The metaphysics of there being no God.

[NotSoHumblePie]

This is a fifty-minute lecture on time by the eminent physicist, Julian Barbour. Lee Smolin comments (in "The Trouble with Physics", P.321) that Barbour "...has been highly influential among the small group of people who think seriously about quantum gravity, for it was he who taught us what it means to make a background-independent theory." And, "He was finally able to invent a new kind of theory, in which space and time are nothing but a system of relationships... His reinterpretation of Einstein's general theory of relativity as a relational theory is now the way we in the field understand it."

Perhaps (or perhaps not) it is to this "...space and time are nothing but a system of relationships..." that shunyadragon refers in earlier posts -- sorry, the timephysics.com link just gives me Error 404, so I cannot check.

Those who prefer papers to NotSoHumblePie's linked lecture might like to read Barbour's paper, "THE NATURE OF TIME", where at the bottom of Page 8 he concludes: "I will not claim that time can definitely be banished from physics; the universe may be infinite, and black holes present some problems for the timeless picture. Nevertheless, I think it is entirely possible – indeed likely – that time as such plays no role in the universe."

But this post of mine does but comment on a technical point: I strongly suspect that a rebuttal of 37818's OP's claim can be given by one of the handful of TWebbers who are familiar with the philosophy of Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas. Or Edward Feser has a "So you think you understand the cosmological argument?" blog article in which he rebuts a few of the more common misconceptions of that philosophy, and I suspect the OP's argument will be refuted by his rebuttal #3. -- ie the objection, “Why assume that the universe had a beginning?” is not a serious objection to the cosmological argument. I'm not a philosopher myself, so read it in the link.

The problem with the Cosmological Argument, is that it relies heavily on "cause" as a simplistic, linear structure (as well, it sort of treats the limit of current knowledge, as if it's the equivalent of the limit of all potential knowledge). This is a similar old-school viewpoint of "time" as well. As if time is some sort of a snake with a tail and a head. The tail is the past, and the head is the future, and we're somewhere near the intestines. That's where this problem of "infinite regress" comes in for those who think that way, they can't see past the tail or the head, so it seems impossible. This is easily translated as viewing the universe as a ball, and there being some kind of "outside" to it, a realm in which a not-the-universe, eternal-something exists. The trouble seems to lie in the language-based concepts associated with the word "time" and "space". In actuality, time is not a "thing" that exists at all, but is rather a "property" of the relationship between things. It's a relationship based on change. When we say we experience time, what we're really saying is that we experience a separation of (apparently) distinct events. It's what we choose as a starting point that's important to us, and I suppose is how we figure out what time is. We started with things that were observable as remaining "constant" in their rate of change. Big things, like the sun. We don't pay much mind to incredibly small things, like atoms, nor really large things like the entirety of existence. To me, this suggests that our language and ability to conceive of these things, is simply stunted (for the most part). It will remain as such until further information is gathered (either collectively or for the individual). Where we currently stand, is in a period in which people like Barbour are proposing somewhat new mechanisms for thought, but where we are still very heavily tied down to our pre-existing language-based constructs and axioms. So, we sort of have a little bit of a difficult time making it all "jive" together. As more information is obtained, these things will seem less and less mysterious (I assume). I wouldn't imagine, with all due respect, that philosophers from centuries ago (like Aquinas) actually "got it right", considering the phenomenal lack of information available to them at the time they conceived their proposals.

[37818]

Hey numbered guy. How is it different to believe in an uncaused "universe" than it is to believe in an uncaused creator. Give me one reason to believe in an "eternal uncaused universe."

The universe defined as everything that exists. An uncaused existence if counted as part of that universe, it would be the universe's origin/non-origin. But everything else would still be effects, caused effects. The universe could then be divided into two parts, uncaused and caused. Which by the way is what we have, with there being no God. An universe which is both uncaused and caused. The uncaused part can be called "self-existent." The rest is caused by some uncaused cause. And that has two different things too. "Uncaused" is the "self-existent" eternal, non-temporal. But a "cause" even an "uncaused cause," such a "cause" is temporal. So an "uncaused cause" is both eternal and temporal. Just like the universe must somehow be. There being no God.

[37818]

<snip>

But this post of mine does but comment on a technical point: I strongly suspect that a rebuttal of 37818's OP's claim can be given by one of the handful of TWebbers who are familiar with the philosophy of Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas. Or Edward Feser has a "So you think you understand the cosmological argument?" blog article in which he rebuts a few of the more common misconceptions of that philosophy, and I suspect the OP's argument will be refuted by his rebuttal #3. -- ie the objection, “Why assume that the universe had a beginning?” is not a serious objection to the cosmological argument. I'm not a philosopher myself, so read it in the link.

You are not understanding the argument. And not apparently understanding the premise: That there is no God.

All the classical arguments, proofs for the necessary existence of God, by that premise: "That there is no God" are rendered false. True arguments of logic do not prove a none existent thing to exist. Why does an "uncaused existence" need a God? The simple truth is an "uncaused existence" needs no God. All said proofs, all presume existence.

As for an uncaused universe, our known observable universe is made up of effects. Which effect, if any has no cause? An "uncaused effect." Existence exists. The uncaused self existent existence.

[Paprika]

That a theist or deist cannot prove an absurdity for the premise that there is no God, is a proof that there is no God. [That is the argument]

That a premise cannot be logically proven false is not a logical proof for its truth.

[37818]

That a premise cannot be logically proven false is not a logical proof for its truth.

I never claimed that the premise "that there is no God" cannot be show to be false. I am arguing that failure to be able to show logically that premise "that there is no God" to be self defeating argument suggests that it is in fact true, that there is no God.

[I am a theist BTW]

So what does it mean if a premise cannot be logically proven false? How do you prove something logically true?

[Paprika]

Yes. I never claimed that the premise "that there is no God" cannot be show to be false. I am arguing that failure to be able to show logically that premise "that there is no God" to be self defeating argument suggests that it is in fact true, that there is no God.

[I am a theist BTW]

You're just moved from the failure "being proof that there is no God" to "suggests that it is in fact true, that there is no God."

If you're a theist, what's the point?

[37818]

You're just moved from the failure "being proof that there is no God" to "suggests that it is in fact true, that there is no God."

If you're a theist, what's the point?

No intention here to move the goal post. I stand by my argument, unless it can be shown that the premise: "That there is no God" to be absurd, then the premise can be presumed to be true. Why not?

Again, the premise, is that is true, that there is no God. How do you prove what is in fact true false? You don't. Unless you can show that said premise is absurd.

[Paprika]

No intention here to move the goal post. I stand by my argument, unless it can be shown that the premise: "That there is no God" to be absurd, then the premise can be presumed to be true. Why not?

Mainly because it can be countered by the following argument: unless it can be shown that the premise: "That there is a [Creator] God" to be absurd, then the premise can be presumed to be true.

[37818]

Mainly because it can be countered by the following argument: unless it can be shown that the premise: "That there is a [Creator] God" to be absurd, then the premise can be presumed to be true.

Existence does not need a Creator.

You are not understanding the argument. It is premised to be true, that there is no God.

Now the sentence, "This sentence is not true." is inherently an absurd statement. In the same vain, can you show the premise, that there is no God, to be absurd?

It is not an unless you can show that there is no God is absurd. It is on the basis, if in fact there is no God, that is to be deemed to be absurd? Just like the sentence, "This sentence is not true."

[Paprika]

Now the sentence, "This sentence is not true." is inherently an absurd statement. In the same vain, can you show the premise, that there is no God, to be absurd?

I don't think so. For the sake of argument, let's say we cannot show that "there is no God" has the absurdity of "This sentence is not true". What next?

[37818]

I don't think so. For the sake of argument, let's say we cannot show that "there is no God" has the absurdity of "This sentence is not true". What next?

But it does.

Self evident truths,
1) Existence exists
2) The Law of identity.
3) The Law of non-contradiction.
4) The Law of the excluded middle.

None of these self evident truths need a God, or they all do. If then the latter, why?

[Paprika]

Let me try again: you are positing an alternate reality in which there is no God. The question you pose is whether in that reality 'there is no God' is absurd. Let us say it is not possible to show it is absurd. What then?

[37818]

Let me try again: you are positing an alternate reality in which there is no God. The question you pose is whether in that reality 'there is no God' is absurd. Let us say it is not possible to show it is absurd. What then?

Then it is settled, there is in fact no God. No God is needed.

Objective morality would not need a God either. Those theists who argue that objective morality needs a God are actually arguing against objective morality. The need of a God for objective morality is objective morality by fiat.

Good is real. Morality involves good actions. Are good actions required? Only if you want a legacy of good.
Evil is always dependent upon there being good which can be negated in some way.

Simple example, lies need truth. Lies being counterfeit truth.

[37818]

Can a premise be made, that there is no truth? Why not? What does it mean to say something is true?

[Paprika]

Then it is settled, there is in fact no God.

Only if you hold to coherence theory.