Infinite Tortoise Problem (Turtles all the way down)

[otseng]

"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
"At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
"The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

The first cause problem is often used as an argument against the existence of a god.

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."

"If God created/designed everything, then what created/designed God?"

For debate:
Is it infinite turtles all the way down?
Is it logical to use this argument against the existence of God?

[Cryopyre]

Sorry Otseng, but there is one major flaw in your argument, and that is the assumption that we believe the world and universe is the final say as you believe that god is the final say. Science is the ever pursuit of knowledge, unlike religion and god, which is about finding the answer right here right now. It is the understanding in science that we cannot know everything, but that does not mean cramming what we do not know with god or religion. You're right in saying that the infinity of the universe is a puzzle yet to be explained, but wrong in saying that it is as logical to assume that it is divine magic that made it.

[Bugmaster]

Likewise, when we ask what caused God? Then we are implicitly acknowledging that God exists. So, the question can only be logically asked by theists, not atheists.

I don't think this works. I can ask, "Who created the One Ring ?", and you can answer correctly, "Sauron did", but that doesn't mean that either of us believes that the One Ring exists, or that Sauron exists.

Speaking more broadly, if your argument were true, it would completely shut down all logical debate, because you could only talk about things you believed to be true, and thus you could never refute an opponent's argument.

Fortunately, it's quite possible to discuss propositions without accepting them as fact: "Let's pretend that God exists. Who, then, created God ?"

[QED]

That's true. But as you've already mentioned we might ask what there is to distinguish the creator God (of unknown origin) from his supposed creation. This is also of unknown origin (if we drop our preconceptions for a moment) and it seems purely anthropomorphic to suppose the need for a creator to bring it about when the same logic that permits such a creator could be used less redundantly to bring about the creation directly.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Are you suggesting that the universe created itself?

Nothings that simple. I'm simply pointing out that we can always substitute "all that exists" for "the God who creates all that exists". The only real appeal of the latter is the sense it makes to our anthropomorphic sensibilities. In our imagination giving "hands" to God allows him to do things but from this follows that God must do all things -- as to admit anything that can "do for itself" is to remove the absolute necessity for those imaginary hands in the first place.

The foundations of this sort of cosmological argument were laid out (as 4gold described) by the ancient Greek Philosophers. Since those times Cosmology has been reinvented as Quantum Cosmology. This puts a different spin on causality, something we still gain all our experiences of from the same Classical world inhabited by Aristotle. Many of our notions about the world are impositions of our own which bear no relation to the actual nature of things. Lines of latitude and longitude are often used to illustrate this -- we impose them upon our mental concept of our planet in order to locate places. But nothing of any real significance is to be found at those points where all longitudes meet at a singularity.

I don't think it would be particularly helpful to sum-up here all the detailed work of the likes of James Hartle, Jonathan Halliwell, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Isham, Andre Linde, Arthur Vilenkin etc. but it's accurate to state that the "real world" we inhabit is better described by Quantum Mechanics than it is by the Classical concepts understood when men first contemplated the Tortoise question.

For an insight into the kind of logical detour this presents us with, during the Plank era (the first 10E-43 seconds of the universe's history) the laws of general relativity are not expected to apply. Hawking and Vilenkin have shown that the universe exists in "imaginary time" during this era. Using imaginary numbers for the time coordinate reflects the fact that time has lost its distinction from space. In the Plank era time is a fourth spatial dimension.

From this we come to the "no boundary" wave function of J. Hartle and S.W.Hawking, ("The Wave Function of the Universe", 1983; anticipated in S.W.Hawking, "The Boundary Conditions of the Universe") as well as Vilenkin's and Linde's "tunnelling" wave functions ("Creation of Universes from Nothing", 1982). I think that "No boundaries" are very relevant to this topic, but I don't know where we would start to set out the arguments in a way that is widely accessible to debate here.

[otseng]

Sorry Otseng, but there is one major flaw in your argument, and that is the assumption that we believe the world and universe is the final say as you believe that god is the final say.

Welcome to the forum Cryopyre.

I don't necessarily believe that God has the "final say". I don't even necessarily believe that "God did it" is always the answer. But, if the empirical evidence points to it and there are no viable natural explanations, then the supernatural cannot be ruled out.

[otseng]

I don't think this works. I can ask, "Who created the One Ring ?", and you can answer correctly, "Sauron did", but that doesn't mean that either of us believes that the One Ring exists, or that Sauron exists.

If I saw you wearing the One Ring, then I can say that Badali Jewelry caused it.

The difference is the real world vs the fictional world. All the evidence I've presented for God's existence are testable and verifiable evidence from the physical world. I try not to appeal to the unknown and I even try to avoid purely philosophical arguments to support God's existence. So, your LotR analogy does not apply.

[Goat]

Sorry Otseng, but there is one major flaw in your argument, and that is the assumption that we believe the world and universe is the final say as you believe that god is the final say.

Welcome to the forum Cryopyre.

I don't necessarily believe that God has the "final say". I don't even necessarily believe that "God did it" is always the answer. But, if the empirical evidence points to it and there are no viable natural explanations, then the supernatural cannot be ruled out.

Can you demonstrate that there is no viable natural explanations?? "I don't know" doesn't mean there isn't a natural explaination. It just means "I don't know".

[Bugmaster]

The difference is the real world vs the fictional world. All the evidence I've presented for God's existence are testable and verifiable evidence from the physical world. I try not to appeal to the unknown and I even try to avoid purely philosophical arguments to support God's existence. So, your LotR analogy does not apply.

Ok, that's different. You are presenting evidence for God's existence. I can then say, "Well, according to my beliefs, God is a fictional character. But let's pretend he's real. How does otseng's evidence support that ?" I have no problem with this kind of debate. However, earlier you seemed to say that by merely engaging in debate about the existence of God, I already implicitly assume his existence, and that seems silly to me. My LoTR analogy was designed to dispel this notion, not to argue against any specific arguments for the existence of God.

[Bugmaster]

But, if the empirical evidence points to it and there are no viable natural explanations, then the supernatural cannot be ruled out.

Actually, this isn't true. I can think of at least two reasons to rule out the supernatural:

1). If the supernatural is internally inconsistent, or inconsistent witht the natural. In this case, it cannot be true.

2). If there's no good evidence to believe that the supernatural exists at all, and good evidence to believe that it does not. In this case, when we are faced with an unexplained phenomenon, we should consider an unknown natural cause, because it is vastly more likely do be the case.

[Dion]

Actually, there is no need to explain the cause of life (or the World or the Universe) as I see life as uncauseable.

Only if the universe (or life or anything) had existed for eternity would it be uncauseable.

Ditto God. And the assertion without evidence is equally meaningless.

Simply asserting that God exists certainly provides an explanation for everything but it is still an untestable / unfalsifiably explanation that lacks any meaningful, independent supporting evidence..

As pointed out in the threads I mentioned above, I'm not simply asserting that God exists without evidence and arguments to back up the claim. It would be better to check out the threads and post your counter arguments there to refute my claims than to simply assert that I have not provided any evidence.

Any good evidence I meant. I cannot speak to two of your theories with any authority; but taking evidence of a local flood and claiming it as evidence of a global flood gives a pretty good indication of what you think constitutes evidence.

Let me also present a different angle on the fallacy of the causation argument.

Given A. And that B causes A. When we say that we don't know how B causes A, we are implicitly acknowledging that A exists.

If I ask, who gave birth to John? I am implicitly saying that John is a person that was born.

If I ask, what factory made this toy? I am implicity saying that the toy exists.

Likewise, when we ask what caused God? Then we are implicitly acknowledging that God exists. So, the question can only be logically asked by theists, not atheists.

So now atheists may not question the assertions of theists? Nice debating technique!

Atheists ask. "If God exists ... etc."

When I ask what caused god, I'm implying that anything and everything can be equally causeless, and if that is not so, then there is no reason to suppose that God is causeless either. Even if we assume that God exists there is no reason to assume there is no prior cause for God. Substitute God for Palley's famous watch and you get the argument. If everything that gives the impression of having been designed needs a designer then the most perfectly designed of beings must have had an even more perfect designer. The problem just gets moved back one stage. So we still have one god standing upon another god standing upon another god standing upon a turtle standing upon a turtle ... ad infinitum.

To say that 'God exists and God is causeless' becomes the sum of all knowledge and all debate becomes meaningless. We then live in a universe where scientific enquiry is a waste of time since God can, and if you believe in miracles does, change the apparent laws of physics at whim. Last train back to the middle ages --> this way.

[otseng]

I think that "No boundaries" are very relevant to this topic, but I don't know where we would start to set out the arguments in a way that is widely accessible to debate here.

I think a separate thread would be best to explore this.

Can you demonstrate that there is no viable natural explanations?? "I don't know" doesn't mean there isn't a natural explaination. It just means "I don't know".

It is a generic statement that I'm making. But, one such example is abiogenesis.

"Well, according to my beliefs, God is a fictional character. But let's pretend he's real. How does otseng's evidence support that ?"

I think that's where the real debate should be at. Let's look at the evidence and argue which hypothesis is better.

1). If the supernatural is internally inconsistent, or inconsistent witht the natural. In this case, it cannot be true.

I'm not sure what you mean by "internally inconsistent" or even "inconsistent with the natural".

2). If there's no good evidence to believe that the supernatural exists at all, and good evidence to believe that it does not.

Actually, I have yet to see any evidence that the supernatural world does not exist. Whereas I've already presented several arguments for its existence.

In this case, when we are faced with an unexplained phenomenon, we should consider an unknown natural cause, because it is vastly more likely do be the case.

I'm not against searching for natural causes. And it could be that natural causes will be found to many questions.

Also, I'm not advocating to be intellectually lazy and just throw up our hands in resignment whenever we get to a dead end and say "God did it". And I'm not categorically saying that an absence of facts points to a Creator. But, when there are presence of facts that points to a Creator, then it is a viable conclusion.

but taking evidence of a local flood and claiming it as evidence of a global flood gives a pretty good indication of what you think constitutes evidence.

I can understand how few people could make the leap of a megaflood at one locale and extend that globally. But, I'll slowly try to make my case. The next step I'm taking is Drumlins, Ribbed Moraines, and Giant Ripples.

We then live in a universe where scientific enquiry is a waste of time since God can, and if you believe in miracles does, change the apparent laws of physics at whim.

Actually, in terms of changing the laws of physics, it seems like QED has already suggested that.

Anyways, you have not addressed my counterargument that the only thing that could be uncauseable is if it is eternal. Nothing in the physical world could be eternal, so your statement that "everything" could be equally causeless is not true.