Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: More God and Occam
Message-ID: <1175@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Oct-86 21:22:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1175
Posted: Sat Oct  4 21:22:40 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:04:17 EDT
References: <524@tekfdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 57
Keywords: God, universe, Occam, evidence, supernatural

In article <524@tekfdi.UUCP> bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) writes:
> 
> Since matter and the universe exist, it is apparent that SOMETHING has either
> existed eternally or came into being without a cause. Why not the universe?
> Because, of all we know about the universe, there is NOTHING to suggest that
> it has either existed eternally or has come into being without a cause.

There is NOTHING to suggest that the universe has not existed eternally
(what was there before the big bang? we don't know, but can't rule out
something) or has come into being with a cause (unless you want to admit
one of the numerous, contradictary creation myths.)

Thus, your statement, while apparently true, tells us nothing because mine
also is apparently true.  You see, your statement (and mine) are based on
a LACK of knowledge, rather than something known.  I might as well say that
there is no evidence that unicorns don't exist.

> I think it is inconsistant to  claim that the universe has one property
> which is not only unpredicted by what is known about the universe, but is
> counter to that knowledge.

However, holding the opposite claim is equally fallacious.

> > ...everything INSIDE the Universe seems to need a cause (even this is
> > debateable, but), which does not mean the Universe needs a cause...
> 
> Contrast this with the case of the set of integers, which several people used
> as an analogy. Similar analysis leads to a similar conclusion: the integers
> are caused (or more exactly preceeded) by themselves. Which is true: for any
> integer, a predecessor can be found from WITHIN the set. The assumption is not
> violated. But in the case of the universe, a cause for everything CANNOT be
> found WITHIN the universe.

With infinite regress, there isn't an ultimate cause.  So you still haven't
ruled out infinite regress for the universe.

> As I mentioned above, in order for anything to exist, there must be something
> which has no cause. And, from everything we can tell, that something is not
> inside our universe. From this evidence, I draw the conclusion that there is
> something outside the universe, something that does not need a cause.

Once again, this does not hold true for infinite regress.

> If a God that created the universe does exist, then from an examination of
> the creation, I can determine certain things about the Creator.
> Specifically, He must have existed before that creation. Since  the law of
> cause and effect is part of that creation, God must have existed before that
> law, and hence would not be bound by it.

And since the universe had a cause (= creator) so must your God?  Why not?
--

"... 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