which is best argument against creation (of universe)?

[petesampras]

I'm talking about the standard -> "who created the universe then.." attack.

I tend to use one of two responses, and was wondering which people prefer to use or have better ones...

1) Occams razor.. Universe just exists versus God created the universe and God just exists.

2) Time... Creation is an action requiring the prior existance of time. Time is a property of the universe, therefore you cannot create the universe because creation is a process requiring the universe to already exist in some sense.

Now, I pretty sure that the first is the stronger argument, but I generally win arguments when I use the second (even though it may well have holes) whereas the first tends to often end in a tie when people just reject occams razor and I end up trying to 'prove' occams razor makes sense which is tough in an argument situation.

[Darth Wong]

I'm talking about the standard -> "who created the universe then.." attack.

I tend to use one of two responses, and was wondering which people prefer to use or have better ones...

1) Occams razor.. Universe just exists versus God created the universe and God just exists.

2) Time... Creation is an action requiring the prior existance of time. Time is a property of the universe, therefore you cannot create the universe because creation is a process requiring the universe to already exist in some sense.

Now, I pretty sure that the first is the stronger argument, but I generally win arguments when I use the second (even though it may well have holes) whereas the first tends to often end in a tie when people just reject occams razor and I end up trying to 'prove' occams razor makes sense which is tough in an argument situation.

Just remember that Occam's Razor doesn't prove God doesn't exist. It just proves that he is unnecessary. If a creator is unnecessary, then God is nothing but a useless answer to an unnecessary question.

[Darth Servo]

If the "argument" is "everything has a cause, therefore God" simply use the "plain English translation" tactic. In this case, the argument is basically, "everything has a cause, therefore there must be something that does not have a cause"

[bz249]

2) Time... Creation is an action requiring the prior existance of time.

It is the contrary time requires actions (time and space are not exists a priori but defined by interacting objects) ... so use other arguments. The most simple is that it is impossible to measure, so scientifically it is in the same league as ether or the phase of a particle. Has no effect on anything.

[The Guid]

I find an effective one is turning the question on it's head - requiring that they prove beyond doubt that a creator was definitely needed.

[Rye]

The best argument in my opinion has already been said, but I would say it differently. Rather than saying God is unnecessary or demanding they prove a god is required, I ask them what's so artificial about this universe, what would a natural universe look like in comparison to this one and how do they know?

[Singular Intellect]

I usually just smack them down with the "first cause" angle. They naturally think god doesn't have one, so I point out that the then should understand I don't think the universe needs one, and the difference between the universe and their specific god of the day is that the universe is obserable, testable, predictable, etc, etc.

[Justforfun000]

Putting all the religious shit aside, what can we actually say that might actually have any chance of being a 'spiritual' reason for the universe? The problem here would be the definition of words, but in one sense, what is the best answer (if there is any) as to WHY the universe exists? Why is it that there are actual laws of nature and things basically have an order to them?

If I had to give any reason as to a basic belief that there is "something" guiding creation I would suggest that the fact that you can count on things being absolute in terms of truth. In a funny way, you could even say that science verifies the possibility of such an idea better than any other simply because it proves that certain things in existence are objectively 'real'.

I'm not certain if I'm getting my full point across here...Let me give you an example. Say the universe was blatantly meaningless. Life was a fluke and there was no rhyme or reason to anything. Wouldn't it be much more likely that there would be no "laws" of existence then? As in laws of physics? For example, why doesn't the world act like dreams where in a flash of a second a table can become an automobile? Or you can be in one spot and two seconds later, somewhere halfway across the world? All of these "impossible" or "magical" things are defined as such because they are essentially, UNLAWFUL. They would indicate pure and utter chaos if that was how the universe acted. It certainly wouldn't make any sense and science would be worthless as everything would be subjective instead of objective.

If anyone got what I was trying to put across, that in a very general sense would be the remnants of a "faith" system I have that there might actually be something behind it all, although what or how, I wouldn't have the slightest clue. Of course this wouldn't mean anything as to personal existence either. Even if this was potentially the case, this wouldn't mean I would live on after death, so it's an unsatisfying belief system in any case.

[Patrick Degan]

Let me give you an example. Say the universe was blatantly meaningless. Life was a fluke and there was no rhyme or reason to anything. Wouldn't it be much more likely that there would be no "laws" of existence then? As in laws of physics? For example, why doesn't the world act like dreams where in a flash of a second a table can become an automobile? Or you can be in one spot and two seconds later, somewhere halfway across the world? All of these "impossible" or "magical" things are defined as such because they are essentially, UNLAWFUL. They would indicate pure and utter chaos if that was how the universe acted. It certainly wouldn't make any sense and science would be worthless as everything would be subjective instead of objective.

That assumes rather a lot: first off the bat that the universe must be something other than "blatantly meaningless", and a wholly mistaken view of what physical "laws" actually are. The universe is in the shape its in entirely due to matter/energy interaction and that explains the situation rather neatly. Our laws and theories are the language that we use to describe the mechanics of nature but they existed and will continue to exist wholly independently of human observation. It is not the other way around.

[Justforfun000]

That assumes rather a lot: first off the bat that the universe must be something other than "blatantly meaningless", and a wholly mistaken view of what physical "laws" actually are. The universe is in the shape its in entirely due to matter/energy interaction and that explains the situation rather neatly. Our laws and theories are the language that we use to describe the mechanics of nature but they existed and will continue to exist wholly independently of human observation. It is not the other way around.

But that still doesn't change the merit of my argument. The "mechanics" are still following lawful and logical patterns. They are not chaotic, disorganized and changeable. Reality IS reality and doesn't behave like a disjointed dream as the examples I gave. It's the very essence of order and sensibility that professes a potential originating base FOR this framework to exist in the first place. I mean, how can you have immutable "laws" without a lawmaker? This doesn't have to be a BEING per se of course, but it could be a force. Again, this is philosophical semantics with words we'd have to loosely define, but it does seem to be the best argument you could possibly make fore a "maker" simply because it's so vague.

[Darth Raptor]

But that still doesn't change the merit of my argument. The "mechanics" are still following lawful and logical patterns. They are not chaotic, disorganized and changeable. Reality IS reality and doesn't behave like a disjointed dream as the examples I gave. It's the very essence of order and sensibility that professes a potential originating base FOR this framework to exist in the first place. I mean, how can you have immutable "laws" without a lawmaker?

How did the lawmaker come about? And how can a lawmaker possibly arise out of a lawless universe? It's the fatal flaw inherent in all forms of Creationism. If you make the unfounded assumption that everything must have a cause, that also applies to your creator. And if you acknowledge the possibility that the creator does not need a creator and has always existed, why can't that also apply to the universe? At least we know the universe exists and don't need to pile on a literally endless chain of unnecessary creators to make sense of it.

[Surlethe]

The problem here would be the definition of words, but in one sense, what is the best answer (if there is any) as to WHY the universe exists? Why is it that there are actual laws of nature and things basically have an order to them?

If you're looking for sufficient conditions, the existence of life is enough to guarantee that the laws of physics are the way they are now. If they were any different, as in the chaotic universe you described, I don't see how intelligent life could arise in the first place.

If it's purpose you want, you're begging the question. Just because things obey laws and there's a higher structure and order doesn't mean there's some higher spritual purpose that set them.

[Patrick Degan]

But that still doesn't change the merit of my argument. The "mechanics" are still following lawful and logical patterns. They are not chaotic, disorganized and changeable. Reality IS reality and doesn't behave like a disjointed dream as the examples I gave. It's the very essence of order and sensibility that professes a potential originating base FOR this framework to exist in the first place.

Circular Reasoning Fallacy.

I mean, how can you have immutable "laws" without a lawmaker?

Begging the Question Fallacy.

This doesn't have to be a BEING per se of course, but it could be a force. Again, this is philosophical semantics with words we'd have to loosely define, but it does seem to be the best argument you could possibly make fore a "maker" simply because it's so vague.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy.

Really, you're making this far more complicated than it has to be. If anything, nature itself demonstrates that self-ordering systems of increasing detail are quite able to arise simply by interaction of matter, energy, and gravity. This does not require any resort to a Maker or Force imposing some sort of external order. Indeed, from what would such an entity arise if the very existence of a Maker or Ordering Force is required in the first place to make universal existence in an ordered framework possible? "Where does God come from" is the essential form of the question and it has no logical, sensible answer.

[Darth Wong]

The argument "how can you have laws without a lawmaker" is a good example of the stupidity of the religious mindset and its tendency to incorporate unstated terms into its arguments.

In this case, it is quietly assumed that this lawmaker must be intelligent, when a non-sentient lawmaker (the universe itself) would suffice. Consider the flow of a river. How can you have a directed flow without a director? Well, in this case, the riverbanks are the director. But they are not intelligent; they are merely lumps of inert material.

[Darth Servo]

Consider the flow of a river. How can you have a directed flow without a director? Well, in this case, the riverbanks are the director. But they are not intelligent; they are merely lumps of inert material.

Well, remember we're talking about creationist morons and they think God explicitly designed the river that way. After all, the chances of that particular combination of twists and turns in the river are astronomically against it happening by chance, yadda, yadda, yadda, you know the routine.

[Justforfun000]

How did the lawmaker come about? And how can a lawmaker possibly arise out of a lawless universe? It's the fatal flaw inherent in all forms of Creationism. If you make the unfounded assumption that everything must have a cause, that also applies to your creator. And if you acknowledge the possibility that the creator does not need a creator and has always existed, why can't that also apply to the universe? At least we know the universe exists and don't need to pile on a literally endless chain of unnecessary creators to make sense of it.

You don't have to argue that everything created had a cause. You could argue that "God" always was, just the universe was brought into being and had a beginning and that the "first" cause was God which was the reason for law and order in the natural world as we know it.
It gives you a reason for thinking there is a "why" to the sensibility of the universe and that it isn't as chaotic as the examples I gave before, yet doesn't try to pin down or define any terms because it's impossible to do so. Of course it doesn't prove a damn thing, or even give a shred of evidence either, but it COULD be true and it can even be potentially plausible.

If you're looking for sufficient conditions, the existence of life is enough to guarantee that the laws of physics are the way they are now. If they were any different, as in the chaotic universe you described, I don't see how intelligent life could arise in the first place.

If it's purpose you want, you're begging the question. Just because things obey laws and there's a higher structure and order doesn't mean there's some higher spritual purpose that set them.

It is purpose I'm theorizing on, yes. I'm more or less playing devil's advocate and trying to at least give the most plausible possiblity that a first cause as a force or being could be logically thrown in the mix. It's something I myself could still comfortably accept as a possibility. There is almost nothing in all major religions I can say the same about.

And no, it doesn't mean that there IS a higher spiritual purpose, but I would think the reality of law and order would make a stronger argument in favour of the possibility of something setting such immutable conditions as opposed to "just being" that way. Wouldn't the chaos I described be much more likely if there definitely wasn't something behind it all?

Maybe it's impossible to give a likely or unlikely guess-timate anyway. How on earth would you come up with a statistic.

Really, you're making this far more complicated than it has to be. If anything, nature itself demonstrates that self-ordering systems of increasing detail are quite able to arise simply by interaction of matter, energy, and gravity. This does not require any resort to a Maker or Force imposing some sort of external order. Indeed, from what would such an entity arise if the very existence of a Maker or Ordering Force is required in the first place to make universal existence in an ordered framework possible? "Where does God come from" is the essential form of the question and it has no logical, sensible answer.

You're still answering me in the vein of me conceptualizing a being. Matter, energy and gravity are all forces for example. What if all forces arise from ONE force? What if that's the "key" to the idea of God or Nature even if you prefer the word. I mean science can only define what it can observe. If it cannot see the interconnectedness of all force and how that could trace back to another all encompassing "first cause", then it would be useless in this matter until it can detect it. That's why this is only any good as a hypothesis and is squarely in the realm of faith if you choose to accept this kind of reasoning.
And as I mentioned before, this potential first cause (if it existed), could be the one thing that always 'was' that created the universe and therefore started "time". This doesn't even have to argue for sentience, or even deliberate choice. The creation could have just happened, yet the laws arise from the first cause being the origination of the universe.
Of course I can only use words like maybe, if, could, because again this would be totally faith based as we have no definite evidence. Yet I still maintain it could be plausible, and that's better than most belief systems out there.

In this case, it is quietly assumed that this lawmaker must be intelligent, when a non-sentient lawmaker (the universe itself) would suffice. Consider the flow of a river. How can you have a directed flow without a director? Well, in this case, the riverbanks are the director. But they are not intelligent; they are merely lumps of inert material.

I actually answered this already above before getting to your quote. Unlike the typical religious fundie, I would never argue for sentience as a given. It could very well be just the way it is and not a conscious choice by an entity. Still, even without sentience being included as part of the plan, the theory I'm proposing would suggest a reason for law and order as opposed to chaos.

[SirNitram]

Wouldn't the chaos I described be much more likely if there definitely wasn't something behind it all?

Why would total chaos be more likely? Moreover; why do you think this chaos didn't exist? The earliest moments of the universe are often held up as the pinnacle of chaos, and the smallest scales retain that chaos.

And of course, it's totally possible that chaos is more likely; there could be an uncountable number of totally chaotic universes, but that's besides the point; only one that, through chance or whatever, is this orderly will produce us to go 'Oo' and 'ahh' over it. It's like throwing dice and getting 7 four times in a row; you can go on and on about how unlikely that is, but it's happened and won't un-happen.

[Justforfun000]

Why would total chaos be more likely? Moreover; why do you think this chaos didn't exist? The earliest moments of the universe are often held up as the pinnacle of chaos, and the smallest scales retain that chaos.

And of course, it's totally possible that chaos is more likely; there could be an uncountable number of totally chaotic universes, but that's besides the point; only one that, through chance or whatever, is this orderly will produce us to go 'Oo' and 'ahh' over it. It's like throwing dice and getting 7 four times in a row; you can go on and on about how unlikely that is, but it's happened and won't un-happen.

Well, those are good points too. I really don't know how you could say what would be more statistically likely.

It's like I said. This kind of discussion is truly philosophical. These kinds of musings are about the only kind of faith based arguments you can honestly make that don't have any contradiction in science because it's dealing with theories currently out of the scope. It's POSSIBLE, but not yet falsifiable at our current level of understanding and technical ability.

It would ultimately come down to one person saying I believe that a creator/force of creation exists based on my thinking that law and order exists and this is more likely a reason for it to be this way, and the other saying well I DON'T because it could still exist without one and I tend to go with Occam's Razor.

Ultimately it's a fair stalemate.

[SirNitram]

Why would total chaos be more likely? Moreover; why do you think this chaos didn't exist? The earliest moments of the universe are often held up as the pinnacle of chaos, and the smallest scales retain that chaos.

And of course, it's totally possible that chaos is more likely; there could be an uncountable number of totally chaotic universes, but that's besides the point; only one that, through chance or whatever, is this orderly will produce us to go 'Oo' and 'ahh' over it. It's like throwing dice and getting 7 four times in a row; you can go on and on about how unlikely that is, but it's happened and won't un-happen.

Well, those are good points too. I really don't know how you could say what would be more statistically likely.

Obviously, the statistical likelihood of the universe being the way it is now is 1.0. It's here, it's like this, tough titties if you don't like it. The chance of another turning out the same way are, at best, a thought exercise upon which we have nothing BUT assumptions and no forseeable use.

It's like I said. This kind of discussion is truly philosophical. These kinds of musings are about the only kind of faith based arguments you can honestly make that don't have any contradiction in science because it's dealing with theories currently out of the scope. It's POSSIBLE, but not yet falsifiable at our current level of understanding and technical ability.

The only philosophical standpoint with falsifiability is empiricism, and it says we're like this because of what we observe. We've never observed intelligent manipulation of the universe. Ergo, no reason to introduce it. Principle of parsimony.

It would ultimately come down to one person saying I believe that a creator/force of creation exists based on my thinking that law and order exists and this is more likely a reason for it to be this way, and the other saying well I DON'T because it could still exist without one and I tend to go with Occam's Razor.

Ultimately it's a fair stalemate.

Only if you beleive that Parsimony is not something that has to be dealt with, which is asinine and silly.

[Justforfun000]

Only if you beleive that Parsimony is not something that has to be dealt with, which is asinine and silly.

It still doesn't mean it cannot be possible. You can't say you HAVE to apply it, and that if you don't it makes said example implausible.

[Justforfun000]

We've never observed intelligent manipulation of the universe. Ergo, no reason to introduce it. Principle of parsimony.

Actually to expound on that, we would not necessarily be ABLE to see intelligent manipulation. Or it may not even be intelligent, but it still might be a source of order responsible for the laws of the universe.

You're thinking too much like a scientist and that is only valid when dealing with science and it's scope. Until matters of faith become detectable under the scope of science, you cannot put those terms and restrictions on them. If that was the case, you could simply stop at the statement "Science has never seen God, and since we don't need him, he definitely doesn't exist." Obviously that is a false statement, so the principle of parsimony cannot declare an ultimate answer to this question.

[Darth Raptor]

You don't have to argue that everything created had a cause. You could argue that "God" always was, just the universe was brought into being and had a beginning and that the "first" cause was God which was the reason for law and order in the natural world as we know it.

Argh, no. You're arguing that the ordered nature of the universe doesn't make sense without someone or something stepping in to impose that order. If laws can't exist without a lawmaker, than how can the infinitely lawful lawmaker exist without someone to create him?

It gives you a reason for thinking there is a "why" to the sensibility of the universe and that it isn't as chaotic as the examples I gave before, yet doesn't try to pin down or define any terms because it's impossible to do so. Of course it doesn't prove a damn thing, or even give a shred of evidence either, but it COULD be true and it can even be potentially plausible.

No, it doesn't explain anything. If you need God to explain the universe, you also need to explain God. We don't grant exemptions to imaginary beings that demonstrably real entities aren't elligible for. It's trying to answer a question with an even bigger question. How did the order of the universe come about? God. What is the meaning of life? God. It explains nothing and makes the freaking "mysteries" deeper than they were to begin with!

[Justforfun000]

Argh, no. You're arguing that the ordered nature of the universe doesn't make sense without someone or something stepping in to impose that order. If laws can't exist without a lawmaker, than how can the infinitely lawful lawmaker exist without someone to create him?

I didn't say the universe couldn't make sense without them, I just said you could have a point of view that to you personally it WOULD make more sense. Like I said, it would be a matter of faith.

As to the last sentence, how can he/she/it exist? Who knows? It doesn't mean they can't have existed without being created. Some argue that instead of the universe coming into being, that it essentially has always existed. Same argument could be shifted to the "creator" or first cause, and then just switch the "beginning" to the universe and not the originating and guiding force. And obviously this theory of "guiding" would not be like the religious idea most would suggest as I'm well aware of the flaws of design in animals. but they would be a much smaller microcosm to the immutable laws of the universe like gravity, other laws of physics, etc. that apparently NEVER fail.

[Justforfun000]

No, it doesn't explain anything. If you need God to explain the universe, you also need to explain God.

You don't need God to explain the universe. But you can still believe if you wish that he COULD exist and is responsible for the orderly way of things. It's a domain of faith. It may not be any more logical than a belief in no supreme force, but it doesn't make it impossible. It's still a fair enough profession of faith because it still does not have a contradictory opponent in science yet.

It explains nothing and makes the freaking "mysteries" deeper than they were to begin with!

No you're right. It doesn't explain anything. Yes it would make them deeper. But even so, it could still be possible. And yes you could go into "Well so could Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny". Yes yes, but this is still a horse of a different colour because you are at least postulating a "why" as to the natural orderliness of the universe and giving an opinion based on what some people might feel is more plausible then this being by chance or just naturally lawful for no rhyme or reason. Maybe it is, but some people could feel that a stronger argument could be made for the other belief.

[SirNitram]

Only if you beleive that Parsimony is not something that has to be dealt with, which is asinine and silly.

It still doesn't mean it cannot be possible. You can't say you HAVE to apply it, and that if you don't it makes said example implausible.

Yes, you do, if you want to talk logically and honestly. If you'd rather be a useless wanker, I suppose there are other options.

Actually to expound on that, we would not necessarily be ABLE to see intelligent manipulation. Or it may not even be intelligent, but it still might be a source of order responsible for the laws of the universe.

We could judge any intelligent manipulation because it'd be intelligent and logical. Like the human waste system not being so fucking close to the leisure center.

You're thinking too much like a scientist and that is only valid when dealing with science and it's scope. Until matters of faith become detectable under the scope of science, you cannot put those terms and restrictions on them. If that was the case, you could simply stop at the statement "Science has never seen God, and since we don't need him, he definitely doesn't exist." Obviously that is a false statement, so the principle of parsimony cannot declare an ultimate answer to this question.

Yes, I can. That's the entire point of the philosophical position of Empiricism. You can stamp your feet and whine that I'm too 'like a scientist', but Parsimony, logic, and Empiricism are all very much a part of philosophy, which you were trumpeting as being at the core of this debate.