Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: God and Occam (was Re: the cosmological argument)
Message-ID: <1142@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 12:36:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1142
Posted: Wed Sep 10 12:36:42 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Sep-86 06:45:42 EDT
References: <496@tekfdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 47

In article <496@tekfdi.UUCP> bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) writes:
> We have two competing explanations: an uncaused universe, and
> an uncaused God. In the universe, everything that we can see has a cause.
> Hence, the postulated property
> of the universe -- that it can exist without a cause -- is unlike all other
> known properties of the universe. There is nothing in what we can observe
> that would make us think that such a property exists. In short, a universe
> without a cause is inconsistent.

The basic logical flaw of this argument is the fallacy of composition.
The fallacy is to say that the properties of the parts are the properties of
the whole.  A close analogy to this fallacy can be made with the integers.

We can say every integer has a predecessor (a "cause").  So does the set of
all the integers (the "universe") have a predecessor?  No, because predecessor
is not meaningful for infinite sets (or causes for our universe if there is
infinite regression [and perhaps some other alternatives.])

> One could consider that something without a cause is outside of what (from
> everything we can tell) is natural. In other words, "supernatural." However,
> God, whether the Judeo-Christian God or most other gods, is, almost by
> definition, supernatural. In short, a God without a cause is consistent.

This is simply an argument from ignorance.  It is entirely possible for
"supernature" to have supernatural laws as rigid as our natural laws.
You make no justification whatever for that last sentence.

> If we attempt to choose between these two: In favor of the Christian God, we
> have a book which states that it was inspired by that God, a book which makes
> specific claims as to what God will do for any individual. These claims have
> been verified by millions. In favor of the "God in the white lab coat," we
> have -- ?

In favor of the Christian god we have claims that are either unprovable or
essentially identical to those of many other religions, which have also
been "verified by millions".

In favor of science, we have claims that have enabled agricultural, medical,
military, communication, transportation, and luxury revolutions unprecedented
in the history of the world.  The choice is simple.
--

"... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make
themselves artificially stupid."  Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge".
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh