Self-existence of god or the universe.

[jmvizanko]

Its probably been done to death, but I just wondered what the most intelligent responses to the following question are:

How is a self-existent creator any more or less logical than a self-existent universe? Either way all that exists exists arbitrarily instead of something else or nothing at all. Now one can go further with the problem of evil versus arguments from design etc etc, but from a pure "why is it there in the first place" standpoint, I see no reason to think either one makes more "sense."

 

[Skwim]

Its probably been done to death, but I just wondered what the most intelligent responses to the following question are:

How is a self-existent creator any more or less logical than a self-existent universe? Either way all that exists exists arbitrarily instead of something else or nothing at all. Now one can go further with the problem of evil versus arguments from design etc etc, but from a pure "why is it there in the first place" standpoint, I see no reason to think either one makes more "sense."

As far as our particular universe goes, at least we can point to a beginning and a possible initial form, although not where or how that initial form came to exist. So thats 1 point for the universe.

Universe 1     Creator 0​

 

[Meow Mix]

Its probably been done to death, but I just wondered what the most intelligent responses to the following question are:

How is a self-existent creator any more or less logical than a self-existent universe? Either way all that exists exists arbitrarily instead of something else or nothing at all. Now one can go further with the problem of evil versus arguments from design etc etc, but from a pure "why is it there in the first place" standpoint, I see no reason to think either one makes more "sense."

One does make more sense: universe. The universe as far as we can tell doesn't have ontological characteristics that are difficult to explain metaphysically. There is about zero energy in the visible universe (potential energy can be taken as "negative" energy, and 1 + (-1) = 0).

There are basic ontological questions about the universe such as why it has the specific limitations (laws) it has which are currently unanswered...

But compare that to the existence of a conscious being causing things. Why should such a thing exist? That's vastly more of a problem to answer than the existence of physical laws.

 

[Amill]

I agree I don't think any answer to the question of existence can make sense. But to me, a thinking creator makes things more complicated and less sense than the other possibilities. That's my perspective though, and on the whole I feel all possibilities are equally illogical.

 

[jmvizanko]

One does make more sense: universe. The universe as far as we can tell doesn't have ontological characteristics that are difficult to explain metaphysically. There is about zero energy in the visible universe (potential energy can be taken as "negative" energy, and 1 + (-1) = 0).

There are basic ontological questions about the universe such as why it has the specific limitations (laws) it has which are currently unanswered...

But compare that to the existence of a conscious being causing things. Why should such a thing exist? That's vastly more of a problem to answer than the existence of physical laws.

Could you at least briefly list the ontological problems you are referring to, if not elaborate on them a bit?

 

[Meow Mix]

Could you at least briefly list the ontological problems you are referring to, if not elaborate on them a bit?

Why should a constant have a particular value is a major one...

For instance, even if a Higgs field explains why a particle has a particular mass the question is why the Higgs field has its specific values.

When something is ontologically necessary there is no question as to why it has those traits: because they are necessary. This is why it's such a huge problem for god-concepts to demonstrate that they're contingent on higher transcendental truths (such as the 2nd horn of Euthyphro's Dilemma, and my argument from the law of identity).

"Why should this constant have this particular value" is much, much, much less of an ontological "leap" to answer than "Why should this being exist that's intelligent and creates things" if God isn't ontologically necessary.

 

[Falvlun]

Well, at risk of sounding painfully obvious, we know that the universe exists. That is self-evident. We have no similarly obvious proof that God exists. Thus, if one of them just had to poof into existence, it makes more sense to default to the one we know for sure exists.

 

[Willamena]

When something is ontologically necessary there is no question as to why it has those traits: because they are necessary.

Axioms exist, but they don't explain anything and we shouldn't pretend that they do. Necessity isn't an explanation for necessity.

 

[Tashi]

Its probably been done to death, but I just wondered what the most intelligent responses to the following question are:

How is a self-existent creator any more or less logical than a self-existent universe? Either way all that exists exists arbitrarily instead of something else or nothing at all. Now one can go further with the problem of evil versus arguments from design etc etc, but from a pure "why is it there in the first place" standpoint, I see no reason to think either one makes more "sense."

NOTHING is self-existent. Everything depends on something for its existence and had to be brought into existence by some previous existing factor. Nothing exists independantly, everything is dependant.

 

[Falvlun]

NOTHING is self-existent. Everything depends on something for its existence and had to be brought into existence by some previous existing factor. Nothing exists independantly, everything is dependant.

So it's just turtles all the way down?

 

[Tashi]

So it's just turtles all the way down?

Im not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

[Falvlun]

Im not sure what you are trying to say here.

It's a popular (probably mythical) story highlighting the problem with infinite regression:

The most widely known version appears in Stephen Hawking's 1988 book A Brief History of Time, which starts:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"[1]​

​

 

[Tashi]

It's a popular (probably mythical) story highlighting the problem with infinite regression:


[/indent]

Ahh, thanks for this. I do understand that there are problems with infinite regression and such things, its just as problamatic in the mind as the whole "Chicken and the Egg" scenario.
I dont know if there is infinite regression or anything like that, but I do know from personal observation which is severely limited, that everything depends on something.
But when we talk about it on a universal level, I really dont know. Maybe I was out of place for speaking on this subject, quite honestly I believe we all are.

 

[Falvlun]

Ahh, thanks for this. I do understand that there are problems with infinite regression and such things, its just as problamatic in the mind as the whole "Chicken and the Egg" scenario.
I dont know if there is infinite regression or anything like that, but I do know from personal observation which is severely limited, that everything depends on something.
But when we talk about it on a universal level, I really dont know. Maybe I was out of place for speaking on this subject, quite honestly I believe we all are.

Not out of place at all! We are all amateurs, really. And some topics just don't have a definitive answer.

As for your assertion that everything depends upon something-- cause and effect--, yes, that is what we observe. However, it is hypothesized that when you get down to the singularity-- the point of infinite density where all matter was packed before the Big Bang-- things like causality break down.

 

[Tashi]

Not out of place at all! We are all amateurs, really. And some topics just don't have a definitive answer.

As for your assertion that everything depends upon something-- cause and effect--, yes, that is what we observe. However, it is hypothesized that when you get down to the singularity-- the point of infinite density where all matter was packed before the Big Bang-- things like causality break down.

May I ask how causality breaks down, I know its still a hypothesis, but how does it break down? I know that it leads to the concept of infinite regression, but I feel that the first "super atom" or whatever you want to call it, had to have had a cause.

The cause of one effect is an effect of another cause. I dont think that because this "Primordial Atom" gave birth to our universe that it is just a cause, but too an effect.

 

[Skwim]

May I ask how causality breaks down, I know its still a hypothesis, but how does it break down? I know that it leads to the concept of infinite regression, but I feel that the first "super atom" or whatever you want to call it, had to have had a cause.

The cause of one effect is an effect of another cause. I dont think that because this "Primordial Atom" gave birth to our universe that it is just a cause, but too an effect.

Some physicists claim that on the subatomic level uncaused events do occur.

 

[Falvlun]

May I ask how causality breaks down, I know its still a hypothesis, but how does it break down? I know that it leads to the concept of infinite regression, but I feel that the first "super atom" or whatever you want to call it, had to have had a cause.

The cause of one effect is an effect of another cause. I dont think that because this "Primordial Atom" gave birth to our universe that it is just a cause, but too an effect.

To tell the truth, I really don't know why or how it breaks down. There's a whole lot of mathematical gibberish that explains it. Using general relativity, a singularity is predicted; in such a singularity, space-time would fold in on itself, which would negate all the laws of the universe. Since causality is one of those laws, it too would be negated.

However, there are a lot of competing theories out there. If you use quantum mechanics, a singularity is not necessary, and the laws don't need to break down.

I dunno. My brain hurts.

 

[Tashi]

To tell the truth, I really don't know why or how it breaks down. There's a whole lot of mathematical gibberish that explains it. Using general relativity, a singularity is predicted; in such a singularity, space-time would fold in on itself, which would negate all the laws of the universe. Since causality is one of those laws, it too would be negated.

However, there are a lot of competing theories out there. If you use quantum mechanics, a singularity is not necessary, and the laws don't need to break down.

I dunno. My brain hurts.

Ok, thanks for trying! I knew that such things would come into this problem. I have read some about physics and about the big bang and black holes, and your right, there are many odd things that happen at such levels.
So I can figure that the laws of the universe would break down. Being a Buddhist, I will always accept truth over the false (I am quite liberal). If rebirth is proved wrong, I will cease to believe in it. Therefore if the laws of dependance and independance break down at such levels, then that must be accepted.

Thanks!

 

[Falvlun]

Ok, thanks for trying! I knew that such things would come into this problem. I have read some about physics and about the big bang and black holes, and your right, there are many odd things that happen at such levels.
So I can figure that the laws of the universe would break down. Being a Buddhist, I will always accept truth over the false (I am quite liberal). If rebirth is proved wrong, I will cease to believe in it. Therefore if the laws of dependance and independance break down at such levels, then that must be accepted.

Thanks!

My pleasure, though I don't feel that I did very well. Note that it's not certain that the laws do breakdown-- it's just one hypothesis out of many at this point.

 

[Zadok]

Whenever there are considerations about origins and a creator there are a number of things that always come to my mind concerning this question. Among the questions is the idea – is this the best of all possible worlds and universes? Along with this notion is the observable attitude many exhibit. That is the complete unwillingness to show any gratitude for life and existence thereby making every excuse to avoid giving any thanks for anything.

Often “non-believers” criticize believers for the old “Holier than thou” arrogant attitudes. This is just me speaking but I kind of personally think that those that avoid any and all possibilities to give the minimum thanks and show any appreciation, especially for things they do not deserve; as being the arrogant holier than thou types. The old prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that they must be grateful and maybe they will consider some token menial display of gratitude – but not until they must without any question – have to.

Zadok