Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!caip!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!chinet!grc97!hurst From: hurst@grc97.UUCP (Dave Hurst) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: God and Occam (was Re: the cosmological argument) Message-ID: <165@grc97.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Sep-86 19:16:08 EDT Article-I.D.: grc97.165 Posted: Wed Sep 17 19:16:08 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 23-Sep-86 02:12:05 EDT References: <496@tekfdi.UUCP> Organization: Gould R&D - Rolling Meadows, IL Lines: 96 In article <496@tekfdi.UUCP>, Bob Bales writes: > In article <3542@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, Brian McNeill writes: > > > If we assume that not everything is causal, the first causers don't have a > > leg to stand on, since it is more likely (Occam's razor) that the universe > > doesn't need a cause, rather than assuming a further step, saying that > > "well, the universe needs a cause, but of course, our God is self creating > > by definition" which, as we can see, is rather suspect reasoning. > > > I disagree. I contend that Occam's razor choses God as being the simpler > explanation. We have two competing explanations: an uncaused universe, and > an uncaused God. Let me try to understand what you are saying. With an uncaused god, we must postulate that it is possible for some entity to exist without a cause, namely, god. In addition, we must postulate that there are two entities: the universe, which was caused by god, and god itself, which is uncaused. With an uncaused universe, we must postulate that it is possible for some entity to exist without a cause, namely, the universe. We have no need to postulate any extraneous entity to create the universe! Now, you are saying that an explanation based on two entities is simpler than an explanation based on one. Oh, I get it! How obvious! How simple and elegant! Excuse me, but the last time I learned how to count, one came before two. Any system which consists of one entity has to be simpler than a system which consists of two, by definition. > In the universe, everything that we can see has a cause. (I > know that there has been discussion whether or not this is true, > quantum-mechanically speaking. However, at least every bit of mass/energy > comes from something -- other mass/energy.) 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. Let me attempt to make an analogy. In the set of all integers, each integer certainly must have a predecessor. If you want to think about the set of integers as being constructed inductively, from any given integer, the succeeding one can be constructed by adding one. In this sense, one might say that each integer is 'caused' by it predecessor. Does this mean that the entire set of integers must have some 'first integer' from which it is created? No, of course not. The set of integers is infinite in extent. To talk about the entire set in terms of the 'cause' of a succession of integers is ridiculous. The entire set, as such, has no cause at all. It is causeless, all by itself. It exists as a logical necessity. There is no need for some external entity to create it. Similarly, any given event may be discussed in terms of those which preceded it, 'causing' it if you will. Any given chain of events is describable as a succession of causes and effects. But to talk about the 'first cause' of the universe as creating it makes no sense at all. There can be no 'first cause', just as there can be no 'first integer'. The succession is infinite. (At this point, detractors will likely point out that modern physics postulates the big bang as being the 'first cause'. This is clearly not the case, as something must have preceded the singularity from which the big bang came. What it was cannot (as yet) be determined.) The discussion of the entire universe is of an entirely order than the discussion of any of its constituent events. Whether or not the universe is, itself, a logical necessity is not yet clear from modern physics. > One could consider that something without a cause is outside of what (from > everything we can tell) is natural. In other words, "supernatural." I'm always amused by people who must resort to using the term 'supernatural'. As usually defined by people, this word means, "an event occuring which is outside of the natural order of things." Unfortunately, such can never exist or occur. I must digress for a moment and present my definition for the term 'universe'. Universe is the sum total of all experiences. It is every event which ever occured or will occur. It encompasses all things. There can be no discussion of 'outside of universe', because such makes not one bit of sense. If some event occurs, it must, by definition, be within the universe and thus is part of its 'natural order'. Certainly it is possible for events to occur which we don't understand. But to call such things 'supernatural' is just plain superstition. It would be more correct to call these events 'supernormal' or 'extraordinary', or even mystifying and wonderful, but hardly 'supernatural'. It is certain that any event has some consistent and comprehensible explanation. The 'supernatural' is simply a contradiction in terms. > 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. Sure. And once I have shown that 1 = 0 I can consistently prove anything else I like too. An assumption based on a contradiction is useless. -- email: ...ihnp4!grc97!hurst David Hurst, KSC phone: (312) 640-2044 Gould Research Center flames: /dev/null #include All hail Discordia! Kallisti!