Is not invoking supernaturalism a reason to reject religion?

[harvey1]

HughDP stated here:

Specifically what, in fact, is outside the realms of science? If the combination of constants required to get our universe is rare, then one of the most logical assumptions is that it would take a number of attempts to hit on that combination. Either there is nothing extraordinary about the combination of constants in our universe, or the number of attempts at getting this combination is large, or - as you suggested - it's just incredibly lucky. I'd be surprised if it was the latter, but if it is and if it's within the realms of science, then so what? Still no need to invoke anything supernatural. I think we need more than extraordinary coincidence to invoke the supernatural. If one day scientists declare that our universe is totally impossible, then we'd have to consider the supernatural to make the impossible possible, but I think we're a long way off that point now, don't you? My point is that there's still a lot of science to do. Scientists do not have all the answers, but much work is being done to find them. They haven't all given up their jobs and become Elvis impersonators instead yet. I think we're considering the idea of a Creator way too early in our history.

So, my question is the following: Is postulating a Creator to account for the amazing facts of the world (e.g., the physical constants seeming to be extremely coincidental to the universe's becoming) necessarily invoking a supernatural explanation, and is a Creator explanation for these features premature given our current knowledge of science?

[harvey1]

...cause cannot apply if there is no 'before' in the temporal sense. I think you already accept this proposition or you would have to explain how God is caused. The idea that God is timeless gets around the idea that He is caused.

I disagree that causation is temporal-dependent. For example, according to Paul Davies, most physicists who work on fundamental issues with regard to the universe (e.g., cosmology, particle physics) believe that there are the laws of physics that caused the universe to come into existence (either from some pre-big bang state or from perhaps nothing at all). In fact, the Einsteinian GR equations require us to believe that space-time itself extends only to the singularity. This kind of causation doesn't rely on causation being temporal-dependent.

As for God, there's another option besides saying that God is uncaused. We could argue for negative theology meaning that God exists because there's no other possibility but for God to exist. Think of a fishing net submerged into water to catch fish. If we pull the net up, the water will naturally make its way through the fish in the net and back into the water. There's many possible openings for the water to leak out. However, instead of a net we put a large canvas in the water, and pull it out of the water, the water has no possibility of escaping. If there's a small hole in the canvas, of course the water will leak from that one spot. Similiarly, we can say that the canvas represents Reality (with a big "R"), and the water leaking out of that one point is God existing in all of God's power and might and goodness. God doesn't have a pre-existing cause since Reality just has a hole in it that allows for God to exist, nothing caused Reality to have that hole--it's just the way it is. But, God is nevertheless the only necessary fact that exists at the base of Reality in that God must exist given the fact that there's no other option for God but to exist.

(1) If we say the universe began at t=0 we are commiting a fallacy if we suppose that there was anything at all before t=0. The whole concept of 'before' is invalid.

t=0 refers to a temporal state, not necessarily a causal state. There are many causal facts that may causally pre-date t=0.

The philosophy of causal chains in relation to God is, in my opinion, a mess. It goes to extreme lengths to prove that everything has a cause and then at the last hurdle it totally contradicts its own position and places an uncaused God at the head of it. That - to me - is LooneyTunes!

As I said, God's existence is not uncaused in the indirect sense of there being an explanation as to why God exists. God is uncaused only in the direct sense--there's no previous causal chain prior to God. As another example, ask yourself what caused causation. If we ask what caused causation, then the answer is obvious. Nothing caused causation since you are using the concept of cause to explain causation. It's circular. You can't be talking a rational conception of what it means to cause causation since the lack of causation still requires causation. Similarly, the lack of God still requires the concept of God.

The physics around time at these extremes is still being investigated.

I think it's a mistake to believe that physics can give an answer on this issue since physics assumes certain laws to exist describing a pre-existing state space prior to being able to deduce any observable physical phenomena as having a physical explanation. Necessarily it is the case that physics is restricted in this manner.

I don't think we should either reject or accept it when science, by its own admission, is still sketchy in that area. Perhaps we should suspend judgement and wait, remaining open to what is uncovered in the coming years.

Since we'll be waiting a long time for science to be anything but what it sets out to be, our only way to understand these matters is to examine them philosophically. That could be precariously difficult since philosophy is not very good on matters where the theoretical options are plentiful (e.g., as we see in science and the number of possible theories that explain most physical phenomena). Fortunately, however, the beginning presents us with so few options that philosophy becomes an excellent tool by which to gauge reasonable views on this issue. And, it is my view that this most naturally leads us to a belief in God.

Well I think Hawking's quote sums it up a bit differently: "The universe would be completely self contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."

This is the timeless view of creation, and it is something that I happen to agree with. It does not remove God (afterall, Hawking himself is a strong pantheist), but it does rule out the notion that a Creator brought the whole timeline of spacetime into existence as an undifferentiated whole. It doesn't, however, rule out the notion that the Creator is responsible for spacetime in having a beginning in the sense that, to use Hawking's example, the North Pole is the furthest northern point (i.e., the actual beginning) on Earth.

Well one could see it as equally Looneytune to propose a supernatural first cause!

As you can see though, I'm not advocating that God exists because of a lack of a better explanation. I'm advocating that God exists for the same reason that causation exists--the lack of it would still involve the concept of which we are forbidden to speak of.

I'm sorry, I'm still not satisfied enough to rule out infinite regress. Call that a bull-headedness on my behalf if you wish, but I need to read more about the scientific ideas behind it (as opposed to the philosophical ones) before I rule it out completely.

Science is just the wrong field to ask about infinite causation. This is purely a philosophical matter.

And string theory and its successors is where a lot of hope is placed. It will be interesting to see how they progress.

String theory, though, and all of quantum gravity depends on existence of quantum laws which are just said to exist. That form of platonism in itself requires the existence of God. I just see no philosophical way around the matter. And, given the reluctance of so many people to face these philosophical issues without even a counterargument makes me believe that some of this at least is about resistance to the existence of God. I think that it is really true that the natural mind is at enmity with God, and resists God--even if it means averting reasoning on these issues. I suppose I shouldn't get too frustrated by it since I'm sure that God has willingly allowed creation to be subject to this kind of futility of its own choice. But, I just think its a darn shame that people resist God as if they were told they have to go to the dentist. It must be something very primitive in these individuals that causes their very members of their body to be in their own private war with God. I think it's a real shame given the loneliness they must inevitably feel when a loved one passes away, or when they are told that they only have a few months to live.

Whichever way one jumps at a philosophical level, one is taking a risk if it's postulating ideas in the scientific unknown. I still think it's better not to jump at all. Then again, I have no fundamental desire one way of the other to include a creator, guiding intelligence or other esoteria in my world view.

I think that before you wait for your mechanic to tell you what's wrong with your car, you better decide if asking the mechanic makes sense if your question is why your car is made by a Pontiac factory in Michigan instead of a Pantiac factory in California. The mechanic can't tell you the reason. That doesn't mean that you can't find out the explanation from somewhere else. In this case, the explanation must come from philosophy not science.

[HughDP]

Harvey, I simply cannot align myself with your logic. You seem to arbitrarily change definitions to fit God into the equation. We set about establishing what cause is, settle on an idea of causal chains and then you make an exception to allow God to exist outside of the causal chain, or branch of into a terminological minefield with questions about what caused causation.

Let's start with a fairly standard argument:

(1) Everything that begins has a cause,
(2) the universe began, so
(3) the universe has a cause.

What have we established? That our universe has a cause. Nothing more nothing less. We have no reference to 'divine cause' in (3) or the logic would fail.

If we use that logic (and, of course, we don't have to) then we are nowhere nearer God than we were before. We could simply state that we don't, at this point, know what the cause of the universe is which, in fact, is probably quite close to the accepted scientific truth at the moment.

There as absolutely no compelling reason to add:

(4) the cause of the universe [is|must be] God.

If we allow ourselves to enter a (4), we could equally use:

(4) if the universe has a cause, then there's no need for a God.

God is uncaused only in the direct sense--there's no previous causal chain prior to God. As another example, ask yourself what caused causation.

So it's possible to have things without a causal chain? But all your reasoning has suggested to me that you think a causal chain is a necessity. Either it is or it isn't, logically speaking. If you want philosophical logic to hold up, it must be consistent.

I just see no philosophical way around the matter. And, given the reluctance of so many people to face these philosophical issues without even a counterargument makes me believe that some of this at least is about resistance to the existence of God. I think that it is really true that the natural mind is at enmity with God, and resists God--even if it means averting reasoning on these issues. I suppose I shouldn't get too frustrated by it since I'm sure that God has willingly allowed creation to be subject to this kind of futility of its own choice. But, I just think its a darn shame that people resist God as if they were told they have to go to the dentist. It must be something very primitive in these individuals that causes their very members of their body to be in their own private war with God. I think it's a real shame given the loneliness they must inevitably feel when a loved one passes away, or when they are told that they only have a few months to live.

Is this really necessary Harvey? It sounds so much like an "I'm right and you're wrong" typical religious stance that I would not have associated with you.

Anyway, I've rushed this a bit as I'm going out shortly, so please forgive typos etc.

Always a pleasure conversing with you Harvey.

[QED]

I think if we re-read Harvey's reply and substitute the word (meta)universe in each instance of God that he writes then we'll find that it still satisfies the logic he uses.

We could then start looking for characteristic differences to distinguish the two in an effort to answer the question "does God exist". This is where science fails us and philosophy steps in. Science fails because it can't resolve the ambiguities presented by our confinement to a 13GY light-cone nor can it detect the supernatural element that some claim exists in the world.

At this point I think we fall back on our subjective instincts about the world and construct a wide array of interpretations that suit our own personal character. Thus we might expect to see some people seeking cosmic companionship to resolve the loneliness of life and death and others who would prefer to be by themselves. We cannot really pass judgment on who is right or wrong about this but we can look closely at the world and see if there is any other support for our chosen interpretation.

[kilczer15]

Anything that defies logic, that surpasses the natural, is supernatural. I believe that each and every definition of a God fits the bill of being supernatural.

[theleftone]

Anything that defies logic, that surpasses the natural, is supernatural.

Why does everything supernatural necessarily defy logic?

[McCulloch]

Anything that defies logic, that surpasses the natural, is supernatural.

Why does everything supernatural necessarily defy logic?

Here I have to disagree with kilczer15. Anything that surpasses the natural is, by definition supernatural. But anything that defies logic, such as a square circle or a rational square root of a prime number, is impossible.

[harvey1]

(1) Everything that begins has a cause,
(2) the universe began, so
(3) the universe has a cause.

What have we established? That our universe has a cause. Nothing more nothing less. We have no reference to 'divine cause' in (3) or the logic would fail.

If the (meta)universe has a cause, then how could it be anything other than a law or God?

We could simply state that we don't, at this point, know what the cause of the universe is which, in fact, is probably quite close to the accepted scientific truth at the moment.

My answer to that is that it's not exactly a matter of knowing, it's a matter of eliminating. Once we buy into (3), then haven't we eliminated an atheist approach and have at least moved on to pantheism or theism?

(4) the cause of the universe [is|must be] God.

Don't we, though, have good reason to add this clause since (3) requires that we eliminate the (meta)universe existing without cause--i.e., the atheist response to God?

If we allow ourselves to enter a (4), we could equally use:
(4) if the universe has a cause, then there's no need for a God.

If the (meta)universe has a cause, then wouldn't this be equivalent to saying that there is something non-physical (law or God) to cause the universe to exist? I don't see how your (4') follows if that's the case.

God is uncaused only in the direct sense--there's no previous causal chain prior to God. As another example, ask yourself what caused causation.

So it's possible to have things without a causal chain? But all your reasoning has suggested to me that you think a causal chain is a necessity. Either it is or it isn't, logically speaking. If you want philosophical logic to hold up, it must be consistent.

Notice, though, that if all possible causal chains fail to obtain but one, then the remaining causal chain is true in virtue of the others that failed. This is how God can exist as "caused" in an indirect sense while not having a causal chain that brings God's existence about from non-existence. Why is that not consistent?

Is this really necessary Harvey? It sounds so much like an "I'm right and you're wrong" typical religious stance that I would not have associated with you.

I'm perfectly willing to spend the time to go through the issues very thoroughly. So, I apologize for jumping to conclusions before giving you the chance to offer an argument that so far I have not heard.

[harvey1]

I think if we re-read Harvey's reply and substitute the word (meta)universe in each instance of God that he writes then we'll find that it still satisfies the logic he uses.

Okay, let's do just that:

As for [the metauniverse], there's another option besides saying that [the metauniverse] is uncaused. We could argue for negative theology meaning that [the metauniverse] exists because there's no other possibility but for [the metauniverse] to exist...

Sure, perhaps something phenomological must exist, but why must this be stuff? Why can't it be nothing at all? Are you saying that there is some platonic law (or God) exists that requires stuff? If so, then the metauniverse cannot replace God as you suggest.

At this point I think we fall back on our subjective instincts about the world and construct a wide array of interpretations that suit our own personal character. Thus we might expect to see some people seeking cosmic companionship to resolve the loneliness of life and death and others who would prefer to be by themselves. We cannot really pass judgment on who is right or wrong about this but we can look closely at the world and see if there is any other support for our chosen interpretation.

I would agree with that if it were really the case that the metauniverse could replace God in the sense I noted above, but I don't see how that can possibly be the case. Just to say that no other option will work but for there to be stuff (instead of nothing) is to insist on a metaphysical set of laws (or divine requirements)--which is in contradiction to saying that the metauniverse does not need other metaphysical structures to exist.

[HughDP]

(1) Everything that begins has a cause,
(2) the universe began, so
(3) the universe has a cause.

What have we established? That our universe has a cause. Nothing more nothing less. We have no reference to 'divine cause' in (3) or the logic would fail.

If the (meta)universe has a cause, then how could it be anything other than a law or God?

If the metauniverse has cause (which we're assuming here) then I have no idea what that cause is. Perhaps it is God; perhaps it's something else entirely - something we don't know about yet.

Perhaps the metauniverse will forever remain beyond explanation, but does this have to lead to the idea of a conscious God(-like) entity?

Perhaps there are dimensional issues that we cannot yet understand from the standpoint of the familiar 4D space in which we exist.

Perhaps the metauniverse has spatiotemporal properties that play strange games with the idea of cause and effect.

Perhaps we will one day understand these things or perhaps we won't.

We could simply state that we don't, at this point, know what the cause of the universe is which, in fact, is probably quite close to the accepted scientific truth at the moment.

My answer to that is that it's not exactly a matter of knowing, it's a matter of eliminating. Once we buy into (3), then haven't we eliminated an atheist approach and have at least moved on to pantheism or theism?

No, not if by pantheism or theism you are implying a "conscious God-like entity taking deliberate actions". That may be one conclusion we could form, but we could just say that our process of elimination has left us with unknown properties.

(4) the cause of the universe [is|must be] God.

Don't we, though, have good reason to add this clause since (3) requires that we eliminate the (meta)universe existing without cause--i.e., the atheist response to God?

If we allow ourselves to enter a (4), we could equally use:
(4) if the universe has a cause, then there's no need for a God.

If the (meta)universe has a cause, then wouldn't this be equivalent to saying that there is something non-physical (law or God) to cause the universe to exist? I don't see how your (4') follows if that's the case.

God is uncaused only in the direct sense--there's no previous causal chain prior to God. As another example, ask yourself what caused causation.

So it's possible to have things without a causal chain? But all your reasoning has suggested to me that you think a causal chain is a necessity. Either it is or it isn't, logically speaking. If you want philosophical logic to hold up, it must be consistent.

Notice, though, that if all possible causal chains fail to obtain but one, then the remaining causal chain is true in virtue of the others that failed. This is how God can exist as "caused" in an indirect sense while not having a causal chain that brings God's existence about from non-existence. Why is that not consistent?

.. then the remaining causal chain is true in virtue of the others that failed

Yes, but what is that remaining causal chain? Why must it be God?

We have made a big leap when we accept that it is indeed possible for at least one thing to exist without a causal chain. Why don't we just say that one thing is the metauniverse itself.

Is this really necessary Harvey? It sounds so much like an "I'm right and you're wrong" typical religious stance that I would not have associated with you.

I'm perfectly willing to spend the time to go through the issues very thoroughly. So, I apologize for jumping to conclusions before giving you the chance to offer an argument that so far I have not heard.

Okay harvey, we've probably heard a lot of arguments a lot of times.

In relation to what you did write in the previous post about 'Man's resistance to God': Given the amount of God-believing people on the planet, I would question that, but there's another issue here too.

I would think that very few people 'come to God' from the standpoint of investigating the scientific and philosophical issues surrounding causal chains in the (meta)universe.

Most people I know that have 'come to God' have not done so by a process of elimination but out of some positive inspirational insight (hard to define, but you probably know what I mean). Perhaps a single life-event or perhaps a combination of experiences and understandings have led them to God.

Even if we accepted your philosophies about causal chains, satisfaction relations and such, I feel it is unlikely to make people suddenly decide to worship God. It might make them consider the possibility, but if they're reading that sort of stuff anyway, they have probably already considered the possibility. But I don't think the fact that these things don't make them worship God* is necessarily a reflection of some 'in-built' resistance that Man has to God, it's more likely that it's simply not personal enough; not 'real' enough to touch them in the way people require in order to be convinced about such things.

My own point of view on it is that I can happily say "I don't know". I don't know if a metauniverse exists; I don't know if the (meta)universe was caused or whether it existed in some spatiotemporal multi-dimensional concept of eternity; I don't know if there's some pantheistic order to the universe.

If there is a God, what difference will it make to me? There's a huge leap from accepting a God to accepting the God of one of the religions, as defined in the relevant religion's scriptures. I could certainly accept a God far more easily than one of the anthropomorphic representations of a judgemental God we see in many religions.

If I don't believe in divine judgement (which I don't) I can allow myself the luxury of remaining undecided and keep my options open. Nothing has 'inspired' me to take to God yet, so I just won't force it. I'll wait and I'll continue to speculate, possibly for the rest of my life.

But that's fine. It's the way it is for me.


[* sorry about the double negative].[/size]

[harvey1]

If the metauniverse has cause (which we're assuming here) then I have no idea what that cause is. Perhaps it is God; perhaps it's something else entirely - something we don't know about yet.
Perhaps the metauniverse will forever remain beyond explanation, but does this have to lead to the idea of a conscious God(-like) entity? Perhaps there are dimensional issues that we cannot yet understand from the standpoint of the familiar 4D space in which we exist. Perhaps the metauniverse has spatiotemporal properties that play strange games with the idea of cause and effect. Perhaps we will one day understand these things or perhaps we won't.

Oh, I agree, we can conceive of many numerous irrational possibilities. For example, I can conceive that a false vacuum exists in space which gives birth to a Looneytune world which turns around and creates our world. Our universe emerges from a Bugs Bunny experiment. So, I'm not ruling out such conceptions as conceivable, I am just ruling out those conceptions on epistemic grounds because we cannot rationally justify those approaches. The metauniverse to be caused and rational requires an abstract world (i.e., a propositional entity) to bring about our world, otherwise it is not rational to say that it is caused by nothing at all (since this would be invoking magic).

No, not if by pantheism or theism you are implying a "conscious God-like entity taking deliberate actions". That may be one conclusion we could form, but we could just say that our process of elimination has left us with unknown properties.

It's not good enough to say that these are unknown properties because they very much appear to be known properties. For example, your (3) said the (meta)universe has a cause, which means it is the result of an abstract object (i.e., propositional structure). If it weren't an abstract structure, then it wouldn't have a cause since the (meta)universe would just be referring to a reduced (meta)universe state.

Notice, though, that if all possible causal chains fail to obtain but one, then the remaining causal chain is true in virtue of the others that failed.

Yes, but what is that remaining causal chain? Why must it be God?

Because it is a propositional entity (i.e., abstract object) that dictates the existence of stuff, and therefore this qualifies as a pantheistic God, at minimum. If it were a (meta)universe that exists as this remaining causal chain, then as I said in response to QED it wouldn't explain why the world could not just be nothing at all (or a material state lacking in any sufficient potential complexity to bring about inflated universes and such).

We have made a big leap when we accept that it is indeed possible for at least one thing to exist without a causal chain. Why don't we just say that one thing is the metauniverse itself.

I don't see how this is a feasible alternative. In the case of God, we are saying that God exists because there is no other alternative. If God were not even a possible state, then that state of affairs would require God's existence. This is not true of the (meta)universe. If the (meta)universe were not a possible state, then we would expect nothing. If you say that nothing is not possible, then again you are referring to a logic of reality that removes "nothing" as a possibility. Hence, the only view of reality that does not suffer these problems is one in which the logic of reality is the case in any possible scenario. That logic of reality is God even if we don't assign it fully conscious properties.

In relation to what you did write in the previous post about 'Man's resistance to God': Given the amount of God-believing people on the planet, I would question that, but there's another issue here too.

I'm not talking just about belief in God. I'm talking about the spiritual resistance in general that we see against God. I think in the Western world alone the number of church attendance is miniscule compared to the population at large. Atheism is perhaps the most anti-spiritual in the "belief of God" sense, but they are by far the most anti-spiritual when it comes to the moral spiritural sense. There are many "theists" who have no interest in spiritual issues whatsoever. I think most people believe God to exist because it's somewhat obvious to them, but they don't act on those beliefs by incorporating God in their lives. It's part of the natural mind to resist such efforts.

Even if we accepted your philosophies about causal chains, satisfaction relations and such, I feel it is unlikely to make people suddenly decide to worship God. It might make them consider the possibility, but if they're reading that sort of stuff anyway, they have probably already considered the possibility. But I don't think the fact that these things don't make them worship God* is necessarily a reflection of some 'in-built' resistance that Man has to God, it's more likely that it's simply not personal enough; not 'real' enough to touch them in the way people require in order to be convinced about such things.

I think it is a natural resistance in the sense that many people are basically interested in whatever benefits the self. If there's no immediate benefit, they naturally resist the spiritual life. In the case of those who are completely secularized, they have completely abandoned even the belief that perhaps we ought to have a relationship with God. Atheists go so far as to resist the existence of God altogether. For some atheists they are completely at enmity with the concept of God. It just goes to show how deep rooted the opposition of God is within the natural mind. As we know from examples such as the delay in accepting the big bang model, the natural mind will even reject plausible scientific beliefs because of this enmity. That's a lot of enmity to even reject plausible science!

Nothing has 'inspired' me to take to God yet, so I just won't force it. I'll wait and I'll continue to speculate, possibly for the rest of my life. But that's fine. It's the way it is for me.

I agree, that's fine to be where you are at if you are satisfied with where you are at. I would just recommend to anyone, though, that they keep an open mind, and understand that the natural mind fights against spiritual concepts. They should try to see how this affects their own beliefs in a spiritual reality. I would hope that they realize that belief is a choice in which they should be willing to change if the futility of life becomes too much. We all grow old and suffer from our bodies breaking down--not to mention the pain we see with others that we care deeply about. It doesn't make any sense to live life feeling this dispair since it is totally unnecessary. All they have to do is call out to God and believe. The joy that comes from believing in that higher reality is rational, and it doesn't require that we give up our intellectual desire to understand the universe to find that comfort in life. Belief is a choice.