Thought Experiment

[Kamehameha34]

If God is one of a series of events that result in the creation of the universe, then God didn't "create" the universe, God is just one of many steps.

If the "god" step was missing, there'd be no universe. The universe is dependent on each step.

Just as you "fire" a gun when you pull a trigger, even through the gunpowder, pressure, etc. was already there, the supposed god "created" our universe.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood And here I thought you were Mister Literal-Definition guy. Well then, all those times you refused to accept my definition of a concept, you knew what I meant.

Yes. This isn't a semantical debate, though.

[Jack]

Who can say? Perhaps the "god step" is redundant, or unnecessary. Remove a domino and the last domino may still reach far enough to trigger the one after. Without knowing what the "god step" is, there's nothing intelligent to say about it.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Since the subject is gods, then we should use create in its theological sense, to make something out of nothing. Nearly every modern god I'm aware of is postulated as a first cause, the creator of all that is. This would suppose its ability to create something out of nothing while at the same time failing to account for the pre-creation presence of the god itself. I would agree. Yet this could easily be credited to our limited imaginations and inability to conceive of such a thing. We only know in our current universe we have yet to discover a way to create something from nothing. Energy and matter are neither created or destroyed, they just change states.

I just think that the traditional theistic view of gods is bonkers. I am happy to defend the deistic concept of a naturalistic god(s), but not the traditional theistic kind. What kind a god would need worship?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood Who can say? Perhaps the "god step" is redundant, or unnecessary. Remove a domino and the last domino may still reach far enough to trigger the one after. Without knowing what the "god step" is, there's nothing intelligent to say about it.

Are there only a finite amount of steps that are not redundant?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Who can say? Perhaps the "god step" is redundant, or unnecessary. Remove a domino and the last domino may still reach far enough to trigger the one after. Without knowing what the "god step" is, there's nothing intelligent to say about it.

I think we should distinquish between necessary causes and necessary consequences. A god may not be a necessary cause of our universe. However, I maintain that godhood is a likely necessary consequence of infinite emergence.

If we think that god(s) exists, then we have to ask, does a universe that looks designed have a greater than 50% probability of having been created by a god, rather than occuring naturally?

Think of it this way...

People make square stones. Square stones also occur naturally. If we see a square stone, do we just assume that it occurred naturally, because a person was not a necessary cause?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I just think that the traditional theistic view of gods is bonkers. I am happy to defend the deistic concept of a naturalistic god(s), but not the traditional theistic kind. What kind a god would need worship?

The problem with the traditional theistic view like Christianity is the depict a hands-on God with in a very narrow framework, for which there is no evidence today for this.

The problem with a strictly deistic natural uninvolved god or gods, they would be just another domino or dominos in a sequence of events. If a deisitic God or some Gods were missing the sequence of dominos, they are likely redundent enough that nothing would change. It is like the turtles all the way down argument, if one or two turtles were missing it would be of no consquence.

On a strictly human naturalist plan and worldview there is no need for a God or Gods especially if they were toatally uninvolved deistic entities. Many sequences of dominos would still roll on in the sequence of events in cosmic history.

My belief of God is not based on necessity, but pn the apparent evidence for the Baha'i revelation and its predictive and expalnitory power for the nature of existence and humanity in time and place. The Baha'i view of God is unknowable and reflects the nature of existence as a very natural God, but is involved in revelation in the cyclic evolving nature of the human spirit in harmony with the physical natural evolution.

[Kamehameha34]

But the nature of an infinite regress is that which requires an infinite amount of necessary "dominos". If one were missing, the end product* would not exist, or at least be the same.

With an infinite amount of necessary steps, it's almost certain (meaning infinitessimally small chance for failure) that a "god" was one of them - according to Cappy's equation for trial probability.


*I say that our universe was the "end product" because it is the only end product that we are concerned with. Of course, if the expansion and creation of our universe had caused something else to happen, that would have continued the regress.

[Fonceai]

There is no such thing as an infinite number of causes.

You could try to use dominoes, and say that the cause of the first domino is the person who placed it, then start going with the cause of that person.

That is sloppy and inconsistent.

By doing that, you are transferring between systems.

You need to think of it like a timeline.

The basic line might be infinite, but each unique choice branches off to a different timeline. The initial "cause", in that case, would be the choice that branched off.

So that alternate timeline, from one perspective, appears to go back forever. But really it "started" with the branching.

Another problem with isolating a specific cause-and-effect in any kind of infinite scenario... you are now establishing an end and a beginning.

If Step #X is a being doing something and Step #Y is the universe coming into being, then you are no longer dealing with infinity.

Step #X effectively becomes Step #1.
Step #Y effectively becomes Step #Y-X.

So no matter how many steps there are before X or after Y, what matters is that X is some kind of action that leads to the universe at Y.

Also, you need to specify if it was this beings intent to create the universe.

Another point to bring up...

Let's use the flawed carpenter analogy.

A carpenter takes materials and builds a chair.

If you want to compare that chair to the universe, then there are multiple causes that lead to its creation.

You can't say that a carpenter "created" the chair any more than you can say a mother "creates" a baby... there is more than just one cause.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonce There is no such thing as an infinite number of causes.

I disagree. I am saying there is no such thing as an uncaused cause.

How do you get something from nothing?

The basic line might be infinite, but each unique choice branches off to a different timeline. The initial "cause", in that case, would be the choice that branched off.

But, under that system, the initial cause that you refer to still has a cause that precedes it, in the outermost dimension of time.

You can't say that a carpenter "created" the chair any more than you can say a mother "creates" a baby... there is more than just one cause.

I am OK with this.

We can say the carpenter was a partial creator, just as the mother and father were partial creators.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: S. Dragon The problem with a strictly deistic natural uninvolved god or gods, they would be just another domino or dominos in a sequence of events.

Why is that a problem?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Captain Chaos We can say the carpenter was a partial creator, just as the mother and father were partial creators.

So wouldn't that then imply that "God" is not the sole creator of the universe?

If God put it all together, where did the matter and energy come from?

If our existence is inside another existence; if we are a microcosm, so to speak, in a larger cosmos, then whatever created us isn't necessarily a "God"... just a creator.

That's why this thought experiment is flawed. It is not focused, the opening post was contradictory, and it is another way for Kame to try and peddle his arguments and ideas and stroke his own ego.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai If our existence is inside another existence; if we are a microcosm, so to speak, in a larger cosmos, then whatever created us isn't necessarily a "God"... just a creator.

If a being exists with that level of power, I am comfortable calling it a god.

That's why this thought experiment is flawed. It is not focused, the opening post was contradictory, and it is another way for Kame to try and peddle his arguments and ideas and stroke his own ego.

Um, Fonce, that was kinda mean spirited.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: CC If a being exists with that level of power, I am comfortable calling it a god.

I agree and disagree. If something can accidentally or intentionally create a universe, that's pretty damn powerful.

But if the intention is not there, if it's accidental, then I have to fall victim to my own fallacy... I just don't define god as being that clumsy.

I agree with you that there is never something from nothing. Even if you go far enough back to have to have multiple causes, I agree that there have always been causes.

But saying that there is a being "somewhere in there" is like saying that, if my great-great-grandson blows up the planet that I caused the planet to be destroyed.

Quote by: CC Um, Fonce, that was kinda mean spirited.

How was it mean?

It's the same as Zhavric creating the same thread over and over just with a different title.

I'm not the only one who noticed that, in the opening post, we are supposed to accept as premises concepts that are in opposition.

The opening post is also very vague. It leaves the thread open to degenerate into an argument over definitions.

A "thought experiment" should be something of a "hey, what do you think about this?" and should be an opportunity to share ideas. Kame created this thread with ambiguity, either intentionally or accidentally. Either or, I don't like his attitude towards people who point out confusion in his posts, even when they do so respectfully. It opens the door for him to belittle others who, like it or not, actually want to engage in a discussion but can't.

Notice that in my first post in this thread, I simply pointed out the contradictions, and even those aren't being fixed.

Instead, it turned into a "the contradictions are fine if you consider infinite emergence"... more redefinition.

So then I mention the problems with infinite emergence. Either due to lack of ability to address the posts, or simply due to the fact he's probably in school right now, the only responses are yours, CC, and they are quite clear and get right to the point.

[Captain Chaos]

I agree with you, Fonce, that if a being just played a part, several dominoes back, it does not really indicate conscious creation. For a universe to be created, I think we have to say that the outcome of a life-bearing universe was intended.

[Fonceai]

Intent is the key.

If I were to raise my children to eventually raise their children to blow up the world, I would then think it legitimate to say that I was the cause... but the intent has to be there.

[Kamehameha34]

1) You have yet to explain the contradiction. You are not infallible - back up your statements or keep them to yourself. I don't have time to bear witness to another one of your egotistical rants.

2) An infinite regress is the only possible answer, other than acausality, to explain our universe existing.

3) Is it impossible for deities to have intent? If it was possible for deities to have the intent and power to create our universe, then it is an undeniable fact, given infinite regression, that we were created by a deity that had the intent to create us.

Why?
The probability of something happening, over n amount of trials, is demonstrable in the following equation, supplied by CC:

1-((1-P)^N) = A

P = Probability of an event happening with one trial

A = Probability of an event happening over the total amount of trials

In this instance, n= infinity. So, if P>0, then A = 99.9r%. If P>1, then A = 100%.

That means that, if it was at all possible for a being with the intent and power to create our universe to do so, then the odds of it not happening are infinitessimally small.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kame You have yet to explain the contradiction. You are not infallible - back up your statements or keep them to yourself. I don't have time to bear witness to another one of your egotistical rants.

I explained it repeatedly

Post #4
Post #12
... then a series of posts in which CC and Isherwood actually discuss those contradictions...
Post #29

Then in Post #30 you ask Isherwood to cite the flaw, to which I answered that the flaw was explained in my posts.

Here is where you show you are being an immature little boy...

Quote by: YOU in Post #34 And the refutations to the flaws you cited are in my posts.

I explained it and you posted in #34 that you refuted the flaws already.

Tell me this... how can you tell me you refuted the flaws, which you obviously didn't do to my or other's satisfaction, and then, 23 posts later, ask for the contradictions again?

But just in case...

Post #49
Post #52
The first half of Post #54 is a great result of intelligent response from CC.

Finally, Post #55 and #56.

CC and I both agree that intent is important.

And that is the contradiction to your opening post.

Why?

If God intended to create the universe, there is no infinite regression.

Refer back to my Post #49.

If God intended to create the Universe, that is the first cause. It doesn't matter how many came before to result in God.

It doesn't matter how many more it took until the Universe was created.

God saying, "I want to make a universe" is Cause #1, as far as the Universe is concerned.

That is the flaw of your opening post.

You cannot have infinite regression associated with intent.

[Kamehameha34]

That's bull, and you know it.

The infinite amount of causes before the deity's creation of the universe serve to facilitate the creation, and where the deity comes in only serves as another cause. Conscious intent bears no contradiction to an infinite regress.

If I shoot you with a gun, is my pulling the trigger the first cause, even though that's where my intent comes into play?

No, and earlier causes would be the loading of the gun, the manufacturing of the gun, the mining of the metal to manufacture the gun, the permit granted to the mining company to dig in the mine..

It could go on infinitely, because each step has a step behind it.

With the argument you're pursuing, you're making it seem as though intent is acausual. Keep in mind, intent is only an organism's goal. Intent is dependent on motivation, or why they would set that goal. This very fact proves that "intent" isn't a first cause.

If you want to call the deity's intent "cause 1", then you go ahead and do that. Just realize that you'll be using a different usage.

[Fonceai]

First of all, I don't see any kind of acknowledgment of the posts you insist I never made, yet gave you every one I posted in this thread relevant to what you didn't see.

Now let's address the "bull"...

Quote by: Kame Conscious intent bears no contradiction to an infinite regress.

It most absolutely does. And I'll use your own example to demonstrate how.

I'll quote piecemeal until the end...

Quote by: Kame If I shoot you with a gun, is my pulling the trigger the first cause, even though that's where my intent comes into play?

No, your intent was the first cause.

Quote by: Kame No, and earlier causes would be the loading of the gun, the manufacturing of the gun, the mining of the metal to manufacture the gun, the permit granted to the mining company to dig in the mine..

A natural conclusion of what I just quoted is putting the gun manufacturer on trial for murder. Or the inventor of the first firearm. Or the inventor of the first bow and arrow.

That's just plain nonsense.

Quote by: Kame This very fact proves that "intent" isn't a first cause.

You're not thinking clearly on cause and effect.

It's amazing how many times I find myself repeating for you what is evident to anyone with an education.

What is the "effect" in the example you are giving? Murder.
What is the "cause" in the example you are giving?

First and foremost, the intent to murder.

I could drive down to Maryland and beat you silly, insulting you verbally the whole time, and then set a loaded gun next to you.

I didn't cause you to murder me.

The first cause is your intent to murder me.

First and foremost, the murder could not happen unless you intend for it to happen.

You're still a child and closer to the flaw of that kind of reasoning... when was the last time you heard another person your age use the argument, "He made me do it" to justify their own wrongdoings?

They have a fancy term for this in legal proceedings: mena rea

Since you like Wiki so much... Mens rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Intent" is always primary.

Quote by: Kame If you want to call the deity's intent "cause 1", then you go ahead and do that. Just realize that you'll be using a different usage.

Different usage than what?

The Dictionary of a Angst-Ridden 14-Year Old?

My usage of intent as the primary cause of an action is not only common sense in legal terms (though often argued), it is also true in multiple fields.

As you said yourself...

intent is only an organism's goal

In the context of your flawed OP, you can't have another cause before the intent to do something.

This is purely common sense. You said the God had to intend to create the universe. Then the "effect" is predicated first on the "intent" to make it happen. Sounds like a "first cause" to me.