Wyz_sub10

Yes, I think this is always at the heart of the issue. It's the critique of the "Argument from First Cause."

Everything needs a mover - god is the first mover.

This clarifies nothing, of course. It simply indicates that theists are content to stop searching for answers at "goddidit".

Shadowy Man

Here's the flaw:

Wyz_sub10

I think Lobstrosity is inferring that, if the complexity of the universe demonstrates the *need* for an intelligent designer, then the complexity of the designer demonstrates an additional *need* (for a higher designer, ad infinitum).

Shadowy Man

It's intelligent designers all the way up!

Jack the Bodiless

If "invisible" and "pink" are contradictory attributes, then maybe Refractor should take up that issue with Christian believers in the Trinity?

God can be one or three (or some other number), but not both at the same time.

Refractor

The flaw is revealed by these two facts:

1) We have been given no reason to believe that infinite causes extend to the supernatural.

2) God is not defined as an "event".

Our understanding of cause-and-effect is based on our observance of physical law as they apply to physical events. In nearly every case of a *physical* event, we always see that the cause is separate and distinct from the effect. This is a physical principle. An action is almost always separate and distinct from the reaction.

As theists, we simply extend this well-established principle to the origin of the universe itself. The cause of the universe was most likely SEPARATE and DISTINCT from the universe (the effect). The supernatural is separate and distinct from the natural. Since the universe is everything that is natural/physical, theists deduce that the cause of the universe was most likely *supernatural*. (separate and distinct)

However, once you get to the concept of the supernatural, we have no reason to think that the physical laws of cause and effect relating to physical EVENTS would apply to the supernatural realm, or a supernatural BEING. What your argument of infinite causation does, is it fallaciously applies causal laws of physical events to a supernatural BEING. If I defined God as physical, your causal argument would hold water. If I defined God as an event, your causal argument would hold water. But since I defined God as neither phyiscal, nor as an EVENT, your argument does not hold water.


Refractor

Jobar

And turtles all the way down! I got a great laugh from that, ShadowyMan.

Refractor, you say- Regarding unobserved origin events of 15 billion years go - all we have is bare assertions. We have no direct knowledge, no direct evidence, no direct observers, no direct data, or proof.

That's incorrect. We do have evidence- starting with the 3-degree Kelvin cosmic background radiation, and the tiny anisotropies it shows. We have the observed expansion of the universe. We have the distribution of matter in the observable universe, and the relative abundance of the elements. Admitted that the evidence is rather thin, and hard to interpret- but it *is* there.

And we have our mathematical models of how matter behaves- true, we do not yet have a unified field theory, but using the theories we do have we can model the behaviour of the universe back to about 10^-42 second after the origin event. Before that, we simply cannot say with any certainty. There are theories- which seem consistent with our observations- that postulate a multiverse from which spring uncounted universes like foam from a crashing wave, but we have no proof of that *yet*. We skeptics are satisfied, for the present, to leave this a simple "?" with no god to complicate matters.

I know the regulars are getting tired of it- but I'm going to put my favorite .gif here. It's relevant to so many of the discussions we have in EoG!

Muad'Dib

Hi Refractor,

Thanks for your reply. I know you're really busy responding to everyone on the thread, and I appreciate your effort.

I'm no denier of non-rational knowledge, and I make decisions on that basis all the time. But I'm also open to calling those decisions and presuppositions into question if the situation warrants. If you ask me, "Do you really think that chair will support your weight?" I'll take measures to verify it (if it's worth my time )--maybe by putting my weight on it slowly, or putting a larger weight on it first. Will the chair certainly hold my weight then? Of course not. But I will perceive it as more likely. (Even this belief may be erroneous--what if the extra weight I put on it actually weakened it in some way? )

Certainly. My training is in mathematics, though, and you are using "probability" in a decidedly non-rigorous way. The fact is that from the standpoint of physics, we simply cannot quantify the probability in question, so what we decide on as "more probable" depends on our individual non-rational personal intuition.

And I am a non-theist because I see no way to measure that probability with any degree of rigor--assuming that the universe did in fact begin, and does not oscillate between something like big bangs and big crunches. I have no idea what caused the universe, or if anything did; and it does not seem useful to me to give my ignorance a name. Why not just stop my description at "I don't know"?

One quick comment on your quote here:

Our model of the big bang stipulates that the laws of physics (including the version of causality that is treated in physics) did not begin to take effect until the Big Bang, so our empirical intuition really does not apply in this case.

Take care,
Muad'Dib

Shadowy Man

But, is this valid?

Your argument hinges on this, but it isn't clear that this is an appropriate thing to do.

fishbulb

You seem to be implying that direct evidence is the only kind of valid evidence. If I bake a pie and leave it out on the kitchen counter to cool, and if I then leave the kitchen via the only exit and go into the next room, and if I then observe you entering and subsequently leaving the kitchen, and if I then go into the kitchen and see a piece missing from the pie, I have very good evidence that you are the one responsible for stealing a piece of pie. I have no direct evidence -- I didn't actually see you take the pie -- but I have enough indirect evidence to prove, to a very high degree of certainty, that you took the slice of pie. You might argue that it was really the invisible unicorn (pink or not) who snuck in and took the pie, but you would have to at least provide some evidence that such a beast really does exist and that there is a reasonable possibility that it is the culprit. To paraphrase the English legal tradition, it is not enough to establish doubt -- you must establish reasonable doubt. The vast majority of people, theist or not, agree to this general principle when it comes to drawing valid conclusions based on evidence about everyday things. It is only when certain pet theological claims are examined that certain theists invoke special rules of evidence that, for some reason, seem to make their cherished beliefs immune to being disproven. Skeptics, on the other hand, argue that the same principles of evidence should be applied to every claim, whether they are sacred and cherished beliefs or not.

Cosmologists base their hypotheses about the origins of the universe based on a very large body of data which constitutes very strong indirect evidence. They have made predictions based on their theories, and these predictions have come to pass, lending credibility to the theories. Contrary to what you say, we indeed can make observations and we can test hypotheses regarding the origins of the universe. Based on the evidence we have accumulated, we can credibly make the claim that the big bang theory is very probably correct.

On the other hand, there is no credible evidence for intelligent design. You can find countless examples that are consistent with the hypothesis that the universe was deliberately designed by an conscious being. But all of these examples are also consistent with the hypothesis that the universe developed through purely natural processes, with no intelligent design or guidance whatsoever. In other words, everything the I.D. people hold up as evidence that the universe came to be as a result of intelligent design is actually evidence that the universe came to be as a result of intelligent design or unguided natural processes. In other words, it is evidence of nothing.