The Cosmological Argument
Edward Hoffman
> We know that something exists. Suppose we grant that things cannot
>exist without a reason (Leibniz called this "the principle of sufficient
>reason"). It then follows that there must be a reason why something exists.
Well, I think this is where the argument collapses. To state that things exist
for a reason implies that there was an intent to put them there. This impli-
cation in and of itself assumes the existence of a god. This existence, of
course, is then supposed to be "demonstrated" by the argument. Thus, the
argument is circular.
> Clearly, with all the postulations and suppositions involved, this is
>not a proof for the existence of God. It will be interesting to see if anyone
>cares either to fix it or to rip it to shreds and stomp on the pieces.
I wouldn't call this "ripping it to shreds", just pointing out the main flaw
of the argument.
Edward Hoffman
ARPAnet: hof...@cheshire.columbia.edu
BITnet: CC4.EA-HOFFMAN@CU20A
UUCP: ...![seismo,topaz]!columbia!cheshire!hoffman
Patrick Stirling
discussed in net.origins!
Regarding this discussion, I have two questions:
1. What is 'existence'?
The best answer I can think of is "some kind of perturbation in some
kind of energy field" whch sounds rather vague. A more practical answer
might be "something exists if it is perceived by a normal person"
(limiting my argument to humans on purpose). This give rise to the
question "What's normal", which I can't answer, and also to fact that
(in my opinion) it's possible for one person to perceive something
that most people don't perceive, AND for the thing to exist.
2. Why does anything need a reason to exist?
This reminds me of a piece in my local sunday paper (the SF Ex-Chron)
recently, stating that "the house fly is totally useless to humans -
there is no known reason for its existence"! The colossal egocentricity
of this took my breath away!
Any comments on these questions or their relation to the discussion are
looked forward to!
patrick
{ihnp4, hplabs, amdcad, ucbvax!dual}!fortune!stirling
He thought he saw a rattlesnake
That questioned him in greek;
He looked again, and saw it was
The middle of next week.
"The one thing I regret", he said,
"Is that it cannot speak"
Lweis Carrol, Sylvie and Bruno.
Charlie Martin
This whole arghument is based on the idea of a "reason" for something to
happen -- which seems to be identical to a "cause" for something existing;
then the total/partial-ordering of reasons argument is just the old
first-cause argument for the existence of a creator (often spelled with
a capital letter.)
But the underlying assumption in this is that all events must have a
"cause" -- and observation does not bear that out, especially on a quantum
level. Once there are non-causal events, then the ordering breaks down.
As does the argument.
--
Charlie Martin
(...mcnc!duke!crm)
Tim Maroney
all events are simply mathematical potentials, rather than an ordered series
of causally-connected things; that is, if "the universe" is simply a set of
potentials, with no potential excluded; then Not-X also exists. Therefore,
the entire criterion of "existence" becomes invalid.
If your little mind is still befuddled, feel free to write again, but please
don't strain yourself thinking about it....
--
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
Give me food, or give me slack (or kill me).
Michael Ellis
> Easy to shoot down. There is no reason to assume that anything
> exists. All events may simply be mathematical potentials, none more
> real than any other. Our experiences are simply some of the
> potentials. Therefore, since there is no objective reason to assume
> that anything exists, the first premise of the argument is flawed or
> at least unneccessary, and the argument becomes suspect.
In that case, existence as an all-or-none affair is replaced by
existence as a superposition of potentia. Doesn't weakening
"strict objective existence" to "intersubjectivity" assert that
existability, if not existence, exists?
>(No, this is not a joke; yes, I am prepared to doubt that anything exists.)
But are you prepared to doubt slack?
-michael
The fact that operant behavior seems "directed toward the future"
is misleading.
-BF Skinner
Gene Ward Smith
>Not at all, Gene. To say "X exists" is to say "Not-X does not exist."
This is simply false. If Not-X is everything that is not X, then if X is
not already everything, "X exists" *implies* "Not-X exists". On the other
hand, if you mean "X exists" is to say "Not-Not-('X exists')", then this is
a double negative which helps you not at all.
>If all events are simply mathematical potentials, rather than an ordered series
>of causally-connected things; that is, if "the universe" is simply a set of
>potentials, with no potential excluded; then Not-X also exists. Therefore,
>the entire criterion of "existence" becomes invalid.
I translate your statement about potentials into "everything which *can*
exist, *does* exist". Clearly if all potentials exist, something exists; in
fact, a great deal exists.
>If your little mind is still befuddled, feel free to write again, but please
>don't strain yourself thinking about it....
You neither, Y'hear?
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."
Richard Carnes
>
>This reminds me of a piece in my local sunday paper (the SF Ex-Chron)
>recently, stating that "the house fly is totally useless to humans -
>there is no known reason for its existence"! The colossal
>egocentricity of this took my breath away!
Not only is it homocentric, the statement is a very ignorant one.
The writer undoubtedly would have called fruit flies "totally useless
to humans" before Drosophila proved its immense value to genetics.
Flies, while often annoying (they've pushed me to the brink of
insanity on mountain hikes) are of considerable benefit to humanity.
First, they are decomposers: they feed on dead organic matter such as
wastes and animal carcasses, recovering the nutrients in these
materials for the food chain. Second, flies are food for many types
of animals (and some plants!) which are of more direct benefit to
people. Third, many flies are pollinators; without pollinators, a
large proportion of plants could not reproduce. Finally,
notwithstanding horror movies starring mutant arthropods, flies are
beautiful, both in their structure and in their adaptations.
Richard Carnes