Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Don Schneider
Posts: 64
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Don Schneider »

Here is my philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind, not necessarily God in the conventional sense). It rests on just two overt assumptions: the validity of Einstein’s relativity (very little credible dissent there); and the validity of the eternalism it implies (the majority viewpoint among both physicists and philosophers and held to by Minkowski (Einstein’s erstwhile math teacher) and Einstein himself. It also assumes one other implicit assumption which I’ll discuss afterwards if anyone is interested. The paper requires about seven minutes’ reading time. Dr. Schick's paper is available to read online on a free access basis, but I am too new here to be able to link to it. It's not difficult to find. Thank you for your time to anyone interested.)


Proof of a Creator: A Rejoinder to Theodore Schick, Jr.

This essay is a rejoinder to a paper written by Theodore Schick, Jr., Professor of Philosophy, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pennsylvania. The 1998 paper is entitled “The ‘Big Bang’ Argument for the Existence of God” and is a rebuttal to the views held by Hugh Ross, noted astronomer and Christian apologist, as expressed within his book The Creator and the Cosmos. The paper was originally published in Philo, the Journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers.

The impetus of Dr. Schick’s paper is to discredit Dr. Ross’s contention that the acceptance of the theory of the “big bang” as the beginning of the universe implies that it must have had a cause beyond the event itself, and Dr. Schick’s corollary contention that such an assertion is nothing but a scientifically updated variation of St. Thomas Aquinas’s “uncaused first cause” argument to prove the existence of God. As blasphemous as it might sound coming from a Catholic such as me, I acknowledge that Aquinas’s reasoning left something to be desired in this case. I don’t contest Dr. Schick’s views on this point.

As a Catholic high school student, I once had the effrontery to ask a priest in religion class, “If it is sufficient to assert that ‘God always was, always is and always will be’ then why can’t we just say the same about the universe?” (The priest’s response was less than memorable.) In his paper, Dr. Schick echoes my youthful inquisitiveness:

“But if we're willing to admit the existence of uncaused things, why not just admit that the universe is uncaused and cut out the middleman? David Hume wondered the same thing….”

The meat of Dr. Schick’s rebuttal to Dr. Ross’s views is that Dr. Ross positions a higher dimensional time, a time in which the spacetime that we know and live within was created: the creator’s time. Since the big bang is held to be the beginning of time, Dr. Ross argues, that implies it must have had a cause, as did the beginning of everything else. Since the big bang is the beginning of our time, then its cause cannot have been within our time (because an effect must follow its cause); rather, it must have been within the higher dimensional time of the creator that Dr. Ross positions.


Dr. Schick rebuts this argument as follows:

“This argument arrives at the conclusion that the universe has a beginning in time by assuming that the universe has a cause. But the big bang argument uses the premise that the universe has a beginning in time to arrive at the conclusion that the universe has a cause. So Ross is arguing in a circle. He is assuming that the universe has a cause to prove that the universe has a cause. Because Ross begs the question about whether the universe has a cause, he does not succeed in proving the existence of a higher dimensional time, let alone the existence of a transcendental god.”

Dr. Schick is correct. It is, therefore, my intention within this essay to attempt to provide the justification that Dr. Ross’s argument lacks to assume that the big bang (and, therefore, the universe) had a cause. For the benefit of my argument, I appeal to none other than perhaps the most venerated, self-professed atheist in scientific history, Albert Einstein himself! It is an understatement to judge it ironic that I perceive that such a renowned atheist proved, albeit unwittingly, the existence of God or, more precisely, a creator of at least some sort.

It was Hermann Minkowski, Dr. Einstein’s erstwhile math teacher, who first pointed out to him that his special theory of relativity implied a four-dimensional universe, now usually referred to as the "block universe.” In this scheme of reality, time is reduced to a mere fourth dimension, with the result being that the universe can no longer be viewed as being composed of space and time, but rather as an unified structure called “spacetime,” with all events within the universe (including particles seemingly being created without a cause via vacuum fluctuations) occurring at the confluence of four-dimensional points.

(For example: September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center at the precise floor and instant that the first plane hit.)

Dr. Einstein himself was at first most reluctant to accept such a view of reality, but eventually came to embrace it. Here lies the point most relevant to the thrust of this essay: Within the block universe scheme of reality, the past, present and future of spacetime all exist contemporaneously and there is no privileged moment within spacetime soley entitled to call itself "the present" or "now."

(Some attempt to argue that such a view is a misinterpretation of the theory. However, Dr. Einstein himself certainly seemed to accept its validity as there is a letter written by him to the widow of a recently late associate in which he attempts to comfort her by pointing out that her late husband and she were presently enjoying many happy moments together in other parts of the universe.

Additionally, I asked by email a prominent European physicist, who had been kind enough to reply, the following question:

“I would like to ask you a simple question concerning your theory. When
you assert that time does not actually exist, and, therefore, cannot "flow"
as it is usually thought of doing so; and that "moments" (i.e.,
particular configurations of matter) simply exist, are you stating that
every "moment" exists eternally and independently of every other
moment? Do you mean that, for example, January 1, 2002, 12:00 AM GMT,
and January 1, 2002, 12:01 AM GMT have an entirely different set of
matter of which they are constructed, as opposed to the usual idea of
each moment being composed of the same matter as any other moment that
has simply shifted relative position?”

His answer:

“Exactly correct.”)

I think it can be safely asserted that we all accept the existence of the phenomenon of cause and effect. For every baby (effect) there was a transaction (cause) between a sperm and an egg. But here is the rub: If the past, present and future all exist contemporaneously, and if by definition a cause must precede its effect, then how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when the baby and his or her parents exist contemporaneously and eternally?

The only tenable answer that I can discern is: it didn’t. That is, it didn’t in our spacetime. Just as a painting’s obvious orderly composition did not result from any event within the canvass, but rather from order imposed from without (i.e., by the artist), the undeniable order that permeates our reality and renders our very existences possible must likewise have been imposed from without, by a creator of some sort.

The concept of cause and effect implies a sequential creation. If the universe is static (with motion (and change) being a mere illusion—exactly as Parmenides and Zeno argued—, along the lines of a motion picture rendering the illusion of motion from a series of still frames), then nothing within our spacetime could have been created within it any more than a now static Rembrandt masterpiece could have created and ordered itself.

Rather, the reality that we live within and perceive must have been sequentially created (thus accounting for the obvious causes and effects we observe) in a higher dimensional time, exactly as Dr. Ross argues, and then became static, exactly as a painting does upon completion. Quite simply, a cause must precede its effect within existence, which cannot be the case if both the cause and the effect have always existed simultaneously.

As a thought experiment, assume that the characters within a novel could somehow gain sentience and intelligence, and that their universe, contained within the pages of the book, seems just as real to them as our universe (or “multiverse” if the MWI of quantum mechanics should be correct in fact) does to us (in our higher dimensional time). Unless the author was able and chose to communicate with his or her creations, then by what means would they have to discover the true nature and origin of their existences other than by deducing that whatever logic and order they perceive must have been imposed from without, as to them their universe appears simply to have always been and thus cannot have been created within its own dimension of time?

The alternative would be for them to reason as Dr. Schick and many others do. That is, that their—unbeknownst to them—literary universe simply “just is.” In this hypothetical scenario, they would be very wrong; just as I believe Dr. Schick and others are for the reasons I have presented. Dynamic forces cannot exist within a stagnant universe. To argue otherwise would be a contradiction in terms. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the dynamic force that forged our now static universe via causes and effects (i.e., the laws of physics) must have come from without.

How then can one account for the creator’s origin? How can one avoid an infinite regress of creators? That is what I term the "ultimate mystery” of existence. How can anything exist at all? As incomprehensible as the mystery is, the only answer I can suggest is that somewhere along the line, someone or something “just is,” and in his, her or its plane of existence the answer to these questions can be scientifically fathomed as they cannot be here within the logic of our reality.

It is not my contention that I can solve the ultimate mystery to which I referred. Rather, I only claim that if Dr. Einstein’s theory is correct—as on empirical grounds it certainly appears to be—, then it is evident that our spacetime had a creator (existent or once so), the nature of whom or which is beyond the scope of this essay. Dr. Schick is certainly not arguing in favor of one version of a creator over another. On the contrary, he argues against the existence of any creator at all, a view which this essay attempts to refute as scientifically illogical.

In summation, although my arguments might transpose to a typical ”intelligent design” thesis, I contend that my conclusion cannot be simply dismissed as such because my basic argument goes beyond the normal intuitive attitudes that intelligent design adherents commonly put forth in support of their views. My basic point is one derived from the prevailing paradigm that contemporary physicists labor within: relativity and the block universe it implies.
NicoL
Posts: 48
Joined: September 1st, 2016, 11:12 am

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by NicoL »

Every instance of creation is a process consisting in a sequence of events, which themselves consist in objects possessing properties. The presupposition, then, in talking about a Creator, is that there already were some objects to be used in the process of creating her/his universe, but if there were objects, then there was already a universe. The question is incoherent and a bit like asking "what time was it before the beginning of time?".
Don Schneider
Posts: 64
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Don Schneider »

Thank you for your reply which is certainly appreciated. If you read my proof, then you apparently didn’t understand it in light of your reply. The proof points to a preexisting reality outside our universe, the creator’s universe, thus the source of the material used to create ours. This proof, by the way, assumes a paradigm of material realism, the implicit assumption I referred to. Since I wrote the proof, I’ve gravitated increasingly towards idealism so I personally tend to discount my own proof. However, if material realism is in fact truth, then it is still valid.
NicoL
Posts: 48
Joined: September 1st, 2016, 11:12 am

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by NicoL »

I simply do not see the explanatory value of postulating higher-order universes, since:

(a) the same question about the Creator of each such universe can be posed ad infinitum, and
(b) taking materials from a higher-order universe and configuring them to produce a lower-order universe sounds absurd (what is the mechanism that facilitates inter-universe material transfers?) and needless (there is just one universe; all the Creator may have done is "re-configure" it to be as it is now).

You ask: how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when the baby and his or her parents exist contemporaneously and eternally?

I suspect that the confusion lies in your understanding of the sense in which "contemporaneously" and "eternally" are meant. There is a time-metaphor in both, which is misleading, but remember that time is considered as an emergent (and perhaps completely subjective) phenomenon in the attacked view: all that exists fundamentally is an ordered plurality of events. Thus you can probably paraphrase the above as:

"how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when event B (this baby is born) and event A (the parent is born) exist in the determinate order they do exist in actuality?".

There is nothing absurd with what is stated in this paraphrase, arising from an understanding of "eternal" that involves concepts of order/sequence, but not of temporality.
Don Schneider
Posts: 64
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Don Schneider »

NicoL wrote:I simply do not see the explanatory value of postulating higher-order universes, since:

(a) the same question about the Creator of each such universe can be posed ad infinitum, and
(b) taking materials from a higher-order universe and configuring them to produce a lower-order universe sounds absurd (what is the mechanism that facilitates inter-universe material transfers?) and needless (there is just one universe; all the Creator may have done is "re-configure" it to be as it is now).

You ask: how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when the baby and his or her parents exist contemporaneously and eternally?

I suspect that the confusion lies in your understanding of the sense in which "contemporaneously" and "eternally" are meant. There is a time-metaphor in both, which is misleading, but remember that time is considered as an emergent (and perhaps completely subjective) phenomenon in the attacked view: all that exists fundamentally is an ordered plurality of events. Thus you can probably paraphrase the above as:

"how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when event B (this baby is born) and event A (the parent is born) exist in the determinate order they do exist in actuality?".

There is nothing absurd with what is stated in this paraphrase, arising from an understanding of "eternal" that involves concepts of order/sequence, but not of temporality.
Thank you again for your response, a most considered one. I misjudged you. By your first answer, I thought that you had merely skimmed my proof, and even had you read it in its entirety, your comprehension of the subject matter was too shallow to have a meaningful discussion with you. By this answer, I see that such is not true. Therefore, I express my apologies to you.

You wrote:

“I simply do not see the explanatory value of postulating higher-order universes, since:

(a) the same question about the Creator of each such universe can be posed ad infinitum, and….”

Well, that's the crux of the entire matter, isn’t it? From my proof:

“How then can one account for the creator’s origin? How can one avoid an infinite regress of creators? That is what I term the 'ultimate mystery' of existence. How can anything exist at all? As incomprehensible as the mystery is, the only answer I can suggest is that somewhere along the line, someone or something 'just is,' and in his, her or its plane of existence the answer to these questions can be scientifically fathomed as they cannot be here within the logic of our reality.”

This discussion assumes an assumption of the validity of material realism—the majority viewpoint in Western science and philosophy—, and I don’t want to divert to a discussion of the merits of realism as opposed to idealism. However, I want to say that this is the principle (though not the only) reason why I have become increasingly inclined towards the paradigm of idealism as presented by Eastern metaphysical schools predicated upon the Upanishads. In such a paradigm, there is presented at least a possible mechanism to understand that which seems unfathomable by the human intellect, regardless of how exalted an individual’s IQ might be: the question of “no beginning.” With the aforementioned paradigm of idealism, the purported route to such an understanding lies with union with the absolute: universal, undifferentiated consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology), i.e., mysticism or Yoga ("to yoke"). Such an understanding can only be had on an empirical basis and not on an intellectual one. After all, how does one learn to ride a bike? By studying the aerodynamic principles of the proposition beforehand; or rather, by mounting, falling, trying again until one ultimately…understands? Such an understanding is alien to the logic of the intellect.

Since it seems absurd to deny that there is existence, then something or someone must simply “just is” (“I am who am”) upon which the existence of all else is contingent. To my mind, it seems more logical that that something or someone is sentient than inanimate. It is difficult to see how, for example, a hydrogen atom or a “quantum void” could “just is," existing timelessly and eternally without an antecedent cause.

You wrote:

“(b) taking materials from a higher-order universe and configuring them to produce a lower-order universe sounds absurd (what is the mechanism that facilitates inter-universe material transfers?) and needless (there is just one universe; all the Creator may have done is "re-configure" it to be as it is now).”

My proof purports only to prove that there is or was a creator of some kind, not necessarily God in the conventional sense. In the science fiction move The Thirteenth Floor, the characters discover that they are actually the product of a computer simulation. The reality of the programmers represents a higher-order universe. Then the creators in that higher-order universe discover that they too are products of a computer simulation. A recourse to a seemingly absurd infinite regress is yet another reason why I am now skeptical of material realism.

I wrote in my proof:

“…how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when the baby and his or her parents exist contemporaneously and eternally?"

You responded:

"I suspect that the confusion lies in your understanding of the sense in which "contemporaneously" and "eternally" are meant. There is a time-metaphor in both, which is misleading, but remember that time is considered as an emergent (and perhaps completely subjective) phenomenon in the attacked view: all that exists fundamentally is an ordered plurality of events. Thus you can probably paraphrase the above as:

"how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when event B (this baby is born) and event A (the parent is born) exist in the determinate order they do exist in actuality?

“There is nothing absurd with what is stated in this paraphrase, arising from an understanding of ‘eternal’ that involves concepts of order/sequence, but not of temporality.”

You are attempting to counter my question which deals with ontology with semantics in much the same way purported mathematical solutions to Zeno’s paradoxes (which, by the way, idealism resolves nicely) merely manipulate the (abstract) unit via calculus while ignoring the underlying existential considerations. Per my email offered in my proof to the physicist Dr. Julian Barbour, author of The End of Time, eternalsim is to be taken literally as taken by Minkowski and his protégé Einstein (albeit reluctantly in the latter’s case). Yes, we perceive that the cause preceded its effect, but in reality both have always existed eternally and timelessly. Thus, I assert that because it seems absurd on an empirical basis to state that the baby did not result from the intercourse of his or antecedent parents, then the perceived dynamism must have occurred in a higher-order reality and subsequently became static like a finished piece of art. If you reject eternalism in favor of presentism, then my proof is not valid; however, you’d be in a distinct minority with allies like William Lane Craig, the Christian theologian and philosopher.

Kant wrote:

“We found physical causation to consist in a fixed and determinate order of succession among perceptions.” (Critique of Pure Reason) [Emphasis added] Perceptions can be divorced from realty. We are discussing the latter here.
NicoL
Posts: 48
Joined: September 1st, 2016, 11:12 am

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by NicoL »

Don Schneider wrote: Since it seems absurd to deny that there is existence, then something or someone must simply “just is” (“I am who am”) upon which the existence of all else is contingent. To my mind, it seems more logical that that something or someone is sentient than inanimate. It is difficult to see how, for example, a hydrogen atom or a “quantum void” could “just is," existing timelessly and eternally without an antecedent cause.
If you have abandoned the principle of sufficient reason and already accept that something must exist necessarily, then where do you see the logical contradiction in being committed to "inanimate" entities (e.g. the fundamental particles of physics) as ontologically basic? And why be committed to just one necessarily existing agent (creator) and not 5 or 125?
Don Schneider wrote:In the science fiction move The Thirteenth Floor, the characters discover that they are actually the product of a computer simulation. The reality of the programmers represents a higher-order universe. Then the creators in that higher-order universe discover that they too are products of a computer simulation.
There are no higher-order universes in your example, there is just one universe that includes everything and everyone as its member: both programmers and simulated characters. Perhaps there are more than one universes of discourse (domains).

Think about it. To begin with, the programmers are real persons that are metaphysically grounded on biological facts, while the simulated characters are also (let's assume) real persons that are grounded on electronic facts. But both the biological and electronic constituent entities are members of the same universe and grounded on the same physical entities. The cells and the flip-flops are all present in the very same universe! Furthermore, given an appropriately implemented communication interface in the simulation environment, the creators (programmers) and creations (simulated characters) could very easily communicate with each other in both directions. This is not a case of inter-universe communication. Everybody is in the same universe.
Don Schneider wrote:You are attempting to counter my question which deals with ontology with semantics [...]
You can't do ontology without talking, so you need to be clear about the meaning of your expressions. So, yes, I did attempt to disambiguate the sense of "eternally" to elucidate the meaning of an ontological question. But this is not the same as appealing to concepts of semantics to answer the ontological question.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by -1- »

Don Schneider wrote:Thank you for your reply which is certainly appreciated. If you read my proof, then you apparently didn’t understand it in light of your reply. The proof points to a preexisting reality outside our universe, the creator’s universe, thus the source of the material used to create ours. This proof, by the way, assumes a paradigm of material realism, the implicit assumption I referred to. Since I wrote the proof, I’ve gravitated increasingly towards idealism so I personally tend to discount my own proof. However, if material realism is in fact truth, then it is still valid.
Therefore would you say you have described a transference of universe, instead of a creation of it?

-- Updated 2017 June 2nd, 8:20 am to add the following --

If that is true, you have simply used the incorrect word for the event.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Don Schneider
Posts: 64
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Don Schneider »

NicoL wrote:
Don Schneider wrote: Since it seems absurd to deny that there is existence, then something or someone must simply “just is” (“I am who am”) upon which the existence of all else is contingent. To my mind, it seems more logical that that something or someone is sentient than inanimate. It is difficult to see how, for example, a hydrogen atom or a “quantum void” could “just is," existing timelessly and eternally without an antecedent cause.
If you have abandoned the principle of sufficient reason and already accept that something must exist necessarily, then where do you see the logical contradiction in being committed to "inanimate" entities (e.g. the fundamental particles of physics) as ontologically basic? And why be committed to just one necessarily existing agent (creator) and not 5 or 125?

--I said that something or someone must exist eternally and timelessly without an antecedent cause in his, her or its higher order universe; it must do so within a logic not understandable by the logic of the human intellect in our plane of existence or universe. I can see no alternative. But yes, that agency can be inanimate, though that simply seems unlikely to me. If that were the case, then no answer to the mystery could ever be known. “Oh quantum vacuum (or whatever), pray tell us the secret of how you exist but never came to be.”

Anyway, whatever that agency is, inanimate or sentient and intelligent, it must have spawned us and all we perceive. Since the simulated characters of the analogy (the SF movie I referenced) have no access to their creator(s)' reality in which their program was written and executed, for all intents and purposes theirs constitutes a lower order universe notwithstanding the fact that their creator(s) did not create ex nihilo. The programmer(s) could communicate with them, as you note, if they so choose just as monotheistic religions have claimed that God has with us through prophets. The difference between the analogy and our situation on which my proof is predicated and addresses is that in the former instance the creator(s) have no need to exist eternally and timelessly; their existence can be accounted for, whereas our creator (whatever the nature) must do so in order to account for existence itself unless one appeals to a literal infinite regress, a proposition I dismiss as logically untenable.

Once again, the implicit assumption I referred to within my proof is material realism. In that event, then the creator(s) would indeed have created ex nihilo an universe from his, her or its universe. However, if one assume a paradigm of idealism of that which is usually referred to (though somewhat inaccurately) as “pantheism,” then the creator, universal consciousness, creates all from itself as a manifestation of itself as dreams are created from brain waves. I now lean towards this school for a number of reasons (such as, for example, its nicely resolving Zeno's paradoxes among others).
Don Schneider wrote:In the science fiction move The Thirteenth Floor, the characters discover that they are actually the product of a computer simulation. The reality of the programmers represents a higher-order universe. Then the creators in that higher-order universe discover that they too are products of a computer simulation.
There are no higher-order universes in your example, there is just one universe that includes everything and everyone as its member: both programmers and simulated characters. Perhaps there are more than one universes of discourse (domains).

Think about it. To begin with, the programmers are real persons that are metaphysically grounded on biological facts, while the simulated characters are also (let's assume) real persons that are grounded on electronic facts. But both the biological and electronic constituent entities are members of the same universe and grounded on the same physical entities. The cells and the flip-flops are all present in the very same universe! Furthermore, given an appropriately implemented communication interface in the simulation environment, the creators (programmers) and creations (simulated characters) could very easily communicate with each other in both directions. This is not a case of inter-universe communication. Everybody is in the same universe.

----Per above, this was intended as an analogy and not an exact execution of my proof. In the movie, the characters in the secondary simulation, the simulation within the simulation, discover the true nature of their existences due to a flaw in their program, i.e., their simulated environs simply and abruptly ends at a certain (to them) geographical point. Suppose that was, however, not the case. They would never have any way to discover the universe without theirs, the programmer(s)’ universe, except by deduction as explained within my proof.
Don Schneider wrote:You are attempting to counter my question which deals with ontology with semantics [...]
You can't do ontology without talking, so you need to be clear about the meaning of your expressions. So, yes, I did attempt to disambiguate the sense of "eternally" to elucidate the meaning of an ontological question. But this is not the same as appealing to concepts of semantics to answer the ontological question.
--Again, the eternalism that relatively implies is to be taken literally. All events within spacetime exist simultaneously and have always existed that way. The determinate order that we perceive is just that, a perception, and therefore cannot accommodate causality in fact and words cannot change the fact.
Don Schneider
Posts: 64
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Don Schneider »

-1- wrote:
Don Schneider wrote:Thank you for your reply which is certainly appreciated. If you read my proof, then you apparently didn’t understand it in light of your reply. The proof points to a preexisting reality outside our universe, the creator’s universe, thus the source of the material used to create ours. This proof, by the way, assumes a paradigm of material realism, the implicit assumption I referred to. Since I wrote the proof, I’ve gravitated increasingly towards idealism so I personally tend to discount my own proof. However, if material realism is in fact truth, then it is still valid.
Therefore would you say you have described a transference of universe, instead of a creation of it?

-- Updated 2017 June 2nd, 8:20 am to add the following --

If that is true, you have simply used the incorrect word for the event.
Please see my recent reply on this thread to NicoL. Thank you.
User avatar
Sam26
Posts: 99
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 1:23 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Ludwig Wittgenstein

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Sam26 »

Don Schneider wrote:
I think it can be safely asserted that we all accept the existence of the phenomenon of cause and effect. For every baby (effect) there was a transaction (cause) between a sperm and an egg. But here is the rub: If the past, present and future all exist contemporaneously, and if by definition a cause must precede its effect, then how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when the baby and his or her parents exist contemporaneously and eternally?

The only tenable answer that I can discern is: it didn’t. That is, it didn’t in our spacetime. Just as a painting’s obvious orderly composition did not result from any event within the canvass, but rather from order imposed from without (i.e., by the artist), the undeniable order that permeates our reality and renders our very existences possible must likewise have been imposed from without, by a creator of some sort.

The concept of cause and effect implies a sequential creation. If the universe is static (with motion (and change) being a mere illusion—exactly as Parmenides and Zeno argued—, along the lines of a motion picture rendering the illusion of motion from a series of still frames), then nothing within our spacetime could have been created within it any more than a now static Rembrandt masterpiece could have created and ordered itself.

Rather, the reality that we live within and perceive must have been sequentially created (thus accounting for the obvious causes and effects we observe) in a higher dimensional time, exactly as Dr. Ross argues, and then became static, exactly as a painting does upon completion. Quite simply, a cause must precede its effect within existence, which cannot be the case if both the cause and the effect have always existed simultaneously.

As a thought experiment, assume that the characters within a novel could somehow gain sentience and intelligence, and that their universe, contained within the pages of the book, seems just as real to them as our universe (or “multiverse” if the MWI of quantum mechanics should be correct in fact) does to us (in our higher dimensional time). Unless the author was able and chose to communicate with his or her creations, then by what means would they have to discover the true nature and origin of their existences other than by deducing that whatever logic and order they perceive must have been imposed from without, as to them their universe appears simply to have always been and thus cannot have been created within its own dimension of time?

The alternative would be for them to reason as Dr. Schick and many others do. That is, that their—unbeknownst to them—literary universe simply “just is.” In this hypothetical scenario, they would be very wrong; just as I believe Dr. Schick and others are for the reasons I have presented. Dynamic forces cannot exist within a stagnant universe. To argue otherwise would be a contradiction in terms. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the dynamic force that forged our now static universe via causes and effects (i.e., the laws of physics) must have come from without.

How then can one account for the creator’s origin? How can one avoid an infinite regress of creators? That is what I term the "ultimate mystery” of existence. How can anything exist at all? As incomprehensible as the mystery is, the only answer I can suggest is that somewhere along the line, someone or something “just is,” and in his, her or its plane of existence the answer to these questions can be scientifically fathomed as they cannot be here within the logic of our reality.

It is not my contention that I can solve the ultimate mystery to which I referred. Rather, I only claim that if Dr. Einstein’s theory is correct—as on empirical grounds it certainly appears to be—, then it is evident that our spacetime had a creator (existent or once so), the nature of whom or which is beyond the scope of this essay. Dr. Schick is certainly not arguing in favor of one version of a creator over another. On the contrary, he argues against the existence of any creator at all, a view which this essay attempts to refute as scientifically illogical.

In summation, although my arguments might transpose to a typical ”intelligent design” thesis, I contend that my conclusion cannot be simply dismissed as such because my basic argument goes beyond the normal intuitive attitudes that intelligent design adherents commonly put forth in support of their views. My basic point is one derived from the prevailing paradigm that contemporary physicists labor within: relativity and the block universe it implies.
You seem to be postulating, if I've correctly understood, that based on the idea of "block time" or "eternalism," that there is no cause and effect that actually takes place in our view of reality. Thus, the cause of the universe must have come from outside the universe. Therefore, there exists a creator/s. Is this correct?

If I've understood what you've concluded correctly, this view is very close to my own view. Although I think the argument to design works equally well to show that there is a designer/s of natural objects. I don't hold this view based on any religious point of view. In fact, I'm not religious. I just think there is a huge amount of evidence that supports the conclusion of one or more intelligent designers.

I do think that at bottom of everything, i.e., the unifying principle, is consciousness. It's quite possible that everything is an illusion of sorts, including space itself.
Don Schneider
Posts: 64
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Don Schneider »

Sam, thank you for your time reading my essay. You’ve understood correctly. We apparently think very much alike. I stated that there was one implicit assumption regarding my proof in addition to the two overt ones that I mentioned beforehand. That assumption is the validity of material realism. I personally have come to lean towards idealism, a paradigm that you seem to indicated that you also at least entertain. Therefore, although I still maintain that if material realism is valid, then so is my proof, I no longer have confidence in its material underpinnings. Here is another post I made which sheds light on why I now at least lean towards accepting the Eastern ontological view of reality:

In the conventional Western paradigm, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter in the form of a human/animal brain. In the Eastern metaphysical schools based upon the Upanishads (most saliently within the Hinduism school of Advaita Vedānta and within schools of Mahayana Buddhism (such as Zen and Yogacara), Consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology) is the fundamental ground of existence which cannot be further sublated. All is a manifestation of Consciousness just as dream characters and ambience are manifestations of brains as mental processes. Thus, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness as opposed to the visa versa view of Western materialism.

This is a fundamental form of idealism, variants of which can be found in minority viewpoints of Western philosophies. It is also basically a form of solipsism which I personally term “corporate solipsism” as opposed to that which I term “radical solipsism,” the belief held by an individual that he or she is the only one and thing that actually exists with all others and all other things being manifestations of one's imagination. If I believed the latter, then I wouldn’t be wasting my time here.

For those who dismiss idealism out of hand, ask yourselves this: What is the fundamental (metaphorical) arena of existence where everything occurs and without which nothing could be attested to exist?

Also, since the idea that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness is opposed to the seemingly common sense visa versa viewpoint, how could the ancient sages who wrote the Upanishads have ever come up with such a seemingly counterintuitive paradigm in the absence of some empirical proof now lost to us or unrealized by the great bulk of us? Why would it ever have even occurred to them?

The seemingly insurmountable obstacle to discovering ultimate truth is that the human intellect is incapable of fathoming the concept of “no beginning.” How can anything fundamental and foundational exist without an antecedent cause unless one appeals to an infinite regress? With idealism, an answer is at least proffered. An understanding of the absolute cannot be had through the intellect; rather, it can only be obtained on an empirical basis. How does one learn to ride a bike? By studying the aerodynamic principles of the proposition beforehand or rather by mounting, falling, trying again until ultimately one…understands. The ultimate goal is unification with the absolute; the route is called mysticism, "Yoga" in Eastern metaphysical terminology, “to yoke.” Presumably, then the question of how something can exist timelessly and eternally (“I am who am”) can be fathomed from the experience; a logic alien to the intellect’s understanding.

I also appreciate that idealism solves all paradoxes inherent within materialism such as Zeno’s renowned offerings. (We can discuss that further if anyone is interested.)

To the Western, scientific, rationalist scientific mind, this is all, of course, nonsense. But I believe they are like video game characters who have somehow gained sentience and intelligence. They strive to understand all the metaphorical algorithms of the program that they are—unbeknownst to them—trapped within without having access to the universe of the programmer without. Therefore, they live in ignorance. Even if one adheres to a materialistic paradigm, I belief that scientific theory can be used to deduce the existence of something without our realm of existence as exhibited within my philosophical proof of a creator (at least of some kind) posted here.
User avatar
Sam26
Posts: 99
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 1:23 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Ludwig Wittgenstein

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Sam26 »

Don Schneider wrote:Sam, thank you for your time reading my essay. You’ve understood correctly. We apparently think very much alike. I stated that there was one implicit assumption regarding my proof in addition to the two overt ones that I mentioned beforehand. That assumption is the validity of material realism. I personally have come to lean towards idealism, a paradigm that you seem to indicated that you also at least entertain. Therefore, although I still maintain that if material realism is valid, then so is my proof, I no longer have confidence in its material underpinnings. Here is another post I made which sheds light on why I now at least lean towards accepting the Eastern ontological view of reality:

In the conventional Western paradigm, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter in the form of a human/animal brain. In the Eastern metaphysical schools based upon the Upanishads (most saliently within the Hinduism school of Advaita Vedānta and within schools of Mahayana Buddhism (such as Zen and Yogacara), Consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology) is the fundamental ground of existence which cannot be further sublated. All is a manifestation of Consciousness just as dream characters and ambience are manifestations of brains as mental processes. Thus, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness as opposed to the visa versa view of Western materialism.

This is a fundamental form of idealism, variants of which can be found in minority viewpoints of Western philosophies. It is also basically a form of solipsism which I personally term “corporate solipsism” as opposed to that which I term “radical solipsism,” the belief held by an individual that he or she is the only one and thing that actually exists with all others and all other things being manifestations of one's imagination. If I believed the latter, then I wouldn’t be wasting my time here.

For those who dismiss idealism out of hand, ask yourselves this: What is the fundamental (metaphorical) arena of existence where everything occurs and without which nothing could be attested to exist?

Also, since the idea that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness is opposed to the seemingly common sense visa versa viewpoint, how could the ancient sages who wrote the Upanishads have ever come up with such a seemingly counterintuitive paradigm in the absence of some empirical proof now lost to us or unrealized by the great bulk of us? Why would it ever have even occurred to them?

The seemingly insurmountable obstacle to discovering ultimate truth is that the human intellect is incapable of fathoming the concept of “no beginning.” How can anything fundamental and foundational exist without an antecedent cause unless one appeals to an infinite regress? With idealism, an answer is at least proffered. An understanding of the absolute cannot be had through the intellect; rather, it can only be obtained on an empirical basis. How does one learn to ride a bike? By studying the aerodynamic principles of the proposition beforehand or rather by mounting, falling, trying again until ultimately one…understands. The ultimate goal is unification with the absolute; the route is called mysticism, "Yoga" in Eastern metaphysical terminology, “to yoke.” Presumably, then the question of how something can exist timelessly and eternally (“I am who am”) can be fathomed from the experience; a logic alien to the intellect’s understanding.

I also appreciate that idealism solves all paradoxes inherent within materialism such as Zeno’s renowned offerings. (We can discuss that further if anyone is interested.)

To the Western, scientific, rationalist scientific mind, this is all, of course, nonsense. But I believe they are like video game characters who have somehow gained sentience and intelligence. They strive to understand all the metaphorical algorithms of the program that they are—unbeknownst to them—trapped within without having access to the universe of the programmer without. Therefore, they live in ignorance. Even if one adheres to a materialistic paradigm, I belief that scientific theory can be used to deduce the existence of something without our realm of existence as exhibited within my philosophical proof of a creator (at least of some kind) posted here.
Most of what I've deduced about reality, and by reality I mean all that exists, I've come to understand by not only studying philosophy, some quantum physics, but by studying near death experiences. As I've studied the testimonial evidence of NDEs, which are too numerous to count, I've come to the conclusion that reality is nothing like what most people understand. I don't think that any religious idea quite captures the essence of reality. All they seem to do is touch on some ideas that have their origins, I suspect, in NDEs. NDEs have been around for thousands of years, so many of the beliefs that have been incorporated into various religions probably have their source in NDEs. Thus, the idea of consciousness being the ground of reality, or that there are beings capable of unconditional love, or the idea that we return (reincarnation) to this reality in a different body, or that there is a kind of heaven that we go to after this life, all of these beliefs can be gleaned from NDEs. However, the problem is that we try to form a kind of doctrine from these beliefs, and herein lies the rub, because as soon as we try to make a religion out of these beliefs they tend to get distorted. I've read close to 4000 account of NDEs, and each NDE is like a piece of a puzzle, i.e., each piece gives a small bit of the picture, and that picture is quite weird to say the least.

Here are some of my conclusions based on the testimonial evidence. By the way, let me just say that the testimonial evidence, in order for it to be strong, has to incorporate several things. First, there has to be a large number of consistent testimonials. Second, there has to be variety to the testimonials. By variety I mean from different cultures, different religions, different age groups, different circumstances that trigger the NDE, and finally, happening at different times throughout history. This is what makes for strong testimonial evidence. Thus, although testimony can be one of the weakest forms of evidence, it can also be very strong depending on the size and variety of the sampling.

I'm not going to go through all of the evidence that supports each of these conclusions. I'm just going to give the conclusions that seem to flow from the NDEs.

1) Our consciousness, i.e., who we are as individuals does survive the death of the body. Thus, the mind is not the brain, the brain is simply a receptacle.
2) We seem to be part of a larger consciousness that connects all of us together. There is a kind of oneness to everything.
3) Reality is a construct of the mind or minds.
4) Consciousness is the very ground of everything. Religions describe this consciousness as a variety of things.
5) We choose to come here. Moreover, it may be that much of what we experience, or even all of what we experience is predetermined. I tend to think that within this life there is a predetermined path, but also that we can express free will in a variety of ways.
6) Some of us choose to come back here more than once, and even many times. Hence, this is probably where reincarnation comes from. Although there are some aspects of the doctrine of reincarnation that I think are way off base.
7) I don't think there is evil or sin in the religious sense, i.e., something we're punished for. I personally don't think there is evil at all, but I would have to explain this further.
8) I definitely don't see any evidence of a hell. Although some people claim to have seen something they interpreted as hell. My point would be that no one is ever warned that there in danger of going to hell.
9) We are definitely not humans beings, i.e., the essence of who we are is not human. We are much higher beings than what we are here.
10) What we are experiencing here is a lower form of consciousness. In this lower form we lose much of what we know and our memories seem to be blocked. Similar to what we experience in a dream.

There is much more of course, but these are some of the conclusions that the testimonial evidence seems to support.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Sy Borg »

From the OP:
I think it can be safely asserted that we all accept the existence of the phenomenon of cause and effect. For every baby (effect) there was a transaction (cause) between a sperm and an egg. But here is the rub: If the past, present and future all exist contemporaneously, and if by definition a cause must precede its effect, then how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when the baby and his or her parents exist contemporaneously and eternally?

The only tenable answer that I can discern is: it didn’t. That is, it didn’t in our spacetime. Just as a painting’s obvious orderly composition did not result from any event within the canvass, but rather from order imposed from without (i.e., by the artist), the undeniable order that permeates our reality and renders our very existences possible must likewise have been imposed from without, by a creator of some sort.
I see this as a problem of language. When it's said that "time did not exist" before the big bang, that does not mean nothing was happening. According to Lawrence Krauss and many others, the space preceding the big bang was full of "virtual particles" - chaotic quantum fluctuations in space - popping in and out of existence. Being chaotic, there were no orbits, rotations, atomic decay or any other "natural clocks", thus it's said there was no time. Thus, time as we know it requires some order, some regularity. According to Krauss's calculated projections, one of these virtual particles did not pop back out of existence after "popping in" but instead it inflated, and continues to inflate today.

In terms of cause and effect, why did that particular quantum fluctuation in the fabric of space inflate into a universe while the others simply disappeared? We could just as readily ask why only one out of 10,000 jellyfish eggs grows to maturity. It's seemingly dumb luck driven by factors so complex and subtle that they can only be understood mathematically.

Note: From the above you may note that I don't subscribe to the "space did not exist before the BB" view. My guess is that what was created in the BB was not just space, but space full of gravitational waves, EM and nuclear forces. Spacetime is basically space with stuff in it. As far as I can tell there is endless space but limited spacetime.
Don Schneider
Posts: 64
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Don Schneider »

Sam26 wrote:
Don Schneider wrote:Sam, thank you for your time reading my essay. You’ve understood correctly. We apparently think very much alike. I stated that there was one implicit assumption regarding my proof in addition to the two overt ones that I mentioned beforehand. That assumption is the validity of material realism. I personally have come to lean towards idealism, a paradigm that you seem to indicated that you also at least entertain. Therefore, although I still maintain that if material realism is valid, then so is my proof, I no longer have confidence in its material underpinnings. Here is another post I made which sheds light on why I now at least lean towards accepting the Eastern ontological view of reality:

In the conventional Western paradigm, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter in the form of a human/animal brain. In the Eastern metaphysical schools based upon the Upanishads (most saliently within the Hinduism school of Advaita Vedānta and within schools of Mahayana Buddhism (such as Zen and Yogacara), Consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology) is the fundamental ground of existence which cannot be further sublated. All is a manifestation of Consciousness just as dream characters and ambience are manifestations of brains as mental processes. Thus, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness as opposed to the visa versa view of Western materialism.

This is a fundamental form of idealism, variants of which can be found in minority viewpoints of Western philosophies. It is also basically a form of solipsism which I personally term “corporate solipsism” as opposed to that which I term “radical solipsism,” the belief held by an individual that he or she is the only one and thing that actually exists with all others and all other things being manifestations of one's imagination. If I believed the latter, then I wouldn’t be wasting my time here.

For those who dismiss idealism out of hand, ask yourselves this: What is the fundamental (metaphorical) arena of existence where everything occurs and without which nothing could be attested to exist?

Also, since the idea that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness is opposed to the seemingly common sense visa versa viewpoint, how could the ancient sages who wrote the Upanishads have ever come up with such a seemingly counterintuitive paradigm in the absence of some empirical proof now lost to us or unrealized by the great bulk of us? Why would it ever have even occurred to them?

The seemingly insurmountable obstacle to discovering ultimate truth is that the human intellect is incapable of fathoming the concept of “no beginning.” How can anything fundamental and foundational exist without an antecedent cause unless one appeals to an infinite regress? With idealism, an answer is at least proffered. An understanding of the absolute cannot be had through the intellect; rather, it can only be obtained on an empirical basis. How does one learn to ride a bike? By studying the aerodynamic principles of the proposition beforehand or rather by mounting, falling, trying again until ultimately one…understands. The ultimate goal is unification with the absolute; the route is called mysticism, "Yoga" in Eastern metaphysical terminology, “to yoke.” Presumably, then the question of how something can exist timelessly and eternally (“I am who am”) can be fathomed from the experience; a logic alien to the intellect’s understanding.

I also appreciate that idealism solves all paradoxes inherent within materialism such as Zeno’s renowned offerings. (We can discuss that further if anyone is interested.)

To the Western, scientific, rationalist scientific mind, this is all, of course, nonsense. But I believe they are like video game characters who have somehow gained sentience and intelligence. They strive to understand all the metaphorical algorithms of the program that they are—unbeknownst to them—trapped within without having access to the universe of the programmer without. Therefore, they live in ignorance. Even if one adheres to a materialistic paradigm, I belief that scientific theory can be used to deduce the existence of something without our realm of existence as exhibited within my philosophical proof of a creator (at least of some kind) posted here.
Most of what I've deduced about reality, and by reality I mean all that exists, I've come to understand by not only studying philosophy, some quantum physics, but by studying near death experiences. As I've studied the testimonial evidence of NDEs, which are too numerous to count, I've come to the conclusion that reality is nothing like what most people understand. I don't think that any religious idea quite captures the essence of reality. All they seem to do is touch on some ideas that have their origins, I suspect, in NDEs. NDEs have been around for thousands of years, so many of the beliefs that have been incorporated into various religions probably have their source in NDEs. Thus, the idea of consciousness being the ground of reality, or that there are beings capable of unconditional love, or the idea that we return (reincarnation) to this reality in a different body, or that there is a kind of heaven that we go to after this life, all of these beliefs can be gleaned from NDEs. However, the problem is that we try to form a kind of doctrine from these beliefs, and herein lies the rub, because as soon as we try to make a religion out of these beliefs they tend to get distorted. I've read close to 4000 account of NDEs, and each NDE is like a piece of a puzzle, i.e., each piece gives a small bit of the picture, and that picture is quite weird to say the least.

Here are some of my conclusions based on the testimonial evidence. By the way, let me just say that the testimonial evidence, in order for it to be strong, has to incorporate several things. First, there has to be a large number of consistent testimonials. Second, there has to be variety to the testimonials. By variety I mean from different cultures, different religions, different age groups, different circumstances that trigger the NDE, and finally, happening at different times throughout history. This is what makes for strong testimonial evidence. Thus, although testimony can be one of the weakest forms of evidence, it can also be very strong depending on the size and variety of the sampling.

I'm not going to go through all of the evidence that supports each of these conclusions. I'm just going to give the conclusions that seem to flow from the NDEs.

1) Our consciousness, i.e., who we are as individuals does survive the death of the body. Thus, the mind is not the brain, the brain is simply a receptacle.
2) We seem to be part of a larger consciousness that connects all of us together. There is a kind of oneness to everything.
3) Reality is a construct of the mind or minds.
4) Consciousness is the very ground of everything. Religions describe this consciousness as a variety of things.
5) We choose to come here. Moreover, it may be that much of what we experience, or even all of what we experience is predetermined. I tend to think that within this life there is a predetermined path, but also that we can express free will in a variety of ways.
6) Some of us choose to come back here more than once, and even many times. Hence, this is probably where reincarnation comes from. Although there are some aspects of the doctrine of reincarnation that I think are way off base.
7) I don't think there is evil or sin in the religious sense, i.e., something we're punished for. I personally don't think there is evil at all, but I would have to explain this further.
8) I definitely don't see any evidence of a hell. Although some people claim to have seen something they interpreted as hell. My point would be that no one is ever warned that there in danger of going to hell.
9) We are definitely not humans beings, i.e., the essence of who we are is not human. We are much higher beings than what we are here.
10) What we are experiencing here is a lower form of consciousness. In this lower form we lose much of what we know and our memories seem to be blocked. Similar to what we experience in a dream.

There is much more of course, but these are some of the conclusions that the testimonial evidence seems to support.
Sam, thank you for the interesting perspective. I have never really considered near death experiences in this philosophical regard. I’ve always just viewed such reports as the result of delirium. However, perhaps I should take another and closer look at the subject in light of your interesting observations. Are you familiar, for example, with The Tibetan Book of the Dead?

I should note, however, that I’m not convinced as to the actual existence of the individual under this paradigm that I term “corporate solipsism.” As a manifestation of universal Consciousness, when a individual dies universal consciousness continues to exist but simply no longer as that individual as one of its myriad manifestations. While the individual did exist, he or she functioned as part of the metaphorical program we perceive as material reality and thus influenced it beyond the individual’s life span, most saliently exhibited by (but by no means limited to) any offspring he or she might have produced. Therefore, “karma” (work) is in reality the unfolding of the program in accordance with its underlying algorithm of which all have a function.
Don Schneider
Posts: 64
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Don Schneider »

Greta wrote:From the OP:
I think it can be safely asserted that we all accept the existence of the phenomenon of cause and effect. For every baby (effect) there was a transaction (cause) between a sperm and an egg. But here is the rub: If the past, present and future all exist contemporaneously, and if by definition a cause must precede its effect, then how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when the baby and his or her parents exist contemporaneously and eternally?

The only tenable answer that I can discern is: it didn’t. That is, it didn’t in our spacetime. Just as a painting’s obvious orderly composition did not result from any event within the canvass, but rather from order imposed from without (i.e., by the artist), the undeniable order that permeates our reality and renders our very existences possible must likewise have been imposed from without, by a creator of some sort.
I see this as a problem of language. When it's said that "time did not exist" before the big bang, that does not mean nothing was happening. According to Lawrence Krauss and many others, the space preceding the big bang was full of "virtual particles" - chaotic quantum fluctuations in space - popping in and out of existence. Being chaotic, there were no orbits, rotations, atomic decay or any other "natural clocks", thus it's said there was no time. Thus, time as we know it requires some order, some regularity. According to Krauss's calculated projections, one of these virtual particles did not pop back out of existence after "popping in" but instead it inflated, and continues to inflate today.

In terms of cause and effect, why did that particular quantum fluctuation in the fabric of space inflate into a universe while the others simply disappeared? We could just as readily ask why only one out of 10,000 jellyfish eggs grows to maturity. It's seemingly dumb luck driven by factors so complex and subtle that they can only be understood mathematically.

Note: From the above you may note that I don't subscribe to the "space did not exist before the BB" view. My guess is that what was created in the BB was not just space, but space full of gravitational waves, EM and nuclear forces. Spacetime is basically space with stuff in it. As far as I can tell there is endless space but limited spacetime.
Greta, I’m very familiar with Lawrence Krauss’s book and his exasperation of criticism thereof disputing what he considers to be “nothing.” You wrote (of Krauss’s hypothesis): “…the space preceding the big bang was full of 'virtual particles' - chaotic quantum fluctuations in space - popping in and out of existence.” Firstly, this seems to imply that there was already an existence for these “virtual particles” to “pop into.” Secondly, either the virtual particles or the “ chaotic quantum fluctuations in space” presumably has always existed. If so, without a cause?

To me the concept of “nothing” (the point at which Krauss attempts to begin his ontological paradigm) is manifestly simple. It is synonymous with nonexistence, one’s grandchild if one never had children. I emailed Dr. Krauss with this consideration and received back a rather crotchety response that seemed like it could have been written by Karl Popper, which is rather ironic as Dr. Krauss has professed his disdain for and impatience with philosophy of any kind, including the philosophy of science. (It was a philosopher of science who wrote the scathing review of Dr. Krauss’s book: A Universe From Nothing for The New York Times that he so vocally resented.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021