Apologetics: The Cosmological Argument
Recently, I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about theology. Maybe it’s the influence of GOD or NOT, but I’ve been mulling over some of the popular arguments for the existence of god. I have a gut reaction to each of them, but I realized that I’ve never formally and systematically worked through them all. My rational and scientific worldview demands nothing less, so I plan to write a series of posts defusing various apologetic tactics. These will be grouped together in the new Apologetics category for ease of reference. I’m not a philosopher by trade or training, so I don’t expect to break any new ground with this exercise. It’s mostly for my own edification, and I’ll be pleased if you enjoy reading it. If I’ve missed something, please challenge me in the comments.
We might as well start at the beginning… of the universe. Thomas Aquinas, building upon some of the writings of Aristotle, gave us what is now known as the cosmological argument, also known as the “first cause” argument. Stated in the most simplistic fashion, the argument says that since the universe exists, something must have caused it to exist, and that something is god. There are three possible solutions to this problem.
1. The universe is infinitely old.
2. There is a creator god.
3. There was a Big Bang.
4. I don’t know.
I find this to be the thorniest of all the arguments for god because of a particular bias that I have. I despise infinities. If I were prepared to accept an infinitely old universe, this would be much easier to deal with. A universe with no beginning has no place for a creator. However, I can’t accept this limitless past. Not only does the very idea make me dizzy, but it also violates the second law of thermodynamics. A closed system of infinite age would have reached the point of heat death. Aquinas claimed that even a universe of infinite age needs a creator, and that this is possible if time is a property of the universe and the creator exists outside of time, but he rejected the idea of an infinitely old universe just as I do.
That leaves us with three choices: god, Big Bang or “I don’t know.” Let’s say for a moment that the answer is god. God predates the universe and created it at some point in the finite past. OK, then what created god? A bigger god? You can follow that back as many levels as you like. So, if the answer is god, then god must be infinitely old. However, if I’m willing to accept that something can be infinitely old and not destroyed by the second law of thermodynamics, then I can eliminate god and just say that the universe has always been there. “But god is magical,” becomes the best possible argument for this point of view, and the person making said claim has “proven,” at most, Deism.
The Big Bang is a good theory. There’s a lot of evidence that it’s an accurate model. It looks right on paper, but it’s an unsatisfying answer. It’s not enough. “How did the universe start?” “There was a big bang.” That doesn’t make me feel any better than “God did it.” Why was there a big bang? What triggered it? How long had the singularity been sitting around without exploding? Where did all that stuff come from in the first place? Was that really the beginning, or was there stuff before that? We don’t know. So, while a very Big Bang, worthy of capital letters, was very likely involved, it’s not a good enough answer.
And so, our terribly unsatisfying answer is “I don’t know,” but that’s OK. Unless you’re talking to your boss, it’s always better to admit ignorance than to make something up. Allow me to offer an analogy. You’re standing on a street corner in an unfamiliar city, trying to get your bearings. You ask a stranger for directions to Elm Street. He has no idea where Elm Street is. Do you want him to tell you that he doesn’t know or make something up? Once you believe you have an answer, you might wander around for the rest of the day looking for Elm Street, trying to follow his directions. You might wander around for the rest of your life looking for god, trying to follow his directions. If you know you don’t have an answer, you can move forward, searching out a map or someone else to ask. You can move forward, searching out a clue or running experiments.
We will probably not learn the truth about the origin of the universe in any of our lifetimes. In fact, our species may never learn the truth. I know one thing for certain, though. If all of the priests, rabbis, ministers, imams, gurus, etc. had become scientists instead, we’d be a hell of a lot closer to knowing the truth. If all of the money donated to religious organizations and wasted on waging religious wars had been spent on research, this discovery, and so many others, might have already been made.
~I AM~
November 18th, 2005 at at 2:41 pm
Your missing the obvious rebuttal to the problem, which is that god is no solution at all. If everything must have a cause, then what caused God? Wouldn’t that, then, be the god of god, etc.. ad infinitum. If god does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? There apparently can be causeless things. Couldn’t the universe just as easily be causeless?
November 18th, 2005 at at 2:52 pm
Once again, excellent post. As to how the Big Bang might have started, there is the theory that Universe expands and then contracts ad infinitum. So in a sense, what goes around comes around. So, there may have been multiple big bangs. Maybe, who knows.
November 18th, 2005 at at 2:56 pm
Have you delved much into string theory and the concept of “bubble universes”? If not, you really should. It won’t help much with your dislike of infinities, but it is still very interesting if you are in a cosmological mood.
From New Scientist Magazine:
“It is a feature of string theory that there will always be regions of the landscape with smaller vacuum energy. Every physicist knows that this indicates an instability. The nature of this instability was worked out years ago by Sidney Coleman and Frank De Luccia. What typically happens is that small bubbles slowly form in the inflating vacuum. These bubbles are regions in which the cosmological constant is smaller than in the ambient inflating background. If the bubbles are too small they will shrink and disappear. But every so often a larger bubble will nucleate and then start to grow. Because the seed has grown so large, there is enough volume for a huge number of bubbles. These bubbles, which Guth calls “pocket universes”, are regions where the universe has made a transition to a neighbouring region of the landscape. But although the vacuum energy is smaller inside the bubble it is not likely to be zero. Thus the space inside these bubbles inflates. The bubbles themselves soon become prodigiously large and the process continues with new bubbles forming inside the old, effectively populating the entire landscape with every possible kind of vacuum. Although this phantasmagoric image seems like something out of the mind of a madman, it is hard to see how it could be wrong. Given the diverse string theoretic landscape of possibilities and the well-known rules for quantum nucleation of bubbles in an inflating space, it is inevitable that an indefinitely large number of bubble-universes will form. Some small fraction will be within the anthropic window. And it is in one of these regions that we find ourselves.
[…] If this view of nature is correct then there is cold comfort for those who look to the anthropic principle for a deeper meaning to their own existence. As Darwin’s principle of survival of the fittest eliminated the need for the hand of God to guide evolution, so the environmental interpretation of the anthropic principle eliminates the necessity for a guardian angel to fine-tune the laws of nature.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18024195.400
November 18th, 2005 at at 3:00 pm
LBBP:
I know a bit about string theory. Actually, it has always seemed intuitive to me. I don’t know anything about bubble universes, though. I’ll have to do some reading. Thanks for the link.
November 18th, 2005 at at 3:02 pm
Yeah, and it makes no sense to say that spacetime started at the Big Bang and that this gives us license to ignore what happened before the explosion. It may give us license, but it doesn’t squash our natural curiosity. Why was there an explosion?
But this is a question for cosmology, not religion. Religion says God or some unknown being did it, so it doesn’t really matter what happened or why. This is one example of why religion has no place in science. Cosmology says that the universe did it to itself, right? This seems like the same kind of answer as religion, and it is on one level, but the scientific answer has a mathematical, theoretical explanation about what happened and this gives us knowledge to understand more about what happened and to formulate a reason that satisfies our interests.
All that matters in the end, I suppose, is that we know what happened. Why is ancillary.
November 18th, 2005 at at 3:51 pm
I am soooo glad someone else brought up string theory (or now M-theory). I was going to attempt it and in the process butcher the idea so badly that it would have done no one any good……..
There was an interesting series on PBS explaining string theory / M theory recently. I would also recommend Steven Hawking’s “The Universe in a Nutshell”, “A Brief History of Time” (or the simplified “A Briefer History of Time”); also, Brian Greene’s “The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory,” and “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality.”
November 18th, 2005 at at 4:54 pm
The first thing to notice is that there is something wrong with the question, “Who or what caused God?” This is called a category fallacy. A category fallacy is the mistake of ascribing the wrong feature to the wrong thing. Like what does blue smell like?
The very concept of God in the world’s monotheistic religions is a concept of a necessary being, “the uncausable Creator of everything else.” Given this concept of God, the question “Who or what caused God?” becomes this question: “Who or what caused something which, given a widely shared concept of God, whether He exists or not, is an uncausable thing?” Or more briefly, “Who caused God which by definition is uncausable?”
The cosmological argument does not say that everything needs a cause; it says everything that has beginning needs a cause. Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didn’t have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. If God needed a cause, we would begin an infinite regress of causes that would never answer the question. As it is, we can’t ask, “Who caused God?” because God is the first cause. You can’t go back any further than a first.
At some point there has to be something that exists in itself — a necessary being, a being that is the uncausable cause of everything else. Thus, the concept of such a being is not arbitrary, but is required by reason.
November 18th, 2005 at at 5:01 pm
Joe, if I may, I would like to throw into the pile Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin.
Steve, you cannot replace one problem (called a “category mistake” by Rile) with another (circular illogic) and claim there is no problem. Additionally, there is more than one version of the Cosmological Argument. Lastly, you have not proven why your god is necessary. You’re just spouting what you read and hear. Atheists do this, too, so don’t feel too bad. Don’t feel bad; correct your faults and use your brain. For example, try to refute your argument above. I bet you can, and then what?
November 18th, 2005 at at 5:21 pm
“The Big Bang is a good theory. There’s a lot of evidence that it’s an accurate model. It looks right on paper, but it’s an unsatisfying answer. It’s not enough.”~I AM~
It may not be enough, or be satisfying, but science isnt’ about satifying our emotional needs-it’s about discovering the truth, or at least approximating it as closely as possible. Granted, we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, but that doesn’t invalidate the theory.
“At some point there has to be something that exists in itself — a necessary being, a being that is the uncausable cause of everything else. Thus, the concept of such a being is not arbitrary, but is required by reason.” -Steve
You speak in absolutes-there need not be anything that exists in itself, especially a being. Perhaps you need to make one up to sleep at night, but such a being is absolutely NOT necessary to the universe.
November 18th, 2005 at at 5:25 pm
Steve said: “At some point there has to be something that exists in itself.”
Why stop at one thing? If there is one uncausable thing, then why can’t there be two? Or three? Or an infinite number? Or an infinitely variable number?
Even if there were only one uncausable thing, what makes anyone think it is “God”? That’s just silly and self-centered.
November 18th, 2005 at at 5:33 pm
Matt:
“Granted, we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, but that doesn’t invalidate the theory.”
I never said that it did. In fact, I said quite the opposite.
November 18th, 2005 at at 6:21 pm
Here’s another atheist’s take on the cosmological argument and start of the universe:
http://bleedingisaac.blogspot.com/2005/07/kalam-cosmological-argument.html
“It makes much more sense to me (and there is much more evidence) that this singularity (a zero-dimensional point with infinite mass) is the beginning of the universe. Maybe its not as aesthetically pleasing as thinking of a great floating ghost speaking it into existence, but there are a lot of reasons to believe in a singularity than there is to believe in that ghost.
Now, this is where the Christian usually steps in and demonstrates the ignorance typical of people who believe in ghosts. They say, “Aha, but how did the singularity get there?” The physicist responds, “It was uncaused.” The Christian says, “So the singularity is eternal?” The physicist responds, “What the hell are you talking about? That statement makes no sense?” The Christian says, “I mean did the singularity just pop into existence one day?” The physicist looks around to see if she is on Candid Camera.
Why the strange looks? Because the Christian’s question shows a complete lack of understanding of time. Time is not infinite. It had a beginning and it will have an end. Time is a property that is interwoven into the fabric of the universe. Time is not something that exists outside of a universe. Our universe has four dimensions–up, down, right, left, time. Without a universe, there is no such thing as time. There is no before the universe. There is no one day prior to the universe.
In this way, the singularity is timeless and arguments 2.1 - 2.23 in the formulation above are pointless (no pun intended). Time can only be measured back to the Big Bang that created the universe; it does not apply to the singularity, because the singularity is not the universe and is not, therefore, “in time.” The singularity is t=0. It makes no sense to ask why the universe was not created before it was, because there was no before. A before requires time, and time only exists as part of the universe. If there is no universe, there is no time.”
November 18th, 2005 at at 6:41 pm
Kele—first there was nothing and then it exploded. This is the essence of the Big Bang w/out God. Also, God exists changelessly and timelessly prior to creation and in time after creation, thus your argument doesn’t follow.
We need to agree about the concept of God, about what God would be if there was such a thing. Otherwise we are talking past each other and wouldn’t share a common concept of God, which is a requirement to have such a debate in the first place. Two people debating the existence of unicorns share a common concept of a unicorn even if they differ about the reality of unicorns themselves. The believer simply points out that; given this common concept of God we share in this debate “the uncausable Creator of everything else.” If we can’t agree on this, we might as well quit right now.
I admit that if someone holds to such a concept of god (finite), then the question of who or what made a finite god is, indeed, a legitimate one. But that’s their problem not mine. I don’t hold to such a concept. This question only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes which cannot be. This is paradoxical
November 18th, 2005 at at 7:02 pm
Steve, if I had a nickel for every one of your unfounded presumptions, I could buy you a copy of Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin.
November 18th, 2005 at at 7:16 pm
As wes (the author of the post I quoted) says, I think that what I choose to call “singularity” is what you choose to call “God”. The difference being what we attribute to it.
“Now, if the universe did come into existence, is it more reasonable to believe that an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent, spirit being (who has thoughts without having a brain–I had a really funny picture of the scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz created it, or that it came out of a singularity that, by nature, can result in the creation of a universe.
Does the universe really look like it was created by omniscience? Comets and meteors are crashing into shit all over the place. Stars are burning out. Galaxies are colliding. Your shit smells bad. People have diseases. If this is really the work of omniscience, he needs to go back to school.
I think the singularity is a much more reasonable starting point for the kind of universe that exists. When some stars burn-out, they collapse in on themselves and create a black hole with a kind of singularity at the source of it. So, it is easy to imagine the universe having its beginning in something similar. Plus, both quantum theory and general relativity (two mutually exclusive, but infinitely practical theories) rest on the idea of a singularity. There is good reason to believe in one.
God, on the other hand? Well . . . not likely considering the kind of universe that does exist.”
I don’t know. Maybe I should read some into string theory. The author of that post mentions but says he doesn’t understand it enough to discuss it so he doesn’t talk about it too much. *shrug*
November 18th, 2005 at at 8:15 pm
Uberkuh—what presumptions did I make that were irrational? Also, Kele—what follows from the argument you quoted? This argument affects nothing for deists. Moreover, I think Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all theologically allow for an entropic universe.
November 18th, 2005 at at 8:46 pm
Petitio principii. You presume far too much.
November 18th, 2005 at at 8:56 pm
Uberkuh, is not claiming the universe keeps “banging” itself into existence ad infinitum begging the question? When did it begin? If I am begging the question—so are you.
November 18th, 2005 at at 10:14 pm
Whoever said the Big Bang is an infinitely recurring event? If there is a cycle of expansion and contraction, then (a) it need not necessarily be infinite and (b) it is a perfectly reasonable, if not satisfactory, explanation of natural events.
Any supernatural intervention you suggest is meaningless. You might as well just give up debating and say you have blind faith.
November 19th, 2005 at at 1:36 am
Eh…, infinity is an ontological impossibility. The primary basis of my thought is that actual infinite sets cannot exist in reality. That appears to be rather obvious once the terms are understood. At some point in time, the universe had a beginning. If the laws of physics are the controlling factor which determines what may leap uncaused into being: But what of the laws? They have to be ‘there’ to start with so that the universe can come into being. If there were absolutely nothing, it would be true that any one thing rather than another should pop into being uncaused? It is futile to say it somehow belongs to the nature of spacetime to do so, for if there were absolutely nothing then there would have been no nature to determine that spacetime should spring into being
It seems to me, therefore, that you or anyone else here has provided any plausible basis for denying the truth of the cosmological argument. That whatever begins to exist has a cause would seem to be an ontologically necessary truth, one which is constantly confirmed in our experience. I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. How else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. Thus, you can disagree—but “blind” I think not.
November 19th, 2005 at at 2:18 am
My sympathies are with Kele on the cosmological argument. Time is a property of the universe. It is pointless to apply properties of the universe to ‘whatever may or may not exist’ independent of the universe.
Without a universe, there is no such thing as time. There is no before the universe. There is no one day prior to the universe.”
I have heard the notion that this argument applied to ‘causually before’ but not ‘temporally before’. Doesn’t one imply the other?
I had a discussion considering this on the skeptic forum entitled ‘Big Bang and nothingness’, and the best we could agree is that science by the naturalist definition only is shown to work in our universe.
Now, it may be possible that we have the potential to study things outside of the universe but right now any assertion about anything ‘outside’ of the universe is as unfalsifiable as god is.
Going back to time:
Assuming:
Time is a property of the universe.
Time also a property of the ‘for the sake of the argument’ omniverse domain.
The universe is a closed system.
If the universe is a closed system, then the time property of the universe is independent of the time property of the omniverse.
Therefore,
Even if time exists ‘outside’ the universe it would no relation to time inside the universe.
ok… now I am of intermittent conciousness, I hope that explains what I’m trying to comprehend.
November 19th, 2005 at at 2:25 am
One more thing that bugs me: what the hell is nothing? It seem to me like one of those high plains of existence people are talking about. Theists are dead sure they know what nothing is. Have you any idea? The best I admit mis/understand what the concept of nothing in this context is is to think anything and realize that I missed the point. LOL
How can we be sure if the properties of nothing?
November 19th, 2005 at at 3:01 am
I think that shit would smell bad in any possible universe. Particularly with humans, our sense of smell is very weak. Compared to most other species, we’re like blind moles; we have enough sense perception that we aren’t totally deprived, but a bloodhound would be hard pressed to see much difference. Anyway, shit will always smell bad because it bad for you; anyone who thought poop smelled delicious is much more likely to die of disease since they would actually prefer to be around it.
November 19th, 2005 at at 3:39 am
Really you can only argue one of two things… the universe is inifinite or it is not (and by universe, I do mean universe, which includes any finite or infinite entity therein as well as any spacial or temporal presence). Other than the paradoxal problems that should negate the reasoning for an infinite universe, I can’t seem to find another argument against it. So, instead I’ll poke fun at it in the context that its the platform for an infinite god.
An infinite uncausable god, who can imagine infinite realities (and will them to exist all at once), has already existed forever and will continue to do so forever, would be an exceptionally boring life. Imagine it, there he is, floating around in his “beyond space and time” aether with nothing he hasn’t thought of. For some reason out of this multi-dimensional infinitness, he creates a vast reality, that he already knows everything about, and picks a minescule blue spec to create some self replicating chemical reactions that he calls his chosen ones. No wonder humans are so conceded. We’re the chosen entities out of all possible configurations of all possible realities. Yay us!
If infinity bothers you, then really you’re trying the find where the universe approches 0. At 0, there is nothing, no matter, no energy, no space, no time and especially no bored dieties. You have nothingness. Nothingness, is almost as paradoxical as infinity, really. Because the presense of anything ruins it and it itself can not exist since existence is something. The only thing that nothingness can do, is become something. And that’s exactly what happened, because there were no other options for nothingness. That something, which became of nothing, also just so happens to be everything, our universe. So, if you’d like to argue that god created the universe, you could also say that god is nothing, the absence of anything, which created everything and then promptly went away. Or put more simply nothing created the universe.
I’m afraid, because of my limitted brain capacity, that’s as good of an argument as I can make, deranged and simple as it is. Ironically (or more pointedly, not ironically), for the same reason, it all makes perfect sense to me…
November 19th, 2005 at at 8:26 am
Anyone aware of “The God Concept” as explained by Seth in Seth, from The Seth Material, by Jane Roberts, Chapter 18?
It offers a plausible explanation for those who want to know.
“Your idea of space and time is determined by your neurological structure.
The camouflage is so craftily executed and created by the inner self that you must, of necessity, focus your attention in the physical reality which has been created. The psychedelic drugs alter the neurological workings, and therefore can give some slight glimpses into other realities.
These realities exist, of course, whether or not you perceive them. Actually “time” exists as the pulses leap the nerve ends. You must then experience lapses, as this is not a simultaneous procedure. Past, present, and future appear highly convincing and logical when there must be a lapse between each perceived experience.
There is no such lapse in many other personality structures. Events are simultaneously perceived. Reactions are also nearly instantaneous in your terms. Growth and challenge are provided not in terms of achievement or development in time, but instead in terms of intensities. Such a personality is able not only to react to and appreciate event A, say, in your present time, but to experience and understand event A in all of its ramifications and probabilities.
Obviously such personalities need far more than the neurological systems with which you are presently equipped. Your own neurological system is physical, but it is based upon your own inner capabilities as of “now.” It is the materialization of the inner psychic framework. Many other personality structures do not need a materialized perceptive framework such as this, but an inner psychic organization is always present.
Your time — past, present, and future — would be experienced entirely as present to many of these personalities. However, your past, present, and future would be experienced entirely as past to still other personality structures.
Imagine past, present, and future then as a single line delineation of experience in your terms; the line, however, continuing indefinitely. And other personality structures from other dimensions could then, theoretically, observe it from the infinity of viewpoints. However, there is much more than this. The single line [representing physical experience] is really the surface thread along which you seem to travel. It is all the thread that you perceive, so when you envision other dimensions you are forced to think in terms of observers far above the thread, looking down upon it from any given viewpoint.
In actuality, following the image through, and strictly as analogy, there were also be an infinite number of threads both above and below your own, a part of one inconceivably miraculous webwork. Yet, each thread would not be one dimensional but many dimensions, and conceivably, if you knew how, there would be ways of leapfrogging from one thread to the other. You would not be forced to follow any particular thread in a single line fashion.
Now, there are personalities developed enough to do this. Each act of leaping, so to speak, forms a new thread. Following through with our analogy, imagine yourself Self A. We will start you off in physical reality on Thread A, though you have already traversed many other threads to get to where you are.
Without shortcuts or even average progression, any such Self A would travel Thread A along the narrow line toward infinity. At some point, however, Thread A would turn into Thread B. In the same manner, Thread B would turn into Thread C and so forth. At some inconceivable point, all of the threads would be traversed. Now on Thread A, Self A would not be aware, in his present, of the “future” selves on the other threads. Only by meeting one of these other selves can he become aware of the nature of the strange structure through which he is traveling.
There is, however, a self, who has already traveled these routes, of whom the other selves are but part. The self, in dreams and disassociated conditions, communicates with the various “ascending” selves. As a self grows in value fulfillment, he can become aware of these travelers on the other threads, who would seem to him to be future selves.
All this sounds complicated, but only because we must deal with words. I hope that intuitively you will be able to understand it. In the “meantime,” the overall self is forming new threads of activity, you see. The framework it leaves “behind” can be used by others.
The purpose is, quite simply, being as opposed to nonbeing. I’m telling you what I know, and there is much I do not know. I know that help must be given one to the other, and that extension and expansion are aides to being.
Now — and this will seem like a contradiction in terms — there is nonbeing. It is a state, not of nothingness, but a state in which probabilities and possibilities are known and anticipated but blocked from expression.
Dimly, through what you would call history, hardly remembered, there was such state. It was a state of agony in which the powers of creativity and existence were known, but the ways to produce them were not known.
This is the lesson that All That Is had to learn, and that could not be taught. This is the agony from which creativity originally was drawn, and its reflection is still seen.
Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time as you understand it. So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past in which these events occurred.
All That Is retains memory of that state, and it serves as a constant impetus — in your terms — toward renewed creativity. Each self, as a part of All That Is, therefore also retains memory of that state. It is for this reason that each minute consciousness is endowed with impetus toward survival, change, development, and creativity. It is not enough that All That Is, as a primary consciousness gestalt, desires further being, but that each portion of It also carries this determination.
Yet the agony itself was used as a means, and the agony itself served as a impetus, strong enough so that All That Is initiated within Itself the means to be.
If — and this is impossible — all portions but the most minute last “unit” of All That Is were destroyed, All That Is would continue, for within the smallest portion is the innate knowledge of the whole. All That Is protects itself, therefore, and all that It has and is and will create.
When I speak of All That Is, you must understand my position within It. All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself.
It is conceivable, then, that It has evolved, in your terms, so long ago that It has forgotten Its origin, that It has developed from still another Primary which has — again, in your terms — long since gone Its way. So there are answers that I cannot give you, for they are not known anywhere in the system in which we have our existence. We do know that within the system of our All That Is, creation continues and developments are never still. We can deduce that on still other layers of which we are unaware, the same is true.
The first state of agonized search for expression may have represented the birth throes of All That Is as we know It. Pretend, then, that you possessed within yourself the knowledge of all the world’s masterpieces in sculpture and art, that they pulsed as realities within you, but that you had no physical apparatus, no knowledge of how to achieve them, that there was neither rock nor pigment nor source of any of these, and you ached with the yearning to produce them. This, on an infinitesimally small-scale, will perhaps give you, as an artist [this was addressed to Rob, Jane’s husband], some idea of the agony and impetus that was felt.
Desire, wish, and expectation rule all actions and are the basis for all realities. Within All That Is, therefore, the wish, desire, and expectation of creativity existed before all other actuality. The strength and vitality of these desires and expectations then became in your terms so insupportable that All That Is was driven to find a means to produce them.
In other words, All That Is existed in a state of being, without the means to find expression for It’s being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this “period” of contracted yearning, All That Is could concentrate It’s energy sufficiently enough to create the realities that existed and probable suspension with in It.
The agony and desire to create represented Its proof of Its own reality. The feelings, in the other words, were adequate proof to All That Is that It was.
At first, in your terms, all the probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within the consciousness of All That Is. Latter, the unspecific nature of these “dreams” grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became recognized one from the other until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is. And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more attention to Its own dreams.
It then purposefully gave them more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not yet separate from itself. It gave consciousness and imagination to personalities while they still were but within Its dreams. They also yearned to be actual.
Potential individuals, in your terms, had consciousness before the beginning or any beginning as you know it, then. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within Itself for the means.
In Its massive imagination, It understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was necessary if these probabilities were to be given birth. All That Is saw, then, an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within It until It found the means.
This was in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma and one with which It wrestled until All That It was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.
Had It not solved it, All That Is would have faced insanity, and there would have been, literally, a reality without reason and the universe run wild.
The pressure came from two sources: from the conscious but still probable individual selves who found themselves alive in a God’s dream, and from the God who yearned to release them.
On the other hand, you could say that the pressure existed simply on the part of the God since the creation existed within It’s dream, but such tremendous power resides in such primary pyramid gestalts that even their dreams are endowed with vitality and reality.
This, then, is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt: It creates reality. It also recognized within each consciousness the massive potential that existed. The means, then, came to It. It must release the creatures and probabilities from It’s dream.
To do so would give them actuality. However, it also meant “losing” a portion of It’s own consciousness, for it was with in that portion that they were held in bondage. All That Is had to let go. While It thought of these individuals as It’s creations, It held them as a part of Itself and refused them actuality.
To let them go was to “lose” that portion of Itself that had created them. Already It could scarcely keep up with the myriad probabilities that began to emerge from each separate consciousness. With love and longing It let go of that portion of Itself, and they were free. The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation.
All That Is, therefore, “lost” a portion of Itself in that creative endeavor. All That Is loves all that It has created down to the least, for It realizes the dearness and uniqueness of each consciousness which has been wrest from such a state at such a price. It is triumphant and joyful at each development taken by each consciousness, for this is an added triumph against that first state, and It revels and takes joy in the slightest creative act of each of Its issues.
It, of Itself and from that state, has given life to infinities of possibilities. From it’s agony, It found the way to burst forth in freedom, through expression, and in so doing it gave existence to individualized consciousness. Therefore it is It rightfully jubilant. Yet all individuals remember their source, and now dream of All That Is as All That Is once dreamed of them. And they yearn toward that immense source…and yearn to set It free and give It actuality through their own creations.
The motivating force is still All That Is, but individuality is no illusion. Now in the same way to you give freedom to the personality fragments within your own dreams and for the same reason. And you create for the same reason, and within each of you is the memory of that primal agony — the urge to create and free all probable consciousness into actuality.
I have been sent to help you, and others have been sent through the centuries of your time, for as you develop you also form new dimensions and you will help others.
These connections between you and All That Is can never be severed, and Its awareness is so delicate and focused that It’s attention is indeed directed with a prime creator’s love to each consciousness.
This session needs reading many times, for their implications not at first obvious.
Even the overall pyramid gestalt is not static. Most of your God concepts deal with a static God, and here is one of your main theological difficulties. The awareness and experience of this Gestalt constantly changes and grows. There is no static God. When you say, “this is God,” then God is already something else. I am using the term “God” for simplicity’s sake.
All portions of All That Is are constantly changing, enfolding and unfolding. All That Is, seeking to know it Itself, constantly creates new versions of Itself. For the seeking Itself is a creative activity and the core of all action.
Entities, being action, always shift in change. There is nothing arbitrary about their boundaries. Some personalities can be a part of more than one entity. Like fish, they can swim and other streams. Within them is the knowledge of all of their relationships.
Any personality can become an entity on its own. This involves a highly developed knowledge of the use of energy and its intensities. As atoms have mobility, so do psychological structures.
Consciousness, seeking to know itself, therefore knows you. You, as a consciousness, seek to know yourself and become aware of yourself as a distant individual portion of All That Is. Do not only draw upon this overall energy but you do so automatically since your existence is dependent upon It.
There is no personal God-individual in Christian terms, and yet you two have access to a portion of
All That Is, a portion highly attuned to you….there is a portion of All That Is directed and focused within each individual, residing within each consciousness. Each consciousness is, therefore, cherished and individually protected. This portion of overall consciousness is individualized within you.
The personality of God as generally conceived is a one-dimensional concept based upon man’s small knowledge of his own psychology. What you prefer to think of as God is, again, and energy gestalt or pyramid consciousness. It is aware of itself as being, for instance, you, Joseph is aware of itself as the smallest seed….this portion of All That Is that is aware of itself as you, that is focused within your existence, can be called upon for help when necessary.
This portion is also aware of itself as something more than you. This portion that knows itself as you, and is more than you, is the personal God, you see. Again: this Gestalt, this portion of All That Is, looks out for your interests and may be called upon in the personal manner.
Prayer contains its own answer, and if there is no white-haired kind old father-God to hear, then there is instead the initial and ever-expanding energy that forms everything that is and of which each human being is a part.
This psychic gestalt may sound impersonal to you, but since its energy forger person, how can this be?
If you prefer to call the supreme psychic gestalt God, then you must not attempt to objectify him, for he is the nuclei of your cells and more intimate than your breath.
You are co creators. What you call God is the sum of all consciousness, and yet the whole is more than the sum of Its parts. God is more than the sum of all personalities, and yet all personalities are what He is.
There is constant creation. There is within you a force that knew how to grow you from a fetus to a grown adult. This force is part of unique knowledge within all consciousness, and is part of the God within you
The responsibility for your life and your world is indeed yours. It has not been forced upon you by some outside agency. You form your own dreams, and you form your own physical reality. The world is what you are. It is the physical materialization of the inner selves which have formed it.”
November 19th, 2005 at at 9:35 am
I think the “I don’t know” position is not being given enough credit. It seems on the evidence that the universe as we know it emanated from a singularity through what we call the big bang.
It is interesting to ask what was the state of affairs five minutes before the big bang. Did the singularity exist 5 minutes before the big bang? If so what kept it stable for five more minutes?
The known physical laws: are they limited to what sprang from the big bang or do they apply more broadly? While we know why some of them exist since they derive from other laws we don’t know more broadly why they exists?
All fascinating question (regrettably not leading edge since I haven’t kept up that much on current research). I would like the answer to these questions so its tempting to sweep them under the cosmic rug called god. The problem is that’s a dead end. If the researchers who got us to this point of knowledge had bought into the god theory we wouldn’t be worrying about the causes of the big bang. We wouldn’t know it exists.
It’s the “I don’t know” crowd who got us here and will take us to the next level.
November 19th, 2005 at at 11:40 am
I don’t know about this whole ‘I don’t know’ business. Of course we don’t know! But to the best knowledge we have available to us, the big bang is the ticket, laddy. Being open to all possibilities is great. But just saying I don’t know didn’t get the scientists to find out, they weren’t content with that, they wanted to know.
Science is inductive, just like the cosmological argument. The evidence doesn’t make the conclusion true, but it makes the conclusion more likely. The difference here is that cosmologists are busy trying to figure out the truth now but the majority of theists are using the same argument and data they’ve had for a millenia. I think it’s pretty obvious that the physicists inductive argument is stronger than the theologans inductive argument.
Human curiosity doesn’t like the answer ‘I don’t know’, but I think there is good reason for that. I think it is better to take what reason has led you to think is the more likely proposition (ie. big bang, singularity, whatever) for now, and reevaluate that when new information comes along. Saying you can’t be sure about anything is beside the point and applied to life is impractical anyways. ie. The last time I looked to the right, there was a car, but I can’t be sure it is really there, so I’ll walk across the road. We make descisions based on what we can induce and deduct from the environment, if we ignore controversial data and just say that we can’t know for sure is folly. I think people do well in trying to find/create explanations for things, but when those explanations are not open to intense impartial scrutiny, then they become a hinderence.
November 19th, 2005 at at 12:05 pm
1. You don’t seem to understand Big Bang theory very well. The singularity did not “sit around”. I would recommend you read more on the topic before passing judgment on it.
2. Your basic argument seems to be that no solution satisfies your feelings. The question arises : WHAT solution would satisfy you ? What would it take for you to be satisfied ? If you answer this question honestly, you’ll understand why you’re wrong.
November 19th, 2005 at at 12:10 pm
Evangelical Atheist, you’re acting like a Christian. This is very dissapointing. Have you examined your position at all ? Please make a new entry and tell us what it would take to convince you of the validity of Big Bang theory (which, I remind you, while still not complete, is backed up by all the empirical evidence we have). Do you deny that structures of matter as we know them come from an expansion of spacetime from a primitive state ? Yes or no ? Why ? What would convince you ?
November 19th, 2005 at at 12:22 pm
New entry linking to this one :
http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-evangelical-atheist-turning-pomo.html
November 19th, 2005 at at 12:39 pm
I think Belathor touched on this this but it bears repeating. I’ve always found the easiest and most fun to have with a X-ian and this arguement is that:
God has to be a “victim” of time. he has to be effected by it. because nothing could exist BEFORE time, because BEFORE is a measure of time.
So if god existed, he would have to be effected by time, and more importantly, could not have ‘created’ time. It just doesn’t work.
Amen.
November 19th, 2005 at at 1:05 pm
Curious replies. I have re-read my post a few times and can’t see how it got interpreted the way it was by Belathor and Francois.
My science isn’t strong enough to validate the big bang but given the evidence I do have it seems most likely to be true. The “I don’t know” position refers to what is beyond current science. I have already stipulated that there is likely a gap between my scientific understanding and “current science”.
As to five minutes before the big bang, maybe this is meaningless as in time did not exist before the big bang. Its just that I can’t imagine a point in time for which there is not another point in time that precedes it by five minutes. Likewise I can’t imagine a point in space such as the end of the universe for which there is not another point in space that is one meter further.
That is not to say that time and space don’t have hard limits. Its just that I can’t imagine it. But that may just a failure of imagination on my part.
November 19th, 2005 at at 3:00 pm
I’m weighing in on Boelf’s “I don’t know” comment as well as stating that I believe the Big Bang Theory is probably the most plausible explanation of the beginning of the universe (until someone can explain super-string theory to me in a way that keeps my eyes from glazing over).
I even wonder if it is possible to strengthen Boelf’s position to “I can’t know.” Let me explain.
Have you ever seen one of those plastic expanding ball toys? You pull on them and they go from being a rather compact small ball to a relatively large one. The expanding ball (or inflating balloon) is a popular conception of the shape of the universe (though it is definitely not the only one).
Well, it seems to me that all of our physical laws (i.e. physics) are formed from the information we know from inside that ball. We have no idea about what (if anything) lies outside of that ball so we really can have no idea what caused the cause of our expanding universe. We simply can’t know what is going on outside of this ball because we can’t escape it. What if there was a universe of a different kind (let’s call it “yniverse”) that encompasses ours and two atom-type thingies rammed into each other and created the singularity that began our universe and space-time as we know it. This yniverse could have completely different laws of physics than our own. But we have no access to that universe. Ours size and time are both relative and we wouldn’t know if we were not just the result of a radioactive sneeze from some other being in a relatively larger universe with different time and if our universe will cease to exist when he wipes his nose (which has taken 150 billion years our time, but milli-seconds, his).
But this is where Christians love to shove God in, right in the unknown. Science can tell that the universe has a beginning, it can trace that beginning back to a singularity (or the vibration of a string in a ten-dimensional universe), but says that it is not currently possible to go further. Christians want to take this unknown area, though, and say that it is thing called “god” that they then describe attributes to.
I think, though, that thinking Christians (or theists) have to admit that they do not know if the laws of physics apply outside of the known universe (if there is such a thing). So, it must be admitted that statements like “actual infinite sets cannot exist in reality” and “everything that has beginning needs a cause” belong to the known universe, but not necessarily to anything that may or may not be outside of it, right Steve? If our known universe is no more than an event in an unknown yniverse in which the laws of physics do not demand that “everything that has beginning needs a cause,” then talk of a god is completely unnecessary.
The cosmological argument is a waste of time. It extrapolates the physics of the known universe and tries to apply them to something outside of it (i.e. its beginning). I think that the burden of proof is on the proponents of this argument. They must defend their application of physics in the known universe to its beginning.
November 19th, 2005 at at 3:42 pm
This argument is a waste of time, once you figure that out. Until that point, it is all sorts of fun!
November 19th, 2005 at at 4:02 pm
[…] ref=”http://evangelicalatheist.com”>
« Apologetics: The Cosmological Argument The Egotistical Atheist […]
November 19th, 2005 at at 4:26 pm
Wes,
I suppose if the laws of physics are thrown out the window—so are the laws of logic. Thus, if you eliminate the use of logic; your in effect refusing that it is even valid to ask questions about the subject. You can be like Bertrand Russell and say, “The universe is just there, and that’s all I have to say,” Yet—the idea of a naturalistic First Cause seems to violate logical principles—but then again we can’t use logic…
November 19th, 2005 at at 5:38 pm
Steve,
Who said anything about throwing the laws of physics out of the window? Isn’t it true that the laws of physics are derived from the physical universe and that if there is no universe, there is no physics, and before the universe there was no physics, so to apply a law of physics before there is a universe makes no sense?
Your discussion of logic is a red-herring, but I would love to discuss it at another time.
November 19th, 2005 at at 6:35 pm
So apparently logic is not relevant to the cosmological argument?
November 19th, 2005 at at 7:24 pm
Steve,
Are you being facetious or are you serious?
Do you really not understand what I am saying? When you say, “everything that has beginning needs a cause,” that is a statement derived from laws of the physical universe. We know that everything in the universe that has a beginning needs a cause. But the cosmological argument is making a claim about the universe itself, not something inside the universe.
You are avoiding my questions by trying to shift the conversation to laws of logic. You’re argument relies on a law of physics that states, “everything that has beginning needs a cause.” So, one more time, isn’t it true that the laws of physics are derived from the physical universe and that if there is no universe, there is no laws of physics, and before the universe there was, by definition, no universe and, therefore, no physics, so to apply a law of physics before there is a universe makes no sense?
As I said, I will gladly engage in a discussion about logic, but I would appreciate an answer to my question before we change topics.
November 19th, 2005 at at 8:53 pm
Fair enough Wes, I don’t really want to claim that the laws of physics are eternal or ‘always there’. In fact, the known laws of physics break down in our models when we get very near to the Big Bang. It is meaningless to say that the laws of physics held before the Universe came into existence. I will agree with that (rather than argue for the sake of argument). Yet, observation is the primary method of gaining knowledge. Though you have good points about physics’ non-existence w/out universe,—I still think it to be logical to deduce God as the causality of the universe.
Secondly, I will concede that to extend the notion of cause from the observed or observable to the unobservable becomes tricky; yet we must rely on our senses to some extent. Moreover, I don’t know of a better proposition.
November 19th, 2005 at at 11:29 pm
Steve,
Okay, then, let’s run with the observed/observable to the unobserved and our senses. So, you think a being called “god” is responsible for the creation of the universe. Well, what is this god exactly? Every thought that we know of comes from a brain, correct? Every brain has physical properties (neurons, etc.). But somehow this being, god, thinks without a physical brain, right? But this is completely unobserved. Why, then, should I believe it to be true?
And what other attributes should we give this god? Many theists believe their god to be all-wise, all-powerful, and good. But is it this kind of god the most probable creator of the universe that currently exists?
Let’s focuse on the word “good” for starters. Let’s say that I tell you that I know a really good guy. This guy’s name happens to be Osama bin Laden from Saudi Arabia (currently in hiding) and he thinks it’s okay to kill innocent Americans for the actions of their government. Does my description “good” really apply to this man?
Now, let’s think of an all-wise, all-powerful, and “good” god. Would it have been possible for this god to have created a world in which five-year-old Samantha Runion could not have been brutally raped and murdered, but in which someone like Alejandro Avila still had free will? It certainly seems possible for a god of this description. A creator-god could have chosen reproduction and growth to work differently, couldn’t he have? He could have made people so that they were born with exactly equal strength or with rock-like, inpenetrable skin, right?
Doesn’t it seem that anyone with omniscience and omnipotence could create a world in which his will could be perfectly accomplished without pain and suffering? And if a god could do so, doesn’t it seem that that god should do so (especially if that god expects to be thought of as being “good”)?
So, there are two questions: (1) Could an all-powerful, all-wise god create a world that perfectly accomplishes his will without pain and suffering? (if not, why not?) and (2) If an all-powerful, all-wise god could have created a world that perfectly accomplishes his will without pain and suffering but did not do so, can this god be called “good” meaningfully?
Lastly, you stated, “I don’t know of a better proposition [than positing God as a creator of the universe].” For the reasons stated above (i.e. that it seems improbable that there exists a being who thinks without a brain [because this has not been observed] and that the state of the universe does not indicate that it is directed by a being that can be considered all-wise, all-powerful, and good), it seems to me that the idea of “god” is an especially poor answer for the existence of the universe.
But what is a better one? Personally, I’m more comfortable with shrugging my shoulders and mumbling, “I don’t know.” I’m fairly certain that there was a singularity involved somewhere, but there could also be superstrings in a ten-dimensional universe there instead (or in addition to). But I think that I’m just willing to leave the beginnings questions open while rejecting the idea that there exists a brainless, but all-wise, all-powerful, and good god directing what, quite frankly, is a pretty f-d up place. How’s that?
November 20th, 2005 at at 12:54 pm
Wes, you brought up some good questions. But I think your going off tract. First, I don’t think that everything about a person is physical—including the mind. So, I don’t think all thought spouts from the brain. There is obviously a correspondence relationship between the mind and brain, but the mind is not the brain. I am not just shooting this off the cuff, I have thought about it a lot—but I think that’s another argument. Nevertheless, why would you constrain a Supreme Being (assuming that there is one for the sake of the discussion), to our own physical capacities? Secondly there are unobservable things that are true whether they have physical properties or not.
You asked what other attributes do we want to give this God? Well, I don’t think it’s relevant to establish this for the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument does not attempt to distinguish any personal properties of God. However, it is a good question for some claiming that not only is there a God, he is “all-wise, all-powerful, and good.” But let me humor you anyway.
Your observation of good is disturbing. There is universal truth and moral absolutes that guide our moral senses. If you are going to assert moral relativism—you’re going down a slipper slope. Moreover, if there is no such thing as a “God” there is no such thing as good. In other words, without a universal standard of morality, there is ultimately no difference between helping an old lady across the road and running her over—but were veering way off the cosmological argument
.
For your problem of evil, I would highly recommend that you read this article by Greg Koukl on this subject. Also this one and this one . Basically, your not arguing against the cosmological argument, you’re only bringing objections about an all Good God (understandably) but not necessarily relevant to the existence of a God; for all we know—he’s not all powerful—and that’s another discussion. Thus, you really have not made a case against the existence of God.
November 20th, 2005 at at 5:06 pm
Steve,
1. I’m not trying to make a case against the existence of God.
2. You write, “I don’t think that everything about a person is physical—including the mind.” Explain. Did you know that after a head injury, some people retain everything but the ability to remember the names of fruits and vegetables? Are you saying that there is some other collector (presumably, a soul) that still has this information? Why can’t it get out? Does this other collector learn everything perfectly but is hindered by the brain? What evidence (i.e. what “observable” evidence) do you have of this?
3. I asked about the attributes of a creator-god and you responded, “I don’t think it’s relevant to establish this for the cosmological argument. ” I thought we had already agreed that the first premise of the cosmological argument cannot be maintained because it is a physical law and, while it is applicable to things within the physical universe, may not be applicable to the universe per se. You wrote, “It is meaningless to say that the laws of physics held before the Universe came into existence.” As far as I can tell, then, the cosmological argument is a wash. It cannot decide one way or the other. My discussion of the attributes of a god is more of a design argument, or better, a question of theodicy.
4. The moral relativism that I am advocating is not moral skepticism. Morality can be maintained by moral frameworks and enforced by power. Interestingly, enough, it is the theists who have to admit that “there is ultimately no difference between helping an old lady across the road and running her over,” because if all morality is god-imposed by divine fiat and has nothing to do with the actions per se, then god could have just as easily made running over an old lady the greatest virtue as making it a sin. For the theist, god is the ultimate moral relativist. But, I agree, this does get us off task.
5. The articles you listed don’t come close to answering my questions about pain and suffering (I didn’t mention evil at all in my post). You are welcome to read some articles about evil if you want. They are here, here, and here. None of these are the argument that I make about pain, but they are interesting none-the-less (at least compared to Koukl’s, in my opinion).
November 21st, 2005 at at 1:55 am
I highly recommend the book Immortality, The Other Side of Death , published by Thomas Nelson. The authors are J.P. Moreland and Gary Habermas. They argue for “Substance Dualism”, which accounts for the cause effect observations we see from brain stimulation and so forth. There also qualia, free will, and the constant change of our physical states at the atomic level. For example we a just a lump of meat—we constantly change (take a look at your baby pics). If we are constantly changing at the atomic level and are just material you are not that same being in that picture. It’s more complicated than how I simplified it-and there a lot to built up to—I m not doing the argument much justice here.
Also, modern science deals only with the physical universe of cause and effect, governed by natural laws in a metaphysically closed system. By very definition, science cannot address itself directly to the question of whether non-physical things like souls exist or not. Such a question is outside its capabilities, as science is now currently defined. Some other method is necessary. It’s like trying to weigh a chicken with a yardstick!
Regarding moral relativism and that “Morality can be maintained by moral frameworks and enforced by power.” I think you should reconsider—there are some daunting consequences to that view. Here is a short article that will help explain some of the problems among other theories of morality. Also, claiming that God arbitrarily decides what is right and wrong is one of the horns of Euthyro posed by Plato (Euthyro’s Dilemma). This has been solved long…long…ago. I am surprised it has lasted.
As far as pain and suffering,,,,,I thought “evil” was general enough to encompass these thing as “bad”; Perhaps too general. I think though, an appeal to pain and suffering (or more broadly evil) cannot be appealed to without some absolute moral standard. Thus, the very fact that you appeal to it, seems to presuppose the absolute standard. Otherwise, you’re dealing with just “frameworks.” Moreover, the frameworks may vary and so will the standard of morality—and thus, there really is no “pain and suffering” (ultimately) therefore—it’s in insufficient objection.
Thanks for the articles. Hopefully I will be able to read them later this week—I just have some other obligations right now. Wow!!! We went way off topic—I do, however, prefer the Socratic dialoged rather than blogging to nobody but space time …
November 21st, 2005 at at 2:38 am
Until I can push up on an infinitely replenishable supply of Ritalin, Adderall, or Strattera, arguments like this, as much as I would absolutely adore to pursue them, will achieve nothing but turning my head into a model of the Big Bang.
That said, I will say I hate infinite regress. Actually, I hate infinity. And nothingness. Not because I can’t comprhend them, but because I slowly lose my mind attempting to do so.
Occham’s razor is pretty fulfillingly employed in this situation…
We have a state of nothingness, and then a state of everything. We don’t, and probably never will, know what was “there” before what we now have. Humans want a cause, so we hypothesize one. As far as a creator god hypothesis goes - wouldn’t such an entity logically have to be more complex than what it creates? An omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent entity is pretty dammit complicated. This alone leads me to search for something that’s just simply more simple.
November 21st, 2005 at at 11:01 am
Steve,
Since we are very far away from the cosmological argument (and because my work-week has just begun and I have no more time to pursue this conversation), perhaps it is best if we save the discussion of mind/body and the problem of pain for future posts.
In the meantime, you can find an interesting critique of Moreland and Habermas’ Immortality here.
If you would like to know the kind of moral relativism I am talking about (which is not at all similar to the one you describe above), you can read Gilbert Harman and Judith Thomson’s Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity. Here is a dated article that is online, though, that can give you a general idea of what I mean (though this article was before Harman worked out some of the kinks). Also, here is something that I wrote on a related topic about morality.
It was a good conversation, thanks.
November 21st, 2005 at at 12:02 pm
Thanks Wes
November 21st, 2005 at at 4:34 pm
Steve,
Why can’t there be an infinity of universes without a creater? There are several theories out there of different possible scenarios. If there is a God, how did he create the universe? Does he have a brain? Does he have hands?
November 21st, 2005 at at 4:46 pm
Steve,
How can a spirit entity exist? In order to think, we need neurons. In order to see, we need a physical body to catch light rays. We need physical mechanisms for all our other senses as well. How can the mind remain intact after the brain dies? How can it continue to operate? Therefore, there can be no soul.
November 21st, 2005 at at 10:34 pm
“Therefore, there can be no soul” Oh snap! Since when can someone just throw out questions and conclude with a “therefore”? As if no one has ever thought of those brilliant questions you have posed. I really have no desire to debate this issue here in the “cosmological thread.” You can read my previous statements with Wes (whom seemed to be a bit more reasonable than you). Nevertheless, I think it would be helpful if you maybe toured this page on dualism.
November 22nd, 2005 at at 10:24 am
Unreasonable? Steve, do you always label those who disagree with you as unreasonable? I believe my position is based on common sense, not on unreason. Unreason is when people out of a need to believe they somehow survive death, twist themselves up like pretzels to come up with illogical arguments that sound intelligent because of appearing abstract.
November 22nd, 2005 at at 11:18 am
Steve,
The mind is a product of the brain, just as light is a product of a light bulb. When the brain ceases to work, the mind is no longer generated. When a light bulb ceases to work, light is no longer generated.
November 23rd, 2005 at at 2:00 pm
The differences between your “mind” and brain”.
In physical life, your conscious mind is largely dependent upon the workings of your physical brain. The brain to some extent keeps the mind to a three dimensional focus. It orients you toward the environment in which you must operate, and it is because of the mind’s allegiance with the temporal brain that you perceive, for example, time as a series of moments.
The brain channels the information that the mind receives to your physical structure (the body) and because of this, physically speaking and in life as you think of it, the mind is to a large extent dependent on the brain’s growth and activity.
The brain is a camouflage pattern. It takes up space. It exists in time. The mind takes up no space, it does not have its basic existence in time. The reality of the inner universe does not take up space, nor does it have its basic existence in time.
Your camouflage universe, on the other hand, takes up space and has an
existence in time, but it is not the real and basic universe, any more than the brain is the mind.
November 24th, 2005 at at 1:49 am
“The mind takes up no space, it does not have its basic existence in time.”
You are taking yourself out of the time perspective. The mind itself may not be matter, nor may it necessarilly be the pattern of neuron firings in the brain, but whatever it is, it exists in time. This sounds to me like an extraordinary claim. What is a “basic existence”? I’m typing this text using my mind. I’m creating a string of sentences, and I assure you these thoughts are occuring within the confines of space-time. You seem to be implying that our minds exist outside the universe even though it is impossible to come up with evidence to assert this in the first place.
As far as you first claim in the quote above, how do you know the mind takes up no space? How do you define the mind anyway?
December 2nd, 2005 at at 9:09 pm
[…] e hosted at the Evangelical Atheist’s blog I went over and had a look. I came across this post in which he makes a serious attempt to deal with the cosmological a […]
January 6th, 2006 at at 4:14 pm
[…] Back in November, I started an irregular series on theist apologetics. Soon thereafter, I became distracted by the holidays (damn you O’Reilly), and I let this idea slip away. Now, on the unofficial end of the holiday season, it’s time to bring it back. […]
January 20th, 2007 at at 4:23 pm
State Farm Car In