Why is there anything at all? (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, June 23, 2008, 11:05 (5996 days ago) @ Curtis

Welcome back, Curtis. Work has a nasty habit of interfering with more important things, and many of us feel it should be abolished. - Unfortunately, I couldn't log onto the website you recommended. It said "page not found" but also seemed to want a password, which presumably requires registration, and I find that off-putting. The fact that I couldn't read the website may explain why I also failed to follow your own logic, although this could simply be due to my ignorance and stupidity. The areas I can't follow, incidentally, include the learned discussion that has been going on in your absence over the subject of nothing. I'm tempted, like King Lear, to cry out, "Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again." - Premises 1 & 2: I prefer to say "our" universe, which we are gradually getting to know, and am happy to go along with the theory that the beginning was caused by the Big Bang. But in my naivete, I cannot see how nothing can go bang. Whatever preceded and caused it must surely remain unknown to us ... we have no means of going back before it. For all we know, our big bang may have been a blip in a vast laboratory. - What we do know is that our universe works, and its elements are so "finely tuned" (David Turell) that it appears to be designed (ditto the origin of life). There are two possible explanations for this: a) the universe was designed, or b) the elements fell into place by a combination of chance and natural laws. You say that b) "is a separate topic by itself and should be covered elsewhere." In relation to the origin of life, it has already been covered at great length, but so long as we keep it in mind as an ever-present alternative, by all means let's confine this discussion to the scenario of a designed universe. - My problem, of course, is with your 1.1): "The conclusion of the Kalam is the prime cause is personal, eternal (outside time), all powerful and all knowing (It created everything), is a spirit being (exists outside of our Universe, non-spatial and immaterial), supremely intelligent, and immutable. I will presume that this is closed." - Absolutely not. This is the whole crux of the discussion. You have drawn a conventional picture of God as worshipped by the main religions, and you go on to say that any question about how it got there is "illogical". It's only illogical if one accepts that God is eternal, but that is one of the premises you are trying to prove. Also if I ask about its nature, you say you've already told me in 1.1), but that is precisely what I'm questioning. - My objections are twofold: a) as above, we can't go back before the beginning of our universe, so we have no way of knowing what preceded it (if there is/was a prime cause); b) if the force that caused the Big Bang and created life is indeed a conscious being, why should that logically mean that it has any of the qualities you have attributed to it? Why should it be "personal" (see, for instance, the thread on deism)? Why eternal (it could be a form of life superior to our own but nevertheless subject to ending, like everything else we know)? Why all powerful and all knowing (same argument, plus deism ... the great experiment: let's start it all up and see what happens)? Why non-spatial and immaterial (some people believe that God is the universe)? Supremely intelligent: agreed, in the sense that it is vastly more intelligent than us. Immutable ... why? Same argument as under 'eternal'. In any case, if it has a mind, why shouldn't it change it ... e.g. "Maybe I'll wipe out the dinosaurs and create something a bit more like myself. I'll call it Adam"? - Just saying that there is a prime cause which is God as you describe him doesn't constitute evidence. I could say the prime cause is chance and the natural laws; or there was once a being called Yahweh, Allah, Brahma or Fred, which was incredibly clever, made our world, and then went pop; alternatively, he made our world, sat back and is now watching us make a complete hash of it, but couldn't care less because as far as he's concerned, it's all a show. Don't misunderstand me. I could also say that he cares deeply about us, and one day he'll answer all our questions and treat us to a glorious afterlife in his spirit world. One of these theories must be close to the truth, but I cannot find any logic in the argument that there has to have been a beginning and therefore the beginning was a personal God.