Now, about this God business . . .

I have been sorely provoked, but glad to have been so, by my old e-pal, Deogolwulf, to discuss this' God business' which I do so, of course, with all the authority of your average fifth former!  You can follow the opening shots of this campaign here and in the comments section.  Necessarily, given the nature of that particular post we started our conversation somewhere in the middle of the controversy that I call 'the God business'.  Here I want - dread words! - to go back to basics.

To begin with I intend to avoid the use of the word 'God' which has religious overtones that tend to obscure rather than enlighten any discussion.  Instead I prefer to use the term 'Prime Mover'(PM) which is more neutral.  As I understand it, one of the very first reasons for posturing the existence of a PM is the idea that before there was nothing and afterward there was something and a PM is the only answer because something cannot be produced from nothing and so a PM is required.  That is entirely logical but only if you accept the premise for which there is no proof.  For example, it fails to explain who or what created the PM in the first place . . . and then who created the creator of the PM and then, hey-ho, we are off into an infinite regression. 

As I understand it, speaking as man who failed 'O'-level maths, physics and chemistry, it all began with a bang in which two entities, twins really, were 'created', or appeared, matter and energy.  The matter, atoms of hydrogen and helium with virtually no mass, were hurled outwards, but, and this I always think is significant, they did not explode with perfect synchronisation, there were very slight but significant variations which were critical because that helped to bring about collisions and fusions between the particles at which point their increased mass resulted in increased gravitational forces which helped meld more and more of them together.  The question which arises in my mind is, assuming the PM exists, did it intend to have those slight imperfections or was it an accident?  I have a vision of a PM muttering, "Oh, fuck it!  That wasn't perfection, let's sod off to another plane of potential existence and try again" and meanwhile our sad, imperfect, old universe was left to get on with it.  This leads, naturally, to the question of intentionality on the part of the PM.  Did it build-in imperfections and did it know where those imperfections would lead, or was it all one big roll of the dice?

All of that, or even some variations on that, I am prepared to accept as a hypothesis to explain the notion of a PM, but is it exclusive to other hypotheses?  For example, returning to infinity, a notion treated with great caution and some distrust by ancient Christian thinkers, it is a possibility that nothing was created because everything exists, always has existed and will continue to exist - even though the form changes constantly and forever.  Thus, as one scientific theory postulated (although I seem to remember that it has gone slightly out of favour recently) our universe will one day fall back on itself and everything will be collapsed into a black hole before it explodes yet again, and thus does "the wheel of fire" keep turning forever and ever, amen!

Now, I find the idea of an infinity of existence, or perhaps, existences, as cautiously acceptable as the notion of a PM.  As theories they both share some strengths and some weaknesses but neither of them is entirely satisfactory.  In other words, I am not prepared to accept that a PM is necessary to explain existence.   However, as my conversation with Deogolwulf is concerned with religious explanations of existence I will set aside infinity for now and concentrate on the nature of the Prime Mover.  However, the sun is shining and I must take advantage of it to do some gardening so I will continue this dreary monologue this afternoon.

 

Comments

[Deogolwulf]

A bad start, Mr Duff: 1st form, not 5th form. Could you name a philosopher who has ever put forward the following argument?

There was nothing.
Then there was something.
Something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore,
God, or an Unmoved Mover, must exist.

It is a very poor argument. Despite what you say, it is not logical. It would be most distressing if some of the world’s greatest intellects and logicians had thought it a good one.

It would be better if, before tackling the arguments, you found out what they actually are. A premise of the cosmological argument, for instance, is not: Everything that exists has a cause. It is something like: Everything that comes into existence has a cause; or: Every finite and contingent being has a cause; with the existence of a necessary being as the conclusion of the argument. Here is how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sketches a version of the argument:

1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Which premise or premises do you object to? You might object to all manner of things about the nature of reality: contingency, necessity, causation in fieri and in esse, and so on, but if you think that “then what caused God or the necessary being to exist?” is an intelligent objection to the argument, then you have simply not understood it, and, I dare say, you have plummeted to the intellectual level of a Guardian commenter - and no man should plummet that low! Mind you, since you confess you don’t trust reason and logical reasoning, perhaps it does not worry you.

[dearieme]

Putting aside my reservations about trying to deduce features of reality from word-juggling (or, put otherwise, trying to resolve matters of physics from the features of languages), I have never seen any persuasive account of the relation between this PM chappy and such coves as Zeus, Thor, Jehovah and so forth.

[rogerh]

Simples, tap into Google 'arguments for the existance of God' and then 'arguments for the non-existance of God'. Both sets of arguments look respectable so you are no wiser (no surprise). Tricky stuff logic, one false move and you're stuffed. As DM says - word-juggling.

So try another tack, priests and theologians have been studying their Gods for ages and ages but have come up with precisely nothing qua God. Not one iota, not one clue, no idea how to make a God-o-scope. Rather suggests - but does not prove they are wasting their time.

Another tack. Take a look at the world, it rumbles on but there does not seem any evidence at all that the wicked are punished and the good rewarded or the other way about if you feel that way. Almost as if God does not exist, or if He did exist he takes no action at all - in which case He might as well not exist for all the effect He has (not).

To my mind all this God stuff is just politics by another name. Philosophically it all seems a needless complication.

[David Duff]

Oh dear, not even an 'E' for Effort?

You ask for a philosopher whp put forward arguments along the lines I describe in my post. I give you Thomas Aquinas:

"Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

And in his second argument:

"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

I object, Deogolwulf, to everything in your list from #4 onwards but perhaps we can leave that just for the moment.

"you have plummeted to the intellectual level of a Guardian commenter". Oh cruel, cruel, Master Deogolwulf!

The relation, DM, is, I think, in the imagination of Man, not an essence to be lightly dismissed.

You are right in the sense, Roger, that I have never felt the need of a God in my life but I would like very much to have just a hint of a strong explanation as to what, or who, or how it all began.

[David Duff]

Deogolwulf, here are my objections to your list above:

#4: "or include a non-contingent (necessary) being." Whoa! Where did that come from? That is mere assertion, surely.

#5: "Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being." I beg to differ. The existence of 'SoD' (Son of Duff) is entirely due to the action of my wife and I and although you might try to argue that we acted in that way in unconscious obedience to imperatives laid down from on high but, without gettin ginto the tired old argument of free will, I would point you in the direction of the many childless couple who exist.

#6: No, for the reasons stated above.

#7: No again.

[Deogolwulf]

Mr Duff,

In response to your comment on the other post:

You say: “‘Broadly logical’ is a very good description and quite rightly ignores any attempt to be too specific concerning a set of self-styled 'proofs'!”

“Broadly logical” has nothing to do with ignoring specifics. Quite the contrary. An argument that is broadly logical is such in that it depends upon the material of the terms (i.e., meaning) as well as the logical form. That which is narrowly logical depends upon logical form alone. And they are proofs, not “self-styled proofs”. What is open to question – as with all proofs – is whether one accepts the starting-points.

“I gather Russell was an advocate [of infinite existence].”

Betrand Russell was a bad choice for you make. I take it you are not aware of his head-to-head with Frederick Copleston. When pressed, he refused to allow the argument:

“I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all.”

(from a transcript of a debate between Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell, broadcast on the BBC’s Third Programme, 1948.)

Copleston, we may presume, had Russell in mind when he wrote the following some years later:

“If one does not wish to embark on the path which leads to the affirmation of transcendent being, however the latter may be described (if it is described at all), one has to deny the reality of the problem, assert that things ‘just are’ and that the existential problem in question is a pseudo-problem. And if one refuses even to sit down at the chess-board and make a move, one cannot, of course, be checkmated.”

(F.C. Copleston, Aquinas (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1955), p.124.)

Russell refused to make a move. A highly intelligent man he was, a paragon of reasonableness he was not.

“I am curious . . . why you think there must be a choice between reason and emotion.”

I am not curious why you don’t think there is a choice, for the simply reason that I can’t take you at all seriously on the point. I mean, I would have to believe that you don’t think you must choose reason rather than emotion when you conclude that twice two is four, or when you seek to draw a conclusion from premises. I don’t know in what part of “infinite existence” this would work, but it certainly doesn’t work in this part. What should we call this? Post-post-modernism?

I’ll say it again: emotion has its place, but it is irrational to put it where reason should be. It shouldn’t be controversial.

[A K Haart]

I'm an atheist but there are disadvantages. For example I'd love to believe that climate scientists are going to Hell where their tongues will be pulled out with red-hot pincers.

Sadly it ain't so.

[JK]

Well I for once will be leaving the shortest comment ever (for me anyways) on a D&N thread.

David? This post makes me as daft as you.

However the premise that a "PM" might/must be roundabout and he's "atoms of hydrogen and helium with virtually no mass" and apparently everywhere can mean only one thing.

All gas and no substance. The answer is plain don't you see David?

Gordon Brown.

[Deogolwulf]

Logic as word-juggling: Thermippos strikes again!

“Simples, tap into Google 'arguments for the existance of God' and then 'arguments for the non-existance of God'. Both sets of arguments look respectable so you are no wiser (no surprise).”

Well, you are none the wiser, but why boast about it? And did you think half an hour googling would bring you up to speed on an extremely complex subject? Try physics next: it is in need of another genius.

“no idea how to make a God-o-scope”

Beyond parody. God not found at the end of a scope? Does not exist! (Do you really conceive of God as something floating around in space, or lurking behind an atom?) But anyway: try concepts or numbers next. Or logic - you might find it juggling words and riding a tricycle around a water-molecule.

Mr Duff: “You ask for a philosopher who put forward arguments along the lines I describe in my post. I give you Thomas Aquinas”.

Please don’t. You clearly haven’t the foggiest idea what he is talking about. Quite how you think he endorses your crap argument for the existence of God, is beyond me. By the way, do you know what important concept Aquinas is referring to when he says: the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand?

“#4: ‘or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.’ Whoa! Where did that come from?”

From one pole of a logical dichotomy. All beings are either contingent or not-contingent. All beings are either hats or not-hats. Etc. Either A or not-A is the law of excluded middle. I could say: abandon it at your peril, but you won’t: you will continue to use it as you have always used it, even if you don’t know what it is.

“The existence of 'SoD' (Son of Duff) is entirely due to the action of my wife and I”

You and your wife are sufficient cause for the existence of your son? Gosh. As claims go – being the sole reason for the existence of a contingent being – that takes some beating. Call me naïve, but I am pretty sure he wouldn’t exist without electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravitation, DNA, cell-division, laws of heredity, the sun, the earth, the food upon it, etc; but if his existence is entirely due to the action of you and your wife, it follows that you are together the cause of their existence. Ah, but there’s me with that word-juggling again! Anyway, give my regards to Mrs God.

Well, since the consensus on here is that logical thought is just word-games, I think it best if I call it a day, and leave you to your post-modern diversions.

[Whyaxye]

"I do so, of course, with all the authority of your average fifth former!"

Fancy a trip to France with me, you little minx?

[Whyaxye]

"The existence of 'SoD' (Son of Duff) is entirely due to the action of my wife and I"

Only your wife knows this to be an indisputable fact. For you, it is surely no more than a working hypothesis....

(D'you see how I am doing my best to raise the intellectual tone with my comments? That's what a university education does for you...)

[dearieme]

And anyway, It should be "my wife and me". The gods of grammar will not be mocked.

"word-games": but that's what it comes down to, isn't it? Look at points 1-7: they boil down to 'David Duff exists', 'he cannot be the cause of his own existence', and iterating that argument, he must therefore eventually be the consequence of a prime mover.

Nowhere is that grounded in physical reality. How might I show it to be wrong - by what experiment? If you say that all the points follow from the meaning of the words, I say that we give words meaning based on our experiences of the world, and of a few of our abstractions evoked by our experiences, none of which (experiences or abstractions) need bear on a subject so far beyond our ken as "What's it all about, Lord Russell?"

Anyway, taking the points in detail:

1. A contingent being exists.

"exists": tricky one, that. Mind you, "being" is probably a tricky one too. Are we arguing in a circle: does the noun "being" just correspond to the verb "exists"? Do you know, I think it does: to be and to exist are the same thing. Let's test it: 'To exist or not to exist, that is the question.' Yup, it makes perfectly good sense - so (I cry) it IS a circular argument. Or, to phrase it otherwise, a circular argument exists here.

2. This contingent being has a cause ... for its existence.

Must it have? Because we are used to observing causes? But what if we are wandering on to territory where our simple mind-models break down? Actually, my new point is probably unnecessary because we are back to circularity - we have "being" and "existence" together.

3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.

Says who? If point 1 is indeed an example of circular reasoning, then point 3 is empty.

4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

See response to point 3.

5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.

A repeat of point 3: is a redundancy in an argument not a source of worry to the philosophical trade? Anyway, see response to point 3 (bis).

6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Since I think the premises shaky, I am under no obligation to accept the conclusion.

7. Therefore, a necessary being ... exists.

Since I think the premises shaky, I am under no obligation to accept the conclusion (bis).

[Deogolwulf]

Ah, sucked in again.

“Nowhere is that grounded in physical reality.”

I am fairly sure that David Duff exists in physical reality.

Premise 1 is meant to be a statement of the bleeding obvious. I am in fact surrounded by contingent beings right now. They exist – in physical reality. I am even typing on one of these beings. And I don’t believe for a moment that you find it difficult to believe that they exist. (The first law of thought – A is A – is also a statement of the bleeding obvious, but no less noble for all that: all rational discourse depends upon it.) But how would you prefer me to mention the existence of contingent beings without using the words “exist” and “being” in the same sentence? Is “A peanut exists” tricky for you? Am I trying to pull a fast one on you, proposing the existence of a peanut to trick you into believing in God with my hocus-pocus word-juggling? If there is a problem (there isn’t) in saying (without further specification) that a contingent being exists, then there is a problem in saying (more specifically) that a peanut exists. A peanut exists. A peanut is a contingent being. Hence, a contingent being exists. I think saying “a peanut (that is, a contingent being) exists” is non-controversial. Do you think otherwise?

I'll make the beginning of the argument even more bleeding obvious:

1. There is a peanut on my desk.
2. This peanut is a contingent thing (i.e., it could have not-existed or it could cease to exist).
3. This peanut has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
4. The cause of or explanation for the peanut’s existence is something other than the peanut itself.
5. What causes or explains the existence of this peanut must either be solely other contingent things or include a non-contingent (necessary) thing.
6. Contingent things alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent thing.
7. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this peanut must include a non-contingent (necessary) thing.
8. Therefore, a necessary thing (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Now surely you don't object to Premises 2-4. (You’ll have to take my word for Premise 1.) You can believe that a peanut is a non-contingent (necessary) being, if you wish. You can believe that peanuts are causa sui. But if you believe anything like that, then it is indeed a waste of time arguing with you. So, presuming you’re not mad, and that you accept the law of the excluded middle for Premise 5 (a big presumption, it seems), that leaves Premise 6 (5 in the old argument), which is indeed the most controversial one - but your objection does not amount to much (see above). Of course, support (or not) of Premise 6 (old 5) means one has to delve into all sorts of things. (I don’t like how it is phrased in this version.)

“How might I show it to be wrong - by what experiment?”

You show an argument to be wrong by finding a flaw in the logic or by showing one of the premises to be unsound. The argument is not a scientific hypothesis. Nor is the existence of causation. Nor that of necessity. Nor that of contingency, and so on for all manner of things in the rational framework necessary for a rational understanding of the world – including that of science. Are you prepared to abandon science for a thorough-going scepticism?

“I say that we give words meaning based on our experiences of the world”.

So do I. Hence I am glad we both agree that the argument is empirically grounded in physical reality - even in that humble thing which we mean when we utter the name "peanut".

[dearieme]

“I say that we give words meaning based on our experiences of the world”.

So do I.

Then what do you mean by "God" or "Prime Mover"? They are no part our experiences of the world.

[rogerh]

Not so fast Deogolwulf. The point is that some good respectable philosophers have produced logical looking arguments that God exists and other equally good respectable philosophers show the opposite - that God does not exist. Can both groups be right? If we strip away the verbage and stick to formal logic we quickly see that neither proof is possible, the foundations are rotten - the whole debate relies on verbage. Verbage gives wriggle-room - the logic cannot be solid - that mode of debate is a lawyers game and allows of no reliable conclusion. Hence my agreement with 'word juggling'.

Going back to the traditional arguments, they come down to trusting a deductive argument - the no God believers - and trusting an inductive argument - the God believers. But as I am sure you know an inductive argument is no certain proof at all, it relies on probabilities and belief - in short faith. Which is where most modern theologians are at - God cannot be proven - you have to have faith (or not).

Which is where the God-o-scope comes in - plainly ridiculous and meant to be. Way back the theologians made physical claims but saw the error of their ways. Since the 19th century theologians revised their God notions such that no physical proof is possible. Straight back to faith.

To physics - you guessed - I earned my living at it for many years. I also learned that one good concept is worth a thousand equations. I further learned that words are a very poor way to define logical propositions, mathematics is better. When you can put your God proof into MATLAB and get 'Yes' or 'No' you will have achieved something, all I can get is 'Does not compute'.

[David Duff]

Please don't feel "sucked in", Deogolwulf, this is a conversation, perhaps not up to your usual Olympian heights but we try, dammit, we try!

I would like to get away from peanuts, and, er, me, come to that, and return to The Beginning. I am happy to accept the notion of a Prime Mover/God (PMG) on my personal basis that it is an hypothesis awaiting confirmation - or refutation. So, moving on, I have some questions.

Why did the PMG set off all those hydrogen and helium particles in the Big Bang? What was the point? Surely it cannot have been done for the purposes of eventually, billions of years later, creating Mankind (or us, as I like to think of it!). Also, and perhaps Roger will be able to confirm this, as I understand it the whole business of the 'creation' of the universe, and even more so the creation of life, was "a damn fine run thing" fraught with uncertainty. One very tiny variation here or there and the process would have failed. Perhaps that is an argument in favour of the PMG, that its wisdom is of such magnitude that it could calculate exactly and precisely. In which case ...

Did it know where this universe was going or was it all a giant gamble, a sort of intergalactic lab experiment? If it did know, and if Mankind was the aim and purpose then, given its extra-ordinary powers, it seems a hugely wasteful - and risky - way to go about it. All of that out there just for little us down here. One is tempted to sympathise with those Christian sects who believe the universe was all created 6,000 years ago - at least that would show some decent parsimony on the part of the PMG!

Somewhere back up there, Deogolwulf reminded me that I am subject to the laws of science, and I agree with him in general terms but I maintain that whether or not I choose to act is not subject to those laws. That aside, I wonder how these laws of science arose? Did the PMG work them all out ahead of the great game? For example, back when the laws of gravity kicked into action against the exploding hydrogen and helium atoms did the PMG already know about, say, the laws of aerodynamics by which a certain shape in a wing passing through air will keep an immensely heavy object up in the sky? Or, do the laws of science just manifest themselves from the materials available, that is, once you have energy/matter everything else flows from that? If that is the case then the PMG, 'our Albert' not withstanding, does indeed play with dice.

Either of those possibilities, of course, stones to death any 'particulalarist' claims from this or that religion.

[dearieme]

Ah, Deog, but does your argument mean that there is a PM for that peanut? Do other peanuts each have their own PM? How many PMs are there? How do you show which of them, if any, is Thor?

[Deogolwulf]

Rogerh,

“Logical-looking”: can I take that as an admission that you do not possess the analytical ability to determine whether the arguments are in fact logical? It is unsurprising that you, as a man who scorns logic, cannot tell the difference deductive and inductive arguments (the one in question here is deductive). You then give us a fairy-tale history of theology: “Way back the theologians made physical claims but saw the error of their ways.” But if you knew anything about medieval theologians and ancient philosophers like Aristotle, you would know that to be rubbish. But you don’t, of course. But for some reason, despite being an ignoramus, you believe your free-floating opinions on this subject count for something. “[T]he foundations are rotten” - well, I already know that you take the logical part to be rotten, and I must now presume that you take the material part to be rotten too, namely, that you don’t believe in the existence of contingent beings like peanuts either.

Mr Duff,

You’ve chosen to ignore the argument, I see.

“an hypothesis awaiting confirmation - or refutation.”

Please stop it. It is not a scientific hypothesis awaiting confirmation - or refutation.

“Why did the PMG set off all those hydrogen and helium particles in the Big Bang?”

Why ask about something that happened billions of years ago and not about something that happened just this minute? You are assuming a deistic (modern-mechanistic) conception of God. Why? Perhaps you could consult with Rogerh: he knows all about the history of theology.

But you want me to peer into the mind of God and then explain it all to you? But you can’t even grasp that God is let alone what God is! One step at a time! I’ll leave you with a lesser being, Thomas Aquinas, with whom you claim an acquaintance:

“When the existence of a thing has been ascertained there remains the further question of the manner of its existence, in order that we may know its essence. Now, because we cannot know what God is, but rather what He is not, we have no means for considering how God is, but rather how He is not.”

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I:3: prologue, tr. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burnes, Oates & Washbourne Ltd, 1922), Pt.I: Vol.I, p.28.

“[O]ne reaches the highest point of one’s knowledge about God when one knows that one does not know him.”

Thomas Aquinas, De potentia, 7. 5 ad. 14, quoted by Brian Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p.58.

Dearieme:

“we give words meaning based on our experiences of the world”

Based on, Dearieme, based on. There is a great, grand gulf between the claim that all knowledge derives from sense-experience (Aquinas: “nothing in the intellect which was not previously in the senses”) and the claim that all knowledge is sense-experience. The latter is of course famously self-undermining. (See the train-wreck of logical positivism for the gory details.) Are you a defender of the latter?

“Do other peanuts each have their own PM?”

Try not to be silly. Instead, you could engage with the argument: sit down at the chessboard, as it were, and make a move. Or do you really not accept any of the premises? If so, I refer to my earlier remarks.

“How many PMs are there?”

One.

“How do you show which of them, if any, is Thor?”

Do you wish to prove the existence of Thor? Why? Furthermore, is your understanding of Norse mythology as shaky as your understanding of classical theism? I’ll help you out: there is no concept of the Unmoved Mover, Actus Purus, Being Itself — in short: God — in Norse mythology.

* * *

I wonder if you can all appreciate my frustration. Consider the absurdity: I am trying to have a rational argument with people who claim not to believe in logical thought (even though they otherwise depend upon it in their lives, indeed, to take part in any life above that of the brute) and who will not admit the physical existence of such humble contingent beings as peanuts. I must be a man of deep faith to have persevered so far! Added to this is the silliness that none of you know the first thing about what the principle defenders of such arguments believe or have believed.

I'll sum up: it's worse than arguing with creationists who believe that evolutionists believe that monkeys gave birth to humans.

[Deogolwulf]

A final note: you have all, whilst claiming that logical argumentation is just word-juggling, attempted to employ it, albeit with little skill. (An epitome of the stupendous irrationality on display here: “Hence my agreement with ‘word juggling’.” Hence? Logically drawing a conclusion? But by your own lights you are merely juggling words!) Let me spell it out: you are all using a mode of thought which you claim to be invalid in order to claim validity for your own thoughts. Is the absurdity of your attitude impressing itself upon you yet?

[dearieme]

It's not that I disbelieve in logical thought, it's that I think that what looks like logical thought can be riddled with assumptions that sneaked in from the choice of words. It sounds logical to say that since light is a stream of photons and therefore particulate, it cannot therefore be wave-like, but that deduction actually concerns word play and you don't learn new physics by word play - you learn it from experiments. In other words, words are slippery things so that an argument that sounds conclusive may be far from sound.

“Do other peanuts each have their own PM?” Try not to be silly.

Nothing silly about it: consider -

1. There is a peanut on my desk.
2. This peanut is a contingent thing (i.e., it could have not-existed or it could cease to exist).
3. This peanut has a cause of or explanation for its existence. WHY the singular "cause"? Has an unexamined assumption come a-sneaking in? ARE we assuming here that this cause (or causes) must be knowable to man - if so, why?
4. The cause of or explanation for the peanut’s existence is something other than the peanut itself. IS that an assertion or a necessity?
5. What causes or explains the existence of this peanut must either be solely other contingent things or include a non-contingent (necessary) thing. AGAIN, why is that 'thing" singular?
6. Contingent things alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent thing. WHY not? If you say "because it would be circular" I cite my earlier suspicion that this whole argument may be circular.
7. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this peanut must include a non-contingent (necessary) thing. WHY is it singular, I ask again?
8. Therefore, a necessary thing (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. NOPE: even in your own terms aome undetermined number of such entities must exist.

Here's an analogy. Cosmologists argue about things by positing that the laws of physics, as currently understood, apply uniformly throughout time and space, and then look to see if any inconsistencies arise. But I must say I think that approach is wide open to criticism. It's a simple hypothesis that the laws apply everywhere and always, but I'm damned if I see any other good reason to assume it. It seems rather cocksure to say that our equations, established with such experiments as we can do, and observations we have made, must be universal. Similarly, I worry that the logic which is impeccable for determining how many beans make five may be inadequate to the task of reasoning about PMs because our words are inadequate to that task.

[dearieme]

Anyway, it's a bit much to berate us for not accepting the seven point plan when the Stanford link shows that very many philosophers have been unhappy with it too. Anyway, if the seven pointer is true, what of the four-pointer?

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)."

So one decrees that the universe (whatever the devil that is) must have been created and therefore there must exist a creator. A fourteen year old would laugh. Talk about circular.

[CorkyAgain]

Premise 5 (6 in the peanut version) is indeed the one that is most controversial. What is the reason for it? Is it the need to avoid an infinite regress?

[CorkyAgain]

I don't have the benefit of an English education, so I don't know what "form" my comments reflect, but I was taught that in a valid argument, there's nothing in the conclusion that wasn't already implicit in one or more of the premises. (*)

Hence my query re premise 5 (peanut 6). It seems to me that it's where the existence of God makes its first appearance in the argument.

(* This might make it seem as if all deduction is "circular." But "circularity" isn't a problem if the purpose of deduction is to draw out the implications of premises we've already accepted.)

[Deogolwulf]

A final-final note.

“It's not that I disbelieve in logical thought”

I’m glad to hear it. Now, tell me: why is the use of logic in my argument “word-juggling” but not such in any counter-argument that you might employ? Unilateral use of the nuclear-option is rude, to say the least.

“. . . it's that I think that what looks like logical thought can be riddled with assumptions that sneaked in from the choice of words.”

All logical thought is “riddled with” assumptions. And a good thing too. That’s what gives it logical structure. Likewise for scientific hypotheses. If we didn’t assume things like the principle of identity, the principle of non-contradiction, the principle of excluded middle, the principle of sufficient reason, the intelligibility of reality, the validity of reason, and a host of others, along with the previous findings of rational endeavours, then we would be in a mess. Indeed, if, every time we had set about to do something in the world, to construct a theory, or to put forward an argument, we disallowed assumptions and prior findings, then we would never have got even to the flint-knapping-level. Some of these many assumptions are rejected by some people sometimes. Sometimes, they are right to do so; sometimes, in doing so, they get into a frightful mess.

“WHY the singular "cause"? Has an unexamined assumption come a-sneaking in?”

You have just conceived of “a cause” or “an explanation” as involving one singular thing in the world causing the peanut’s existence: in other words, you have smuggled the assumption in. But why would you do such a silly thing? You know full well that the reality is otherwise. The complexity or the simplicity of the cause is not specified. It is normal to understand that here we are talking about a sufficient explanation for a thing’s existence, e.g., that a peanut does not come to exist as if by magic, for no reason at all, etc, or, in other words, that it has a cause or causes sufficient for its existence. That is all.

“ARE we assuming here that this cause (or causes) must be knowable to man”

No. We are assuming that they are, not what they are. Every time you look for an explanation for a phenomenon, you assume that there is an explanation. If you didn’t, or if you already knew what it was, you wouldn’t look for it. You assume that the objects of your experience have a reason for their existence. If you find a cake in the fridge, you do not assume (I hope) that it has spontaneously generated itself for no reason. I dare say you are as much committed to the principle of sufficient reason as I am, at least I hope so, considering your day-job. (Have you also noticed, that far from being scientific here, you are just rehashing eighteenth-century philosophy? Is the philosophical reasoning of that century somehow exempt from word-juggling?)

“The cause of or explanation for the peanut’s existence is something other than the peanut itself. IS that an assertion or a necessity?”

Do you think the peanut caused itself? Well, all right, suit yourself. To save my time, let’s just agree for the sake of argument (and precious time) that I make the big, whopping assumption that peanuts do not bring themselves into existence. Crazy old me.

“why is that [necessary] 'thing’ singular?”

Because of logical analysis of what a non-contingent (necessary) being is and what it entails. Which involves metaphysical assumptions. (Yikes!) As Edward Feser says:

“while the basic structure of the main versions of the argument is fairly simple, the background metaphysics necessary to a proper understanding of the key terms and inferences is not.”

Edward Feser, “So You Think You Understand the Cosmological Argument?” Edward Feser (weblog), 16th July 2011. (Some of the many comments are enlightening too.)

“I cite my earlier suspicion that this whole argument may be circular.”

Your suspicion counts for little until you work upon it. So engage with the argument. Don’t be a Bertrand. It is circular only in the sense to which CorkyAgain refers. That’s the beauty of deductive arguments: they can draw out certain implications from the things you already accept. Mind you, having peeked at the conclusion and taken fright, you can always go back and decide that those things you already accept are to be unaccepted. Such is the charming nature of our rational animality.

“to berate us for not accepting the seven point plan”

I haven’t berated you for not accepting it; I have berated you for not taking it seriously.

“many philosophers have been unhappy with it too.”

Of course. Some philosophers are also unhappy with the existence of an objective world, causation, necessity, contingency, and so on. Some philosophers – Hume, for instance, on whom it seems you base your philosophy – believe some weird stuff. Some philosophers even believe some weird stuff which is true.

Final point to my final-final note: let us say that I am really not fit to be defending these arguments, i.e., that I make a hash of explanation, that I muddle the concepts, and so. (To say the least: this is not at the furthest reaches of improbability.) What would you conclude? That the arguments do not amount to much? Well, that would be wrong. If I make a hash of explaining, or muddle the concepts involved in, evolutionary science, a hash and a muddle of which I am perfectly capable, it would not follow that evolutionary science does not amount to much. On any argument or subject you care to mention, there are many people far more qualified than I. For an expert on the matter at hand, go and read Feser.

[Deogolwulf]

A first correction to my final-final note: "a peanut does come to exist as if by magic" should read: "a peanut does not come to exist as if by magic". Normally, the latter is the less controversial statement.

[David Duff]

I have taken the liberty of correcting your comment in the text above, Deogolwulf.

I can understand your desire to be rid of this tiresome (to you) conversation but I just want to say thank you for sticking with it and taking all the 'incoming' with, er, well, shall we say, testy good humour! I intend to continue because it is only by writing about these things that I can go some way to clearing the muddle in my mind. If you see some egregious error (perish the thought) feel free to come back in - swinging!

[David Duff]

Oh boy, am I lovin' this!

Deogolwulf, you are a cheeky chappy, telling me that I had stated that the existence or otherwise of a PMG was a "scientific hypothesis" when I wrote nothing of the sort. I said it was a 'hypothesis', which it is, and that it awaits a definitive proof or refutation, which it does, as this conversation clearly indicates. A hypothesis does not have to be scientific.

Secondly, you accuse me of ignoring your argument which is a bit rich considering that I specifically stated my objection to your original 7x point list. Subsequently I attempted to drag the discussion back to the beginning which you have dismissed with an airy wave of your keyboard, so to speak, by telling me not to bother to enquire into "something that happened billions of years ago". You and your mate, Thomas Aquinas, stand at the road block like a couple of 'plods' saying the equivalent of, "Nuffin' to see 'ere, move along!". That's not an argument, it's an injunction!

Whether or not I believe in an entity called the PMG is neither here nor there, I am broadminded enough, and curious enough, to try and learn more by asking questions to which you, I note, have carefully avoided providing answers.

And we haven't even touched on the ticklish claims of this, that or the other religion to claim that the PMG is of their persuasion and no other.

Corky, welcome to D&N and having taken a quick look at your site I have instantly bookmarked it and I urge my other readers to do the same.

[David Duff]

Corky, as I understand it, the concept of infinity was treated with extreme suspicion by early Christian scholars. I'm not sure exactly what their reason was but I suspect it is not a million miles from the fact that it offers an alternative speculation (Deogolwulf has ticked me off for using 'hypothesis'!) as to the nature of the cosmos, which is, that matter was not 'created' or 'caused', it has always existed and always will exist, backwards and forwards in infinite time.

I'm not saying I believe it but I find it just as plausible as a PMG.

[Able]

I seem to remember a Sci-Fi story in which your PM spent six 'days' (indeterminate in length since in addition to your twins of mass and energy you forgot time coming into existence too) making the vast and complex calculations necessary. Then the PM supplies the singular, aimed impetus and sits back and waits to see if he/she manages to get the result aimed for.

It was portrayed as to like a celestial 'game of snooker', a single break-shot resulting in all the balls being potted in order. It was by Arthur C. Clarke I believe, although my Alzheimers may have me remembering incorrectly.

It seems as interesting a hypothesis as any. The real scientists, as opposed to those philosophers (who in my book are/were nothing more than extremely intelligent people who managed to persuade others that their sitting around in the bath/pub/under a tree and getting paid for contemplating their navels was a good idea), cannot theoretically approach more than the smallest fraction of a second close to what existed following the Big-Bang, let alone before it. So we are left with belief (I believe that if the PM had refrained from that extra single malt and the pickled egg before taking the shot then we'd be living in a better world without the corrupt, the hard of thinking and the venal, politicians, lawyers - Ooops sorry, repeating myself).

As to that Logic bumph as I have said before -

Cogito, ergo doleo (I think, therefore I am depressed)

[David Duff]

Time! Of course, how could I have forgotten that first big 'tick-tock' on the cosmological clock?

As for philosophy, I went through a stage in my '40s where I became very interested in the subject - I even went to evening classes given by some swots from Oxford - but I gradually discovered that it always provided two seperate and contradictory answers to every problem at which point, lofty and high-minded philosophers then went for each other like two sets of Scouser footie fans who are, of course, always and forever divided between reds and blues.

[Able]

Ah yes Sir, a phase we all (I would hope) go through at one point or another.

For myself it was slightly earlier (aged 11) and brought on by the apparent effects on a certain romantic poet of reading Kant (please don't ask why I was reading Byron, Keats and Shelley at eleven - have you never had an English teacher who made you forget to breath? - well legs up to there and a penchant for stilettos and leather skirts anyway). Just imagine the response of an eleven year old requesting the Critique Of Pure Reason, not to mention the works of Russel, Voltaire et al), at the local (very regional) library (I'd never heard a librarian swear before!).

The idea of God was covered by those luminaries was it not? Their conclusions? Kant - "is necessary from the practical point of view" and Voltaire - "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

It may have been as a result of only limited scientific development (have we really progressed that far?) but it's interesting to note that most of the scientific greats also profess to some degree of faith. Those like Professor Dawkins who rail against such beliefs seem to do so by constructing an order with control almost indistinguishable from what some would describe as a god, which I find amusing.

For the record I am an agnostic, you know one of those people who when the bullets start flying get down on their knees and pray 'Just in Case' lol. Still, Fibonacci numbers have to make you think don't they?

[David Duff]

'Strewth, I can't imagine Miss wood, Eng Lit & Lang, 1950-54, wearing a leather skirt, or stilettos, come to that!

Alas, anything to do with numbers, Fibonacci or 7-times table, gives me a headache so I just try not to think about them at all!

[Able]

I sympathise but Fibonacci numbers are those strange, consistent proportions found throughout nature (including us) - have a look at Leonardos famous little doodle of 'the geezer with too many arms, and a hernia' (Vitruvian Man).

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

is quite good, and it can't be that difficult as you can even get it on T-shirts.

http://www.mathematicianspictures.com/FIBONACCI/Fibonacci.htm

which I may have one or two of (am I a fashion icon or what?)

[David Duff]

Oh God, it's only 8.45 and thanks to you, Able, I'm into sums and my headache has already started! Any minute now, DM will make an appearance, set me a test and give me a hundred lines when I fail!

[Able]

My apologies but at least we'll be spared P.E. this morning - I couldn't face another cross-country run, not only with Mr. Spencer shouting impossible anatomical threats but, with half the rugby team always managing to 'accidentally' push me into the river (they just didn't seem to appreciate my intellect, well until I took up Karate anyway).

To cheer you up, here's a bit of geekery

http://htwins.net/scale2/

It's still on topic (vaguely) since to (mis)quote a famous scientist 'your God is too small, mine encompasses the universe' (Oh and look at the Fibonacci sequences apparent in galaxies lol).

[David Duff]

Able, rather short of time but I had a quick look at your link - very good.