- Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause)
- If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
- The universe exists
Then he looks at what follows from those premises. He combines 1 and 3 to get
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence
and then he combines 2 and 4 to get
5. Therefore, the explanation for the universe's existence is God
WLC then says that this is a logically airtight argument. This is true provided you accept the premises 1-3. However, there is very little justification for them, it seems to me that his only argument is that they seem obvious. He spends the rest of the page arguing against attacks of points 1 and 2, but he never actually justifies them himself. This seems to be a common tactic of WLC, he makes claims and instead of justifying them he challenges his opponents to tear them down. This is nonsense, he is the one making a claim, he should support that claim.
But I will go ahead and point out what is wrong with his assumptions anyway, the first one certainly seems like a reasonable thing to assume. It is just common sense. Too bad it is incorrect. As was discussed recently in comments, at the quantum level things pop into and out of existence all the time without a cause. (I've also seen this on science programs for further reference, I think it was on fabric of the cosmos. A really interesting program and free if you have amazon prime). So we have refuted the claim that everything (which isn't necessary of its own nature) has a cause.
But suppose we hadn't refuted claim 1, given that this is simply a common sense argument, shouldn't it only apply to common things? The universe itself is certainly not a common thing and the origin of the universe is vastly different in many respects than anything around today. Why should we expect our common sense to be correct for something so far out of the realm of our experience?
But claim 1 is just warm up, claim 2 is where this argument really comes off the rails for me. Claim 2 is that there are only 2 possibilities, either God is the explanation for the universe, or there is no explanation for the universe. It completely removes any other possible explanation from the table. It simply claims that anything else is impossible. This is a massive claim which has absolutely no justification. Furthermore, the entire proof is supposed to prove that God exists, but claim 2 assumes that as long as there is any explanation for the universe then God exists. This is a false dichotomy in which one half of the dichotomy they simply assume what they are trying to prove.
------------------------------
For the remainder of this post, I am going to dig into what is written in the paragraphs underneath the actual argument and comment on what is there.
Things which exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way.I'm not really sure what this mean, honestly. Does an abstract number 'exist'? When I say exist, I'm thinking about how my computer exists or how my table exists, I'm not thinking about an abstract concept. What does it mean for a mathematical set or a function to 'exist'? I'm not really sure. I think we are playing with the word 'exist' a little bit. And when he says 'God exists', I don't think he is talking in the way numbers exist in a purely abstract fashion, I think he is meaning in the same way my table exists. Going back and forth blurs this a bit and I wonder if that is intentional.
So what reason might be offered for thinking that premise 1 is true? Well, when you reflect on it, premise 1 has a sort of self-evidence about it.Common sense argument, garbage.
Premise 1 is the premise that the atheist typically rejects. Sometimes atheists will respond to premise 1 by saying that it is true of everything in the universe but not of the universe itself. But this response commits what has been aptly called “the taxicab fallacy.”I still don't understand what the taxicab fallacy is, if anyone know please explain.
Some atheists have tried to justify making the universe an exception to premise 1 by saying that it’s impossible for the universe to have an explanation of its existence.
I have never heard an atheist say this (and of course, WLC has no references for it). What I have heard them say is that it is possible that the universe has no cause, that it is simply eternal. This might sound similar but it is very, very different.
The atheist typically asserts the following:
If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.
Again, I have never heard an atheist put it this way, and the fact that this is exactly the contrapositive to his claim number 2, it makes me wonder if he has ever come across an atheist who said this or if it is just a convenient fiction to bolster his argument.
Besides that, premise 2 is very plausible in its own right.
Common sense argument again
It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time
Why? Explain why it must be non-physical and why it has to be "beyond space and time". In fact, first explain what "non-physical" and "beyond space and time" even mean.
The argument thus proves the existence of a necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe. This is truly mind-blowing!
I agree that is it mind-blowing. How can anyone think that you have argued anything when all you have done is assume all of the stuff that you want to be true?
The page is ended by talking about some specific incident at a talk he went to. It seems to be rehashing the same mistakes listed above so I'm not going to go into specifics on it.
I could attempt to argue with you on some of the points, but I think I'll let it lie. The only thing I'll mention to your objection on premise #2 is that the argument from contingency is logically airtight, but it's not expected to stand on its own as an argument for God's existence. The teleological argument, for instance, demonstrates the unlikelihood of other possible explanations for the universe's existence, for it implies design. The theory of general relativity gives us reason to think we could never test the multiverse hypothesis, so as I said on my own blog it is at best like shooting in the dark with blanks hoping to kill a deer. Not a very good hypothesis at all.
ReplyDeleteBut you asked what the taxicab fallacy is, and even though WLC pretty much explains it, I'll try to go a bit more step-by-step.
Say you're in a taxi, heading to destination A. The taxi takes you to where you want to go, and then you get out, pay your fare, and the taxi goes on its way.
But philosophical arguments don't work that way. You can't just take a philosophical "taxi" as far as destination A, then jump out and let it go on its way. A philosophical argument must be taken out as far as it will go. So for instance, if the translucent ball in WLC's example demands an explanation of its existence(i.e. it doesn't exist necessarily), then no matter what form of matter it takes, the explanation is still demanded. If the ball were, say, the size and composition of the universe, it would still demand an explanation.
So to say that everything requires an explanation (i.e. taking the taxi) except the universe means you're jumping out of the argument (i.e. taxi) whenever it suits your purpose, which is philosophically unreasonable. That is what WLC means by the taxicab fallacy; that you must take any argument and apply it uniformly. In this case, you must take the argument that anything that doesn't exist necessarily has an explanation and apply it to everything that exists contingently, including the universe.
Hope that helps!
Hello Sabepashubbo, thanks for commenting :)
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the taxicab fallacy, if I am understanding you correctly, the complaint is that you have some rule X which you are applying to everything, except you are excluding Y arbitrarily.
Is this a correct summary of the taxicab fallacy? If so, wouldn't one simply need a good reason to exclude Y to avoid the fallacy? Perhaps the explanation would then be that rule X is overly broad and should have exceptional cases.
For the example in question, it seems to me a reasonable possibility that at the origin of the universe things are different. It's not just a matter of it being bigger (the whole universe), but it is crushed into an infinitely small space. Things are so much different than in our current situation that an exception doesn't seem unreasonable to me. In the same way, I would not be surprised if there needed to be exceptions made for black holes and for quantum sized stuff. I'm not saying that it should be for sure, I don't really know, but things are so much different in those situations that exceptions seem like reasonable possibilities.
To further clarify what I was trying to say, if I am reading things right, the real key word in my summary of what the taxicab fallacy is word 'arbitrary'. Would it be fair to say you are not committing the taxicab fallacy if you can successfully remove that word from what you are doing?
DeleteIf I have some rule X which I am applying to everything except Y with good reason, then certain no fallacy has taken place. Would you agree with that?
I think I agree with what you said here based on my interpretation of what sabepashubbo said as well.. I would be interested in further clarification though.
DeleteFrom my understanding, WLC's argument would use this same fallacy, if that is the case. "Everything has a beginning or cause.. except God. He's always been there. I'm wondering how that would be different than making exceptions for other stuff.
I think there is something else to note which I forgot to say last time. In part 2, you haven't offered any other possibilities and why they would be wrong. Why does it have to be God? Why can't it be a multitude of Gods? Maybe a bunch of Godlike entities got together and made the universe together each with their own part in the same way people would come together and build a house. If it's stated in this argument that it has to be God, you have to state why the other possibilities can't be options.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely. It really shows the dishonesty of the whole thing.
DeleteHausdorff,
ReplyDeleteLol, it's obvious you have no idea how analytic philosophy works. WLC's formulation of the LCA is a good one, that its premises are backed up by our everyday intuitions is its strength and not something to be dismissed as lightly as you do. In many ways, the project of analytic philosophy is to tease out the logical consequences of our normal perceptions and/or intuitions.
First of all, quantum phenomena do not necessarily disprove premise 1, there are many different ways to interpret the theory of quantum mechanics and it is only a subset of those interpretations that would disprove the premise. Needless to say, there's way too much controversy about how to understand quantum theory for this to amount to a substantive objection to the argument at this point.
Secondly, the classical atheist position has been to affirm the contrapositive of premise 2 by understanding the existence of the universe as a brute fact (e.g. Bertrand Russell). Your ignorance of this only reveals how little you know about these very old arguments and their history.
Finally, in support of premise 2 it's perfectly reasonable to define God as the external explanation for the totality of the space-time physical universe, in which case premise 2 almost follows by definition. Moreover, if such a being exists then by definition his existence would be external to the totality of the space-time physical universe, hence also timeless, spaceless, and immaterial just as WLC indicated. Our inability to give a complete account of the existence of such a being has no bearing on the argument.
Your particular brand of ignorant village atheism isn't giving this argument the credit it deserves.
It'd be kind of easy to pick apart the things you said, but I am going to keep it simple. Putting aside your logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks, I am going to stick to your main point about premise 2.
ReplyDelete“Secondly, the classical atheist position has been to affirm the contrapositive of premise 2 by understanding the existence of the universe as a brute fact (e.g. Bertrand Russell). Your ignorance of this only reveals how little you know about these very old arguments and their history.”
First, you don't need to be such an ass. Obviously Hausdorff is tying to open up something for a dialogue, you just use your arrogance and throw it around.
You sound like one of those people that believes that God is the default position, and it's up to atheists to disprove him. That's shifting the burden of proof. That's something you learn in the first semester of philosophy and logic. It's always up to someone making a positive claim to present their proof. In this argument, it just kind of assumes that God exists if the universe exists. It does not rule out any other possibilities. Why does it have to be a God? Why couldn't it be a bunch of Gods? Why couldn't there just not be a God?
“Finally, in support of premise 2 it's perfectly reasonable to define God as the external explanation for the totality of the space-time physical universe, in which case premise 2 almost follows by definition. Moreover, if such a being exists then by definition his existence would be external to the totality of the space-time physical universe, hence also timeless, spaceless, and immaterial just as WLC indicated. Our inability to give a complete account of the existence of such a being has no bearing on the argument.”
We could define God as just being the physical laws or properties of the universe, like “God” in the Einstein sense. But then to jump to God as being a “being” has no logical leap. That sounds like the fallacy of equivication. It's a lot of assumptions. “If he exists, he must be outside space time and be immateral.(sic)” Therefore, he exists and these are his properties. “Our inability to give a complete account of the existence of such a being has no bearing on the argument.” And you jump down Hausdorff's throat for being “ignorant.” LoL
“Your particular brand of ignorant village atheism isn't giving this argument the credit it deserves. “
I think he gives it more credit than it deserves.
JKerber,
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, I was being a bit of an ass. My apologies.
You: "You sound like one of those people that believes that God is the default position, and it's up to atheists to disprove him. That's shifting the burden of proof."
Agreed about how that would be unfairly shifting the burden of proof.
You: "That's something you learn in the first semester of philosophy and logic."
Except I don't need this lesson because I already agree with you on this point.
You: "In this argument, it just kind of assumes that God exists if the universe exists."
No it doesn't, that's why it's an argument and not just a bald-faced assertion.
You: "We could define God as just being the physical laws or properties of the universe, like “God” in the Einstein sense."
No we can't. If God is defined as the external explanation for the existence of the universe then he cannot possibly be a property of the universe that belongs to the universe. Try again.
You: "Why does it have to be a God? Why couldn't it be a bunch of Gods? Why couldn't there just not be a God?"
The argument implies a particular definition of God (albeit an abstract one) that I spelled out for you and then argues for the existence of said God in a few steps. Of course, if the argument is successful there are many other questions we might like to ask about this being (e.g. Are there more beings like him? Is this being personal or impersonal? Etc.) but it's not the purpose of the LCA to address those questions.
JKerber,
ReplyDeleteYou know what, after reading a few of Hausdorff's lame critiques of Christian Scripture I have to say that my initial attitude was entirely appropriate for this blog. But I'll play nice for you kiddies.
I'll respond to more when I get home and am not on a kindle, but for now ill just say if you think my Bible critique is poor feel free to point out why. I don't mind being wrong and like a good discussion.
DeleteWelcome to the blog
I think it's lame because you're casually taking potshots at a collection of ancient texts from an anachronistic 21st century perspective. A more serious reading of the NT (and the Hebrew Bible) would involve taking the time to enter the world in which those texts were produced and evaluating them from within, or at the very least reading them through the lens of an inherited ancient tradition as most Christians do.
DeleteI do try to be as fair as possible. I have heard over and over that the bible is full of good stuff, I'm just trying to see what is in there.
DeleteWhat do you mean when you say to enter the world in which those texts were produced? How do I do that?
What is the lens of an inherited ancient tradition? I'm not really sure what that means?
I'm not just trying to be difficult here, I don't know how to do this.
Hausdorff,
DeleteYou enter the world of the biblical authors the same way you enter the world of an elaborate piece of fiction like Dune or Lord of the Rings. Enough said.
What I mean by reading the NT through the lens of an inherited ancient tradition I am thinking in particular of the way in which Christians are trained to read the NT through the lens of their respective church traditions. If you would like to see an example of how this is done you can always pick up a confessional commentary on one of the biblical books and compare the exposition there to what you are writing on your blog.
You can read books and books analyzing on famous pieces of literature. Still doesn't make them true.
DeleteI would say that there are almost as many interpretations of the Bible as there are Christians. From the books I've read on Biblical scholarship, it made me realize how much of a disconnect there is between what is taught in the seminaries and what is taught on the pulpit. Some books like Acts, probably never happened. Some chapters of the Bible were later forgeries. The first few centuries of the church were pretty much a "battle" of doctrines and books. The books and doctrines that won were due to politics, and the version we see today didn't come about until like the third century. etc etc While none of these facts are hidden, when readings are done at church, I'm sure most of the congregation has no idea about most of that stuff.
At least Hausdorff is sitting down and reading the Bible himself and going straight to the source. Most Christians haven't even sat down and read the bible. He is providing a pretty unbiased opinion on his reading of the bible. Maybe you can provide some commentary as to what he is writing instead of just saying "you're wrong. Read some more books."
Anon,
DeleteI have to apologize here, but I still don't think I really understand what you are saying I should be doing. Perhaps it would help if I explained what my motivations are and what perspective I am taking here.
When I started this project of going through the bible, I was motivated by 2 things.
1. Christians claiming that the bible is full of good stuff and saying that I should read it. Sometimes they will say all you need to do is read the bible and you will become christian. Also, along the same lines, you often hear people saying saying that the bible is full of really good stories.
2. On the other side, Atheists will often say that the bible is full of horrible stories. They say that Christians should read the bible and they will become atheists once they see what garbage is in the bible.
Both groups make very strong, opposite claims. Having never really read the bible before, I was curious what I would find in there, so I figured I'd just start reading it on my own. I'm interested in what you can get out of it just reading it. What kind of good messages can you get from it, what kind of bad messages can you get from it.
One thing I have kept in mind is that my bias is clearly going to be toward the negative stuff. So I really do try to highlight any positive stuff I see and potentially downplay negative stuff if it isn't too bad. I figure once my natural bias figures in we will probably be in as close to neutral territory as I can be in. It's obviously not going to be perfect, but it's the best I can do. Also, I'm aware that I don't always succeed on this part, but I do my best. (also, sometimes something is simply amusing or interesting so I'll say it anyway)
Anyway, I try to be as fair as possible. I really just don't understand what this lens is that I'm supposed to read it through. I try to understand context as much as I can for example. Sometimes there are parts of the story that is lost on me, or I misunderstand something. A few times people have corrected me, that is always great.
"No it doesn't, that's why it's an argument and not just a bald-faced assertion."
ReplyDeleteHow is premise number 2 not an assertion. "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." You are assuming what you are out to prove.
Funny how easy it is to "talk big" over the internet. You know.. I'm all for a rational discussion with someone who isn't such an obnoxious arrogant asshole, but that apparently is not you.
JKerber,
ReplyDeleteYou: "In this argument, it just kind of assumes that God exists if the universe exists."
You (later): "How is premise number 2 not an assertion. 'If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.' You are assuming what you are out to prove."
The LCA seeks to demonstrate the existence of a particular definition of God, premise 2 does not assert the existence of said God it only asserts that said God exists if there is an explanation for the existence of the universe, hence your complaint is baseless. However, you are correct in saying that premise 2 is making an assertion that needs to be justified and WLC does in fact try to justify premise 2 by arguing in his scholarship that the physical space-time universe cannot be explained by the necessity of its own nature so that if there is an explanation for its existence then it follows trivially that that explanation must be God (i.e. an external explanation for the existence of the universe).
You: "I'm all for a rational discussion with someone who isn't such an obnoxious arrogant asshole"
Look, I'm keeping the snark down to a reasonable level relative to the rest of the internet so you have no reason to complain.
"However, you are correct in saying that premise 2 is making an assertion that needs to be justified and WLC does in fact try to justify premise 2 by arguing in his scholarship that the physical space-time universe cannot be explained by the necessity of its own nature so that if there is an explanation for its existence then it follows trivially that that explanation must be God"
ReplyDeleteYes. You are right. Except he uses premise 2 to go back and say "ah ha! See! God!" That's his "justification. If you take out premise two, there really is nothing there to justify step number 2 being "God."
1.Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause)
3.The universe exists
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence
5. Therefore, the explanation for the universe's existence is God
You could really insert anything in step two. "If the universe has an explanation for its existence, than that explanation must be X." I guess you could change the definition of God as being "the beginning of the known universe." I could buy into that. But why call that God? "God" has too much baggage? Why not just use the word beginning?
When I boil down the argument, I hear an argument from ignorance slash begging the question slash circular reasoning. "We don't know how the universe works, so God."
-------
That doesn't change the fact that its a terribly written collection of books.
JKerber,
ReplyDeleteI think you're missing the point of these philosophical arguments for the existence of God. When analytic philosophers talk about God they working with a collection of concepts that uniquely specify God according to classical theism (e.g. the foundation of objective moral values, the cause of the beginning of the universe, the explanation for the existence of the universe, and so on). The point of these arguments is not to show that a fully developed deity such as Yahweh exists but that something like the concept of God according to classical theism is necessary in order to make sense of our world at the level of philosophy.
The reason why atheists typically resist these arguments even though they don't try to demonstrate the existence of Yahweh or Allah is because they are invariably committed to a very sparse metaphysics that only recognizes the reality and/or existence of physical categories. Indeed, Christian philosophers and apologists use these arguments in order to show that the philosophically naive materialism of Dawkins et al is hopelessly sparse at the level of metaphysics and therefore almost certainly false.
I take it you mean the argument could explain deistic god rather than a theistic God. I think the difference between these conclusions is huge. If there is a deistic God rather than a theistic God, it's kind of a leap to create any sort religion. In fact, I think that conclusion would kind of disprove every world religion.
ReplyDelete"Christian philosophers and apologists use these arguments in order to show that the philosophically naive materialism of Dawkins et al is hopelessly sparse at the level of metaphysics and therefore almost certainly false."
That's because some of us chose to live in the real world based on what we can observe, test etc. Metaphysics can and has lead to some applicable and scientific knowledge, but until those things can be demonstrated, they are just that. Ideas.
I actually used to be Catholic. It was these kinds of arguments that lead me away from religion to non belief.
JKerber,
ReplyDeleteYou: "I take it you mean the argument could explain deistic god rather than a theistic God."
These arguments are compatible with either a deistic or theistic conception of God but they are incompatible with atheistic materialism.
You: "If there is a deistic God rather than a theistic God, it's kind of a leap to create any sort religion"
Again, no one is trying to establish a religion based on these arguments. That's not their purpose.
You: "That's because some of us chose to live in the real world based on what we can observe, test etc."
You can't observe gravitational fields, electrons, mathematical truths, past events, emotions, etc. yet we all know that such things exist (in some form or other). An epistemology that wants to restrict itself only to what we can directly observe and/or measure is too sparse. You can't escape the task of doing philosophy by retreating to the world of what we can get our filthy mitts on (by the way, that was one of the lessons we learned in the 20th century).
You: "I actually used to be Catholic. It was these kinds of arguments that lead me away from religion to non belief."
Lol, that doesn't make any sense to me.
JKerber,
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, before I leave to pickup my 4 month old from daycare let me just say that I hope you give the Christian faith another try at some point in the future (maybe a Protestant denomination the next time). I can assure you that I've critically examined the Christian faith as hard as anyone else and I've found it to be more likely to be true than anything else (incredibly enough).
"These arguments are compatible with either a deistic or theistic conception of God but they are incompatible with atheistic materialism."
ReplyDeleteThat goes back to my earlier points about just assuming that beginning is God or we were created by a God(s). That's basically what the argument does. A naturalistic world view is based on testable ideas and direct evidence. Maybe the world came from some naturalistic cause. No one really knows for sure.. But you could also put a naturalistic cause in place for God in the argument. Until all the evidence is in, it's pretty arrogant for someone to pretend like they "know." As we learn more, we believe less and less in supernatural explanations. For example, the Bible talks about how people's afflictions were because of God's anger or unhappiness with an individual. Germ theory eventually came along and explained that away. Society (as a whole) no longer believes that someone's cancer is because of God's judgement. It would be downright offensive to tell someone going through chemo that.
"You can't observe gravitational fields, electrons, mathematical truths, past events, emotions, etc. yet we all know that such things exist (in some form or other)."
Yes, but you can test and measure them, as you later admit. They are also falsifiable ideas.
"An epistemology that wants to restrict itself only to what we can directly observe and/or measure is too sparse."
But whats to stop us from just making up a bunch of unproveable, untestable stuff? How does that help anyone? Countless people die every day from religious beliefs, of which are pretty incompatible with each other. They can't all be right. Most of them by default must be wrong. I admit that just because something is horrendous doesn't make it false. But these wacky ideas have real world consequences. I'm not saying philosophy is useless by any means btw, but you have to admit, science and provable stuff trumps abstract arguments.
"that doesn't make any sense to me."
What I mean is when I started looking at the arguments and foundations for my faith, I realized how piss poor they were. I also found as I learned about other world religions, that they had just as much proof as being right as Christianity did. Their believers even believed just as hard as I did about their religion as I did.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletewith respect to point 1, you said that "quantum phenomena do not necessarily disprove premise 1". Let's say for the sake of argument this is correct. It does at least place doubt on the idea. It is certainly possible, and many physicists think that quantum events do happen in an uncaused manner. Perhaps there is a cause we don't know about, perhaps it is truly uncaused, at any rate, there is doubt on premise 1.
As to premise 2, I'm curious what exactly the definition of God is that we are using here. If it is the Christian God, then my complaint stands. You are saying that this is incorrect, we are not talking about the Christian God, that is fine, then what exactly are we talking about? For example you said that God is "the external explanation for the totality of the space-time physical universe". Is that it? Does there have to be consciousness? Does the idea of a multiverse fit the bill? If it can be just the multiverse I agree that it is a fine premise, but then, that is not what we usually think of when we say the word "God".
As to all of the personal attacks. Yes, I am an amateur. I have no background in philosophy, although I do have a degree in mathematics so I am pretty good at logic. I also try to look at these arguments and post my critique before I look up how other people have analyzed them. Where is the fun in just regurgitating someone else's response? I'd rather be wrong and generate some interesting discussion than just post what someone else has said about these topics.
Hausdorff,
DeleteHow can quantum phenomena possibly cast doubt on premise 1 so long as we don't understand the nature of those phenomena? Your assertion makes no sense. In fact, I consider it much more likely to be the case that if these phenomena are ever fully understood they will be revealed to be completely deterministic like everything else.
Yes, the LCA implicitly defines God as the external explanation for the existence of the space-time universe. No, any hypothesized multiverse would not qualify as God under this definition as the multiverse would itself be part of the space-time universe, hence cannot be external to it. With respect to the complaint that this definition of God may not be all that interesting (unlike Yahweh or Allah), I beg to differ as atheists typically hold to a materialistic worldview that does not have room for anything external to the material space-time universe.
Science never claims to "know" anything. It can change as new evidence arises. That's the great thing about science. We try and find explanations for the observations and patterns we see. Religion claims to "know" a lot of unfounded stuff. Pardon my language, but the LCA argument is a shit argument. It gives its conclusion in a premise.
DeleteJKerber,
DeleteSometimes I right "lol" but don't really mean it. However, this comment of yours actually made me laugh. Thank you.
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause)
Delete2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a pineapple.
3. The universe exists
Then he looks at what follows from those premises. He combines 1 and 3 to get
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence
and then he combines 2 and 4 to get
5. Therefore, the explanation for the universe's existence is a pineapple.
That basically uses the same logic.
With respect to casting doubt, I thought you were saying that this argument is based on our normal perceptions. So quantum phenomena show that our normal perceptions do not always work. In the quantum world things don't move in a continuous manner, they move discretely. It seems that they move in uncaused ways. You said that the point "the project of analytic philosophy is to tease out the logical consequences of our normal perceptions and/or intuition" but quantum stuff shows us that sometimes our intuition is shit. When things are very small it doesn't work, and I think it is reasonable to guess that when things are very big it doesn't work either. The simple fact that it is possible that quantum stuff is uncaused casts doubt on this premise for me.
DeleteAs far as premise 2, asserting that the only explanation for the universe being God is just asinine to me. What about the idea that the multiverse is an infinite regress of universes? That is an example of an explanation of the universe that doesn't need God. I'm not saying that is for sure what happened, but that is an explanation that is eliminated by point 2 with no reasoning as far as I can tell.
Hausdorff,
DeleteAgain, this should be an elementary point for someone with your education but phenomena that we don't understand prove nothing and can neither be used in support of a proposition nor its denial. Once again, appealing to a black box proves nothing.
It is an interesting question whether quantum theory actually contradicts some of our everyday perceptions. I am inclined to think not as we don't have many perceptions that are sufficiently general as to apply to the quantum level and the ones we do have are not obviously contradicted at that level. Moreover, it is not the case that we perceive reality as being perfectly continuous as opposed to say being very finely discrete, so that attempted counterexample of yours fails.
Finally, an infinitely regressing multiverse would not qualify as God under the proposed definition as it would still be part of the space-time universe nor can can such an infinitely regressing multiverse account for its own existence (i.e. while each individual universe might find the explanation of its existence in some prior universe the existence of the totality of the infinitely regressing multiverse would still not be explained). Once again, the implicit definition of God in the LCA is not asinine you're just a philosophical amateur whose village atheism can't appreciate the subtlety of the argument.
"appealing to a black box proves nothing."
DeleteThis is exactly what you are trying to do with the LCA argument. Because we don't know what happened before the big bang or if it was caused, you just assume its a non regressing God. An infinite regression isn't something you've ruled out, but rather just asserted.
"Once again, the implicit definition of God in the LCA is not asinine you're just a philosophical amateur whose village atheism can't appreciate the subtlety of the argument."
Between the ad homenim and begging the question, I think we all know who the "philosophical ametur" as you put it, is. What is the difference between my pineapple and God in our arguments? Nothing. The argument proves nothing. I'm not saying for sure there can't be a God, but the argument is terrible and "amateur."
JKerber,
DeleteWith respect, the argument looks bad to you because you don't get it. I have more hope for Hausdorff though.
Your common response to my criticisms of your arguments seem to always amount to "you just don't get it," and "I'm more sophisticated than you are," rather than responding to them. The argument "looks bad" to me because I understand fallacies which you seem to not get. You don't explain why the argument does not beg the question.
DeleteMy purpose of talking about quantum stuff is really just to point out that our perceptions and "common sense" ideas are not necessarily applicable to situations outside of our norm. Things that seem obvious (example, continuous movement) don't necessarily apply everywhere (example, at the micro level). In a similar way, any argument that rests anything on common sense seems flimsy at best when talking at the micro level, and I would argue also is flimsy when talking about the beginning of the universe, which is an environment extremely different than anything we have experienced. The only reason I have brought this up, is it seemed to me that you had said that this argument relies on some level of common sense. Have I misunderstood you? If I have that is fine, but if I have not, I think quantum level stuff does demonstrate that our common sense is really not to be trusted in novel situations.
Delete"an infinitely regressing multiverse would not qualify as God under the proposed definition"
I agree, I was not trying to count it as god, I was trying to provide an alternate to any need for god at all. Claim 2 proposes a need for a God, and I think that is wrong. You say each universe is explained by a previous one, but the totality isn't explained externally. I would ask why it needs to be explained externally? It's possible that the universe being there is the default position. It has always been there, no one put it there. Is this what I think is true? Maybe, I don't really know. But I think it is a possibility which is removed by assumption 2 with no good reason.
If you really think there is a subtlety to the argument that I am not seeing, help me tease it out.
Hausdorff,
ReplyDeleteIt goes without saying that quantum theory is deeply paradoxical and mysterious, yet that doesn't necessarily mean that quantum theory must also contradict our everyday perceptions. In order to show that it does you would have to provide an example of some kind that can stand up to scrutiny, which you have yet to do.
In fact, quantum theory affirms at least one of our everyday perceptions by the very fact of its incompleteness. To wit, we perceive that our choices are not completely determined by the past history of the physical universe (i.e. free will). Now, before quantum theory our physics was always complete so that future physical states were completely determined by past physical states, which is inconsistent with the incompleteness implied by our everyday perception of free will; however, quantum theory is incomplete so that future physical states are no longer completely determined by past physical states according to our latest physics, which is consistent with our everyday perception of free will. At least in this case a remarkable convergence has taken place between one of our more philosophically interesting everyday perceptions and our latest physics.
"I would ask why it needs to be explained externally?"
For all the reasons given in support of premise 1.
"It's possible that the universe being there is the default position. It has always been there, no one put it there."
Congratulations, you're slowly discovering why most atheistic materialists affirm the contraposition of premise 2.
"If you really think there is a subtlety to the argument that I am not seeing, help me tease it out."
Perhaps this philosophical talk by WLC at Wake Forest on this argument will help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=v9QGGPcwtFg
"Congratulations, you're slowly discovering why most atheistic materialists affirm the contraposition of premise 2."
DeleteYou seem to be conflating multiverse and universe a bit here. I was also simply providing 1 possible example, maybe it is something else, something different from an infinite multiverse and different from God.
As to the quantum theory stuff. I think we are on simply going around in circles there, so I'm going to drop it. (I'm also not a physicist)
Also, you said to JKerber down below
"You're completely correct, the five line summary does not stand on its own and was not intended to. The controversial first two premises are argued for separately, it's only the obviously true third premise that's presented without a separate argument."
do you have a link where those first two premises are argued for? In the link I have, he just puts the 5 lines and then goes into defensive mode. Do you know where he actually argues for them? Ideally a write up instead of a video.
Hausdorff,
DeleteAlright, admittedly premise 1 is predominantly supported by our intuitions and/or perceptions of everyday life; however, a supporting argument is given for the premise in the example of an ever enlarging translucent ball in the woods.
With respect to premise 2, seeing as how God is implicitly defined as an external explanation for the existence of space-time reality (i.e. the "universe" in WLC's talk), which might be an infinitely regressing multiverse or complex of multiverses or something much simpler, it suffices to demonstrate that the totality of space-time reality cannot exist by the necessity of its own nature. WLC gives arguments in support of this last claim near the end of his talk.
Hausdorff,
DeleteWith respect to the quantum stuff, it's not that we're going in circles so much as there's not much to say until we better understand the relevant phenomena.
I think it's impossible to just assume what happened after the big bang. No one really knows.
DeleteFor the sake of argument, let's say that a first cause exists. It is quite a leap to say that it's any sort of "god", let alone the one of the Bible for example. I think explaining this all powerful, all knowing, intelligent god who can keep track and help billions of people and the rest of the universe "just existing" is a lot more difficult than explaining the universe just existing. There is just too much to explain for this God.
JKerber,
DeleteAgain, the point of the argument is to show that the existence of physical reality must be explained by something outside that reality. Whatever that explanation is, we're calling it God because that's the only category we have for talking about such things in Western civilization. Of course, this doesn't show that God so defined is "all powerful, all knowing, [etc.]" only that he's the ontological foundation of our very existence.
"we're calling it God because that's the only category we have for talking about such things in Western civilization."
DeleteThat's a bit dishonest isn't it? We could call it a spirit, entity, consciousness, or just "something outside reality". Also, when you say 'God', people assume you mean something akin to the Christian God. And now you backpedal and try to say that it is just something outside reality. But then at the end you say "he", which makes it look like you are talking about God in the more common sense, not as some vague sense.
I've asked this before but I don't think you ever answered. The God in this proof, what exactly are the properties that it must have? What is really being claimed here?
I agree with Hausdorff here. It is kind of dishonest to equivocate two different definitions here. Why not just call it something else? The word "God" has a lot of baggage. Why not just call it the "pre time state" for example? When you use the term "God" without defining it before making the argument, you can give people this idea that you mean something different. Most people associate this with a deistic or theistic God.
Delete"Again, the point of the argument is to show that the existence of physical reality must be explained by something outside that reality."
This really isn't an answer at all. If all it takes for the cause to be something to be outside of space-time, all we need to hypothesize is a particle that is outside of space-time that triggered space-time. It wouldn't even really need any magical powers. Who knows? This particle might exist. It's a much simpler explanation than infinite intelligence. What about an infinite regression of causes?
For anyone to say that they know the answer to this big question of "the pre big bang state" is either lying (which I don't think is your case) or are arguing from ignorance. (When I say argument from ignorance, I'm not calling you ignorant, but am using the term for the logical fallacy).
JKerber,
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you check out the philosophical talk on this argument that I linked to in my last reply to Hausdorff and see if some of your questions/concerns aren't answered there. I'm honestly not sure why you find the LCA to be a fallacious argument.
Maybe I'm not being very clear. As I've pointed out a half a dozen times. It begs the question. In one of your premises (2), the argument states its conclusion, or what it is out to prove. Then it uses that premise to justify its conclusion. You are concluding something without deriving anything new.
DeleteTo phrase it another way, your conclusion is in your second premise.
DeleteJKerber,
DeleteThe second premise is an if-then conditional, the mere fact that the "then" part of the conditional is also the conclusion of the argument doesn't mean that the argument is fallacious. Ask Hausdorff, I'm sure that even he would agree with me about this.
By the way, what's your relationship to Hausdorff? College friend? Crazy uncle? Gay stalker?
"The second premise is an if-then conditional, the mere fact that the "then" part of the conditional is also the conclusion of the argument doesn't mean that the argument is fallacious. Ask Hausdorff, I'm sure that even he would agree with me about this."
DeleteWhen I pointed this out earlier, you said that the argument was out to prove point number two. The argument never says why the “if” must “then” be God. It's the same as your conclusion. It never justifies why you couldn't substitute “pop tart” in there. Maybe explained another way, you can see my problem with the argument. Here is the way it's phrased above..
“1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause)
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
We combine 1 and 3 to get
4. The universe has an explanation for its existence.
We combine 2 and 4
5. Therefore, the explanation for the universe' existence is God.”
Now, let me rephrase the argument.
“1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause)
2.the explanation for the universe' existence is God.
3. The universe exists.
We combine 1 and 3 to get
4. The universe has an explanation for its existence.
We combine 2 and 4
5. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.”
The only thing I did in the second one, was switch the conclusion (5) with the premise #2. It's not any different than the one above, with the exception of phrasing. Premise two says that “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.” The conclusion then draws from that to prove its “point.” Why it has to be God isn't justified in any part of the argument, except drawing from that premise. There are no premises which would lead to why it has to be god in the first place. It's just assumed from the get go. You say that your argument is out to prove why number two is true, but it never states why this conclusion must be God, except because premise two says so.
"By the way, what's your relationship to Hausdorff? College friend? Crazy uncle? Gay stalker?"
What's my relationship to you? Does this have any bearing on the conversation?
JKerber,
DeleteThe problem with your rephrased version of the argument is that your conclusions in premise 4 and premise 5 both follow directly from premise 2 without the need for any other premises. The following statement:
(*) The explanation for the existence of the universe is God
already presupposes that the universe has an explanation for its existence (i.e. your premise 4) and that this explanation must be God (i.e. your premise 5).
"What's my relationship to you? Does this have any bearing on the conversation?"
I'm just curious why you follow his blog so closely.
Exactly. The only difference, is the "if/then".
Delete"2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." This premise already has the conclusion that if the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God. The argument makes points without deriving anything new in the conclusion. There is nothing in the argument that justifies why this explanation must be God. Again, it's just assumed from the beginning.
I've been on disability for a bit, and have been following a few blogs. They give me something to do. I kind of liked the idea of rereading the bible since I haven't read it for a while, and thought I would compare notes. Hausdorff is reading it from a fresh perspective which I thought was a great idea.
JKerber,
Delete"Exactly. The only difference, is the 'if/then.' "
But this difference makes all the difference in the world!
"There is nothing in the argument that justifies why this explanation must be God."
That's why separate reasons are given in support of premise 2 that aren't spelled out in the five line summary of the LCA. Maybe this is the answer you needed.
"I've been on disability for a bit, and have been following a few blogs. They give me something to do. I kind of liked the idea of rereading the bible since I haven't read it for a while, and thought I would compare notes. Hausdorff is reading it from a fresh perspective which I thought was a great idea."
Thank you, I'm a Christian academic with time to burn so that's why I'm here. I guess we're both just killing time until we meet our maker.
"That's why separate reasons are given in support of premise 2 that aren't spelled out in the five line summary of the LCA. Maybe this is the answer you needed."
DeleteI guess I thought that the whole point of this argument was to prove that God exists and created the universe. In other words, I feel like the argument as presented does not stand on its own. As presented here, it still begs the question.
"The second premise is an if-then conditional, the mere fact that the "then" part of the conditional is also the conclusion of the argument doesn't mean that the argument is fallacious."
DeleteThe problem is not that the if-then statement ends with your goal, the problem is that it is not justified.
according to premise 2, either there is no explanation for the universe, or the explanation is God. (What about an explanation that is something other than God?) We have a very strong statement that needs to be justified. As far as we can tell it seems to be just stated as fact. You have stated below that it is argued for elsewhere separately, if that is the case please provide a reference.
JKerber and Hausdorff,
DeleteSee my latest response to Hausdorff above.
JKerber,
ReplyDeleteYou're completely correct, the five line summary does not stand on its own and was not intended to. The controversial first two premises are argued for separately, it's only the obviously true third premise that's presented without a separate argument.
Interesting.. The only time I've heard this argument in debates has been in the context as "incontrovertible proof of God's existence." Especially with WLC. Now I am lost as to the purpose of the argument is. In the context I've heard it used, it's only been on its own, and on its own it is a terrible argument. Maybe you can clarify that.
DeleteAlso, do you have a link to something that discusses why those two premises are true?
JKerber,
DeleteSee my response to Hausdorff above.