Archived

Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

Read 3635 times

MoonedOne

  • *
  • 2 Posts
    • View Profile
Flaws in Craig's argument.
« on: November 30, 2017, 09:19:59 pm »
I. as a theist, also think that Craig's argument here is flawed.

First of all, just because we can conceive of something, it doesn't mean that the thing is not necessary, but contingent. Say a coin, it must have a heads and a tails. I can conceive of just the heads part in my head. Doesn't mean that it's possible in reality. Furthermore, I can also conceive of a universe without god, but with each quark being necessary. Doesn't mean that God is not necessary.

Let me copy paste Craig's argument
"think about your desk. Could your desk have been made of ice? Notice that I’m not asking if you could have had an ice desk in the place of your wooden desk that had the same size and structure. Rather I’m asking if your very desk, the one made of wood, if that desk could have been made of ice. The answer is obviously, no. The ice desk would be a different desk, not the same desk."

It's a bit confusing. First of all, if my desk would be made out of ice, it would be hella cold. Clearly it wouldn't be the same table. But craig's real point is a bit subtler than that. He is saying that if I had another table exactly like mines, but made out of different quarks, it'd be a different table. Confused? Wait for a second and we'll try to go deeper. But first, let me point out that Craig does have something different to say:

"It seems crazy to think that each and every quark in the universe exists by a necessity of its own nature so that there couldn’t have been fewer quarks or there couldn’t have been more quarks or different quarks. This is the only collection of quarks that could possibly have existed. That seems crazy."

Indeed, it would be a bit arbitrary if there aren't more quarks or less quarks in existence. But that, although logically ugly, doesn't mean that it CAN'T be true that there are, say, X amount of quarks in existence. But if there's only one immaterial god, it seems simpler, so it should be a kind of hint that god makes more sense. But that is just an intuitive analysis, not a logical argument. And, after all, the atheist can simply say that there is an actually infinite amount of quarks in existence. Seems more nice that way. (But then again, Craig would say that that's impossible.)

Let's keep on going:
"A universe which is made up of different quarks would not be the same universe even if all of those quarks were arranged in exactly the same way so that the same macroscopic objects existed, it would be a different universe because it is made up of a different collection of quarks."
This is questionable. What would be the difference? That's like saying, hey, look at your computer. It could have changed right now to a different computer, but it looks exactly the same. Well, clearly that's not plausible. For something to be different than something else, it must have different properties. Even if the only difference is spacial location. Using leibinz's law of identity here. More on this in a while, tho. Let's continue.

"Somebody might object at this point – wait a minute, they might say, the matter in my body is completely recycled every several years so that the molecules or the particles that I have in my body today are not the ones that I had, say, when I was a little boy and yet I am the same person. I remain identical even though all of the matter in my body is completely recirculated and there is none of the particles in my body now that used to be there. So they might say analogously a universe could be identical across different possible worlds even though it is made up of a wholly different collection of quarks. I think these two situations are not analogous though. The crucial dis-analogy is that the different between possible worlds does not involve any kind of intrinsic change. There is no enduring subject which undergoes a change from one state to another, whereas in my body there is an enduring subject that goes through intrinsic change."

Again, this argument seems a bit flawed. But even so, it's a bit of a red herring. IMO. Let's go away with the matter in my body analogy, because it complicates the discussion with free will and souls and so on. Let's imagine I have a painting, let's say mona lisa. Now, DaVinci could have made the painting from a different kind of paint. When he went to the store to buy the paint, there were many identical paints at his disposal. There were many tubes out of the same colours of paint. He just randomely selected some tubes- probably the ones closer to the front, or just some at random without even thinking about it. It's like if I go to the store to buy a computer. A toshiba computer of such-and-such a brand, and of such-and-such a price. Does it matter which computer I pick? No, they're all the same computer. The only difference is in terms of SPACE, that is, one of them is here, another one is there.

Now, you could say, "but the computer is contingent on the parts, so it's not necessary". True. But the parts- the quarks- are all exactly the same.

Now, imagine that I go to bed tonight, and a thief comes into my house and steals my computer. And while I am sleeping, an angel replaces my computer with another one that is exactly like the one that the thief stole. Does it make a difference? You could say that it is true that the new computer was given by an angel and the old one wasn't. But the difference seems to be merely symbolic. It's just a difference in terms of the past, not in terms of the present. Imagine I have a computer that can't age. Does it make a difference weather the computer is 5 years old or 500? Doesn't seem like it.

If time does not constitute a difference, then space doesn't make a difference either. Why are two equal particles IN THE SAME PLACE different from each other? Think about it. They would be different quarks, yet they would be in EXACTLY the same place, and would look EXACTLY the same. But, for two objects to be different, according to the law of identity, they must have some characteristics that make them different. Otherwise, they are the same object. You might just as well say that I am not one person,  but five different people, it's just that we all look exactly the same, so you can't possibly tell us apart.

In craig's example of the ice, at least ice is different than wood. But we're talking about two equal universes, made out of "different" quarks. But to ALL intents and purposes, they are the same thing. They're not even quarks in a difference place (that would be another argument), but in the same place. An atheist can say that determinism is true, therefore, it seems like this universe exists necessarily.

The argument seems flawed, or is it my interpretation of it?

Now, Craig can claim, what if it's strings instead of quarks? But we can also ask, well, god is made out of spirit, right? Well, why can't it be a different spirit? It would be the same god, made out of a different spirit. So, god does not exist necessarily. 

I think that the best approach is to just say that the fundamental particles like quarks are ALSO composites. But composites of what? They have no size nor weight, some say. Weird, right? I read this. But, wikipedia does say it has mass, so that's contradicting. But in either case, they must have SOMETHING. Wikipedia: "Quarks have various intrinsic properties, including electric charge, mass, color charge, and spin." So, they're composites of these properties.

Look up on the "strange notions" website the "unconditioned reality" proof.

But, unfortunately to me, it seems like we must ditch Craig's argument here. :( Or am I the one not understanding it correctly?

Let me know what you think.... maybe we can save leibinz's argument. Craig says that no respectable person tries to say that the fundamental particles exist necessarily, but I just think that it's a reasonably good objection. Craig is an amazing philosopher tho, I am sure that he has the answers to the problems we are talking about here, or maybe we simply aren't understanding it well. Whatever. Let me know what you think.

Peace.

1

MoonedOne

  • *
  • 2 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaws in Craig's argument.
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2017, 08:12:48 pm »
Thank you mods for putting up my topic. I would like to add that the topic was meant as a reply to this thread:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6028394.0

But accidentally I created a new topic. But we can keep up the discussion here because anyway these are new points. Thanks. 

2

Susmariosep

  • **
  • 27 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaws in Craig's argument.
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2018, 01:13:26 pm »
Dear MoonedOne, may I just request if it be acceptable to you:

That you in not more than a hundred words (100) or even as few as you can manage below a hundred words, choose what point is the most important you are making in your OP and expound on it - in a hundred words or less.

That will I think attract posters here to interact with you, on that one most important point you are making.

I await with bated breath to witness how you react to my request.

3

Susmariosep

  • **
  • 27 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaws in Craig's argument.
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2018, 03:29:42 pm »
Dear visitors to this thread, it is sad that no one has bothered to contribute a post to MoonedOne’s thread here, except yours truly; even though there have been to date 202 times that this thread has been read.

So I will take the initiative to contribute my second post, and hope that visitors to this thread will get interested as to interact with me - and of course with the author one MoonedOne.

Here is what I think is enough text ( see as follows below ) from the author of this thread that we can talk about, Oh ye visitors to this thread, starting of course with its author one MoonedOne.

Quote
I, as a theist, also think that Craig's argument here is flawed.

First of all, just because we can conceive of something, it doesn't mean that the thing is not necessary, but contingent. Say a coin, it must have a heads and a tails. I can conceive of just the heads part in my head. Doesn't mean that it's possible in reality. Furthermore, I can also conceive of a universe without god, but with each quark being necessary. Doesn't mean that God is not necessary.

Let us all visitors to this thread just concentrate on this line from MoonedOne:

“…just because we can conceive of something, it doesn't mean that the thing is not necessary, but contingent.”

What is it for us humans to conceive of something?

MoonedOne gives three examples of the something we can conceive of:

1. a coin with heads and tails
2. a universe without god
3. each quark in the universe being necessary

From these three examples, as MoonedOne can and docs conceive them in his mind, then as he and we all are fellow humans, we can also conceive them in our mind.

And we can thus define ‘to conceive of something in our mind” is to have a thought of it in our mind.

Now, at this point, when we talk about a thought in our mind, we have first to describe what we have for a thought in our mind, and inquire from others whether they also have the same thought in their mind, and how do get to know whether others have the same thought in their mind as we or I have in my mind?

Simple, we use oral or written words to describe to our fellow humans what is the thought in our mind, like for example, a coin, which MoonedOne tells us has heads and tails, and we then know what he is talking about with the word coin, namely, a piece of circular metal that represents an amount of money.


[ To be continued. ]

4

Susmariosep

  • **
  • 27 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaws in Craig's argument.
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2018, 02:40:12 pm »
I have this idea on how to prove to atheists the existence of God, namely:

1. Tell atheists that for Christians, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

2. Tell them that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

3.  Tell them that existence is divided into two kinds:
(a) Necessary existence, for example, God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, such an entity cannot not exist at all.
(b) Contingent existence which depends on other entities to come into existence, for example, babies and roses

4. The existence of contingent entities like babies and roses are ultimately  the evidence to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

5. Wherefore God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, and the proof is the evidence of everything with a beginning which are contingent, like for example, Babies and roses,


Now, we can all Christians sit back and await to witness how atheists will react to the proof of God existing, in the step by step argument above.

5

Susmariosep

  • **
  • 27 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaws in Craig's argument.
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2018, 06:59:06 am »
I have this idea on how to prove to atheists the existence of God, namely:

1. Tell atheists that for Christians, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

2. Tell them that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

3.  Tell them that existence is divided into two kinds:
(a) Necessary existence, for example, God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, such an entity cannot not exist at all.
(b) Contingent existence which depends on other entities to come into existence, for example, babies and roses

4. The existence of contingent entities like babies and roses are ultimately  the evidence to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

5. Wherefore God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, and the proof is the evidence of everything with a beginning which are contingent, like for example, Babies and roses,


Now, we can all Christians sit back and await to witness how atheists will react to the proof of God existing, in the step by step argument above.


1. Tell atheists that for Christians, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.


When we ask atheists what is their concept of God Whom they deny to exist, we will notice that they will not at all come out with their concept of God, but instead they will go into saying that God is like a flying spaghetti monster, an invisible pink unicorn, Santa, tooth fairy, etc.

That trend of not attending directly to the concept of God, it started with Bertrand Russell who compares God to an orbiting teapot in space.

And from that what I call unjustified analogy on God, atheists today have all adhered to comparing God to ridiculous fictional entities, like: a flying spaghetti monster, an invisible pink unicorn, Santa, tooth fairy, etc.

In other words, instead of hitting the correct God, they beat about the bush by insulting God.

So, they have no argument that really addresses God.