People (Thomas Acquinas and others) claim that the notion that at some time there was nothing, and that at another later time there was a universe, and that the progression from that nothing to the universe is impossible without God.
I dispute that we have evidence of any of that. I haven’t seen evidence that at some time there was nothing, or that it is impossible for a nothing to become a universe without God. Until they can show such a nothing from which a universe does not spontaneously form, arguing any particular properties of that nothing is absurd. I haven’t even seen the evidence that the nothing they describe could even possibly exist.
Acquinas’ arguments are simple speculation without any supporting evidence. The world of quantum mechanics we are just starting to appreciate is way weirder than anything Acquinas could have ever imagined. What he thinks of as ‘nothing’ or ‘a cause’ or anything like that are so far from reality as we appreciate it today, (and perhaps even farther from what we might realize it is tomorrow), the logical arguments simply fall flat.
What if due to the simple quantum flucuations, it is simply impossible for ‘nothing’ to exist? Time and space simply form spontaneously? We have no evidence that is not true, and some evidence (weak I’ll grant) that it has happened, since our universe with space and time exists. Why is that any less likely than a God (for which we have no evidence)?
OK, I understand where you are coming from now, I previously read it as if you were disagreeing with me and agreeing with Aquinas. I see now that it isn’t the case.
Heck, Aquinas wasn’t even acquainted with the world of Galileo or Newton. I suspect Aquinas’s arguments would make more sense and be more resonant to people who were familiar Aristotelian terminology and accepted the Aristotelian worldview, as Aquinas himself did.
But it looks to me like you’re doing a certain amount of strawmanning or misrepresenting Aquinas’s arguments. Specifically, where does Aquinas say that “at some time there was nothing,” which is what your objection rests on? The closest thing I can find is from his third proof:
[QUOTE=St. Thomas Aquinas]
that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd.
[/QUOTE]
If you want to reply, “Oh yeah? How do you know, for sure, that it’s not possible for anything, anywhere, to begin to exist except by something else already existing,” I think that’s a legitimate objection; but “that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing” is the way things always work in my own personal experience, so at least in that sense Tom’s got the evidence on his side.
Yep. If we continue down this road I’m going to find myself on the side of Aquinas which is definitely not where I want to be…
When it comes to the big question, why anything exists at all, yeah there’s an explanatory gap there.
Saying “God did it” is arbitrary and only adds to our explanatory load. Mr Occam, cleanup on aisle 3…
But saying, essentially, “Prove something can’t come from nothing” is shifting the burden of proof and asking to prove a negative.
Meanwhile statements of “The universe ‘just is’” are perfectly fine, as long as we are not taking that to be an explanation…it’s little more than a rephrasing of “We don’t know”, only with the implication that we’ll never know.
The difference between an explanation and just accepting we don’t know is the former would allow us to make models, predictions, inferences. Right now, if we’re accepting that universes can just start spontaneously, then there is no reason why another could not start in the palm of my hand right now.
Is it? Seems to me the Aquinas side effectively started it by claiming they could “prove the existence of God”, as per the OP; if so, it’s not shifting the burden of proof, but a question of emphasis to reply, wait, what? Maybe the universe came from nothing. Maybe it’s just always existed. Maybe it was something else. To prove it was “something else”, you have to disprove those other possibilities.
That “maybe” is a shield, not a sword; it gets raised in response to something else. Aquinas doesn’t pepper his declarations with a “maybe” here and a “maybe” there; anyone with questions can throw one in, because he’s ruling 'em out.
I don’t think any of Aquinas’ “proofs” remotely work. But that doesn’t mean we should accept any badly-formed arguments against those proofs.
Asking someone to prove that something couldn’t come from nothing is 100% an attempt to shift the burden of proof and ask someone to prove a negative.
There’s no need to resort to such tactics.
OTOH if what you mean is that Aquinas’ premise / assumption that everything has a prior cause is unsupported, then I agree. That’s not the same thing as asking someone to prove a negative however.
This sounds like sherlock holmes’ logic.
But no, this isn’t normally how we logically reason out problems since most phenomena have a vast number of potential explanations and we never know whether our list is complete.
Within science we simply look for whether a model makes accurate / useful predictions and inferences. Within philosophy generally we’re looking for a sound argument, that proceeds from agreed premises through deductive (and sometimes inductive) logic.
Again, if someone announces they have a proof that God exists, then I don’t see it as shifting the burden of proof to ask that they rule out alternatives; if he says he has a proof, that’s what it should already do.
But:
I’ll phrase it that way, if you’d prefer.
But:
To the extent that he’s saying GodDidIt is the only possible explanation, then I’d say (a) his premise/assumption is unsupported; in part because, (b) to support the claim that he’s proven it, he’d need to rule out the alternatives.
I’ll limit myself to (a) if you like, but I only sign on for (a) because (b).
Well, since you and I both seem glad to describe Aquinas’ premises as unsupported, they sure ain’t agreed, and the whole thing falls apart as philosophy – and it doesn’t seem to have much going for it in the “accurate/useful predictions” department.
No, this is simply incorrect. Ruling out the alternatives is never a necessary condition.
Now someone may choose to frame an argument that way; they could say “The only alternatives are A, B and C, and since we can rule out A and B, then C”. This can sometimes be a persuasive argument, but like I say, in most situations there remains the possibility of alternatives D, E etc that no-one has thought of.
But no, you don’t get to insist that someone rule out the alternatives first. Otherwise the guys at LIGO would be right now trying to make sense of thousands of non-scientists’ eccentric writings, hoping one day they can announce they found data consistent with the gravitational waves model.
Claims stand on their own merits. Whether they make validated predictions (science) or follow logically from agreed premises (philosophy).
Well, a D and an E that no one has thought of – sure.
But imagine a detective announces that he can prove the killer was a left-handed man, and someone replies to that “proof” by saying, “Wait a minute; none of what you said ruled out right-handed men; none of what you said ruled out left-handed women, either.” Can we deride a guy who claims he has a “proof” if it’s that slipshod?
But imagine some who declares he can prove that the only metal that’s solid at room temperature is gold, because mercury isn’t. Can we deride that “proof” by noting that he hasn’t ruled out tin or iron or platinum? Or do we have to say, no, he gets to say he has a proof, and how dare we insist he rule out alternatives?
Is there any point where a guy who announces I CAN PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF X is vulnerable to a quick “I can name several alternatives” reply?
But, again, he’s not making any validated predictions, so it can’t stand as a scientific claim. And sure as we agree that his premises are unsupported, I genuinely don’t see how his conclusion – that a god exists – follows logically from 'em, because those same unsupported premises seem to lead just as easily to various alternatives.
The Aquinas’ side are implicitly saying “Since we know the universe did not come from X…”
Now, it’s perfectly valid, and correct to ask “How do we know that? Where’s the support for that statement”?
(And I already mentioned that I thought leahcim did a great job summarizing the list of such problems back in post #50)
What you can’t do though, is what you are doing which is ask “Show me an X that can’t make a universe”. This is asking someone to prove a negative.
If I were to say: “Since we know this person was not killed by ghosts…” it’s fine for someone to say “How do we know that?” (even though we usually assume ghosts don’t exist, if one were to throw that in as an explicit premise it’s fine for someone to question it).
But you can see how useless it would be for someone to say “Show me a ghost that doesn’t commit murder”.
Furthermore, you don’t get to insist that someone rule out all alternatives to a conjecture. If that were the case we’d be so preoccupied doing that we’d never get the chance to conclude anything. Like I say, arguments stand on their own merits.
You don’t see the elements of your own faith—whether it’s a faith in your own deductive reasoning or some other source. Aquinas found the argument----the evidence-----so compelling that it essentially “proved” the existence of God. Of course, he couldn’t/didn’t prove God exists, but is an element of the strongest of faiths that subjectivity and objectivitymerge, just as the words evidence and proof become the same. How we interpret evidence (sans proof) develops a belief system that convinces us of the truth (and resulting proof, dubious as it may be) and produces certainty. That certainty produces faith in something—whether it’s Darwin, Dawkins or the Bible or ourselves. You’re in no stronger position—not one bit----to argue for the existence/non-existence of God than Aquinas and so your post simply reveals your interpretation of the evidence. To finish with “The arguments were never meant to hold up to actual logical scrutiny” is a statement of your own faith. To suggest that a belief in God, wouldn’t/can’t be derived from logically scrutinizing the evidence is a reflection of how you have interpreted the evidence. That’s all.
There is no bigger mis-use of Occam’s Razor than using Occam to describe events that are [necessarily] supernatural using knowledge gained solely by natural means/observations. In other words, you’re explaining (and most often explaining away) the existence of God (should he exist) within the massive constraints imposed on the created by the creator. In other, other words, if there ever was an explanation that was beyond our understanding, a “one off”, or extraordinary event wouldn’t it be the explanation as to whether God exists?
Keep in mind, I’m not making a case for God. What seems downright silly to me is that [if God exists] it would be folly to essentially say, “what I know (humans) is all I need to know, and, in fact, what I don’t know is not important.” If God exists he must be laughing at the arrogance of Occam’s Razor to describe him. In other, other, other words in supernatural matters, Occam’s Razor must respond, “I have no dog in this fight.”
But if I say “How do we know that?”, then I mean “How do we know we can rule out what’s being ruled out?”, because I’m just using one as shorthand for the other.
Because if – as you say – the Aquinas’ side implicitly starts off with an unsupported “Since we know the universe did not come from X”, to ask a “how do we know that” question is to ask “how do we know to rule out the alternative he’s ruling out?”
Well, then, why bother picking at Aquinas’ “proof”?
Why not simply “prove” the opposite, by simply ruling out Aquinas’ alternative?
Why not just imagine that Thomas Aquinas was about to announce his “proof”, and someone ran up and said “Tom – can I call you Tommy? – Tommy, listen to this: I’ve proven that the universe has always existed. I’ve PROVEN it! Ha-HA! I’m awesome! Ironclad PROOF the universe wasn’t created by a deity, but was here all along!”
Said dimwit then runs through reasoning that cries out for your “How do we know that? Where’s the support for your statement?” But so long as Aquinas sputters out a “How Do We Know The Universe Wasn’t Created By A Deity?”, we can disregard him, for we’r have proof – nay, PROOF! – that Aquinas is wrong!
(Unless he shorthands that exact same sentiment as “How Do We Know That?”, in which case we’d have to take him seriously. Brevity is the soul of what?)
But it’s Aquinas and his ilk who are claiming they can prove the existence of God.
If they need to say the bit about “an explanation that was beyond our understanding”, then what they have isn’t a proof.
Of course it would; we should heap scorn on anyone who so tries to prove that God doesn’t exist. But we should heap equal scorn on anyone who so tries to prove that God does exist, because it’s downright silly to start off with “well, given what we know, we can’t confirm or rule out an explanation beyond our understanding” and then end with “…therefore, there is a God” or “…therefore, there is no God.”