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?

[Bugmaster]

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

Well, unfortunately, "God did it" is not really a good hypothesis. It has no explanatory power. How did God do it ? In mysterious ways ?

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

Well, for example, if your hypothesis is that "God is a square circle", then it's internally inconsistent, and cannot be true. If your hypothesis is that "God created the Universe so that the sky is purple with polka dots", then it's inconsistent with what we observe, and thus is very probably false.

As you might know, I believe that dualism of any kind fulfills both of the above criteria, and thus cannot be true. This doesn't rule out pantheism, solipsism, or other kids of spiritual monism, of course, but it does rule out the classic Christian God (as well as Zeus, Thor, animal totems, etc.).

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.

Arguments aren't the same thing as evidence. If you believe in a dualistic supernatural world, then you have a difficult task. Firstly, you are positing the existence of something, and thus the burden of proof is on you. Secondly, by definition, there can never be any physical evidence for a non-physical supernatural world, and thus you're stuck with purely logical arguments, which are much more difficult to implement.

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...

Why not, out of curiosity ? If "eternal" means, "existing for all time", then our Universe is eternal. There was no time before the Big Bang, and, assuming the Universe is bounded and there'll be a Big Crunch, there will be no time after it.

[Goat]

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.

While we certainly don't have a full answer, we are getting much more knowledgeable about the kind of chemistries that could possibly lead to life. Although there are very many unknown details, the information that the scientiests
who are studing it indicates there is a perfectly valid natural explanation for it.

If that is your example, I am afraid that it is a fairly bad one.

[

[Dion]

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. .

I should perhaps point out at this stage that I am a geologist, though I no longer work in the field. I have 'done' Drumlins, Moraines and Megaripples. I live in the West of Scotland where much of the original work on these features was done. (Drumlin is from the Scottish word drum which means a hill or ridge, drumlin means 'little hill'.) I have any number of glacial features to examine right on my doorstep. The reason that "few people could make the leap of a megaflood at one locale and extend that globally" is quite simple. There is no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim!

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..

I get the distinct impression that QED can look after himself, so I'll say no more about 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.

Why can nothing in the physical world be eternal? Or be causesd by something that was caused by something that was caused by something that stood upon a turtle ... etc?

You just keep shifting the question back a stage.

The simple question is: If God caused the Universe what caused God? And if you say God is eternal, why can't I say that the Universe is eternal? (Or was caused by some unknown natural process which is eternal?)

[otseng]

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

Well, unfortunately, "God did it" is not really a good hypothesis. It has no explanatory power. How did God do it ? In mysterious ways ?

How did God do it? I don't know. But, just because we don't know how doesn't mean it couldn't have happened either.

How does gravity work?
How does dark energy work?
How does even a pencil get made?

Well, for example, if your hypothesis is that "God is a square circle", then it's internally inconsistent, and cannot be true. If your hypothesis is that "God created the Universe so that the sky is purple with polka dots", then it's inconsistent with what we observe, and thus is very probably false.

Not sure how this relates to this thread. But, sure if "God is a square circle" then it is not consistent.

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.

Arguments aren't the same thing as evidence.

True, they are not the same. Yet you stated "If there's no good evidence to believe that the supernatural exists at all, and good evidence to believe that it does not." I'm simply pointing out that I haven't seen any evidence to believe it does not exist. Whereas I've already demonstrated evidence for its existence.

Firstly, you are positing the existence of something, and thus the burden of proof is on you.

Yes, I agree.

Secondly, by definition, there can never be any physical evidence for a non-physical supernatural world, and thus you're stuck with purely logical arguments, which are much more difficult to implement.

I disagree. If the supernatural world created/interacted with the natural world, clues can be left behind. And it's those clues that we can look at to put the puzzle together.

Why not, out of curiosity ? If "eternal" means, "existing for all time", then our Universe is eternal. There was no time before the Big Bang, and, assuming the Universe is bounded and there'll be a Big Crunch, there will be no time after it.

Eternity can be viewed in two other ways.

The first is time that is infinite in the negative and positive direction.
The second is a timeless existence outside of space-time.

When I say the universe cannot be eternal, I use the first definition. Why can't it be eternal? Because of the second law of thermodynamics.

When I say God is eternal, I use the second definition. Since God is eternal, God is uncauseable.

If the universe started with the Big Bang and time also started, then it must've been caused, even if we use your definition of "eternal".

[otseng]

While we certainly don't have a full answer, we are getting much more knowledgeable about the kind of chemistries that could possibly lead to life. Although there are very many unknown details, the information that the scientiests
who are studing it indicates there is a perfectly valid natural explanation for it.

If that is your example, I am afraid that it is a fairly bad one.

The point is, there is no current natural explanation for abiogenesis. Saying that one will come in the future does not count.

[Goat]

While we certainly don't have a full answer, we are getting much more knowledgeable about the kind of chemistries that could possibly lead to life. Although there are very many unknown details, the information that the scientiests
who are studing it indicates there is a perfectly valid natural explanation for it.

If that is your example, I am afraid that it is a fairly bad one.

The point is, there is no current natural explanation for abiogenesis. Saying that one will come in the future does not count.

But there IS a natural explaination for abiogenesis. The fact there are fuzzy areas where the details are not known yet doesn't matter. Abiogenesis is merely straight chemistry.

[otseng]

But there IS a natural explaination for abiogenesis. The fact there are fuzzy areas where the details are not known yet doesn't matter. Abiogenesis is merely straight chemistry.

Then I must not be up on the current discoveries. Please cite the natural explanation for abiogenesis.

[Goat]

But there IS a natural explaination for abiogenesis. The fact there are fuzzy areas where the details are not known yet doesn't matter. Abiogenesis is merely straight chemistry.

Then I must not be up on the current discoveries. Please cite the natural explanation for abiogenesis.

Organic materials form naturally in many conditions. The first rna replicators happened due to chance, since amino acids form chains on quartz crystals. From there, it is straight duplication with variation, followed by natural selection.

Once you have a self replicating molicule, the rest is merely details.

[Bugmaster]

How did God do it? I don't know. But, just because we don't know how doesn't mean it couldn't have happened either.

Sure, it could've happened. It's possible. How likely is it, though ?

How does gravity work?
How does dark energy work?
How does even a pencil get made?

These are all scientific questions, not religious ones. What's the difference between answering "God did it", vs. "I don't know ?" The "God did it" hypothesis has zero explanatory or predictive power, and it cuts off further inquiry to boot.

Actually, some prominent scientists in our history have invoked the "God did it" hypothesis, with mixed success. Off the top of my head, I'd list Copernicus ("why do planets move ? God did it"), and Hooke ("where did cells come from ? God did it"). Naturally, there were tons of anonymous philosophers before them who thought that fire, lightning, daylight, and the flloding of the Nile are directly influenced by the gods. It's a good thing we didn't go with their explanations !

Again, I think that your God is just a god of the gaps.

Not sure how this relates to this thread. But, sure if "God is a square circle" then it is not consistent.

I, of course, would argue that dualism itself is internally inconsistent; more on this below.

Secondly, by definition, there can never be any physical evidence for a non-physical supernatural world, and thus you're stuck with purely logical arguments, which are much more difficult to implement.

I disagree. If the supernatural world created/interacted with the natural world, clues can be left behind...

How does the nonphysical world influence physical matter, and vice versa ? By definition of "nonphysical", this can't be done -- how many Newtons of force can your soul exert ?. If your answer is, "the two worlds don't influence each other", then, even if you were right, it would mean that the spiritual world is irrelevant, because it doesn't do anything.

When I say God is eternal, I use the second definition. Since God is eternal, God is uncauseable.

As I'm sure many people have pointed out by now, why can't the Big Bang be uncauseable ? Or the series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, if you prefer. And, again, if "God did it" is your explanation, what does it explain ? What testable predictions does it make ?

[otseng]

What's the difference between answering "God did it", vs. "I don't know ?" The "God did it" hypothesis has zero explanatory or predictive power, and it cuts off further inquiry to boot.

Again, I'm not stating to give up on pursuing natural explanations.

How does the nonphysical world influence physical matter, and vice versa ?

I do believe the two can influence each other. How? I don't know. But again, answering how is not necessary to prove that it exists.

As I'm sure many people have pointed out by now, why can't the Big Bang be uncauseable ? Or the series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, if you prefer.

Something must have caused it. It might be a deity or it might be a quantum fluctuation or whatever. But, since the universe is not eternal (infinite past) then it must've had a cause.

And, again, if "God did it" is your explanation, what does it explain ? What testable predictions does it make ?

What does it explain? Well, it explains what caused the universe.