Arguments and evidence for deism, theism, and miracles

[otseng]

We have agreed to debate the following:

Is there sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of a deistic God?

And if so, is there sufficient evidence to conclude a theistic worldview whereby this God intervenes in human affairs? Specifically, is there evidentiary justification for concluding that some claims of intervention are authentic whereas others aren't.

---

A thread has been created for followers of this debate to post comments:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24538

[no evidence no belief]

Otseng: Does not yet focus on details of how universe began to exist. Assumes intelligence was involved in process. Let's call this the intelligence hypothesis (IH).

NENB: Does not yet focus on details of how universe began to exist. Assumes intelligence was NOT involved in process. Let's call this the no-intelligence hypothesis (NIH).

One issue is the causal infinite regress problem.

For IH, I would say that god is timeless. That is, there is no concept of time for god. Time was created as an element of our universe. Therefore, there was no cause for God.

How would NIH address the infinite regress problem?

For NIH I would say that No-God is timeless. That is, there is no concept of time for no-God. Time began to exist as an element of our universe. Therefore, there was no cause for No-God.

Hi Otseng, I realized that the response above is the quickest way to dispense with your argument. No-God resolves the issue of infinite regress just as easily as God does. Total symmetry.

Furthermore, an argument can be made that in a state of affairs where "there is no concept of time", intelligence cannot emerge, because intelligence is contingent on time.

Evidence and logic don't just fail to support IH more than alternatives. Evidence and logic clearly support NIH more than the alternatives, including IH.

Insofar as timelessness resolves the issue of infinite regress, the absence of intelligence is a more viable explanation than the presence of intelligence, because intelligence is incompatible with timelessness.

I think that the problem of infinite regress gives NIH the advantage. Wanna move on to the problems of contingency and number of universes and see if those can give IH an advantage?

[otseng]

Thus our language reflects that, and is ill-equipped to accurately portray concepts which implicitly involve fluctuating time, timelessness, time beginning to exist, eternity, etc.

Yes, I grant that.

I chose the word "process" to describe "the universe going from not existing to existing by virtue of a causal link with God or No-God". I understand that the word "process" is not entirely accurate because "linear time" is implicit to it, and we're using it to describe a potentially timeless or non-linear-time phenomenon. Nonetheless we have to do the best we can with the language we have. If you don't like the word "process", we can use a different one. "Event"? Phenomenon? How about "Not Necessarily Temporal Phenomenon". NNTP?

I'm not referring to the moment of origination of the universe. Yes, I agree that is an event.

You had mentioned evolution as an example of complexity arising. And by implication, something similar would have happened outside of universe to create our complex universe. Evolution would be a process. So, your mechanism would be some sort of timeless process.

I raise this as an issue because something like evolution cannot apply since evolution requires time. And what we both agree is that the cause must be timeless.

Can we also agree for the sake of argument that insofar as "timeless" is different from "eternal", then God and No-God are "timeless" as well as, or instead of, "eternal"?

Yes, I agree that they are different. I'll try to remember to use the term timeless instead of eternal.

For simplicity's sake, one of my arguments is this: Intelligence is of necessity a process over time, therefore intelligence in a timeless setting is of necessity less plausible than absence of intelligence in a timeless setting.

I would agree that thinking for us is a process over time. However, intelligence is simply a description of an entity, not a description of an action. When I say, "He is intelligent." It is just saying that he is a smart and capable person.

Well, you seem to agree that our physical laws don't apply to extra-universal circumstances, yet that gave you no pause whatsoever when you presented the exact same argument from conformity with laws in the failed attempt to support your IH (the prequel to the timeless God/No-God hypothesis).

To clarify, natural laws would only apply in our universe starting from the moment of origin. What is different between our models is that I do not claim that natural laws apply outside of our universe. It would be meaningless to argue for anything extra-universe to comply with our natural laws if the laws are not even the same. But, I do argue that God creating the universe at the moment of creation would be compatible with the first law of thermo.

May I assume that you concede that they are valid, and that we can consider the notion of a "timeless/eternal intelligent entity with the power to create" as dispensed with for now?

I don't see how your arguments have any weight since by definition natural laws would not apply to an extra-universe explanation. However, I'm willing to grant if both of our models are timeless, then it solves the problem of infinite regress.

How would you address the issue of contingency?

[no evidence no belief]

However, I'm willing to grant if both of our models are timeless, then it solves the problem of infinite regress.

Very good. As of your latest concession above, this is where we stand:

You formulated and I agreed to a general principle for this discussion whereby a claim/explanation/hypothesis can only be reasonably deemed to be more viable than competing claims IF better evidence and logic is found/formulated for that claim than for competing claims.

We further agreed for the sake of argument that the universe began to exist and did so ex nihilo (see discussion history for definitions and caveats to these two agreements).

You proposed that the universe began to exist by virtue of an extra-universal cause involving intelligence, and we labelled this the Intelligence Hypothesis or IH.

I proposed that the universe began to exist by virtue of an extra-universal cause NOT involving intelligence, and we labelled this No-Intelligence Hypothesis, or NIH.

You then made six attempts at demonstrating that evidence and logic supported your hypothesis more than they supported alternative hypotheses and all of these attempts failed (subject to revision if necessary). Those six attempts were: Argument from no internal contradictions, argument from conformity with facts and laws, argument from conformity with logic, argument from consistency with what we know is true, argument from falsifiability, and lastly argument from infinite regress versus timelessness. Again, by your admission these six attempts all failed at establishing greater evidentiary and logical support for IH than for alternative explanations, including failing to establish greater evidentiary and logical support for the antithesis to IH.

Next on the docket are three items: My spinoff counter-argument connected to your infinite regress argument (which I think doesn't just fail to help IH, but actually tilts the balance in favor of NIH), your argument from contingency, and your argument from the number of universes. I will address these three things below.

For simplicity's sake, one of my arguments is this: Intelligence is of necessity a process over time, therefore intelligence in a timeless setting is of necessity less plausible than absence of intelligence in a timeless setting.

I would agree that thinking for us is a process over time. However, intelligence is simply a description of an entity, not a description of an action.

Intelligence is an attribute. It's not an entity. It's an attribute that an entity may or may not possess.

When I say, "He is intelligent." It is just saying that he is a smart and capable person.

Right. He is a person possessing the attribute of intelligence. The person is the entity. Intelligence is the attribute of this entity.

Think of a hot cup of water. The cup of water is an entity. The heat of this cup of water is not an entity. It's an attribute of the entity. It's a measure of how much kinetic energy the cup of water possesses, a measure of how fast the H2O molecules are moving, a measure of how much movement per unit of time, the molecules are doing. Per unit of time.

Think of a fast computer processor. The processor is an entity. The speed of this processor is not an entity. It's an attribute of the entity. It's a measure of how fast it can process information, a measure of the revolutions per unit of time. Per unit of time.

Think of an intelligent person. The person is an entity. His intelligence is an attribute of the entity. It's a measure of how quickly he can accomplish the intelligence-requiring task. It's a measure of computational output per unit of time.

Imagine any problem that requires intelligence to solve, any mystery that requires intelligence to unravel, any idea that requires intelligence to come up with. Everything else being equal, could it EVER be said that the person who takes more time to solve the problem, or more time to unravel the mystery, or more time to come up with an idea, is more intelligent than a person who would take less time to equally successfully complete the exact same tasks?

No. Time is a definitional and necessary component of intelligence. Undeniably. Without time, intelligence is a meaningless proposition.

Therefore intelligence cannot be timeless.

Therefore, unlike No-God which is compatible with timelessness, an intelligent timeless entity that caused the universe to begin existing is self-contradictory.

Therefore because it's impossible for God to be timeless, IH fails to address the problem of infinite regress, whereas NIH succeeds (by your admission) in addressing the problem of infinite regress.

Therefore NIH has more evidence and logic support than alternatives, including its antithesis, and therefore by your general principle, it's a more viable explanation than IH.

Also according to your general principle: I don't have to PROVE that intelligence is incompatible with timelessness. I just have to present a compelling argument based on evidence and logic. Which I have.

Therefore, so far in your argument, you haven't just failed to demonstrate that the deistic position is more viable than alternative positions, but I've actually demonstrated that there are reasons grounded in evidence and logic to actively believe that deism is false.

Next, the contingency argument:

How would you address the issue of contingency?

I honestly don't understand your argument/question. Could you rephrase it/elaborate on it?

Lastly, the number of universes argument. This is easy

Another issue is the number of universes.

For IH, God only created one universe.

For NIH, how many universes are there?

One. For NIH there is one universe.

For IH, you posit there is only one universe. For NIH I posit there is only one universe.

Please present any evidence/argument that there is only one universe in IH, which cannot also be used to argue there is only one universe in NIH.

Additionally/alternatively present any evidence argument that there are multiple universes in NIH that can't be used to argue there are multiple universes in IH.

I strongly suspect perfect symmetry here as well. This new concept/problem you present does not serve to make IH more viable than its antithesis.

[otseng]

The person is the entity. Intelligence is the attribute of this entity.

Yes, I agree that intelligence is an attribute of an entity.

Think of an intelligent person. The person is an entity. His intelligence is an attribute of the entity. It's a measure of how quickly he can accomplish the intelligence-requiring task. It's a measure of computational output per unit of time.

When we say someone has an IQ of 180, it does not say anything about computational output per unit of time.

Lastly, the number of universes argument. This is easy

Another issue is the number of universes.

For IH, God only created one universe.

For NIH, how many universes are there?

One. For NIH there is one universe.

For IH, you posit there is only one universe. For NIH I posit there is only one universe.

OK.

Please present any evidence/argument that there is only one universe in IH, which cannot also be used to argue there is only one universe in NIH.

Since we both agree that only one universe exists, there's no need for me to argue for it.

Next, the contingency argument:

How would you address the issue of contingency?

I honestly don't understand your argument/question. Could you rephrase it/elaborate on it?

Contigency means "the condition of being dependent on chance; uncertainty."

For all natural processes that we observe, there are two possible explanations for its occurrence. Either it happened by chance or it happened by necessity. For example, if I let go of a coin, it will hit the floor by necessity. If there is nothing between my finger and the floor, there is a 100% chance that it will hit the floor because of the law of gravity. But, for it to land heads, it is by chance. There is a 50% chance that it will land heads. It is a contingent event. Another example - in evolution, an animal evolves by chance. Genes are randomly mutated and there's no way to 100% predict how anything will evolve. Evolution is a contingent event.

The reason I bring this up is that this is one of the key distinctives between the outcome of a natural process and the outcome of an intelligent being. For an intelligent being, events are not only by chance or by necessity, it can also be by a decision. For a natural process, it can only be by chance or by necessity. So, for NIH, was the creation of our universe by chance or by necessity?

[no evidence no belief]

The person is the entity. Intelligence is the attribute of this entity.

Yes, I agree that intelligence is an attribute of an entity.

But do you also agree that this attribute necessarily manifests itself over time, and that therefore where there is no time, this attribute cannot manifest itself? Is this not clearly in accordance with that which we know to be true?

Think of an intelligent person. The person is an entity. His intelligence is an attribute of the entity. It's a measure of how quickly he can accomplish the intelligence-requiring task. It's a measure of computational output per unit of time.

When we say someone has an IQ of 180, it does not say anything about computational output per unit of time.

False! It absolutely does refer exactly to computational output per unit of time.

I had considered bringing up the IQ test in support of my case, but given how devastatingly strongly the IQ test supports my argument, I had decided to save it as an ace up my sleeve to counter any good argument you may have come up with in the future. It's truly remarkable that in the attempt to bolster your case you bring up an empirical fact that most emphatically demolishes it.

An IQ score is most definitely awarded on the basis of how quickly you answer the questions - namely on the computational output per unit of time. You don't have to take my word for it, you don't have to base this on any link I could provide. See it for yourself.

Take an IQ test from any reputable company. Answer to the best of your ability but be sure to make a note on a piece of paper on how you answer each question. Complete the test as quickly as you are able. Once you're done, repeat the test giving the exact same answers as per the notes you took earlier, but be sure to wait at least a few minutes longer than you originally had before clicking "submit". The exact same answers will yield a lower IQ score, because it will have taken more time to achieve the same computational output.

If you don't have time to run the experiment for yourself, see here. The instructions for this reputable IQ test read as follows:

If you average more than twenty seconds to respond to each of the questions, your IQ Score will be lower.

(During the test, you must read and respond to a total of 38 statements in thirteen minutes or less. If you take longer, you will be penalized, or if you get through the test in less time than thirteen minutes, your score will be increased.)

Time is most definitely, irrefutably, undeniably a definitional, intrinsic, integral, core component of your IQ score.

If time doesn't exist, intelligence is impossible. Therefore if an intelligence entity exists outside of the universe, it must exist on some kind of timeline, i.e. It cannot be timeless.

Therefore, intelligence precludes timelessness, and thus the problem of infinite regress is NOT solved in your Intelligence Hypothesis.

The deistic God is logically impossible.

Lastly, the number of universes argument. This is easy

Another issue is the number of universes.

For IH, God only created one universe.

For NIH, how many universes are there?

One. For NIH there is one universe.

For IH, you posit there is only one universe. For NIH I posit there is only one universe.

OK.

Please present any evidence/argument that there is only one universe in IH, which cannot also be used to argue there is only one universe in NIH.

Since we both agree that only one universe exists, there's no need for me to argue for it.

Ok, so that settles it. To recap: You've now attempted 7 arguments for the deistic God all of which have failed.

Next, the contingency argument:

How would you address the issue of contingency?

I honestly don't understand your argument/question. Could you rephrase it/elaborate on it?

Contigency means "the condition of being dependent on chance; uncertainty."

For all natural processes that we observe, there are two possible explanations for its occurrence. Either it happened by chance or it happened by necessity. For example, if I let go of a coin, it will hit the floor by necessity. If there is nothing between my finger and the floor, there is a 100% chance that it will hit the floor because of the law of gravity.

Isn't the coin landing contingent on the laws of gravity?

But, for it to land heads, it is by chance. There is a 50% chance that it will land heads. It is a contingent event.

Isn't calling it contingent really just a measure of our ignorance? Couldn't we conceivably build a supercomputer which would analyze the physical forces applied to the coin right as it's leaving your hand, incorporate into the calculation the centrifugal force on the coin, the weight of the coin, the air pressure in the room and how it will affect friction as a damper on centrifugal force, the distance from the floor, the type of material of the floor and how it would affect the bounce of the coin, etc, etc, etc, and theoretically calculate whether it will be heads or tails as it's leaving your hand. Wouldn't it being heads then become a necessary event?

The reason I bring this up is that this is one of the key distinctives between the outcome of a natural process and the outcome of an intelligent being. For an intelligent being, events are not only by chance or by necessity, it can also be by a decision.

I don't understand how an intelligent being's involvement removes the dichotomy between necessary and contingent.

Once the decision to create the universe has been made, isn't the actual creation being carried out either necessary or contingent? Couldn't it be said to be contingent on the intelligent being not dying before carrying out the creation he had decided on? Couldn't it be contingent on the intelligent being not forgetting to carry it out? Couldn't it be contingent on a host of variables outside of the intelligent being's decision to create the universe?

The fact that there is probability involved in tossing a coin and getting either heads or tails means that the 50% value can be attached to the event, and thus, by your definition, the event is contingent.

When intelligent beings are involved, statements about statistical probabilities can also be made. For example, if a sample of human beings is asked to think of a number between 1 and 10, 10% will pick 7. Thus, if you ask an intelligent human to pick a number between 1 and 10, there is a 10% chance she will pick 7. Thus the fact that an intelligent entity is involved in making a decision does NOT preclude contingency from being involved.

This is the bottom line: There are at least two discrete events involved in the universe coming into existence as a result of a decision by an intelligent being. There is the event of the intelligent being making the decision, and the event of the intelligent being carrying out the decision. The two could be simultaneous, but they can be treated as discrete events nonetheless.

The probability of God making the decision to create the universe is either 100% or less than 100%. If it's 100%, it's necessary. If it's less than 100%, it's contingent.

Once the decision has been made, the probability that the universe will begin existing as per that decision is either 100%, or less than 100%. If it's 100% it's necessary, if it's less than 100% it's contingent.

Insofar as the dichotomy between necessary and contingent exist, the presence of a decision-making-being does not remove it.

For a natural process, it can only be by chance or by necessity. So, for NIH, was the creation of our universe by chance or by necessity?

I don't know. For IH the decisions and actions of the intelligent being, were they by chance or by necessity?

[otseng]

But do you also agree that this attribute necessarily manifests itself over time, and that therefore where there is no time, this attribute cannot manifest itself? Is this not clearly in accordance with that which we know to be true?

How anything really manifests itself outside of our time, I cannot really say.

Think of an intelligent person. The person is an entity. His intelligence is an attribute of the entity. It's a measure of how quickly he can accomplish the intelligence-requiring task. It's a measure of computational output per unit of time.

When we say someone has an IQ of 180, it does not say anything about computational output per unit of time.

False! It absolutely does refer exactly to computational output per unit of time.

A computer also has a high computational output per unit of time, but it does not have an IQ score. Raw computational power does not alone determine intelligence. But, it's a measure of more than that. It attempts to measure problem solving skills, reasoning, knowledge, etc. Theoretically, someone could have a high measure of these skills, but be a slow test taker (Stephen Hawking comes to mind).

Time is most definitely, irrefutably, undeniably a definitional, intrinsic, integral, core component of your IQ score.

Well, if God created the entire universe in 6 days, then he must be really intelligent since he created everything in a very short amount of time.

If time doesn't exist, intelligence is impossible. Therefore if an intelligence entity exists outside of the universe, it must exist on some kind of timeline, i.e. It cannot be timeless.

Only if we apply our own laws to outside our universe. But, since we do not know the laws, we cannot apply our knowledge of things that act within time to things that do not have time.

The deistic God is logically impossible.

If we assume that our laws apply to God, then I'd agree. But, our laws of time do not apply.

Since we both agree that only one universe exists, there's no need for me to argue for it.

Ok, so that settles it. To recap: You've now attempted 7 arguments for the deistic God all of which have failed.

Who said I'm finished with my argument?

There are some more things I want to go over before I'll finish my argument on God causing the universe.

Once the decision to create the universe has been made, isn't the actual creation being carried out either necessary or contingent?

The issue is the decision, not what happens after the decision is made. For inanimate processes, there is no decision being made. There is no free will conscious decision for a process to do something. It will follow natural laws for an outcome to happen. It will either follow statistical laws or deterministic laws.

When intelligent beings are involved, statements about statistical probabilities can also be made. For example, if a sample of human beings is asked to think of a number between 1 and 10, 10% will pick 7. Thus, if you ask an intelligent human to pick a number between 1 and 10, there is a 10% chance she will pick 7. Thus the fact that an intelligent entity is involved in making a decision does NOT preclude contingency from being involved.

What I'm referring to is when we see some situation that involves complexity. Here's another example. Suppose we see an arrow in the middle of a bulls-eye. It could be the result of a statistical chance. Someone shot it randomly and it hit the middle. Or it could be deterministic. There was a wire from the shooter to the bullseye and the arrow was attached to the bullseye. Or it could be that he was a good shooter. (There are actually several other possibilities. But my point is that it is more than just statistical or deterministic.)

For a natural process, it can only be by chance or by necessity. So, for NIH, was the creation of our universe by chance or by necessity?

I don't know. For IH the decisions and actions of the intelligent being, were they by chance or by necessity?

Let's step back a moment. Do you agree that processes devoid of intelligence can only have a result either by chance or necessity? If not, what else can it be a result of?

For people, it cannot be boiled down to either chance or necessity. People have the ability to make free will decisions that can neither be entirely determined by probability or by a law. People can make decisions that are entirely unpredictable. Really, the only way out of denying the existence of people being able to make a decision is to also deny the existence of free will.

Again, for IH, it is neither by chance nor necessity, but by a free will decision.

[no evidence no belief]

But do you also agree that this attribute necessarily manifests itself over time, and that therefore where there is no time, this attribute cannot manifest itself? Is this not clearly in accordance with that which we know to be true?

How anything really manifests itself outside of our time, I cannot really say.

Me neither. How would a rock manifest itself outside of time? It would just be sitting there, I guess.

But I can tell you exactly how a "rock falling" would manifest itself outside of time. It WOULDN'T. Because falling - movement - is a function of distance over time. Therefore it wouldn't be just physically impossible in a timeless environment, it would be logically impossible.

Similarly, intelligence is a function of computational output over time. Therefore it wouldn't be just physically impossible in a timeless environment, it would be logically impossible.

Think of an intelligent person. The person is an entity. His intelligence is an attribute of the entity. It's a measure of how quickly he can accomplish the intelligence-requiring task. It's a measure of computational output per unit of time.

When we say someone has an IQ of 180, it does not say anything about computational output per unit of time.

False! It absolutely does refer exactly to computational output per unit of time.

A computer also has a high computational output per unit of time, but it does not have an IQ score.

Right. IQ is only one of several ways of measuring human intelligence, and there are many other forms of intelligence. I wouldn't dream of saying otherwise. But all of these other forms of intelligence, however intelligent they are, based on their ability to do whatever it is that makes them intelligent.... would be more intelligent if they could do the same thing more quickly.

Raw computational power does not alone determine intelligence.

Agreed. There are two axis to intelligence. On one axis there can be several different things: Computational output, problem solving skills, creativity, knowledge, intuition, etc. On the other axis there can only be one other thing: Time.

But, it's a measure of more than that. It attempts to measure problem solving skills, reasoning, knowledge, etc. Theoretically, someone could have a high measure of these skills, but be a slow test taker (Stephen Hawking comes to mind).

Are you saying that if Stephen Hawking were able to accomplish the astounding feats of problem solving and creative thinking, but were able to do so more quickly, and/or also was a fast test taker, then he would be less intelligent?

No matter what, if you define as "intelligence" the attribute that allows you to perform an action, your intelligence will be greater if it allows you to perform that action more quickly.

Time is most definitely, irrefutably, undeniably a definitional, intrinsic, integral, core component of your IQ score.

Well, if God created the entire universe in 6 days, then he must be really intelligent since he created everything in a very short amount of time.

Exactly! If God had created the universe in 9 days he would have been less intelligent, if he had created it in 3 days, he would have been more intelligent.

I'm assuming you're using this as a metaphor, and that at this time you do not wish to make a truth claim based on the Bible, because that would be spilling into theism and we're not there yet.

If time doesn't exist, intelligence is impossible. Therefore if an intelligence entity exists outside of the universe, it must exist on some kind of timeline, i.e. It cannot be timeless.

Only if we apply our own laws to outside our universe. But, since we do not know the laws, we cannot apply our knowledge of things that act within time to things that do not have time.

Are you saying that laws of logic do not necessarily apply outside of the universe?

My argument is not just based on conformity with what we know is true and conformity with facts and laws. It's also based on conformity with logic.

Movement is necessarily defined as distance over time. If distance or time do not exist, movement is a meaningless proposition. This is not about "the properties and laws of the universe", it's about logical absolutes.

1) A and B are necessary components of C
2) A or B does not exist
3) Therefore C does not exist.

1) Distance and time are a necessary component of movement
2) Time does not exist
3) Therefore movement does not exist

1) Computational output/problem solving skills/creativity/reasoning/knowledge AND time are necessary components of intelligence
2) Time does not exist
3) Therefore intelligence does not exist

To say that outside the universe maybe timeless intelligence exists is like saying that maybe outside of the universe a bachelor's wife exists.

1) Being a female and somebody being married to you are necessary components to being a wife
2) A bachelor is not married to anybody
3) Therefore a bachelor's wife does not exist

The deistic God is logically impossible.

If we assume that our laws apply to God, then I'd agree. But, our laws of time do not apply.

Our logical absolutes that time either exists or does not exist apply inside or outside the universe.

This is not about physical laws. This is about logic. Time cannot both exist AND not exist. Someone cannot both be a bachelor AND have a wife.

If time exists then intelligence is possible but infinite regress is not solved.
If time does not exist then infinite regress is solved but intelligence is not possible.

If you say that in some mysterious way time both exists AND does not exist outside of the universe, then intelligence is both possible and impossible, and infinite regress is both solved and not solved.

Since we both agree that only one universe exists, there's no need for me to argue for it.

Ok, so that settles it. To recap: You've now attempted 7 arguments for the deistic God all of which have failed.

Who said I'm finished with my argument?

There are some more things I want to go over before I'll finish my argument on God causing the universe.

sorry Otseng, you misunderstand me.

I did not say that you are abandoning your Intelligence Hypothesis.

I am just making the factual statement that you presented 7 arguments in support of your hypothesis (argument from no internal contradictions, argument from conformity with facts and laws, argument from conformity with logic, argument from consistency with what we know is true, argument from falsifiability, argument from infinite regress versus timelessness, argument from number of universes), which have all failed at providing more evidentiary or logical support for your hypothesis than for its antithesis.

I am not alleging that you don't have any more arguments and that therefore you should abandon IH. Indeed, we're looking at an 8th argument (contingency/chance/decision argument) right now, and I'd be happy to look at any other argument you may present subsequently.

If it's ok, I need to put more through into your contingency argument, so I will reply to it in the next 24 hours or so. In the meantime feel free to consider the points I made above.

[no evidence no belief]

Hey Otseng, here's my response to the contingent/necessary/decision argument:

Once the decision to create the universe has been made, isn't the actual creation being carried out either necessary or contingent?

The issue is the decision, not what happens after the decision is made.

Ok, let's just talk about the decision itself. Was the probability of the decision happening 100% or less than 100%?

When intelligent beings are involved, statements about statistical probabilities can also be made. For example, if a sample of human beings is asked to think of a number between 1 and 10, 10% will pick 7. Thus, if you ask an intelligent human to pick a number between 1 and 10, there is a 10% chance she will pick 7. Thus the fact that an intelligent entity is involved in making a decision does NOT preclude contingency from being involved.

What I'm referring to is when we see some situation that involves complexity. Here's another example. Suppose we see an arrow in the middle of a bulls-eye. It could be the result of a statistical chance. Someone shot it randomly and it hit the middle. Or it could be deterministic. There was a wire from the shooter to the bullseye and the arrow was attached to the bullseye. Or it could be that he was a good shooter. (There are actually several other possibilities. But my point is that it is more than just statistical or deterministic.)

Ok. There is a really good shooter. He decided to shoot an arrow into the bullseye. Was the probability that he would make that decision 100% or less than 100%?

For a natural process, it can only be by chance or by necessity. So, for NIH, was the creation of our universe by chance or by necessity?

I don't know. For IH the decisions and actions of the intelligent being, were they by chance or by necessity?

Let's step back a moment. Do you agree that processes devoid of intelligence can only have a result either by chance or necessity? If not, what else can it be a result of?

For people, it cannot be boiled down to either chance or necessity. People have the ability to make free will decisions that can neither be entirely determined by probability or by a law. People can make decisions that are entirely unpredictable. Really, the only way out of denying the existence of people being able to make a decision is to also deny the existence of free will.

Again, for IH, it is neither by chance nor necessity, but by a free will decision.

You are treating contingency, necessity and decision as three discrete and separate things. I don't understand what justification you have for this.

To me saying that something can either be contingent, necessary or a decision is like saying a car can either be black, or white, or a Lexus.

I'm sorry, but a car can be a black Lexus, or a white Lexus. Similarly, there can be a contingent decision, or a necessary decision.

If I threaten to kill you if you don't give me your wallet, one might argue that the decision to give me your wallet was a necessary decision. If I throw a coin in the air and ask you "heads or tails", there is no way to know what you will say, and statistical laws alone would apply to any statement predicting what you will say, and thus it will be a contingent decision.

Please explain to me where I'm wrong.



While you think about that, I do have a parallel argument. Let's assume for a moment (just for the sake of this specific portion of my argument) that you are right and an event can truly be classified in three discrete and non-overlapping ways: necessary, contingent and decision. I do NOT concede this, and believe you have failed to make your case, but let's assume it just for a moment.

In that case, is your argument that if there was no intelligence, then the universe could have only started by necessity or contingency, whereas if intelligence was involved it could have also started thanks to his decision, and that therefore it's more likely that intelligence was involved than not?

If so, let me outline my disagreement by virtue of a little analogy.

Assume there is a lunchbox. Inside that lunchbox there is a fruit. We don't know what that fruit is. I contend that it's a grape, and you contend that it's an apple. Let's say that a grape can be one of two colors, white or red, and an apple can be one of three colors, red, yellow or green. (I know this is a simplified description of reality, accept my division of fruit colors for the sake of argument).

Wouldn't it be absurd for you to claim that it's more likely for it to be an apple, because an apple could be one of three colors as opposed to a grape that could only be two?

In other words, wouldn't the argument below be absurd?

1) There is a lunchbox with a fruit in it
2) If the fruit is a grape, it can be one of two colors (white or red) whereas if the fruit is an apple, it can be one of three colors (red, yellow or green).
3) Therefore it's more likely that it's an apple.

Isn't that completely absurd?

Here's another one for you:
1) There is an animal on a beach
2) If it's a dog, it could have gotten there in one of two ways (walking or swimming) whereas if it was a Spectacled Cormorant it could have gotten there in one of three ways (walking, swimming or flying).
3) Therefore it's more likely that it's a Spectacled Cormorant.


Please tell me the substantial difference between the two syllogisms above, and the one below:

1) The universe began to exist
2) If no intelligence was involved, then it could have begun in one of two ways (necessity or contingency) whereas if intelligence was involved, it could have begun in one of three ways (necessity, contingency or decision).
3) Therefore it's more reasonable to assume intelligence was involved.

It makes no sense, Otseng.

[otseng]

Similarly, intelligence is a function of computational output over time. Therefore it wouldn't be just physically impossible in a timeless environment, it would be logically impossible.

Likewise, you propose some process outside of our time devoid of intelligence. So, the same problem arises for you if we apply the concept of time to any concept we have, including intelligence.

I'll grant this between the IH and NIH models. Both have concepts that cannot be adequately described since we have no knowledge of what it means to not be in our space-time. All of our experiences are based on time and we cannot really understand how something would operate outside of time.

Ok, let's just talk about the decision itself. Was the probability of the decision happening 100% or less than 100%?

Neither.

Ok. There is a really good shooter. He decided to shoot an arrow into the bullseye. Was the probability that he would make that decision 100% or less than 100%?

Again, neither. But, to clarify, it wasn't simply one decision that he made that enabled him to hit the bullseye. It was a whole series of decisions that he made. He had to decide to practice and had to do this many times. Eventually, he got good enough to shoot an arrow accurately.

In that case, is your argument that if there was no intelligence, then the universe could have only started by necessity or contingency, whereas if intelligence was involved it could have also started thanks to his decision, and that therefore it's more likely that intelligence was involved than not?

That's the gist of it. But, I'll also say that I'm not really arguing for intelligence at this point. I think I mentioned earlier that I'll get more into intelligence when we get into fine-tuning. But, the main point I'm making now is that it was a decision (or in theological terms, a decree).

Wouldn't it be absurd for you to claim that it's more likely for it to be an apple, because an apple could be one of three colors as opposed to a grape that could only be two?

Of course it's absurd. If would only make sense to ask what color it could be if it can be identified ahead of time all the possible colors it could be.

That's why I asked you earlier: "Do you agree that processes devoid of intelligence can only have a result either by chance or necessity? If not, what else can it be a result of?"

If there are other possibilities for a process devoid of intelligence besides chance or necessity, then please present it.

Now, for a person, do you agree that not all things are either chance or necessity? But, some things can fall into a free will decision?

[otseng]

1) The universe began to exist
2) If no intelligence was involved, then it could have begun in one of two ways (necessity or contingency) whereas if intelligence was involved, it could have begun in one of three ways (necessity, contingency or decision).
3) Therefore it's more reasonable to assume intelligence was involved.

It makes no sense, Otseng.

Just to be clear, I'm not making this argument. All I'm asking for right now is whether NIH caused this universe by chance or by necessity. As for IH, I do not claim it was either by chance or necessity, but by a decision.