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?
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.
Here is essay 3 on the reasons to believe in a creator.
------------
"Nothing came from nothing, nothing ever could" - Oscar Hammerstein II, Sound of Music.
Those who do not believe in a creator of things must explain why anything exists. We briefly explored infinite regress and the absurdities it brings. This short document will explore the universe's appearance out of nothing and the absurdities used to justify it.
One explanation is that the universe created itself out of nothing at some point. Let's look at one brilliant person and his rationale. Stephen Hawking, an atheist, wrote a book on cosmology called "The Grand Design." Hawking and his co-author proposed that the universe created itself out of nothing because of the law of gravity.
But wait a minute, the law of gravity somehow exists. If nothing exists, where does gravity exist?
There is a very big bait-and-switch here because nothing is not nothing in Hawking's world. There is the Quantum World, which has no physical particles. So Hawking is proposing that the Quantum World is the cause of our physical world. But the Quantum World exists, and we do not have any answer for why it exists. It is also very complex and defies any answer to how it originated.
So, if our physical world emerged from this Quantum World because of some aspects of it, such as the law of gravity, this is not really "nothing." It could be the source of our universe, but it certainly is something and not nothing. Granted, the something that Hawking points to is not what we usually call something.
Similarly, Lawrence Kraus wrote a book titled "A Universe from Nothing," but he used the same bait-and-switch technique. He also defines nothing as something. He actually calls this nothing unstable. He says, "Physics has changed what we mean by nothing. In fact, nothing is an empty space and is a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles" and "empty space weighs something …in fact, it's the dominant stuff in the universe." Doesn't sound like nothing.
Sabine Hossenfelder, a physicist, has a video of the nine levels of nothing, but each level contains something in reality. These are atheists who very much want to explain existence without there being a creator, but each uses some form of existence, all extremely complicated, as their version of nothing.
Many others make similar claims, but no one can explain just how their version of "nothing" appeared.
So we are left with the current reality that "nothing" is really something, with no explanation of where this something came from or why it is so complicated.
So far, materialism seems very complicated. There are an infinite number of creators and various levels of nothing that are very complicated. Maybe they are so complicated that a creator who is just there sounds incredibly simple in comparison.
This essay discusses the reasons for believing in a creator. (Again, I limit the discussion to a creator and not discuss the Judeo/Christian God, and the arguments are simple.) Someone recently said Aquinas said the only real reason not to believe in a creator may be logic and evidence. This was when there was little or no information about physics and the physical universe. This someone then said Aquinas said the only reason to deny the Christian God was the concept of evil. But that is not an argument against a creator but against the Christian God. So, it will be discussed elsewhere.
----------
What does the atheist propose is the origin of the things that exist? Remember, the fundamental question is, "Why is there anything?"
They propose two things: Either reality always existed back into infinity (called infinite regress) or jumped into existence out of nothing. (We are unaware of any other prominent reason for the existence of anything.)
This essay looks at the first explanation, which is infinite regress.
There are numerous writings on the absurdity of infinity. Let's take two implications that must be true if reality has existed for infinity. First is the proposition that if it is physically possible, it must have happened in the past. If one disagrees with this, explain why something physically possible could not have happened given enough time.
The second implication is that if it is physically possible, it must have happened an infinite number of times. There is no limitation to anything happening again because it has already happened. It is still physically possible, given enough permutations of physical states.
Some Greeks taught a version of this. A more modern atheist who advocated this was Frederick Nietzsche. He talked about something called eternal recurrence or eternal return, or that each scenario of our world has repeated itself an infinite number of times in the past. Somehow, he would change this scenario in our world even though the Nietzsche character did not do this in all the past infinite occasions—a contradiction.
Eternal recurrence is a necessary conclusion of any theory that postulates that there has been infinite regress. We live in a scenario that has already happened in the past. There have also been infinitely similar and identical scenarios. Everything possible must have happened an endless number of times before, including the writing of this essay and all the editing. That is what one has to believe if one believes in infinite regress. It's absurd.
Another implication of infinity is that an occurrence of intelligence without limit will appear. If one denies this, what is the limit to how intelligent some entity can get? Imagine an ultra-intelligent being and conclude that this intelligence can not be more intelligent. It would certainly have the capability to increase its intelligence. Such an entity could create a universe; would you call this creator a god?
In today's world, computers are becoming so fast that they can conclude things faster than any human intelligence. Why not combine this ability with an already-intelligent entity?
But if this could happen just once, it must have occurred an infinite number of times due to infinite regress. So, we would have endless entities with unlimited intelligence somewhere.
I suggest everyone read Isaac Asimov's short story, "The Last Question." https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html Asimov was an atheist, and this was his favorite story. But he didn't realize that his favorite story makes atheism nonsense—incredible irony.
We have over a trillion years left for this to happen. So, in a similar universe in the past, it must have occurred an infinite number of times. So, not only do we have a potential creator, but an endless number of them. And somehow, these creators are all hidden from us.
Others have proposed other fallacies, primarily based on the mathematical concept of infinity, to show the absurdity of infinity in a world.
So, can we eliminate infinity as a plausible alternative to a creator? It leads to an infinite number of absurdities, including an endless number of creators.
I and others are writing simple explanations of why materialism is not true. They range from 400 to 750 words. Here is the first one. Any constructive criticism is welcome. We are interested in the average people, those not in the pews, as opposed to intellectuals.
——————-
We have a universe composed of several different types of material (for example, the elements) with very regular laws that govern the interaction of these materials (for example, gravity.) These interactions are understood mainly, though not entirely. What caused these materials and interactions to exist
Some answers:
Person A believes there is no creator of these materials and the laws of interaction. Is this a rational belief? Can someone with such a belief answer the question, "Why does anything exist?"
Person B believes an entity created the things that exist and the laws of interaction. This answers the question of why things exist.
Which of these beliefs is more logical? Are there reasonable alternatives?
The following is the first part of a rationale for the existence of a creator or the beliefs of Person B. Is it convincing? Or is this person just speculating? Is there a better case?
The reader has to be the jury on this. Let's look at some up-front assumptions.
Everything in our experience has a cause; nothing we know has come from nowhere. To simplify this, every physical thing results from interactions between different materials in the universe. No one can point to something that is not a combination of these materials and the laws of our universe.
For example, any complicated entity, such as a rock, a planet, or a sun, exists because of the materials and the laws of interaction. In some cases, intelligence brought the materials together to form the entity we observe, such as a brick, a book, or a plow.
We say that such things are contingent; they depend on a previous combination of materials or, in the latter case, intelligence and materials. This intelligence may use tools to bring the entity into existence. Examples of each are unlimited.
What about the materials that make up these entities? Where did they and the laws of interaction come from? Our current universe originated about 13.7 billion years ago, as did the laws of interaction. We are then left with the question, what caused this origin? Person A will say they existed in some other form before this origin.
Can Person A explain the prior origin of these other materials? One answer that they provide is that the materials existed in some form or another for eternity and have continually transformed forever. A second explanation is that these materials appeared out of nothing in the distant past. There is no other explanation given.
Person B says that an entity with self-existence as part of its nature caused the materials and laws of interaction to appear. Person A laughs at such an explanation but then hides because he has no alternative that is not absurd, such as infinity and the sudden existence out of nothing. There is no escape to anything logical for Person A.
So which is it? Forever/something out of nothing or self-existence? Both sides must justify their beliefs.
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?
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.
Here is essay 3 on the reasons to believe in a creator.
------------
"Nothing came from nothing, nothing ever could" - Oscar Hammerstein II, Sound of Music.
Those who do not believe in a creator of things must explain why anything exists. We briefly explored infinite regress and the absurdities it brings. This short document will explore the universe's appearance out of nothing and the absurdities used to justify it.
One explanation is that the universe created itself out of nothing at some point. Let's look at one brilliant person and his rationale. Stephen Hawking, an atheist, wrote a book on cosmology called "The Grand Design." Hawking and his co-author proposed that the universe created itself out of nothing because of the law of gravity.
But wait a minute, the law of gravity somehow exists. If nothing exists, where does gravity exist?
There is a very big bait-and-switch here because nothing is not nothing in Hawking's world. There is the Quantum World, which has no physical particles. So Hawking is proposing that the Quantum World is the cause of our physical world. But the Quantum World exists, and we do not have any answer for why it exists. It is also very complex and defies any answer to how it originated.
So, if our physical world emerged from this Quantum World because of some aspects of it, such as the law of gravity, this is not really "nothing." It could be the source of our universe, but it certainly is something and not nothing. Granted, the something that Hawking points to is not what we usually call something.
Similarly, Lawrence Kraus wrote a book titled "A Universe from Nothing," but he used the same bait-and-switch technique. He also defines nothing as something. He actually calls this nothing unstable. He says, "Physics has changed what we mean by nothing. In fact, nothing is an empty space and is a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles" and "empty space weighs something …in fact, it's the dominant stuff in the universe." Doesn't sound like nothing.
Sabine Hossenfelder, a physicist, has a video of the nine levels of nothing, but each level contains something in reality. These are atheists who very much want to explain existence without there being a creator, but each uses some form of existence, all extremely complicated, as their version of nothing.
Many others make similar claims, but no one can explain just how their version of "nothing" appeared.
So we are left with the current reality that "nothing" is really something, with no explanation of where this something came from or why it is so complicated.
So far, materialism seems very complicated. There are an infinite number of creators and various levels of nothing that are very complicated. Maybe they are so complicated that a creator who is just there sounds incredibly simple in comparison.
This essay discusses the reasons for believing in a creator. (Again, I limit the discussion to a creator and not discuss the Judeo/Christian God, and the arguments are simple.) Someone recently said Aquinas said the only real reason not to believe in a creator may be logic and evidence. This was when there was little or no information about physics and the physical universe. This someone then said Aquinas said the only reason to deny the Christian God was the concept of evil. But that is not an argument against a creator but against the Christian God. So, it will be discussed elsewhere.
----------
What does the atheist propose is the origin of the things that exist? Remember, the fundamental question is, "Why is there anything?"
They propose two things: Either reality always existed back into infinity (called infinite regress) or jumped into existence out of nothing. (We are unaware of any other prominent reason for the existence of anything.)
This essay looks at the first explanation, which is infinite regress.
There are numerous writings on the absurdity of infinity. Let's take two implications that must be true if reality has existed for infinity. First is the proposition that if it is physically possible, it must have happened in the past. If one disagrees with this, explain why something physically possible could not have happened given enough time.
The second implication is that if it is physically possible, it must have happened an infinite number of times. There is no limitation to anything happening again because it has already happened. It is still physically possible, given enough permutations of physical states.
Some Greeks taught a version of this. A more modern atheist who advocated this was Frederick Nietzsche. He talked about something called eternal recurrence or eternal return, or that each scenario of our world has repeated itself an infinite number of times in the past. Somehow, he would change this scenario in our world even though the Nietzsche character did not do this in all the past infinite occasions—a contradiction.
Eternal recurrence is a necessary conclusion of any theory that postulates that there has been infinite regress. We live in a scenario that has already happened in the past. There have also been infinitely similar and identical scenarios. Everything possible must have happened an endless number of times before, including the writing of this essay and all the editing. That is what one has to believe if one believes in infinite regress. It's absurd.
Another implication of infinity is that an occurrence of intelligence without limit will appear. If one denies this, what is the limit to how intelligent some entity can get? Imagine an ultra-intelligent being and conclude that this intelligence can not be more intelligent. It would certainly have the capability to increase its intelligence. Such an entity could create a universe; would you call this creator a god?
In today's world, computers are becoming so fast that they can conclude things faster than any human intelligence. Why not combine this ability with an already-intelligent entity?
But if this could happen just once, it must have occurred an infinite number of times due to infinite regress. So, we would have endless entities with unlimited intelligence somewhere.
I suggest everyone read Isaac Asimov's short story, "The Last Question." https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html Asimov was an atheist, and this was his favorite story. But he didn't realize that his favorite story makes atheism nonsense—incredible irony.
We have over a trillion years left for this to happen. So, in a similar universe in the past, it must have occurred an infinite number of times. So, not only do we have a potential creator, but an endless number of them. And somehow, these creators are all hidden from us.
Others have proposed other fallacies, primarily based on the mathematical concept of infinity, to show the absurdity of infinity in a world.
So, can we eliminate infinity as a plausible alternative to a creator? It leads to an infinite number of absurdities, including an endless number of creators.
I and others are writing simple explanations of why materialism is not true. They range from 400 to 750 words. Here is the first one. Any constructive criticism is welcome. We are interested in the average people, those not in the pews, as opposed to intellectuals.
——————-
We have a universe composed of several different types of material (for example, the elements) with very regular laws that govern the interaction of these materials (for example, gravity.) These interactions are understood mainly, though not entirely. What caused these materials and interactions to exist
Some answers:
Person A believes there is no creator of these materials and the laws of interaction. Is this a rational belief? Can someone with such a belief answer the question, "Why does anything exist?"
Person B believes an entity created the things that exist and the laws of interaction. This answers the question of why things exist.
Which of these beliefs is more logical? Are there reasonable alternatives?
The following is the first part of a rationale for the existence of a creator or the beliefs of Person B. Is it convincing? Or is this person just speculating? Is there a better case?
The reader has to be the jury on this. Let's look at some up-front assumptions.
Everything in our experience has a cause; nothing we know has come from nowhere. To simplify this, every physical thing results from interactions between different materials in the universe. No one can point to something that is not a combination of these materials and the laws of our universe.
For example, any complicated entity, such as a rock, a planet, or a sun, exists because of the materials and the laws of interaction. In some cases, intelligence brought the materials together to form the entity we observe, such as a brick, a book, or a plow.
We say that such things are contingent; they depend on a previous combination of materials or, in the latter case, intelligence and materials. This intelligence may use tools to bring the entity into existence. Examples of each are unlimited.
What about the materials that make up these entities? Where did they and the laws of interaction come from? Our current universe originated about 13.7 billion years ago, as did the laws of interaction. We are then left with the question, what caused this origin? Person A will say they existed in some other form before this origin.
Can Person A explain the prior origin of these other materials? One answer that they provide is that the materials existed in some form or another for eternity and have continually transformed forever. A second explanation is that these materials appeared out of nothing in the distant past. There is no other explanation given.
Person B says that an entity with self-existence as part of its nature caused the materials and laws of interaction to appear. Person A laughs at such an explanation but then hides because he has no alternative that is not absurd, such as infinity and the sudden existence out of nothing. There is no escape to anything logical for Person A.
So which is it? Forever/something out of nothing or self-existence? Both sides must justify their beliefs.