Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why the natural universe exists?

[William]

I initially thought about posting this in the Science and Religion forum because I think it is most appropriate , but decided that the Christianity and Apologetics forum might garner more interest in the subject.

Q: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists?


I ask the question because a recent interaction with a Christian who insisted that this was the only plausible conclusion one could reach to explain why we and the universe exist.
Indeed, many Christians argue the necessity for the supernatural to explain the natural.

Some of the key points for discussion/debate.


The influence of Christian beliefs: The cosmological argument has been shaped and influenced by certain Christian perspectives, which can impact its perceived validity.

Alternative explanations: A supernatural explanation may not be necessary to account for the existence of the natural universe, and that simpler explanations without invoking supernatural elements can be considered.

Different interpretations of "supernatural": The definition of "supernatural" and whether it necessarily implies a separate and distinct realm from the natural universe.

Critique of the cosmological argument in natural theology: Re the OP question, counterarguments to this cosmological argument, challenging the assumption that a supernatural cause is required to explain the existence of the natural universe.

(A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.)

Context and historical origins: The importance of considering the historical context and origins of the cosmological argument in order to engage in a more comprehensive discussion.

Validity of alternative arguments: Alternative explanations should not be dismissed simply because they reach different conclusions from the OP questioning that cosmological argument, and that critical evaluation of different perspectives is necessary for a robust discussion.

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #39]

"Does the supernatural have to exist to explain why the natural exists"?
Yes.

Why "yes"? How do you qualify that answer?

It follows from the premises:
1) that the PSR is true for material reality;
2) Supernatural reality exists;
3) the PSR does not apply to supernatural reality.

My point is that it can't prove supernatural reality, because that's a premise.

But it's a loaded question: it assumes the natural world requires an explanation.

What philosophical position has it that the natural world does not require an explanation?
Why should the natural world existing, NOT require an explanation?

No explanation is logically possible if material reality is all that exists and there is an ontological bedrock.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #41]

Why should the natural world existing, NOT require an explanation?

No explanation is logically possible if material reality is all that exists and there is an ontological bedrock.

We can accept that material reality does exist (since it does) and therefore there is no requirement to assert any other reality exists outside of this one.
Can you explain what you mean by "ontological bedrock"?

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #41]

Why should the natural world existing, NOT require an explanation?

No explanation is logically possible if material reality is all that exists and there is an ontological bedrock.

We can accept that material reality does exist (since it does) and therefore there is no requirement to assert any other reality exists outside of this one.

Agreed.

Can you explain what you mean by "ontological bedrock"?

The most primitive components of reality, which are not reducible. Eg: atoms are composed od quarks and electrons; these are quanta of quantum fields. Quantum fields may, or may not, be irreducible to something more primitive. The bedrock is the very bottom of the hierarchy, which may (or may not) ever be accessible from physics research.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #43]

Can you explain what you mean by "ontological bedrock"?

The most primitive components of reality, which are not reducible. Eg: atoms are composed od quarks and electrons; these are quanta of quantum fields. Quantum fields may, or may not, be irreducible to something more primitive. The bedrock is the very bottom of the hierarchy, which may (or may not) ever be accessible from physics research.

Okay, thanks for that explanation Fred.

My reasoning is as follows.
Given that the bedrock may never be accessible to human physics research, this does not equate to the bedrock not existing, because it has to exist in order to explain the existence of the universe.

From the viewpoint of Natural Philosophy, this bedrock is matter which is unorganized. It is a Quantum Field consisting of only one particle of matter (The bedrock particle to use your wording) and while the number of these particles may be infinite, they are all really one thing - that being unorganized matter. Like an inert thing which is undisturbed by organization.

The organizing of this Bedrock Particle happens when any two of the same particle are made into something else, and given enough time and space, we have what we refer to as "the physical universe" made up of a variety of organized and functional forms, and to add to that - we also observe that these forms are in a constant non-static state.

Essentially the stuff of the universe has, is and always will be made up of the BP, as base material, but the forms created have differing constitutions or mixings of elements at those atomic levels - levels which human physics has some understanding about.

Do you agree with any of the above?

[fredonly]

Given that the bedrock may never be accessible to human physics research, this does not equate to the bedrock not existing, because it has to exist in order to explain the existence of the universe.

Agreed. The existence of a bedrock is deduced from philosophical considerations that even theists should agree with.

I'll add that from a science perspective: even if physicists developed a theory of everything that identified something theoretically fundamental, it would be impossible to rule out something even more primitive. So we could never know we've arrived.

The organizing of this Bedrock Particle happens when any two of the same particle are made into something else, and given enough time and space, we have what we refer to as "the physical universe" made up of a variety of organized and functional forms, and to add to that - we also observe that these forms are in a constant non-static state.

Essentially the stuff of the universe has, is and always will be made up of the BP, as base material, but the forms created have differing constitutions or mixings of elements at those atomic levels - levels which human physics has some understanding about.

Do you agree with any of the above?

I'm less specific. I wouldn't suggest it's a particle, since quantum fields are more fundamental than any particles. I don't know if there's one thing (with many properties) or many things (with fewer properties), but at some level, there's interactions between things - interactions that are a product of intrinsic properties. These interactions reflect relations that reflect laws of nature. It is these laws of nature that have an organizing effect.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #45]

I'm less specific. I wouldn't suggest it's a particle, since quantum fields are more fundamental than any particles.

A particle denotes material/matter. Being specific is important in that context, otherwise we could slip into the BR being immaterial and thus not made of matter, and thus inviting supernaturalism to fill the gap.
There is nothing coherently illogical about understand the BR as material - perhaps the finest material existing and undetectable (using any currently known science) which, when organized densifies into various detectable objects each with associated frequencies, producing what we refer to as objects/properties of the natural universe.

I don't know if there's one thing (with many properties) or many things (with fewer properties), but at some level, there's interactions between things - interactions that are a product of intrinsic properties.

We don't know, but philosophically speaking, it is logical to assume the state of the BR in its quintessential inert (unorganized) state, can be regarded as one thing, thus one property with the obvious potential and ability to become many things, depending upon the mix used to produce said many things, and that the many things are effectively also one thing/made of one thing.

These interactions reflect relations that reflect laws of nature. It is these laws of nature that have an organizing effect.

Please give examples of these "laws of nature" and I will then comment further on this.

[fredonly]

-
Please give examples of these "laws of nature" and I will then comment further on this.

Laws of physics are identical to laws of nature, if they are true. Of course, our laws of physics may merely be approximations, or special cases. Let'a assume these laws of physics are true, without qualification:

Particles with opposite electric charge attract; those with identical charge repel. Both have a predictable force.

Mass-energy equivalence.

Force of gravity, based on general relativity

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #47]

These interactions reflect relations that reflect laws of nature. It is these laws of nature that have an organizing effect.

Please give examples of these "laws of nature" and I will then comment further on this.

Laws of physics are identical to laws of nature, if they are true. Of course, our laws of physics may merely be approximations, or special cases. Let'a assume these laws of physics are true, without qualification:

Particles with opposite electric charge attract; those with identical charge repel. Both have a predictable force.

Mass-energy equivalence.

Force of gravity, based on general relativity

Yes, I thought that is what you meant.

However, the problem with this idea is that those laws came into effect after the fact as it were.

Things had to be organized to a point where these organized things then played a role in the process of further organizing due to the non-static nature of the unfolding universe.

[fredonly]

the problem with this idea is that those laws came into effect after the fact as it were.

I believe reductionism is true: the natural laws we deal with are a product of lower level laws. So biology is reducible to chemistry, chemistry to macro physics (e.g. laws of motion), macro physics to quantum field theory. This holds all the way to the bottom.

The laws of chemical reactions applied to nothing that existed at the big bang - because neither atoms nor molecules existed. But these laws of chemistry are actually grounded in the most fundamental laws that always existed - assuming reductionism is true. So they aren't really "after the fact", except in the epistemic sense.

[William]

the problem with this idea is that those laws came into effect after the fact as it were.

I believe reductionism is true: the natural laws we deal with are a product of lower level laws. So biology is reducible to chemistry, chemistry to macro physics (e.g. laws of motion), macro physics to quantum field theory. This holds all the way to the bottom.

The laws of chemical reactions applied to nothing that existed at the big bang - because neither atoms nor molecules existed. But these laws of chemistry are actually grounded in the most fundamental laws that always existed - assuming reductionism is true. So they aren't really "after the fact", except in the epistemic sense.

The idea that fundamental laws were pre-existent before the formation of organized entities could imply a certain level of order or intentionality inherent in the fabric of reality.
If assuming the laws existed prior to them actually emerging as organized things, then this implies mindfulness.