God exists: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » God exists » God exists

God exists
Two arguments

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

God exists

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 06/21/09 - 02:19 AM:	#21
Angra Mainyu, A followup question. If we assume an infinite set of possible universes with varying degrees of probability for actualizing, can't we also assume that at least one of those possible universes has a 100% probability of actualizing? For someone who doesn't believe that our universe necessarily exists (in which all the 'isn't it amazing that there is something rather than nothing' and 'wonder at the mysteriousness' goes out the window), would they have to show either 1. the set of possible universes are not infinite, of 2. even with an infinite set of possible universes, it is impossible that even a single possible universe have 100% probability of actualizing?

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 06/21/09 - 02:27 AM:	#22
Given that a necessary world is surely possible, wouldn't an infinite set of possible worlds have to include all possible worlds, actual worlds, and necessary worlds...and thus at least one of the possible worlds has a 100% probability of existing. I can't think of any reason why a world could not possibly be necessary (it is at least as plausible an assumption as 'God is a necessary being').

Angra Mainyu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 126

Posted 06/21/09 - 02:50 AM:	#23
treysuttle wrote: A followup question. If we assume an infinite set of possible universes with varying degrees of probability for actualizing, can't we also assume that at least one of those possible universes has a 100% probability of actualizing? You mean, that the probability of "at least one universe forming" is one (i.e., 100%)? Yes, it must be so if we assume that set. By the way, if the function is continuous, any given universe has probability zero, yet the probability of "at least one" is 1 (i.e., 100%). But then again, someone could just assume a set of universes with some probability function that assigns .5 chance to the event "no universe forms". So, essentially what I was getting at was that the "argument from fine-tuning" (essentially, that's what this argument is) is a non-starter for it seems to make plenty of assumptions for the sake of it; so, I was shooting down the argument (in a friendly manner), but I wasn't trying to address metaphysical issues, even if indirectly I may have done so. treysuttle wrote: 1. the set of possible universes are not infinite, of 2. even with an infinite set of possible universes, it is impossible that even a single possible universe have 100% probability of actualizing? I think I would first ask "what do you mean by "possible" universes?" If they're talking about non-contradictory scenarios, it seems clear that they're infinite. I'm not sure about how to interpret your point 2, though. If you're saying that there is a set of universes, and at least one of those universes has probability 1 (i.e., 100%), that would imply that the union of the rest (i.e., "at least one of the rest") only has probability zero. But if you're saying that the event "at least one of all the universes forms" would have probability 1, that's correct, if your set has universes and not an event "no universes form" with nonzero probability. But how does one choose? There is also an assumption that you can have a set of "all possible universes"; I might not just be that there are infinite, but that there aren't too many for any set (so, it's a proper class, and I don't know how you can assign probability ). As I mentioned, all of this seems to make assumptions quite arbitrarily in my view, but I was not trying to get into metaphysics; rather, I just thought I'd post a short argument against the "Devil's Advocate" argument.

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 06/21/09 - 03:07 AM:	#24
"But if you're saying that the event "at least one of all the universes forms" would have probability 1, that's correct" Yes, that was my point. Not so much directed to the argument, but wondering if that would follow from a set of infinite possible blah blah. The followup idea that I had was, if this is the case, then actually there is nothing mysterious at all about the universe existing. "But then again, someone could just assume a set of universes with some probability function that assigns .5 chance to the event "no universe forms". Yes, it's all quite conventional, isn't it? A 'possible universe' (in my metaphysics) is just a conception of the universe as different from the actual universe. I would even take it a step further and say that a 'possible universe' is a certain comportment one might have towards certain believed to be true or false statements about the universe. I personally can't make much sense of assigning a probability to a possible universe...then again, this might just be my lack of imagination. Edited by treysuttle on 06/21/09 - 03:13 AM

Angra Mainyu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 126

Posted 06/21/09 - 11:19 AM:	#25
treysuttle wrote: Yes, it's all quite conventional, isn't it? Yes, that was my point. There seems to be no non-arbitrary way of assessing probabilities in that set, or even to pick the set, so attempts at "arguments from probability" fail - at least, when the question is "universe formation", or something along those lines.

Basso Profundo
Panpsychic Solipsist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 21, 2009
Location: In the smallest of ponds

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 42

Posted 06/22/09 - 10:05 AM:	#26
Three points: Firstly Incision wrote: It's surprising ... there are so many apparently possible universes... we should regard all universes as equally likely... And it's more understandable ... If God is that than which no greater can be conceived... Note in all the above an argument from the limits of human psychology. It is not surprising unless you are predisposed to a different view, nor is it more or less understandable. If your ability to conceive either something 'great' or other universes is constrained, then subjective assessments of probabilities will be unreliable. (How many possible VIABLE universes did you list? Or did you just stop after a few and decide 'there's lots'?) Secondly ...everything has a cause, so surely the universe does...Atheism is still false. Your argument surely should read 'IF everything has a cause..' Whether that is true, and what is the nature of causation are both open questions. You are also making the perennial mistake of equivocating on 'everything' (see this forum passim). Every thing MAY have a cause: everything probably doesn't. Thirdly I think I should get an award for the worst argument ever. If the replies' objections hold, then I committed roughly 2 errors per sentence of argument, over the course of three paragraphs. That's gotta be a record. By your grasp of C-inductive argument, you must here be arguing that this COULDN'T possibly be 'the worst argument ever', since it is surprising that you should have made these mistakes: it is more understandable that it was a good argument and the criticisms were wrong. Glad to be back on the board Fish (erstwhile associate of Klingsor)
...and I lift my glass to the awful truth that you can't reveal to the innocent youth except to say it isn't worth a damn...

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 06/22/09 - 12:17 PM:	#27
coalclear wrote: Whoa, kinda took that way out of context? Yes, I admit I did. By the way, if I didn't make this clear, I'm not really a theist: I'm arguing against my own views here. Basso Profundo wrote: By your grasp of C-inductive argument, you must here be arguing that this COULDN'T possibly be 'the worst argument ever', since it is surprising that you should have made these mistakes: it is more understandable that it was a good argument and the criticisms were wrong. Who, me? You are also making the perennial mistake of equivocating on 'everything'[. . .]. You aren't the first to make that objection, but I don't see that I've committed that fallacy. Had I argued that everything has a cause, therefore for something must be the cause of everything, I would have committed a quantifier shift fallacy. But I didn't argue that, and I don't see that I've even suggested it. I'm just saying that since everything has a cause, the universe has one, too. The implied ground for the premise is that the principle of sufficient reason holds. Angra Mainyu wrote: A problem is that we could imagine an infinite set of possible universes (non-denumerable infinite, if you like). [. . .] So, if you have infinite universes, they can't all have the same non-zero probability (if, say, probability is X, take N such that NX > 1, and then the union of the N universes - i.e., at least one exists - would have probability NX (since the events are disjoint), and so greater than one, which is impossible). Now this objection seems fatal. There is no coherent way to assign any finite probability to each universe, so it looks like my first argument fails. I could regroup if I knew of another objective way to assign a probability to the universe's being livable, but I don't think there is one.

IamJacksColdSweat
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 19, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 06/22/09 - 05:53 PM:	#28
Incision wrote: I haven't heard about Advocatus Diaboli this year; maybe that's why I missed it. But it's never too late to get into the holiday spirit. First I'll offer a "C-inductive" argument: this is evidence that God exists, even if it isn't conclusive. To do this I just need to show that something is more likely with God than without. It's surprising that our universe exists. That's because there are so many apparently possible universes, and so few that sustain life. If we could determine that one universe was more likely than another, this might not be a problem, but we could only do that by experiencing multiple universes. That's impossible, so we should regard all universes as equally likely. And it's more understandable that the universe exists if God does too. In fact, there isn't any reason for God to create the universe, or any for him not to. If God is that than which no greater can be conceived, then God plus the universe is no greater than God alone, so why would he have any reason to bother? But that's not a problem: an arbitrary decision from God is still more likely than the universe's existing through chance. So things look brighter: life isn't the hand we were dealt; it's the way the coin landed. Second, everything has a cause, so surely the universe does. What could cause the universe? Well, it needs to be outside the universe and intelligent, so it must be something like God. The standard response is to ask, "What caused God?" But I'll be a little bit Mormon and bite the bullet: yes, God has a cause. I'm not sure what it is, but so what? Atheism is still false. I define evidence, as an indication that makes something evident. I see no evidence here at all. You are assuming that life is rare in the universe. We do not even know the percentage of the universe we can see so how can one come to the conclusion that life is rare? Now life is rare in the part we can see but how is that important? If god has cause then we have infinite regress. Thiesm makes a claim the claim has not been proven. Atheism is a default position. I am atheistic because I disbelieve in any god so far proposed because the arguments are not sound.

norman
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2008

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 70

Posted 06/23/09 - 02:59 AM:	#29
I'm not trying to sound like an ass here, but really, don't we find it hilarious, in all these discussions of God's existence or non-existence, that God's existence or non-existence somehow depends on our arguments? God's existence or non-existence is a pink elephant. What we're addressing is the idea of such, and whether such idea is a pink elephant, a deity, or a photo camera, doesn't have much bearing on whatever such 'thing' may be. I could imagine God sitting there, in his Heaven, fingers crossed, hoping for someone to come up with a killer-argument that would settle the dispute once and for all.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 06/23/09 - 04:03 AM:	#30
Stormin' Norman, you don't sound like an ass. The presupposition for the existence or non-existence of god(s) is the reason for the question in the first place. It serves as more "self-justification" for one's personal opinion. The "cornerstones of proof" for one are the "stumbling blocks of ignorance" for the other. God is far too intelligent to bother with such participation in the debate. For the most part, we are just "daytime Television" for god. God exists. Yes! Your god. Your creation who created you. Your method of coping. Your method of excuse. Your method for moral justification. Your extension of moral limited opinion based in connotation into a world of universal ethics, unlimited in nature based in dennotation, void of connotation and personal experience. God is a guide. God is a crutch. God is a weapon. God is the stuff to fill in the gaps of knowledge. God is the foundation of knowledge. God is what the others god is not. God is whatever you need. God is whatever you want. God is you. God is everything opposite of you. God is Paradox. God is Metaphor. God is ... You fill in the dots and you know what? You are right, for you. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.