tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post2538798207876476804..comments2024-03-29T07:36:41.429-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: A Response to VytautasBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-40930725397538193612008-03-26T10:43:00.000-04:002008-03-26T10:43:00.000-04:00TT: It is an irrefutable fact that consciousness i...TT: It is an irrefutable fact that consciousness is awareness of reality . In order for consciousness to obtain, reality must first exist. By exist, I mean instantiated things that have attributes. Without existence, there can be no awareness of any instantiated thing with an attribute and consequently no consciousness. Thus any argument from a supposed first cause via a consciousness fails. Further to this idea is Dr. Quentin Smith's excellent short essay that follows.<BR/><BR/>**********************************<BR/>http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html<BR/><BR/>Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism<BR/>Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists<BR/>by Quentin Smith<BR/><BR/>The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 2.<BR/><BR/>Since the mid-1960s, scientifically informed theists have been ecstatic because of Big Bang cosmology. Theists believe that the best scientific evidence that God exists is the evidence that the universe began to exist in an explosion about 15 billion years ago, an explosion called the Big Bang. Theists think it obvious that the universe could not have begun to exist uncaused. They argue that the most reasonable hypothesis is that the cause of the universe is God. This theory hinges on the assumption that it is obviously true that whatever begins to exist has a cause.<BR/><BR/>The most recent statement of this theist theory is in William Lane Craig's 1994 book Reasonable Faith.[1] In it Craig states his argument like this:<BR/><BR/> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.<BR/> 2. The universe began to exist.<BR/> 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.[2]<BR/><BR/>In a very interesting quote from this book he discusses the first premise and mentions me as one of the perverse atheists who deny the obviousness of this assumption:<BR/><BR/> The first step is so intuitively obvious that I think scarcely anyone could sincerely believe it to be false. I therefore think it somewhat unwise to argue in favor of it, for any proof of the principle is likely to be less obvious than the principle itself. And as Aristotle remarked, one ought not to try to prove the obvious via the less obvious. The old axiom that "out of nothing, nothing comes" remains as obvious today as ever. When I first wrote The Kalam Cosmological Argument, I remarked that I found it an attractive feature of this argument that it allows the atheist a way of escape: he can always deny the first premise and assert the universe sprang into existence uncaused out of nothing. I figured that few would take this option, since I believed they would thereby expose themselves as persons interested only in academic refutation of the argument and not in really discovering the truth about the universe. To my surprise, however, atheists seem to be increasingly taking this route. For example, Quentin Smith, commenting that philosophers are too often adversely affected by Heidegger's dread of "the nothing," concludes that "the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing" - a nice ending to a sort of Gettysburg address of atheism, perhaps.[3]<BR/><BR/>A Baseless Assumption<BR/><BR/>I'm going to criticize this argument from scientific cosmology, which is the most popular argument that scientifically informed theists and philosophers are now using to argue that God exists.<BR/><BR/>Let's consider the first premise of the argument, that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause. What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true? It's not self-evident; something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading theists such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it is false. Many philosophers, scientists, and indeed the majority of graduate and undergraduate students I've had in my classes think this principle is false. This principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition. Therefore, there's no reason to think it's true. It is either false or it has the status of a statement that we do not know is true or false. At the very least, it is clear that we do not know that it is true.<BR/><BR/>Now suppose the theist retreats to a weaker version of this principle and says, "Whatever has a beginning to its existence has a cause." Now, this does not say that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause; it allows that it is possible that some things begin to exist without a cause. So we don't need to consider it as a self-evident, necessary truth. Rather, according to the theists, we can consider it to be an empirical generalization based on observation.<BR/><BR/><B>But there is a decisive problem with this line of thinking. There is absolutely no evidence that it is true. All of the observations we have are of changes in things - of something changing from one state to another. Things move, come to a rest, get larger, get smaller, combine with other things, divide in half, and so on. But we have no observation of things coming into existence. For example, we have no observations of people coming into existence. Here again, you merely have a change of things. An egg cell and a sperm cell change their state by combining. The combination divides, enlarges, and eventually evolves into an adult human being. Therefore, I conclude that we have no evidence at all that the empirical version of Craig's statement, "Whatever begins to exist has a `cause'," is true. All of the causes we are aware of are changes in pre-existing materials.</B> In Craig's and other theists' causal principle, "cause" means something entirely different: it means creating material from nothingness. It is pure speculation that such a strange sort of causation is even possible, let alone even supported in our observations in our daily lives.<BR/>An Uncaused Universe<BR/><BR/>But the more important point is this: not only is there no evidence for the theist's causal assumption, there's evidence against it. The claim that the beginning of our universe has a cause conflicts with current scientific theory. The scientific theory is called the Wave Function of the Universe. It has been developed in the past 15 years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features that our universe possesses, such as containing intelligent organisms. This remaining universe has a very high probability - near 100% - of coming into existence uncaused.<BR/><BR/>Hawking's theory is confirmed by observational evidence. The theory predicts that our universe has evenly distributed matter on a large scale - that is, on the level of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe - our universe has been expanding ever since the Big Bang - would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called "inflation." Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.[4]<BR/><BR/>So scientific theory that is confirmed by observational evidence tells us that the universe began without being caused. If you want to be a rational person and accept the results of rational inquiry into nature, then you must accept the fact that God did not cause the universe to exist. The universe exists uncaused, in accordance with the Wave Function law.<BR/><BR/>Now Stephen Hawking's theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang, and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding.<BR/><BR/><B>Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No. For the Wave Function of the Universe implies that there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says that the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is allpowerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.</B><BR/><BR/>So contemporary scientific cosmology is not only not supported by any theistic theory, it is actually logically inconsistent with theism.<BR/>Notes<BR/><BR/> 1. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994)<BR/> 2. Ibid., p. 92<BR/> 3. Ibid.<BR/> 4. Confirmation of Hawking's theory is consistent with this theory being a reasonable proposal for the form that an (as yet) undeveloped theory of quantum gravity will take, as Hawking himself emphasizes. See Chapter 12, William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).<BR/><BR/>Quentin Smith is Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University. He has published five books, including Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Clarendon Press, 1993) with William Lane Craig.Kevin Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04581136429971160522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-39012381182945082352008-03-25T05:05:00.000-04:002008-03-25T05:05:00.000-04:00Dawson, you make some very compelling arguments. B...Dawson, you make some very compelling arguments. <BR/><BR/>But who created humans? The universe? Who created that very first particle that ever came into existence?<BR/><BR/>You speak of reason. Here's my reasoning.<BR/><BR/>A. Stuff doesn't pop out of thin air. It comes from a source. Babies come from their mommies, Plants grow out of the ground, factories must be built by hands.<BR/><BR/>B. Thus we can trace back all of creation, if we must. Suppose the following, which many believe to be true. We evolved from primates, who evolved from ... etc. etc. all the way back to microscopic bacteria in the ocean. Who created that bacteria? Where did it come from? <BR/>Or take the Earth. Our solar system came from a giant explosion called the big bang. But the big bang assumes particles already existed. Who created these particles?<BR/><BR/>C. Thus it is impossible to escape the reality that at some point, way back along the line of creation, there is an "Un-caused cause". This uncaused cause is GOD. Whether you call this being, Blakko or Jehovah, or whatever, THERE IS A CREATOR, since there is a creation. How can there not be a creator? What is the alternative? <BR/><BR/>Our universe is so vast its size is incomprehensible. Similarly it is difficult to understand the nature of God. But you cannot deny the existence of some power, some force, SOMETHING that created all of this around us.<BR/><BR/>Or are you supposing that we all popped out of thin air, Dawson? That's not a very compelling "reason".<BR/><BR/>And if we didn't pop out of thin air, where did the universe come from? <BR/><BR/>Furthermore you're most popular argument seems to be this: "How can you separate God from your imagination?"<BR/><BR/>I would pose this question to you, my friend: Do you believe in love? Rage? Envy? <BR/><BR/>Of course you do. But please, distinguish to me where the love ends and your imagination begins. <BR/><BR/>This line of reasoning is a simple cop out. You can't disprove something just because you can't perfectly understand its nature. Nor can you disprove something because it isn't tangible or even explainable. Try explaining to someone how anguish feels after a loved one passes away. Its very difficult to do, yet we all recognize the existence of anguish in our world today.<BR/><BR/>When you're at a McDonald's thinking to yourself, "Hmmm, do I want a Big Mac or just a Coke?" are you simply "imagining" these thoughts, or are they real? Just because you can't show someone else your thoughts, or explain exactly what a thought even is, doesn't mean thoughts don't exist.<BR/><BR/>Thus it is with God. Simply because the nature of his being is indiscernible does not thereby disprove his existence. If that were the case, love and every other emotion, every thought, everything that makes us human would be a figment of our imagination.<BR/><BR/>We haven't begun to understand the world around us. Just 500 years ago science and reason said the world was flat! From the tiniest of particles, which we have base elementary theories to explain, to the vastest reaches of deep space, which we know almost nothing about, mankind is far from an "expert" regarding the universe. <BR/><BR/>So if the Christian God is omnipotent, infinitely larger, and more powerful than our universe (which we do not understand), how could you possibly expect believers to fully explain to you the mysteries of God?<BR/><BR/>Although the analogy isn't perfect, it gets my point across: love is like God. You cant really explain it, but you know its there.<BR/><BR/>And you know he's there too, Dawson. Look inside you, look at what makes you human. Therein lies the truth.<BR/><BR/>You may choose to denounce Christian theology (although I wouldn't recommend it, for you're sake), but to deny any higher power, any supreme being, any constructor or creator, is not only foolish. <BR/><BR/>Its unreasonable.TruthTRUTHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00668801328382945261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-24305296672964340032008-02-25T14:06:00.000-05:002008-02-25T14:06:00.000-05:00I was too hasty to say "Since “God” is indistingui...I was too hasty to say "Since “God” is indistinguishable from the imaginary, it is imaginary." in my earlier post. Nevertheless, I think Dawson is on to a strong line of argument refuting theism. Upon further reflection, Rather than say "... it is imaginary.", I think it would be better for me to say "it is very likely that God and the believer's imagination are one and the same."Kevin Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04581136429971160522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-9251338175233492572008-02-21T14:43:00.000-05:002008-02-21T14:43:00.000-05:00Further to my comment above is the idea that since...Further to my comment above is the idea that since God is immanent, such that it occurs in the human mind, it is imaginary. But since God is also ineffable and incomprehensible to the human mind, there is no way to distinguish it from anything else, for to make valid comparisons requires comprehension of the items. Consequently, there is no way for any person to distinguish what they define to be "God" and what they are imagining. Since “God” is indistinguishable from the imaginary, it is imaginary.Kevin Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04581136429971160522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-12825380152866229652008-02-21T14:19:00.000-05:002008-02-21T14:19:00.000-05:00Dawson wrote: "... And I've asked how I can reliab...Dawson wrote: "... And I've asked how I can reliably distinguish between what you call "God" and what you may merely be imagining..."<BR/><BR/>Theism posits that God is both immanent and ineffable at the same time. To be immanent is to exist in the mnind, but to be ineffable is to be incromprhensible to the mind. This contradiction renders the notion of God incoherent so that the word "God" is meaningless.Kevin Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04581136429971160522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-58065307133449288552008-01-10T12:21:00.000-05:002008-01-10T12:21:00.000-05:00God is so great he can do anything, even create ex...God is so great he can do anything, even create existence in order to exist.<BR/><BR/>The only thing he apparently can't do is make Christians think coherently.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-72353155316922411492008-01-09T22:24:00.000-05:002008-01-09T22:24:00.000-05:00I have responded to your blog post.http://privyfis...I have responded to your blog post.<BR/><BR/>http://privyfisherman.blogspot.com/2008/01/all-imaginary-stuff.htmlVytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.com