Discussion about this post

User's avatar
JerryR's avatar

This is another attempt to find the explanation that requires the fewest steps to explain reality.  

Are brute facts just necessary conditions for the universe's existence, or are they the result of some unknown series of causes by the creator of the universe? Wouldn't it be simpler for the creator to create the brute fact than to make some yet unknown process that leads to the brute fact?

------------------

Person B believes an entity created the things that exist and the laws of interaction. This is a straightforward explanation that answers the question of why things exist. However, it doesn't answer the question of the origin of this entity.

Why should anyone accept that some entity created everything we see, the physical things, the laws of the physical universe that govern the behavior of physical things?  Then, there are many new findings of seemingly immaterial things, such as the Quantum World, that interact with the physical universe and possibly create new physical things.  Our world is highly complicated.

Where did all these very complicated things come from?  Person A says they always existed in some form or popped into existence out of nothing.  But we have seen that this is nonsense.  Infinite regress leads to absurdities, and popping out of nothing is even more absurd.

So, what is the basis for Person B's beliefs?  It is logic!  

Our total reality has many physical sub-realities, nearly all with a cause we can identify. We may not know all the causes of each reality, but there are none that we can say have no reason for being.  Some realities seem to be a given, and we will return to these below.

We are used to nearly every entity in our reality having a chain of events that led to its existence.  Our parents led to our birth.  A tree results from a seed, water, fertile soil, and the proper temperatures.  The dust in interstellar space, along with gravity and the characteristics of these dust particles, has led to the formation of stars.  Other forms of interstellar dust have led to the formation of planets and asteroids.  This dust which are mainly elements and small molecules are the result of the Big Bang or the explosion of stars.

Each entity has a history of previous states that caused its current form. However, all these previous states (n, n1, n2, n3, etc.) also had a series of causes or previous states that led to their existence. It's what we see all around us.

Because this series of states can not be due to an infinite number of steps, there had to be a beginning. However, the closer we get to the start of a series of events, the harder it is to explain all its causes.

Each series of steps must have a first step that causes the next step in the chain. The best analogous illustration of this is a long chain of dominos, each causing the next in line to fall.  For example, we point to every part of our universe, and nearly everything has a string of causes originating at the universe's beginning. 

Remember, we are trying to explain why anything exists and exists in a very complicated and precise way.  But what caused this first step to exist?  What pushed the first domino? 

The only answer is that this first step is self-existent.  Part of its essence is to exist.  We have never seen such an entity, but it must exist if anything exists.  Person B cannot explain such an entity other than it just exists.  

For now, we will not call this entity God, but that is what most people in history have called it.  One thing we can say now is that it must be self-existent.  This sounds as far-fetched as anything the atheist claims, but is it?  There is a famous Sherlock Holmes quote, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

We will also not discuss any characteristics of this initial cause except that besides being self-caused, it has the power to cause other entities. This means it has to be intelligent and powerful.

As mentioned above, as this series of causes approaches its beginning, it becomes more difficult to explain them. For example, the universe has some exact physical constants, such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the amount and distribution of fundamental particles at the beginning, etc, and some very exact laws.

We have no explanation for these constants and laws other than they are just as they are.  But these constants and laws seem very peculiar.  If they deviated even a little bit from what they are, there would be no universe or any universe where we could exist.  So even if these constants and laws have a set of causes that lead to them or they just exist, are they the result of some act of this initial entity that brought them into being because they are necessary?

Expand full comment
JerryR's avatar

Something that gets at the simplicity argument - Robert Spitzer's book on God. 

"Science at the Doorstep to God: Science and Reason in Support of God, the Soul, and Life after Death"

The first part is a lot more than just proof of God using science. For example, I was listening to it yesterday while walking, and I said it was proof of free will. How?

The evidence for the existence of a creator is not just compelling, it's overwhelming. To dismiss it as a highly probable explanation is to ignore the facts. Yet, even among our most intelligent sub-groups, there are those who deny it. They would be forced to acknowledge it if there was no free will. But they resist, using all their mental capabilities. This resistance can only be explained by the presence of free will.

Some of the rationales proposed by atheists for the complexities of the real world are not just complicated, they are convoluted. This not only makes atheism seem absurd, but it also reveals the inherent complexity in their arguments. 

Score one for Aquinas. 

Spritzer is a Jesuit, one of the few I defend. 

From the book on its proof of God: "An explanation of the simplicity of the one unrestricted reality and a response to Dawkins." I haven't got to it yet, but it is a section title later in the book. 

Another comparison between naturalism and theism is the commission of the fallacy of begging the question. That is assuming something without proof. Theists beg the question when they conclude that an extra reality intellect is the inference to the best solution for existence. Materialism begs the question for all their explanations for a material-only existence, including one they definitely cannot prove, that there is no trans-reality entity that created the universe. Science fails to confirm this. If they were honest, they would have to admit this. 

So atheists are also dishonest as well as having free will. They are freely dishonest.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts