Questions for the moral atheist

Originally posted by epiphinehas
What about the known universe admits no God?

So far, what we do know about the universe is explainable by scientific theory. That's what I mean by that. As for the Great Unknown at the frontiers of science, I say it makes no sense to presuppose that we're going to need the god hypothesis in our toolkit in order to competently go about exploring its terrain. It turned out we didn't need a god (or gods) after all to explain lightning and volcanic eruptions, so why should we suppose we need one to explain the Big Bang? From a scientific standpoint it makes no sense to believe in god, given what we know so far.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't have any interest in what you've discussed with Freaky. What is apparent, however, is the argument you presented above

There exists a unique time continuum (namely ours) that must be everywhere linear, and so there must be a "beginning" to reality

is not the cosmological argument for God's existence.

Why are you putting things in "hidden" tags? It's quite irksome.

KBH undeniably believes there is a "beginning" to physical reality. Anyone who didn't fall off a turnip truck and hit his head against a curb can see this, right? This can only make sense if there is only one universe, because "time", as a physical dimension, is by definition a property of a "universe" (a "universe" being a physical state in which "events" can occur). Even two universes leave us hard pressed to explain the notion of a single "beginning". Also the notion of a "beginning" requires time to be linearly unidirectional, meaning it flows in one direction without looping back -- otherwise there'd be no way to distinguish a beginning from an end, or there would be neither.

I say the "axiom" I fashioned that you've quoted is one of KBH's axioms. After all, if we're going to say we need a god to escape the illogic of an infinite regression paradox, we can only be worrying about the matter if we're worrying about beginnings, and we can only be worrying about beginnings if we think there's only one time continuum and it must be linear. There are quite a few "cosmological arguments" for the existence of many timelines, not all of which must be linear. But the point here is not cosmology, it's causality. The "Causality Argument for God" is the issue I'm on about, because KBH has been on about it in this thread. It goes like this: "There must be a God because the Universe so far has refused to give us a proper accounting of its whereabouts at the Beginning," or similarly: "There must be a God because otherwise in the Beginning something would have had to come from nothing," or even: "There must be a God because any physical explanation for the origin of the universe must itself have a cause, and that in turn also a cause, and that in turn also a cause, and --- so see? There must be a God!"

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Still, the atheist will insist, despite not knowing exactly how the universe began to exist, that it must be a naturalistic explanation. That much atheists do know.

I disagree. Although I would agree with the statement that I believe that an explanation for the universe would be naturalistic, that is because of definitions not because of knowledge about the universe, so I wouldn't put it the way you do.
I believe everything is by definition naturalistic.
I believe the concept of the supernatural is incoherent.
If God exists and created the universe then I would still call that a naturalistic explanation.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Since I don't agree with this, there must be a flaw in your design. I could counter with: "There is good reason to think, given what we do know, that God does not exist." And we're clearly not going to resolve the matter tonight or any other night. I'm on the atheist side of the issue, but my main energies tonight are devoted to the oft overlooked doubl ...[text shortened]... . Whatever device the theist is allowed to employ, the atheist should also have access to.

Whatever device the theist is allowed to employ, the atheist should also have access to.

As long as it is consonant with modern physics. Merely positing the possibility that we may inhabit a multiverse, for example, is not a serious objection.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't know of any cosmologists who ascribe to the view that the physical laws were different at the beginning of the universe. Do you have sources for this?

Obviously, you'd need to account for the existence of physical laws.[/b]

Theories about the earliest stages of the universe's existence can be tested by observing the cosmos and also using particle accelerators (among other things). In the very earliest moments of this universe's creation it is widely accepted by scientists that there was only one physical force and altogether different particles of matter than exist now. This "unified force" would have behaved differently from any of the forces in the present-day physics canon, and thus would have exhibited what can fairly be described as "different" physical laws. There is also a theorized period of "inflation" that the universe experienced that would have occurred faster than the speed of light, which so far observational data seem to support:

http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm

Now, as for an accounting of the existence of physical laws, they may be decided largely stochastically (i.e. randomly) at the instant when a universe is birthed, and perhaps is dictated by the geometry of the universe's spacetime continuum. Different universes would in all likelihood have different sets of laws, and these universes would plausibly be limitless in number and constitute a so-called "multiverse". All more than need be said at this moment. The fact is, you can't fix the "problem" of where the physical laws came from by invoking a transdimensional intelligence that lies "outside time," because a primordial intelligence is problematic at best, and "existing outside of time" is a logical self-contradiction. And anyway, physical laws themselves could just as easily issue from some kind of entirely impersonal transdimensional set of principles that have no "plan" for you and me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I meant by 'brute fact' exactly what I already said: a fact is "brute" in virtue of there being no explanation for its existence.
Oh, I see. So, exactly as I had it.
Thanks.

You seem just incapable of following discussions well.
In that house of glass, are there any mirrors? Holy fecal matter, dude. You're calling me on the carpet ...[text shortened]... ust fill in the blanks--- from your perspective--- for a brother down on his luck?[/b]

Oh, I see. So, exactly as I had it.

Nope. Try reading again.

Riiiiight. He is allowed to simply ignore the creation/cause of existence and jump right into the middle of things and start espousing, waxing eloquent about the state of things... without actually addressing how the state of things even came about in the first place. I cry foul.

WTF are you talking about?

Can you just fill in the blanks--- from your perspective--- for a brother down on his luck?

Can you just clarify what the hell you mean? No, I would not know what to make of a statement like "Existence began as a result of []". I wasn't aware that I was committed to there being some beginning at all.

Are you under the delusion that you could stick something related to God in the blank and have that make a coherent statement? Or do you think God's existence is simply at bottom a brute fact?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Whatever device the theist is allowed to employ, the atheist should also have access to.

As long as it is consonant with modern physics. Merely positing the possibility that we may inhabit a multiverse, for example, is not a serious objection.[/b]

The reason why I bring up the multiverse concept is two-fold:

1) It puts to rest the idea of a "beginning" to physical reality.

2) It supplies a ready explanation for why this particular universe seems so well-suited to life. If there are limitless universes with different physical properties, then statistically some will possess qualities conducive to life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You have it right. Or, better: half-right. Our hardwired instinct to follow the infinite regress logically demands an uncaused cause. In your suggestion, the creation is that uncaused cause, a creator-less creation. To support such a view, one necessarily manufactures speculative and specious conjectures based on... well, the need for such stupidity as ...[text shortened]... m start to finish... and beyond.

I'm going with the second one, for reasons numerated above.

Our hardwired instinct to follow the infinite regress logically demands an uncaused cause.

Huh? There is nothing illogical about an infinite series that contains no uncaused member. However, I think it still would not satisfy a strong version of the principle of sufficient reason (say, one that demands some explanation for any positive fact whatever).

Originally posted by twhitehead

If God exists and created the universe then I would still call that a naturalistic explanation.

That is a significant point. The theist insists on a living, self-aware, thinking, planning, plotting, caring, loving, personal god. Quite a tall order. Many of the things a god is expected to be and do once he's invented could be chucked away, to the point where you have something that still explains life, the universe, and everything, but doesn't happen to give a damn about us or our prayers.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. Although I would agree with the statement that I believe that an explanation for the universe would be naturalistic, that is because of definitions not because of knowledge about the universe, so I wouldn't put it the way you do.
I believe everything is by definition naturalistic.
I believe the concept of the supernatural is incoherent.
If God exists and created the universe then I would still call that a naturalistic explanation.

Kudos to you on that. If God exists as a person, God is just another person to deal with.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Huh? There is nothing illogical about an infinite series that contains no uncaused member. However, I think it still would not satisfy a strong version of the principle of sufficient reason (say, one that demands some explanation for any positive fact whatever).

That is true, mathematically. Physically, I think it can be avoided.

Originally posted by JS357
Kudos to you on that. If God exists as a person, God is just another person to deal with.

This reminds me of the question of how man would be able to distinguish a "god" from an extremely advanced alien. Perhaps the universe was created in a test tube.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You have it right. Or, better: half-right. Our hardwired instinct to follow the infinite regress logically demands an uncaused cause. In your suggestion, the creation is that uncaused cause, a creator-less creation. To support such a view, one necessarily manufactures speculative and specious conjectures based on... well, the need for such stupidity as ...[text shortened]... m start to finish... and beyond.

I'm going with the second one, for reasons numerated above.

I'm going with the second one, for reasons numerated above.

Then your view is incoherent. You asked to fill in the blank "existence began as a result of []". Now you say that you presume to fill in the blank with God. How is that not simply incoherent? It's like when theists claim that God created everything that exists. My response to that is "WTF?" God himself is something that exists (under the theist's view).

Originally posted by Soothfast
That is true, mathematically. Physically, I think it can be avoided.

Could you clarify: you think what can be avoided, physically?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Could you clarify: you think what can be avoided, physically?

Infinite regressions to explain the existence and origins of any one universe, specifically. Universes are closed systems.

EDIT: Pondering the matter further, I think you could be correct in that there is nothing inherently wrong with infinite (causal) regressions even in physical systems.