what is the definition of the universe?

[jeremyp]

No ''God just is'' is not my position

My mistake...

and God satisfies the criteria for sufficient reason for the universe

... oh wait, so God just is.

A definition of the universe would have to surely include what it is about the universe that makes it necessary and necessary for it's own existence.

No, why? Your definition of God: "Maker of heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen" doesn't include anything about what makes it necessary. Why would a definition of the Universe have to include that?

[jeremyp]

Well, life has been ignoring the 2nd Law of thermodynamics for millions of years

No it hasn't. Life has always obeyed the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

- presumably because the earth is an open system, taking in energy all the time.

Actually, the Earth emits all the energy it takes in, otherwise it would be just a blob of molten rock now. The thing is that the entropy of the energy emitted by the Earth is vastly higher than the entropy of the energy incident on it and life is partly responsible for that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My mistake...
... oh wait, so God just is.

No, why? Your definition of God: "Maker of heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen" doesn't include anything about what makes it necessary. Why would a definition of the Universe have to include that?

that God, as Aquinus put it is whatever was necessary for the universe we know and observe. God exists necessarily.

That we have such a universe is therefore sufficient reason for God.

The only way round this is, as Hume, Russell and Carroll have tried, is to ignore sufficient reason.

[Udayana]

Some stuff on this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_as_an_arrow_of_time#Cosmology

So I guess a fundamental question would be whether time is really directional, or appears to be due to its relationship with entropy.

This was the topic of my degree dissertation almost 50 years ago - in retrospect embarrassingly naïve, though it did get me what I needed

Even now Carlo Rovelli describes time as sitting "at the centre of the tangle of problems raised by the intersection of gravity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics - a tangle of problems where we are still in the dark"

As an off-the-peg model I tend to think of time as a dimension in block universe, where past, present and future all exist and the flow of time is simply a stubborn illusion. Even if we assume that physics is entirely deterministic (as we move along time in either direction) to an observer it would seem as though time was unidirectional - due to the complexity of interactions: most systems with more than a handful of components behave with non-linear dynamics and soon become chaotic. This means that though we may follow a process from some initial condition to an end state, we will never be able to exactly reverse the motion and go from the end state to the original initial state. Time will always appear irreversible.     

But also what would happen to time were we to reach complete steady state equilibrium whereby entropy no longer increases - would time stop.

Yes, but (as modelled in some string theories using branes) the state becomes closer and closer to the state prior to the big-bang - and we end up with a cyclic multiverse.

Interesting conjecture on whether time would reverse if the universe stopped expanding and started to contract.

[ProfessorDavey]

that God, as Aquinus put it is whatever was necessary for the universe we know and observe. God exists necessarily.

That we have such a universe is therefore sufficient reason for God.

that The Flying Spaghetti Monster, as Tom from Guildford put it is whatever was necessary for the universe we know and observe. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists necessarily.

That we have such a universe is therefore sufficient reason for The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

See the problem Vlad - just asserting something doesn't make it true - nor does it even make it credible unless there is credible evidence to support that assertion. And given that Aquinas would have have virtually zero understanding of the actual nature of the universe any comment he might have made regarding the universe and its origins can be easily dismissed due to a patent lack of sufficient knowledge of the nature and origins of the universe for any claim to be credible.

[ProfessorDavey]

The only way round this is, as Hume, Russell and Carroll have tried, is to ignore sufficient reason.

I think you have this the wrong way around. Remember that the onus is on the person making a claim to provide proof/evidence to support that claim.

So if you make a claim for the requirement for sufficient reason then the onus is on you to prove that sufficient reason is required - the onus is not on others to have to justify why they might choose to ignore it.

But of course the issue with sufficient reason is that it is predicated on an unevidenced assumption that there is intent or motivation for something to happen - this indicates anthropocentric bias, which is likely where the notion of god also comes from. Why should there be reason or intent for the universe to exist, beyond the actions of the fundamental laws of physics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

that The Flying Spaghetti Monster, as Tom from Guildford put it is whatever was necessary for the universe we know and observe. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists necessarily.

That we have such a universe is therefore sufficient reason for The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

See the problem Vlad - just asserting something doesn't make it true - nor does it even make it credible unless there is credible evidence to support that assertion. And given that Aquinas would have have virtually zero understanding of the actual nature of the universe any comment he might have made regarding the universe and its origins can be easily dismissed due to a patent lack of sufficient knowledge of the nature and origins of the universe for any claim to be credible.

unlike you Davie to resort to a horses laugh fallacy.
We know everything that is contingent in the universe needs a necessary. CIRCULAR hierarchies merely suggest self creation or causation. Thomistic philosophy calls this thing God and suggest that it is independent or sovereign from and over the things it causes. Calling this necessary entity the FSM is just horses laugh argument.

[ProfessorDavey]

unlike you Davie to resort to a horses laugh fallacy.

I am point out that making an assertion doesn't make it true. Your appeal to god and Aquinas is no more, nor less credible than my appeal to Tom and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If you want an assertion to be taken credibly it needs to be credible and to be credible it needs evidence and not to be based on unevidenced assertion and assumption.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you have this the wrong way around. Remember that the onus is on the person making a claim to provide proof/evidence to support that claim.

So if you make a claim for the requirement for sufficient reason then the onus is on you to prove that sufficient reason is required - the onus is not on others to have to justify why they might choose to ignore it.

But of course the issue with sufficient reason is that it is predicated on an unevidenced assumption that there is intent or motivation for something to happen - this indicates anthropocentric bias, which is likely where the notion of god also comes from. Why should there be reason or intent for the universe to exist, beyond the actions of the fundamental laws of physics.

The argument is quite clear. The existence of contingency logically requires necessity. So what is contingent about the universe depends on a necessary.

In other words, the question is what is it about the universe which is necessary? Aquinus calls this God, I would say it resembles God more than it resembles atheism or a contingent thing.

Putting things down as illusory or talking about anthropometric bias is woo designed to shut sown discussion.

[jeremyp]

that God, as Aquinus put it is whatever was necessary for the universe we know and observe. God exists necessarily.

You saying (or some bloke called Aquinus [sic] saying) "God is necessary" is not any different to me saying "the Universe is necessary".

That we have such a universe is therefore sufficient reason for God.

No it isn't.

The only way round this is, as Hume, Russell and Carroll have tried, is to ignore sufficient reason.

You should try reason. It might help you to think more clearly.

[ProfessorDavey]

The argument is quite clear. The existence of contingency logically requires necessity.

Yet more unevidenced assertions. The problem with this argument is it cannot be applied comprehensively and consistently or you end up in an endless, infinite chain of entities that rely on something else ad infinitum. So you cannot apply it logically.

So what is contingent about the universe depends on a necessary.

Even accepting your argument on contingent and necessity (see above, you have not convinced me in the slightest), why cannot the universe be the end of the chain. You have to end it somewhere following your argument.

In other words, the question is what is it about the universe which is necessary? Aquinus calls this God

So all you are doing is arbitrarily laying down a point at which your contingent/necessity 'logic' ceases to apply, and doing so without any evidence. If the logic breaks down somewhere, why not at the universe and what is your justification for claiming that god isn't in itself contingent on something else again. You have no argument to address these issues except 'god just is', which is no more compelling than 'the universe just is' - indeed rather less compelling as at least we have evidence that the universe exists.

, I would say it resembles God more than it resembles atheism or a contingent thing.

Firstly what on earth has a lack of belief in something got anything to do with this. Secondly why is god not contingent, in exactly the same manner as you claim logic implies to everything else. This is special pleading of the worst sort and with not a shred of evidence to support it.

Putting things down as illusory or talking about anthropometric bias is woo designed to shut sown discussion.

No it isn't. God might exist, god might not - in that respect (i.e. knowledge) I am agnostic. However there is no evidence for god and no evidence that we cannot explain the universe without god - to suggest as such is classic god-of-the-gaps non-sense.

On being anthropocentric - well your arguments are achingly so - you see everything as a kind of hierarchy of complexities which comes from anthropocentric thinking that humans are somehow 'higher' than other species etc. I'm not very impressed with that notion as it gets you nowhere as it always requires something more complex. If we are considering contingent and necessity I think we should be looking at it the other way around - the closest we'd get to necessity would be the simplest and most fundamental entity, not the most complex which is clearly contingent on it's constituent parts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You saying (or some bloke called Aquinus [sic] saying) "God is necessary" is not any different to me saying "the Universe is necessary".

The only difference between Aquinus and you is that he has explained why God is necessary and you are just about to explain why the universe is necessary.

No it isn't.
You should try reason. It might help you to think more clearly.
[/quote]

[jeremyp]

The only difference between Aquinus and you is that he has explained why God is necessary

No he hasn't (and, since you failed to take the hint last time: it's Aquinas). All he's done is assert that God is necessary. He hasn't explained why. If he did have a solid argument as to why God is necessary and the Universe isn't, there would be no atheists.

and you are just about to explain why the universe is necessary.

No I'm not. I don't know if the Universe is necessary or not. I don't know if there's a god or not, but that doesn't matter because I'm not the one asserting the existence of God, you are.

Your argument boils down to "the Universe must be contingent, therefore God".  It fails because you haven't shown that the Universe must be contingent. The fact that I can't show that the Universe is not contingent does nothing whatsoever to support your argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No he hasn't (and, since you failed to take the hint last time: it's Aquinas). All he's done is assert that God is necessary. He hasn't explained why. If he did have a solid argument as to why God is necessary and the Universe isn't, there would be no atheists.

No I'm not. I don't know if the Universe is necessary or not. I don't know if there's a god or not, but that doesn't matter because I'm not the one asserting the existence of God, you are.

Your argument boils down to "the Universe must be contingent, therefore God".  It fails because you haven't shown that the Universe must be contingent. The fact that I can't show that the Universe is not contingent does nothing whatsoever to support your argument.

He has explained why there is a necessary being via the argument from contingency. That provides sufficient reason.
Aquinas then states that this is what we call God

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No he hasn't (and, since you failed to take the hint last time: it's Aquinas). All he's done is assert that God is necessary. He hasn't explained why. If he did have a solid argument as to why God is necessary and the Universe isn't, there would be no atheists.

No I'm not. I don't know if the Universe is necessary or not. I don't know if there's a god or not, but that doesn't matter because I'm not the one asserting the existence of God, you are.

Your argument boils down to "the Universe must be contingent, therefore God".  It fails because you haven't shown that the Universe must be contingent. The fact that I can't show that the Universe is not contingent does nothing whatsoever to support your argument.

No my argument is the universe we observe is contingent,  What is it then about the universe that is necessary for contingent things. Davey is correct in saying it must be fundamental, without parts but it also must be independent from the universe we observe for it's existence and actions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet more unevidenced assertions. The problem with this argument is it cannot be applied comprehensively and consistently or you end up in an endless, infinite chain of entities that rely on something else ad infinitum. So you cannot apply it logically.
Even accepting your argument on contingent and necessity (see above, you have not convinced me in the slightest), why cannot the universe be the end of the chain. You have to end it somewhere following your argument.
So all you are doing is arbitrarily laying down a point at which your contingent/necessity 'logic' ceases to apply, and doing so without any evidence. If the logic breaks down somewhere, why not at the universe and what is your justification for claiming that god isn't in itself contingent on something else again. You have no argument to address these issues except 'god just is', which is no more compelling than 'the universe just is' - indeed rather less compelling as at least we have evidence that the universe exists.
Firstly what on earth has a lack of belief in something got anything to do with this. Secondly why is god not contingent, in exactly the same manner as you claim logic implies to everything else. This is special pleading of the worst sort and with not a shred of evidence to support it.
No it isn't. God might exist, god might not - in that respect (i.e. knowledge) I am agnostic. However there is no evidence for god and no evidence that we cannot explain the universe without god - to suggest as such is classic god-of-the-gaps non-sense.

On being anthropocentric - well your arguments are achingly so - you see everything as a kind of hierarchy of complexities which comes from anthropocentric thinking that humans are somehow 'higher' than other species etc. I'm not very impressed with that notion as it gets you nowhere as it always requires something more complex. If we are considering contingent and necessity I think we should be looking at it the other way around - the closest we'd get to necessity would be the simplest and most fundamental entity, not the most complex which is clearly contingent on it's constituent parts.

Your arguments seem more protective of atheism than science.

[jeremyp]

He has explained why there is a necessary being via the argument from contingency. That provides sufficient reason.
Aquinas then states that this is what we call God

He just asserts that the Universe is contingent without evidence and then just asserts that the necessary thing - whatever it is - is identical with the Christian god.

[jeremyp]

No my argument is the universe we observe is contingent,

No, you mean your assertion is that the Universe we observe is contingent. You haven't made any sound argument for your assertion.

What is it then about the universe that is necessary for contingent things. Davey is correct in saying it must be fundamental, without parts but it also must be independent from the universe we observe for it's existence and actions.

Why? You are just making assertions without justifying them.

[ProfessorDavey]

He just asserts that the Universe is contingent without evidence and then just asserts that the necessary thing - whatever it is - is identical with the Christian god.

Exactly - in effect Aquinas creates a circular argument without any evidential basis to support his key assertion that everything must have a cause (i.e. contingent) ... err ... except the thing that he want to assert to be most important. It is an incredibly weak argument, and in fact as soon as you allow for something that is not contingent then you have in effect rebutted your basic principle of things needing to have a cause. And if one thing is allowed to be 'causeless' then why not others, many.

So, in effect Aquinas in fact logically disproves his fundamental notion of things needing a cause within his prejudged conclusion - and thereby the whole poorly framed argument comes crashing down.

There is also the uncomfortable fact for Aquinas apologists that he would have had virtually zero understanding of the nature of the universe - likely he (wrongly) considered it be be of the order of thousands of years old. Likely (wrongly) he would have though that the earth lay at the centre of the universe. Likely (wrongly) he would have considered the universe to be a kind of bubble around the earth and he would have had no understanding of the scale and expansion of the universe. So anything he claims about the origins of the universe can be laughed out of court as he didn't understand what the universe is.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your arguments seem more protective of atheism than science.

Not at all - indeed earlier in this thread I was clear that on the basis of knowledge I do not and cannot know whether god does or does not exist. So none of the arguments I am putting forward are atheist arguments at all.

My point is that currently we do not have sufficient knowledge to conclude with confidence that we know how the universe originated (or indeed if it did originate). We have a range of theoretically plausible explanations, including you will note, that there is a god that created the universe. But that is just one of many theoretically plausible explanations, with many others not requiring god at all. You then need to look at the evidence to determine which of those theoretically plausible explanations has the greater credibility. And in this regard the god explanation fall down the list as there is no evidence for the existence of god and there are explanations that do not require god that have far greater evidence.

The reality is that it is use who is positing arguments (poor ones) that protect theism - effectively you dismiss any explanation for the origins of the universe that do not require god in order to create a great fabricate gap that you try to fill with god. God of the gaps is bad enough when the gaps are real - god of the gaps when you pretend there are gaps in knowledge which don't exist in order to posit god is deeply disingenuous. Sure we don't know everything about the universe - far from it - but we know far more than you pretend to allow, because to acknowledge the knowledge we have and the sensible non-god-requiring theories for the origins of the universe undermines your faith-based (not evidence-based) belief in god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He just asserts that the Universe is contingent without evidence and then just asserts that the necessary thing - whatever it is - is identical with the Christian god.

He uses the argument from contingency based upon how the status of everything which is observed changes.
I think rather he divides the cosmos into the necessary entity and the contingent. In any case as I keep asking you, what is it about the universe which could be the necessary being because it cannot be the contingent things. I only think Aquinas uses the argument to argue for God and uses other arguments for Christ.

As I have said before ANY necessary entity must be sovereign, and of unitary and continuous substance. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you mean your assertion is that the Universe we observe is contingent. You haven't made any sound argument for your assertion.
Why? You are just making assertions without justifying them.

If all we observe is measureable by units then we can observe those values change. We know that stars change at least by dint of position, we know that atoms decay. Indeed we are not even sure if constants are constant. Quantum mechanics has a lot to say about the effect of observation in  terms of the effects on what is being observed and of course there is entropy which it seems the entire observed universe is subject to.

In any case as I have asked you before what is it about the universe that is not contingent?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not at all - indeed earlier in this thread I was clear that on the basis of knowledge I do not and cannot know whether god does or does not exist. So none of the arguments I am putting forward are atheist arguments at all.

My point is that currently we do not have sufficient knowledge to conclude with confidence that we know how the universe originated (or indeed if it did originate). We have a range of theoretically plausible explanations, including you will note, that there is a god that created the universe. But that is just one of many theoretically plausible explanations, with many others not requiring god at all. You then need to look at the evidence to determine which of those theoretically plausible explanations has the greater credibility. And in this regard the god explanation fall down the list as there is no evidence for the existence of god and there are explanations that do not require god that have far greater evidence.

The reality is that it is use who is positing arguments (poor ones) that protect theism - effectively you dismiss any explanation for the origins of the universe that do not require god in order to create a great fabricate gap that you try to fill with god. God of the gaps is bad enough when the gaps are real - god of the gaps when you pretend there are gaps in knowledge which don't exist in order to posit god is deeply disingenuous. Sure we don't know everything about the universe - far from it - but we know far more than you pretend to allow, because to acknowledge the knowledge we have and the sensible non-god-requiring theories for the origins of the universe undermines your faith-based (not evidence-based) belief in god.

I think the heady days of Krauss and Stenger when they unilaterally changed the meaning of nothing into a something passed very rapidly so the claim that the universe for it's existence does not need or possess a sufficient reason must have lost ground.

So it is not the God of the Gaps but the God of sufficient reason,,,,or ''the missing half on which the other half depends''. Particularly if as you've said the necessary being is fundemental to everything and may be fundamental to actual existence on a moment by moment basis....To be or not to be and all of that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly - in effect Aquinas creates a circular argument without any evidential basis to support his key assertion that everything must have a cause (i.e. contingent) ... err ... except the thing that he want to assert to be most important. It is an incredibly weak argument, and in fact as soon as you allow for something that is not contingent then you have in effect rebutted your basic principle of things needing to have a cause. And if one thing is allowed to be 'causeless' then why not others, many.

So, in effect Aquinas in fact logically disproves his fundamental notion of things needing a cause within his prejudged conclusion - and thereby the whole poorly framed argument comes crashing down.

There is also the uncomfortable fact for Aquinas apologists that he would have had virtually zero understanding of the nature of the universe - likely he (wrongly) considered it be be of the order of thousands of years old. Likely (wrongly) he would have though that the earth lay at the centre of the universe. Likely (wrongly) he would have considered the universe to be a kind of bubble around the earth and he would have had no understanding of the scale and expansion of the universe. So anything he claims about the origins of the universe can be laughed out of court as he didn't understand what the universe is.

That everything is contingent is more likely to be logical nonsense though because the statement courts the next question ''Dependent on what''.

n terms of ''cause'' I prefer ''sufficient reason''.

I get the feeling Jeremy is quite happy with the idea of a necessary entity but wants it to be the universe itself and you aren't and are trying every trick to avoid a necessary entity.

Aquinas understood less of the science but unhappily for atheism science plumped for the study of observing contingent things and leaves the necessary entity in the pervue of the philosophers.

What has the scale of the universe got to do with anything? What about the law of mediocrity which states that everything in the universe is subject to the same laws and conditions?

[ProfessorDavey]

So it is not the God of the Gaps but the God of sufficient reason ...

Nope, because you cannot have it both ways.

If there are credible alternatives to explain the universe, based on our current understanding, that do not require god then you don't have sufficient reason.

If you claim that due to lack of knowledge about the universe there are no credible alternatives to explain the universe then it is god of the gaps.

The reality is, of course, that despite our lack of full knowledge of the universe we have a number of plausible and credible explanations for the universe that do not require god and have evidence to support them. As such your sufficient reason argument fails and you fold back into god-of-the-gaps "we don't know everything, hence god" non-sense.