Christian historian Dr. Wallace Marshall and I are debating whether or not enough evidence points to the existence of a god. For background and format, and Dr. Wallace’s opening statement, see entry one. For all subsequent entries, see index.
That the Evidence Points to Atheism
Dr. Marshall’s definitions are all suitable for the purpose (of “God,” “evidence,” and “atheism”). But as I have found to be a common feature of Christian defenses of belief, his arguments for God depend on leaving out evidence; evidence that, when put back in, reverses the conclusion.
The Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) deductively gets to “the universe had a cause” if its premises are true. But then the syllogism ends; leaving unclear how “cause” gets to “God.”
First, though, neither of those premises are actually known to be true.
We do not know that time can have a cause. It’s unclear that’s even logically possible, given that causes by definition precede events in time. But we also don’t have any evidence that laws of causation observed to operate inside a developed universe, also operate in the absence of one. As physical laws depend on the structure of the universe they govern, causal laws are not even likely to exist in the absence of a governing structure.
We also do not know the universe, in the required sense, began to exist. We have ample evidence our present universe began, with an event we call the Big Bang, approximately 14 billion years ago. But we no longer have any evidence that bears on what did or did not precede that event. We therefore cannot say that existence began. Mainstream cosmological science concurs that there may be other universes that ours emerged from or that preceded ours, possibly to past eternity.
Second, even if the universe had a cause, there is no argument that makes that cause likely to be “an eternal mind.” In fact, of every logically possible option, that is the least plausible. A mind is an extremely complex entity (as I’ve explained before in The Argument from Specified Complexity against Supernaturalism, or AFSCAS); and there is no evidence disembodied or uncaused minds are even possible, much less likely to exist (as I’ve argued in The God Impossible); particularly without any place or time to exist. The notion of something existing nowhere, and at no time, is incoherent (as I’ve argued before, in my debate with Tom Wanchick).
Vastly simpler fundamental causes for existence are possible; and are inherently more probable, being vastly simpler and based on known more than unknown science. An extremely simple quantum vacuum will suffice (e.g. the He-Gao-Cai thesis). Even a suitably defined “nothing-state” is sufficient (as I’ve argued in The Problem with Nothing). And yet for all that, existence might well be past eternal and without cause.
The Fine Tuning Argument
It’s far more likely any apparent fine-tuning of the universe is caused by chance or necessity than design. First, chance/necessity predicts many peculiar observations that are all met (such as the universe’s vast size, age, and almost total lethality to life); whereas design predicts very different observations (as I’ve summarized in Bayesian Counter-Apologetics and even more formally in my chapter on design arguments in The End of Christianity). Second, “design” requires positing an even more finely tuned Mind (per AFSCAS); whereas “chance/necessity” only requires positing a very simple originating state (per above).
(It’s also not correct that “if premises 1 and 2 are more plausibly true than not, the conclusion follows necessarily.” I shall assume Marshall must have meant: if the conjunction of premises 1 and 2 are more probable than not, then so is statement 3.)
The Moral Argument
Whether “objective moral values” exist depends on how one defines “objective.” In the sense of “exists even when minds do not,” there is no evidence any such values exist. In the sense of “what all rational and fully informed minds would follow,” they exist necessarily (as the realizable potentials of any given universe); therefore no God is required (as I’ve explained in The Real Basis of a Moral World).
The Fitness Argument
All aesthetic responses humans feel (to “beauty, art, music, falling in love, our longing for ultimate meaning, and the mysteries of the mathematical realm”) are contingent outcomes of our evolution by natural selection. There is no evidence they do or even plausibly would derive from a divine source (see my summary on point in The End of Christianity, pp. 300-02; my discussion in All Godless Universes Are Mathematical and Musical Aesthetics; and my extensive coverage of the science in Sense and Goodness without God, pp. 125-27, 161-64, 193-207, 349-66).
The Problem of Evil
There may yet be a logical problem of evil (see “Logical Problem of Evil” in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and The Impossibility of God edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier), but I’ll only frame it evidentially.
Most of what we mean by “evil” is the callous disregard for human misery and justice displayed by the universe itself in its very design, indeed even in the design of human bodies and brains. As no moral God would make such a world, we know no moral God did. Likewise even human moral evil is always policed by moral people who are able; thus that God does not help police it proves he is not a moral person. That there “might be” excuses for this, that God somehow can’t even tell us (!?), is not evidence it’s probable he does. It is in fact extremely improbable—as God has fewer limitations than we do in these regards; therefore is less likely than we are to fail in these duties.
What We Can’t Overlook
In addition to the above—which in every case makes Dr. Marshall’s own evidence prove God improbable, rather than likely—other evidence does as well:
- The evidence of human moral development disproves moral gods.
A “moral god” hypothesis predicts a universe governed by justice-laws or kind and just stewardship, and a happiness-promoting (rather than misery-inducing) moral code communicated, worldwide, from the dawn of human record. But we observe no such laws in the universe; no stewards but us; and no fully apt moral code (especially not in any alleged divine books, and least of all before very recent times). The best moralities (the ones that most promote happiness and least induce misery in human societies) have always just slowly evolved from human trial and error over thousands of years, as humans overcame ignorance and experimented and learned (see Pinker’s Better Angels of Our Nature and Shermer’s The Moral Arc).
Thus, the evidence of human morality matches not what theism predicts, but what atheism predicts: its starting abysmal and being slowly improved by humans (not gods), over thousands of years, in the direction that would make their societies better for them. The evidence of human morality thus makes atheism substantially more likely.
- The evidence of religious history disproves any real deity exists.
A real God would ensure all communications from the divine would be consistently enough the same at all times in history and across all geographical regions, and presciently enough in line with the true facts of the world and God’s values, as to assure us which were real. But atheism predicts these “communications” will be pervasively inconsistent across time and space, and full of factual errors about the world and immoral or harmful directives promoted as good, exactly matching the ignorance of each culture. Lo, the evidence matches atheism, not theism.
Indeed this evidence alone makes atheism substantially more likely; far more so in conjunction with everything else I’ve surveyed.
-:-
Such is my first reply.
Continue on to Dr. Marshall’s response regarding the cosmological argument here. Or skip to my further defense of the Argument from Indifference here. Or skip to Marshall’s response regarding the moral argument here.
“We have ample evidence our present universe began, with an event we call the Big Bang, approximately 14 billion years ago.”
My understanding, as you indicate in your next comment, is that the Bib Bang may or may not be the “beginning” of our universe. It was/is an inflation. So I would state the above something like “…began, including an event we call the Big Bang….”
That could be more precise, so it is worth noting. But colloquially, the Big Bang is often associated with complete theories, e.g. the Inflationary Big Bang Model, so “Big Bang” as a phrase is often inclusive of Inflation and refers to the whole originating sequence of events (all the way from a singularity, in obsolete versions, or now whatever “first state” a given theory defines).
Even the Big Bang is not sure at all. There is a lot of evidence (facts) that contradict the Big Bang . The red shift (Doppler effect for light) is not necessarily associated to distance of galaxies…here is an excellent documentary (in 4 parts)that contradicts every argument for the big bang…So maybe the universe has no beginning. The whole theory was first inspired by Einstein General Relativity and the ‘hand of God’ Judeo-Christian Myth of Creation wishful thinking…
Johnny, that’s all obsolete and has long since been refuted. There was once some critique of Big Bang theory worth considering twenty five years ago. But those criticisms have been thoroughly overturned by now.
Mr.Carrier , with all due respect , I think it’s the other way around…This is the Big Bang theory which is obsolete. Why do you think astrophysicists came up with concept like dark energy and dark matter? It’s because these are ‘fudge factors’ to maintain their Big Bang theory on life support. Dark energy have been invented (it’s an hypothesis) to make up for the galaxies acceleration being observed more important than the Big Bang predicts. The black matter along with black holes positioned in the center of spiral galaxies have been invented to explain the number of turns of spiral galaxies that gravity alone cannot account for…Those fudge factors remind me of Ptolemy epicycles theory. Moreover the Hubble law only works for spiral galaxies if you plot the distance of quasars against their red shift you get a random distribution. Some quasars (initially thought to be at a very remote location because of their huge red shift) have been observed being in the vicinity of a spiral galaxy and linked by a bridge of matter in between the two with the two object having a very different red shift. So if the red shift doesn’t account for the distance of the galaxies, that alone destroys the whole Big Bang paradigm . Also the microwave radiation background is better explained by a static universe temperature wise. The whole concept of having black holes in the center of spiral galaxy is not founded. Black holes are so dense that they do attract everything even light according to the theory .So how do you explain the violent ejection of massive plasma being observed from the center of those galaxies? (north and south pole of the galaxy) . Answer by Stephen Hawkins ‘ Spiral galaxies with
black holes in their center can eject matter…. why he said ; because we observe it’ ….hum sounds pretty circular argument to me…There is an other force that modern astrophysicists totally ignores that explain better the formation of galaxies and it’s called Electromagnetic force .Also why do you think intergalactic space is filled with magnetic fields where does fields comes from???? …I can go on an on refuting the Big Bang theory (there is a lot of other arguments against it) but I’ll leave it there to make it short.
Not currently.
The scientific consensus remains that the arguments that were brought against it in the 1990s are false. Many of the opposition’s premises were refuted by subsequent observations. And current models are too successful at making predictions.
That problems remain is not sufficient reason to abandon the current consensus. One needs to advance an actual working alternative model, i.e. that does not contradict any current observations and makes all the same successful predictions. No one has to date done that. And that’s the end of that. Until someone does it.
Your own facts, for example, appear somewhat out of date. You are relying on old science. Do some up to date fact checking.
Sir, if you can provide me with concrete examples that make the Big Bang theory a good model for making successful predictions and for explaining current observations , I’d be more than happy to learn about it…I’m not an astrophysicist but being myself a chemist I have always been interested in science and also in astronomy. Physics nowadays is highly mathematical thanks to Einstein and is theory of relativity. Now not only they speculate about dark matter, dark energy but with string theory; they speculate about multiverses (no observations, only maths supporting it by the way)…You know what makes the big bang so popular? It is simply one thing i.e. Propaganda. Some (like the Vatican) love that model because it resonates so well with the Judeo-Christian myth of creation and the Hand of God (not surprising when you know that a priest (George Lemaitre) proposed the theory in 1927)…Some others love it because it pretends to explain almost everything under the sun. Also a lot of scientist working on that theory would have to find a real job if the theory was officially acknowledged to be false. And if you think that there is no model that can replace the big bang , I invite you to check about Plasma Universe Theory. Here is a link
https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject
Thats what I’m talking about. It was refuted decades ago.
Even my obsolete article on this directs you to places you clearly need to start reading: basic references on Big Bang Theory. That’s way back in 2002, before all the latest advances in theory and data, which has sealed the coffin even tighter on plasma theory. You can surely Google up all the latest discussions of this by real scientists (and not biased cranks or the scant few advocates still around in the science community…if there even are any now).
Use your critical thinking: read the steel men, all the best (not worst) arguments against your conclusion before concluding. Which means you have to learn how to find those.
Your first paragraph in your opening statement you claim that Christian defenses for belief depends on leaving out evidence. You’ve been misinformed. Check the Christian handbook. Heb 11:1 shows our faith/belief is tied to evidence (έλεγχος). I hear Marshall speaking of evidence all the time. For example, noting the expanding universe (evidence) pointing to a likely starting point of our universe. You mention the universe may be eternal. Christians use philosophical arguments and the experience of mathematicians (more evidence) to show the impossibility of traversing an infinity of time and reaching our moment in time now. Perhaps you can explain how that’s possible or should I invoke the Carrier of the gaps and take your assertion on “faith” without evidence. (That was meant as a friendly jab!). There was so much in your opening statement to respond to but I’ll stop here to hear your clarifying reply.
Mathematicians actually have proved you can traverse an infinity, especially when you have infinite time to do so; that you don’t know that, is an example of Christian apologists having duped you by misleading you by leaving out key evidence, like the findings of infinitesimal calculus (which is entirely based on traversing infinite sums) and the entire field of transfinite mathematics (Cantor, Russell, et al.). Proving my point. Put the evidence back in that they left out, and the conclusion flips the other way around. This is how Christian apologetics works.
Also, read my reply. It already explains: that there is a “starting point of our universe” is a known fact; it does not lead to knowledge of that being the start of time or existence. If you look at real cosmology, as in the actual science, you find abundant support for past eternal existences in conjunction with our current universe being past finite. Put the evidence back in that you just left out, and bang: the conclusion flips the other way around. Cosmological scientists pointing that out, BTW, are also very skilled mathematicians.
Hebrews 11, incidentally, does not advocate basing beliefs on evidence; it actually argues the reverse: faith should replace evidence. All its examples are instances of persons maintaining belief despite the absence of evidence assuring their faith would be fulfilled (see my demonstrative analysis of Hebrews 11 in Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 236-40). This is an irrational epistemology. But even insofar as any Christians do advocate basing beliefs on evidence and not faith, we judge by actions not words: regardless of what Christians say, what Christians always do is leave out evidence to reach their conclusions. Evidence that, when you put it back in, reverses their conclusions.
Hebrews 11 is not arguing to have faith w/out evidence. It’s showing examples of people living out their already established faith/trust. Even simple things like the recognition of “actual’ guilt is evidence for God (or at least a transcending objective standard for moral values) which is sufficient on Christian theism for the faith that pleases the God of Christianity. On atheism guilt is a waste of time, nothing but an illusion of chemical process in our brains. This may one of the several simple evidences they recognized for trusting (having faith) which was sufficient to please Him (vs 6). Heb 11:1 is giving the definition of faith. Greek is my 2nd language, I lived there and using the language is a living experience for me, not some classroom teaching where they can’t even speak the words correctly. Even the Greek TGV (the modern Today’s Greek Version) says the βεβαιότητα (assurances, and that’s talking about evidences) of that which we don’t see. Yes the κοίνε is quite a bit different than the δημοτική/μοδέρνο of today but it’s clearly not this reversal you’re talking. I’m sorry if many professing Christians have led you to believe that our trust lacks evidence. My circle of Christian acquaintances have faith “because” of evidences, both internal and external.
All those math/calculus examples you cite, are you satisfied as to how it shows how you can traverse an infinity of event points in a universe that operates with a unidirectional time line with a finite beginning. But if you are still positing that our universe has/may have an infinite past, I’m still looking for evidence for that eternal universe superior to that which has been presented for a universe with a temporal beginning. I’ve heard several secular debaters now appeal to this meta math but never explained it. Perhaps you can for us, it won’t be “over my head”. This could really settle the subject for many of us out here.
Yes. It is. Read the analysis I directed you to. That is its entire argument. And it defends that argument by appealing to myths of other persons exhibiting the same faith-without-evidence. As if to illustrate the point further: you are just supposed to “believe” even those myths are true, without any evidence. And act like the people in the myths, who specifically believed without evidence.
False. Guilt is an evolved mechanism to make social systems possible, and thus was selected for its function and not at random, because without it we would remain mere isolated savages, sans even language much less discussions of such things as atheism. It is a perception event keyed to real things that actually happen (failure to be prosocial, self-defeating behavior, becoming what you hate, etc.), and suits an actually necessary and valuable function in serving the individual’s needs and welfare, as they depend on a functioning social system for both. Read the linked survey of the science.
Yes. As are all cosmologists. Who are also mathematicians.
Absent which it’s 50/50. That doesn’t get you to “probably past finite.” It leaves us at a wash: we don’t know which is the more probable.
Take a course in calculus. The entire field is about traversing actual infinities in finite times. Indeed, Newton developed the calculus for that purpose: his posited laws of acceleration required adding an infinite series of changes in velocity over a finite time, and not only that, but calculating that sum in his own lifetime, indeed within even minutes (hence, again, in a finite time). The entire system of calculus was invented to do that. That it does that, refutes any notion that it can’t be done.
But we are here not even concerned with traversing an actual infinite in a finite time, but in an infinite time, which is even easier. Simply by one-to-one correspondence. Because the scenario is not you and I living through an infinite time, but the cosmos doing so. As soon as there is an infinite amount of time (as a past eternal timeline always entails), there are an infinite number of places you and I can arise; likewise our Big Bang, our planet, etc. No one has to “traverse” that infinity to get there. It’s already there.
”Videos of a crank who ignores all the actual points the field has made clear for a century now.”
Yes, what points ? tell me? what is missing in the so called ‘cranks videos’? CONCRETELY what your infinite imaginative transfinite experts have to tell us about this metaphysical logic that unimaginative people refuse to see or imagine???
If you have checked all peer reviewed mathematics journals for the last fifty years and all peer reviewed mathematics books on infinity for the last fifty years like you seem to imply, it wouldn’t be too hard for an expert like you in transfinite mathematics to tell me CONCRETELY where my reasoning is wrong.
But of course you won’t .Because you cannot demonstrate why those arguments and videos are wrong from the first place other than parroting the experts said so… the consensus said so…anybody else is a crank…this is completely illogical …I don’t have problems with paradoxes , yadda yadda yadda… almost at infinity 😉
There is no such thing as “metaphysical logic.” There is just logic.
I’ve already linked you to experts pointing out the lack of any logical or valid arguments in this guy’s weird ranting.
That no one has found any logically valid reasons for his positions that could pass peer review in fifty years despite hundreds of well-qualified experts searching for them is even more concrete validation.
Ignore all that if you wish. That just then becomes the story of you.
I see two different theories that greatly influenced Physics and Mathematics of the 20th century. One is special /general Relativity from Albert Einstein and the other one is Set Theory by George Cantor respectively. From Einstein’s General Relativity stems the idea of the Big Bang theory and from Cantor’s infinite sets the idea of possible infinite regression. By looking at pros and cons for those two theories , I came up to the conclusion that they are both deeply flawed. First of all the concept of Space-Time with time as a 4th dimension was borrowed from French Mathematician Jean le Rond d’ Alembert in 1754. It is a practical concept that allow to describe kinematics and rotations in space (with vectors or quaternions) but it is a mathematical entity that has no physicality. In 1919 during the observation of a solar eclipse Sir Arthur Eddington (a relativity cheerleader) pretended that the observed deviation of the light at the vicinity of the sun was a confirmation of space-time warp caused by the mass of the sun…They had 2 sets of results from 2 different points of observation with more than 50 % or error so they cherry picked the set closer to the prediction over the other. There is a simple explanation for the deviation of the light in the corona of the sun , it is called ‘REFRACTION’ of the light by the corona of the sun (which is filled with plasma (ions) by the way). Proof of that is when scientist make observation of light passing a little bit off the corona, there is no deviation whereas general relativity still predicts one…For a complete refutation of special and general relativity that go against the propaganda here is link
George Cantor came up with his idea of different infinities from is concept of denumerable sets. With ‘infinite sets’ instead of counting element to determine the cardinal like we do for normal sets, we can always make a bijection between the elements of the set and the natural numbers. The set of natural number , relative integers, rational number can be put in bijection with natural numbers so they all belong to a first type of infinity called Aleph zero according to Cantor .But in the case of Real numbers , Cantor demonstrated (with his diagonal method) that they cannot be all denumerable. So he concluded that there is different size of infinities …The cardinal of Real number (Aleph 1) being a larger infinity then the prior sets(Aleph 0). Sets theory encountered a lot of problems and paradoxes. Among people challenging the theory was Bertrand Russell .Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself? Anyways, following all those paradoxes, the whole set theory went into a crisis. In response some mathematicians came up with the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory based on 9 axioms . The problem with that is like some axioms are not axioms but beliefs. An axiom is normally a self evident proposition not a belief. There way to avoid contradiction and paradox was to introduce an axiom that justify the existence of infinite sets…The problem with Cantor’s theory lies at its very foundations…You cannot have an actual infinite set in your pocket. Aristotle knew it and he made a distinction between potential infinite and actual infinite. Actual infinity of discrete elements is an impossibility.
Here again is a good link about the impossibility of infinite sets
Except you can have an actual infinite set in your pocket. Archimedes had already proved this thousands of years ago with his invention of infinitesimals. It was rediscovered twice since to become the basis of calculus on two independently developed occasions.
Note I quote that very same Bertrand Russell agreeing with me: actual infinities are possible and all attempts to argue otherwise are without logical foundation.
I am not aware of any living expert in transfinite mathematics who thinks otherwise.
”Except you can have an actual infinite set in your pocket” …No you can’t
Archimedes invented the Method of exhaustion for calculating the area of a parabola. He used the sum of the areas of rectangles with smaller and smaller base in other to approximate the area under the curve. In order to get the surface of the parabola , he would add a finite number of very small rectangles (infinitesimal quantity) comprised under the parabola.
With the rediscovery of Calculus by Newton, Leibniz and others; they started to study series and most notably infinite series. Some series converge to a single value like trigonometric series , logarithmic series does… Now when you claim that a series converge to a value you don’t mean that the so called infinite addition of terms equal the value but rather approach the limit of the value (without reaching it). It is an asymptotic process.
To illustrate the impossibility of infinite regression, let’s take for example the famous Zeno’s paradox…
Zeno wants to go across a given distance but before he could cover that distance he has to cover half of it and so forth… So we have potentially an infinite number of interval getting smaller and smaller to go through. Zeno then conclude that movement is impossible because infinite regression is impossible to get actualized. That problem at first glance is analogous to a series having infinite terms . So calculus science conclude that even though there is an infinite number of intervals , the result of the so called infinite addition is finite and Zeno get across the distance and movement is possible…The last explanation give you the illusion that infinite regression is possible but is it really the case? In both explanations they take for granted that space can be divided at infinity ( space as a continuum) and also that the movement in itself (or time) can be divided at infinity (movement as a continuum). You may always divide space and motion with smaller and smaller interval but it might be just a mind game with no physicality. Like a point with no dimension or a line encompassing an infinite number of points…
In physics there is limitations …An atom is very small but still not like a geometric point. Energy itself is not continuous but is quantized. So movement which is kinematic energy should be quantized just like a wave .You can then interpret the movement itself as being made of finite number of discrete minimum increments giving you the illusion of continuity.
Infinite sets is a contradiction in itself like a circle with infinite radius . Infinite set is an extension idea of a finite set and is unjustified. You cannot image it let alone proving it. That’s why they felt the need to include it in their axiomatic system (not as something self evident but as an article of faith).
Incorrect. You are confusing Archimedes’ method of exhaustion with his separate development of summing infinitesimals in The Method of Mechanical Theorems. His method of summing infinitesimals in finite spaces was formally proved by several Enlightenment-era mathematicians.
Archimedes already demonstrated that a finite space (like a pocket…or in his case, the volume of a sphere) consists of an actually infinite number of right triangles. This is now basic to calculus; that any area or volume contains an actual infinity of subdivisions, and that mathematical calculations can derive the sum of those infinite divisions. And it is not the case that this is potential division, because each triangle actually exists in any existing sphere; we can potentially reckon them, but there is no sense in which any of those triangles is not actually there, and therefore an actual infinity always exists in your pocket. There is always an infinite number of places something can be inside the finite volume of your pocket.
This is true even considering quantum mechanical spacetimes, as even though definite locations are lost below the Planck scale, the locations still exist, we just don’t have any instrument capable of seeing them (and thus location below that point becomes de facto random), but the span is still real, which is why a Planck length is a positive integer and not zero: there are infinitely many spaces inside even a Planck volume, and they still sum to a nonzero quantity. Which requires they actually exist. As if they didn’t, they would sum to zero, and Planck’s constant would be zero. It is not.
Zerno’s paradoxes meanwhile have long since been refuted by mathematicians…who all now admit Zeno erred in applying the axioms of finite arithmetic to transfinite arithmetic, which is logically invalid. Once you avoid that error, all his paradoxes resolve precisely by accepting the existence of actual infinities! Indeed, calculus was invented precisely to solve his paradox of motion (summing infinite changes in velocity over a finite span of distance and time); that it solved it, proves it was invalid. Whereas the solution is invalid, if one assumes there is no infinite number of changes. Thus one must grant the existence of actual infinities for any conclusion of the calculus to be logically valid and thus true. That we have repeatedly proved its conclusions true empirically thus eliminates any hope of dismissing the existence of actual infinities.
Note that the axiom of infinity is not an article of faith. One can make an empirical argument for its truth. That is indeed precisely what Archimedes was the first to do. And his sketch was formalized by subsequent mathematicians. Indeed, one can prove it with a simple question: is there a finite number such that there is no number greater? If the answer is no, all possibilities have been eliminated except infinity (because the only way infinity can “not” exist is for the answer to that question to be yes; given the very definition of infinity in the axiom of infinity!).
This is why Marshall waffles around the fact that actual infinites are not logically impossible. He grants that’s the case (if you read carefully you’ll catch where he did, because he knows that’s the case), and thus he wants to invent a different kind of impossibility so as to still argue actual infinities are impossible.
But as all the mathematical sources I cite show, there are no logical contradictions in infinities, therefore actual infinities are decisively not logically impossible. And no other kind of impossibility actually matters in the current debate—since physical impossibilities circularly presume a physics, and we are talking about the possibilities available in remaining undiscovered physics, and no current physics rules out actual infinities. Indeed that’s why all the cosmologists even Marshall is citing as authorities agree actual infinities can exist in their cosmological theories.
Scientists and mathematicians pretty much all agree with me here. It’s only Christians, who can’t tolerate this, who want to find convoluted ways to avoid what pretty much all the experts are saying is possible.
First off if I can reassure you (joke) I’m not a die hard Christian . I think that Christ Myth Theory as you expose along with others is the most probable explanation for the origin of Jesus character (even though it’s not the consensus) . I have some of your books along with Robert Price’s books and I’m actually reading ‘the Jesus Puzzle’ (which is very good in deed with a lot of insights). I’m also convinced that the old testament is a recycled and remodeled collection of old myths and tales borrowed from previous and comptemporary civilisations(Greeks,Egyptians,Babylonians,Persians, Canaanites). The archeologist Israel Finkelstein does a good job proving that the exodus and Joshua’s conquest are probably fiction…
That said now , If I go on with the actual topic….You keep mentioning that Archimedes and later on the Enlightenment-era mathematicians proved the infinitesimals. Revisiting some stuff about Archimedes and The Method of Mechanical theorem . I found a video that explain very well why doing the infinite task of adding infinite amount of triangles to find the area of one section of a parabola doesn’t make any sense.
Here is the like
and his explanation goes like this:
Each circumscribed triangle divides the parabola into 2 arcs. First the original arc is divided into 2. Then another two circumscribed triangles further divide the 2 arcs into another 2 arcs producing 4 arcs. This process continues “ad infinitum”. But notice that in order for the sum
1 +1/4 +1/16 +1/64 + …
to equal to 4/3 of the inscribed triangle, the triangles must coincide with non-linear arcs! This is impossible. So a Eulerian ? = ??? ? approach is frankly absurd. One can’t have ? = ??? ?.
Did Archimedes know this? Of course he did!
Archimedes understood he wasn’t summing an “infinite” number of triangle areas because he rejected the ill-formed concept of infinity – rightly so, as there is no such thing as “infinite number”.
He knew however, that no matter how many triangle areas he summed, their sum would be bound by the parabolic segment.
Does all this mean that the area is not equal to 4/3? Of course not! Only the area cannot be calculated as an infinite sum because there is no such thing.
So as I said before in a previous post : finding a limit is an asymptotic process i.e you never actually reach the asymptote(or the limit) .
Any process that encapsulate infinity is impossible to be fully actualized. Take for example the notion of infinite decimals like an irrational number let’s say the Euler number (e) that starts with 2.7182818… calculated with the help of power series. Modern conception of Real numbers wants you to believe that the infinite decimals of Euler number (e) exist all together in some sort of elusive Platonic world and the calculation performed with the algorithm of power series is uncovering it…This confusion arises because of the belief that there is a continuum out there or somewhere in the Platonic world. Some axioms of Euclid geometry promote that idea : a point has no part (or no dimension). A line is composed of infinite amount of points .So if a line has infinite amount of points we can associate an infinite number of values creating a number line with infinite sets of values. For example between the number o and 1 there an infinite number of points but between 0 and 10 there is even a greater infinite number of points because the interval between o and 1 is nested within the interval between 0 and 10 …At the end the outcome is total nonsense!
Cantor’s theory starts with the assumption that a continuum does exist which has never been proven.
You claimed that the majority of transfinite expert goes along with Cantor’s theory. Well, by definition transfinite mathematics is the theory of Cantor…But as you already said ‘an argument for the majority (consensus) is not an argument’. On top of the that there is quite a few number of mathematician that were against it. Notably Henri Poincare a very famous mathematician of the 20th century and Gauss mathematics were pretty much against such notions of infinite sets. Following the paradoxes brought by Cantor’s theory , mathematic logic itself was divided into three main schools of thoughts . One was the logisticians founded by Bertrand Russell, the other was the intuitionists founded by Henri Poincaré and the third one became the modern mathematics with the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory based on 9 axioms . Axiomatic system which has peculiar axioms like the axiom of infinity and the axiom of choice not as self evidence but as articles of faith , Amen.
There is no infinite set like there is no circle with infinite radius and 2 parallels don’t meet at infinity. All
that stuff is wishful thinking. Let’s stop pretend that we can put an infinity in our pocket ,we can’t. Infinity is not a number and it doesn’t exist as an actualized reality. There is no continuum, there is only discontinuities and mathematics is all about operating on discrete (finite) elements , not infinities.
Lastly you said ‘actual infinities are possible and all attempts to argue otherwise are without logical foundation.’
Here is a very basic example using simple logic explaining why infinite regression thus infinite set is impossible.
Here is the link
I’m sorry you think expert descriptions of mathematics don’t make sense to you.
I can’t help with that. They make sense to me. And to the mathematicians trying to explain things to you.
Get back to me when you find an actual living mathematician, as in has a Ph.D. in mathematics or philosophy of mathematics and is actually still alive, who is actually an expert in transfinite mathematics, who says actual infinities are impossible. Until then, you are just citing people who don’t know what they are talking about, against everyone else who does.
Sir, I think Henri Poincaré who was against Cantor concepts knew what he was talking about…He is the inventor of Topology . He is the one that formulated the principle of relativity before Einstein. Also he perfected the Lorentz transformations that Einstein used in his theory of special relativity. Also he formulated the equivalence mass-energy E=(4/3)mc2 then reformulated it into electromagnetic mass =E/c2 (he speculated that 1/3 of the energy of the electron was necessary for keeping the electron from flattening like a crepe (because of that famous supposed contraction of length in the direction of the movement of the electron) .With David Hilbert (who formulated the maths for general relativity) he is considered one of the greatest mathematician of the 20th century.
I know a living mathematician Norman Wildberger who has a PhD (maybe not as a transfinite expert) who is the inventor of rational trigonometry and he brings very good arguments against modern set theory and concept like infinity.
if you are interested …here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/user/njwildberger
ok, is not a transfinite expert and a doctor in philosophy but is it absolutely mandatory? After all ,asking a transfinite expert to disprove Cantor is like asking a guy like William Lane Craig (PhD in Theology and Philosophy) to invalidate the gospels and to support Jesus myth theory…
Again personally I don’t care about the consensus or even the credentials . Bring me some arguments that convince me that concept like infinity, continuum and infinite regression exist and I jump in the band wagon; as simple as that. So far my default position is that infinite regression is impossible.
About the Kalam cosmological argument:
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2.The universe began to exist;
3.Therefore: The universe has a cause.
.(…with William Lane Craig identifying the cause
with the Ancient of Days…;-)
First premise :I’m not convinced that the universe began to exist or that the universe has a cause. If you don’t go along with the first premise then William Lane Craig won’t fail to mention that it is impossible because it presuppose that we had a past containing
an infinite number of events and it would be impossible to reach the present time in other words it would imply an infinite regression which is impossible.
I do agree with the last part , infinite regression is impossible. But William Lane Craig has also an implicit premise to his explanation i.e. the concept of time itself viewed has a single continuous series of events linked in a fully determined linear fashion , but is it really the case??? Time and movement is a very evasive concept…The only thing that we are fully aware is the present moment …like surfing the top of the wave of uncertainties. Without having a better understanding about the concept of time and movement, I think we are stocked there at the first premise of the Kalam cosmological argument without an answer…
Second premise :
2 and 3- IF you decide by a leap of faith that the universe began to exist then the universe has a cause . But then if you accept that; you have creation out of nothing…and of course Idiot brainwashed like William Lane Craig would replace nothing by God…
Pro big bang theorist would talk about quasi singularity composed of alphabet soup of quarks up and down and lucky charm particles that puffed up into a plump pudding universe with full of dark gravity attitude.
Now there is a brand new revision which is a super hot dense universe that expands creating is own space-time (wow) and eventually may come back in contraction back and forth at infinitum …look really like life support to me. And also while your there why not adding a couple of other universes (Multiverses) or even better, an infinite amount of universes…
Oh by the way I thank you for the additional info about the big bang (evidences of the big bang) . I’m preparing some arguments against that up to date version and some arguments for plasma cosmology who is the future from my humble opinion.
Poincaré is dead. And Wildberger is widely regarded as a crackpot (more examples in comments here; both links produce examples of Wildberger misrepresenting sources and authorities, deploying illogical arguments, and saying some really weird and silly things that make mathematicians scratch their heads).
But if you find any peer reviewed journal article by Wildberger on actual infinities, please cite it here.
Note also that the succession argument doesn’t work on B-Theory, which is the dominant consensus theory of time in physics today. There is no “past” except relative to persons inside the manifold (past and future are relative), and all time exists simultaneously to any hypothetical external observer, so there is nothing to count or wait for. Craig has thus admitted the KCA depends on the widely rejected A-theory (and it’s rejected for good reason: it contradicts Relativity Theory). But even with that his succession argument fails because it incoherently requires a starting point for a series that by definition has none. This is what I pointed out in my last entry: it is illogical to say that when an infinite series of places exists, no places exist; that’s like saying because no one can count up from negative infinity, therefore no integers can exist, positive or otherwise. That’s illogical. It simply isn’t how infinite series work. Once there is an infinite series, there is by definition no starting point for it, and therefore no sense in which anything is “counting up” from a starting point. To ask for that is like asking for someone to hand you a sandwich north of the north pole. It’s an incoherent request. And using the incoherence of that request to deny the North Pole even exists is likewise incoherent.
‘Poincare is dead’ and so is Einstein…Nevertheless Einstein made a lot of creepy offspring (space-time, ,singularity ,big bang, string theory) that alienated Physics from itself.
I read your reference article about Norman Wildberger ‘Dirty rotten infinite sets and the foundation of maths’. The author of the article is putting a lot of energy trying to profile Wildberger as a set theory hater, crackpot going off the rail having irrelevant didactic methods…He is trying to defend sets theory by claiming that there is a limit to formal reasoning ,saying that because you cannot imagine an infinite set it doesn’t mean it’s not there . He fails to address the real issue about infinite sets. The real issue about infinite sets and infinite regression is that the logic implication and the concept itself fall on its own face bringing illogical conclusions and paradoxes. Cantor’s transfinite theory is no paradise …I would rather say it’s a black hole (if such a thing exist) that can lead you to the loony bin …so to speak …:-)
In favor again for infinite regression you add yourself:
”it is illogical to say that when an infinite series of places exists, no places exist; that’s like saying because no one can count up from negative infinity, therefore no integers can exist, positive or otherwise’.
Reasoning by analogy like you do in this example can be potentially very misleading…In my world I start to count with the number one and so forth and we do get by that natural and logical process a finite number of integers (not an infinite number of integers). Just because you can but in bijection a given set with natural numbers doesn’t justify magically an infinite process.
So sorry for your fellow transfinite experts but for my part the concept of actual infinite and infinite regression is dead.
Let’s put it that way :
Actual infinite=0=Nothing.
…and like you I don’t believe in the concept of bodily resurrection…;-)
Nope. Hundreds of actual mathematicians, a dozen or so I’ve cited, all disagree with you. And not for uninformed or arbitrary reasons; and none committing any demonstrable fallacy.
You can choose to side against all of them with a lone crackpot if you want to. But that’s then the story of you.
The rest of us will follow the consensus of experts in the mathematical sciences.
”You can choose to side against all of them with a lone crackpot if you want to. But that’s then the story of you. The rest of us will follow the consensus of experts in the mathematical sciences.”
I have no problem with that sir, at the end of the day ,you are entitled to your own opinion.
Personally I’m not really impressed though when people categorize others of being ‘crackpots’ … The history is full of lone ‘crackpot’ that changed the world paradigm and improved technologies. People like Kepler , Copernicus ,Tesla , Archimedes, Galileo
also people that didn’t go with the consensus like Israel Finkelstein, Thomas L. Brodie , Earl Doherty, Robert Price and …Richard Carrier 😉
Unfortunately , there is also some other type of lone wolf crackpot that ended up for real in the loony bin like…Georg Cantor.
False analogy. Cantor’s findings on infinite sets have survived consensus review and are now standard accepted consensus.
That’s the difference.
Meanwhile don’t get me started on the other difference between objective mathematical logic and subjective history; you should know better. And even then my theory passed peer review. I’m still waiting for you to present me any peer reviewed mathematical publication asserting actual infinities impossible. Written by anyone still alive.
Ok I”ll grant you with that , I don’t know personally any peer review against Cantor’s theory. Does it mean that Cantor”s theory is correct ? As you know , science is always in progress. And science too can be biased (not only religion). Cantor”s theory were heavily promoted by great famous mathematician like David Hilbert just like Einstein relativity was promoted by great physicist like Max Planck and Arthur Eddington.
I”m glad that people like you who are supporting other theory than the historical Jesus passed peer review. I”m not so sure that it would have been the case a couple of decades ago even with the same argumentation. As you mentioned before character like Abraham and Moses were considered as historical until not so long ago….Anyways I think our discussion is getting a little bit counter productive..So,
Good day , Sir.
When a theory is multiply confirmed under peer review, and verified as correct by thousands of experts over a hundred years, it’s outright folly to say it isn’t almost certainly correct. Whereas “there is alaways a minute probability it is still incorrect” is true of everything—even heliocentrism and the sphericity of the earth. That in no way justifies siding with flat earthers and geocentrists. Ditto the current consensus in transfinite mathematics.
If you want to change the consensus of expert knowledge, you have to start with meeting the minimum bar, which is peer reviewed mathematics journals and presses. And even that does not conclude the case, but only begins the pleading. So if you can’t even meet that minimum bar, you may as well pick up your marbles and go home.
Comparing finitist set theory with geocentrism and flat earth theory is downright a gross exaggeration.
You keep saying that the finitist set theory is crackpot, illogical and not founded .Can you tell me one concrete reason why it is so???(other than consensus said so…)
But obviously I can see (and I’m sure I’m not alone with that ) that this is Cantor’s theory which is crackpot, illogical and full of paradoxes if you take some time to look at the content of his theory. By the way , I’m still waiting for one valid argument that would convince me in favor of Cantor’s theory from you or anybody else?
Instead what I see from your part is that you are taking refuge behind the consensus of those so called demi-gods transfinite experts…
I’m surprised that you seem totally oblivious to the fact that modern science use propaganda and can be biased in order to protect their current paradigm ,prestige and in some case , their jobs.
We all have resolved the paradoxes, and no one has ever found any violation of logic in infinite set theory. Despite a century of top minds trying.
That you don’t know this is what makes you a crackpot.
”We all have resolved the paradoxes, and no one has ever found any violation of logic in infinite set theory. Despite a century of top minds trying”
This is obviously not true , and I have brought videos and arguments to your attention that you never addressed proving exactly the opposite .That kind of pedantic discourse amount to nothing and is counter productive.
Come back to me when you have some sound and solid logical argument in favor of Cantor’s theory.
Videos of a crank who ignores all the actual points the field has made clear for a century now.
There is no demonstration of any logical inconsistency in transfinite mathematics.
Check all peer reviewed mathematics journals for the last fifty years. Check all peer reviewed mathematics books on infinity for the last fifty years.
You won’t find one.
Paradoxes likewise do not present a problem. Only the incredulity of people with imaginations too poor to comprehend why they aren’t paradoxes present a problem. But not for me. I waste little time on them.
“I’ve already linked you to experts pointing out the lack of any logical or valid arguments in this guy’s weird ranting.”
I already commented your article and there is nothing there except ranting about the guy himself instead of proving the theory wrong,.Frankly this article has not convinced me one second.
I don”t judge the validity of theory only by peer reviews or credentials but more importantly by the arguments and the proofs supporting it…Take for example the theory of relativity (special and general) that is underlying the big bang theory. That theory backed by Max Planck and Arthur Eddington passed peer review of course more than 100 years ago but since then thousands of papers have been written with very good arguments against the theory. But guess what ….The propaganda and the bias of actual physics keep it alive and thriving adding to it irrational concepts like gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, dark energy, dark matter and so on …without mentioning its consequences like twin paradoxes, lenght contraction,time dilation, mass increase and other fairy tales from Einstein and his acolytes…(more about that from my response to you about the big bang and plasma cosmology.)
And yes I like the story of me as long as I follow my sense of logic and intuition. I’m open to new ideas as long as I found them sound and logical.
Well, if all you see is ranting where there are cogent demonstrations, I can’t help you. Delusion is a bitch.
I’m enjoying the debate. Excellent first reply.
Also I’m glad to see you using Steven Pinker’s material from the Better Angels of our Nature. I think the moral progress of humanity is a direct refutation of an individualistic apocalypticism of first-century Jesus. They seemed to believe that the world could not get better by human effort and that the world was only getting worse. And that only a god could cleanse the world from how hopelessly evil it was. And yet here we are way better off than they were morally speaking on basically every metric. But without any obvious divine intervention. Much less the second coming of Jesus. That’s being pretty damn wrong at a fundamental level.
That’s a valid point.
Note the early Christian hostility to the possibility of progress that many have documented (I give a thorough survey in The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire, pp. 471-542) including that humans could make such progress through evidence and reason (see Science Education in the Early Roman Empire, pp. 159-65). It stands it direct contrast to the evidence of reality. It’s just, humans suck; so it takes a long time. The impatient await a messiah who never comes. Realists just get shit done, knowing the world they are building will be centuries in the making.
I have trouble following your reasoning when you argue from what a theory “predicts.”
You say, for example: “A ‘moral god’ hypothesis predicts a universe governed by justice-laws or kind and just stewardship, and a happiness-promoting (rather than misery-inducing) moral code communicated, worldwide, from the dawn of human record.”
On what basis do you say that? A reasonable Christian would surely qualify his “moral god” hypothesis in order to avoid committing to any prediction that is so sweeping and obviously untenable. I assume that you would call such qualifications “excuses” and protest that a possible justification is not necessarily a probable one. But the Christian could counter that these are not post-hoc justifications at all–that they are not “excuses”–but rather indispensable elements of the hypothesis itself. It seems to me that you fail to respond to the views that Christians actually hold when you ignore the nuances of their particular theories, declare by fiat what every “moral god” hypothesis must always entail, and then argue against that instead. I’m not convinced by your approach here, and I’m wondering if you can make the steps of your reasoning more explicit. For any given theory, what is the basis for deciding what the “hypothesis” is and what the “excuses” are?
You also make this move elsewhere–when for instance you talk about what a chance universe “predicts” as opposed to a designed one–and I fail to follow you in that case as well. How can you know what to expect on a design hypothesis just by virtue of the fact that it is a design hypothesis? Why, at the outset, is it necessarily more probable that a designer would design small universe rather than a vast one?
I’d appreciate any clarification on these points.
Basic logic of evidential reasoning: once you propose a model, that model entails observations; when they aren’t observed, the model is less probable than models that entail what we do observe.
The true nature of a being lies in what they do. If you say you care about workers in your factory, but allow massive safety violations to remain that cripple and kill them, we know the truth is not that you are a moral person; what you claim is irrelevant. Your true nature is revealed by your actions (as even the Gospel Jesus taught: it is by their fruit that you know them).
Whereas someone who meticulously keeps their workplace safe and efficient we know is a good person (at least better than the person who didn’t do that). It is meaningless to say someone is good, when they never do what a good person does. You are either lying or using the word “good” in a perfectly Orwellian sense—which is to say, not truthfully.
We know what good people do because we see what good people do. That is in fact what we mean by calling them good: a person who does good things. A good governor constructs and enforces laws that maintain a just society; a good engineer constructs his factories to be safe and healthy and efficient; and so on.
Thus, if a good engineer built this universe, it would exhibit moral design. By definition. It would not exhibit the completely amoral organization it actually has. And a good governor would govern. By definition. Not leave his society ungoverned and at the mercy of the abandoned. This is what it means to be good.
Thus, do we observe the consequences (the effects) of a good governor? No. Therefore there is none. Other than what good human governors we find. Do we observe the consequences (the effects) of a moral engineer? No. Therefore there is none. Other than what good human engineers we find. And so on.
There is no way around this. Either there is no moral governor and engineer; or there is an evil or amoral one who is completely uninterested in our welfare or even our knowledge of their existence. That there might possibly be some unfathomable excuse does not get us to “that excuse is likely to be true,” so you can’t rescue the conclusion by positing maybe there might be something we can’t think of that explains why the universe looks exactly like a universe with no god in it…other than the obvious conclusion: because there is no god in it.
As to what a godless universe predicts, follow the links I presented to answer that very question.
But on basic probability reasoning, “possibly therefore probably” is a fallacy. So when you ask “is it necessarily more probable that a designer would design small universe rather than a vast one” you just answered your own question: the probability a godless universe will be vast is virtually 100% (follow the link to see why); the probability a god-made universe will be vast must necessarily be less than 100%. Indeed, it can’t be any better than 50/50, unless you have some evidence to show it would be otherwise; just “making up” a reason only reduces the probability, because you then have to multiply in the probability that your made-up excuse is true, which is again just 50/50 even at best…unless, again, you have evidence to show it would be otherwise.
Basic logic of evidence:
Prior Odds x Likelihood Ratio = Final Odds
If the likelihood of an observation is 100% on Atheism and 50% on Theism, the ratio is 1/2 against Theism. The Prior Odds are thus halved by that evidence. Stack more and more observations just like that, and you get an ever-shrinking probability of Theism. Until you come up with evidence that proves the contrary outcome is to be expected (not “might” be expected; because “might” is again just another code-word for “50/50 at best” and you get odds halved again).
Dr Carrier
“It would not exhibit the completely amoral organization it actually has.”
I suppose the xian wud counter: where there is amorality there is sin! The fallenness is part of the model the xtian proposis – which seem not t figure in ur reckuning.
BTW it isn’t cumpletly amoral – if you mean lacking moral beings. (not sure whot morality in a ‘thing’ ie the univurse wud look like though).
That is both illogical and contrary to evidence, e.g. the universe could not be altered by human sin unless God consciously chose to make that possible, which disproves God’s moral character, as no morally good person would allow that; and the evidence shows the universe has not changed fundamentally in billions of years, therefore the claim that human sin changed it is fully refuted by evidence.
A morally constructed universe would have inherent justice laws, e.g. the more good a person was, the healthier and more fit and capable and lucky they would be, etc. A morally governed universe would be morally governed, e.g. our legal system would be run by angels who successfully prosecute all crimes and reform offenders (and simply destroy any who cannot be reformed).
“Likewise even human moral evil is always policed by moral people who are able; thus that God does not help police it proves he is not a moral person.“
I’m confounded by this statement of “fact” when the most basic Clift notes of the Bible would have ample examples of God “policing” evil. Jesus and then Paul goes on and on about the consequences of sin and punishment for evil both earthly and afterlife. Your take on God’s lack of policing evil ignores basic elements of the religious man’s God that it would seem the only acceptable convincing you will allow is that a grey haired bearded god is visibly sitting behind the bench in a black robe sentencing everyone for every evil. Minus that he’s not doing it? Really?
Myths are not facts.
If God actually did the sorts of things the Bible depicts, we’d be observing them now. We don’t. Nor any evidence they ever happened.
That’s how we know those are myths.
As for every other god about whom such interventionist myths were told.
Gods who would act morally would act morally. Just as any other person who was moral will. Thus, since if P then Q, and not Q, we know, not P. Modus Tollens.
“If God actually did the sorts of things the Bible depicts, we’d be observing them now. We don’t. Nor any evidence they ever happened.”
Could you give an example of three of this? This has aroused my curiosity.
Pick anything from the OT that evinced God’s taking action in the world (manna from heaven to feed the starving, parting seas to rescue the innocent from armies; anything).
And since we are supposed to be talking about a morally good God, not a petty, racist tinpot dictator who only occasionally does nice things only to his chosen few (and often pairs that with negligence and actual horrible abuse, as the OT depicts), which at least would prove such a god existed just not that he was a moral being, a moral being would act morally (rescue the innocent from crime and disaster, heal everyone who came to be injured or ill, feed everyone who was starving; etc.). Not doing so demonstrates the lack of a moral conscience—or the lack of any such person altogether.
From Carrier:
“And yet for all that, existence might well be past eternal and without cause.”
Here’s a quote from Dr. Alan Guth, who knows something about this subject:
“At the present time, I think it is fair to say that it is an open question whether or not eternally inflating universes can avoid having a beginning. In my own opinion, it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning.”
Spoken before the publication of the two examples I cite in my Reply.
One must take care not to quote old statements in science. Especially fast moving sciences like cosmology. I know Christian apologists love to do that. But it’s fallacious.
In his response to the problem of evil, Dr. Marshal claims that the prevalence of moral evil among human beings, is what we should expect in a just and merciful God who reigns over it.
Assuming the existence of God for the sake of argument, why is it that a world where a significant amount of both moral evil and moral good exist, is evidence for an all-good God and not an all-bad God? Is it because good can only exist if there is an objective moral foundation for it (i.e. God)? And why does God allow evil in the first place? Because he has morally sufficient reasons to do so?
We can use the exact same logic to support the idea of an all-bad God. A world where both evil and good exist, is very much the kind of place we should except in a world where a ruthless an evil God reigns over it. God is the foundation for evil and he has immorally sufficient reasons for allowing good to happen.
My example and Dr. Marshall’s argument have the same problem in that both demonstrate a top-down reasoning. They assume God’s nature without evidence and then try to make it fit the evidence. What we do know for a fact is that there is both evil and good in the world, so we must start from what we know and build from there.
So I see two hypotheses that are more plausible and consistent with the world we are living in. God either has both a good and an evil side, or God is neither good nor evil – he’s neutral or indifferent. Both hypotheses account for a world that is fraught with good and evil.
“But atheism predicts these “communications” will be pervasively inconsistent across time and space, and full of factual errors about the world and immoral or harmful directives promoted as good, exactly matching the ignorance of each culture.”
This feels a bit like firing a gun and painting a bulls-eye around the bullet hole. It seems more apparent to me atheism predicts nothing, as it asserts nothing. Meaning, given atheism, I wouldn’t expect to be here, I wouldn’t expect such a complex biological process as evolution to produce life, I wouldn’t expect life to exist. I wouldn’t expect anything to exist, let alone a massive universe following extremely complex physical rules allowing for complex elemental interactions giving rise to extremely complex chemical interactions allowing for the development of profoundly complicated amino acids forming and combining themselves in ways allowing for the development of complex metabolic pathways allowing for the harnessing of physical energy and development of complicated cell structures which combine to form multi-cellular organisms, which combine to form tissues allowing for different cells combining to form greater organisms, allowing for multitissue organs to perform increasingly complex functions, combining to form systems which gives rise to neural tissue which gives rise to brains which gives rise to language, reason, logic, math, morality, allowing for complex societal structures allowing for the development civilization allowing for the development of technology enabling us to look into the physical underpinnings of the universe, which, as it turns out, becomes increasingly complicated, and increasingly ordered.
I’m not being smart, I sincerely don’t see how atheism predicts this. I’m not sure the predictive value of atheism is really worth much.
Please read the relevant article.
The probability of any observation e follows from theory h (“no gods exist”) and background knowledge b (all known facts, e.g. all present scientific and historical knowledge, etc.). Thus, it’s not “atheism predicts e” but “atheism + all current background knowledge predicts e.” No other way of arguing is relevant to reality in the face of existing knowledge about reality.
And all you think you’d expect is false. Read the article linked just above. It explains. And if you need more, it cites further articles. In short, atheism + background knowledge entails exactly what we see: that life started extremely simple and random in a vast wasteland of failed randomizing, and gradually evolved complexity by natural selection over vast lengths of time. Every step of which we can show is inevitable, and simply a function of time.
Dr. Carrier, you commented above “As soon as there is an infinite amount of time (as a past eternal timeline always entails), there are an infinite number of places you and I can arise; likewise our Big Bang, our planet, etc. No one has to “traverse” that infinity to get there. It’s already there.”
Is this argument dependent upon the B-theory of time (and Special Relativity)?
If the nature of the universe is like A-theorists claim, your counter-argument still holds?
No. It is of course obviously true on B-Theory. And B-Theory is almost certainly true (and is the theory adopted by pretty much all theoretical physicists today, especially cosmologists). But it is also true on A-Theory.
The thing being proposed is that there has never been a first time; just always time.
On A-Theory that entails there has never been a time before which there was no time. Nothing started counting or experiencing time. There just always has been a time. This is compatible with there continually being more time made and even past time destroyed. Because those things being the case doesn’t say anything about how long this has gone on or will go on.
It would in that case just be a brute fact that there has always been “a time.” There was never a point before which there was no moment of time.
One cannot object to this that “well then no one could have counted up moments of time until now therefore now could not exist” because there is no beginning even being proposed to start counting from, so the inability to count up from a beginning is not a thing one need be able to do in such a situation; and it is illogical to then say that this entails there can never have been any moment of time, because the posit is that there are infinitely many and therefore not “no” place we can be now, but infinitely many places we can be now. Counting has nothing to do with this fact.
Hence one cannot turn “infinitely many places” into “zero places” simply by claiming no one can count down from eternity. Counting down from eternity is an oxymoron: it assumes a finite count (a place to start), when that is precisely what is not the case. That a series has no beginning in no way argues the series does not exist. Thus “there is no beginning to count up from” in no way argues there hasn’t always been time—to the contrary “there hasn’t always been time” is asserting there was a beginning, which is simply gainsaying what is being proposed.
Thank you for responding.
That really makes sense. And what if one adopts the two theories of time? I had this ideia. That’s because the strongest arguments against the B-theory have to do with the intuition of the passage of time. I’ve already read your book (Sense and Goodness without God) or at least, some parts of it, The part “3.6 Time and the Multiverse” where you explain the experience of change. But it seems to me that this is the strongest challenge to the theory because intuition tells us that there really is this flow of time.
But what if one adopts the ideia that before the Big Bang (assuming there was a before), time was tenseless and only after the Bang it became tense? Would that resolve the problem (assuming you didn’t solve it with the objection that theists pressupose a starting point)?
That would be very strange indeed. But at least it’s plausible and does not generate absurdities. Or does it? For one could still ask “why did the tense time only became this way a finite time ago?” Perhaps this does not make any sense. But who knows…
I’m not sure how that would make sense. Current physics is “after the Big Bang” yet is incompatible with A-theory (see my link); and I don’t know how it would change from one to the other or why we would even suppose it had to.
There is no possibility for human free will under atheistic B-theory. The philosophically unsophisticated won’t notice this, but those who reflect on it “from a 30,000 foot high viewpoint” will become aware of the thought experiments engaged in by Rietdijk, Putnam and Penrose (such as The Andromeda Paradox) showing this incompatibility.
If your future choices are already embedded in the B-block, then they were predetermined. Period. The fact that you proceed under the illusion that your choices are free avail you nothing — illusions are cheap. To consider such “choices” to be free is mickey-mouse.
Only compatibilist free will is coherent, and compatibilist free will exists on B-Theory.