SB!Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 12th, 2021, 3:38 pmThe infinite regress problem is not prevented by theistic belief; that just pushes the regress back one step. If everything stops at God, why not stop at the cosmic foam (pre BB state) or dark energy?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 12th, 2021, 11:41 amSB!Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 12th, 2021, 3:11 am I see no reason to twist and bend scientific ideas to fit the mythology of the Iron Age in the Middle East. There are many other mythologies one could draw from. Why not those?
I note #3: "Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing".
In physicist, Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing, he posits that what we assume to have been "nothingness" before the big bang was not truly nothingness. That is, the universe was replete with virtual particles, basically particles that pop in and out of existence immediately. It is posited that, under certain conditions, one of these virtual particles kept expanding instead of disappearing.
There is no need for a deity imagined by ancient Abrahamics any more than Hinduism's multiple gods. These are not real entities but representations of qualities either noticed or imagined by ancient people.
Who knows? Maybe the god of the universe exists as per the OP? Maybe the Milky Way is a god, or a demigod? Maybe the solar system? Or Gaia. Maybe they all exist, layers of gods? However, I am yet to see convincing logical proofs for any. If God exists, it appears most likely that it would be entirely subjective.
Indeed. New theories have posited a universe with no beginning, which in turn suggests some sense of eternal time that might exist. Meaning, in layman's terms, our universe could be a spin-off 'bubble universe' from some other form of space-time.
And so with respect to causation, whether it is BB or an ever expanding 'model of eternity', one is still primarily left with choices of logical necessity or infinite regress. And as mentioned in part from the OP, the A-theist has to reconcile the paradox of his general belief (system) in pure reason (a super-turtle/God) as a logically necessary cause, or somehow prove that the universe has an infinite series of causes (and explain the nature of those causes) within the confines of rational explanation including biological life forms, consciousness and the like. If it's the latter, then the 'logic paradox' rears its head, on many levels.
I suppose there is always a third option, but that generally involves arbitrariness and/or complete chaos, which would also be problematic since the universe is particularly (somehow) fine-tuned for its existence, particularly viz biological life forms. And apparently one little miss-step along the way would have precluded the development of same.
And so, philosophically, what are you thinking, is logical necessity, necessary?
Complete chaos works when coupled with the anthropic principle. If the universe was not capable of producing life, then there would be no life to ask the question. Further, I do not think the universe is fine tuned for life. It seems rather more fine-tuned for vast voids, giant gas clouds and concentrations of plasma. Scientists have not yet found more efficacious combinations of the constants of nature, but that does not discount the possibility of universes being more conducive to life than this one.
Further, when we consider the fine tuning problem, I note that our bodies seem fine tuned to do what they do too. So the universe may be a living system in ways we don't yet understand. Even if it a kind of giant organism, would that make it God? Most organisms aren't that bright.
Obviously, I don't know the answer, but I think we can do better in trying to understand reality than attributing all to a Middle Eastern Iron Age deity that had been foisted upon us in the west by Constantine's hallucinations.
To take one question at a time, the reason it 'stops at God' because the ontological & cosmological argument says it does. Correct?