Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NON-theist · 03-28-2002, 10:51 PM

Here's a serious "positive atheist" question I have for everyone.

I was reading a debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Professor Quentin Smith at this site: <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith0.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith0.html</a>. In it Smith argues that the idea that God created the universe is a logical impossibility. He thinks that using the most common definitions of causality, it doesn't make sense to consider a cause "before" the Big Bang, since the Big Bang "created" time to begin with.

However, he also considers that other hypothetical causalities could be used to explain God's having caused the Big Bang. One of these assumes that the cause and the effect could occur without respect to time (basically, the cause and effect could occur at the same time). Now Smith thinks this is also impossible because it would violate God's omnipotence. This argument runs as follows:

Quote:

According to David Lewis, c causes e if and only if (1) c and e are events and both occur, and (2) it is the case that ... if c had not occurred, e would not have occurred (in other words, if the cause did not occur, the effect would not have occurred)
[...]
There does appear to be at least one crucial instance where Lewis' counterfactual definition is not instantiated by divine willing of the Big Bang. Let c be the divine willing of the Big Bang, and let e be the Big Bang. It follows that if the effect e had not occurred, then its cause c would not have occurred. But this suggests that e is the cause of c. In other words, e here is the Big Bang and c is divine willing, so this suggests that the Big Bang caused God's willing, which, of course, is absurd. And the reason why it suggests that is that c is counterfactually dependent on e, for the very reason that I said: if the effect e had not occurred, and then its cause c would not have occurred. In this case we have, to use Lewis' words about a problem he generally notes, a "reverse causal dependence of c on e, contradicting our supposition that e did not cause c" (1). Now Lewis solves this problem, which is an effective solution for normal causes and effects, by denying the counterfactual statement that "if e had not occurred, c would not have occurred." Lewis holds that it is instead true that "c would have occurred just as it did, but would have failed to cause e."{10} In other words, Lewis is saying it�s possible the cause could occur, or the event which was the cause could occur, but the effect would never have happened. However, that entails that Lewis' definition cannot be instantiated by God's willing the Big Bang, since if c had occurred, that is, if God had willed the Big Bang, then it necessarily causes e, the Big Bang, since God is omnipotent (all�powerful) and his willing is necessarily effective. It�s logically impossible for an omnipotent being to will that the Big Bang occur and yet for the Big Bang not to occur. Consequently, Lewis' definition appears to be inapplicable to the divine creation of the universe.

Assuming that Smith is right here and it is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to fail at creating the Universe, which seems to be necessitated by this model. My question is, is it logically possible for a moderately powerful god to create the universe? Granted, this limits the god, and certainly doesn't prove the existence of such a god, but it still seems to pass the test. If anyone could help me out here, I'd appreciate it.

(As an aside, another issue someone might raise is that logical impossibility does not indicate total impossibility -- thus God might be possible if He operated on illogical rules. This seems really strange, but I could see a theist effectively arguing it).

Problems like this always seem to keep me in the negative atheism category, but maybe there's hope for me yet (hahahaha, sound like a "believer" already don't I?)

Toto · 03-28-2002, 11:03 PM

Michael Shermer, of the <a href="http://www.skeptic.com" target="_blank">Skeptics Society</a> wrote a recent column for Scientific American in which he pointed out that a god who was less than omnipotent would be in effect an extra-terrestrial space alien with super-human powers.

It sounds logically possible, but that's as far as I'd go.

jpbrooks · 03-29-2002, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NON-theist:
[QB]

Assuming that Smith is right here and it is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to fail at creating the Universe, which seems to be necessitated by this model. My question is, is it logically possible for a moderately powerful god to create the universe? Granted, this limits the god, and certainly doesn't prove the existence of such a god, but it still seems to pass the test. If anyone could help me out here, I'd appreciate it.

I really don't have time to get into a long discussion in this thread, but how would it be possible to differentiate between a "moderately" powerful God and an omnipotent one before anything else besides God comes into existence?

Quote:

(As an aside, another issue someone might raise is that logical impossibility does not indicate total impossibility -- thus God might be possible if He operated on illogical rules. This seems really strange, but I could see a theist effectively arguing it).

Possible in what sense, if not logical? If God "operated" solely on "illogical rules", not only could He not exist in the real world (where existence is delimited by logical possibility), He couldn't even be intelligibly discussed.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

WJ · 03-29-2002, 05:56 AM

As we all know the problem involves infinite regress as to what created what (ie, what created the energy to make the big bang occur). Darwinism has gaps in making intelligence appear from inert matter. To that end, consider:

For any cosmological model in which the Universe is considered to be "actual", the problem of the origin of sentiency and intelligence is insoluble. But if the Universe is apparitional, sentiency is in it from the word "go". Even the atoms are "sentient". We have senses for the perception of gravity, kinetic energy, radiation, electricity and magnetism, because the individual protoplasmic cells can respond to these same five kinds of energy. And the cells can respond to them because the atoms respond to them. The atoms themselves respond to gravity, kinetic energy, radiation, electricity and magnetism. The plumb bob "knows" where the Earth is, and the electron "knows" where the proton is. Sentiency is in this from the word "go", because the underlying existence is "involved" in what we see and must show through.

It is hopeless to expect that something like sentiency or intelligence, or anything, for that matter, could arise by "evolution" (as a rose evolves from a bud), unless it was first put in by "involution". The reason the oak tree can "evolve" from the acorn is because it was first put in the acorn through "involution" by the parent trees. But in the case of the tree and the acorn, the involution is by transformational causation, parinama. Whereas, in the case of the underlying existence and the Universe, the involution is by apparitional causation, or vivarta . What underlies the Universe is involved by apparition in us and what we see. And since what underlies all this is infinite, there is no knowing what may evolve. (1)

The expectation that sentiency and intelligence might arise from "inert matter" is contrary to all the experience of our race. But matter is not inert. It is "ert", (it moves by itself) because what underlies the apparition shows through. And the notion that what is more might evolve from what is less is beyond the domain of reason.

--------

Really when you think about, as many, many physicist would agree, until we can solve the 'origins' problem, only then would man's *reason* be made 'objectively' whole (almost completely understandable), as to whether there is purpose in life (whether or not we were meant to be here). But until then, we will always have arguments between say, athiest's and theist's.

The more things change, the more they stay the same! It is my view that the origins can't, and won't, ever become known on this earth-scientifically.

Perhaps there remains hope and faith on both sides of the postulation

Walrus

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

Dr. Jagan Mohan · 04-16-2002, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Michael Shermer, of the <a href="http://www.skeptic.com" target="_blank">Skeptics Society</a> wrote a recent column for Scientific American in which he pointed out that a god who was less than omnipotent would be in effect an extra-terrestrial space alien with super-human powers.

It sounds logically possible, but that's as far as I'd go.

Yeah.. In Hinduism we call that god BRAHMA, the Creator. He is an extra-terrestial space alien residing on a realm called Brahmaloka and has super-human powers. His life time is equivalent to many millions of years of human reckoning. But nevertheless Dies too and another super-human alien of that realm takes his seat.

Strict monotheism is what upsets logic.

What I want to know is the following:

1. Asuming God the Father (Abrahamic Religious Godhead) decided to cause the big bang, does this causation go on throughout the big bang and the expansion untill today?

2. Or did this causation stop with the causing of the big bang.. so that the big bang and the laws of science started to take over that the universe evolved on its own?

According to No1, the cause is continous starting with the big bang and continuing on even today.. this means that the cause and effect are effectively one and the same.

No 2 means the cause had done its job bringing about the big bang and this this original cause is no more and that the effect is still continuing

But both the varients are directly conflicting with the Abrahamic notion of God's will in which God wills and it is 'done'.. means completed.. not being completed or in progress of completion.. but fully completed.

is there a third way?

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]

Bill · 04-17-2002, 06:50 PM

Dr. Jagan Mohan:

It isn't the question of whether you have monotheism or polytheism that creates these inconsistancies. Instead, it is the attributes that you postulate for the godhead(s) that creates inconsistancies. And, silliest of all, the various sects of Christianity can't even agree as to what those attributes are.

On the one had, we have the Presuppositionalists (also called "Calvinists") who assert that God is actively involved in personally guiding the path of every iota of matter and energy throughout all of time. These folks believe in the concept of predestination, as God's purpose is to guide everybody to their preappointed Destiny at the end of time.

On the other hand, we have so-called "mainstream" Christianity, who believes that "free will" is required in order for their faith to make sense. And "free will" means that God merely starts things in motion for each human (by injecting a soul at the time of conception, or some such), and from that point on, the human operates according to its own "free will," earning its own ultimate Destiny in accordance with God's will.

And when we work through all of the above, we get to the "liberals," some of whom go so far as to believe that EVERYBODY (or, at least all humans) will get "saved" and go to Heaven at the end of time. These people are generally willing to let science find its own answers in the scientific realm without regard to the implications in the religious realm.

=====

So, the categories of belief just within the ranks of Christian monotheists span virtually the entire gamut of possible beliefs about causation. Once you get into polytheistic beliefs, anything not covered by the above can clearly become part of the system of religion.

=====

Finally, I think that you are mistaken in your assertion about "God's will." God may have willed the process to take place in accordance with His ongoing commands, for instance. Thus, in the one sense, God's will is "done" with the "Big Bang," but it is also ongoing with the input from God at various discrete points (such as when a human soul is inserted into a human egg cell as it becomes fertilized by the sperm). I don't think you can force a logical fork here. Your assertions would seem to commit the fallacy of "bifurcation," in that there are many more possibilities; and/or the line you draw is really quite arbitrary.

== Bill

mac_philo · 04-17-2002, 06:57 PM

Caveat: I did not read the whole original post.

A less than omnipotent god is logically possible. I see that the cited argument refers to the big bang; even if this is a knock-down argument for this world, there is nothing inconsistent in another possible world that has a less-than-omnipotent god and was not generated by a big bang.

Logical possibility is a rather weak notion.

Dr. Jagan Mohan · 04-24-2002, 01:14 PM

Since I have asked a question: Is there a third way, I already agree that there can be more possibilities. Therefore the fallacy of bifurcation does not apply I think.

Quote:

but it is also ongoing with the input from God at various discrete points (such as when a human soul is inserted into a human egg cell as it becomes fertilized by the sperm)

While reading 'Brahmasutras', The Philosophical Cornerstone of Hindu Philosophy, certain questions are asked about the nature of the 'soul'. Whether it is has physical qualities such as shape, size or mass and if it is subject to attributes such as time, space and causation, etc..

An interesting question that is debated therein is the time when a fetus acquires 'Life' or A Soul.
Does God 'create' soul on the fly just when an Human ovum is fertilised by a spermatazoid or Did God pre-create souls and they are 'injected' into a fertilising ovum? The Bible talks of the creation of the Universe but in case of giving life to Adam, God breaths into the substantum Adam is made from and He is brought into life.
Modifying my question: Does the Abrahamic notion of God breath Life into every Human (animals get their life from where?) as he is being formed out of the fertilising Ovum or if He had automated this process into Nature starting with the Big Bang..

I am trying to make my query understood, but I perceive the difficulty..

Now, as you had said, this difficulty is explained by Calvanists by pointing that God is actively involved in every process of the creation of every single Human being.
But then.. Does the concept of 'Free Will' apply to our procreation process also or does it not?

For example, I can today chose to have a good probabality of having a Female Child or a Male Child.. It is already possible to a certain degree to 'pre-order' your child in respect to many physical qualities such as hair colour etc etc.. Now can that qualify as 'Free will' on our part to procreate our offsprings as we wish?

These are off-topic, but can anybody tell me if:
The Souls that God breathes into a fetus: Are they specifically designed by God with certain inborn qualities for that particular body of the fetus, both personality wise and external appearance wise? or they are arbitarily chosen by chance of one spermatozoid succeeding in fertilising the ovum? Do the Genes alone govern these as science claims or does God have a hand in it too?

03-29-2002, 05:56 AM	#4
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	As we all know the problem involves infinite regress as to what created what (ie, what created the energy to make the big bang occur). Darwinism has gaps in making intelligence appear from inert matter. To that end, consider: For any cosmological model in which the Universe is considered to be "actual", the problem of the origin of sentiency and intelligence is insoluble. But if the Universe is apparitional, sentiency is in it from the word "go". Even the atoms are "sentient". We have senses for the perception of gravity, kinetic energy, radiation, electricity and magnetism, because the individual protoplasmic cells can respond to these same five kinds of energy. And the cells can respond to them because the atoms respond to them. The atoms themselves respond to gravity, kinetic energy, radiation, electricity and magnetism. The plumb bob "knows" where the Earth is, and the electron "knows" where the proton is. Sentiency is in this from the word "go", because the underlying existence is "involved" in what we see and must show through. It is hopeless to expect that something like sentiency or intelligence, or anything, for that matter, could arise by "evolution" (as a rose evolves from a bud), unless it was first put in by "involution". The reason the oak tree can "evolve" from the acorn is because it was first put in the acorn through "involution" by the parent trees. But in the case of the tree and the acorn, the involution is by transformational causation, parinama. Whereas, in the case of the underlying existence and the Universe, the involution is by apparitional causation, or vivarta . What underlies the Universe is involved by apparition in us and what we see. And since what underlies all this is infinite, there is no knowing what may evolve. (1) The expectation that sentiency and intelligence might arise from "inert matter" is contrary to all the experience of our race. But matter is not inert. It is "ert", (it moves by itself) because what underlies the apparition shows through. And the notion that what is more might evolve from what is less is beyond the domain of reason. -------- Really when you think about, as many, many physicist would agree, until we can solve the 'origins' problem, only then would man's reason be made 'objectively' whole (almost completely understandable), as to whether there is purpose in life (whether or not we were meant to be here). But until then, we will always have arguments between say, athiest's and theist's. The more things change, the more they stay the same! It is my view that the origins can't, and won't, ever become known on this earth-scientifically. Perhaps there remains hope and faith on both sides of the postulation Walrus [ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2002, 11:03 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Michael Shermer, of the <a href="http://www.skeptic.com" target="_blank">Skeptics Society</a> wrote a recent column for Scientific American in which he pointed out that a god who was less than omnipotent would be in effect an extra-terrestrial space alien with super-human powers. It sounds logically possible, but that's as far as I'd go.

04-17-2002, 06:50 PM	#6
Bill Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gatorville, Florida Posts: 4,334	Dr. Jagan Mohan: It isn't the question of whether you have monotheism or polytheism that creates these inconsistancies. Instead, it is the attributes that you postulate for the godhead(s) that creates inconsistancies. And, silliest of all, the various sects of Christianity can't even agree as to what those attributes are. On the one had, we have the Presuppositionalists (also called "Calvinists") who assert that God is actively involved in personally guiding the path of every iota of matter and energy throughout all of time. These folks believe in the concept of predestination, as God's purpose is to guide everybody to their preappointed Destiny at the end of time. On the other hand, we have so-called "mainstream" Christianity, who believes that "free will" is required in order for their faith to make sense. And "free will" means that God merely starts things in motion for each human (by injecting a soul at the time of conception, or some such), and from that point on, the human operates according to its own "free will," earning its own ultimate Destiny in accordance with God's will. And when we work through all of the above, we get to the "liberals," some of whom go so far as to believe that *EVERYBODY* (or, at least all humans) will get "saved" and go to Heaven at the end of time. These people are generally willing to let science find its own answers in the scientific realm without regard to the implications in the religious realm. ===== So, the categories of belief just within the ranks of Christian monotheists span virtually the entire gamut of possible beliefs about causation. Once you get into polytheistic beliefs, anything not covered by the above can clearly become part of the system of religion. ===== Finally, I think that you are mistaken in your assertion about "God's will." God may have willed the process to take place in accordance with His ongoing commands, for instance. Thus, in the one sense, God's will is "done" with the "Big Bang," but it is also ongoing with the input from God at various discrete points (such as when a human soul is inserted into a human egg cell as it becomes fertilized by the sperm). I don't think you can force a logical fork here. Your assertions would seem to commit the fallacy of "bifurcation," in that there are many more possibilities; and/or the line you draw is really quite arbitrary. == Bill

04-17-2002, 06:57 PM	#7
mac_philo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Tax-Exempt Donor, SoP Loyalist Posts: 2,191	Caveat: I did not read the whole original post. A less than omnipotent god is logically possible. I see that the cited argument refers to the big bang; even if this is a knock-down argument for this world, there is nothing inconsistent in another possible world that has a less-than-omnipotent god and was not generated by a big bang. Logical possibility is a rather weak notion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.