Occam's Razor V. Goddidit

[LNC]

I'm not. I'm saying that they're equal. God is not more likely explanation than quantum mechanics. That's why agnostic view on First Cause is the only honest viewpoint. To take a religious attitude and assume God to be the only answer is specious and pretentious.

 

If you can believe that God is the First Cause. Then I can believe a quantum event is the first cause. You will be in agreement with a bunch of biblical scholars, while I will be in agreement with scientists.

 

What is the agnostic view on First Cause? You have one of two choices given naturalism, either the universe always existed (contrary to scientific understanding) or that it came into existence uncaused (which is special pleading in regard to the principle of causality). Both to me are not different than taking a religious position as neither can be proved and must be held as a metaphysical assumption. So, I am not sure why you believe you are in any better position? However, given your position, you still have other issues to explain like the fine tuning issue, the morality issue, the existence of consciousness, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that God is the most parsimonious explanation for all of these. You may be in agreement with scientists, as am I, but you aren't agreeing with them on scientific grounds as you have no scientific data to support your view.

 

I think it only gives credence to the belief that there are an outside realm of our universe, but not necessarily God. But it also depends on how you define God, since the word "God" has many interpretations. I see Nature (in a larger perspective than our Universe and traditional physics, I mean it as to include more than just our Universe) as God. So by a simple redefinition, we would be in agreement, but if we'd look at characteristics of each others said God, we most likely would be in disagreement.

 

When you say that there is an outside realm of our universe, do you mean a realm outside of our universe? The definition for God is fairly commonly understood as either a personal being or impersonal force that exists in the spiritual realm (immaterial). I see the best explanation being that God is a personal being. I don't see how nature can be God since nature had a beginning and therefore would be its own cause, which is logically problematic.

 

What? You have empirical evidence for God? Ok. I'll bite. What is it?

 

I gave it to you and you simply overlooked what I wrote. Here it is again...the existence of a temporal universe, that shows design, with creatures that have immaterial minds and who act according to objective moral values is evidence of an immaterial Creator.

 

First post in this thread, or first post on this website from last year?

 

Well, I think it's an interesting phrasing you have there. You say, "and have yet to find one," does it mean that you are still searching for an answer?

 

If anyone has one that is plausible, I will consider it.

 

Sorry, I meant the begging the question fallacy. And it's also a fallacy of definition, since its premise is a broad definition, while the conclusion uses a strict/narrow definition. The definition of cause must be equal in premise and conclusion.

 

Please explain further how specifically you believe that I was begging the question and committing the fallacy of definition.

 

Supernatural is fine. In the definition of: outside of our Universe, beyond our laws of physics.

 

However, intelligent means a mind.

A mind means thoughts.

Thoughts mean process.

Process means a timely process.

A timely process means temporal.

If God is infinite and intelligent, then he has an infinite temporal past of thoughts.

But the paradox and Kalaam argument claims this is impossible.

So I can't see or understand how intelligence can exist in a non-temporal being.

It just does not make sense.

 

Put it this way:

p1) actual infinite does not exist

p2) God is an actual infinite

c) God does not exist

 

That is an interesting question. Now, a question back to you. What thoughts would you suggest that God has in a timeless state? Our minds have thoughts; however, that doesn't mean that all minds in all possible worlds have thoughts per se. God has knowledge, but does it necessitate that he organize his knowledge into thoughts? Now, we know that when God started time he willed the universe into existence and that would require a thought; however, I see no reason to suggest that God had to have thoughts in a timeless state as there would be no change in a timeless state and therefore, thoughts would not have been necessary. What change would he need to think about? The truth is that God possesses all knowledge and therefore could not think something that he did not already know, so thoughts are not necessary until he wills the universe into existence.

 

Special pleading.

 

It's just like God. God has not been empirically verified, so it's not appropriate to use as an explanation.

 

Besides quantum tunneling, radioactive decays, and the casimir effect, I think, provides evidence that quantum mechanics works on a completely different level of causality than we think of in traditional physics. And the time-backward light experiment suggests the possibility of causes to be going backwards in time.

 

And if you then suggest that this is only a matter of epistemology, then I can tell you that the same problem exists for God. If we can't know (we can only believe) or test God, then God is not an answer to the questions.

 

I believe that we can empirically verify God's existence and so your objection is moot. We can do so by combining philosophical principles with scientific understanding and abductive reasoning.

 

Regarding quantum tunneling, can you tell me how this works, that is how these quanta tunnel from non-existence to existence? Also, how do they begin time? From where do the laws of physics come that govern these processes? It seems to open a lot of questions that are not necessarily scientific questions, but more in the area of philosophy and metaphysics. Maybe you could be more specific as to how you believe that these theories apply to the origin of the universe and why you think that they work differently in respect to causality. I would need more details in order to actually evaluate whether you really are onto anything here.

 

Quantum events and Free Will (if it exists).

 

Your two answers are very interesting. For in the second answer we would say that free will requires a mind that is not determined by the physical body, but instead has the ability for top-down causation. In other words, you are arguing for substance dualism, a position to which I subscribe. Second, if quantum events are truly self-caused, you would be ascribing mind to the matter, which is to ascribe to a panpsychist view. I wonder to which view you personally ascribe? Would you consider yourself more of a panpsychist or more of a substance dualist? By the way, I don't find that panpsychism can truly get a person to free will as we generally understand it as the mind does not roll up to the entity (the person in this case) but resides at the subatomic level. So, you would really have to take one position or the other, as they are not compatible with one another.

 

 

Theoretical physicists are quite certain the first cause of big bang was a quantum event. You disagree with them, I don't.

 

What data did you provide? I haven't seen any data? I've seen a bunch of inductive arguments, but no data.

 

Really, can you cite some theoretical physicists who hold this certainty and let me know on what they base this certainty? I don't know if I disagree with them until I can evaluate on what they base this certainty. I would conjecture that it is more metaphysical than scientific as they may be extrapolating from a lower level experiment to the larger application to the universe. However, there are many hurdles that they must overcome both scientifically and metaphysically to hold this epistemic certainty that you say they hold. So I will be interested in reading their arguments and evidence.

 

Science is built upon inductive argument, in case you are not aware of that fact. So, the fact that I may give you inductive argument doesn't negate the argument or put it outside of the realm of that on which science is based. I have also given data, both here and in the Kalam thread, so I simply reject your final assertion as false.

[Ouroboros]

September? Really dude. We're in November now.

 

And you still have no explanation to why God is the exception from the paradox.

 

Btw, you're committing the card stacking fallacy all over again, repeatedly, incessantly. So who really cares?