Jenos Ridan wrote:1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligibility.).
2. The existence of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation
(logical deduction from #1)
3. No rational person should accept 2a. (Confirmed by the definition of rationality.)
4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.
5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essence of the thing to be explained requires it's existence.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.
6. The existence of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.
7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.
8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.
9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.
10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.
So.
How now, brown cow?
MeDeFe wrote:1. intelligible - understandable, in the way that you can "get your mind around it", but where is the prerequisite of an explanation? Personally I'm quite happy to let, say, gravity go on and be something that comes with matter and just is. There are degrees of understanding as well, it's not a 1/0 issue.
And understandable in what way? In the way it works? That would in this case be the physical laws and whatnot. In 'where it all came from'? I'm not convinced knowing exactly down to the last detail how the universe started (or if it ever did) is necessary to understand the basic workings of the universe.
2. has just fallen flat on its face because there's a third option of partial understanding, but I'm not done yet, even if we allow for only his two options and disregard 3. that "We cannot ever fully understand the unvierse and where it came from" is not all that irrational and nicely allows a person to get on with other stuff than posting on an internet forum.
4. is correct under my previously stated premises, you need to disregard the problems with the first 3 points in order to accept this one.
5. Back in my first reply I accepted this one. No more...
There's really only one sort of explanation, which is really more accurately termed 'description': we see phenomenon A and can list the factors which caused the phenomenon, then we can list the factors that caused the factors causing A to come about and so on. At some point, though, we're forced to say that we observe entities with certain distinguishing features behave in a certain way under certain conditions, but can not (yet) say why they behave that way. This applies to all explanations, be they of scientific phenomena (why does this rubber ball bounce back if I throw it against a wall?) or human behaviour (why did you murder your wife?). I'll here postulate that there is no such thing as an "essential explanation", what does it even mean that something must exist? Do you have an example of such a thing, I can't think of one.
6. Why do there have to be initial physical conditions outside of the universe? In a thread some time ago someone pointed out that there is evidence that a physical constant (I think something to do with electrons) has changed over the last 15B years. That shouldn't be possible since it's supposedly a constant, but if it is possible I really see no reason why there can't be initial conditions inside this universe at one point that simply don't occur nowadays and which started off the universe we see. A proto-universe so to speak, we've had that discussion as well, with time not yet an established dimension and suchlike, remember?
In the old thread it was mentioned in reply to this that no closed system can be fully explained without referencing to whatever's outside the system. Well, but so what? If Godel's incompleteness theorem (says Colossus) is true it only means that we cannot fully explain the universe. (Which, unlike what Morris may think and say, is not a problem.) And anyway, what's "outside the universe" supposed to mean. The universe is not some ball which we're sitting inside where we can just walk up to the boundary, poke a hole in it and take a look at what's "outside".
7. The universe is dependent on something that is uncertain or will happen in the future? Pardon me, we, humanity, might be a little uncertain about whether and how the universe began, but that does in no way imply that the universe is uncertain about this, no matter what the explanation is. Even having questioned the validity of essential explanations already, what does this have to do with anything?
8. And where did this Person come from? We're back to the old question of who created the creator, and that's one you cannot get out of. A creator outside of the universe "must" exist only if you can prove that nothing else can have caused it. And Tom Morris has shown nothing of the sort so far. Even if you can show that the universe has to have been created, there's nothing to indicate that the creator is "essential" and must exist, you end up with an infinite regress.
9. And now we give it a name, hey, let's call it Bob. And we ascribe attributes to it, "power" and "wisdom". Now really, the origins of the universe we largely see today might have required some large-scale border conditions, but "wisdom"?
This step is completely unnecessary and serves no other end than to introduce the term 'God' into the line of reasoning.
10. the conclusion has been shown not to follow, because the premises are flawed on several levels, thank you for your time.
Have fun Jenos, personally I'll be quite happy to kill every thread you post that pamphlet by replying to it until you are finally prepared to engage me in a discussion. btw, Nappy is now on my ignore list for making the forum unreadable, so Nappy, if you're lucky you might receive a reply if I decide to look at your rants, but don't count on it. btw, lucky thing I saw you just posted here, otherwise you'd attribute this to my being a whiny pussy. But no Nappy, it's because you have repeatedly failed to contribute anything of substance, repeatedly insulted those who argue against your views and refuse to do yourself what you demand of other, i.e. start any form of serious discussion. Remember how you named 4 core issues you said you'd have liked to see adressed in the abortion thread, and then descended back into what was basically inane flaming. It's that sort of thing which makes it impossible to debate with you.
And Juan, leave him, Finnish-Swedish-Norwegian-Danish relations are a weird thing to behold.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
