics, you mean?

Since, of course, you have no idea what "pure act" means, either, you cannot deny that God is pure act.

You cannot deny that I have an apple on my desk. Oh wait, you didn't. Why am I even talking about it? I guess I'm an idiot. (hint: there ISN'T an apple on my desk. My desk represents ThereExists[empty] for all conceivable apples, proving that God is an apple. In addition, I'd like to point out that it's obvious that Apple-god could only be maximally delicious, as it would necessarily be the motive force behind all existent apple-ness. It is the seedless self-creating Apple that nevertheless creates all apple seeds. Hmmmm. . . this religion stuff makes me hungry.)

And I am not here to babysit you.

In a maximally good universe, you would be patient and clever enough to explain your super-important and logically water-tight ideas in a way that even simple little ol' me could understand. It's almost like this universe is NOT maximally good, that there is not a God who represents the creative impulse of pure good, and you are full of shit.

Oh dear, looks like I still don't "get" it. Maybe you should throw in a couple appeals to authority or some ad homs to wisen me up? Smiley faces? Cat memes? There must be SOME way you can show me that your many assumptions and bald assertions represent more than an expression of the cognitive dissonance that you started feeling when you realized the Bible, and your religion, were based on old-wives' tales and wishful thinking.