Thought Experiment

[Jack]

Human evolution will cease to be a matter of happenstance determined by natural selection.

Are you suggesting that human evolution is somehow volitional? We are evolving and will continue to do so as long as we exist as a species. Nothing we do short of destroying all human life will stop natural processes.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Are you suggesting that human evolution is somehow volitional? We are evolving and will continue to do so as long as we exist as a species. Nothing we do short of destroying all human life will stop natural processes.

I am suggesting that human evolution will become volitional, yes. Specifically, I am suggesting that we are going to tinker with our own genome. This will result, among other things, in smarter stronger humans. These humans will have the advantage in competing for resources.

Natural evolution is very slow. I am not saying that process will dissappear, per se. Rather, it will be occluded by intentional evolution.

[Kamehameha34]

I'm reviving this. I'm not satisfied with the amount of suitable opposition it yielded.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 For this thread: God - A being that had the intention and ability to create our universe We - The universe we reside in For this experiment, let's assume that our universe was caused by an infinite regress. That means that it was caused by an ever-lasting chain of causes and effects. This implies that there were an infinite amount of causes, prior to the creation of our universe. Is it possible that one of those causes was a being setting into motion a chain of events that would create our universe? I'm trying to explain this as well as I can, and I know I'm not doing it very eloquently, so I'll try to simplify it: There were an infinite amount of possibilities for a "god" to step into the infinite regress that caused our universe to be born. Given an infinite amount of possibilities, does that mean that there is a sure chance we were created by a "god"? Of course, none of this applies if you subscribe to acausality. I'm not pushing this as an argument for theism - I just want to see some reactions to this idea I've been playing with.

I've also considered this idea.. but I believe that infinity IN TIME does not entail infinity in POSSIBILITIES.

Also, the argument could be used to assure the existence of every single possible being in existence.. yet, we must still justify any being in existence with reason and not "we live in a repeated trial of events that could host absolutely anything."

[Kamehameha34]

I've also considered this idea.. but I believe that infinity IN TIME does not entail infinity in POSSIBILITIES.

Maybe not (if you say that one cause/effect takes an infinite amount of time), but an infinite regress does mean an infinite amount of causes.

Also, the argument could be used to assure the existence of every single possible being in existence.. yet, we must still justify any being in existence with reason and not "we live in a repeated trial of events that could host absolutely anything."

Why? How is that not reason?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Maybe not (if you say that one cause/effect takes an infinite amount of time), but an infinite regress does mean an infinite amount of causes.

Yes, but that only entails infinity in time. It doesn't mean infinite possibilities. You can have an infinite number of causes and effects inside a isolated box.. but that doesn't mean possibilities suddenly become infinite.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Why? How is that not reason?

Else, every single god ever thought up is in fact justifiably true without additional reason which means our world is a giant contradiction. This, and along with the reasons why I don't believe infinity in time equals infinite possibilities.

[Kamehameha34]

Yes, but that only entails infinity in time. It doesn't mean infinite possibilities. You can have an infinite number of causes and effects inside a isolated box.. but that doesn't mean possibilities suddenly become infinite.

That's true. That's why the universe is in its current state - there were limiting factors in the regress that prevented it from ending (from our perspective) with a different result.

To say that there was no god, though, would be to say that in the infinite amount of possible causes, a being could not intervene at all.

Also, taking your box example, there were an infinite amount of factors that led to the closing of that box. That contributes to the continuity of the regress inside the box.

Unless, that is, you are arguing that something (the box's closed status, and existence) could exist forever. That's contradictory to an infinite regress, though.

Else, every single god ever thought up is in fact justifiably true without additional reason which means our world is a giant contradiction. This, and along with the reasons why I don't believe infinity in time equals infinite possibilities.

If two gods would cause a logical contradiction which would lead to our universe not being created, then there was a limiting factor that stopped that from happening - apparent from our universe's existence.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's true. That's why the universe is in its current state - there were limiting factors in the regress that prevented it from ending (from our perspective) with a different result. To say that there was no god, though, would be to say that in the infinite amount of possible causes, a being could not intervene at all. Also, taking your box example, there were an infinite amount of factors that led to the closing of that box. That contributes to the continuity of the regress inside the box. Unless, that is, you are arguing that something (the box's closed status, and existence) could exist forever. That's contradictory to an infinite regress, though. If two gods would cause a logical contradiction which would lead to our universe not being created, then there was a limiting factor that stopped that from happening - apparent from our universe's existence.

Or rather there was no cause for the closing. It has always been closed. If you introduce infinite causes, you can't get away without at least assuming something as a given.. (like the box being closed). Though, of course I mean that the existence is simply non-infinite in qualities.. I don't literally mean a box.

In regards to a god, there still needs to be an infinite box, or an existence with all qualities present, in order for just any thing to pop into existence. Our universe could exist with infinite causes and effects while lacking qualities to host a being that can know all and do all.

Also, at the same time the argument demands that a god is very likely given infinite trials, it must also demand that an anti-god is also very likely given infinite trials. That is, something that specifically prevents the existence of a god. With infinite trials, you must also demand that there will at one point be a being that will have the ability to control points in time and thus with infinite trials this being will eventually choose to destroy the earth.. yet it hasn't been destroyed. Infinite causes MUST entail infinite numbers of beings possible.. and to demand ONLY a god is going against the argument. And to introduce the argument in the presence of a being that can control everything in all points in time (a god) is to demand that the wish or initiative of the being to erase what I'm typing must occur given the infinite number of times the possibility will be tested.

Thus, even if our universe consists of an infinite string of causes and effects it may very well lack the qualities to produce a god or perhaps it has an abundance of qualities to produce an anti-god.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If two gods would cause a logical contradiction which would lead to our universe not being created, then there was a limiting factor that stopped that from happening - apparent from our universe's existence.

I'm not positive I understand what you're saying. Are you agreeing with what I was talking about? (limited qualities in existence)


Oh, and, to reinforce what I was just rambling about.

Imagine existence is composed of the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. The number blem does not exist and is not related in any way to 1, 2, 3, or 4. 1, 2, 3, and 4 can be rearranged and create anything possible with those numbers given that the number of trials is infinite. However, 1, 2, 3, and 4 will never produce the number blem.

[Kamehameha34]

Or rather there was no cause for the closing. It has always been closed. If you introduce infinite causes, you can't get away without at least assuming something as a given.. (like the box being closed). Though, of course I mean that the existence is simply non-infinite in qualities.. I don't literally mean a box.

Something existing forever is the perfect antithesis to infinite regression.
The same numbers wouldn't apply in your situation, though this thread discusses the validity of the god hypothesis given infinite regression.

In regards to a god, there still needs to be an infinite box, or an existence with all qualities present, in order for just any thing to pop into existence. Our universe could exist with infinite causes and effects while lacking qualities to host a being that can know all and do all.

I don't get what you're saying here.

Also, at the same time the argument demands that a god is very likely given infinite trials, it must also demand that an anti-god is also very likely given infinite trials. That is, something that specifically prevents the existence of a god.

Since causes and effects can be very complex (ever hear of the butterfly-monsoon analogy?), I would be subject to think that something that could preclude the involvement of a being in the regress would be far less likely than a being simply continuing the chain beforehand. That's like spending a nickel, and somehow trying to prevent it from travelling to Ohio given an infinite amount of time - which is obviously less harder to accomplish than someone simply driving to Ohio with the change they got from their newspaper.

It's true that the odds of both happening would be 99.9r%, but the odds of a being's involvement happening first would be greater. Think of it like this: There's an infinite amount of cards stacked up, in two stacks. One represents the possibilities for a god to enter the regress, and one represents the possibilities for an anti-god to enter the regress. They both may be infinite, but the "god" pile is much denser.

Let's say that it's twice as dense, for simplicity's sake.

That means that there's a 2:1 chance for a god to enter the chain before an anti-god, with that figure.

With infinite trials, you must also demand that there will at one point be a being that will have the ability to control points in time and thus with infinite trials this being will eventually choose to destroy the earth.. yet it hasn't been destroyed.

So the fact that the Earth hasn't been destroyed is a limiting factor to the regress. That means that something was stopping the chain of causes to continue in a way that would cause the Earth's destruction by now - evident by our continued existence on it.

And to introduce the argument in the presence of a being that can control everything in all points in time (a god) is to demand that the wish or initiative of the being to erase what I'm typing must occur given the infinite number of times the possibility will be tested.

Woah, I never said that a god could control everything in all points in time. The only qualifier for being a god is that you created our universe, in this thread.

[Kamehameha34]

I'm not positive I understand what you're saying. Are you agreeing with what I was talking about? (limited qualities in existence)

To use your Earth example:

Our Earth exists, which we can observe empirically. That means that in the infinite series of events that preceded Earths existence, not one programmed the regress to destroy the Earth at this point in time.

We know this because Earth (as an effect) could not be caused by a cause that would not result in Earth.

I'm using Earth's existence to prove that a cause that would destroy Earth by this time could not exist, which can be shown logically:

1. Cause A in the infinite regress would have destroyed Earth by now.
2. Earth has not been destroyed.
3. Cause A does not exist.

[Lullaby Chainer]

If what makes a god a god in this thread is that they created the universe.

Isn't that a one time thing? It has nothing to do with infinite causes. It has to do with the creation of the universe. What it was created by. That's it.

[Kamehameha34]

If there is a being on any of the links on the chain for regression, then it caused the universe.

It's like lining up a chain to lead to a certain location. If you remove a link, then it no longer leades to where it did.

Each link is necessary.

It's like pulling the trigger of a gun. When you pull it, it causes a series of reactions that result in a bullet being fired. Without you pulling the trigger, the bullet wouldn't have been fired.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If there is a being on any of the links on the chain for regression, then it caused the universe. It's like lining up a chain to lead to a certain location. If you remove a link, then it no longer leades to where it did. Each link is necessary. It's like pulling the trigger of a gun. When you pull it, it causes a series of reactions that result in a bullet being fired. Without you pulling the trigger, the bullet wouldn't have been fired.

Though, that only lasts up until the universe is created. So it's not an infinite chain. So.. the possibility of god with this argument, in my opinion, is completely unconvincing.

[Kamehameha34]

It's infinite because it extends backwards into time, infinitely. Therefore, any spot on the chain has an infinite amount of causes behind it.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It's infinite because it extends backwards into time, infinitely. Therefore, any spot on the chain has an infinite amount of causes behind it.

But only one cause creates the universe. It's still a god or no god situation. Whatever gets there first.. nature or a god.

[Kamehameha34]

There's only one cause that's right before the creation of the universe.

Think of it this way: A crain is holding up a box with a linked chain. There is only one chain connected directly to the box, yes, but each link is equally responsible for holding the box up.

The box is comparable to the creation of our universe.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There's only one cause that's right before the creation of the universe. Think of it this way: A crain is holding up a box with a linked chain. There is only one chain connected directly to the box, yes, but each link is equally responsible for holding the box up. The box is comparable to the creation of our universe.

And in each chain link nature had an equal or probably greater chance of creating the universe.

Thus, it still comes down to which got there first.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer And in each chain link nature had an equal or probably greater chance of creating the universe. Thus, it still comes down to which got there first.

Nature isn't an "anti god". It doesn't prevent a being's involvement in future links.

To expand upon the gun analogy, natural processes in the earth made the iron that was made into steel to make the gun with. That doesn't somehow cancel out the fact that I'm the one shooting it.

[Yasa]

Kame,

So, basically you're claiming that something had to of created our universe? Yet you are also advocating that infinite regress exists. Why not our universe be eternal too? We could also get into semantics about "universe". If the god who created our universe used pre-existing energy, then it wasn't really creation. Effectively, the energy in our universe would be eternal, so essentially our universe has been eternal. If what you proposed was the case, I wouldn't really care to debate it, because the next question of "where did the energy come from", what was the first cause? Of course, in an infinite chain of events, there is not first. We are simply left with a mystery.

Also, you claimed "There were an infinite amount of possibilities for a "god" to step into the infinite regress that caused our universe to be born. Given an infinite amount of possibilities, does that mean that there is a sure chance we were created by a "god"?"

I would answer no. There was hypothetical potential for gods, but there was also infinite potential for anything else. Infinite regress doesn't mean there had to have been a god. And, this does not mean it is sure that any of the proposed potentials are certain, simply because there was infinite events. We can't apply a probability to the cause of our universe. Even if we could, there would be different theories with probabilities, and using you logic of multiplying infinitely (due to infinite events), each one would be a sure thing.