RE: Non-religious Theism
April 24, 2014 at 10:05 am
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2014 at 10:24 am by Metalogos.)
Whateverist wrote:
Well, so you keep saying. How often must you repeat the incantation to remain convinced I wonder? (No insult intended. Think of it as good natured ribbing.)
Thank you for the reminder. I apologize for my thick-headedness. Okay, I do get it that you don't think my repeated mantra of prior cause has any merit but if you will excuse my obvious forgetfulness, will you please state again clearly why this doesn't work for you as an argument for a prime mover scenario.
I think I remember you saying that when we are discussing anything prior to the explosion of the singularity, normal natural laws may not, and probably do not hold any longer. I get that. If we are talking about a point that has zero space and infinite mass as per the predictions of Einstein's theory of relativity via the Harte-Hawking reworking of it, I do understand that natural physical laws of time and space will cease to have effect or meaning. Therefore we can only talk about what happens regressively up to the instant of the explosion.
You must be aware of Quentin Smith's 2008 rather famous arguments against a theistic explanation for the origin of the universe wherein he states that there is no first moment before a singularity explodes because space and time break down at the singularity itself. If there is no instant before the singularity explodes, he argues, there is no logical space for God to act. He argues for a self caused universe.
He was refuted by Robin Collins in that 2008 debate with an argument that said that because Smith's argument is a casual one, one that relies on a casual explanation which states that each part of the universe logically explains the existence of the whole, and that the whole was caused by the sequence of events following the Big Bang, he must claim that the Big Bang provides an additional explanation for all that followed it sequentially. Collins argued that it is here that the theist can claim that this sort of necessary additional explanation is provided by God and that God is essential to providing a complete explanation of the universe. He goes on to attack Smith's argument and tries to show that it might suffer from a fatal circular flaw wherein no matter what part of the universe one starts with, the part of the universe doing the explaining is in further need of an explanation until God is posited to close the regress.
I gather from this and other arguments that I have seen that both sides will probably continue to debate each other forever without either side having to concede defeat. As I stated before, perhaps not in this thread, I forget, that is seems to come down to which argument one prefers, which is completely subjective.
By the way, I think I would have rebutted Smith with the argument that if the creator agent is eternal, as is claimed by theists, then such a being would not be limited to a time-space paradigm and could simply will the universe into existence instantaneously. Bang!
Whateverist wrote:
There are ways of thinking about those three things which won't encumber you with medieval baggage. What gives rise to ourselves is as though 'divine', 'eternal' and 'perfect'. It isn't literally any of those things. You'd be surprised how little you have to give up if you gain a little perspective.
[/quote]
I will attempt to climb higher and higher in my quest for understanding. You may well be reaching out a hand from your elevated position and all I have to do is trust you and grab ahold. Perhaps. As I said before, I defend no religion or dogma. My very subjective feeling right now is that a non-religious theist position is somehow preferable to the current atheist position when it comes to a discussion of origin. On the other hand, I would prefer to sit and have a discussion with an atheist about this subject and any other subject that I can imagine than with a catholic, protestant, or fundamentalist christian/jew/muslim person. That is why I chose this site over a religious one to share my views. Anyway, thanks for your advise and I do appreciate your "good-natured ribbing" or at least the tone of camaraderie that I sense to be behind your words.
Well, so you keep saying. How often must you repeat the incantation to remain convinced I wonder? (No insult intended. Think of it as good natured ribbing.)
Thank you for the reminder. I apologize for my thick-headedness. Okay, I do get it that you don't think my repeated mantra of prior cause has any merit but if you will excuse my obvious forgetfulness, will you please state again clearly why this doesn't work for you as an argument for a prime mover scenario.
I think I remember you saying that when we are discussing anything prior to the explosion of the singularity, normal natural laws may not, and probably do not hold any longer. I get that. If we are talking about a point that has zero space and infinite mass as per the predictions of Einstein's theory of relativity via the Harte-Hawking reworking of it, I do understand that natural physical laws of time and space will cease to have effect or meaning. Therefore we can only talk about what happens regressively up to the instant of the explosion.
You must be aware of Quentin Smith's 2008 rather famous arguments against a theistic explanation for the origin of the universe wherein he states that there is no first moment before a singularity explodes because space and time break down at the singularity itself. If there is no instant before the singularity explodes, he argues, there is no logical space for God to act. He argues for a self caused universe.
He was refuted by Robin Collins in that 2008 debate with an argument that said that because Smith's argument is a casual one, one that relies on a casual explanation which states that each part of the universe logically explains the existence of the whole, and that the whole was caused by the sequence of events following the Big Bang, he must claim that the Big Bang provides an additional explanation for all that followed it sequentially. Collins argued that it is here that the theist can claim that this sort of necessary additional explanation is provided by God and that God is essential to providing a complete explanation of the universe. He goes on to attack Smith's argument and tries to show that it might suffer from a fatal circular flaw wherein no matter what part of the universe one starts with, the part of the universe doing the explaining is in further need of an explanation until God is posited to close the regress.
I gather from this and other arguments that I have seen that both sides will probably continue to debate each other forever without either side having to concede defeat. As I stated before, perhaps not in this thread, I forget, that is seems to come down to which argument one prefers, which is completely subjective.
By the way, I think I would have rebutted Smith with the argument that if the creator agent is eternal, as is claimed by theists, then such a being would not be limited to a time-space paradigm and could simply will the universe into existence instantaneously. Bang!
Whateverist wrote:
There are ways of thinking about those three things which won't encumber you with medieval baggage. What gives rise to ourselves is as though 'divine', 'eternal' and 'perfect'. It isn't literally any of those things. You'd be surprised how little you have to give up if you gain a little perspective.
[/quote]
I will attempt to climb higher and higher in my quest for understanding. You may well be reaching out a hand from your elevated position and all I have to do is trust you and grab ahold. Perhaps. As I said before, I defend no religion or dogma. My very subjective feeling right now is that a non-religious theist position is somehow preferable to the current atheist position when it comes to a discussion of origin. On the other hand, I would prefer to sit and have a discussion with an atheist about this subject and any other subject that I can imagine than with a catholic, protestant, or fundamentalist christian/jew/muslim person. That is why I chose this site over a religious one to share my views. Anyway, thanks for your advise and I do appreciate your "good-natured ribbing" or at least the tone of camaraderie that I sense to be behind your words.
