God and suffering

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're still thinking in simplistic Newtonian terms. If the block universe of general relativity is correct, and there's a finite past, that does not mean that it "popped out of nothing" (which doesn't even make sense anyway), it means that the whole space-time just is. Adding an external creator that also just is, for no known reason, doesn't make things any less mysterious and unexplained.

I think there are still theories where the universe appears spontaneously or at least before science can probe until physical laws break down. An external creator put in is not for no known reason but due to the two issues of agency and contingency.

Sean Carroll believes that the universe is contingent on luck, that there could have been nothing at all. There is no reason not to have a necessary entity rather than just luck in fact luck seems an evasion of full contingency and necessity.

If there is no reason not to have a necessity then that necessity is independent of the universe  and not subject to it's laws but rather the other way round.

[jeremyp]

I think there are still theories where the universe appears spontaneously or at least before science can probe until physical laws break down. An external creator put in is not for no known reason but due to the two issues of agency and contingency.

Exactly the same arguments apply to an external creator as to the Universe. Did the external creator pop into existence spontaneously or is it eternal?

The only difference is that we know the Universe exists.

[Stranger]

To get back on track of the opening post,

Pain and suffering do exist as a consequence of the natural unguided forces of this universe.  But by delegating the power of free will to humans, we have a means to help cope with suffering and pain by using our creative abilities to devise ways of alleviating, curing or preventing these things by consciously manipulating the forces of nature.  Such freedom helps to bring true meaning and value to the way we live our lives on this earth.

So, in line with the "logic" you outlined in #83, I must presume that you did not fully understand the points most recently made about "free will".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly the same arguments apply to an external creator as to the Universe. Did the external creator pop into existence spontaneously or is it eternal?

The only difference is that we know the Universe exists.

Which of the possibilities for the origin of the universe does that actually answer?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly the same arguments apply to an external creator as to the Universe. Did the external creator pop into existence spontaneously or is it eternal?

The only difference is that we know the Universe exists.

But what if it is all contingent? What then is it contingent on?

[jeremyp]

Which of the possibilities for the origin of the universe does that actually answer?

I didn't say it answered any of them. What it does do is show that the theist idea of inventing a creator doesn't solve the problems.

[jeremyp]

But what if it is all contingent? What then is it contingent on?

What if the creator is all contingent? What then is it contingent on?

Or is it creators all the way down?

[Stranger]

I think there are still theories where the universe appears spontaneously or at least before science can probe until physical laws break down.

There are hypotheses that the universe "appears spontaneously" but not out of absolutely nothing. Such hypotheses rely on the concept of "as close to nothing that is physically possible" - but then you have that state just existing for no known reason.

An external creator put in is not for no known reason but due to the two issues of agency and contingency.

If you want to put forward an argument then go right ahead but every time I've asked you before you've failed, including one time where I wasted an hour of my life going through a Feser video that turned out to be yet another laughable failure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't say it answered any of them. What it does do is show that the theist idea of inventing a creator doesn't solve the problems.

The necessary is external to the universe or it is in or of the universe so what in the universe could it be?
It could still be argued that it does not resemble what is contingent and that it is necessarily independent from it.
Those are properties of any necessary before we get to the question ''inside or outside''.

Carroll of course would say the universe is entirely contingent by luck.

[ippy]

But you have made assumptions concerning time.

Time is intrinsically part of the physical scenario.  Time began with the physical creation of our material universe.  You can't treat time as an independent entity separate from the laws of physics.  The concept that God, the ultimate source of all creation, exists in a timeless state may be beyond our human comprehension, but far stranger is the concept of time existing back to infinity with no beginning.  If God exists in an ever present state, then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that our own spiritual nature is the ever present state in which our conscious awareness exists and interacts within this physical, time dependent material world.

It's also a highly likely probability Alan, that these ideas of yours are not necessarily your own ideas and there's is also a good chance or probability that they could be the ideas of whoever it was that actually indoctrinated you in the first place, probably.

Commiserations.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are hypotheses that the universe "appears spontaneously" but not out of absolutely nothing. Such hypotheses rely on the concept of "as close to nothing that is physically possible" - but then you have that state just existing for no known reason.

If you want to put forward an argument then go right ahead but every time I've asked you before you've failed, including one time where I wasted an hour of my life going through a Feser video that turned out to be yet another laughable failure.

If there is something it is not unreasonable to ask whether there is an explanation for it. Does it have a cause or does it in itself contain it's own explanation?
That is entirely reasonable.

[jeremyp]

The necessary is external to the universe or it is in or of the universe so what in the universe could it be?
It could still be argued that it does not resemble what is contingent and that it is necessarily independent from it.
Those are properties of any necessary before we get to the question ''inside or outside''.

Carroll of course would say the universe is entirely contingent by luck.

Why are you still worrying about some necessary thing in the Universe? Nobody here has claimed that there is anything necessary in the Universe. In fact, it seems obvious that everything in the Universe is contingent on the existence of the Universe itself.

[Stranger]

If there is something it is not unreasonable to ask whether there is an explanation for it. Does it have a cause or doesn't in itself contain it's own explanation.
That is entirely reasonable.

And the only sane response is to say that we don't know nearly enough to provide an answer.

I haven't the first clue why what exists does exist, and neither, to the best of my knowledge, does anybody else. Science can provide a basis for extrapolation to reasonable hypotheses but none of them can answer the basic question of why whatever they start with exists. Religion is a laughable guessing game, that doesn't answer the basic question anyway, and philosophy is never going to settle the matter because it too needs to start with a set of assumptions - and is anyway, at best, a curate's egg of a subject and not nearly as reliable as science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why are you still worrying about some necessary thing in the Universe? Nobody here has claimed that there is anything necessary in the Universe. In fact, it seems obvious that everything in the Universe is contingent on the existence of the Universe itself.

So everything is contingent on itself?

OR

contingent things in the universe are not the only thing in the universe?

or the parts are contingent but the whole is necessary?

[jeremyp]

So everything is contingent on itself?

OR

contingent things in the universe are not the only thing in the universe?

or the parts are contingent but the whole is necessary?

Can you explain how you came up with that nonsense?

I said that everything in the Universe is contingent on the Universe. I did not say that the Universe is a thing in the Universe.

I also did not say that the Universe itself is necessarily necessary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you explain how you came up with that nonsense?

I said that everything in the Universe is contingent on the Universe. I did not say that the Universe is a thing in the Universe.

I also did not say that the Universe itself is necessarily necessary.

So. The universe could be necessary or contingent?

[jeremyp]

So. The universe could be necessary or contingent?

Well done.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well done.

What makes you say that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Either it has an  external creator,…

Do you remember the episode of Porridge where Fletcher was in hospital and Mr McKay was desperate to know what they’d done with the earth they’d excavated from a failed tunnel? Fletcher said he’d tell him in in exchange for a bottle of scotch. Mckay agreed and gave him the scotch. Fletcher called him close and said, “Well Mr McKay, the truth is we dug another tunnel and put the soil in there…”.

That’s the “external creator” argument. It just transfers the same questions about a naturalistic universe to a supernatural creator of the universe.

…it has been around forever (although we would need an actual infinity rather than 'the maths'…

Could be, though “forever" is probably meaningless because it fails to take account to the possible nature of time – looping for example.

…or it popped out of nothing.

That’s incoherent. Various of the competing hypotheses don’t require that (whatever it means) because they posit plausible alternatives – quantum borrowing for one.

Short version: your three possible options are naïve and folkloric, failing to take into account various, better reasoned options

In interview with Robert Kuhn Sean Carroll was asked this question and seems to end up admitting there could have been nothing but we have a contingent universe depending on...…...luck.

Sounds right to me. Luck is identified by the person who thinks he’s been lucky. We may think we were lucky because "the universe" produced us. A differently organised universe could though have produced a different (though equally not very bright) person that thought “he” was lucky that the universe was just right for him to appear etc. Inferring something remarkable because the universe produced us is just the old reference point error (also known as the lottery winner’s fallacy). For what it’s worth I agree with Carroll if what he was saying was that the universe neither knew nor cared what species, if any, it would produce. Why would it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Do you remember the episode of Porridge where Fletcher was in hospital and Mr McKay was desperate to know what they’d done with the earth they’d excavated from a failed tunnel? Fletcher said he’d tell him in in exchange for a bottle of scotch. Mckay agreed and gave him the scotch. Fletcher called him close and said, “Well Mr McKay, the truth is we dug another tunnel and put the soil in there…”.

That’s the “external creator” argument. It just transfers the same questions about a naturalistic universe to a supernatural creator of the universe.

Of course it doesn't. The external creator argument arises naturally from ideas of quotecontingency and necessity and where the explanation resides. It's completely reasonable.

Could be, though “forever" is probably meaningless because it fails to take account to the possible nature of time – looping for example.

That’s incoherent. Various of the competing hypotheses don’t require that (whatever it means) because they posit plausible alternatives – quantum borrowing for one.

Short version: your three possible options are naïve and folkloric, failing to take into account various, better reasoned options

Looping and quantum borrowing....I'm game what have you got?

Sounds right to me. Luck is identified by the person who thinks he’s been lucky. We may think we were lucky because "the universe" produced us. A differently organised universe could though have produced a different (though equally not very bright) person that thought “he” was lucky that the universe was just right for him to appear etc. Inferring something remarkable because the universe produced us is just the old reference point error (also known as the lottery winner’s fallacy). For what it’s worth I agree with Carroll if what he was saying was that the universe neither knew nor cared what species, if any, it would produce. Why would it?

Carroll is just reaching where Russell reached...….his barrier of enquiring....although he's less snappy than Russell but brute fact, stop all explaning, all the same.

[Stranger]

The external creator argument arises naturally from ideas of [contingency] and necessity and where the explanation resides. It's completely reasonable.

Still waiting for this mythical reasonable argument......... and waiting...... and waiting......

[jeremyp]

What makes you say that?

Because you finally got it.

I'm not arguing whether the Universe is contingent or not, only that the things in it are contingent on it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still waiting for this mythical reasonable argument......... and waiting...... and waiting......

It's been given to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because you finally got it.

No what makes you even think anything about the universe could be necessary?

[jeremyp]

No what makes you even think anything about the universe could be necessary?

I haven't said that the Universe is necessary - or not necessary.