Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which description of the universe below requires taking fewer assumptions on board?
1. The Universe exists
2. The Universe exists and it is alive and it is a God
3. The Universe exists, because it was created through some means by an omniscient God, which pre-existed.
The first, obviously. We have evidence the statement is true, and it carries no additional assumptions. It’s a great place to start. That’s not to say view 2 or 3 might not, in fact, be true! Maybe they are. But you can’t begin with them.
In any case, I think he’s justified in his presentation of the default view because it is the best default view we have, per the parsimony principle above.
Rather than your truncated assertions, try this syllogism on for size. Refine as needed.
1. The Universe exists
2. The Universe is the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists
3. Being the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists is an attribute of a God
4. Nothing that is the reason for something else can be lesser than that something else.
5. The Universe exists, it is conscious, alive and it is God
what you doing here is then taking the fact we all agree the universe exist and applying it to solve some problems.
lets start classifying the universe or volumes around us that best fit the observations we see about us and our habits.
the universe is alive
the universe is not alive
the biosphere is alive
the biosphere is not alive
biblegod is doing everything
anti-god for social change is the default position.
the universe is responsible for our existence so I call it god.
all natural
Add any other.
Put them in a relative reliability order and describe how they actually interrelate to what we are claiming.
Rather than your truncated assertions, try this syllogism on for size. Refine as needed.
1. The Universe exists
2. The Universe is the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists
3. Being the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists is an attribute of a God
4. Nothing that is the reason for something else can be lesser than that something else.
5. The Universe exists, it is conscious, alive and it is God
I like this, now we can start from the beginning and step through the logic to see if any step requires further evidence/rationality.
1. The Universe exists
I obviously agree with premise 1.
2. The Universe is the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists
I agree that premise 2 follows from premise 1, assuming you aren't imbuing "reason" with any implied special meaning. Consciousness, life, and everything, pre-supposes a universe in which to exist, so yes.
3. Being the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists is an attribute of a God
This assertion does not follow from argument 1 and 2, this is another premise in your syllogism structure. You are stating it to be true as one of the inputs for the deduction to follow on item 5.
Is it true? It's a matter of definition. You can define God as "the reason everything exists" in which case, sure, you've just equated god and the universe since they both are described by the same attribute. But all you've done is put forward a definition. How do you know that is an attribute of God? I believe this needs to be demonstrated before becoming an input here. It seems perfectly possible a God could exist, somewhere out there, and NOT have caused the universe.
4. Nothing that is the reason for something else can be lesser than that something else.
This is the premise where you are importing consciousness in your deduction below, but it is flawed. You are stating that in a causality chain, attributes can only be removed. In other words:
Suppose A -> B
If B has consciousness, you say, then A cannot be "lesser" and therefore, whatever else A is, it must also have the attribute of consciousness.
Did I parse that correctly? "Lesser" is an ambiguous term here, so I'm not certain what you mean.
In any case, this is just not true. Causes often give rise to effects with MORE attributes, LESS attributes, or just DIFFERENT attributes. There's a million easy examples of this in almost any physics interaction, but I'll go with a more personal example since we're talking about attributes associated with living things specifically: a child is born with innocence. Is every parent innocent? Unlikely. This means parents without the attribute of "innocent" are nonetheless the "reason" for a child coming to exist, who has an attribute they did not.
I realize that example might muddy the water if you start talking about original sin, but I think you know what I mean when I say innocence here, and it's a distinct thing. Substitute it for a dozen other attributes available.
5. [Therefore,] The Universe exists[1] , it is conscious[4], alive and it is God[3]
Without demonstrating premise 3, and with the logical error in premise 4, the conclusion does not end up following.
... try this syllogism on for size. Refine as needed.
Cool, a logic problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
1. The Universe exists
2. The Universe is the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists
3. Being the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists is an attribute of a God
4. Nothing that is the reason for something else can be lesser than that something else.
5. The Universe exists, it is conscious, alive and it is God
1. Our ultimate reality exists. It may not be the universe. Otherwise a good start.
2. Our ultimate reality is the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists
And good. And evil. And belly buttons. And flatulence. Do you see a problem yet?
3. Being the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists is ONE attribute of some definitions of various gods. Do you see that problem yet?
4. Nothing that is the reason for something else can be lesser than that something else. So the decay of an atomic particle that starts a nuclear explosion is greater than that nuclear explosion?
Perhaps you mean something else with 'lesser' that is beyond my understanding of the English.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
5. The Universe exists, it is conscious, alive and it is God
Does not follow. Also see point 2 for other attributes.
I like this, now we can start from the beginning and step through the logic to see if any step requires further evidence/rationality.
1. The Universe exists
I obviously agree with premise 1.
2. The Universe is the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists
I agree that premise 2 follows from premise 1, assuming you aren't imbuing "reason" with any implied special meaning. Consciousness, life, and everything, pre-supposes a universe in which to exist, so yes.
3. Being the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists is an attribute of a God
This assertion does not follow from argument 1 and 2, this is another premise in your syllogism structure. You are stating it to be true as one of the inputs for the deduction to follow on item 5.
Is it true? It's a matter of definition. You can define God as "the reason everything exists" in which case, sure, you've just equated god and the universe since they both are described by the same attribute. But all you've done is put forward a definition. How do you know that is an attribute of God? I believe this needs to be demonstrated before becoming an input here. It seems perfectly possible a God could exist, somewhere out there, and NOT have caused the universe. 4. Nothing that is the reason for something else can be lesser than that something else.
This is the premise where you are importing consciousness in your deduction below, but it is flawed. You are stating that in a causality chain, attributes can only be removed. In other words:
Suppose A -> B
If B has consciousness, you say, then A cannot be "lesser" and therefore, whatever else A is, it must also have the attribute of consciousness.
Did I parse that correctly? "Lesser" is an ambiguous term here, so I'm not certain what you mean.
You have correctly discerned my argument but have mischaracterized it using your assumption of a vacuous universe using cause instead of status. Causal reasoning leads to an endless loop. God must be definitional because, prima facie, consciousness is an attribute that is superior to all other causally-derived attributes. (We can expand this status/cause reasoning at the risk of having the post deleted or the thread locked so I suggest we forgo it). Status is why I reject the vacuous universe label since anything with consciousness is superior to anything without. If the universe has no consciousness, it is lesser than that which exists with consciousness which is inconsistent and absurd. [quote] Your fundamental premise in your vacuous universe is that ALL attributes have the same status because they can all be reduced to the same fundamental causes. I agree and disagree because I view the fundamental cause as a unified consciousness field which imbues the substrate with the only attribute not explicable by all the others. You might want to call it quantum foam, but I call it imagination - the ability to create what does not exist out of nothing without regard to any of the existing laws and constraints.
...God must be definitional because, prima facie, consciousness is an attribute that is superior to all other causally-derived attributes. .... Status is why I reject the vacuous universe label since anything with consciousness is superior to anything without. If the universe has no consciousness, it is lesser than that which exists with consciousness which is inconsistent and absurd. ...Your fundamental premise in your vacuous universe is that ALL attributes have the same status because they can all be reduced to the same fundamental causes.
I found this harder to parse than your earlier comment. Let me back up just so we're clear on the target. For your position to be rational, you need the syllogism you proposed to stand to logical analysis. Right now it doesn't as there are two issues in that argument:
1. You claim, without demonstrating, that God has the attribute of "the reason everything exists"
2. Although it is possible for some causal chains to produce "lesser" effects (using your definition of lesser), you still claim it is impossible for a causal chain starting from God, and/or the Universe, to behave the same.
Insofar as these two premises aren't rational, your ultimate conclusion is not rational either.
Ok, so your response here to remedy #1 is by claiming God MUST be definitional because "consciousness is an attribute that is superior." This is question begging. You are pre-supposing part of your conclusion IN your premise, which is a fundamental logical fallacy. You are suppose to be demonstrating a relationship between God, the Universe, and consciousness. To get there you need to prove these things you are saying from first principals. The moment you make it definitional that God and consciousness are related in any way, you corrupt your logic.
Another thing I missed (because it's not in the structure of your argument, but it is a claim you make on the side) is that just because X posses attribute Z, and Y also possesses attribute Z, that does not mean X and Y are the same thing.
I actually don't think you addressed the issue in #2 here at all. You hint at an idea of attribute hierarchy of some sort, but you don't make the point. Then you assert, "If the universe has no consciousness, it is lesser than that which exists with consciousness which is inconsistent and absurd" but I already showed a simple example of how a cause may produce an effect with more attributes. Why can't that attribute be consciousness?
You're also circling the logic again. Now you're saying it would be inconsistent for the universe not to have consciousness (which is the conclusion you are supposed to be demonstrating) and therefore one of your premises must be true. That's question begging again. The premises must stand on their own, then and only then, the conclusion follows. You can't justify your premise from the conclusion, and then prove the conclusion from that same premise.
I found this harder to parse than your earlier comment. Let me back up just so we're clear on the target. For your position to be rational, you need the syllogism you proposed to stand to logical analysis. Right now it doesn't as there are two issues in that argument:
1. You claim, without demonstrating, that God has the attribute of "the reason everything exists"
2. Although it is possible for some causal chains to produce "lesser" effects (using your definition of lesser), you still claim it is impossible for a causal chain starting from God, and/or the Universe, to behave the same.
Insofar as these two premises aren't rational, your ultimate conclusion is not rational either.
Ok, so your response here to remedy #1 is by claiming God MUST be definitional because "consciousness is an attribute that is superior." This is question begging. You are pre-supposing part of your conclusion IN your premise, which is a fundamental logical fallacy. You are suppose to be demonstrating a relationship between God, the Universe, and consciousness. To get there you need to prove these things you are saying from first principals. The moment you make it definitional that God and consciousness are related in any way, you corrupt your logic.
Another thing I missed (because it's not in the structure of your argument, but it is a claim you make on the side) is that just because X posses attribute Z, and Y also possesses attribute Z, that does not mean X and Y are the same thing.
I actually don't think you addressed the issue in #2 here at all. You hint at an idea of attribute hierarchy of some sort, but you don't make the point. Then you assert, "If the universe has no consciousness, it is lesser than that which exists with consciousness which is inconsistent and absurd" but I already showed a simple example of how a cause may produce an effect with more attributes. Why can't that attribute be consciousness?
You're also circling the logic again. Now you're saying it would be inconsistent for the universe not to have consciousness (which is the conclusion you are supposed to be demonstrating) and therefore one of your premises must be true. That's question begging again. The premises must stand on their own, then and only then, the conclusion follows. You can't justify your premise from the conclusion, and then prove the conclusion from that same premise.
I have trod this logical fallacy nonsense many times fruitlessly because what should NEVER be accepted is that consciousness can "emerge" from a substrate that is NOT itself conscious. Consciousness possesses a totally unique attribute of imagination which creates ex nihilo within its neural field unconstrained by any of the laws that govern all other manifestations in our Reality. All the logical machinations from a vacuous universe cannot overcome that deficit.
I have trod this logical fallacy nonsense many times fruitlessly because what should NEVER be accepted is that consciousness can "emerge" from a substrate that is NOT itself conscious. Consciousness possesses a totally unique attribute of imagination which creates ex nihilo within its neural field unconstrained by any of the laws that govern all other manifestations in our Reality. All the logical machinations from a vacuous universe cannot overcome that deficit.
Ok, fair enough. If you're willing to take that on board, and the assertions about it's uniqueness -- as a matter of stated faith -- that's fine, but you can't really be surprised others aren't coming with you. It's not a structured / rational argument at that point, it's a faith-based proposition.
FWIW, I see no reason consciousness can't emerge, and the more I read about free will, the less sure I am about what the heck is going on in our heads anyway. Consciousness is very hard to explain, no doubt, but what you're doing is the old god-of-the-gaps.
In any case, I've enjoyed the sparring match, but I guess we hit the bottom on this particular one.
Ok, fair enough. If you're willing to take that on board, and the assertions about it's uniqueness -- as a matter of stated faith -- that's fine, but you can't really be surprised others aren't coming with you. It's not a structured / rational argument at that point, it's a faith-based proposition.
It is structured but the "givens" hidden in your use of the structured arguments are as unsupported as the fundamental distinction itself - God or Universe - which is 50-50.
Quote:
FWIW, I see no reason consciousness can't emerge, and the more I read about free will, the less sure I am about what the heck is going on in our heads anyway. Consciousness is very hard to explain, no doubt, but what you're doing is the old god-of-the-gaps.
Emergence is an observation, NOT an explanation, so it doesn't advance the ball at all let alone in your direction. There is no conceivable equation employing the elements and components you would restrict us to that can produce the phenomenon of consciousness with all its attributes. That is why I consider the unified field that manifests our Reality a consciousness field.
Quote:
In any case, I've enjoyed the sparring match, but I guess we hit the bottom on this particular one.
As an atheist, you , like Arach, are a breath of fresh air in a smog-filled forum. When the standard model can produce the products of our imagination through equations, I might consider constraining my ruminations to a vacuous universe. Until then, God rules because of my encounter.
Typically, the most robust way to uncover truth is to start with the fewest presuppositions possible (none, if you can) and then use rationality and evidence to add each ingredient to the picture. To do otherwise is to preselect an arbitrary starting point.
None of us KNOW that the universe is not inside a great fish tank. None of us KNOW that the universe is not a computer simulation. None of us KNOW the galaxies are not mere atoms in someone else’s much larger reality. Any of those might be true, but we ought not on-board the assumptions without evidence.
Otherwise, one could take the exercise literally anywhere, and that is a problem.
Hence why you must do your best to identify (and begin) at square one.
Which description of the universe below requires taking fewer assumptions on board?
1. The Universe exists
2. The Universe exists and it is alive and it is a God
3. The Universe exists, because it was created through some means by an omniscient God, which pre-existed.
The first, obviously. We have evidence the statement is true, and it carries no additional assumptions. It’s a great place to start. That’s not to say view 2 or 3 might not, in fact, be true! Maybe they are. But you can’t begin with them.
In any case, I think he’s justified in his presentation of the default view because it is the best default view we have, per the parsimony principle above.
Yep. You see it. Most people can see it. Only the ones with their heads on back to front can't see it. Mystic is far from the only one. I had a long and ferocious debate with someone long gone who insisted that starting with No God was an assumption that needed to be justified.
Not making an assumption to start with is not making an assumption. I believe that this is Godfaith talking and they really think that assuming a god a priori (as a given) is a logically or rationally valid starting -point. This screws up ALL their arguments after that, which is why they can never be logically sound.
For example, that poster Vic who argued that the problem of evil was resolved by God's plan being good, and thus all the evils in the Bible and the world and the past are not a problem for God because it is ultimately going to be Good.
Now this was as good as I have seen , which is why I keep referring to it. But the argument depends upon assuming a god with a particular agenda in the first place. I know that if you do it, it excuses everything, but if you don't ,the problem of evil remains a piece of evidence that argues against a personal god at least and has to be explained by the theist, not by the atheist.
Thus, the burden of proof fell on him and claiming a god as a given with no evidence adduced for it made it no valid argument at all.
But the theist -headed can never, ever, get the logic of this, because in their heads God is real until 100% disproved. But that isn't the way logic works.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-02-2020 at 10:05 AM..
Reason: typos. I do try, really.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the decay of an atomic particle that starts a nuclear explosion is greater than that nuclear explosion?
that this is Godfaith talking and they really think that assuming a god a priori (as a given) is a logically or rationally valid starting -point. This screws up ALL their arguments after that, which is why they can never be logically sound.
, which is why I keep referring to it. But the argument depends upon assuming a god with a particular agenda in the first place. I know that if you do it, it excuses everything, but if you don't ,the problem of evil remains a piece of evidence that argues against a personal god at least and has to be explained by the theist, not by the atheist.
