General Discussion

Choose Your Own Topic

Read 2143 times

Dan Zachariah

  • **
  • 187 Posts
    • View Profile
Critique of this?
« on: August 17, 2012, 04:19:58 pm »

Christians and non-Christians, I had a discussion with a frien

about theism and here is what he said. I am not asking you to give me arguments or anything (feel free) but rather tell me if some of what he is saying is true

The universe is the outcome of an infinite void, one of nothingness, with the exception of several basic components of nature, including a few elements and temperature. When this void was in an extremely hot state, it cooled...expanding infinitely ...within that infinity, the elements which existed, consisting of at least the most basic of properties, combined- forming particles...that void, or nothingness, still reigns over all. Those elements, in gas form, grouped into clouds...combined with gravity etc formed stars, and the particles planets. That void remains Purposeless and infinite. My mind is still open, but I've realize that it's not particularly when it comes to "god" as a creator. If a supernatural force, one that humans can neither conceptualize nor understand without seeing or definitely knowing, were to exist I could handle that. Not as a creator though...everything doesn't have a cause. Matter was/is created out of completely random and uncontrollable factors. I still stand by my previous point, if you recall, of humans needing a sustenant form of control/order, to help them fill their life with something. Something to ease them and keep them occupied from the feeling of being causeless. God is that sustenance, one that I still don't find asylum in

Again, just asking what you think of this?

Thanks


1

Stephen

  • ****
  • 5649 Posts
    • View Profile
Critique of this?
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2012, 04:42:40 pm »
Well his definition of nothingness is not true to its definition, as he makes exceptions for "a few elements," energy specifically- which is not 'nothing.'  Matter consists of energy, which he proposes was "created out of completely random and uncontrollable factors," not a state of void and nothingness as he first proposed.

Also he claims "everything doesn't have a cause," (which I agree with [everything that begins to exist has a cause]) I'd be curious to see what he thinks does not have a cause, for everything he's argued for so far is that everything does have a cause.

What I find most interesting in all this, is this admission of humans basically needing an appeal for their lives, objectively.  Which is to say somehow this feeling is an intuition in all of us- a good preface for the Moral Argument.

2

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24687 Posts
    • View Profile
Critique of this?
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2012, 05:04:30 pm »
I don't recognize much of that. It seems like he/she was trying to describe the spacetime expansion at the big bang, but if so I don't know what they meant by some key phrases: "matter was/is created out of completely random and uncontrollable factors," "expanding infinitely," etc. It sounds like he meant this in a metaphorical sense.

3

Aaron Massey

  • ****
  • 5486 Posts
  • absit iniuria verbis
    • View Profile
Critique of this?
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2012, 08:13:37 pm »
  outcome of an infinite void, one of nothingness, with the exception of several basic components of nature

  Seems to be contradicting himself.
Proverbs 8:30 "then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man."

4

troyjs

  • ***
  • 2753 Posts
    • View Profile
Critique of this?
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2012, 08:19:36 pm »
The new-atheist definition of 'nothing', explaining everything by appealing to exceptions, which the new-atheist himself recognises to be something. Either the existence of those exceptions are explained by appealing to other exceptions, or they exist by brute fact. In any case, something is left unexplained-- the existence of those new exceptions, or the existence of the first exceptions appealed to. The new-atheist explanation either implies an infinite regress, or that the universe exists by brute fact.
“Knowledge of the sciences is so much smoke apart from the heavenly science of Christ” -- John Calvin.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” -- John Calvin

5

Dan Zachariah

  • **
  • 187 Posts
    • View Profile
Critique of this?
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2012, 12:27:39 am »
I see. Besides the nothingness confusion, is that persons science wrong?

   Also, troyjs, what would you say if I say the universe existed by brute fact?

6

troyjs

  • ***
  • 2753 Posts
    • View Profile
Critique of this?
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2012, 12:42:25 am »
Hi Danz11,

   

   You could say, like atheists of old, that the universe exists by brute fact.

   

   That wouldn't be science though, but philosophy. This explanation would rule out any scientific explanation for how the universe happens to exist, because appealing to brute fact is just to say that the universe exists, because it just does.

   

   If someone is happy with the brute fact of the universes existence, then they would have to provide reasons why one cant appeal to brute fact for everything else. Why cant I explain hiw I happen to exist by brute fact, or anything else? There is a deeper problem though.

   

   If something doesn't need an explanation for its being true, then the world isn't exactly reasonable or logical. What reason then, is there to believe that I ought to think reasonably and logically? The only reason why we try to think logically about our beliefs about the world, is because we think that the world is logical. If there are brute facts, then the world isn't logical through and through, and so there would be no reason to think logically about reality.

   

   If reality isn't logical, then we dont and perhaps shouldnt think logically about reality. Therefore, I can illogically believe that God exists, just as much as the atheist believes the universe exists without explanation.
“Knowledge of the sciences is so much smoke apart from the heavenly science of Christ” -- John Calvin.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” -- John Calvin

7

innerbling

  • ***
  • 1940 Posts
    • View Profile
Critique of this?
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2012, 02:17:08 am »
Troysj when it comes to brute fact do you mean an epistemic or ontological brute fact?

An epistemic brute fact being an arbitrary assertion about ontology and ontological brute fact as a non-contingent thing?

Or what does "brute fact" mean ontological sense or does it always refer to epistemology?

8

Aaron Massey

  • ****
  • 5486 Posts
  • absit iniuria verbis
    • View Profile
Critique of this?
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2012, 02:47:08 am »
DanZ11 wrote: I see. Besides the nothingness confusion, is that persons science wrong?

I dont want to misinterpret... sounds like a very rough and broad explanation of the firts few seconds of the big bang, but he seems confused with terms like Void and nothingness.... in the first few millitonth of a second of the big bang you have inflation.   Inflation is the expansion of space and time in which matter and energy exists inside of.

It sounds like he is saying inflation was caused by matter and energy (heat) .  once inflation occurs he is possibly explaining the first billoth of a secod of the big bang....which is very strange.  

It is a bit vague the paragraph to draw any conclusions from it really.....and even if this is true he is only describing the big bang...not how it occured.
Proverbs 8:30 "then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man."

9

troyjs

  • ***
  • 2753 Posts
    • View Profile
Critique of this?
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2012, 03:23:01 am »
Innerbling,

   

   I mean brute fact in the sense of non necessary, although factually non dependent.

   

   An entity exists by brute fact if it could possibly not exist, but happens to exist without a reason for it's existence.

   

   Some philosophers believe that in order for there to be a contingent being, there could not be a necessary being as it's cause, because otherwise whatever the necessary being caused, would be just as necessary as itself. Therefore, either there is an infinite chain of contingent beings, or the chain of contingent beings is finite. The first cause or being of this chain would be uncaused and contingent, in the sense of possibly non existent.

   

   That first, uncaused, possibly nonexistent being, eould have no explanation for it's existence, and therefore it's existence would be a brute fact.

   

   This brought some philosophers to believe that yhere is only 1possible world, and that all truths are necessary truths. For example, Leibniz.

   

   Most however, want to maintain that there are contingent facts and things, and either deny that there is a necessary being, or try to reconcile such a being with the existence of contingent truths and things.
“Knowledge of the sciences is so much smoke apart from the heavenly science of Christ” -- John Calvin.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” -- John Calvin

10

innerbling

  • ***
  • 1940 Posts
    • View Profile
Critique of this?
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2012, 02:39:24 pm »
Thanks for you answer. It clarifies the issue a lot.

Now I disagree with the view that whatever necessary being causes would be just as necessary. This is because God's volitional cause would only be posteori necessary not priori necessary. That is the cause would come into being when the effect comes into being.
It could be even argued that cause comes into being only at the time effect comes into being as there is no cause without an effect.