On this we are in agreement. Was that a serious argument? Why would anything in the physical world tell us about the metaphysical?
Why did God create the universe?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7914
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Why did God create the universe?
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Why did God create the universe?
Since you agree this is nonsense, why did you insert evolution in your discussion about why God created the universe?
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Why did God create the universe?
1. We aim to show that God exists.
2. God exists means "For all x, if x is God, then x exists."
3. The corollary is "For all x, if x does not exist, then x is not God."
4. Harry Potter does not exist. Harry Potter is not God. So, there is evidence for 3.
you are only saying that if x exists, then x is God or x is not God…
…which is not a paradox. Note the law of the excluded middle. Note the “or” operator.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
The discussion of each issue should deserve its own forum.
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Why did God create the universe?
I agree and said as much re the first two earlier. The OP replied that he wanted to discuss only the third and keep the other two separate. I have been assuming that the OP would like us to assume the first two in the positive for the sake of discussion.gad-fly wrote: ↑June 26th, 2021, 12:15 pm God exists, and God create the universe are two separate, though not entirely independent, issues. Without the first, there is no need to consider the second. The third issue is why he did it. Without the first two, there is no need to consider the third. The sequence is as simple as that.
The discussion of each issue should deserve its own forum.
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
I didn't. What I did was point out that some people who argue for one thing or another have the tendency to change the meaning of the terms midstream, and I mentioned evolution as an example thereof.AverageBozo wrote: ↑June 26th, 2021, 9:27 amSince you agree this is nonsense, why did you insert evolution in your discussion about why God created the universe?
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
That is not the argument. The argument is called Hempel's Paradox or The Raven Paradox. If you don't understand the argument, google it. There are abundant videos and websites that will explain it to you.AverageBozo wrote: ↑June 26th, 2021, 9:57 am When you say:
1. We aim to show that God exists.
2. God exists means "For all x, if x is God, then x exists."
3. The corollary is "For all x, if x does not exist, then x is not God."
4. Harry Potter does not exist. Harry Potter is not God. So, there is evidence for 3.
you are only saying that if x exists, then x is God or x is not God…
…which is not a paradox. Note the law of the excluded middle. Note the “or” operator.
The argument is:
It is claimed that: all Ps have characteristic Q.
Therefore, if x is a P then x has characteristic Q.
Therefore, if x does not have characteristic Q, it cannot be a P.
Object y does not have characteristic Q.
Object y is not a P.
Therefore, object y is evidence for the claim: All Ps have characteristic Q.
At no point is the argument "if x has characteristic Q then x is or x is not a P."
You cannot simply switch the argument around and pretend that it is the same one.
All men are mortal does not mean all mortals are men. Rover may well be mortal, but that doesn't mean him(it?) a man.
Nor does "all men are mortal" mean that I am claiming "If being x is mortal, then it either is or is not a man."
The claim is: If being x is IMMORTAL (not mortal) then being x cannot be a man (because all men are mortal).
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
Perhaps you started the thread with that idea in mind. However at viewtopic.php?p=386980#p386980 Tegularius said, "The only empirical evidence which remains absolute is there never was any evidence for god's existence...."gad-fly wrote: ↑June 26th, 2021, 12:15 pm God exists, and God create the universe are two separate, though not entirely independent, issues. Without the first, there is no need to consider the second. The third issue is why he did it. Without the first two, there is no need to consider the third. The sequence is as simple as that.
The discussion of each issue should deserve its own forum.
First of all, this statement is false. We can easily come up with evidence for god's existence through the use of Hempel's Paradox.
Second, even if the statement were true, so what? Why should a lack of physical evidence be considered important when contemplating a spiritual being?
Third, if evidence is required in order to believe the statement "God exists" then evidence is also required to believe the statement "Evidence is required in order to believe statement s (whatever s may be)."
Fourth, even if evidence could be obtained to back up the statement "Evidence is required in order to believe statement s (whatever s may be)" then all we would be doing would be engaging in circular logic — no different from saying that the napkin religion is true because it says so on a napkin.
To date, I have yet to see any meaningful response to any of these points.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
Wrong. An evidence-based position will look at everything known about the entire world, not just one person's backyard. And since to the best of our knowledge, no water elemental has ever been seen anywhere before, the much more likely scenario is that there was no water elemental in the garden either. Same goes for God beliefs.Zosimus wrote: ↑June 16th, 2021, 9:44 am Just this morning I had a conversation with my friend, John. It went like this:
John: Last night a water elemental slept in our back yard!
Zosimus: That seems pretty unlikely.
J: No, look! The grass is wet.
Z: I'm still not convinced. The grass might be wet every morning at this time.
J: Did you check on the wetness of the grass yesterday or at any point in the past 30 days?
Z: I must admit that I did not.
J: So, I have evidence to support my claim whereas you have no evidence to support your doubt.
Z: Evidence is irrelevant.
J: Don't you remember how Fanman said, "...in any kind of argument, the evidence-based position is the stronger one." Any kind of argument.
Z: You're right. Well, I still have my doubts, but since you have evidence, I'll provisionally accept the water elemental theory because of the evidence.
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Why did God create the universe?
The horns of this “dilemma” are mutually exclusive and (equally) satisfiable. These are not the characteristics of a paradox. No paradox here.Zosimus wrote: ↑June 26th, 2021, 3:03 pmThat is not the argument. The argument is called Hempel's Paradox or The Raven Paradox. If you don't understand the argument, google it. There are abundant videos and websites that will explain it to you.AverageBozo wrote: ↑June 26th, 2021, 9:57 am When you say:
1. We aim to show that God exists.
2. God exists means "For all x, if x is God, then x exists."
3. The corollary is "For all x, if x does not exist, then x is not God."
4. Harry Potter does not exist. Harry Potter is not God. So, there is evidence for 3.
you are only saying that if x exists, then x is God or x is not God…
…which is not a paradox. Note the law of the excluded middle. Note the “or” operator.
The argument is:
It is claimed that: all Ps have characteristic Q.
Therefore, if x is a P then x has characteristic Q.
Therefore, if x does not have characteristic Q, it cannot be a P.
Object y does not have characteristic Q.
Object y is not a P.
Therefore, object y is evidence for the claim: All Ps have characteristic Q.
At no point is the argument "if x has characteristic Q then x is or x is not a P."
You cannot simply switch the argument around and pretend that it is the same one.
All men are mortal does not mean all mortals are men. Rover may well be mortal, but that doesn't mean him(it?) a man.
Nor does "all men are mortal" mean that I am claiming "If being x is mortal, then it either is or is not a man."
The claim is: If being x is IMMORTAL (not mortal) then being x cannot be a man (because all men are mortal).
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
Is that so? Well, to the best of my knowledge an electron has never been seen — even the strongest magnifying glass will now make them show their faces. Have you seen dark matter? Have you seen dark energy? What about potential energy — have you seen that? Felt it? Smelled it? Tell me — how does it taste? I've heard it tastes like strawberries. Is that true?Atla wrote: ↑June 26th, 2021, 3:26 pmWrong. An evidence-based position will look at everything known about the entire world, not just one person's backyard. And since to the best of our knowledge, no water elemental has ever been seen anywhere before, the much more likely scenario is that there was no water elemental in the garden either. Same goes for God beliefs.
So tell me, what is it that you know about the entire world, and how do you know it? How do you know, for example, that black holes exist? Let me guess — you're going to say that we (whoever "we" is) have evidence that black holes exist from gravitational lensing and whatever else you think is relevant. Great! But, what evidence was presented to you to convince you that evidence was important?An evidence-based position will look at everything known about the entire world...
Where's the evidence for evidence? Or am I supposed to take it on blind faith as you do?
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
Well, for some weird reason, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hempel/#ParaConf) has issued it the name "The Paradox of Confirmation" and has emitted an entire article on confirmation, with a note on Hempel's Paradox (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conf ... oParOthDif). Perhaps we should call them up and let them know that an AverageBozo on the Internet has dispensed with the entire paradox with a wave of his wand and the magic words "mutually exclusive and (equally) satisfiable."AverageBozo wrote: ↑June 26th, 2021, 4:32 pmThe horns of this “dilemma” are mutually exclusive and (equally) satisfiable. These are not the characteristics of a paradox. No paradox here.
You know, I was under the impression that this was a Philosophy Discussion Forum on which I could discuss philosophy. Was I mistaken? Did I make a wrong turn at Albuquerque and lose my way entirely?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
The evidence for them comes from the observed behaviour of things. They don't themselves have to be visible objects, maybe they aren't objects at all.Zosimus wrote: ↑June 27th, 2021, 9:18 am Is that so? Well, to the best of my knowledge an electron has never been seen — even the strongest magnifying glass will now make them show their faces. Have you seen dark matter? Have you seen dark energy? What about potential energy — have you seen that? Felt it? Smelled it? Tell me — how does it taste? I've heard it tastes like strawberries. Is that true?
Certain knowledge is humanly impossible, some degree of faith is always involved. The evidence-based position is a way of thinking that tries to match the observed world perfectly (as good as humanly possible), so this position probably requires the least amount of faith, it's most likely to be correct.So tell me, what is it that you know about the entire world, and how do you know it? How do you know, for example, that black holes exist? Let me guess — you're going to say that we (whoever "we" is) have evidence that black holes exist from gravitational lensing and whatever else you think is relevant. Great! But, what evidence was presented to you to convince you that evidence was important?
Where's the evidence for evidence? Or am I supposed to take it on blind faith as you do?
You'll have to do better than that..
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Why did God create the universe?
Thanks for the links. You may want to continue/resume your philosophy discussion with others in this thread. Enjoy.Zosimus wrote: ↑June 27th, 2021, 9:28 amWell, for some weird reason, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hempel/#ParaConf) has issued it the name "The Paradox of Confirmation" and has emitted an entire article on confirmation, with a note on Hempel's Paradox (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conf ... oParOthDif). Perhaps we should call them up and let them know that an AverageBozo on the Internet has dispensed with the entire paradox with a wave of his wand and the magic words "mutually exclusive and (equally) satisfiable."AverageBozo wrote: ↑June 26th, 2021, 4:32 pmThe horns of this “dilemma” are mutually exclusive and (equally) satisfiable. These are not the characteristics of a paradox. No paradox here.
You know, I was under the impression that this was a Philosophy Discussion Forum on which I could discuss philosophy. Was I mistaken? Did I make a wrong turn at Albuquerque and lose my way entirely?
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: June 11th, 2021, 7:58 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
So, you admit that scientific realism (a philosophical position worthy of discussion on a philosophical board) is suspect and you refuse to defend it. Yet, somehow I think that what comes below will deny the consequences of such a philosophical admission.
So, you claim that the evidence-based position is "most likely to be correct" but you have no evidence to support that claim. This is what we call an incoherent system of beliefs.Certain knowledge is humanly impossible, some degree of faith is always involved. The evidence-based position is a way of thinking that tries to match the observed world perfectly (as good as humanly possible), so this position probably requires the least amount of faith, it's most likely to be correct.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023