Post: #26

(05-15-2017 08:04 AM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  

Quote:For every world w, A exists

This is true if B is without agency and free will, but then B is not the personal being described in the OP argument. If B is not an agent, then anything created by it, such as A, would be emergeant from its intrinsic properties, rather than created by B's volition. On the other hand, if B is an agent, then things that are created by it can, in a hypothetical scenario, have not been created.

World 1: B exists and causes A
World 2: B exists and does not cause A

So there must be a difference between World 1 and World 2. You say this difference could be B's volition in World 1 that does not exist in World 2.

This means A must be caused not by B alone but by the combination of B and B's volition.

Volition is a contingent thing, as it does not exist in every world. Therefore, it must be caused by some necessary thing (according to you). But it too becomes a necessary thing and we are back to where we started with an additional entity.

Adding entities will not solve the problem.

Post: #27

Gosh, that is damn clever. Though I would say that a person's volition is an aspect of the person, not a separate object, you have proven the OP argument insufficient. Very well done, my man! We're not done yet, though. All of this has inspired me to write a new argument.

1) For a necessary thing, it either emerges from modality or modality emerges from it.
2) A necessary thing caused the universe. (assumed from the previous thread)
3) The cause of the universe either emerges from modality or modality emerges from it. (1,2)
4) If a necessary thing emerges from modality, it has no causal power. (Kavi's argument)
5) The cause of the universe does not emerge from modality. (2,4)
6) Modality emerges from the cause of the universe. (3,5)
7) Abstract objects, such as the laws of mathematics and the laws of logic, emerge from modality.
8) Abstract objects, such as the laws of mathematics and the laws of logic, emerge from the essence of the cause of the universe. (6,7)
9) Mathematics, reason, abstract concepts, and all necessary propositions are a part of the essence of the cause of the universe. (8)
10) The cause of the universe is reasonable and knowledgable. (9)
11) The cause of the universe is uncaused and has volition. (2)
12) The cause of the universe is reasonable, knowledgable, and uncaused and has volition. (10,11)
13) All things that are reasonable and knowledgable and have volition are personal.
∴) The cause of the universe is personal. (12,13)


In this thread, let's refer to this argument as "A27" just to make our lives easier. Since this is post #27.

Post: #28

Thanks mate. Not sure if I can look into this longer and more complex argument right now as I need to try and save my business from failing along with all my savings and future etc.

Post: #29

Don't worry about it, my man. Your livelihood is more important than internet shenanigans. You've given me quite a bit to think about.

Post: #30

(05-15-2017 12:33 AM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  The reason why is because (2) is a property of things that are not contingent, but (1) is contingent. If (2) explained (1), the universe would neither be contingent nor have a beginning, but it does have a beginning.

You believe that the multiverse had to have a beginning. Why?

If you can accept a supernatural deity does not have to have a beginning, why can't you use occam's razor to reduce down to the multiverse not having a beginning?

If a deity doesn't need a creation explanation (exists outside of time and space etc) why couldn't the multiverse ?

Creating a supernatural explanation doesn't really simplify or explain how it all came to exist really, does it? (turtles all the way down theory)

Post: #31

Sorry for the hiatus. By some magic, I've managed not to touch my computer in days, whereas I'm normally glued to this thing.

(05-16-2017 05:09 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  You believe that the multiverse had to have a beginning. Why?

Multiverse? Where did that come from?
Well anyway, assuming that a multiverse actually exists, then yes, it also ought to have a beginning. I have several reasons to believe this. For starters, as a multiverse would be an expanding system, it is subject to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, and thus could not have an infinite past, so it is contingent. Secondly, as a multiverse is a collection of universes and universes are contingent, the multiverse is contingent. Thirdly, as a multiverse is nothing more than an expanding collection of contingent universes, it changes and is therefore contingent. We can get into other reasons, but I want you to make the case for the existence of a multiverse first, and also to define how you conceive of a multiverse. Otherwise, I'll consider it irrelevant.

Quote:If you can accept a supernatural deity does not have to have a beginning, why can't you use occam's razor to reduce down to the multiverse not having a beginning? If a deity doesn't need a creation explanation (exists outside of time and space etc) why couldn't the multiverse ?

Multiverse is contingent, so it can't ultimately cause all contingent things. Also, while we're talking about occam's razor, what do you say we use occam's razor to dismiss notions of multiverse? Multiverse is not needed to explain the world as we know it, and it doesn't add anything of value. So occam's razor tells us we shouldn't believe in it.

Quote:Creating a supernatural explanation doesn't really simplify or explain how it all came to exist really, does it? (turtles all the way down theory)

Explain your reasoning for me, please. Why can't the existence of something beyond the natural world sufficiently explain the creation of the natural world? It seems the opposite to me, that something contained within the natural world cannot sufficiently explain the existence of the natural world.

Post: #32

(05-20-2017 09:03 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  Multiverse? Where did that come from?

Well it's been in the news lately... some tiny bits of evidence starting to emerge.

Evidence of multiverse?

Thinking that we can see all of the big picture from our point of view is a mistake that we apes have been making since we climbed out of the trees.

We are limited by our primitive observational tools, and even more primitive knowledge and capacity to understand.

It's a fair bet that there are other universes out there.

But anyway, this is irrelevant to this discussion.

(05-20-2017 09:03 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  Well anyway, assuming that a multiverse actually exists, then yes, it also ought to have a beginning. I have several reasons to believe this. For starters, as a multiverse would be an expanding system,
and thus could not have an infinite past, so it is contingent.
Secondly, as a multiverse is a collection of universes and universes are contingent, the multiverse is contingent. Thirdly, as a multiverse is nothing more than an expanding collection of contingent universes, it changes and is therefore contingent.

Things that expand can also contract... Forming an endless cycle. Expansion is not evidence for a beginning.

Also "beginning" is all in the way that you perceive the passage of time. It can also run "backwards" to form an endless cycle.

Other than using the word "contingent" a lot, you haven't convinced me that the universe had a beginning. Even if it did, it could have been caused by a non-supernatural event (read up on multiverse, quantum, branes etc)

(05-20-2017 09:03 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  Explain your reasoning for me, please. Why can't the existence of something beyond the natural world sufficiently explain the creation of the natural world? It seems the opposite to me, that something contained within the natural world cannot sufficiently explain the existence of the natural world.

If we are having a rational, intelligent discussion about the origins of energy, matter and time... You can't just pop in a supernatural explanation as a sensible cause.

There are feasible non-supernatural causes that obey the laws of physics and are within the (admittedly narrow) knowledge we currently possess.

Not exactly knowing is not an excuse to make a wild story up. All of history shows us that when we don't know something, making up a supernatural explanation always looks very silly when we progress a little bit and find out the real reason, cause and explanation for things.

There is a lot we don't know, and the things I have mentioned I am not putting up as a 100% verified plausible explanation for the observable universe.

What I am arguing for is for us to accept our lack of knowledge, continue to explore the universe and not to reach for a "chariot pulls the sun across the sky explanation". Ever.

Post: #33

(05-20-2017 09:27 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Things that expand can also contract... Forming an endless cycle. Expansion is not evidence for a beginning.

That's disputable, but let's assume you're right just to see where this takes us. If the multiverse is in a state of expansion and changes to a state of contraction, then it is subject to causes. Another argument for the multiverse's contingency.

(05-20-2017 09:27 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Also "beginning" is all in the way that you perceive the passage of time. It can also run "backwards" to form an endless cycle.

In an epistemic sense or a metaphysical sense? What does it mean for time to run backwards?

(05-20-2017 09:27 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Other than using the word "contingent" a lot, you haven't convinced me that the universe had a beginning. Even if it did, it could have been caused by a non-supernatural event (read up on multiverse, quantum, branes etc)

Contingency makes a thing "T" subject to causality. It impossible for T to be the ultimate cause of the universe, since T is itself subject to causes which supercede T.

(05-20-2017 09:27 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  If we are having a rational, intelligent discussion about the origins of energy, matter and time... You can't just pop in a supernatural explanation as a sensible cause.

Either this claim is dogmatic or you are confusing the term "supernatural" with "superstition". In either case, this claim holds no water.

(05-20-2017 09:27 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  There are feasible non-supernatural causes that obey the laws of physics and are within the (admittedly narrow) knowledge we currently possess.

Not exactly knowing is not an excuse to make a wild story up. All of history shows us that when we don't know something, making up a supernatural explanation always looks very silly when we progress a little bit and find out the real reason, cause and explanation for things.

There is a lot we don't know, and the things I have mentioned I am not putting up as a 100% verified plausible explanation for the observable universe.

What I am arguing for is for us to accept our lack of knowledge, continue to explore the universe and not to reach for a "chariot pulls the sun across the sky explanation". Ever.

Give me an example. Give me a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the natural world.

Post: #34

I'm taking issue with premise 4.

(05-11-2017 06:35 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  4) If a modally necessary impersonal substance(s) created the universe, the universe would exist from eternity.

Seems to me like some impersonal substance could have caused the big bang.

Post: #35

(05-20-2017 11:19 PM)Bland Wrote:  I'm taking issue with premise 4.

(05-11-2017 06:35 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  4) If a modally necessary impersonal substance(s) created the universe, the universe would exist from eternity.

Seems to me like some impersonal substance could have caused the big bang.

Not a necessary impersonal substance. A contingent impersonal substance could do that, sure, but a contingent substance can't solve the causality problem. Anyway, Kavi already showed that argument, on its own, isn't valid, so I don't think it's productive to talk about it anymore. I do have a new argument, at post #27.

Post: #36

(05-21-2017 12:59 AM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  I do have a new argument, at post #27.

So I took a look at A27, and I'm confused by your use of "modality."

What's the definition of modality in this context?

Is that a technical term in your subfield of Philosophy?

Post: #37

(05-25-2017 09:43 PM)Bland Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 12:59 AM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  I do have a new argument, at post #27.

So I took a look at A27, and I'm confused by your use of "modality."

What's the definition of modality in this context?

Is that a technical term in your subfield of Philosophy?

I'm sorry, I know A27 is worded terribly. I wrote it quickly and without much thought. I should rewrite it in a clearer way, without all of the extra/unneeded premises.
Modality, in the context of metaphysics, is the framework of classification between necessary things, contingent things, and impossible things.
Looking at it now, A27 makes an assumption... or rather, it has some unstated premises about modality. Namely that if things which are classified by modality exist (ie: necessary things) then modality itself must exist for necessary things to proceed from it and be classified by it. Following from this, modality must be necessary in order to be able to classify necessary things. Another unstated premise is that necessary things can "proceed" or "emerge" from the intrinsic properties of other necessary things. For example, the law of identity proceeds from the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.

I'm not very articulate, so do ask me to rephrase anything that sounds weird or can't be understood.