RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 18, 2021 at 9:06 pm
(This post was last modified: October 18, 2021 at 9:12 pm by polymath257.)
(October 18, 2021 at 3:55 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(October 7, 2021 at 9:18 am)polymath257 Wrote: How is it vastly more likely? Seriously, why would it be any more likely in the case of a designer (who has to obey their own rules of behavior---in other words, other physical laws).
I think it's time to introduce formal notations here, I am going to assume you are familiar with the notation of conditional probaility .
Let's call T the proposition "A personal creator exists", . U the proposition : "there is a universe ", C the proposition "There are personal agents who exist because of life-permitting conditions, fine -tuning, etc.".
Then we have P(T|U&C)>P(T|U). That is, taking into account our own existence and life-permitting conditions supports the proposition T. The fact that our existence is contingent upon many vastly unlikely outcomes does warrant an explanation, and the most straightforward explanation for a universe bringing about personal agents is a personal creator who intended for this to happen. All theories that describe the workings of the universe are by definition within the universe and therefore have zero explanatory power when it comes to explaining the universe itself.
OK, how do you support that P(T|T&C)>P(T|U)? What is your event space? What measure do you use on it?
And, more specifically, what are the probabilities of P(T|U&(not C))? How about P(U&(not C))? Without those, it is impossible to compare those relative probabilities.
But you are going further and claiming that P(T|U&C)>> P(T|U). How, precisely, do you justify that claim?
Quote:Saying that a universe like ours doesn't require an explanation is the inverse gambler's fallacy, any unlikely outcome deserves careful consideration. If you shoot at someone 1000000 bullets at point-blank range and still miss the person, there is a serious need for an explanation, you can't just say: we're asking for an explanation just because the person survived the experience. Well guess what, the universe's occurence is vastly more impressive than the latter example.
I disagree. I don't think there *can be* a coherent 'explanation' for something like that. It is like asking for the cause of causality. The question itself makes no sense.
Quote:(October 7, 2021 at 9:18 am)polymath257 Wrote: The difference, of course, is that we know that kitchen plates don't move around by themselves. There physical properties do not allow for that. This means that there has to be something else that moves them.
In the case of the universe and its components, we know that they *do* move around by themselves because they have properties and thereby obey natural laws. For example, gravity naturally and without intelligent intervention, allows for the formation of stars and planets. In spite of their having structure and being orderly, not designer is required for their formation. The natural laws are sufficient.
Natural laws are neither sufficient nor insufficient in this context, they are completely irrelevant. We are already in agreement that these laws are descriptive. If they are, then they simply help us describe better what happens in our universe, you should simply step back a bit and ask yourself: why do we have this universe with such laws in the first place?
And to expect an answer to that question means that you already have some regularities. And those regularities *are* examples of natural laws.
You simply cannot have any actual explanations without natural laws of some sort. So to e ven ask for the cause of natural laws is a category error.
Quote:Computer engineers design computers too and "leave" them to users, and there you go: you have a computer that magically works without intelligent intervention.....
Once again, a design dependent on natural laws.
Quote:(October 7, 2021 at 9:18 am)polymath257 Wrote: No, I never included a starting point. In fact, that was the whole argument: there need not be a starting point.
Yes, a consistent model can be wrong. But you were claiming an infinite regress is a self-contradiction. If you admit that an infinite regress is *internally consistent*, that is quite enough to show that the Kalam argument fails.
Your model is not a model for an infinite regress of causes. It's a model in which infinite regress already happened, and where we're free to choose a finite interval of time along this infinity. But this infinity is, as I argued, logically impossible in itself. Incorporating a logically impossible proposition in your model will yield to anything. What you should do, instead, is suggest a model of this very regress of causes that doesn't lead to contradiction.
[\quote]
But the point is that it is NOT logically impossible. The model I gave shows that. There is no *logical* contradiction in the model, which even you have admitted.
What is the precise contradiction that occurs in my model?
And yes, of course it is a model with an infinite regression of causes. And yes, those causes *already happened* at any given spot. That is the whole point: there is no start,
Quote:(October 7, 2021 at 9:18 am)polymath257 Wrote: I disagree. Time is part of the universe. It is *within* the universe. The universe is a four dimensional spacetime manifold.
But that means that the universe as a whole is timeless. it simply exists. All causality is *within* it.
Causality doesn't depend on time. Again, if you assume causality breaks down outside the spacetime, then you allow for things to pop in and out of existence without any causation. This is literally the end of any possible discussion about anything.
Nope, there is no popping in and out of existence without time. Instead, what happens is that spacetime 'just is'. There is no cause of spacetime because ALL CAUSES ARE WITHIN SPACETIME.
But yes, things *do* pop in and out of existence *within the universe* without causes.
(October 18, 2021 at 3:55 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I am sorry if adding another definition is too much for your brain to handle. If this helps, you can substitute for the word time anything you like to be able to speak coherently about things happening prior to the universe, just don't keep invalidating arguments for no reason. The word "prior" here is, as explained before, in a causal sense. If causality holds outside of spacetime, then something (X) caused the spacetime. A new definition of a "time" or, even better, a sequence of events, is simply the sequences of all causes and effects that ever happened, and we assign to each element of this causal chain a rank i. If A causes B, and B causes C, then A would "happen" at rank i=0, B at rank i=1, etc. This is really simple and there is nothing incoherent about it.What makes you think that 'prior in a causal sense' that isn't 'prior in a temporal sense' is even coherent?
Again, you can replace time/rank/sequence with anything you like, arguing about semantics won't help you here.
Why would you even think it is *possible* for spacetime to have a cause?
And, in your scenario, the 'rank' is simply a notion of time. Nothing else. Time is the rank function (to the existent a rank function can even be defined).
And, again, time only makes sense within spacetime, so that rank function is *part of the geometry of the universe*. because of that *there is no rank outside of spacetime*.