Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Jenny A]

Extrapolating From What We Know Of Cause And Effect Does Not Lead Necessarily to God.

Here is my own little syllogism:

1 The present and past forms of all material things each have a past material cause(s).
2 The universe is a material thing.
3 Therefore, the universe has a past material cause, and that cause has a past material cause an so on for eternity.

I do not offer this as proof of an infinite godless regression, but only as demonstration of the futility of using our knowledge of cause and effect within the universe to extrapolate what occurred before the universe (assuming there is a before) or outside the universe.

Premise (1) is only true within the universe. 

Is premise (2) true? I'm not sure it is. I think it is the sum or all material things--not another thing at the end of the list of all other material things. The distinction is important.

If that is true, then conclusion (3) is a composition fallacy:

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

So...not really a demonstration of anything.

You miss the point.  I clearly stated that I do not offer my syllogism as proof of its conclusion.

The point is that my syllogism takes its premises from inside the universe and applies it to the univers as a whole and to things outside the universe.  This it shares with all first cuase arguments.  And therefore it fails for presicely the same reason that all first cause arguments fail.  That I can use the same method and reach a very different result is a demonstration of why first cause arguments fail.  

It is a compositional fallacy and a categorical error.

A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. An example is the  "time crawled", which if taken literally is not just false but a category mistake. To show that a category mistake has been committed one must typically show that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it could not possibly be true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

To extrapolate about cause and effect, or even the existence of cause and effect in an eternal setting is a category error. 

It is also error to compare the actual creation of new  material or energy to the effect of energy and matter on energy and matter.  There is no equivalency.

---

---

First of all, the validity of an argument or proof should not depend upon it's result, be that god, an endless regress, an endless time loop, or things "poofing" into existence out of nothing.  However, as unlikely as I find the idea of an elephant popping into existence in my backyard, I find both the idea of anything existing externally, and infinite regress equally unlikely.  That there is something outside the universe also boggles my mind.  The human mind isn't equipped to consider any of these possibilities in any realistic or coherent way.  Try for example to talk about a timeless space without tenses messing up what it is you are trying to say.  Or try to think of a nothing so nothing that it includes neither time nor space.  

1.  Beyond the Universe, the Flatland Thought Experiment

When we are looking for a cause of the universe (assuming for the moment that it has one) we are postulating about  something on the other side of a singularity.  And what actually on the other side might be beyond our ability to imagine or describe.  By way of illustration, I'm going to borrow a thought experiment from Edwin A Abbott's 1884 novel, Flatland.  Flatland takes place in a universe with only three dimensions, one of which is time.  Space has only two dimentions there.  We visualise such a world as if we are looking down on it as on a blueprint.  But that is not how it would look to the inhabitants of Flatland who do not have the words up or down in their vocabulary.  Nor do they speak of jumping, falling, or flying.  Digging to China is not a Flatland expression.  

In the novel, Flatland is visited by a sphere from outside the two dimensional universe outside Flatland.  Obviously,  the sphere appears to be a circle in Flatland.  It convinces a square that it is from a 3rd spacial dimension by demonstrating it's ability to grow a shrink as it passes through the two dimensional Flatland.

Imagine for a moment Abbott had had a cube visit instead.  If it came through precisely from one corner to the opposite corner, it would grow and shrink like the sphere.  But if it tilted back and forth it would change shape becoming various four sided shapes as it went.  Or image a human who could appear variously as an iregular oval, two iregular ovals, ten much smaller irregular ovals and so on depending on which body part or parts intersected Flatland.

Thier universe could actually be a point thin skin around a very large sphere.  (This idea is mine not Abbotts). If the sphere were small enough, they might eventually figure this out by traveling away from home in one direction  and eventually arrive at home from the opposite direction.  But the concept of sphere would remain mysterious, at best a mathematical explaination that the very best minds could not grasp.  

I'm afraid that imagining either the outside of the universe (if there is such a thing) or a time before the universe began (again assuming that such time existed) is as difficult and fruitless, as the Flatlanders imagining what a third spacial dimension might be.  

2. Existence, Cause, and Agency

What we know of existence, change, and cause/agency comes entirely from our knowledge of this universe.  At the human scale and larger, nothing in this universe poofs into existence out of nothing without cause. In fact no matter or energy is ever ultimately created or destroyed.  Everything was previously something else and will in turn become yet something else later.  Changes in motion and form all happen because of material causes acting on material forms.  The cause is equally and oppositely affected.  Matter and energy is never either created or lost.  There are no immaterial agents anymore than there are things changing without cause. Materiality of the agency is part and parcel of causation. 

And so is time.  Without time, change, and hence causation, are not meaningful concepts.   If Flatland really had just two dimensions, there would be no story because no inhabitant, could move or think, or change in anyway at all. 

Agency or cause without time and matter is just as absurd as elephants appearing without cause. It too is magic.  You won't see it in your backyard, or anywhere else.

3. What Is Eternity and What does it Mean To Be Eternal?

Colloquially, eternity is forever.  But what does forever mean? It could be a timeless, an ever present.   Matter might exist in such a space but not movement or energy.  Or it could be thought of as an infite regress of time.  In that case an infinite regress of cause and effect would appear possible, or even required--if nothing changes, does it make any sense to say time exists?  Or it could be loop of cause and effect in which there is neither a first nor a last cause and effect and yet there are a finite number of causes and effects.  Or we could concede that there was one a first moment in time, and call eternity time from that point forward.  However, unless something was in motion from that very first moment, there would be no time or change in any functional sense.  It would be as static as timeless eternity--in fact it would be a contradition in terms, a timeless place with a beginning.

A sentient being, however unlikely, might exist either as an infinite regression of being or as a always present member of a loop.  It might be in motion at the beginning of time.  But it could not be sentient, changimg, or moving in a timeless space.

4. Extrapolating From What We Know Of Cause And Effect Does Not Lead Necessarily to God.

Here is my own little syllogism:

The present and past forms of all material things each have a past material cause(s).
The universe is a material thing.
Therefore, the universe has a past material cause, and that cause has a past material cause an so on for eternity.

I do not offer this as proof of an infinite godless regression, but only as demonstration of the futility of using our knowledge of cause and effect within the universe to extrapolate what occurred before the universe (assuming there is a before) or outside the universe.

5.  Subatomic Matter Does Not Appear To Behave Like Matter We Perceive 

At the subatomic level, things do appear to begin to exist, cease to exist, and change without  cause(s).  Any extrapolation concerning the cause of the universe (if any) based on what we know about the inside of the universe must take quantum mechanics into account.

6. Our Inability to Know Is Proof of Nothing in Particular

Even when postulating what is outside the universe and beyond what we may ever know, the god of the gaps remains a fallacy.

---

Jenny,

Thanks for a well thought out post.  I agree it does seem that when you get to things at or beyond the beginning of the universe, that you need to make some sort of jump from what is familiar.  And I do realize, that what one might may be willing to concede for one, may not be for another.

Thank you.  I took the time because you are actually considering the possibility that the first cause argument does not work.  I think one essential difference between theist and atheist minds is the willingness to accept I don't know, and cannot know a a definitive answer.  I really do not know how the universe or anything that came before it began.  That I don't and won't ever know is not a concept that troubles me.

---

The proposition you have stated is:

All things that begin to exist have a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe had a cause

That is a syllogism.  Syllogisms use deductive reasoning from two or more propositions to reach a conclusion.  If the logic is sound, and all of the propositions are true, the the conclusion follows.  If any proposition is false the  syllogism  fails.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syllogism  http://philosophyterms.com/syllogism/  https://www.britannica.com/topic/syllogism  Look it up.

I should have been clearer. The premises themselves are derived inductively. The syllogism is in the form of a deductive argument. This means exactly what I have been saying. The conclusion is based on the probability of the premises being true. In the case of the argument, it is the vast majority of scientists, philosophers, and regular people that both premises are likely true. Therefore it follows that the conclusion is probably true. There is no logical fallacy or problem with the structure. 

To determine the probability of two or more things all being true you multiply to probability of each thing together.  And yes the probability of both propositions being true will be the same if all chances are 100% nd lower if they are not.  https://www.mathplanet.com/education/pre...-of-events.  Look it up.  It's Pre Calc 101.

If you roll a pair of dice the chance of rolling a six is one in six for each die.  If you want to know what the chances are that at least on of the die will come up six, you add the probabilities together.  So, 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3. But, if you want to know what the chances are of both die rolling 6, you multiply the probabilites.p 1/6 × 1/6 = 1/36. 

Since both proposition 1 and two must be true for the conclusion to follow, it is correct to multiply the probability of the propositions together to determine the probability that the conclusion is proved as stated by the syllogism. 

The probability that your syllogism proves that the universe has a cause is dependant on both (1) everything that begins to exist having a cause, and  (2) the universe beginning to exist.  So to determine the likelihood that the syllogism proves that the universe has a cause we multiply the probability of the first two propositions together.

That reasoning will not work for inductive reasoning. It just does not. Using your method, the more reasons you list that something might be true, the probability of it being true goes down. That is simply not logically possible, so the principle cannot apply. 

[Edit: Polymath correctly notes that the computation of the probability of the two propositions both being  true would be affected  if the the truth of one proposition makes the other proposition more or less likely.  I agree.  ]

Notice that I did not say that that gives us the absolute probability of whether the universe has a cause because there might other evidence besides your syllogism, that the universe has a cause.  Perhaps you might have inductive evidence that the universe has a cause?

A premise in any syllogism has to have support. If could have a 10 pages of arguments that support a 10 word premises. Fleshing out the KCA alone takes like 40 pages in my reference books (philosophers are very careful in their published works). 

That the universe began to exist can be argued on scientific grounds as well a metaphysical grounds. The most promising models for 50+ years have posited the beginning of the universe. All recent observations continue to confirm it and NEVER undercut it. Of course you can find a fringe theory that says otherwise. Metaphysically speaking, there is no way to rationally believe that an infinite number of events could have already happened. This (and more) translates into premise (2) being much more likely true than not. 

Listen, if you want to hang onto the % of uncertainty in the argument and say it is not convincing, fine. That is the only option open to you. What you cannot show is that the argument is wrong or fallacious.

I think you are rather behind hand about current scientific thinking about the beginning of the universe and the necessity of cause and effect.

That people who agree with you get published, is merely an appeal to authority.  Many people who disagree are also published.  To choose between them, we must consider the argument itself, and not the stature of its proponent.  

I will add that there are Christian philosophers, some of them theologians who do not accept the validity of Kalam's proof of god or any proof of god through reasoning for that matter. Read Kierkegaard on proofs of god.