Skip to main content

Of Cosmologists and Philosophers

You said we could imagine different laws of physics, and I simply pointed out we can imagine different Gods too. But in reality, the laws of physics are what they are. They are immutable. Maybe gravity works differently in other universes, but even if so, that doesn't preclude a set of laws, perhaps the laws of quantum physics, being true throughout the omniverse. I'm not just making this up--this is what actual cosmologists think. I can't pretend to understand the physics, but this is a pretty accessible article covering the scientific landscape with regards to this question as of 2015. 

The reality is that many of the people who study the origin of the universe, people who are far more expert than you or me, do not think God is a necessary first cause, and indeed think some set of laws (quantum or otherwise) are sufficient. It's possible they are wrong, but do you really think they are making an obvious logical error? 

Or consider professional philosophers. These are people who study logic (among other things) as their job. I guarantee every one of them has heard of the "first cause" argument. And yet, according to surveys, about 73% consider themselves atheists, and only 15% consider themselves theists. Again, I'm not making an argument from authority. It's possible the atheists are wrong. But is it likely that they are making an elementary error in their understanding of logic? Or is it more likely that the first cause argument isn't as airtight as you think it is? 

At the end of the day, we just don't know what the first cause was/is, and we almost certainly cannot know. But what is a better candidate for a first cause? 

1) Fundamental laws of physics (quantum, omniversal, whatever), something that exists everywhere we can observe, and for which cosmologists have models, equations, and predictions indicating exists even where we can't observe (i.e. the omniverse)?

2) A mind, something which we only observe to exist in conjunction with physical brains, and that exhibits great complexity? 

The laws of physics are singular/indivisible in the same way a mind or friendship is singular. All those things are made up of multiple aspects, but just as you can't cut a mind in half (you can imagine it having half the thoughts, but it would still be a mind in the abstract), you can imagine half of the laws existing, but the abstract concept "laws of physics" would still describe the singular whole. 

As for simplicity and complexity, would you describe the capability to write a novel, compose a symphony, or design a jet engine as simple? If that's not a "complex" function, what word would you use? 

It sounds like you are saying when someone does something morally wrong, they deserve to suffer, regardless of consequences. If so, I couldn't disagree more strongly. I don't think even an incorrigible murderer deserves to suffer. Yes, some suffering may be unavoidable as we have to imprison him to protect others, but even then, I think the prison conditions should be as humane as possible. 

You say the scales have to balance, but to what end? For God's personal satisfaction? 

I interpret your position as "If a person is honestly, genuinely seeking truth, even if they make mistakes and wind up as a Muslim, or Hindu, or atheist, they will still be admitted to heaven." Is this actually Catholic orthodoxy these days? I'm genuinely curious.


Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Bound Up With Causal Chains

It has been almost two years since the last post, but I checked around and no one appears to have definitively resolved the nature of morality in the intervening twenty-two months, so I suppose we should keep this conversation going.  In reading back over the full discussion, I notice that it has grown unwieldy with various offshoots and tributaries. So I propose we table most of the discussions and focus on driving one topic to resolution (or, more likely, mutually agreed impasse). We can then circle back to other disagreements. I believe the spine of our discussion remains the First Cause argument, so I am going to address that while putting a pin in the following topics:  Faith as a "superrational" path to the truth.  Other arguments for the existence of God.  Free will.  Intelligent design.  Before we get into the syllogisms, I will continue to insist that if the refutation of a strong argument for a position doesn't lower your confidence in that positi...
Read more

Can We Trust Faith?

There are big differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. They have the same center, but it definitely is a large jump to convert between them. The reason the Protestant 84% is so high is because there are at least 200 different Protestant denominations in the United States. Some are similar, but many are very different. Anyone rejecting the beliefs of their parents and switching to a new Protestant denomination is not counted in this data. Yes, one of the keys of being rational is indeed constant vigilance with regards to our own biases. Once, I believed a semi-Protestant theology because I wanted it to be true, was not very knowledgeable, and didn't look too deeply into the issue. But one day I realized, as I learned more, that I had to rationally seek the truth, and choose the one belief system that I believed to be the true one. So I researched, and Catholicism always had an answer for any charge anyone tried to lay against it. I have been blessed to have never really do...
Read more

Mind vs. Brain and the Pains of Hell

The laws of physics themselves cannot be the first cause because they are not logically necessary. There is nothing in the nature of the laws of physics to hold themselves in existence, as is demanded of a first cause. We can easily imagine a universe where the law of gravity was a little different (or a lot different) with no logical contradiction. You're right that "as we work backwards in the chain of causation things get simpler and more fundamental." The Catholic Church teaches that simplicity is one of the attributes of God - that God is not "composed or divisible by any physical or metaphysical means." - http://www.saintaquinas.com/article5.html I was talking about this attribute earlier as part of talking about oneness. So how can complete simplicity have a mind? By mind, I do not mean a brain. A mind is an "I" that can reason and choose. True, we have only seen minds connected to brains, which science points to having evolved over time. But th...
Read more