The First Cause Argument

[McCulloch]

The First Cause Argument
Simply stated this argument asserts that everything in the universe has a cause, therefore there must be an ultimate cause. If the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.
Is this a valid proof of the existence of God?

[harvey1]

What practical limits do you place on one kind of order leading to another Harvey?

The limits I put on universes is whether they are logico-mathemical possible as well as physically possible. For example, if it turns out that quantum loop theory (QLT) is correct, then physical possibility will be determined by QLT. Another constraint that I would put on any universe is whether its future is compliant with God's will.

I appreciate that we are looking at a regression not unlike that of the stack of turtles in some respects, but in each layer a transformation can take place synthesising a new level of order. It takes no imagination to see this principle at work in our own universe so I think we ought to make allowances for extending these principles in a universe of different universes. After all, I'm not aware of any proofs that restrict this universe to being the only one.

I have no problem with that as long as we treat physical laws as laws that actually exist. I think it is foolhardy to say there are no laws.

[QED]

The limits I put on universes is whether they are logico-mathemical possible as well as physically possible. For example, if it turns out that quantum loop theory (QLT) is correct, then physical possibility will be determined by QLT.

So then, what can happen can happen. Fine, but how do we know what can happen in the first place? More to the point what can't happen?

Another constraint that I would put on any universe is whether its future is compliant with God's will.

This invites so many questions I hardly know where to start. I might just be able to swallow this if humanity was accepted to be an insignificant part of creation such that God had no interest in human affairs whatsoever, but that's not the line we're being fed. I need to point this sort of thing out if we are going to ground your philosophy in what is known of the world we live in.

I appreciate that we are looking at a regression not unlike that of the stack of turtles in some respects, but in each layer a transformation can take place synthesising a new level of order. It takes no imagination to see this principle at work in our own universe so I think we ought to make allowances for extending these principles in a universe of different universes. After all, I'm not aware of any proofs that restrict this universe to being the only one.

I have no problem with that as long as we treat physical laws as laws that actually exist. I think it is foolhardy to say there are no laws.

Very well, but as soon as we admit the possibility of many universes we can no longer read anything into the fine-tuning of the physical constants etc. in our own. The reasons behind these become ambiguous.

[Bugmaster]

I have no problem with that as long as we treat physical laws as laws that actually exist. I think it is foolhardy to say there are no laws.

You are confusing a bunch of different statements here:

1). There are no laws
2). Math and logic are made up in order to explain laws
3). Our models of physical laws do not refer directly to some spiritual entities in a platonic realm
4). We're not entirely sure if our models of physical laws are accurate

[harvey1]

So then, what can happen can happen. Fine, but how do we know what can happen in the first place? More to the point what can't happen?

A bunch of stuff can't happen, although without a quantum theory of gravity we are hard pressed to know exactly what those things are. Logically, we know that we can't have a universe where pens fly in the air for no reason.

This invites so many questions I hardly know where to start. I might just be able to swallow this if humanity was accepted to be an insignificant part of creation such that God had no interest in human affairs whatsoever, but that's not the line we're being fed. I need to point this sort of thing out if we are going to ground your philosophy in what is known of the world we live in.

Again, you are assuming that God is outside of the system looking in, but God is "in" the system. The system as it moves toward a phase transition will necessarily incite God's intervention at the critical point in terms of what is compliant with God's will. You see that as God becoming involved in an insignficant affair (a particular species on a small planet around a medium yellow star in an outer part of a medium size galaxy in one a small superclusters in the universe), but I see it as God's mind being brought to bear the outcome of a phase transition which God is always involved in for every phase transition that happens anywhere and every time.

Very well, but as soon as we admit the possibility of many universes we can no longer read anything into the fine-tuning of the physical constants etc. in our own. The reasons behind these become ambiguous.

This is like saying we can read nothing into a copy of Hamlet laying beside a typewriter. Of course, you can say, "for all we know monkeys could have been in this room for an infinite amount of time, so we shouldn't assume that anyone of intelligence wrote this masterpiece." I say that's absurd since you've only added complexity to explaining the room that wasn't there prior to your monkey explanation. We have an explanation that doesn't require such unparsimonious considerations. We have a self-consistency principle that implies cosmic consciousness because self-consistency requires it. There's no occam sin here since a principle of self-consistency and parsimonious principles actually existing is the most parsimonious explanation one could ever hope to achieve.

[harvey1]

You are confusing a bunch of different statements here:
1). There are no laws
2). Math and logic are made up in order to explain laws
3). Our models of physical laws do not refer directly to some spiritual entities in a platonic realm
4). We're not entirely sure if our models of physical laws are accurate

I believe I have addressed these issues separately many times. You'd have to be more specific for me to respond.

[Bugmaster]

Logically, we know that we can't have a universe where pens fly in the air for no reason.

Oddly enough, that sounds just like a definition of "miracle" to me, but anyway... We can absolutely have a universe where pens fly in the air for no reason. I see no reason to believe that our universe cannot, logically speaking, change its behavior tomorrow in a way that allows for flying pens. However, the universe's behavior has been very stable so far, and thus the probability of it changing is very, very low.

So, flying pens are logically possible, but highly unlikely.

but I see it as God's mind being brought to bear the outcome of a phase transition which God is always involved in for every phase transition that happens anywhere and every time.

Are you saying that every time ice melts, God is personally involved in real-time ? If not, then you need to explain what you mean by "phase transition". It sounds to me like you're using this term as a metaphor of some sort.

I say that's absurd since you've only added complexity to explaining the room that wasn't there prior to your monkey explanation.

Who is more complex: monkeys, or an omni-god ?

[Bugmaster]

I believe I have addressed these issues separately many times. You'd have to be more specific for me to respond.

All I'm saying is that these are separate issues, so proving or disproving one does not necessarily entail proving all of them, as you seem to think.

[QED]

Very well, but as soon as we admit the possibility of many universes we can no longer read anything into the fine-tuning of the physical constants etc. in our own. The reasons behind these become ambiguous.

This is like saying we can read nothing into a copy of Hamlet laying beside a typewriter. Of course, you can say, "for all we know monkeys could have been in this room for an infinite amount of time, so we shouldn't assume that anyone of intelligence wrote this masterpiece." I say that's absurd since you've only added complexity to explaining the room that wasn't there prior to your monkey explanation.

There can be several objections to your reply here. But the one that I think most people would spot straight away would be that it's simple to assess the plausibility of the competing explanations. Of course it's absurd to postulate a room containing monkeys existing for a very long time when we already know that people like Shakespeare are capable of doing such things many times over in their lifetimes. However, in the case of many universes, the assessment of plausibility becomes much more difficult. We don't know for sure that a God-like mind can bring about a universe from nothing and you certainly can't prove the existence of such a God by starting with the assumption that this is the only universe that ever existed/exists.

We have an explanation that doesn't require such unparsimonious considerations. We have a self-consistency principle that implies cosmic consciousness because self-consistency requires it. There's no occam sin here since a principle of self-consistency and parsimonious principles actually existing is the most parsimonious explanation one could ever hope to achieve.

If I understand you correctly you claim that if God were to exist then he would have invented the very principle of parsimony. Thus you claim to be able prove his existence by trumping anyone's appeal to parsimony for an alternative explanation (i.e. even a "foam" of different universes would be more parsimonious than some sort of cosmic mind with an interest in the affairs of life such that it makes decisions, listens to prayer and performs miracles on their behalf etc.) by their very attempt at using "the principle".

[harvey1]

We can absolutely have a universe where pens fly in the air for no reason. I see no reason to believe that our universe cannot, logically speaking, change its behavior tomorrow in a way that allows for flying pens. However, the universe's behavior has been very stable so far, and thus the probability of it changing is very, very low.

See and reply to my response here. This is where that debate has been settled to occur.

but I see it as God's mind being brought to bear the outcome of a phase transition which God is always involved in for every phase transition that happens anywhere and every time.

Are you saying that every time ice melts, God is personally involved in real-time? If not, then you need to explain what you mean by "phase transition". It sounds to me like you're using this term as a metaphor of some sort.

Yes, every phase transition has God's hand upon it. Just like every delayed choice experiment has God preventing a violation of quantum laws, just like how the protection conjectures that QED and I discussed require a cosmic consciousness (as Kaku even confirmed).

I say that's absurd since you've only added complexity to explaining the room that wasn't there prior to your monkey explanation.

Who is more complex: monkeys, or an omni-god?

Monkeys. An omni-God is just the action of a self-consistency principle (or paradox avoidance) operating in the universe.

[QED]

Monkeys. An omni-God is just the action of a self-consistency principle (or paradox avoidance) operating in the universe.

I've heard you ascribe God to things like this before -- least action, conservation principles etc. But when you say just the action of self-consistency principle I think you're being unfair to people arguing against the existence of a personal God (as we sometimes do here). Theology is a package deal and I can't see how you can strip it down to just the operational principles of the universe -- principles that are experimentally verifiable for their consistency to an extraordinary degree -- while still retaining the notion of judgment and intervention of a divine will. In the extreme this means that someone with blood on their hands can justly declare that they have done God's will -- for God permitted whatever unspeakable act they performed to happen in his universe.