Version 2 of God argument 1

[Metacrock]

(1) The Universe is contingent upon "prior" conditions (conditions that existed "prior" to our understanding of space/time:





(2) By definition the "ultimate" origin cannot be contingent, since it would reuqire the explaination of still prior conditions (a string of infinite contingencies with no necessity is logical nonsense;the existence of contingent conditions requires the existence of necessary conditions).

(3) Therefore, the universe must have emerged from some prior condition which always existed, is self sufficient, and not dependent upon anything "higher."


(4) Naturalistic assumptions of determinism, and the arbitrary nature of naturalistic cosmology creates an arbitrary necessity; if the UEO has to produce existents automatically and/or deterministically due to naturalistic forces, the congtingencies function as necessities

(5) Therefore, since arbitrary necessities are impossible by nature of their absurdity, thus we should attribute creation to an act of the will; the eternal existent must be possessed of some ability to create at will; and thus must possess will.

Corollary:


(6) An eternal existent which creates all things and chooses to do so is compatible with the definition of "God" found in any major world religion, and therefore, can be regarded as God. Thus God must exist QED!













(a) Prior condition being space/time, or gravitational field.

Matter, energy, all physical phenomena stem from 'gravitational field' the prior condition of which is he big bang, the prior condition of which is the singularity, the prior condition of which is...we do not know.


(b)All naturalistic phenomena are empirically derived, thus they are contingent by their very nature.


As Karl Popper said, empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something.(Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.)

[MrWhy]

As the OP progresses through the argument points, it shifts from things that are evidenced (premise #1) to something that is not (#2). Using things that are observed or measured as a basis for something that cannot be observed, or measured. Would this qualify as conjecture?

everything has conjecture at some point. When cosmologists talk about membraines in string theory no one has ever seen one. There is no proof for them and in fact there may never be proof. but scientsis all over the world are talking about them as though they are fact. They are pure conjecure!

We're in agreement here. It should be called string conjecture, or maybe string hypothesis if there was some way to test it. I don't understand how anyone gets away with calling it a theory.

Conjecture is important for idea conception, but not suitable as a foundation for conclusions. Are you agreeing that your premise #3 is conjecture?

#1 is based on things observed and/or measured. Not much disagreement on this.
#2 premise is questionable. "the universe is contingent" is an assumption because we have no knowledge in that area, other than some conjecture about the breakdown of known physics rules. This is filling in the unknown with a god.

NOt at all. Just because the universe is contingent doesn't mean God exists. And the contingency of the uiverse is a logical conclusion given the facts. you cannot demosntrate that the universe had to be. It could have ceased or failed, therefore, by defition its contnigent.

But, the contingency argument is used as a basis to propose a god (probably) exists.

If the proposed singulairity was the source of energy that made the universe, and you’re in the assumptive mode, then let’s just say the singularity was the universe in a different form. A form that was lawless, or where the rules were different and beyond our current knowledge. Further, even if it was dimensionless (a speculation), the singularity was still supposed to contain all the utlimate universe mass. It was the universe in a different form, in a state of unknown rules. Did it always exist in that form, or was that form from another?

To add another hitch, a dimensionless state could be the basis for speculating that the universe came out of nothing. Came from nothing, caused by nothing, no known prior condition. The point in all this conjecture is that it may be interesting to toy with these ideas, but there’s nothing here that lends much credibility to any claim about ultimate origin.

The most reasonable answer is: We don’t know.

that is the most erronious answer you could give. It's empirically disproven. for people who LOVE empiricism you sure ddont' care much for empirical data.

we know the univerwse is nto eternal that is foolish:

(1) it has a begining.

The form/state we currently observe had a beginning.

(2) it has an end (heat death)

The current form/state will end. Maybe.

[Metacrock]

As the OP progresses through the argument points, it shifts from things that are evidenced (premise #1) to something that is not (#2). Using things that are observed or measured as a basis for something that cannot be observed, or measured. Would this qualify as conjecture?

everything has conjecture at some point. When cosmologists talk about membraines in string theory no one has ever seen one. There is no proof for them and in fact there may never be proof. but scientsis all over the world are talking about them as though they are fact. They are pure conjecure!

We're in agreement here. It should be called string conjecture, or maybe string hypothesis if there was some way to test it. I don't understand how anyone gets away with calling it a theory.

Conjecture is important for idea conception, but not suitable as a foundation for conclusions. Are you agreeing that your premise #3 is conjecture?

No I think it's a logical deduction form 1 and 2. But I say on the page where the God arguments are listed that my goal is not absolute proof but "rational warrant."so I'm not trying to prove conclusivley but offer ratinoal reasons why one would conclude that they can rationally believe.

#1 is based on things observed and/or measured. Not much disagreement on this.
#2 premise is questionable. "the universe is contingent" is an assumption because we have no knowledge in that area, other than some conjecture about the breakdown of known physics rules. This is filling in the unknown with a god.

NOt at all. Just because the universe is contingent doesn't mean God exists. And the contingency of the uiverse is a logical conclusion given the facts. you cannot demosntrate that the universe had to be. It could have ceased or failed, therefore, by defition its contnigent.

But, the contingency argument is used as a basis to propose a god (probably) exists.

you are poisoning the well against a God conclusion. the contignency of th universe in and of itself doesn't prove God. We have have to deduce from that why it does. I think I do that.

If the proposed singulairity was the source of energy that made the universe, and you’re in the assumptive mode, then let’s just say the singularity was the universe in a different form.

that is not scientfiic theory. no one thinks that. skeptics are fond of the misconception but go talk to a cosmologist or physicist. that is not the standard theory and it's not really embraced by anyone in science that I know of. they think that energy was created in the BB. that's becasue Newtonian laws don't exist at the bb so conservation of energy is out the window in a Qm universe.

A form that was lawless, or where the rules were different and beyond our current knowledge. Further, even if it was dimensionless (a speculation), the singularity was still supposed to contain all the utlimate universe mass. It was the universe in a different form, in a state of unknown rules. Did it always exist in that form, or was that form from another?

No it is not. Odenwald of NASA says specifically that it's not. But also my friend atheist on CARM calling hmiself Barron who was worked for physicists and did such work in Ph.D. program said this is not what scientific theoritsts think.

To add another hitch, a dimensionless state could be the basis for speculating that the universe came out of nothing. Came from nothing, caused by nothing, no known prior condition. The point in all this conjecture is that it may be interesting to toy with these ideas, but there’s nothing here that lends much credibility to any claim about ultimate origin.

that's just squaring the circle. there could be no change in a timeless state. ture aboslute nothing would be a timeless state. Most of the time when physicists use the term "nothing" they don't really mean it. They really mean vacuum flux, so tha still has to be accounted for in terms of prior conditions because it's not eternal and it is naturalistic thus we can expect it to be cotingent and to emerge form some prior conditoins.

The most reasonable answer is: We don’t know.

No we do know that whatever it is must be eternal and necessary. The speculative aspect is that this equals god. But it does in my definition of God.

that is the most erronious answer you could give. It's empirically disproven. for people who LOVE empiricism you sure ddont' care much for empirical data.

we know the univerwse is nto eternal that is foolish:

(1) it has a begining.

The form/state we currently observe had a beginning.

(2) it has an end (heat death)

The current form/state will end. Maybe.

ok well obvioulsy that's not empirically proven since it hasn't happened yet but all idnications are strong.

we are talkinga bout a rational warrant. If one were to say "this is enough for me to warrant a belief that eternal necessary being is god" that would be rational based upon what's been given. It's not proven, but it's a rational choice. it's not irrational or illogical.

[MrWhy]

we are talkinga bout a rational warrant. If one were to say "this is enough for me to warrant a belief that eternal necessary being is god" that would be rational based upon what's been given. It's not proven, but it's a rational choice. it's not irrational or illogical.

As I said before, it's not enough for the skeptic.

Forum threads may reveal why logical debates rarely change anyone's position on the ultimate question. There's logic tossed around, but it fails to change basic positions. If the logic is good, and the people are logical, why no change? Maybe the data, and the data processors are not adequate for that task.

Uummm... Think I'll start a thread on this topic.

[Goat]

we are talkinga bout a rational warrant. If one were to say "this is enough for me to warrant a belief that eternal necessary being is god" that would be rational based upon what's been given. It's not proven, but it's a rational choice. it's not irrational or illogical.

As I said before, it's not enough for the skeptic.

Forum threads may reveal why logical debates rarely change anyone's position on the ultimate question. There's logic tossed around, but it fails to change basic positions. If the logic is good, and the people are logical, why no change? Maybe the data, and the data processors are not adequate for that task.

Uummm... Think I'll start a thread on this topic.

That is because logic is only as good as your initial assumptions. IF your initial assumptions are mistaken, then your conclusions are invalid.

[Metacrock]

we are talkinga bout a rational warrant. If one were to say "this is enough for me to warrant a belief that eternal necessary being is god" that would be rational based upon what's been given. It's not proven, but it's a rational choice. it's not irrational or illogical.

As I said before, it's not enough for the skeptic.

you speak for all sketpics?

there are too many ways to rationalize a God argument. That's why they never really can produce conversion. I am not donig this because I think I'm goign to convert you with supirior logic. I think the best we can hope for through these arguments is to clear away the clutter and remove people's excuses and make searching for ;god easiwer. If it does that I think that's a very great deal.

Forum threads may reveal why logical debates rarely change anyone's position on the ultimate question. There's logic tossed around, but it fails to change basic positions. If the logic is good, and the people are logical, why no change? Maybe the data, and the data processors are not adequate for that task.

skpetics don't want logic and they run away form it when it backs into a corner. That's why so many of them say things like "empirical data is all that matters" becasue atheists really hate logic.

Uummm... Think I'll start a thread on this topic.

on logic or on ratinal warrant?

[Metacrock]

we are talkinga bout a rational warrant. If one were to say "this is enough for me to warrant a belief that eternal necessary being is god" that would be rational based upon what's been given. It's not proven, but it's a rational choice. it's not irrational or illogical.

As I said before, it's not enough for the skeptic.

Forum threads may reveal why logical debates rarely change anyone's position on the ultimate question. There's logic tossed around, but it fails to change basic positions. If the logic is good, and the people are logical, why no change? Maybe the data, and the data processors are not adequate for that task.

Uummm... Think I'll start a thread on this topic.

That is because logic is only as good as your initial assumptions. IF your initial assumptions are mistaken, then your conclusions are invalid.

I can defend my initial assumption better than most crack pots and as well as the net manich.

[Goat]

we are talkinga bout a rational warrant. If one were to say "this is enough for me to warrant a belief that eternal necessary being is god" that would be rational based upon what's been given. It's not proven, but it's a rational choice. it's not irrational or illogical.

As I said before, it's not enough for the skeptic.

Forum threads may reveal why logical debates rarely change anyone's position on the ultimate question. There's logic tossed around, but it fails to change basic positions. If the logic is good, and the people are logical, why no change? Maybe the data, and the data processors are not adequate for that task.

Uummm... Think I'll start a thread on this topic.

That is because logic is only as good as your initial assumptions. IF your initial assumptions are mistaken, then your conclusions are invalid.

I can defend my initial assumption better than most crack pots and as well as the net manich.

Where?? All I have seen from you in your arguement from xxx/yyy is more of the same unsupported assertions. I think others have pointed it out, but you seem to refuse to understand their points.

[Metacrock]

we are talkinga bout a rational warrant. If one were to say "this is enough for me to warrant a belief that eternal necessary being is god" that would be rational based upon what's been given. It's not proven, but it's a rational choice. it's not irrational or illogical.

As I said before, it's not enough for the skeptic.

Forum threads may reveal why logical debates rarely change anyone's position on the ultimate question. There's logic tossed around, but it fails to change basic positions. If the logic is good, and the people are logical, why no change? Maybe the data, and the data processors are not adequate for that task.

Uummm... Think I'll start a thread on this topic.

That is because logic is only as good as your initial assumptions. IF your initial assumptions are mistaken, then your conclusions are invalid.

I can defend my initial assumption better than most crack pots and as well as the net manich.

Where?? All I have seen from you in your arguement from xxx/yyy is more of the same unsupported assertions. I think others have pointed it out, but you seem to refuse to understand their points.

(1) I don't think you knkow enough about logic to know when you have gotten your ass kicked or when an argument has beaten you over the head with it's logical force.

(2) you have not made a specific attack on any of my assumptions so it's kind of hard to defend what is not attacked. you assert that they are no good but never say what you are talking about.

(3) I dont' think you understand loigcal thought, so you really don't know what works and what doesn't.

[Goat]

(1) I don't think you knkow enough about logic to know when you have gotten your ass kicked or when an argument has beaten you over the head with it's logical force.

(2) you have not made a specific attack on any of my assumptions so it's kind of hard to defend what is not attacked. you assert that they are no good but never say what you are talking about.

(3) I dont' think you understand loigcal thought, so you really don't know what works and what doesn't.

I don't think you know what 'getting your ass kicked' means, particularly when you haven't kicked anyones ass.

I personally have not made a specific attack on any of your assumptions, no. However, others have, and you just can't get through your head that your assumptions are unsupportable. Furrowed brow has shown the weaknesses in your primary assumptions. He also has shown that you have misrepresented your
sources too.

as for number 3, that is just an 'ad homenin' attack. I have to say that your use of logic is very shaky at best. It boils down to

1) Unsupported assertion a
2) Unsuppored assertion b
3) therefore god.

That is what every one of your 'arguement from' boils down to.

In this case, you are making the logical fallacy of 'special pleading' for God. You are getting out of the alledged 'infinate regression' by basically saying 'oh, there can't be an infinate regression, therefore God'. It is just restating the 'first cause' arguement with a bunch of unsupported assertions. The fact is we do not know
what the 'conditions' were that allowed the formation of the universe. Ignorance does not mean 'God did it' . You just took the 'everything has a cause' arguement, and modified with with a lot of bull. It suffers the same problem.


Trying to play that kind of game cheapens ones faith in God.

[MrWhy]

we are talkinga bout a rational warrant. If one were to say "this is enough for me to warrant a belief that eternal necessary being is god" that would be rational based upon what's been given. It's not proven, but it's a rational choice. it's not irrational or illogical.

As I said before, it's not enough for the skeptic.

you speak for all sketpics?

there are too many ways to rationalize a God argument. That's why they never really can produce conversion. I am not donig this because I think I'm goign to convert you with supirior logic. I think the best we can hope for through these arguments is to clear away the clutter and remove people's excuses and make searching for ;god easiwer. If it does that I think that's a very great deal.

I do it to raise doubt. To reduce the abuses by people who think there's a god on their side.

Forum threads may reveal why logical debates rarely change anyone's position on the ultimate question. There's logic tossed around, but it fails to change basic positions. If the logic is good, and the people are logical, why no change? Maybe the data, and the data processors are not adequate for that task.

skpetics don't want logic and they run away form it when it backs into a corner. That's why so many of them say things like "empirical data is all that matters" becasue atheists really hate logic.

The length of these threads would indicate atheists neither hate nor fear logic.

Theists hate logic more than atheists. Go to forums that are predominately theists or atheists. Oppose their belief by making some aggressive, but logical comments. Avoid personal comments, but attack the basic belief, books, etc., and see which type will bar you the quickest. Start with some fundamental Muslim and Christian forums.